Sunday, October 3, 2010

A Kurosawa Mystery Solved


In February 1948, the great Akira Kurosawa was in the final stages of shooting what would be the most important film he had ever made up to that time, the quasi-neorealist drama Yoidore Tenshi (Drunken Angel), also his first collaboration with the actor Toshiro Mifune. He had earlier received news that his elderly father, Isamu, had fallen gravely ill and was fading rapidly. Because the old man was far away from Tokyo and because Kurosawa was facing an inflexible release date, he chose not to rush to his father’s bedside, perhaps hoping against hope that his father would hold out until the film was finished, edited and released. But he didn’t: while filming was still in progress, Akira received news that Isamu Kurosawa had died. Filled with sorrow and, we must presume, guilt that he had not been at the dying man’s bedside, Kurosawa (as his memoir reveals) wandered, a “drunken angel” himself, through the streets of the Shinjuku ward of Tokyo when he heard a familiar refrain.

As I walked, I suddenly heard the strains of "The Cuckoo Waltz" blaring over a loudspeaker system somewhere. The cheerful brightness of the song threw my black mood into high relief, intensifying my sorrow to an intolerable degree. I hurried my steps to escape from this awful music. (Akira Kurosawa, Something Like an Autobiography, pp. 162-163)
In Kurosawa’s life story, it frequently happens that a traumatic incident that might move the average person to open the nearest convenient artery serves instead to spur the artist’s creative imagination. For soon thereafter, he met with Drunken Angel’s composer, his best friend Fumio Hayasaka, and suggested an interesting experiment. For the bleakest scene in the picture – the one in which Matsunaga, a gangster dying of tuberculosis (played by Mifune), understands that not only his power and prestige, but his very life is ebbing away – Kurosawa proposed to Hayasaka that he score the scene with the cheerful, vapid "Cuckoo Waltz" to emphasize, through contrast, Matsunaga’s dark emotions. Instead of being baffled by his friend’s request, Hayasaka almost immediately understood.

“Ah, counterpoint,” he said. “Right,” I confirmed, “The Sharpshooter.” This expression, “The Sharpshooter,” was part of a private language Hayasaka and I developed. It referred to a Soviet film released in Japan under that title in which the counterpoint between sound and image was the most magnificent I have encountered. (Something Like an Autobiography, p. 163)
Not surprisingly, this scene in Drunken Angel, precisely because of the incongruous cheerfulness, in such a grim context, of the song that had so offended Kurosawa in the depths of his grief, proved to be perhaps the most powerful in the movie. The experiment in visual-aural “counterpoint” was a success. The master would go on to employ this effect again in later films: Nora Inu (Stray Dog, 1949); Yojimbo (1960) and, perhaps most memorably, in the climax of Tengoku to Jigoku (High and Low, 1963). (Hayasaka meanwhile had died – ironically, of tuberculosis – in 1955.)

But what of the film that (partly) inspired the experiment? What exactly was it about that very obscure Soviet film, The Sharpshooter, that so impressed Kurosawa? The chances of my ever finding out seemed remote indeed.

But what often saves cultural Sherlocks (both professional and amateur) – though we may be loathe to admit it – is luck… with the added help of the Internet, of course. And my luck came from purchasing the invaluable memoir Waiting on the Weather by Kurosawa’s loyal, longtime assistant, Teruyo Nogami. Ms. Nogami joined the Kurosawa-gumi (“Kurosawa group”) in 1950 for Rashomon and worked on every subsequent film (except The Idiot) made by the master until the very end of his career in 1993. Ms. Nogami’s book offers many valuable professional as well as personal insights into the great man. But she also offers an alternative viewpoint on experiences that Kurosawa describes so memorably in his autobiography.

