Daily Archives: Sunday, October 25, 2015

  • An Autumn Afternoon

    Sanma no aji

    Yasujiro Ozu (1962)

    An Autumn Afternoon centres on a widowed father and on the marriage of his daughter, who keeps house for him.   So do several other Yasujiro Ozu films, including the famous Late Spring (1949).    The programme note for the BFI screening of An Autumn Afternoon comprised an extract from Ozu and the Poetics of Cinema (1988) by David Bordwell, probably the best known Western writer on Japanese film.  Bordwell, who stresses the recurring themes and style of Ozu’s work, sees this, the director’s last film, as ‘another manifestation of an aesthetic system whose rigour, breadth of detail, and suppleness of variation give it a simplicity and richness unparalleled in the history of the cinema’.   The claim that Bordwell makes for Ozu’s work is huge but not eccentric:  he is widely revered as one of the greatest of all directors – and as a film-maker whose unchanging preoccupations and familiar technique are seen to enhance his standing.  The domestic and familial focus of Ozu’s films appeals to me (much more than the typical subjects of Akira Kurosawa) and An Autumn Afternoon is an interesting human drama – I preferred it to Tokyo Story, which is supposed to be Ozu’s masterpiece.  But I’m still puzzled as to why either of these films is so very highly rated.

    Shuhei Hirayama (Chishu Ryu) is a city office worker (I assumed the story was set in Tokyo) and a father of three.  His daughter Michiko (Shima Iwashita), now twenty-four, is the middle child; her younger brother Kazuo (Shinichiro Mikami) also still lives at home.  The elder son Koichi (Keiji Sada) is married to Akiko (Mariko Okada) – a forthright young woman, not inclined to accept traditional female subservience in the home.  (She’s determined in her campaign for mod cons like a decent refrigerator and the so far childless couple practise birth control.)  The prospect of Michiko’s marriage sharpens her father’s awareness of losses he has already experienced.  A chance encounter with Sakamoto (Daisuke Kato), a younger man who served on the ship that he captained during World War II, takes Hirayama to a bar to which he later returns several times.  The name of the place is Tory’s Bar; labels on the bottles inside also bear English names and the woman (Kaiko Kishida) who runs the bar has a Westernised hairstyle and wardrobe; but she reminds Hirayama of his late wife and she’s happy to play for her customers a record of the patriotic ‘Battleship March’.  It’s Hirayama’s old school friend Shuzo Kawai (Nobuo Nakamura) who first advises him that Michiko should wed and suggests a suitable partner through an arranged marriage.  (I missed whether Kawai and his wife (Kuniko Miyaki) had female children and, if so, whether they were married.)  Hirayama isn’t at first inclined to agree but Kawai’s advice is given impetus through a school reunion, which includes not only Hirayama, Kawai and three other friends but also Sakuma (Eijiro Tono), their old Chinese classics teacher, nicknamed the Gourd, whom the other men haven’t seen since he taught them as teenagers.  Sakuma has too much to drink at the reunion dinner; when Hirayama and Kawai take him home, they discover that Sakuma now lives in a working-class area where, having fallen on hard times, he runs a noodle shop.  He shares his home with his spinster daughter Tomoko (Haruko Sugimura), who is now too old to be married.   Although the Gourd’s social decline may not, to a Western audience, be an obvious consequence of his failure to get his daughter married, a Japanese viewer may see (or have seen) this differently:  perhaps because Sakuma is left with no one but his single daughter he’s deprived himself of an extended family and closed off the possibilities of them providing him with material comforts in his old age.   (If not, I didn’t understand why Hirayama was so strongly affected by the Gourd’s situation.)

