.jpg)
Directed by master filmmaker Yasujiro Ozu, I WAS BORN, BUT ... (1932) is a story about two brothers, who loose faith when they see their father bowing to his boss. The boys suddenly realize that their father may not be the hero they imagined him to be, he may simply be human. True to Ozu's oeuvre, the film is simple yet complex, the static camera allows for the characters to reveal themselves. Note the distance of the camera in comparison to Deyer's camera in THE PASSION OF JOAN OF ARC.Ozu returned to I WAS BORN, BUT ... when he made a loose remake of the film in 1959 called GOOD MORNING.
Suggested Supplemental Screenings: TOKYO CHORUS (Ozu, 1931), THE GODDESS (Wu Yonggang, 1934), and LATE SPRING (Ozu, 1949).
Sarah Garcia
ReplyDeleteI Was Born, But…
In watching this film I was impressed by its sophistication with not only its story line, but the acting as well. The story line was good because although it was a comedy and often focused on visual gags it was able to unleash a much more complex undertone of what makes someone a man. I thought that the two young boys were really great actors, because they were able to nail both the comedic instances as well as unfold when they discovered that although their father was the most important to them that he was their world he was not so within the social situations. They discovered that when their father bowed to another boy’s father, and were completely and utterly confused by what was happening because they knew that bowing is something you do to your superior as a sign on respect within their culture. It broke my heart to see the mother and father try and raise their boys to the best of their ability, because they were excellent parents, but wish and dream that their boys would turn out nothing like them. The scene where the parents were watching their children sleep brought an entire new dimension to the film that earlier silent comedies were not able to bring.
Earlier comedians like Chaplin and Keaton were more interested in gag after gag rather then actually developing any kind of story that the audience would be able to relate to. This film brought the visual comedy and added depth to the story. It was able to motivate the audience to feel for these characters. It was able to develop a relationship with audience and character that is important when you are making a film, because as a filmmaker you not only want to entertain but you want your audience to think about your film after they exit the theatre.
Another thing that I noticed about this film is that the family was a lot like American families were at the time. Obviously this family had different customs like bowing their head for respect, taking off their shoes when entering the house, and sitting on their knees, but other than those three things I did not notice much of a difference within the structure of the relationships. Maybe in America the mother and father would have a slightly different relationship, but I found it very interesting especially the children and their father how similar they were to my brother and I at that age and how we acted around our father. It definitely opened my eyes to understand that everyone is different but everyone is the same.
I was born, but… proved to be a very well developed film. I thought the story line and execution of the script was impressive. It actually reminded me a lot of the blot, but I feel this film was better executed and far more entertaining. The film was able to blend a certain amount of comedy while addressing in a subtle fashion certain social conventions and issues that still are prevalent. The comedy between all different characters I think was the most effective aspect of the film. The relationship between the brothers was the foundation of the film as they were always seen walking together, mimicking each other’s movements, and constantly checking with each other before each action. This effect tin relationship then made other interactions that much more sincere and tender as you saw both of them struggling together in overcoming the bullies, finally being in charge, and later in the film standing up to their father. Having both of them together allows the audience to join in and relate to their reactions to the world around them. The sequences in fighting and dealing with the other children were also a great addition to the films comedic stance in dealing with some of the social problems. The children and their fighting all seemed to parallel and mimic the lives of adults and the brothers’ father in the film. The sincerity of characters and honesty of characters was palpable. Watching the father try to explain to his boys the concept of power, importance, and control was a scene that any person could relate to, and the loss of innocence the boys felt in that transaction.
ReplyDeleteI enjoyed that the comedy was able to act as a source for the film’s progression rather than a random placement, as Keaton, and Chaplin often did. The father’s faces on the home videos were funny and mimicked a lot of silent comedy techniques, but that scene actually served to parallel the father’s submission to a higher power, which frustrated his children. Rarely could comedies at the time offer a glimpse of real life sincere comedy and real life sincere drama. Of all the screening we have watched thus far this film seems to be the most complete in it’s depiction of actual life and the relationships established throughout it.