One such experience is his discovery of the power of counterpoint in music. After recounting the same conversation between Kurosawa and Hayasaka, during the making of Drunken Angel, that I quoted above, Nogami goes on to describe the plot of the Soviet movie that inspired both men’s admiration, in the manner in which it was (apparently) relayed to her by either Kurosawa or Hayasaka or both:

Although I have never seen that Soviet picture, I have heard the scene described so many times that I can imagine it vividly.

The front in World War I, with German and Russian forces face to face. It’s night. Heavy rain is falling. In the shadow of a dead horse, a German sniper is shooting. Russian soldiers crawl out and stab the sniper, killing him. Suddenly, from a trench across the way come the strains of a record playing “Ça C’est Paris” [a song popularized early in the 20th Century by the French female singer Mistinguett]. The contrast of that gay music with the gruesome action, Kurosawa stressed, is powerful. (Waiting on the Weather, p. 189)
It’s easy to understand why such a scene would have impressed the young Kurosawa. But what caught my attention was that Ms. Nogami does not call the film The Sharpshooter, as Kurosawa (or rather the English translation of his memoir) calls it; she refers to the film as Sniper.

Intrigued, I looked up “sniper” in the search engine of The Internet Movie Database. Of the titles that this search produced, only one was remotely relevant: Sniper, a 1932 (other sources say 1931) Soviet movie written and directed by one Semyon Alekseyevich Timoshenko. (The Russian-language title, in Cyrillic, is "Снайпер," which would most commonly be transliterated as Snayper, which might be pronounced something like “sni-pair.”)
Further Internet research on this work has revealed that this film is undoubtedly the one to which both Kurosawa and Ms. Nogami allude. And, amazingly, the film had its New York premiere in August 1932 and actually received a review in the New York Times:

Movie Review
Snayper (1931)

Through Bolshevik Eyes.

H.T.S.

Published August 26, 1932

The Soviet production "Sniper," which came to the Cameo yesterday, begins like a pacifist picture, but ends with a patriotic appeal to defend the Bolshevist republic. Without any love theme or romance, the director and scenario writer, S. Timoshenko, has turned out a worthy war film.

In the first scenes British soldiers are marching off cheered by fair women and fat business men. Then comes a "quiet day" on the western front, in which a dozen men are picked off by a German sniper, who finally is located by two Russian snipers, a Captain and a private. In the night the private crawls out, stabs the German and drags in his body. The sniper's papers show that he was a metal worker. This moves his slayer to remark that he, too, had been a metal worker. This incident is followed by a drive resulting in the capture of a German position at dreadful cost. Now the Russian private stands on the field and asks the dead who they are. One by one they reply. All are workers — from Russia, Germany, France, England and the United States.

Later the Russian division in France learned of the Bolshevist revolution and Lenin's order giving the land to the peasants and the factories to the workers and his plea for immediate peace. Many of the Russians refuse to fight any longer. Some are shot by firing squads, but the revolt continues. The Russian Captain tries to halt the movement by using his rifle, but is overpowered by the private just as news of the end of the war arrives.

Fifteen years pass — it is 1933. A band of "shock" workers is repairing a locomotive near the Soviet border. Their chief is the private sniper. After hours he gives instruction in sharpshooting to men and women comrades. Then comes an invasion of the Soviet soil, in the repelling of which the former private brings down his former Captain, a leader of White Guard Russians in foreign service. So "Sniper" finishes on a note of exaltation at the successful defense of the "workers' Fatherland."

The acting of all concerned is of high calibre, the direction is excellent and the photography and sound reproduction are clear. The action is explained by English captions.

SNIPER, a Russian language picture; directed by S. Timoshenko; a soyuzkino production. At the Cameo Theatre.

The Captain... c [sic] [Boris] Shlikhting
The Soldier... Peter [Pyotr] Sobolevsky
The U.S. release date, in the summer of 1932, is, for me, a fascinating fact. If the film was released in Tokyo at about this time, then Kurosawa must have seen it when he was in his impressionable (and politically radical) early twenties, long before he entered the film industry in 1936.

