Brilliant insight about the city symphonies. Read your review before on the film’s page here. The only thing I would add is that this for me is the film of 2008- not necessarily the best film, but the film that captured the stasis and sense of it being the end of something in rich nations like Japan and the US. I read that in Japan the film came out in September 2008. I wonder if it made any money just as the economy was totally crumbled. When I watched the film earlier this year I reacted very strongly- it’s not a perfect film imo, but it’s a perfect response to the time we live in, and reminded me of some examples of 1930s cinema in the way it sometimes careens between comedy and tragedy with a lot of seams showing. In fact I laughed at this at times as well as feeling deeply uncomfortable and sad that I was living in a time period in which these events couldn’t quite be called fantasy at all. I felt such gratitude though that at least someone was able to make a film responding to what was happening as it’s happening. It’s not always in good taste and it’s not always subtle and it’s full of (intentonally deployed) cliches, and I love it for that. Kurosawa Kiyoshi is a master whatever genre he takes on.
Yes, it’s a great film. The film gives a glimpse of Tokyo that few films I’ve seen do. As site specific as the film is, its portrayal of the effects of globalization, financial meltdown, and downward mobility are universal. The characters are all perfectly balanced between being ambiguous but familiar, mildly inscrutable but also instantly recognizable.
this is good to know, Law. I was very interested in this film back when it was released but I never had the inspiration to go and watch it. Now I do!
Not a diehard Kurosawa fan (Kiyoshi, that is) but I liked this. Wouldn’t call it a masterpiece but you’re spot on when you deem it horror. What’s scarier than some long-haired Sadako killing you in your sleep? How about staring at the ceiling and realizing that being a salaryman isn’t enough to get you a pension? It saddens me that most of the films about Japan, that really do her justice, for good or for bad, don’t make it overseas. Instead you get drek like “Okuribito (Departures)” or some Hollywood geek fantasy of school girl ninjas. “Aruitemo Aruitemo (Still Walking)” was still the better (sort of) mainstream Japanese film in 2008 though.
After 2 months, my opinion of this film has dimished a little but yes, I still hold this film in high regard.
Just saw this over the weekend. Here are some thoughts (as they occur to me):
1. Reminded me of a Japanese version of Ice Storm or American Beauty (Japanese Beauty?). I’m sort of not into these middle-class, suburban dramas that deal with alienation, family disintegration, ennui, etc. The films never seem to go beyond what I’ve seen before, which raises a question for me: when does a film deal with a well-worn subject in a fresh way and when is it “stale?”
2. I thought the ending was heavy-handed and melodramatic. I’m thinking of the way the wife and husband’s dialogue and anguish of wanting to start over. The wife and burglar staring off into the ocean and the burglar saying he can’t see anything; the husband getting hit by a truck and then the son giving a sublime performance at the end signifying hope. These kind of metaphors and melodrama definitely reminded.
3. I curious to hear what others think of the idea that the film is one of those socially conscious films that both tries to depict a certain social situation and get a message across—the former being the effects of business downturn on middle managers and the effects on the family, etc. and the latter being that things can change for the better.
4. I think Kiyoshi Kurosawa is a fairly interesting filmmaking, and I’m a little curious to see his other films—not so much for the films themselves, but just to get a better understanding of him as a filmmaker.
I think the film was a well-made, and I still watched it with interest (although it gave me a bad vibe in the first half hour).
Some good thoughts on the film here, especially by the OP.. i have always enjoyed this film and i think it’s time for a revisit perhaps.
@ Jazz I think the film was a well-made
I think you are looking for things in films that probably lead to disappointment.
i.e. originality, greatness
The answer is in the ‘how’. Rohmer’s Perceval le Gallois is a12 century tale. It doesn’t get much staler than that!
It is theatrical, with fake sets that make it visually very flat to look at. Not much greatness originality there !
Worst of all, when the charters speak, they tell you what they are doing. For example when the King goes to get cloth from a chest he says: The king goes to the chest to get cloth. The film actually moves beyond theater in its theatricality !
How great or original is that ?
What the film does is produce a singular experience – call it unique. That experience is great by its uniqueness. One can’t get that experience by assembling the above descriptions. One can attempt to describe
how those things come together to produce a feeling in the perception of the experience.
heavy-handed and melodramatic; the wife and husband’s dialogue – anguish of wanting to start over;
staring off into the ocean; the husband getting hit by a truck; the son giving a sublime performance at the end signifying hope
Melodrama is a style – you like it, or you don’t. If you don’t like I would suggest staying away from it – it will never get better. I don’t like musicals. Because I don’t like them, there is no point in watching one; any review would be bad – I don’t like them.
Lots of melodramas will seem heavy-handed of you don’t like melodrama, but I don’t see what is heavy handed about the above except maybe the hubby getting hit by a truck – was that ironic/ funny maybe?
Specifically, staring off into the ocean wasn’t that poetic rather than heavy-handed melodrama?
^^Yes but Robert, the style of the film isn’t melodrama. Jazz is saying that it lapses into melodrama at crucial points in the narrative. in other words, it feels incongruous with what came before.
I fail to see how that is an invalid criticism.
@ Joks
Yes, it is valid and he is identifying the ending as heavy-handed and melodramatic.
What we need is the pre-ending stuff and thereby how the ending is heavy-handed and melodramatic.
I was reading a review that claimed the pacing ebbed – yes, but what does that mean? is it necessarily bad that the pacing isn’t constant or is there a reason for an ebbing?
It is as if one is searching for a constancy instead of a cohesiveness.
Jazz, that’s an interesting take but you seem to be looking mostly at themes and not how the filmmaking brings them about or comments on them. I hardly think this movie re-affirms anything convention in its mise-enscene. In fact, its mise-en-scene has a lot in common with the extreme dysfunction of Kurosawa’s horror films.