Out of all the silent films we have seen this semester this has been the worst by far. The 1932 silent Japanese film I was Born, But… directed by Yasujiro Ozu is about two boys who are unhappy with their father because of the low level position he holds at work. The two brothers don’t understand why their father is not the “boss” of the company and why he doesn’t make a lot of money. The brothers are threatened by their other schoolmate whose father happens to be the boss of the company. The brothers are upset with the father because they want what their schoolmate has; a big house, movie projector, car, and most importantly a father who is an executive. In the end they apologize to their father and become friends with their schoolmate. I though that the story was very dry, nothing went on, it went back and forth of the brothers trying to defy their father the whole movie. Aside from the boring story the camera work was so simple. There were no daring shots, the camera remained stationary the whole movie except for one dolly out shot. Also, there was not one close up, all of the shots were either medium or long shots. The acting was fair; it wasn’t over the top exaggerated like in other silent films but more naturalistic. Good thing we watched it with sound because if we didn’t I would still be there sleeping. I think after watching Roshomon last year, and I Was Born, But… this year my dislike for Japanese cinema has been amplified.
ReplyDeleteToday we watched I Was Born, But… and I really enjoyed it. Most of the silent films we’ve watched so far weren’t as good as this one. It was funny, yet it had heart. I think it was beautifully shot, the composition was great and so were the actors. The two young brothers did a wonderful job. Not only were they able to be funny and play the gags, like grabbing his crotch every other scene, but also they were great when the drama kicked in and they had to confront their father. I also though Ozu’s comedic timing was almost perfect in the way he shot/edited most of the scenes, especially the in the beginning when the two brothers are bullied and they get their bread taken by the other kids.
ReplyDeleteBesides from the comedy, I found the story to be enchanting. Two brothers who see their father bow in front of his boss and don’t understand why their classmate’s father has more money and is more important than theirs. This part of the movie raised the question “What makes a person important?” The father tried to explain his kids but they were reluctant to listen and they also didn’t understand. I thought the ending was excellent as well. The father gets in his boss’ car as his kids watch and it seems as though they now understand. I loved the film. The only problem I had with it was the score in the beginning I found it to be somewhat jarring (choppy piano), but as the movie progressed I got used it. I don’t know if this movie was meant to be played with a live pianist or orchestra or if it had an original score, but I think it was silent. I’d like to watch it without music to see if it affects my viewing experience.
This movie was actually probably my favorite silent film, but still silent films are not as intriguing to me. I felt like the story was a million steps above all the other silent films. It was well done and I felt that it was a movie made this year. There was a great story, realism, comedy, and a great conflict. The good thing was that the comedy wasn't slapstick so we got a week off of Moe Larry and Curly.
ReplyDeleteThe story was realistic because it was a good topic for the story. Kid's being bullied and kid's finding out that their dad isn't the best out there. Even though the kid took some of the scenes a little far and I don't think one dad out there wouldn't figure the situation out after the kid called him a yellow belly. But other than that, it was a great story about two brothers bonding and fitting in to a new environment. Another topic was that the wife didn't play a big role and that seems pretty typical as the father is the main person of the house in Asian culture. It seemed like the part where they found the film would be fun to see your father on the big screen, but they were smart kids and decided he was a no good yellow belly.
Overall the movie was a good one and was actually fun to watch. I liked it
You know, I think that this movie's title was lost in the translation. I am under the impression that it should actually be I Was Born, But Then Nothing Really Interesting Happened To Me After That. I did not enjoy this movie. The camera work was impressive, as was the acting, BUT IT MOVED SO SLOWLY. Nothing happens the entire movie. I kept waiting, no praying, that something of some substance would happen, but it didn't, ever.
ReplyDeleteDon't get me wrong. I understand why it is a good film, from the technical perspective it is superb, and it chronicles a coming of age story for two boys, but this does not mean that I liked it. It became a sort of endurance test. It was me vs. Ozu, and I was not about to let him win. I stayed awake the entire time, and by the end I was throwing myself around the seat hoping that it would just get to its conclusion already. I also had an issue with the plot points that went absolutely no where. So they eat sparrows eggs because it will make them strong or something. Okay I can get that. They feed it to the dog and the dog gets sick. Okay I got that two. After that moment, the dog is NEVER SEEN AGAIN. That dog was only their for that one rather week joke where the one boy tells the other boy that maybe he should take some of the dogs medicine. This is only one example of a thing like that.