Not everyone, apparently, was so impressed by this picture as the New York Times critic. At allmovie.com, one Hal Erickson (without indicating how in the world he encountered this very obscure film) provides the following capsule review:

This WWI drama tells its story in symbiotic fashion, first concentrating on a Russian sniper in the French army, and then focusing on a Russian sniper in the German army. In both instances, the snipers come to realize that they're fighting on the wrong side, for the wrong cause. Both throw their weapons aside and desert, marching off to Petrograd and the greater glories of impending Bolshevism. Following their example, all the expatriate Russians fighting with the French and Germans forsake their adoptive countries and return to Soviet soil. Poorly acted and photographed, The Sniper will never be mistaken for a classic of the Russian cinema [except, possibly, by the greatest Asian director of all time and the best Japanese film composer of all time].
So is this picture available on home video for us to view and perhaps understand what Kurosawa saw in it? As far as I know, it is not. Yet the movie, believe it or not, was publicly exhibited as recently in June 2010! At the 32nd Moscow International Film Festival, Snayper was shown in a category called “Socialist Avant-Gardizm [sic], Part 3.” Its brief English synopsis in the festival’s program (which I have a vague hunch was written by someone whose first language was not English) is as follows:

Front of imperialistic war. French army suffer losses. All of the efforts to annihilate German sniper fail. And only one person is capable to locate the enemy – a Russina [sic] GI, who came to France as part of the Russian task group. Former ironworker finds out from the sniper’s documents that the later was also a metal worker. This fact, on the one hand gets the hero to believe in necessity of solidarity among workers who are now soldiers, and on the other hand he starts feeling even deeper distinction between himself and his commander – the captain of Imperial Army.
If I ever see this film, I would not much care if Mr. Erickson is right and it turned out not to be a masterpiece. I would care only that the crucial scene of the Russian sniper stabbing the enemy soldier, accompanied incongruously by merry music, might move me as much as it moved my favorite filmmaker of all time.

Sunday, February 21, 2010

Creating the Wikipedia Kurosawa Page

I am using this post on my blog as an area in which those who want to work on the Kurosawa Featured Article Project (see post A Birthday Present for Akira Kurosawa below) can collaborate, offering suggestions, content and revisions to create a Wikpedia page that will be chosen (hopefully during 2010, Kurosawa's centennial year) as a featured article on the site's home page.

Those who wish to participate should respond by posting a comment to this particular post. Please keep all comments constructive. What I and others might write may be controversial to some AK fans and scholars. Our ability to complete this project will depend on our resolving such differences civilly.

Vili Maunula, the owner of the excellent Kurosawa website, http://akirakurosawa.info/, has helpfully suggest a general structure for the article much different from the one currently featured on that Wikipedia page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/akira_kurosawa). Here is what Mr. Maunula came up with. The "x"s represent section headings: single for main headings, two or more for subheadings. (He has written, and I agree, that it would be pointless to number the headings at this point, as many may be added or subtracted as we go along.)

Lead Section
---------------
x Life and career
x.x Youth [1910-1935]
x.x Director in training [1936-1942]
x.x Early works [1943-1945]
x.x Postwar years [1946-1950]
x.x International recognition [1951-1954]
x.x Late 50s [1955-1959]
x.x Final works with Mifune [1960-1965]
x.x Brushes with Hollywood [1966-1969]
x.x Difficult 70s [1970-1979]
x.x Resurgence of financing [1980-1989]
x.x Last decade [1990-1998]
x.x Death and posthumous works [1998-2010]

x Directorial approach
x.x Influences
x.x Kurosawa and his contemporaries
x.x Working methods
x.x Collaboration with the Kurosawa-gumi
x.x Recurring themes
x.x Style
x.x "Western" director

x Legacy
x.x Kurosawa's influence
x.x.x Influence on cinematic arts
x.x.x Remakes
x.x.x Homages and references
x.x Film studies and Kurosawa
x.x Criticism of Kurosawa

x Works
x.x Filmography
x.x As an assistant director
x.x As a screenwriter
x.x Collaborations and television work
x.x Theater
x.x Books
x.x Awards