@Robert
“I think you are looking for things in films that probably lead to disappointment.
i.e. originality, greatness.”
I should be wary of that, but I don’t think that’s the case. After all, this weekend I also saw and actually enjoyed Lincoln Lawyer*! (I’d say it’s a good courtroom drama/thriller, which is a genre I like.)
Re: “melodramatic” ending
Well, the word choice on my part is probably bad. I meant that the ending and the scene before the ending were over-dramatic, too contrived, unbelievable and heavy-handed. Let me give some specifics:(spoilers)
1. A burglar breaks into the house and kidnaps the wife. They drive off and the wife goes into a shopping mall to use the bathroom. By chance she runs into her husband (who’s rushing out of the mall with some money he found in the bathroom), and her husband promptly flees from her in panic. The woman returns to the kidnapper. And they drive off to a beach.
Now, believe it or not, I had more problems with the circumstances of the home invasion/robbery/kidnapping then the wife returning the kidnapper. The former seemed too much of a theatrical plot contrivance, while the latter was at least somewhat consistent with the wife’s state of mind/character.
2. But then the filmmakers actually have her utter the words, “Can I start over again?” while looking from a pier into the ocean. She asks the burglar if there are island or a boat. And he says, with anguish, “I can’t see a thing!” (or something to that effect). The message: she’s staring into the future, asking if there is some hope; answer: the future is uncertain!
The filmmakers also have the husband utter the exact same lines about starting over. Getting hit by the truck just felt like a heavy-handed and maybe clumsy metaphor, too. As in painful and tragic circumstances (losing his job, etc.) has hit him like a truck, and will shake some sense into him.
3. Then the ending of the child playing beautifully. This seemed to signify that there is hope (the child represents the future) to change. (The father initially refused to allow the child to play—out of his materialist and authoritarian values.)
I’m not sure about the appropriate adjectives to describe these images/metaphors, but I’ve come up with heavy-handed, (cheesy seems a bit far).
^^one thing i love about that final scene though is how Kurosawa resists the temptation to cut the ending in a conventional way. i.e on a close up on the boy’s face, or right after he finishes playing. I like how he packs up, and the family walks out together, with the crowd looking on.
Doesn’t # 2 somewhat answer #1?
As for the various plot points …I uh… er .. that’s the film !
@Joks
I don’t know. The walking away (into the future) seems a bit much, too. Plus, Kurosawa succumbs to the Hollywood move of having the people crowd into the room to listen.
@Robert
Not sure how #2 “answers” #1. Please explain.
The various plot points may be “the film,” but you’re not suggesting this somehow negates the criticism, right?
Well yeah, you are saying that the film shouldn’t be what it is.
Btw, Is it a melodrama?
@Robert
“Well yeah, you are saying that the film shouldn’t be what it is.
Hmm, I’m not sure how to respond. Are you saying that one cannot criticize components of a film? Are you saying that not liking certain components of a film (like plot points) is tantamount to rejecting the entire film?
I wouldn’t say it’s a melodrama—although I don’t really have a good technical understanding of the term.
I see what you mean by #2 answering #1 now. My response: aren’t there other less contrived, more belieable ways to show that the future is uncertain. In any event, I don’t think the uncertainty of the future is such a large theme in the film, so much as it was a specific response to the wife’s query about the future (what do you see?).
Law
Tokyo Sonata is a masterpiece, an excellent exploration of alienation and the breakdown of the domestic unit amidst a contemporary and (ironically) increasingly globalised society.
Although the title of the film, its poster and its trailer seem to suggest that Tokyo Sonata is a poignant family film about music, the film is clearly not. Kiyoshi Kurosawa, the director of the film, has made various notable horror films before this, and if anything, Tokyo Sonata can be considered as a horror film too, presenting a terrifying image of modern life and modern times. Also, if you do get around to seeing the film, it is really not anything melodramatic. Cold, distant and in possession of some thriller elements would be a more fitting description.
Hence I propose that the title of the film is in fact, or at least can be interpreted as, a reference to the city symphonies very popular in the early 20th century, such as Chelovek s kino-apparatom (1929, Vertov) and Berlin: Die Sinfonie der Großstadt (1927, Ruttman). While city symphonies mostly promoted their cities by portraying them in flattering light along with triumphant music, Tokyo Sonata has a a tendency to deride against Tokyo, cutting to long shots of Tokyo’s highways and construction sites after various complications occur, as though to incriminate Tokyo in the development of such complications. Hence through its title and content, the film makes it clear to us that we are not watching a drama about an isolated situation but a case study of larger social problems derived from the socio-economic conditions of the entire city.
The cinematography here is impeccable. Masterfully framed long takes are often used and Kurosawa clearly has an eye for staging. I also particularly enjoyed the fact that he uses manual focus very selectively. Most of the time, the film does employ some level of manual focus, but not to a very noticeable stylistic extent as many films that employ manual focus today do. He only uses manual focus during key moments such as one that occurs when certain people meet at a shopping centre. It works really well. And the shots of the beach are just brilliant. Speaking of brilliant shots, yet another aspect I liked a lot was the frequent framing of the characters in the house behind blurred objects and frames, clearly establishing the theme of alienation that runs central to the film.
The sound design is very good too. Dissonant notes come in at the right time and silence is always used properly.
Moving away from the technical aspects, the film also seems to weave in a rather existential philosophy. One has to live simply because he is alive, the mother once says. The characters in Tokyo Sonata continue living because they exist, not having anything to really work for, existing exclusively as lost and meandering wanderers, trapped in social expectations.
A modern masterpiece and one of the best films from this decade that I have seen.