Labelling something 'the best ever' or even a more moderated 'one of the best...' is surely asking for trouble? But in the case of TOKYO STORY it would be difficult to imagine the film causing any kind of trouble at all as this very measured, courteous movie is such an inoffensive and charming offering. However it's not, in my view, anything remotely like 'the best ever'. It's a nice little film, in it's way, but I do wonder why on earth it has developed such a huge reputation? It's sad, it's endearing, it's sometimes rather beautiful and it's melancholic almost throughout, but it's also very predictable;nothing remotely unexpected happens, one can see things being flagged up well in advance. It's very slow and made in a very tightly confined way which hasn't really influenced subsequent movies half as much as some people would like to think.So what makes it considered "one of the best"?
It's not the story which is spare and not very entertaining in itself,although the character development is good. We do get to know the people involved even if many a motive seems to remain mysterious at the end. It's not the camera work which is rigidly static, creating the impression of interlinked paintings through which the protagonists wander, rather carefully. The familiar Ozu stylisations; the low set camera, the unfamiliar looks almost straight-to-camera when speaking, make it a slightly unsettling film to watch initially, although one soon becomes used to them. Perhaps it's the location work, which is appealing,in a reserved and understated way? Japan in the mid 50s seems far more exotic and unfamiliar than it would today , but that's true of almost any developed country. Twenty first century England no longer resembles the country depicted in Ealing Comedies of the same era. And the acting is a conundrum. Cultural differences in speech patterns and body language make it hard to compare what we see here with what we are familiar with in the western world. Certainly the father-figure seems to move and speak in such a painfully slow and deliberate way (except when drunk!) that one really begins to wonder how naturalistic his acting is. Are we seeing something comparable to Brando's 'method' or to Olivier's Shakespearian style? I think one needs to be very familiar with Japanese language and culture to fully understand and appreciate that aspect. He's a nice old boy but he might well be a terrible actor.
It's certainly not the music that makes this film special as it's neither evocative nor memorable, so I'm at a loss. CITIZEN KANE, which often shares this most elevated of critical pedestals with TOKYO STORY, clearly has cast a much
longer shadow over the development of cinema and while it's chock-full of innovative moments and methods TOKYO STORY seems rather a stylistic cul- de-sac from which one can find very little in subsequent movies. It's not a bad movie, but it is one which I'd fine it hard to sit through a second time.
It's not the story which is spare and not very entertaining in itself,although the character development is good. We do get to know the people involved even if many a motive seems to remain mysterious at the end. It's not the camera work which is rigidly static, creating the impression of interlinked paintings through which the protagonists wander, rather carefully. The familiar Ozu stylisations; the low set camera, the unfamiliar looks almost straight-to-camera when speaking, make it a slightly unsettling film to watch initially, although one soon becomes used to them. Perhaps it's the location work, which is appealing,in a reserved and understated way? Japan in the mid 50s seems far more exotic and unfamiliar than it would today , but that's true of almost any developed country. Twenty first century England no longer resembles the country depicted in Ealing Comedies of the same era. And the acting is a conundrum. Cultural differences in speech patterns and body language make it hard to compare what we see here with what we are familiar with in the western world. Certainly the father-figure seems to move and speak in such a painfully slow and deliberate way (except when drunk!) that one really begins to wonder how naturalistic his acting is. Are we seeing something comparable to Brando's 'method' or to Olivier's Shakespearian style? I think one needs to be very familiar with Japanese language and culture to fully understand and appreciate that aspect. He's a nice old boy but he might well be a terrible actor.
It's certainly not the music that makes this film special as it's neither evocative nor memorable, so I'm at a loss. CITIZEN KANE, which often shares this most elevated of critical pedestals with TOKYO STORY, clearly has cast a much
longer shadow over the development of cinema and while it's chock-full of innovative moments and methods TOKYO STORY seems rather a stylistic cul- de-sac from which one can find very little in subsequent movies. It's not a bad movie, but it is one which I'd fine it hard to sit through a second time.