And then it hit me after I walked out of the Cosford. This was supposed to be a comedy. Damn, Ozu missed the mark. Actually, that is unfair to say. The Japanese have a different culture and this was a long time ago. Still, it didn't strike me as all that humorous. Then another thing dawned on me, Ozu wanted this film to be shown without music. Completely silent? Good lord Ozu, what were you thinking. If that were silent I might have struck out in violence at the classmates in the area of the theater around me. That would have been torture.
It reminded me of my experience at the Romanian film Police, Adjective. It was another slow moving endurance test where nothing of note really ever seemed to happen. It was also billed as a “comedy.” At least at the end of that film it built up to a social comment on what the word police means according to the dictionary or something like that (I didn't really know because that movie beat me and I was in and out of sleep for the second half). This one doesn't even have that, it just has the kids come to terms with their dad over the course of a night and thats it, plus the problem was only brought up twenty minutes before.
I know that this response has been a little harsh, so now that I got some of it out of my system, I can give some more credit to the film. It is slow, there is no question, but it is a conscious stylistic choice. In foreign film it seems as if slower is considered better in some cases. Maybe it is my fault for being a product of this ADD society that needs its fix of story amped up to a blistering pace and shoved down my eyeballs. The fault could be my own. But on the other hand, I love 2001: A Space Odyssey, Metropolis, Duncan Jones' Moon and other films that develop slowly, but this one I could not enjoy. Maybe it is the fact that I felt the plot points to be insignificant. But then again, I enjoyed last year when we watched Summer Palace directed by Lou Ye, and from what we were able to see in class I really enjoyed it. Many of the things that happened in that story were small (although there were some huge things too).
I feel bad that I wasn't able to enjoy this film. I certainly see its merit, importance, and what it was trying to do. It was a depiction of the everyday and it was shot beautifully, and it is a coming of age story. I just happened to vehemently dislike every second of it after the first ten to twenty minutes.
Ozu was really was really a silent film master because his story comes across so seamlessly. He finds a perfect balance of action and title cards for dialogue. Often times there is dialogue but no title card because you can just infer or assume what they are saying, which is really interesting because we infer similar things across cultures and across generations. It is evident that respect for one’s father is very important in Japanese culture. Family must have such a great importance placed on it judging by how each young boy argues whose father is best, and by how the brothers stick together no matter what. I thought it was really fascinating how he could tell such an interesting story using only young children, and a few adults scattered throughout. The film deals with problems that young boys face today like bullying, playing hooky, making friends in a new neighborhood, etc. I didn’t quite understand the game they would play where one boy would lie on the ground on his back until the two brothers crossed their hearts with their fingers in the shape of a pistol.
ReplyDeleteI thought the two brothers were incredibly brave for standing up to the bullies when all they had was each other. They show a lot of guts when they skip school and get in fights which contrasts with their perceivably stern father, whom they see bowing to his boss. They lose even more respect for their father when they see him acting like a buffoon on his boss’ home movies, which must have been tough for the boys to see, but even tougher for their father. Learning how tough the world can be in that manner cannot be easy. The brothers had some really funny mannerisms, especially when they think no one is looking.
Seems like the biggest complaint of most people so far is the slowness/uneventful nature of the plot, and while true maybe for those of us used to modern movies, it’s an unfair judgment of the film. Look at this film as a documentary, look at it for the people, the humanity revealed in the “boring” and seemingly unimportant events, connect with that and the film takes on a new meaning. It’s a vignette of a realistic life living at home as kids, and we face problems that, while minor to us as spectators, mean the whole world to those involved. We’ve all been through similar things when we were younger, just think of the things that had a huge effect on you, even while looking back on it you see it was something so small in scale. Seeing their father act like an idiot on film, sucking up to the “Big Man” is something we can all understand where we are now, but as kids, having that image of a father figure shattered, rocks your whole world, your foundations are shaken, and we see all this play out wonderfully on film. Ozu filmed this in the only real way he could, I don’t see a need for complex angles, because life at that age isn’t complex, things are very surface level, the kids aren’t hiding anything that needs to be revealed through the camera language, their faces and body language (thanks to some great kid actors) reveal everything about their feelings. This wasn’t my favorite film, though I’ve always had a special interest in Japanese culture, so seeing a collision of traditional and modern styles in their cinema was very interesting. I’ll admit to, at times, hoping the film would just wrap up the story already, like everyone else I’m too accustomed to a more engaging cinematic experience, but this film still had some wonderful moments that remind me how powerful the simple can be.