    One of the strongest moments in An Autumn Afternoon occurs when, in Tory’s Bar, Sakamoto regrets the outcome of World War II and the Americanisation of Japanese society; he muses on how things would have been if Japan had won, imagines New Yorkers playing the samisen as they chew gum.   ‘Perhaps it’s as well we lost’, Hirayama drily replies.  (The moment is strong because it suggests that Hirayama’s regret for the past is more nuanced and self-aware than you’d realised.)  Although the story of An Autumn Afternoon might not easily translate to an American setting either, some of its themes could conceivably have been used by an American or European film-maker:  nostalgia for a youth that included a happy marriage and the purposefulness of military action; selfish determination to preserve domestic routine in the face of advancing age and otherwise irresistible change.  You know, however, that if an American drama of the early 1960s had addressed themes of this kind, it would likely have been considered obvious, however artfully the themes were realised, by some of the cinephiles who do homage to Ozu.   Why is this?  Perhaps it has something to do with the definite conventions of Japanese domestic and social life (or, at least, the impression of them that Western audiences get from Japanese cinema).  Perhaps the complex quality of these conventions persuades Westerners that Ozu’s dramatic exploration of them is correspondingly rich:  not only are the conventions fascinatingly different; their formality and salience, almost paradoxically, may help to convince a Western eye that the director’s treatment of them is not obvious.  And perhaps it’s not surprising that Ozu’s idiosyncratic camera style – the lack of movement, the ‘tatami’ level of the viewpoint – is considered great artistry:  it goes with the set patterns of the world that he typically describes.

    Audible appreciation isn’t the only kind but the biggest laughs in NFT3 during An Autumn Afternon came when the Gourd keeled over drunk and when Hirayama and Kawai joked with their friend Horie (Ryuji Kita), who’s recently married a much younger woman (Michiyo Kan), about his taking tablets to keep up with her in bed.  I’m not sure I see the difference between finding things like this funny in Ozu and in a Carry On film.  Attempts to marry Michiko to Koichi’s work colleague Miura (Teruo Yoshida), whom Michiko finds attractive, fail when it turns out he’s already engaged; a little later, Hirayama himself is on the receiving end of ribbing by his friends as Kawai and Horie pretend that the next candidate – the one originally recommended by Kawai – is also now spoken for, thanks to Hirayama’s procrastination.   I wasn’t clear of the story’s timeframe but it didn’t seem to me that Hirayama, although he’s troubled by the prospect (and, eventually, by the fact) of his daughter’s marriage, kept trying to delay things.  Besides, Michiko herself has mixed feelings about leaving the family home.  I was unsure too how seriously the viewer was meant to take Hirayama’s fears of loneliness, particularly in view of the Gourd’s circumstances, which Hirayama appears to see as a fate worse than the loss of a daughter-housekeeper.  I suppose I took it that Hirayama’s apprehension of loneliness was, like his nostalgia, ambivalent.

    In spite of occasional suggestions made by characters in the film that the Japan they think they remember is disappearing, Ozu doesn’t appear to share their concerns about Americanisation.  I had thought that Koichi’s desire for a set of golf clubs and Kawai’s plans to attend a baseball match implied otherwise but it turns out that both sports were well established in Japan long before the post-World War II period of American occupation.  The domestic appliances that Akiko envies in a neighbour’s apartment – the fridge, the vacuum cleaner, the television – are a broader comment on contemporary consumerism.   At one point, Akiko brings back hamburgers, to add to a supper that  her husband has started preparing, but Japanese cuisine dominates in a film that contains a good deal of eating and even more drinking.  The original title means ‘The Taste of Mackerel Pike’.  (I assume this is a reference to the fish that the Gourd particularly enjoys at the reunion with his ex-students although the subtitles on the film that I watched referred to ‘perch’.)   The fact that its English title links the film much more closely to earlier ones by Ozu – in chronological order of release: Late Spring, Early Summer, Early Spring, Late Autumn, The End of Summer – seems to suggest a desire in the West to take every opportunity to unify his oeuvre.

    As Hirayama, the Ozu regular Chishu Ryu is a strong and very likeable presence who holds the film together.   At least, I found him so once I’d learned how to read his facial expressions – I never managed to put these expressions and Ryu’s reading of lines together and the same was true of virtually all the other members of the cast.  Although my knowledge of present day Japanese cinema hardly extends beyond the work of Hirokazu Kore-eda, I’ve now seen enough of the latter’s films to know that I can make sense of what the actors in them are doing.   This naturally prompts two questions.  Is the acting style in Ozu films outdated?  Is the playing in Kore-eda’s films an illustration of how another Japanese tradition has become Westernised?   If the answer to the second question is yes, I must admit to finding this the acceptable face – and voice – of cultural imperialism.

