Some of cinema's best—Lubitsch, Renoir, Bergman—were drawn to the life of a theater troupe, to the idea of living both freely and hand-to-mouth while staving off responsibility and routine. Planted in his world of strict tradition, Ozu makes this idea one of his most congenial, distinct late films, at times a pure farce before a tragedy. You can get quite an effect by getting the two genres to coexist.
Ozu's films are sufficiently obscure for stuck-up cinephiles to use as leverage and reinforce their arguments about the fine quality of his work. Sorry, but they will never be as good as a Coppola or a Verhoeven lol. The 'family' argument is equally embarrassing. If you cared so much about family relations, you'd think you'd spend more time with your family instead of glorifying some dull-ass filmmaker. I'm out.
The film slowly reveals a complex father figure, showing how difficult it is to balance an artistic vocation with family duties; and a quality artistic vocation with an steady income. Both versions remain utterly affecting.
I don't think its possible to accurately articulate the movie! Its so embedded in the feeling of daily life and transience of everything that communicating what it really is won't be possible until your six feet under! Its a beautiful movie that I look forward to returning to.
Most times when I watch a remake, I ask myself what is the point behind it, especially when a filmmaker remakes their own film (i.e. Michael Haneke's Funny Games). But Ozu is successful in remaking his own film. He does what all the directors do wrong when remaking a film, he adds something new to the story. In this instance, it's the color addition that stands out and becomes another character. Bravo Ozu! Bravo!
Ozu is Ozu. He cant compare with other directors. He can make a good film with simple plot and story and maybe small budget. The camera works equal as an audience. Camera never move and always static. You can call it Ozu Style