-----------------
x See also
x References
x Further reading
x External links

This is certainly a comprehensive and coherent structure from which we can work. I just have a few comments:

1. The biographical section divides AK's life exactly as I would wish to do so, except that I would combine the two 1950s subheadings into one single subheading with the title "International recognition." Also, there are some titles of subheadings that I would change: "Brushes with Hollywood" should perhaps be changed simply to "Tora! Tora! Tora!" as his aborted work on that film was his main activity during those bleak years. "Difficult 70s" and "Resurgence of financing" sound too breezy and informal for an encyclopedia article. Otherwise this part can remain as is.

2. For the second section, "Directorial approach" (although taken from the article as it now exists) sounds unsatisfactory. I would welcome suggestions on this section title. "Influences" might be changed to "Cinematic influences," because in that subsection, we would want to deal exclusively with his influence from film, rather than other art forms (e.g., Noh). I believe "Working methods" and "Style" might profitably be combined into the same subsection. "'Western' director" might be changed to something like "Reputation as 'Western' director."

3. In the "Legacy" section, the title of the "Influence on cinematic arts" subsection might be changed to something like "Overall cinematic influence." "Homages and references" should perhaps be changed to "Homages and allusions" to avoid confusion with the numbered references within the article itself. I'm not sure that the "Film studies and Kurosawa" subsection is even necessary: what would be the angle to pursue there? "Criticism of Kurosawa" should be plural: "Criticisms."

4. In the "Works" section, "Filmography" should remain the first subsection and "As director," "As assistant director" and "As editor" should be the sub-subsections under it. I don't know what television work he did besides personal appearances and commercials. I wasn't aware that he did any theatre work at all.

Please comment on any of the above and add any additional changes you would propose.


The passage below contains my draft for the revised Lead Section of the Kurosawa article. This section introduces him, explains why he is historically important and summarizes what is contained in the rest of the article.

First, here is the Lead as it appears in the article right now (I have included underscoring where links appear in the original:

"Akira Kurosawa (黒澤 明 or 黒沢 明, Kurosawa Akira?, 23 March 1910 – 6 September 1998) was a Japanese film director, producer, screenwriter and editor. In a career that spanned 50 years, Kurosawa directed 30 films. He is widely regarded as one of the most important and influential filmmakers in film history. In 1989, he was awarded the Academy Award for Lifetime Achievement 'for cinematic accomplishments that have inspired, delighted, enriched and entertained worldwide audiences and influenced filmmakers throughout the world.' [1]"

Here is my revised version:

"Akira Kurosawa (黒澤 明 or 黒沢 明 Kurosawa Akira?, 23 March 1910 – 6 September 1998) was a Japanese film director, producer, screenwriter and editor. In a film career that spanned over half a century, he directed or co-directed 31 films.

"Kurosawa entered the Japanese film industry in 1936 following a brief, unsuccessful career as a painter. After years of working on numerous films as an assistant director and scriptwriter, he made his debut as a director during the Second World War with the popular action film, Sanshiro Sugata (1943) (a.k.a. Judo Saga). The critically acclaimed Drunken Angel (1948), in which Kurosawa cast a then-unknown actor, Toshiro Mifune, in a starring role (the two men would collaborate on another 15 films), cemented his reputation as one of the most important filmmakers in Japan. Rashomon (1950), which premiered in Tokyo on August 25, 1950, and which also starred Mifune, became the surprise winner of the Golden Lion at the 1951 Venice Film Festival and was then released in Europe and North America. The success of this film opened up Western film markets for the first time to the products of the Japanese film industry, which in turn led to international recognition for other significant Japanese film artists, such as Kenji Mizoguchi and Yasujiro Ozu. Throughout the 1950s and early 1960s, Kurosawa released approximately a film a year, often to worldwide acclaim. After the mid-1960s, his output became much more infrequent, and his later work –- which included his last two epics, Kagemusha (1980) and Ran (1985) –- was sometimes more admired abroad than in his native land.