    16 May 2014

  • Happiness

    Todd Solondz (1998)

    There’s something that makes me feel guilty about finding a film as determinedly misanthropic as this one so enjoyable – but the writer-director Todd Solondz manages to sustain horrifying and funny at the same time, and the two things have amazing traction.   Besides, the misanthropy isn’t of the condescending, Coen-esque variety; the people in Happiness are mostly propelled by desire inflected with pain or guilt or both.  This makes it hard for members of the audience (this one anyway) to be detached from their vices and perversions – and the impeccable cast certainly isn’t.   The film’s title is, of course, ironic and so is the name of the character who feels like the central one:  Joy, the eldest of the three Jordan sisters.  In the opening sequence, Joy (Jane Adams) is having a romantic dinner with a lumpy, unprepossessing admirer called Andy (Jon Lovitz) and her uncomfortable rejection of him is excruciatingly hesitant and protracted.  (He later commits suicide.)  The youngest sister is Helen (Lara Flynn Boyle), a writer whose sex life is as relentlessly – and, to her, unsatisfyingly – successful as her literary career.  The middle sister Trish (Cynthia Stevenson) is a housewife and mother of three, securely married to a psychiatrist called Bill (Dylan Baker).  We first see Bill at work, trying to keep awake as he listens to a man called Allen (Philip Seymour Hoffman), whom we’ve already watched making obscene phone calls in the bedroom of his dingy apartment, explaining how boring he feels he is.  It might be assumed from this that Bill is going to have a straight man role but in his next appearance, on his way home, he buys some magazines with pictures of boys in them and promptly wanks off in his parked car.

    In the course of the picture, Bill translates his paedophile fantasies into action but this makes him, in the world of Happiness, an exception:  the long odds against sexually fulfilling relationships are a persistent theme.  Several of the characters are desperate for sex but run a mile whenever it threatens:  they seem to be sustained by the certainty of their imaginings getting no further than the inside of their heads.  When anyone phones Allen back, he hangs up.  He has specific fantasies about Helen, who (implausibly?) lives in the same block.  Another neighbour, an obese, fortyish woman called Cristina (Camryn Manheim), longs for a relationship with Allen.  They eventually go out together to a late-night diner,  where Cristina insists that she’s a passionate woman but explains she can’t stand the thought of a man ‘inside her’– she really wants, as she says, to get under the sheets with ice cream and key lime pie.  This conversation is one of the high points of Happiness, as Cristina explains how she murdered the doorman at the apartment block, when he helped her in one evening with her high-calorie shopping then vented his own need for sex by forcing himself upon her.  She broke his neck and cut up his body:  ‘Parts of him are still in my freezer’ (obviously taking up space that Ben and Jerry might more usefully occupy).   At the end of her gruesome story, Cristina, in a vivid example of need trumping rationality, suggests to Allen that, ‘We can still be friends, can’t we?’  ‘I guess’ Allen replies helplessly, hardly in a position to take the moral high ground.   These double punchlines genuinely merit the overused phrase painfully funny:  the fact is that talking like this to each other is a big step forward in human contact for both Cristina and Allen.  (The role of Allen came pretty early in Philip Seymour Hoffman’s cinema career and he’s startling in it, even though he’s now so familiar:  his combination of wit and a fearless willingness to be physically repulsive is brutally in evidence.)

    The lack of fulfilment in Happiness is varied and very well orchestrated by Solondz:  it’s extensive too.  Relationships are no more satisifying in the older generation:  the Jordan girls’ parents have retired to Florida, and their father Lenny (Ben Gazzara) wants to leave their mother Mona (Louise Lasser) – but in order to be solitary rather than for another woman:  Lenny has sex with a hopeful neighbour just to make sure he doesn’t want it anymore.   What’s most subversive in Solondz’s universe is the nature of the characters who do enjoy the sex they have – Bill and a Russian immigrant called Vlad (Jared Harris – really excellent), who is one of Joy’s students at an English class she teaches in New York City.  She has a one night stand with Vlad (she actually enjoys it too), after he’s driven her back – he has a yellow cab – to her place in New Jersey.  Vlad then proceeds to treat Joy like shit and it’s clear from the state of his vengeful wife’s face that he hits her.  Yet, when he comes back to Joy’s apartment and sings ‘You Light Up My Life’ on her guitar, it’s a great moment:  it does give her (and us) hope, which for a short time eclipses the certainty that this relationship is going to end badly.  When Billy (Rufus Read), Trish and Bill’s eldest, has a friend Johnny (Evan Silverberg) come to the house for a sleepover, Bill drugs the boy’s supper and sodomises him, a consummation which is exasperatingly delayed as Johnny keeps declining offers of food and drink.  In a sequence like this one, Todd Solondz exploits the way that a film audience is primed to engage with a character in a particular set-up, virtually regardless of what the situation entails.  Even though you’re appalled by what Bill is planning to do, it’s still possible to understand his frustration that, even after Johnny has accepted a tuna mayo sandwich, he takes forever to start eating it.

