This Ozu study has helped but i think mainly I’m just a better critic than i was in the past (if i do say so myself). I do think the critical community is partly to blame though for me missing this (and Ozu) for so long. Quit applauding his humanism and restraint and subtlety and start talking about how, from a visual mise-en-scene standpoint– this is one of the most beautiful movies ever made. I’m not even saying those other things aren’t true- but it’s not why this is considered a top 10 of all-time film by so many
The Kôgo Noda (like time collaborator on the writing with Ozu) screenplay is the best by the pair to date
The film, and the style, is a high-water point (to date in my study) for Ozu but it’s more of the same- it’s not a departure by any stretch from his previous films. There are actually a number of shots that mirror his shots in previous films (including that shot of Ryu meditating alone in the finale). Though, where another film of his is filled with 10-25 of these gorgeous mise-en-scene shots and setups… this one has 50-100. It’s impossible to keep count unless that’s all you want to do
Starts with an establishing shot (smoke stacks), an alley with bottles, a train, a train with laundry and then a layered interior with actors (a family unit) spread out and stacked so carefully- it’s gorgeous
There’s ordinariness in the narrative—even banality– as Ozu is after man of the same things De Sica and Rossellini were interested in in Neo-Realism
It’s a candidate for the greatest mise-en-scene in film history. Gorgeously arranged sets and shots
Ozu has a way of funneling the frame so to speak- he has objects and walls that not only take up all the white space (teapots, clocks, slippers, flowers, bicycles laundry, lighting those shoji doors) but directs your eyes by creating frames within a frame, division and blocking of the mise-en-scene a la Von Sternberg (though this dwarfs anything Von Sternberg ever accomplished as much as I love him)
4-5 times with the smoke stack pillow shot… I love the cloud one to signify day change on Ryu
There’s another quick montage of the wife moving through the empty house in her daily routine- to the trained eye it’s like Ozu showing off with the interiors. Gorgeous.
It’s a major triumph for Ryu- a stunning performance- his unspoken frustration at the loud music at the spa is great acting—Hara’s achievement is a little less but that’s no insult- she plays a damn saint- such a great character (and actress)
The line writing is sublime” By the time you become a doctor I won’t if I’ll still be here” is haunting
At Hara’s friend’s apartment there’s a baby in this bubble thing that, again, is just Ozu showing off with his blocking and framing- it’s so awesome
The spouses of the children (including the widowed daughter in law Hara) are so much more considerate—at best you could say they’re preoccupied and the grandchildren come off as bratty
Extremely rich character depth- Haruko Sugimura is a bit of a monster- she denies those are her parents at the salon at one point to a customer—but she’s also clearly has bad memories of her father’s drinking
Awe-inspiring shot of the two elderly characters laying down at the spa, the lamp, the tea, the two heads—clearly an influence on Bergman—the staging of the mourners at the funeral
The final shot and composition of Ryu, alone, thinking, mirrors the uncle smoking the pipe in Early Summer – It’s another staggeringly beautiful shot
“Quit applauding his humanism and restraint and subtlety and start talking about how, from a visual mise-en-scene standpoint– this is one of the most beautiful movies ever made”.
Why should I not applaud his humanism? I think it’s one of the most beautiful movies but also one of the most devastating. The reason it matters is because it’s one of the emotion and humanism makes Tokyo Story so powerful along with how it looks visually.
@Azman — mise-en-scène refers to everything that appears before the camera and its arrangement—composition, sets, props, actors, costumes, and lighting.. Cinematography is more about the process of how those elements are shot.
@Azman — mise-en-scène refers to everything that appears before the camera and its arrangement—composition, sets, props, actors, costumes, and lighting.. Cinematography is more about the process of how those elements are shot.
It’s been about a month since I watched Tokyo Story and it is the only Ozu film I’ve seen thus far. It is quite impressive. Almost every shot (like, 99.9% of them) is meticulously crafted. It is so, so, so well made and decorated and cared for it’s unbelievable. To think someone put so much work in the Mise en scene for a 4 second shot – unreal. Of course it reminds me of Wes Anderson (consistency-wise), but to be honest Anderson gets many points for the use of colour – his Mise en scene is of course very well taken care for, but not as meticulous. Ozu is the crème de la crème on that front – symmetry, balance, blocking, framing, everything.
