Screen Test

The other night, I was asked whether I prefer Ozu or Kurosawa.  I'm a big fan of both directors.  I've been a Kurosawa fan for over twenty years, since being amazed by "Ran" on the big screen.  Not longafter, I saw "Throne of Blood" in one of my film classes.  Just prior to coming to Japan, I watched nearly every one of his films over a couple months.  Ozu I came to later.  I remember being bored by "Tokyo Monogatari" a year or two into my stay here.  I've since changed my position.  This past year, I've seen all of his post-war films, and have come to love his slow and steady pace.  His films have become a Sunday night tradition,  pleasant as a warm bath.

So coming back to the original question. How to answer?  I've begun to watch Kurosawa again this winter, and aside from "Seven Samurai," which may be my favorite film of all time, I find his stories to be a little over the top sometimes.  I don't love him any less; just that I find his hyperbole tiring.  Like spending time with a talkative friend, enjoyable yet....  Last weekend I watched "Dodeskaden' again, a film I didn't enjoy very much 15 years ago.  I think less of it today.  Granted, I'm watching these old films with 2008 eyes, eyes that are subject to change.  But lately, my criteria for disliking a film is based on there being more drama than characterization.  I found "Dodeskden" to fail miserably here.  Supposedly a character study, the stories are overwrought.  It's a film of all peaks and no valleys.  Then it hit me.  It had no "ma."  This simple concept (or lack of concept) is what makes a work of art Japanese.  Ozu's films are "filled" with ma.  Aside from his half dozen or so best films, Kurosawa's works lack it somewhat.  Which is bizarre because to most, his films represent Japanese cinema worldwide.

On the turntable:  The Waterboys, "The Best..."

On the reel table:  "Room 666"  (Wenders, 1982)