ReplyDeleteIn "I Was Born, But..", two young brothers move into a new neighborhood were they encounter bullying school children, social barriers, and knowledge of their fathers social status. I found the movie to have several interesting moments, but overall it wasn't as entertaining as I thought it would be. The film started off strong with unique camera angles used on the opening scene. The father helps fix a car with his two sons. Ozu swiftly moves back and forth between the children and their father, using their height difference to establish how they see him a large figure. I was very surprised to find that the film was a comedy, I was expecting something more serious with the title of the film. The comedy was bland at times, relying on simple gags such as outrageous facial expressions. There were moments that more interesting jokes would appear, such as the children interacting with their bullies using their strength and wit against them. I thought the two little boys did a very good job portraying their roles. It felt natural and not cheesy as is the case with most child actors. Often while watching, I was reminded of the "Little Rascals" or "The Sandlot", both films featuring mischievous children. I did not find some of the humor to be funny, this is perhaps due to cultural differences or just the film did not age well with audiences. It was interesting to see the effect the west had on Japanese culture at the time. Their were few things in the film that would have even hinted at the fact that the film was set in Japan. Overall, I did not enjoy this comedy as much as I did the earlier silent film comedy giants such as Charlie Chaplin, Buster Keaton, and Harold Lloyd. While the cinematography was beautiful at moments, the story lacked throughout.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteIn Ozu's film, I was born, but..., I found his style, not so much in the Chaplain slapstick format, but similar to our films like The Sandlot or Little Rascals. The relationship between the brothers and the neighborhood boys was playful and mischievous in such a way that I found it surprisingly similar to our modern U.S. narrative films. Not many western films of that time were about children, and I really admired how well Ozu captured and honored childhood life. He captured
ReplyDeleteit realistically and his Japanese theme of family still seems to ring true for Western life today.
The cinematography and editing was also well done. I loved his motion shots and artistic framing, for example his slow pans that were smooth transitions between scenes and how the framing has an illusion of distance with objects near and far from the camera. He really succeeded in portraying visuals that cause the transcendence feeling we discussed in class. Whether with the simplest still images of power lines or how actors leave and the camera doesn't follow. He connects the audience to the camera so well. Whenever the camera seems to delay in following the actors around, it would leave me curious for the next shot, almost like I'm the one responsible for following the actors. It was very successful in my opinion.
As for sound, I don't think I'd be able to handle the silence either. Music and dialogue is so intertwined with film in this generation. It seems like we get so antsy sitting in silence and our A.D.D. side kicks in, breaking our focus and patience for the film. I'm positive people would just whip out their ipods if we were told we were going to watch a silent film without music. I find that kind of interesting.
Anyways, I can tell Ozu was definitely a scriptwriter before he was a director, based on his creative storytelling, and his directing techniques were very artistic and well developed. I really enjoyed this film, however, I do believe I am biased since I love Japanese culture so much.
-Allison Basham
I found I Was Born, But… to be entertaining. Although there was not really a goal or want that drove the plot and characters forward, I enjoyed “hanging out” with the characters. The film was based on showing a time in a father-son relationship where the son realizes that his father is not this “Superman” being he always thought he was. I really felt for the father during the scene when the sons confront him and basically tell him that he is not an important man. The performance of the father shows that his sons’ comments really affect him. Like every other father, he wants to be the person his children look up to rather than doubt.
ReplyDeleteI always find it interesting when groups of children are the main focus in films, especially in older of foreign films, such as Stand By Me and The 400 Blows. They’re in this completely different world than everyone else. To me, this was shown with the sparrow egg incidents that they shared amongst them and the gesture (the one involving the sign of the cross) the two brothers would do throughout the film to the richer dad’s son. The children are concerned with bullies and whose dad is better, and they are not aware of the dynamics or complexity of the adult world. And then when these two worlds collide, there is a moment of insight for each side because many adults forget what it is like to be a child and the things that one ponders about during that early stage in life.
Overall, I found the subtle comedy of the film to be effective and the family drama touched upon a powerful issue. I believe in today’s world most movie-viewers are used to fast-paced films and they sometimes overlook films that make people stop and truly think about the characters.
