217 Tokyo Story

[sidehacker]

HerrSchreck - that's exactly what I was trying to say. I just couldn't do so as eloquently.

[ozukarodzi]

Just saw this for the first time.

I'm wondering how a film so well blocked, framed, and wonderfully poetic in the wide shots, can be so horribly framed and artificially performed in the mediums.

According to Grand Illusion (who got a Grand Illusion about cinema) the film is “Well blocked, framed and poetic in wide shots” and “Horribly framed in the medium”. This argument would certainty goes either way, Grand wants a film that is nothing but eye-popping visual wide shots, but even a beautiful film like Lola Montès needs to have its medium and close-up shots, and would you then complain that Martine Carol grimes too much?

Why does Ozu allow his actors in wide angles to perform as they would in reality (i.e. not always delivering lines staring into the other actor's eyes), yet in the mediums dialogue is only delivered staring at one point straight ahead off-camera or staring directly at the other actor? This effect is made even worse by the center framing, which gives the illusion of looking into the camera. You'll lose count if you try numbering the shots that begin with a profile, then have the character turn his neck and deliver his lines center frame.

If you had read or even listened to some of the commentary about the film, perhaps you would realize how precise Ozu is about editing. It may be confusing for a first time Western viewer, who is gotten used to Close-ups, over-the shoulder, medium and full shots to encounter Ozu's use of mis-en-scene. Ozu uses same techniques but in different manners, that is the reason perhaps you think it “gives the illusion of looking into the camera”. Most of the time Ozu breaks down the rule of editing and 180 line, but should one reject a film because of one’s inability to coup with new/different visions and ideas?

The shit-eating grin that Noriko, the widow, hid behind also came across as such a forced indicator that it really hurts her thread of the film. I'm not expecting Cassavetes naturalism here, but a lot of the choices here were unintuitive and fake.

This one really hurt, calling Norkio (Setsuko Hara) “ the shit-eating grin” and then a line later giving naturalism and Cassavetes as an excuse for it. What hurt is an ass like you disliking films for pure reasons of tastes and not being able to put forward an argument other than your poisonous opinions.

Overall, the story was well told, especially when it's being told from far away. And the relationships between the characters, if not the characters themselves, were poignant. But a lot of the performances and abundance of terrible medium shots really kept this from being a masterpiece in my eyes.

Well, I’m glad you think the story was told well “especially when it's being told from far away”, I may just have a solution for your problem with Ozu, get a binocular and every time there are medium and close-up, flip the binocular the other way around and you will find it a masterpiece this time ](*,

[Grand Illusion]

Grand wants a film that is nothing but eye-popping visual wide shots

This is clearly not what I said. Go back and reread, so I don't have to repeat myself.

Most of the time Ozu breaks down the rule of editing and 180 line, but should one reject a film because of one’s inability to coup with new/different visions and ideas?

I never once said the breaking the 180 rule was a bother. The only rule of editing he's really breaking is the fact that his wide shots don't match tonally to his mediums, I'm speaking specifically about performance. His actors move and speak differently in the wides than they do in the mediums. The actions are thus incongruous, and the characters don't have a solid spine for their performances.

If it's easier for you to dismiss that as an "inability" to deal with mismatched performance takes, that's fine.

This one really hurt, calling Norkio (Setsuko Hara) “ the shit-eating grin” and then a line later giving naturalism and Cassavetes as an excuse for it.

Your reading comprehension is probably clouded by your kneejerk anger. Go back and reread what I wrote. I wasn't offering Cassavetes as anything more than an example of what I was not expecting.

What hurt is an ass like you disliking films for pure reasons of tastes and not being able to put forward an argument other than your poisonous opinions.

I spoke coherently in terms of technique. Your objective tastes are just better than mine.

Well, I’m glad you think the story was told well “especially when it's being told from far away”, I may just have a solution for your problem with Ozu, get a binocular and every time there are medium and close-up, flip the binocular the other way around and you will find it a masterpiece this time ](*,

The problem is not that Ozu uses medium shots. It's that he uses them poorly. The performance, staging, framing, and composition is radically worse than his wide shots. I've elaborated why I believe they are not only worse, but incompatible with the takes from wide angles.