Ryu is great, perhaps one of the top 10-20 quiet performances in cinema history. All the emotion he manages to convey just with his eyes – the line delivery bothers me a little, but it doesn’t really detract from the performance. Hara is also sublime. Apart from the final scenes when she cracks and admits to everything she feels guilty of, all those fake smiles and laughs – there is profound sorrow and grief hidden behind them, all of them. It is heart breaking to watch.
There is indeed banality in Ozu’s themes. I understand his being concerned with the same subjects and tones as neorealist directors, but I can spot weaknesses in the narrative. It really picks up from the second half and on but I still don’t find it strong enough. I like to think I appreciate slow cinema and I greatly admire some of its greatest masters, but here I was not interested enough. I don’t know how I feel about Tokyo Story being considered a top 10 of all time film. From my first viewing it doesn’t strike me as being so incredible. The comparison with Rossellini prompts me to compare this film with Rome, Open City for example (the world renowned cities’ background also helps) and I think the latter is a better film. I don’t know, I need many, many more viewings so everything I say here is with some caution. I’m not certain and my assessments may rely on personal taste and perception. Regardless, the work and mastery in Mise en scene is undeniable and perhaps singular in film history.
@Georg– very thoughtful here as well. Perhaps that last line you have really lingers– ” the work and mastery in Mise en scene is undeniable and perhaps singular in film history.”
Well you mentioned ” Early Summer”. I just watched it on the Criterion Channel. Absolutely loved it. I’d say most of Ozu, and many of the auters you study on your site, are not recognized by the majority for stylistic greatness.
“I’m not even saying those other things aren’t true- but it’s not why this is considered a top 10 of all-time film by so many”.
So I’m curious what you mean by the people who consider it a “top 10 of all-time film”. Are they realizing it as having a great formalist structure?
I don’t know what they’re considering. I’m wondering how hard it is to determine what the “so many” think and exactly what they do think. How do we know. I guess it doesn’t matter. It’s just a pleasure to watch.
Thanks for your analysis.
I can’t leave it at that. I’m watching Tokyo Story now and even the opening where you see the school kids walking by the train…..and you hear the chug chug sounds of the train with the camera set at more or less ground level with two bottles of wine in the foreground creates a feeling. The bottles are almost as big as the kids and the building they walk past kind of dwarfs them and then it goes to the shot of the train passing along the countryside. Lovely.
What is the purpose of all the cut away shots? I’ve noticed this with other Ozu films, I have only seen a couple but will certainly get to him in more depth at some point.
@Drake – thanks for the article, good read. What a film, had only seen once before, and it was a couple of years ago, I basically just watched twice in a row, with the 2nd time I kept pausing to appreciate the mise-en-scene. This film does not look like any other I’ve seen except other Ozu films. I’ve always loved low angle shots, Welles is certainly one of my favorites, but to watch an entire film shot this way is just fascinating. The conversations feel more intimate perhaps.
“Quit applauding his humanism and restraint and subtlety and start talking about how, from a visual mise-en-scene standpoint– this is one of the most beautiful movies ever made”.
Why should I not applaud his humanism? I think it’s one of the most beautiful movies but also one of the most devastating. The reason it matters is because it’s one of the emotion and humanism makes Tokyo Story so powerful along with how it looks visually.
Its a big fat masterpiece.
@Azman– You can applaud what you want. I’m talking specifically about the reasons why it is one of the best films of all-time artistically.
Agree 100%. In certain respects it’s all there is. Especially if we’re talking about auter directors.
I haven’t heard any critic mention mise en scene before. What difference is there between mise rn scene and cinematography?
@Azman — mise-en-scène refers to everything that appears before the camera and its arrangement—composition, sets, props, actors, costumes, and lighting.. Cinematography is more about the process of how those elements are shot.