I was actually pleasantly surprised at how much I enjoyed this movie. I thought all the children were great, even the fat bully, and found the low camera angle to be a perfect point of view as when I was watching this movie I too felt like a child. While even though it was portrayed through children in a somewhat light-hearted way, this movie has many serious messages and connotations. What I found to be most striking was the way in which it showed the two main boys’ loss of innocence in a sense through the realization that not all people are viewed equally in the world. As children, money or power doesn’t matter to you. This film shows the boys beginning to absorb some of what status and classes mean when they have petty arguments over whose father is the most ‘important’- ultimately the boy whose father is the wealthiest deems that his father is the most important because he has the fanciest car. The two boys lose their innocence at this moment in a sense as they are no longer having purely childish thoughts. They become worried and distraught over their fathers importance which ends up leading to them fighting with their father and disrespecting him. To me, this was upsetting as it seems these boys are too young to be thinking about whose father is the most important, and more over to be thinking about fancy cars and adult class status. The two boys become extremely upset when they think that their father is unimportant after watching the video in which he was being funny. They don’t understand what really is important and what isn’t yet so it is a bit sad to watch them get so disappointed. Their father breifly explains class systems and how life works to them in a disgruntled angry fashion, they ask him why he has to work for the other boys father, and he tells them that if he did not work for him, they would not be able to eat or go to school- this is far over the boys heads. Interestingly, the mother shortly thereafter asks the father if he could have explained that in a better, less harsh way to the boys- I found it comforting that the wife finally speaks up even if it is just in a minor way. She barely does anything the entire movie aside from housework and sewing, so to finally see her kind of challenge the fathers parenting is nice. I also found it interesting how Ozu shows the other side of this sort of loss of innocence of the boys, he shows the parents wishing better for their boys and hoping that they will have better lives, the mother upset to see her boys be beaten, and the father in a moment of truth where he talks about how he doesn’t want to suck up to his boss, but he has to.
ReplyDelete“I Was Born, But…” was, in a word, unbearable. Its not that it wasn’t well done or anything, it was just unbelievably slow. The film looked gorgeous, the frames they set up with some empty space where very picturesque and it had some of the cleanest cuts of any of the movies we’ve screened so far, having people go from room to room with incredibly accurate movement but the technical accomplishments could not make up for a story that did not grab my attention in the beginning and then went on forever. The message of the movie itself was something I just couldn’t relate to either. The brothers had such a big problem with their father because he wasn’t a “big executive”. They were upset and basically ashamed of their father because he had a boss. I think there must be a big cultural factor that played into my lack of enjoyment. They are so upset when they watch those home videos and discover that their father is a human being and that he is capable of acting silly. Why is that a bad thing? When the one guy comments that he would make a great “comic actor”… I don’t think anyone in the cosford audience could comprehend that as a bad thing. A random visual thing that I didn’t understand was why those kids stopped every time they were going to walk with their back to the camera, and to stand still looking down and then had to walk in sync with their hands in their pockets, like Charlie Brown clones. If they needed those kids to walk in sync that’s fine, but why did the audience have to see the prep for it? There was just nothing in there that I could take away. I gave it a shot for like 10 minutes but then I waited an hour and a half to find out that everyone’s father sucks… apparently.
ReplyDeleteI was Born, But… was bad. It was not horrible and definitely not great, but it was bad. Directed by Japanese filmmaker Yasujiro Ozu, I was Born, But…was very character driven and slightly plot driven. The boys’ performance was excellent. I especially loved the younger brother’s comedic gestures. It was a cute relationship and it was very realistic. The way an older brother protects his younger brother was the same way this film portrayed it. The way a younger brother imitates and desires to be like their older sibling, is the same way the film portrayed it. Even though Ozu is Japaneseand this film represented a lot of that culture, it related to western cultures as well. My biggest issue with the film was that it dragged a lot and there was no consistent, overall storyline. The movie began with the conflict of the bullies messing with the boys and that went well. Then the boys found a way to overcome the bullies and even had the bullies following them around and taking orders from them. I thought the film was going to end there. Then it transitioned into being about the boys’ relationship with their parents. That section did not do as well as the first section about the bullies. There was no substance. I think the bully section detailed what was going on with the boys and the bullies and it sort of made you anticipate what was going to happen; that part was really about the plot. Then the section about the parents was more emotional but it failed at drawing the audience into the emotions going on with the characters, except the emotional connections with the boys. I didn’t enjoy the many long, wide shots. A couple of them would have been an artistic touch for the film and did some justice for it, but too many of them made that a fantasy. Though, I especially loved the wide shot of when the boys see the film of their dad and they’re walking this long, empty road. It just had the boys and it was extremely dark with nothing else in the shot but the electric lines. It was a great looking shot and very emotional for me because I felt connected with them for that moment and empathized with that feeling of disappointment.