"He is widely regarded as one of the most important and influential filmmakers in movie history. In 1990, he was awarded the Academy Award for Lifetime Achievement 'for cinematic accomplishments that have inspired, delighted, enriched and entertained worldwide audiences and influenced filmmakers throughout the world.' [1]"

Please note that because the Academy Award ceremony of March 26, 1990 honored mostly films make the previous year, it is called "the 1989 Academy Awards." However, AK's award was for lifetime achievement and thus belongs to the year it was actually given to him: 1990, when AK turned 80 years old.

Also note that I have numbered AKs films as 31 rather than 30, counting Those Who Make Tomorrow (1946), on the grounds that a) he never denied that he was actually involved in the making of that film, though not as sole director; b) it was commercially released at the time; and c) AK did not remove his name from the credits. The circumstance that he never wanted to make the picture and was dissatisfied with how it turned out is important but not sufficient to delete the work completely from his filmography, though those facts should be noted when we list the work. (Note also that the film appears on IMDB and in filmographies in books, such as Audie Bock's.) If directors could eliminate films from the record that they were ordered to make but hated, most Hollywood directors could (and probably would) erase half the movies from their filmographies on the exact same grounds.

Thank you in advance for any contributions and suggestions you may make.

JDB

Friday, January 15, 2010

A Birthday Present for Akira Kurosawa


I would like to make the following modest proposal.

As Akira Kurosawa's centennial birthday will occur on March 23rd of this year, I propose that the biographic article on the filmmaker on Wikipedia.com be extensively revised so that it can be submitted to be upgraded to feature article status, and can thus be presented as the featured article on Wikipedia's home page on March 23rd, 2010. It is only right that one of the greatest directors who ever lived -- and the most famous Asian director who ever lived -- should be accorded this honor.

The current rating, according to Wikipedia's quality scale, of the Kurosawa article is, rather shockingly, "C-class," even though Kurosawa's biography as a topic has been rated of Top importance in the category of WikiProject Japan and of Core importance in the category of WikiProject Biography/Actors and Filmmakers. (It also appears in the WikiProject Screenwriters category.) Thus, the article would need to be upgraded pretty substantially in a hurry. I would like to consult with other Kurosawa experts (I definitely can't do this alone) about what needs to be done to bring this piece up to featured article status in two months.

I have reviewed the article and the following are some ways that I feel it can be improved:

  • There is a complete lack of narrative flow in the description of Kurosawa's career as a whole that needs to be corrected.

    His career, from most every reference work I've ever consulted and from my own viewing, falls into very sharply defined periods (e.g., the war years; the immediate postwar period; the "classic" years, including Rashomon, Ikiru, Yojimbo, etc.; and so on). But there is no sense of this structure at all in the article as it now exists. We read about his early career and his later career, but the middle (and most famous) period is not addressed at all. In the section about the later films, we read that he made films far less frequently, because they were more difficult to finance, but the article does not explain why this was the case. Just as importantly, there is no sense in the article of the context of Japanese film culture and of the movie industry as a whole in which A.K.'s achievement can make some kind of sense. His "Golden Age" -- 1950 through 1965 -- roughly corresponded with the so-called Golden Age of Japanese cinema, when domestic movies in general had a huge and loyal audience and esteemed directors -- Yasujiro Ozu, Kenji Mizoguchi and others -- enjoyed unprecedented (but far from total) freedom to realize their creative visions.

  • The section "Directorial Approach" should be revised extensively.

