Le repas

A sensitive look at an unhappy housewife, with fine performances by Setsuko Hara as the wife and Ken Uehara as the everyman schlub she's married to, and incisive dialogue and characterization by, among others, Nobel Prize winning novelist Yasunari Kawabata, this film ultimately succumbs to overly deliberate pacing, too many sub plots that go nowhere and add nada, a sexist ending that is an ode to wifely submission and a general sense, for me at least, that I'd rather be watching Ozu. Give it a B minus. PS...Coulda used more of the cat and less of Satoko.

Being a housewife in a working-class mews in Osaka has grown wearying for Setsuko Hara. Life with Ken Uehara is a dull routine of breakfast with him reading the newspaper, her scrubbing the house, and him coming home late to announce he's hungry. It all boils over when his flibbertigibbet niece, Yukiko Shimazaki, shows up. She has run away from home, rather than marry the rich man her parents have chosen. Uehara buys tickets to take them all on a Sunday outing. Setsuko stays home to scrub the tatami mats. She wants to run away to Tokyo and her mother. She decides not to. She's going to leave that night. Maybe she'll leave in the morning.

Mikio Naruse was one of the two principle directors of Shomin-Gekim dramas of the the working poor in Japan; the other was the revered Ozu, for whom Miss Hara often worked -- when Ozu died, she retired. Naruse's film looks far more like a conventional film than Ozu's -- moving shots, camera placement above the floor, and so forth -- but with this movie he tackles a story; Ozu may show the audience the working parts of his families -- because of their interchangeable casts, sometimes they all seem like the same family -- and how they work. His movies are group portraits. Naruse tackles the question of why they should work, why they should put up with the drudgery, and makes that voyage of self-discovery his film's story.

Bob

Unsubbed, so I cannot really review it properly. Setsuko Hara is radiant though quite bland as the housewife who gets fed up with her husbands deroutes, especially regarding his (rather innocent) adventures with a young niece. She moves back with her relatives, but once hubby shows up in a more humble state, all is forgiven. I don't think much else actually happened, but the film is given to describing the everyday tasks and problems rather than great melodrama. Although Ozu is hailed as the great Japanese director for the Japanese, it seems to me that Naruse's film are more effortlessly showing the natural life of Mr. and Mrs. Japan, while Ozu's often come across as more staged tableaux. This is likely because of the invariably fixed and central camera Ozu employs, which makes the room in which a scene takes place appear as a stage and the action strictly choreographed. Compared with Ozu Naruse's camera is quite more engaged, however subtle the movements and variations may be, and he makes more frequent use of semi-close ups and reaction shots.

Repast is the first of many films by Mikio Naruse to be based on the stories of Fumiko Hayashi, in this case on Hayashi's last unfinished novel. Repast is a family drama set in Osaka and Tokyo shortly after the end of World War II. Economic circumstances make life difficult for Michiyo, an Osaka housewife played by Ozu regular Setsuko Hara in an exceptionally nuanced performance. She has been married for five years and the dream of a better life has faded. Her husband Hatsunosuke (Ken Uehara) has a low paying job and her life consists only of the repetitive chores of cleaning, washing, and cooking with no promise of a better future, a fact that she draws constant attention to.

Michiyo is at first welcoming when Hatsunosuke's niece Satoko (Yukiko Shimazaki) comes to visit but soon becomes annoyed and jealous when her husband takes her on a tour of Osaka and pays an inordinate amount of attention to her charms. When her dissatisfaction becomes crystallized, she decides to return to Tokyo to visit her mother (Haruko Sugimura). She is torn between wanting to find a job and remaining separated or returning to her husband to continue with the struggle. She writes a letter to Hatsunosuke ostensibly to say she will not return but it is never mailed. The way her ambivalence is resolved will cause some consternation for modern day women's rights advocates, but seems appropriate under the circumstances and I left the theater feeling elated.

"Have you ever thought of what I'm feeling, living this life day after day? Is this what marriage means? I feel like a maid. I slave away all day long doing laundry and preparing meals."

There is a lovely bit of feminism in how this film shows how unfair traditional society is, with a woman expected to be subservient to a man's needs and put up with him staying out late getting drunk. Ironically, all of the friends of the wife (Setsuko Hara) tell her how lucky she must be being "happily married," while she suffers behind a smile or casting down her eyes. When they ask her what she talks about with him, she replies simply that she has a cat. While she carefully manages the household finances, he goes out and buys a fancy pair of shoes, seemingly oblivious. It's infuriating to watch, and when his spoiled niece (Yukiko Shimazaki) turns up looking for a place to stay, things get worse, as she now has two loafers around the house.

The scenes in Osaka that Naruse gives us are as beautiful as the two leading ladies, making the film a visual treat. There is also a depth of feeling to what Hara's character is going through, and that's what made the film for me. At the outset of the film she asks "I had hopes and dreams before. Where have they gone?" and "With a life restricted to the kitchen and the family room, must every woman grow old and die feeling empty?" It was liberating to see her take action and leave for Tokyo, not writing her husband (or sadly, being written to).

The husband (Ken Uehara) is a better person around his niece, and weirdly we see flirtation between the two, as well as a cousin of the wife's lightly hitting on her. They both know to draw the line at adultery though, and while the film is certainly showing the husband in a negative light, it seems to be saying more that these are two average, decent people in a marriage, and cautioning husbands to treat their wives better. Bravo for that, but at the same time, the "stand by your man" aspect definitely didn't work for me 70 years later. He's aware she's had a hard time, but not aware of his own role in that, and how he's taken her completely for granted. It makes for an unsatisfying finish, but for the things it was able to accomplish in 1951, I liked it.