ReplyDeleteI was Born, But…. Was one of my favorite silent films that we have watched thus far. Besides the fact that the film was longer than what I felt was necessary, it was a well-made film. The plot was interesting and relatable and the acting done by the kids was great. I really enjoyed watching the kids act. The expression in their eyes and body language was intriguing to watch. One gesture that I found funny was the way that all of the boys cried, they all placed the backside of their hands onto their eyelids making the same whimpering facial expression. Another gesture that was humorous was when either one of the brothers would make a funny face and lift one leg up when provoking the bullies. Then the way the two brothers interacted with one another was adorable to watch, whatever the older brother did, and the younger brother did the same thing. I also like that when they walked together, side-by-side, it was always in unison.
ReplyDeleteAnother aspect about the film that was interesting was the camera angle used in the film. The camera angle was extremely low, giving the audience a POV of the young boys. Also when they are eating, the camera is low, but in that culture they eat practically on the floor, therefore the camera level for those shots were relevant. The low angles of when they were getting in trouble by their father made it realistic and evoked the feeling of being little and in trouble by the big-guy.
The plot of the story was interesting and definitely something that certain individuals can relate to. Children look up to their parents, especially their dad, wanting to be successful and “important” like him. It was interesting that at such a young age, the children understood the concept of being “important” and cared enough to make it an argument amongst their friends. The little rich kid that had the film being played at his house, knew that his dad was “important” because they had money and film. Whereas the two brothers, thought that their dad was important, (as the father had high expectations for them, like wanting them to get an “E” for excellent) but after watching the film, was embarrassed that their father was acting silly and childish, causing everyone to laugh at his character during the screening.
All and all, the film was interesting to watch and I applaud the young kids for doing a great acting job. This silent film is definitely one of the top 3 films we have watched so far.
Okay, so considering I’m “the Japanese one” in the class, I had to absorb the movie from both the American and Japanese perspectives. While certain aspects of this film have a heavy Western influence, there are certain themes, symbols, and instances that are severely understated and lost in translation if we see this film through our “American” goggles. Yes, it’s cliché and yes, a story should transcend cultural barriers, but the film’s simplistic profoundness is incredible.
ReplyDeleteFirst, I think the title is important to delve into. It’s original title in Japanese is “Otona no miru ehon - Umarete wa mita keredo” which translated (by me at least) equates to “Picture book for adults – I was born/I saw my birth but . . .” This and in itself is one of the most difficult parts of the film to understand. The dash in between suggests “I was born but” interrupts the original thought of “picture book for adults” or that these two, independent thoughts are inherently related.
Interestingly enough, the story focuses on two groups 1) extremely young boys and 2) grown men. True the grocery boy is a bit older, but he has not fully matured into an adult yet. This is important in that in choosing these two groups, we constantly compare and contrast them. The film is more than the sons getting angry at their father for not being rich, rather, it’s a coming of age story about life and its social customs.
The film starts out with the two sons admiring how heroic their father is for assisting a man with his car. As the story progresses though, the father’s greatness dwindles in the eyes of his sons. The sons do not understand why their smarter, wittier, and handsomer father has to (for lack of a better term) kiss the ass of a lesser man.
What the children have to come to terms with is that, although incredibly unfair and paradoxical at times, that is life. Certain aspects of life seem insane to us - foreign and illogical even, but we are forced to assimilate to them and accept them as our own. In smaller terms, why do students have to understand why x = 2? Or in bigger terms, why do bad things happen to good people? Or why do certain people never have to work a job in their lives while others work three and barely manage? There are many trials that we go through in life, and each has its own lesson and it’s own “moral of the story”. These lessons are no different from those we began learning as children through Sesame Street Books.
The idea of a “picture book for adults” is a paradox, obviously because picture books are made for children. However, perhaps the director is trying to say that the lessons in these “children’s” picture books reoccur in our lifetimes as adults forever until we die. Perhaps the “I was born (I have aged, I am no longer a child) but” could be followed by “still feel naïve” or “I never grew up.” This is the irony of life: we are born, we age, we get older, but do we ever live? And if so, what does living entail? Is living accepting social customs just because or is it rejecting them as an innocent child would? Do we settle with what we have or do we aspire to become something greater/can we? Do we settle with being Dad, or try to become the Boss?
