Jeunes filles japonaises sur le port

Fine camera work and beautiful costumes, but a rather melodramatic story. In it one love triangle is replaced with another, and the second time it's between old friends, so there's an extra level of emotional tension. I liked how the film moved itself along with decent pace, though the lack of an explanation after a shooting felt like too big a jump, and bringing back a character late in the film unnecessarily contrived, so the plotting is not particularly strong. On the other hand, moments like the jump cuts while zooming in and out during emotional scenes were fantastic, and the heartbreak of unrequited love felt genuine. Shimizu has an eye for contemplative beauty, and gives it to us in things like the ships passing in the harbor below, or the laundry hanging out on the line in the wind.

There seems to be something to the friends being played by mixed-race actresses, other character names like Henry and Yoko Sheridan reflecting intermarriage as well, and the apparel often being western, but if so, it didn't come with a moralistic message that was heavy-handed, e.g. Westernization is evil. Similarly, the film depicts "fallen" women, but it felt mostly sympathetic to them. It seemed like a cautionary tale about being virtuous amidst modernization, and it's pretty gentle about illustrating this, coming across as a humanistic work. Definitely makes me want to see more from Shimizu.

Underwhelming character development. Sometimes confusing, as characters are introduced almost haphazardly. Good example for how ellipses are used ineffectively; causing more confusion than necessary. It seems that intertitles were used when not necessary to tell rather than show ("Read her diary to find out"), where other times where it actually would have cleared some things up for the audience (huge gaps in time with no explanation, such as why suddenly Dora is now married and pregnant with Henry), Shimizu inexplicably chooses not to show or tell anything.

Nevertheless, gorgeously captured with seaside landscapes and creative cinematography and shot choices. The piano soundtrack had mixed results, at times an unwelcome distraction, however melodious on its own. Overall decent story, but for the aforementioned reasons, the execution was lacking.

Director Shimizu's later works are far superior. Audience members should give those a chance before this one, lest they be left with an impression unbefitting to this highly talented and prolific master.

Although the movie was made in 1933, the visuals are shockingly contemporary. In some ways the streets are cleaner and in better order than the streets of present day Yokohama. Aren't we supposed to be evolving ? I don't see any sign of that in terms of beauty of the city and the behavior of the people in this movie.

I don't know much about the film's director, but I understand that he's supposed to be one of the greats of early Japanese cinema. I can see that. There's sharpness, and vivid quality to every scene. It's almost breath taking.

Some things changes while others remain timeless. I got to reevaluate my life's value after watching this movie. So many things that I thought were important now looks silly. The people in this movie have already lived it.

Great movie to put your life into perspective, and behold at how advanced it was in 1933. With a little change in clothing and furniture, it's exactly like the life we live today.

The director of this movie had an impeccable taste.

...this time from director Hiroshi Shimizu. Sunako (Michiko Oikawa) is a teenage girl in the port city of Yokohama. When she discovers that her older boyfriend is seeing another woman, Sunako commits a terrible act and leaves the city. After years of drifting about, she returns to Yokohama as a bar hostess and reconnects with her old boyfriend, who has married Sunako's former best friend in the interim. Heartbreak naturally ensues.

Director Shimizu indulges in a number of camera tricks, like rapid tracking shots, fast-edit zoom ins, and having characters dissolve likes ghosts when leaving a scene. While many of these gimmicks are eye-catching, they don't do anything to add to the meager, routine plot. A distinct lack of characterization in the script makes discerning who's who a chore for the film's first half hour, which is bad in a one hour movie. The coastal scenery and some decent performances from Shochiku regulars save this from being a loss, though. (

The Japanese film industry during the 1930s was quite different from Hollywood. While the American movie producers had switched over to sound by about 1929 (afer the first talking picture in 1927), Japan and much of the world continued making silents for some time. In fact, up until almost 1940, Japanese films were still silents. In addition, some old film techniques (such as the stationary camera used by Ozu up until the 1960s) lingered. I mention all this because I understand the context for 1930s Japanese films and have watched about a dozen or two. However, even compared to these other films, "Minato No Nihon Musume" is a very, very old fashioned film...and I don't see the genius that some other reviewers have mentioned. Technically speaking, the film was very badly dated when it debuted. The biggest problem is the incredibly detached style of storytelling (and yes, I know that this was not all that unusual for Japanese films)--because of this it loses so much of its emotional impact and is dull when the film had a story that NEVER should have been dull. Instead of telling the story in a traditional narrative, the story is laid out in vignettes that are framed with intertitle cards that describe what is about to occur...which was great for 1910....but certainly not the best or most interesting ways to tell any story.

As for the story, it's all about a woman who is used by a jerk named 'Henry' and the consequences (both immediate and long-term). I cannot complain too much that the 'foreigner' Henry clearly is NOT a westerner but a Japanese man. This is because at the same time, Hollywood was featuring the Swede, Warner Oland, as Charlie Chan! In fact, having westerners play Asians was the norm for decades...so Henry's poor casting can be understood in its context. Plus, perhaps no western actors were even readily available for the part. Regardless, the story idea isn't bad...but is just not executed in a way that makes for interesting viewing.