    This section should probably be renamed "Artistic Style" or "Artistic Technique." It makes some interesting points about the director's visual techniques, but it doesn't place them properly within his history. For example, it mentions, correctly, that he liked to use the editing technique of the screen "wipe" as a transitional device between scenes (this device appears from the very beginning of his career, in Sanshiro Sugata). Yet the section also indicates that he preferred to shoot scenes with telephoto lenses and multiple cameras, failing to mention that these methods only appeared in his work from Seven Samurai on. This is not a minor issue. Confusing such matters makes his artistic development less clear. The section also fails to mention the admiration which his Japanese colleagues felt for his skills as an editor. (They always referred to him as "The World's Greatest Editor.) Citations in general are very lacking in this section.

  • The section on "Influences" (which rather should read something like "Artistic Influences on Kurosawa") is not quite complete.

    The nature and significance of the influence of the directors whom A.K. most admired (e.g., John Ford) is not communicated in the article. Some very important European influences, such as that of the French director Jean Renoir, go unmentioned. Finally, in the late 1990s, shortly before his death, he compiled a list consisting of 100 favorite films of his, in chronological order, with, however, a self-imposed limit of one film per director (presumably, he would have chosen more John Ford films other than My Darling Clementine, had he not thus limited himself). This list reflects the wide range of his cinematic interests and enthusiasms and is thus appropriate to this section.

  • The section titled "Influence" (which perhaps ought to be "Film Artists Who Were Influenced by Kurosawa) is rambling and undisciplined.

    Films that are not officially credited as remakes of films by Kurosawa (except in the case of A Fistful of Dollars, which A.K. successfully sued to receive credit) ought to be deleted. The bulleted list of directors cited as being influenced by him is far too long, and the name of any director not including a usable quote about A.K. should be deleted.

  • The section titled "Collaboration" (which should perhaps be called "Collaborators") is fairly good, but flawed.

    For example, it fails to mention the crucial qualities that these collaborators (such as the composer Fumio Hayasaska) added to his films, though A.K. himself in published statements was quite explicit about the importance of their contribution.

  • A new section should be created titled "Recurring Themes in Kurosawa's Films."

    Some examples of such themes might be: "Master and Student," "Personal Responsibility," "The Fateful Meeting," "Clash of the Upper and Lower Classes" and "The Ego." Citations in books and on the web demonstrating these themes might take a little digging, but I believe they can be found.

  • There should be a new short section on the importance of the films that Kurosawa set in contemporary times -- e.g., Ikiru, Record of a Living Being -- as opposed to the samurai epics.

  • A brief subsection on the supposedly "Western" quality of his film technique should be added.

  • Finally, a short section entitled "Criticisms of Kurosawa" must be added for balance.
These are just a few of my ideas. I would ask any reader who can claim expertise on this subject to look over the Wikipedia article clearly and make your own suggestions. Together, lovers of Kurosawa's films should be able to completely revise and correct the Wikipedia page by March 23rd.

David Baldwin

Sunday, September 6, 2009

Early Summer (Bakushu, 1951), Yasujiro Ozu, Part II



Casting a movie is a critical task for any director, but even more so for Ozu than most, as the chosen performer would often be called upon by the director not only to act a character, but to embody a particular type of human being with a rare completeness. His decision to hire Setsuko Hara for this and five other films during this period seems to me his greatest casting coup. (The other films with Hara are Late Spring (Banshun, 1949), Tokyo Story (Tokyo monogatari, 1953), Tokyo Twilight (Tokyo boshoku, 1957), Late Autumn (Akibiyori, 1960) and The End of Summer (Kohayagawa-ke no aki, 1961).) The qualities that make her unique as an actress are striking. Her eyes are amazingly expressive: always beautiful and alive, often revealing great depth and passion. She is considerably taller than most Japanese actresses, yet the odd awkwardness with which she moves and holds herself – which suggests the lingering self-consciousness of an adolescent girl too tall for her age group -- somehow makes her more attractive as a screen presence. (To see what I mean, view the final scene of Kozaburo Yoshimura’s wonderful film, A Ball at the Anjo House (Anjo-ke no Butokai, 1947), on YouTube here.) Lastly, the quiet intelligence she usually projects alternates often with an almost childlike playfulness that is very winning.