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteP.S. I blabbed so much about the abstracts that I forgot to mention the cultural differences I noticed! So I’ll quickly list them (excuse the informality)
ReplyDelete- Western suits/moustaches/shoes vs. Kimonos/Yukatta’s/zori’s (the wooden slippers the boys always fought the other kids with)
-Tatami mats/ Paper doors vs. western couches/chandeliers (ie furniture in boss’s house)
-Bento lunch (the boxes wrapped in cloth that the boys put on their heads)
-traditional luncheon cart (moved by owner by foot) vs Western automobile
-the “coin” the chubby kid found was 50 yen, roughly more than 50 cents at current market
-role of women. Mom is very docile, wife of boss is bothered by the film’s hint at husband’s infidelity, but does not act upon it. In Japanese culture, especially in the olden days, important men had one wife but multiple “girlfriends”
-role of pride. In Japanese culture the only thing a man has is his pride. Above all this is the most important (hence the harikiri/seppuku of samurais). This is why the children were so angry during the movie. In American culture, a man being funny is fine, an added value even. But in the movie’s context, it showed that their father had lost all his pride to his boss. He served as an entertainment slave for his bosses. That exact instance is where the children lose respect for their father, who in acting like a complete fool, lost respect for himself.
As a black and white Japanese film directed by Yasujiro Ozu the film impressed me. I liked the way the characters, specially the kids, portrayed their life and problems. The story centered in two brothers whose faith in their father is traumatized by what they perceive as his bowing to the boss. I liked this film because it was really realistic and demonstrated the facts that truly make a person a hero. The boys acting I believe was great since they were able to be both comedic at some points but at the same time realistic at others, for example when discovering their dad’s reality of being inferior to another ( when bowing to another kids father.) One interesting scene was the one when the parents were looking at their children sleep; this brought a new dimension to silent film and surely caused great influence in other directors. When compared to American films you see the difference in the storyline and customs of each character, for example bowing to a superior in search of respect is mostly an Asian custom. One technique that I really enjoyed was the father’s faces on the home videos. Japanese cinema really impressed me with its style I was really expecting something worse.
ReplyDeleteYasujiro Ozu’s film, I Was Born, But…, focuses quite a bit on framing and composition. The striking use of empty space evokes feelings of loneliness and slight unease. I certainly was aware of the low angled camera, simulating the commonality of sitting in Japanese culture, even if it was only subconsciously at first. The father’s character exhibits the same charm as a silent comedy star such as Charlie Chaplin. The meta-film scene with the home movies featured many notable highlights…the projector provided a “motivated” light source, illuminating the characters in a stylized yet realistic way. While watching the film in the dark, the background is full of tenebrism and the character’s faces are bathed in chiaroscuro. Within this heavy contrast of light and dark, the interactions and expressions between the father’s character and his children are amplified. The father’s character is visibly sweet, innocent and silly in sharp contrast his children who appear cold, harsh and unaccepting of their father has a human being. There would almost appear to be a role reversal in which the father seems like the child and the children have adopted a more adult-like disposition. Within the meta-film itself, it felt easily connectable to Soviet Montage and Man With A Movie Camera, showing daily life, animals and shots free of a language barrier. The camera also stays at a longer distance from its subjects and after the characters leave, the camera often stays rolling adding realism, like the room exists outside the realm of story. As soon as the two sons leave the room after being thoroughly embarrassed by the goofy filmed antics of their father, the director uses an odd, synchronized and almost creepy use of seemingly choreographed staging. The two boys walk in unison down the hall, wearing identical outfits… almost reminiscent of the two girls in Stanley Kubrick’s The Shining. The shot is almost symmetrical and identical on either side, much like the shot of the two boys walking away from the camera, down the road with the poles on either side. This shot is highly cinematic and not something that can be recreated in traditional theater…but the framing of many of the shots is evocative of a photograph. Perhaps with Ozu’s choices of shots, use of empty space and seemingly unrelated shots, he wished for the viewer to find beauty in simplicity and in the every day overlooked objects we pass by.