[Michael Kerpan]

The problem is not that Ozu uses medium shots. It's that he uses them poorly. The performance, staging, framing, and composition is radically worse than his wide shots. I've elaborated why I believe they are not only worse, but incompatible with the takes from wide angles.

I'm so glad that you have set me (and countless other Ozu fans) straight. Now that I know his technique is so poor I have a whole new perspective on his work. It's amazing that you alone were able to recognize this indisputable fact where so many others were blind to it.

[Grand Illusion]

The problem is not that Ozu uses medium shots. It's that he uses them poorly. The performance, staging, framing, and composition is radically worse than his wide shots. I've elaborated why I believe they are not only worse, but incompatible with the takes from wide angles.

I'm so glad that you have set me (and countless other Ozu fans) straight. Now that I know his technique is so poor I have a whole new perspective on his work. It's amazing that you alone were able to recognize this indisputable fact where so many others were blind to it.

Emphasis mine.

I have elaborated why, and if someone starts saying I have a "grand illusion" about cinema but didn't bother to read my original post, I don't feel like restating my argument.

[Michael Kerpan]

I have elaborated why, and if someone starts saying I have a "grand illusion" about cinema but didn't bother to read my original post, I don't feel like restating my argument.

I read all your posts on this topic, several times.

And I stick with my own post.

[HerrSchreck]

Grand I, you did absolutely make sweeping factual pronouncements about Ozu's working style and the characters/actors in the film, as though completely divorced from your own personal experience. You're making Expert Pronouncements with a tone that-- frankly-- reads like you're a contemporary peer of Ozu's working down the hall from him at Shochiku.. and you're taking time out from your present assignment to speak about Ozu's latest film. You certainly aren't speaking like a dude on a forum board.

I'm wondering how a film so well blocked, framed, and wonderfully poetic in the wide shots, can be so horribly framed and artificially performed in the mediums.

The shit-eating grin that Noriko, the widow, hid behind also came across as such a forced indicator that it really hurts her thread of the film. I'm not expecting Cassavetes naturalism here, but a lot of the choices here were unintuitive and fake.

In Tokyo Story, again, further hurt by the center framing and rigid blocking, the performances were wooden and predictable. I shouldn't be able to predict the exact mark an actor is going to turn and deliver his lines. This drains the spontaneity of a performance.

To aspire to show life itself, and then do so in the most rigid, formal, and lifeless way, is counterintuitive. I recently re-watched Kore-eda's Nobody Knows, which shows much of everyday life, but the skillful interpretations by the actors bring you into the drudgery rather than pushing you away.

I'm not asking for a strict code of Western filmmaking. 50's Hollywood is pretty banal to me, to be honest. I love life in the little details. I even enjoyed most of Tokyo Story for the detachment in the wides and the overall tale. But if the director is going to cut close, going to bring me into the life of his players, I am absolutely asking for believable performances. Line delivery beyond a low-budget horror flick.

Again, this is all personal, but I wouldn't give a director a pass if his pacing was awful or his visuals were all ugly, so I don't see why I should be asked the same for performance directing. If you can buy an actor having only two points on screen that he can look at while reciting lines, then this film obviously increases its power immensely. Personally, I cannot, and I'll reserve the term "masterpiece" for those works that combine all facets of storytelling and filmmaking.

Only in that last block to you call attention to the fact that yours is simply an opinion, and come anywhere near to qualifying your statements with "this is related to my experience only, and others will feel different". Using those kinds of qualifiers is always a good idea.. it's something I've tried to hew to when posting strong negative feelings about a film that many people love (see Contempt, which blew up anyway). It's not a guarantee that folks wont blow up at you but it's something you can at least point to when they get hot themselves. Your tone of almost talking down to Ozu, as though the man was waddling and fumbling for the basics of set-ups which you yourself fully grasp, and qualifying almost none of your individual sentences as opinion-- and indeed writing them as severest fact-- is going to get you into trouble.

[Murasaki53]

Don't know whether this is helpful or not but I seem to recall reading in a book called 'The Happiness Hypothesis' by the psychologist Jonathan Haidt that human beings relate to most things (including art, philosophy, literature etc.) with gut feelings of like/dislike. Our justifications for our preferences are secondary, however sophisticated they might be.

But if he's right, what I'd like to know is where these gut feelings come from.

