Yasujiro Ozu: an artist of the unhurried world (The Guardian)

To Ugetsu (#6, page 1)

It was Noel Burch, not Ms. Bock, who made the assertion about Ozu’s early comedies being superior to the more famous later films. And I would agree with your contention that Kurosaw was so confident of his Japanese identity and of his knowledge of his native culture that he had no need to flaunt a self-conscious Japaneseness, but I would deny that there is any Japanese “preciousness” in either Ozu or Naruse. (Maybe Mizoguchi a little.)

The Guardian article posted by Vili that began this discussion is the clean kind of article I like. It says nothing new, but it reprises the basics in an efficient way. I have ony one little annoyance: he talks about Paul Schrader’s book as if it were written “once apon a time…” rather than being the reference book on Ozu that it remains-until someone writes something better!

Not about Ozu or Kurosawa at all, but I think this article in the NY Review of Books makes some relevant points about modern criticism and where it can go wrong.

If I interpret his point correctly, he is arguing that the tendency of some critics to try to detach themselves emotionally from the film they are reviewing in the interest of writing subjective, formalist critiques means that, quite simply, they are missing the point of a certain type of film in which the use of visuals is intended to overwhelm the viewer. Reading Thompsons comments on Ozu and Avatar (and his related dissing of Kurosawa), I think its a very relevant argument. Critics find it easier to love formal film making as it allows for formalist analysis, while film makers like Kurosawa who sought to overwhelm the viewers with sound, motion and visuals come off worse in these critics eyes.