Tôkyô no kôrasu

A well-to-do employee of an insurance firm gets a handsome bonus only to get fired for standing up for a laid-off co-worker; his stay-at-home wife, son and daughter (a very young but no less adorable Hideko Takamine) all must contend with the effects of his unemployment. This could very well be re-titled I WORKED, BUT... as it has the same eclectic mix of tones found in that "trilogy", this time ranging from the wistfully ruminative to the starkly violent to the hilariously scatalogical. The film also continues the major theme that preoccupied Ozu at this time, employment as a determinant of social status and self-esteem, while also pointing to the dichotomy of home life vs. office life and how children view their parents which would be explored further in I WAS BORN BUT... It is wonderful to witness the sheer range of devices Ozu employs, from tracking shots to keyhole iris shots, generous helpings of physical slapstick and odd assorted throwaway moments that reveal characters in quirky, intimate ways. With its freewheeling technique examining the foibles and fissures of Japanese society from all angles, this is a major example of the young, robust Ozu at his best.

In "Tokyo Chorus", Ozu interplays two major of his long-standing themes - economic status and the everyday realities of family life.

The plot is simple (warning, spoilers): A young salary-man loses his white-collar insurance job trying to cover for an aging colleague. Unfortunately, it is 1931 and the Great Depression means few other employment opportunities. He has difficulty covering the expenses of his family. After misadventures, he runs into his former professor-now-health-food-café-owner who promises him aid if the young man assists him with the café. Part of that assistance is handing out handbills in the street, a major loss of economic and personal status. Unfortunately, his wife sees him and is greatly shamed by the family's loss of status. Gradually, she accepts the need for sacrifice and also begins to assist in the café. During the large opening banquet at the café (guaranting it's success), the old professor receives word that the young man has been offered a teaching post, albeit one in a small and distant town. The movie ends on this hopeful yet downbeat note.

Ozu does not hesitate to attempt to show us the realities of Great Depression unemployment. Indeed, he is more truthful than any comparable American movie of that time or ours. Ozu is willing to attempt to dig into the nexus between employment, self-identity and status that is prevalent throughout capitalist economies. This was his primary theme at the beginning of the Depression, in this movie along with his early masterpiece "I Was Born, But..." and "Where Now are the Dreams of Youth?" and "Passing Fancy". In addition, Ozu also flexes his unparalleled ability with family scenes. Excellent performances from Ozu regulars Tokihiko Okada, Emiko Yagumo, Tatsuo Saito, as well as a winning child performance from future star Hideko Takamine. Watch out for the world's cutest fat baby!

"Tokyo story" is another silent movie of Yasujiro Ozu, of witch "I was born ... but" (1932) is the most well known.

Just like "I was born ... but" "Tokyo chorus" is about young parents and young children. In later years Ozu would concentrate more on the relationship between adult children and elderly parents. The obvious explanation would be that the stage of life of Ozu himself was leading in the choice of his subject. Given that Ozu was a bachelor all his life this explanation is however not true.

Just like "I was born ... but" "Tokyo chorus" is about shame with the employment of the father. In this case however it are not the children who feel the shame but the wife. Moreover in "Tokyo chorus" the "inferior" employment of the father is the result of his solidarity with an older colleague which was treated unfair. With this solidarity he showed his courage (unlike his other colleagues) but ultimately he only achieved that he was fired as well.

In Western eyes this gives the film a certain social engagement. Not very typical for Ozu! I wonder however if Ozu really meant it this way. In the beginning of the film we see that the main character was a rebel in his student years. In in between shots we see images of laundry drying in the sun. Another (more Japanese?) interptretation is that the main character is immature at the beginning of the film, insufficiently aware of his responsibilities as a father (symbolized by landry drying in the sun). Only through misfortune (of his own making) he finally grows up.

Whatever the interpretation, already in 1931 the style of Ozu was taking form, both regarding subject (family life) as regarding style (the use of in between shots).

The more time goes on in Ozu's career, the more purely Ozu his films feel, even when he's making a dramatic comedy that takes place mostly outside the house. It's a combination of small moments and the overall dramatic push of the film that give Ozu this unique feel of quietly embracing the smallness of everyday life, not seeing it as a bad thing but something to be celebrated in its own little ways. It's life-affirming and warm, and it's a wonderful way to spend 90 minutes.