As far as Ozu is concerned, I've never been able to get my head round films like 'Late Spring' and 'Tokyo Story' whilst at the same time loving his silent comedies. It's the same with Mizoguchi: I've been buying the MoC DVD's specifically for movies like 'Uwasa no Onna' and 'Gion Bayashi' which I find a lot more enjoyable than 'Chikamatsu Monogatari' and 'Sansho Dayu'.

Why do I like these films more? Dunno. I just do.

[Grand Illusion]

Grand I, you did absolutely make sweeping factual pronouncements about Ozu's working style and the characters/actors in the film, as though completely divorced from your own personal experience. You're making Expert Pronouncements with a tone that-- frankly-- reads like you're a contemporary peer of Ozu's working down the hall from him at Shochiku.. and you're taking time out from your present assignment to speak about Ozu's latest film. You certainly aren't speaking like a dude on a forum board.

I'm going to try to keep my reply focused on Ozu's film rather than forum etiquette.

First, I'd like to begin with this allegation levied at me earlier:

What hurt is an ass like you disliking films for pure reasons of tastes and not being able to put forward an argument other than your poisonous opinions.

So in once case, I'm only hating on the film for "pure reasons of tastes" and, in the other case, I'm providing "Expert Pronouncements" and being too objective in my criticism. Do you see the disparity? I'd presume that the only option is, of course, not to criticize such a beloved film at all.

Second, you mention Ozu's working style. It was not I who said that Ozu may, in fact, be a director along the line of Bresson, Dreyer, or Hitchcock who treated his actors like puppets. That is indeed one working style, but one that does make a performance more forced.

It is obvious that Ozu's choice to have the actor repeat his lines, turn his neck 90 degrees, and then finish the dialogue was a formal consideration of style. Any technical and formal imposition from the director will take away a little bit of spontaneity from the actor. I don't mean to say this is my expert pronouncement. See Stanislavsky. See Judith Weston. Woody Allen is notorious for allowing scenes to play out entirely in mediums, so that the technical considerations of camera placement and blocking do not get in the way of performance.

To expand on what is a "horribly framed" shot, Ozu is breaking several "rules" of composition with his shots. Center framing, actors looking directly ahead, etc. Now rules were made to be broken of course, and I'm sure Ozu knew what he was doing. Regardless, when trying to come up with "objective" reasons why the film didn't work for me rather than merely spewing my "poisonous opinions," I'm going to bring up the framing and composition in the mediums that goes against conventional photography.

Third, if I am wrongly substituting fact for opinion, the best way to counter this would be seeing if you (or others) agree with me on the so-called factual pronouncements. So I will offer up some questions:

Go back and watch a few chapters from the DVD. Does the performance/blocking in the mediums match the performance/blocking in the wides? All I'm asking is if they are exactly the same. Specifically, the way the characters always rigidly turn their heads 90 degrees and speak staring straight ahead? If not, is this, by definition, incongruous (whether or not you like the film or this effect)?

Can you predict line delivery? Do you know when the character is going to speak his next line before it happens (again, whether or not you like the film or this effect)?

Do you believe Ozu is imposing a formalism on his actors or allowing them to act as their will dictates? Do you believe Ozu is demanding all the actors to stare straight ahead, turn 90 degrees, then stare towards the camera and smile or is this a choice that each one of the actors has arrived at? Do you believe this speaks to Ozu's working style (again, whether or not you like the film or this effect)?

[Mr Sausage]

Jesus. OK: ozukarodzi, your behaviour is becoming increasingly poor and violates not only the forum rules but decency in general. Stop it, or your posts will be deleted.

Can everyone in general just calm down? It would be a shame to have to lock this thread following a Contempt style meltdown. Grand Illusion is fully entitled to dislike a movie and tell people why (this is a movie forum, not a scholarly journal). He hasn't violated any rules.
On the other hand, you have to understand yourself, Grand Illusion, that you're flinging criticisms at a beloved object that many feel strongly about, and sometimes it's difficult for others to hide their adverse reactions. Ignoring irritated tones in others, while avoiding them in your own posts, might help even out the conversation.

[Michael Kerpan]

Ozu dictated virtually every aspect of the way his characters moved and spoke. He did not allow them to do whatever felt most natural to them. He does what he does in terms of close-up composition to establish a very specific rhythm (among other things).