For Early Summer, Hara was called upon to “carry” the film to a greater degree than perhaps any other movie she made with Ozu. Some of its greatest and most poignant moments are therefore hers: Noriko’s mounting panic (which she does her best to conceal) as the pressure on her to marry slowly builds; her look of joy when she unexpectedly accepts a surprise proposal; and her desolation, almost despair, as she realizes the consequences of what she has done. The auteur theory notwithstanding, no great movie ever made has been the triumph only of a single artist. Though Ozu was very lucky to obtain the creative control he enjoyed with Shochiku Studios, he was luckier still to find a performer like Hara who could bring his artistic vision to life. She thus deserves, I believe, much of the credit for this masterpiece. (Interestingly, Hara chose to retire from films, at the height of her popularity, in 1963, the year Ozu died; she has never acted, been interviewed or even been photographed since.)

Finally, a word should be said about Ozu’s use of camera movement in the film. During the prewar era, the director liked to employ the occasional dolly or tracking shot in a scene, more often than not to make a comic point. But in the postwar movies, except for purely functional purposes (e.g., to follow two characters in conversation as they walk down a street), the use of such shots is practically unheard of. But Early Summer is the magnificent exception: the few, brief, moving camera shots in this film are more elegant, more beautiful and more poetic than those in any Ozu picture I know.

I will provide just two examples. When Noriko’s elderly granduncle comes to Tokyo for a visit, the family takes him to a performance of a kabuki play, which he watches with rapt fascination. A little later, the camera moves slowly forward through the now empty theatre, as if memorializing an evening the family will always cherish. Near the end of the movie, Ozu shows us a desolate stretch of beach and then the camera gradually begins to rise (in the only crane shot to appear in all his surviving work) to show us both Noriko and her sister-in-law Fumiko in the far distance, climbing a sand dune. In the following shot, the two women sit down on the sand to chat. Though the content of their conversation is banal, the unexpected lyricism of the opening shot gives the entire scene a lovely, elegiac quality.

Like any masterpiece, Early Summer can be viewed from many perspectives. It is to be hoped that those who have not yet experienced this work (or Ozu’s work in general) might be moved, through my exploration of several such ways of seeing, to seek it out and experience it themselves. 125 minutes; Black and White. Available on DVD through an excellent-quality Criterion Collection edition, with new English subtitles. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_Summer

Saturday, September 5, 2009

Early Summer (Bakushu, 1951), Yasujiro Ozu, Part I




English-language critics who ritually praise Yasujiro Ozu’s late period films (that is, those released between 1949 and 1962, the year before the director’s death) don’t always recognize that these works by the great Japanese master are not universally beloved, either inside or outside Japan. It’s generally not known, for instance, that the films (almost all of them silent) that Ozu made before fascism, in the late 1930s, tightened its grip on Japanese culture, are usually more racy -- and often more fun -- than the director’s later classics. There exist some experts (e.g., Noel Burch) who much prefer those earlier, livelier pictures to the more famous, postwar ones.

Furthermore, the generation of Japanese directors that came of age in the late 1950s tended to regard Ozu’s then-recent work with hostility. Because these men were all “war babies” – survivors of the Depression, Japan's military defeat and the American occupation -- and had attained maturity in a social reality utterly unlike the gentle world depicted in films like Late Spring (Banshun, 1949), it’s not hard to understand their point-of-view. Finally, there are American film fans that just don’t get Ozu: his world seems much too stylized, too rarefied, too unreal. So I happen to be an Ozu fan who can understand (up to a point) the position of at least some of the artist’s detractors.