Shinji (Tokihiko Okada) is a young professional, fresh out of college, and dealing with a family that includes his eldest son (Hideo Sugawara) who wants a bicycle like all of his other friends. Shinji promises him that bicycle with his bonus money, which should be coming that very day. However, Shinji gets into an argument with the company president about Yamada (Takeshi Sakamoto), an elderly employee who's being let go a year before his pension kicks in because of a mistake he made. The argument spirals, and Shinji gets fired. The rest of the movie is the little things Shinji has to do to break the news to his family and make ends meet. His wife, Sugako (Emiko Yagumo) loves him, but she's very Japanese and can't stand to see her husband lose face. So, when he takes a job helping his old professor, Omura (Tatsuo Saito), market his restaurant by parading around with a flag and handing out flyers, she's embarrassed at his status.

Where the joy comes in this is in the small moments. First, there's the light comedy that Ozu liked to sprinkle through his films. The early parts of the film are dominated by the office with the workers getting their bonuses, but Japanese culture encourages privacy on pay matters while also being filled with curious people. So, it becomes this dance as people take their bonus check envelopes and try to open them in private. The comic height is one opening his envelope in the bathroom and accidentally spilling the bills into the urinal.

Then there are the human moments. Shinji, on one of his many walks looking for work before running into Omura, finds Yamada handing out insurance advertising bills on the street. They sit down in a park and start to talk about life. There's suddenly frantic word about a bear having escaped nearby, but Shinji doesn't stir from his spot. Instead, he says, a bear won't save their lives. So, Yamada sits back down, and they continue to talk with the two barely moving. It's about embracing those small moments in life and enjoying them with people. That gets mirrored later with Shinji and his family. Penniless and without hope for work, he sits down at home and starts a game with his children, sitting in a circle and singing a song. There are smiles all around, even from Sugako, and life moves on.

Of course, there's an ending to this where Shinji's prospects brighten instead of darken through all of his suffering and efforts, and it's the kind of warm thing I'd expect from an Ozu film. However, it can't all be roses and cocktails. Shinji's efforts to help Omura's restaurant included bringing back all of his classmates to help, and Omura is faced with losing his students once again. It's all just played on faces, and it works surprisingly well.

My only problem with it is that Omura, aside from a brief appearance in essentially a prologue, didn't appear in the film until about an hour in. And most of his scenes are played for laughs (them bickering about who has to hold the heavy flags is amusing). So, the impact isn't that strong.

Also, like most of Ozu's comedies, they're not that funny. They're amusing. They have a nice feel as people navigate comedic situations, but they're not Keaton's death-defying stunts or Chaplin's intricately choreographed setpieces. His movies work best in their quiet moments, but it seems obvious to me that while Ozu was doing everything to make these films his own, he was still a cog in a studio machine, making films in genres he could manage but wasn't naturally inclined to make himself. So, he does the assignment well, but the really interesting stuff is where he can bend the film to his whims most. The precursors to the films that made him famous in the 40s and 50s. He might not have been blooming just yet, but Ozu's films were showing serious potential for growth while entertaining in mostly slight ways at the same time.

This Ozu guy...he's REALLY good at this movie making thing. The more time goes on in Ozu's career, the more purely Ozu his films feel, even when he's making a dramatic comedy that takes place mostly outside the house. It's a combination of small moments and the overall dramatic push of the film that give Ozu this unique feel of quietly embracing the smallness of everyday life, not seeing it as a bad thing but something to be celebrated in its own little ways. It's life-affirming and warm, and it's a wonderful way to spend 90 minutes.

Shinji (Tokihiko Okada) is a young professional, fresh out of college, and dealing with a family that includes his eldest son (Hideo Sugawara) who wants a bicycle like all of his other friends. Shinji promises him that bicycle with his bonus money, which should be coming that very day. However, Shinji gets into an argument with the company president about Yamada (Takeshi Sakamoto), an elderly employee who's being let go a year before his pension kicks in because of a mistake he made. The argument spirals, and Shinji gets fired. The rest of the movie is the little things Shinji has to do to break the news to his family and make ends meet. His wife, Sugako (Emiko Yagumo) loves him, but she's very Japanese and can't stand to see her husband lose face. So, when he takes a job helping his old professor, Omura (Tatsuo Saito), market his restaurant by parading around with a flag and handing out flyers, she's embarrassed at his status.

Where the joy comes in this is in the small moments. First, there's the light comedy that Ozu liked to sprinkle through his films. The early parts of the film are dominated by the office with the workers getting their bonuses, but Japanese culture encourages privacy on pay matters while also being filled with curious people. So, it becomes this dance as people take their bonus check envelopes and try to open them in private. The comic height is one opening his envelope in the bathroom and accidentally spilling the bills into the urinal.