Ozu was a fanatic cinephile -- and studied Hollywood films of the 20s and 30s on a frame by frame basis -- and spent lots of time watching more recent films (in Singapore during WW2, when assigned to propaganda film making, which he neglected to get around to doing). Rather than assuming he was inept (which he definitely was not), it might help to try to consider why someone knowledgeable and sophisticated would do what he did.

[HerrSchreck]

This is nowhere near the Contempt thread-- it's just a passionate discussion. The only thing that's off base, I'd agree, is OzuK calling Grand Illusion an "ass" (and it's seemingly the single indescretion on his part)...

[Mr Sausage]

This is nowhere near the Contempt thread-- it's just a passionate discussion.

I seem to recall the Contempt thing started out as just a passionate discussion. These things can degenerate quickly, so let's please keep it polite.

[sidehacker]

Ozu was a fanatic cinephile -- and studied Hollywood films of the 20s and 30s on a frame by frame basis -- and spent lots of time watching more recent films

It might also be worth mentioning that he said "Films are meant to be made, not seen."

[HerrSchreck]

Many MANY directors never watch their own films again after settling on a final cut. Their primary interest is in the experience of making them, and once that's done it's over for them. And god bless dudes like Victor Erice who believe that their films no longer belong to them when complete... they belong to the public, or the thread of time.

Very refreshing versus the fiddling with settled masterpieces years later by directors for dvd releases. Particulalry directors who have not crafted anything particularly noteworthy of late, and reach into past successes for recharge. Or reassociation.

[Sloper]

Does the performance/blocking in the mediums match the performance/blocking in the wides? All I'm asking is if they are exactly the same. Specifically, the way the characters always rigidly turn their heads 90 degrees and speak staring straight ahead? If not, is this, by definition, incongruous (whether or not you like the film or this effect)?

The performances themselves are not ‘different’ in the straight-to-camera shots, and you can find several examples where, in the wide shots, characters turn their heads to speak in exactly the way you describe. This movement is more noticeable and unnerving in the close-ups because, as you say, it breaks a cinematic ‘rule’ by having the character address the camera. When Ozu shows an entire conversation with these sorts of shots, the effect is especially unnerving and artificial because the cuts between shots seem to prolong the gaps between the lines of dialogue – it’s as though the actors have to wait for the camera to turn round before saying their piece, and when that piece consists of a couple of perfunctory words and a weak smile, the effect can be frustrating. It certainly was for me when I first saw the film. In answer to your question though, I think it is the unusual (at least it is unusual to most Western eyes) shooting style that makes the performances seem different, not the actors themselves. (And Chishu Ryu does more acting with his adam’s apple in this film than most actors do with their arms, legs and face – watch him when he looks down at his dying wife, or in the penultimate shot of him back at home.)

It’s interesting that you think the film works in the wide shots but not in the mediums – if anything, I feel more alienated and less engaged by the former, however nicely composed they are. As a lot of the recent discussion on this thread has shown, so much of this film is about perspective: seeing things from both the parents’ and the children’s (and the grandchildren’s) point of view; seeing the wider perspective of the outside world in those wonderful shots of chimney stacks, the ticking boat in Onomichi (going first left to right, then right to left, then left to right again), trains (or empty tracks), clouds, sunsets, sunrises, full and empty streets… Etc. (For most of which, compare Red Desert.) Tomi and Shukishi look out over Tokyo and comment that it is so big, if they get lost they may never find each other again – from a height they can see it all clearly, but once among the people (of whom there are ‘too many’) everything will become more complicated and dangerous.

Look at the scene where Shukishi sits with Fumiko looking out of the window: they see Tomi out walking with one of the children, and the old man says ‘Look, there they are.’ We see the child and the old woman, from a distance, as they walk in the grass; then we see them up close and realise that the child is not listening to Tomi’s heartbreaking attempts to bond with her grandson, which turn into ruminations on her own imminent death. What looked sweet from a distance looks very different close up; we then see Shukishi again, only now Fumiko has left him and he is alone. Tomi’s lines in this scene are not delivered straight to camera because the child is not looking back at her; he does not even pretend to listen. So these kind of shots tell us something about the communication (or lack thereof) going on between the characters.