To make the strongest possible case for this artist, I naturally turn to one of his greatest works from this late period: the 1951 masterpiece Early Summer (Bakushu). It is for me, of all Ozu’s films, the most artistically clever -- not an adjective usually associated with this artist. There is a deadpan slyness in the way the director introduces the question that drives the plot (who will Noriko (Setsuko Hara) choose to marry?) and also in the manner in which he conceals, until almost the very end of the film, the reason why that question is so crucial: the ability of the Mamiya family to survive intact depends absolutely upon Noriko’s choice.

The movie begins -- and even after the marriage plot is introduced, mostly proceeds -- as a series of loosely connected anecdotes, all written and staged as beautiful little set pieces. (This approach seems to me analogous to the way an actual family would experience and collect seemingly insignificant incidents to define its history.) But Ozu understands that all families, like all persons, are mortal, and after all the amusing little incidents, there occurs a single, decisive moment that will destroy the family forever. When, afterwards, Noriko announces to the others the identity of the man she has chosen to wed, she who has never wanted to hurt a soul suddenly realizes that it will now be impossible financially for her parents to stay in Tokyo. Yet she is too strong-willed to back down: she stubbornly insists on marital happiness for herself. The family’s none-too-subtle pressure on her to find a good husband, and quickly, has worked all too well.

In Early Summer, none of the characters die, but something just as important, from Ozu’s point-of-view, tragically ends: a happy family must be ruptured so that a new family, Noriko’s, can be born. This process is painful and sad, but also, as Ozu demonstrates, necessary and even beautiful. And Ozu’s highly artificial, even Mannerist, style paradoxically conveys both this pain and this beauty with a rare immediacy and power.

Friday, September 4, 2009

Visages d'enfants (Faces of Children) by Jacques Feyder




This wonderful 1925 film by the Belgian-born French master Jacques Feyder (best known for Carnival in Flanders, 1935) is set in an insular, devoutly Catholic Swiss village, where the young wife of the mayor (Victor Vina) has just died. The man’s very young daughter, Pierrette (Pierrette Houyer) is too innocent to comprehend the loss, but his somewhat older son, Jean (played by the remarkable Jean Forest) understands all too well, and is devastated.

As months go by, Jean’s grief seems only to grow, to the point where he begins to fetishize objects associated with his late mother
-- a portrait, a broach, a dress she once wore. He is thus understandably distressed to learn of his father’s plan to marry an amiable local widow (Rachel Devirys) with a daughter of her own named Arlette (Arlette Peyran). Being a decent boy, he resolves to make the best of the situation, but he can’t conquer the sense that to accept this mother would be to betray his “real” one. He reacts to his confused and contradictory feelings by conceiving a violent dislike for his new stepsister.

There follows a comedy of bad manners that any parent (or any child, for that matter) will instantly recognize as authentic. Jean and Arlette torment each other over innumerable matters great and small, and their mother and father, distracted by their responsibilities and by the necessary adjustments of a new marriage, cannot cope with the children’s growing enmity. As the war between the boy and girl escalates, the movie veers suddenly from dark domestic comedy to melodrama, with not one but two climaxes reminiscent of Griffith at his ripest.

Feyder impressively manages to pull off this radical change of tone. The filmmaker carries the audience with him because of his unsentimental honesty in the treatment of all the characters, but especially the children, with their petty spitefulness and sudden rages, as well as their equally unexpected moments of tenderness and loyalty. This very truthfulness may well have doomed the film during its initial run. But in its loving evocation of place and atmosphere (the film was shot largely on location in the mountainous Haut-Valais region of Switzerland), its scrupulous attention to detail and its psychological acuity, Faces of Children is a forerunner (and worthy peer) of the masterpieces of French poetic realism of the 1930s. Beautifully photographed by the great Léonce-Henry Burel, who would later work with Bresson, the picture includes a particularly startling shot of an avalanche… from the avalanche’s point-of-view. Available on DVD through Homevision (part of Rediscover Jacques Feyder: French Film Master). Silent, with English intertitles; orchestral score by A. Coppola. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faces_of_Children