    Happiness offers a rare presentation of a paedophile character – layered and unbiased – and it’s through Bill especially that Solondz makes us realise that honesty isn’t always the best policy.  The family life of Trish and Bill is a bleak, absorbing illustration of the symbiosis of dysfunction and normality.  She would like to have sex again with her husband but she’s decent and conventional, an utterly competent and loving wife and mother, and doesn’t complain.  Bill too, while nourishing his guilty secret, remains in most respects a conscientious husband and father.  After his eventual arrest, he’s home on bail and, in conversation with Billy, admits that he enjoyed the sex he had with boys.  When Billy (who looks like someone maladjusted waiting to happen, well before his father’s crimes are disclosed) asks ‘Would you ever fuck me?’ Bill replies, ‘No, I jerk off instead’.   This is probably the darkest moment of all:  you sense that Billy feels not only shocked but somehow rejected and also relieved – and that all three things make him cry so distressingly.  (Happiness begins and nearly ends with some horribly believable weeping – from Andy and Billy respectively.)  We share Billy’s relief:  son and father have two or three facts-of-life conversations earlier on and the audience, knowing what Billy doesn’t know about his father, realises that each conversation tends towards what the verge of a sexual proposition to the boy.   These interactions, like the opening exchange between Joy and Andy and all the relatively extended, real-time passages in Happiness, are grippingly well acted and directed with great skill.

    The three sisters are marvellously contrasted.  Solondz empathises with the sexual no-hopers in the story and he’s harsher with the beautiful, admired Helen, whose awareness that she’s a phony is self-pityingly immoral.  (She’s published a collection of poems about being raped as a child and confides to herself that she wishes she’d really been raped: ‘Then I could be truthful’.)  The sarcastic conception of the role makes it relatively thin but Lara Flynn Boyle is physically so perfect for it that she animates Helen.  The endless series of setbacks and humiliations experienced by Joy occasionally seems a bit much but Solondz will then turn the moment to dispel that impression.   For example, when Joy arrives for her first day at the TEFL class, the assembled refugees, annoyed that they’ve lost their previous teacher who went on strike, start jeering her and calling her a scab – but this paves the way for the introduction of Vlad, who demands silence in class.   After he’s stolen her guitar and CD system, Joy makes a stand to get them back – in exchange for the $500 she agrees to give Vlad:  it’s the culmination of Joy’s principled helplessness, which Jane Adams captures perfectly.  And Cynthia Stevenson gives Trish a sunny indomitability – she’s still cheerful when Bill’s gone to prison – that is both alarming and engaging.  Happiness ends with the Jordans – the parents, the daughters and Trish’s kids – having a meal at Lenny’s and Mona’s home (we assume he still wants to leave her).   As they’re talking together, Billy is on the balcony looking out at a nearly naked neighbour of his grandparents.  Throughout the film, he’s kept trying to ejaculate and now he finally succeeds.  The family dog runs along and stops to lick a blob of Billy’s semen from where it’s landed then comes to the table where the adults are gathered.   Trish greets the dog and bends to let him wash her face.  It’s a mark of how this movie works on you that, as you groan, you’re almost pleased that something’s happened to keep her smiling.  Billy meanwhile says quietly to himself ‘I came’ – with a mixture of wonder and unease.  The moment is his initiation into the world of adult sexuality.  He can hardly be blamed for being unsure whether arriving in that world is a good thing.

    25 April 2010

Posts navigation