The artificiality of the straight-to-camera shots often conveys the artificiality, the pretence, in which the more sophisticated adults engage. For instance, when Shige tells her mother she can borrow her sandals, she does one of those ‘turn to the camera’ moves. There is a cut to the mother as she takes the sandals and goes out, then we cut back to Shige, still looking at the door, her impatience more visible now. Immediately afterwards she phones Noriko to get her to take care of the old folks. The next time Shige sees Tomi the two are in exactly the same positions, only now the daughter makes less effort to hide her resentment; the intensive shooting style throws such transitions into sharper relief.

Proving that this is a film about how people mask their true feelings under an artificial veneer would be like shooting fish in a barrel – you can find this going on in absolutely every scene, though it is always done with subtlety and a great deal of sympathy for all concerned. Antonioni is another director who tries to say something about the artifice and alienation of modern life through artificial, disorienting, rule-breaking cinematic techniques. Ozu forces you to look closely at all these false moments, he shoots them in such a way as to draw out their fake-ness; the 90 degree turn of the head sometimes conveys a sense that the character is composing themselves in order to give an appropriate response – it’s a very formal gesture.

Look at how Noriko is caught off guard when her in-laws ask about her late husband’s drinking: her smile disappears for a second, then as she turns to reply she plasters it back on. Later, when she puts Tomi up for the night, they have a long, polite conversation about Noriko getting married again; then suddenly Tomi turns away and cries; Noriko turns away as well, turns off the light and goes to bed; her face, lit up in the darkness, is pensive and sad, as it is in the train at the end – both moments when no one is looking at her, and so when she can look the way she feels. At the end when she bares all to Shukishi, she calls herself cunning (in the Tartan edition subtitles), which must refer to the way she calculates her appearance and her expressions – so yes, Grand Illusion, she is artificial and fake. When the floodgates finally burst at the end, she cannot look Hirayama in the face anymore, but weeps into her own hands. The pattern of the earlier scene between her and Tomi is reversed: just as she tried to comfort the old woman with money, so Hirayama, unable to respond to her outburst, gives her a keepsake, from which she seems to draw little comfort when she handles it on the train. (As to what the watch signifies, isn’t it about the passage of time, juxtaposed with that ticking boat? Noriko’s face when she looks at it reminds me of how she looked when she heard Tomi was ill, and went back to her work desk looking similarly pensive.)

There isn’t a single shot in the film where someone looks into the camera and really lets their emotions speak, they always have to look away. Even the disinhibited barroom scene has a kind of formality to it: I think Colin has discussed it’s ‘politeness’, and it’s almost a case of ‘let’s get drunk and say what we really think; then get drunker and forget the whole evening; and then we’ll say it was a “wonderful” evening.’

I'm oversimplifying a great and complex film but this post has to stop... Does this address some of your issues with the film, GI?

[Michael Kerpan]

Lovely analysis, sloper.

As to the pauses between lines, this is not at all unique to Ozu. You find this in a wide array of Japanese films. My children noticed this early on in things like Miyazaki's animated films, they noticed the unusual timing of responses before I did. Unfortunately, ordinary Japanese conversation "in the wild" is not quite so measured in its tempo as it is in movies.

[HerrSchreck]

Chishu Ryu does more acting with his adam’s apple in this film than most actors do with their arms, legs and face – watch him when he looks down at his dying wife, or in the penultimate shot of him back at home.

So so true. Very keen observation. That bob of his adams apple at the end is one of the most delicately moving strokes of subtlety in the cinema.

[Jun-Dai]

Grand Illusion,

I fear you've made the mistake of criticizing one of the most beloved films ever made. It's probably more dangerous than going to a Citizen Kane thread and calling it a pompous film made by an overrated hack.

That said, I think you've hit on an interesting point:

The next is the line delivery. In the mediums, the characters only deliver the lines at two marks, either staring at a point straight ahead off camera or looking the other character in the eyes. Now, I may be ignorant of the customs of Japan, but I would think there are more than just these two ways for a character to react.