Then there are the human moments. Shinji, on one of his many walks looking for work before running into Omura, finds Yamada handing out insurance advertising bills on the street. They sit down in a park and start to talk about life. There's suddenly frantic word about a bear having escaped nearby, but Shinji doesn't stir from his spot. Instead, he says, a bear won't save their lives. So, Yamada sits back down, and they continue to talk with the two barely moving. It's about embracing those small moments in life and enjoying them with people. That gets mirrored later with Shinji and his family. Penniless and without hope for work, he sits down at home and starts a game with his children, sitting in a circle and singing a song. There are smiles all around, even from Sugako, and life moves on.

Of course, there's an ending to this where Shinji's prospects brighten instead of darken through all of his suffering and efforts, and it's the kind of warm thing I'd expect from an Ozu film. However, it can't all be roses and cocktails. Shinji's efforts to help Omura's restaurant included bringing back all of his classmates to help, and Omura is faced with losing his students once again. It's all just played on faces, and it works surprisingly well.

My only problem with it is that Omura, aside from a brief appearance in essentially a prologue, didn't appear in the film until about an hour in. And most of his scenes are played for laughs (them bickering about who has to hold the heavy flags is amusing). So, the impact isn't that strong.

Also, like most of Ozu's comedies, they're not that funny. They're amusing. They have a nice feel as people navigate comedic situations, but they're not Keaton's death-defying stunts or Chaplin's intricately choreographed setpieces. His movies work best in their quiet moments, but it seems obvious to me that while Ozu was doing everything to make these films his own, he was still a cog in a studio machine, making films in genres he could manage but wasn't naturally inclined to make himself. So, he does the assignment well, but the really interesting stuff is where he can bend the film to his whims most. The precursors to the films that made him famous in the 40s and 50s. He might not have been blooming just yet, but Ozu's films were showing serious potential for growth while entertaining in mostly slight ways at the same time.

This Ozu guy...he's REALLY good at this movie making thing.

Tokihiko Okada is a salaryman at an insurance company in Tokyo. He has a wife, Emiko Yagumo, a son, a daughter (played by Hideko Takamine) and a baby. Money is tight, but a bonus is coming his way. Unfortunately for him, a fellow worker is fired in a manner that suggests the boss wants him gone before his pension vests. Okada goes to speak to the boss, gets into a shoving match with him, and is fired himself.

At first it seems that it will be a matter of picking up a new job, but he soon finds himself one of the "Tokyo Chorus" of the unemployed. Matters grow worse and worse...

This movie starts out as a comedy, with Physical Education teacher Tatsuo Saitô terrorizing his students -- including Okada -- like a cop in a Hal Roach comedy writing tickets. As the movie goes on, the tone begins to take on a more serious tone, with outbursts of real problems -- like when Miss Takamine has to go to the hospital -- amidst the comedy, which grows ever more wan. When Okada goes to work for his former teacher, handing out leaflets advertising his restaurant, his wife sees him doing so, and is humiliated; Okada, who starts this movie like Harold Lloyd trying to keep up with the Joneses, has crashed through the floor of the educated middle class, into the lower class; this is not America, where he can be redeemed and restored, but Japan, where appearances are more important than the reality. This is no longer a comedy, but a tragedy.

The print I saw on TCM was certainly not pristine; the titles were worn, and there was extensive chipping. The story was also far more episodic than fluid. This is not the Ozu of the 1950s, but a different one, with slapstick and tracking shots. These last points raise an issue I have been thinking of. Ozu is famous for the way he directed his later movies: long, still takes shot from floor level. Why the change? The late introduction of sound movies into Japan meant that the problems of moving cameras had been solved by the time Ozu made his first sound feature in 1936. He only gradually abandoned tracking shots, and was still using them as late as 1949.

I have concluded that a good movie is composed of story, character, incident and camerawork, and as Ozu entered the 1950s, he settled firmly on character and the interactions between them as his interest. With his often-repeated plots, his people's relationships were the stuff that fascinated him and his audience. Incident (in the form of slapstick comedy) and camera movement were matters that distracted viewers from the people, and made it too easy for them. By removing the overt comedy, Ozu removed the distraction. By removing the camera movement, he made his audience work harder at understanding the characters, which invested them in the process

Anyway, that's my understanding at the moment. What's yours?