User reviews

1st watched 5/16/2001 - 7 out of 10(Dir-Kon Ichikawa): Simple and sweet film about a child and his family from birth till his 2nd birthday. At times it makes you laugh(especially the voice-overs given to the child), at times those who have been parents understand exactly what the mother & father are going thru, and at other times it is thought-provoking. It makes you think about how you should always cherish children, knowing that they just learn from everything around them and grow without too much trouble. Very sentimental at times, but realistic. In the end, the child experiences life, pain, and death. A complete cycle in only 2 years and hopefully many years left. An irresistable film, and one of the most down-to-earth Japanese films that I've seen.

A little story about first time parents. Over-protective and naive family moves in with Mother-in-law who spoils the kid rotten. Kinda slow at times but has some cute moments.

Looking at Naruse and Ozu movies, you develop a clear idea of the relaxed yet focused way a Japanese family drama should be set up. Kon Ichikawa violates all those conceptions in this movie, with his parents all at sea and quarreling and his grandmother loving and autocratic, kind and cruel. The cinematic world of Naruse and Ozu had rules, and woe betide the mortal who did not bend before them, and stay bent. In Ichikawa's world -- in this movie, at any rate -- there are no rules, just chaos and trying to snatch some sense and happiness out of being the parent of a toddler --- or, indeed, of being a toddler.

That's in the world of this movie. Ichikawa is certainly much more sentimental than his elder film makers, with his moon that becomes a cartoon banana and then a boat. I'm not as fond of it, but I wouldn't argue with you if you asserted it was a matter of taste.

This film is your typical Japanese comedy, which is to say that not only is it not very funny but dispels what amusement it has early on so that by the end we are where I'm sure director Kon Ichikawa intended us to be all along, firmly implanted at the intersection of sad and serious. And if the above assessment seems unduly harsh then how to account for the jettisoning, halfway through the film, of the one truly inspired comic trope, the wry and perceptive two year old narrator? It is almost as if Ichikawa and his wife/scenarist Natto Wada heard actual laughter and were frightened by it. C plus.

It's hard to believe that this semi-precursor of the ultra-popular, silly "Look Who's Talking" films of Amy Heckerling was directed by the same man who made the cannibals-at-war classic "Fires On the Plain." The title of the film says it all. It's about the trials and tribulations of a young Japanese couple as they try to maintain an even-tempred good humor while raising a two year old son, first in an apartment and then in a traditional Japanese house. It's also a film about the way Taro, their doll-like two year old boy, sees things. The generation gap that was the subject of so many Japanese films of the '50s and '60s is also well represented when Taro's mom gets her mother-in-law involved in raising the child and she tries to assert her own ways of doing things in a somewhat slyly condescending way. Of course, all this would be nothing but facile cuteness if it wasn't for Ichikawa's superb visual sense and poetic way of telling the story. Every shot in the film is gorgeous in itself, but it's the understated sophistication and wry humor with which they're edited that makes the film special. A good way to know if a film has 'poetic' potential is to watch it twice to see if it's even better the second time around; most films aren't. The third time you watch "Being Two Isn't Easy" you'll realize that it's like a transcendent piece of music, it flows so right and so dreamlike that it seems to contain everything in the world within its simple storyline; it just keeps pulling you deeper into its beautifully realized cinematic economy. It may be a little too cute for some people, but for me Ichikawa's ode to babies and parents is basically as timeless and inexhaustible a visual poem, albeit on a much smaller scale, as his famous film of the Tokyo Olympiad.

The only real disappointment with this film is that I will probably never get to see this on DVD. I want to own it so badly now.

I was tremendously impressed with this film when I saw it for the first time at the Ichikawa retrospective in Vancouver tonight. It reminded me of another favourite film of mine, Yasujiro Ozu's Good Morning.

I Am Two revolves around a Japanese nuclear family (husband, wife, and small child) and their trials and tribulations. There's no hard plot here, just vignettes of life taking place over the course of 9 - 12 months (the time span is never made very clear, but that is probably an accurate estimate).

The film is told from the pseudo-perspective of a one year old (who turns two at film's end). I say pseudo, because Kon doesn't inflict childlike camera angles on us throughout the film. Instead he relies on narration by the child, mainly to introduce new characters to us from his perspective and to introduce new plot points, again from the child's perspective.

The film has a similar pace to Good Morning, similar character interactions, and similar themes (i.e. the loss of traditional Japanese values as the pace of change accelerates). It doesn't benefit from Ozu's use of colour, but neither is it a fault of the film. I Am Two is not Good Morning, but you could consider them first cousins, both of which have a great deal of charm.

Like Good Morning there is oblique social commentary, but it is never in your face. If you recognize it, then so be it, the film seems to suggest. If you miss it, then so be it also. Both films recognize changes in Japanese society, but neither film passes judgement on those changes.

One of the interesting aspects of the film is the opening ... it details the birth of Taro, narrated by Taro, and from Taro's "blurry, ill-defined" perspective.

If this retrpspective passes through your town, this is one I VERY VERY HIGHLY recommend. It is a must see. And I would love someone (preferably Criterion) to put it out on DVD.