I only see this as a problem when one looks for realism in Ozu's films, which a lot of people do. But Ozu's films are not very realistic or naturalistic. Intimate, obsessed with mundane details, prosaic, yes, but never very realistic. On the contrary, his films are very stylized, and this very restricted manner of acting that you see so much in Ozu's films—particularly in a film like Tokyo Story, where Ozu's style has reached the height of its refinement—is very much in keeping with his editing style, cinematographic style, dialogue, and even the story itself. Other than in subject matter, Ozu's films are actually about as far removed from naturalistic as you can get. I think the confusion around this comes from the fact that Ozu's films seem to be borne from an attention to detail in the way that people behave and their motivations that exceeds even Neorealist filmmaking, but these details are then brought into intense focus by stripping out everything that doesn't need to be there, including a more realistic acting style.

Ozu could certainly have added variety to the poses he chose to put his characters in (as you suggested, and as I believe he does more in other films), but to liberate the actors into a loose and free (and more realistic) range of expressions (something that you might expect to see in a Naruse film), would go completely against his way of making films. After all, his camerawork isn't very free, his mise-en-scene isn't very free; his editing isn't very free; on the contrary, he limits himself to a select range of techniques which seem to get smaller in number as he develops them over his career (I haven't seen much of his prewar work, so I can't really speak to it). Whether you like it or not is another matter, but I think it's very much in keeping with the way he makes his films, and it is precisely for this style that people appreciate him so much. Also, when the actors do break away momentarily from the form of the rest of the film, it brings much more attention to that moment that it would otherwise, creating a very subtle kind of emphasis.

I wouldn't chalk it up to cultural difference as others have, other than the fact that there tends to be a much stronger appreciation for a restrained aesthetic in Japanese art than in Western art (see ikebana, suiseki, rock gardens, haiku, tea ceremony), and that Ozu's style is in keeping with that. That said, as Donald Richie once pointed out, Ozu's films would probably seem more foreign to younger people in Japan than they would to people outside of Japan, since his films bear no resemblance to modern Japan, but they do bear some resemblance to outside impressions of Japan. Similarly, Ozu's films have probably had much more impact on non-Japanese directors than they have on contemporary Japanese cinema.

Jun-Dai

[sidehacker]

Many MANY directors never watch their own films again after settling on a final cut. Their primary interest is in the experience of making them, and once that's done it's over for them. And god bless dudes like Victor Erice who believe that their films no longer belong to them when complete... they belong to the public, or the thread of time.

Once again, I wouldn't argue otherwise, but I didn't exactly know what context that quote was in. I was just mentioning it with the hope that someone could provide some history behind it.

[ozukarodzi]

First, I'd like to begin with this allegation levied at me earlier:

What hurt is an ass like you disliking films for pure reasons of tastes and not being able to put forward an argument other than your poisonous opinions.

I would like to make a public apology for calling you an ass, and I’m sorry If I have hurt your feeling. But never the less, the reason behinde my statements came after you called Norkio (Setsuko Hara) “ the shit-eating grin”, I would like to hear you apologize to all the fans of Ozu and Setsuko Hara, after all, what have Setsuko Hara done to you to show such contempt?

[HerrSchreck]

There may be something lost in translation here, esp if English is not OKarodz's 1st language.

Are you familiar with that phrase-- "shit eating grin"? It's a common enough phrase, and not meant in the vilest manner of it's literal interpretation. At very least.

I too thought the phrase was a bit harsh, to be totally honest. And totally hamhanded.. considering her much beloved status. This is bull in a china shop posting indeed.

[swo17]

(1) n. a very wide and, to the outside observer, stupid looking grin, usually showing smugness, self-satisfaction, or inner humor.

(2) n. Someone donning a forced smile in an uncomfortable, embarassing, or compromising situation.

Or, if you prefer...

The grin on someone's face when they are trying not to smile but can't stop so they look like a total shithead.

[ozukarodzi]

HerrSchreck, you are right about English not being my 1st language (as a matter of fact it's the 3rd). I do know the meaning of “shit-eating grin" used as a harmless joke to a friend or a satirical tool to show disaffection for someone's happy states. But when it used in a context like this, calling Setsuko Hara (whom throughout the film, uses the grin to hide her shyness), literal interpretation varies from reader to reader, I took it as an insult, perhaps you are taking it as a harmless joke!

According to Urban Dictionary, my use of "ass", seems less harmless for it is:

A Place where courageous people do the nasty

[Michael Kerpan]

I think the reference to Hara have a "shit-eating grin" was tactless (and inappropriate) -- even when the phrase is viewed in the most benign manner possible.