@Azman — mise-en-scène refers to everything that appears before the camera and its arrangement—composition, sets, props, actors, costumes, and lighting.. Cinematography is more about the process of how those elements are shot.
It’s been about a month since I watched Tokyo Story and it is the only Ozu film I’ve seen thus far. It is quite impressive. Almost every shot (like, 99.9% of them) is meticulously crafted. It is so, so, so well made and decorated and cared for it’s unbelievable. To think someone put so much work in the Mise en scene for a 4 second shot – unreal. Of course it reminds me of Wes Anderson (consistency-wise), but to be honest Anderson gets many points for the use of colour – his Mise en scene is of course very well taken care for, but not as meticulous. Ozu is the crème de la crème on that front – symmetry, balance, blocking, framing, everything.
Ryu is great, perhaps one of the top 10-20 quiet performances in cinema history. All the emotion he manages to convey just with his eyes – the line delivery bothers me a little, but it doesn’t really detract from the performance. Hara is also sublime. Apart from the final scenes when she cracks and admits to everything she feels guilty of, all those fake smiles and laughs – there is profound sorrow and grief hidden behind them, all of them. It is heart breaking to watch.
There is indeed banality in Ozu’s themes. I understand his being concerned with the same subjects and tones as neorealist directors, but I can spot weaknesses in the narrative. It really picks up from the second half and on but I still don’t find it strong enough. I like to think I appreciate slow cinema and I greatly admire some of its greatest masters, but here I was not interested enough. I don’t know how I feel about Tokyo Story being considered a top 10 of all time film. From my first viewing it doesn’t strike me as being so incredible. The comparison with Rossellini prompts me to compare this film with Rome, Open City for example (the world renowned cities’ background also helps) and I think the latter is a better film. I don’t know, I need many, many more viewings so everything I say here is with some caution. I’m not certain and my assessments may rely on personal taste and perception. Regardless, the work and mastery in Mise en scene is undeniable and perhaps singular in film history.
@Georg– very thoughtful here as well. Perhaps that last line you have really lingers– ” the work and mastery in Mise en scene is undeniable and perhaps singular in film history.”
[…] Tokyo Story – Ozu […]
Well you mentioned ” Early Summer”. I just watched it on the Criterion Channel. Absolutely loved it. I’d say most of Ozu, and many of the auters you study on your site, are not recognized by the majority for stylistic greatness.
“I’m not even saying those other things aren’t true- but it’s not why this is considered a top 10 of all-time film by so many”.
So I’m curious what you mean by the people who consider it a “top 10 of all-time film”. Are they realizing it as having a great formalist structure?
I don’t know what they’re considering. I’m wondering how hard it is to determine what the “so many” think and exactly what they do think. How do we know. I guess it doesn’t matter. It’s just a pleasure to watch.
Thanks for your analysis.
I can’t leave it at that. I’m watching Tokyo Story now and even the opening where you see the school kids walking by the train…..and you hear the chug chug sounds of the train with the camera set at more or less ground level with two bottles of wine in the foreground creates a feeling. The bottles are almost as big as the kids and the building they walk past kind of dwarfs them and then it goes to the shot of the train passing along the countryside. Lovely.
Agree 100%. In certain respects it’s all there is. Especially if we’re talking about auter directors.
What is the purpose of all the cut away shots? I’ve noticed this with other Ozu films, I have only seen a couple but will certainly get to him in more depth at some point.
@James Trapp- very quick read here https://www2.bfi.org.uk/news-opinion/news-bfi/features/enigmatic-pillow-shots-yasujiro-ozu
@Drake – thanks for the article, good read. What a film, had only seen once before, and it was a couple of years ago, I basically just watched twice in a row, with the 2nd time I kept pausing to appreciate the mise-en-scene. This film does not look like any other I’ve seen except other Ozu films. I’ve always loved low angle shots, Welles is certainly one of my favorites, but to watch an entire film shot this way is just fascinating. The conversations feel more intimate perhaps.