ReplyDelete-Brianne McKay
The first thing that struck me about this film is the varying compositions and the proficiency in choosing shots. One of the first shots that made my jaw drop was when the boys and father had just arrived to the home and the focus was on objects in the house and the boys perfectly fit the small negative space in the shot--brilliant! I saw a lot of frames within frames in this film, which I enjoyed. I felt that this movie was overflowing with artistic proficiency.
ReplyDeleteAs for the theme of the film, I believe it is a topic most people can relate to. The idea of honor and worth of a person, in the social aspect, is determined by the amount of money you make or how much power you have within a company or government. However, does that truly mean you are worth more and deserve more than the man who was honorable and humble enough to help a stranger with his automobile? The children in this movie are exposed to the reality of what matters in society and it is accurately juxtaposed with their ideas of greatness.
I thoroughly enjoyed this movie, and I can definitely see the progression of film and its complexities throughout the silent era.
- Nathalie
I throughly enjoyed I WAS BORN, BUT and was impressed with its ability to capture the unique family dynamic portrayed in the film. It was a film that was able to explore serious themes but still have an air of comedy to it throughout. Some of the most effective portrayals of serious scenarios in movies are done so well because of the comedy provided to contrast the serious subject matter.
ReplyDeleteAfter the screening, it became abundantly clear how far-reaching Ozu's influence has become in modern cinema. Ozu's influence on Jim Jarmusch is unquestionable. I saw Stranger Than Paradise several months ago and noticed many similarities to Ozu's film. In Jarmusch's film, many of the cinematic "moments" manifest themselves in the silence. Most of what is dramatic is in what is not said rather than what is spoken. In Stranger Than Paradise, a look or a noticeable pause would carry a scene. This reminded me of Ozu because in I WAS BORN, BUT… there is an effective use of storytelling by means other than with dialogue.
I also noticed some visual similarities to Antonioni films, particularly the use of negative space. I am thinking of Antonioni's Red Desert, which was tedious but beautifully shot.
The two actors playing the young boys succeeded seamlessly in showing us their growing displeasure with their father's behavior. These two boys were able to express comedy in the right moments but also show a serious side to the relationship with their father. Almost all of what we know about the two boys is shown visually rather than revealed through dialogue.
Overall, an amazing movie. My favorite thus far.
Looking at I Was Born, But...you can tell instantly that it is a well thought out, intellectual, reflective film. It's got these quiet movements behind it. And i focuses only on what it chooses to be important, with quiet intent.
ReplyDeleteIt's an extremely simple film that takes a look at family dynamics, childhood, authority, and the middle-working class. I was very intrigued by just the simple nature of it all. It wasn't showy and it didn't really scream innovative but it did have this unrelenting sense of cinema.
Even the odd compositions on screen didn't detract from the simplicity. Even if there were dialogue, I couldn't imagine it being any more 'loud.' Not in the literal sense of course, but just in the sense of how it chooses to showcase its story.
While I did find some parts hard to get through, and perhaps a little slow, it was wildly interesting to examine because it was the first time that I felt how silence can really be used to an interesting effect and reflect the nature of the film itself, as opposed to it just being the lack of technology at the time.
Again, as I continue to say that most of what I've seen through my knowledge of classical silent comedies, aren't usually represented in an attractive way, however, throughout the semester all films shown just keep on getting better and better, and still have the unique features that attract people of the 21st century.
ReplyDelete'I Was Born, But...' displays Ozu's significant style in relating to, and merging the family scene with humorous actions as seen with man family films nowadays. At this stage directors et the hang of the different techniques discovered in the world of cinema, and put them to the test. This silent comedy adds the greatness of humor through the images displayed. One of the major techniques that he conveys is the motif, which is a recurring object throughout the film, in this case the sparrow's egg. This motif represents the brotherhood between the boys, and also shows how manly they truly are (by eating the egg, they thought it made them stronger).
Ozu introduces a new style of comedy, in the way that includes a family setting, the father making a fool of himself while the kids feel this huge responsibility and shame upon them, which creates this boundary between them and their father. As with any dramatic comedy, clashes always get resolved towards the end, both the boys resolve their problems with the bullies and their father.
It is amazing and funny how we see the characters respond to themes of family-hood. They convey each aspect perfectly, especially with the two young boys. As seen in any ordinary family in the world, the elder brother almost always has the final say on anything before his brothers. And as shown in the film, the younger brother follows his elder to wherever he goes, especially when their father brings home a present, and the elder brother tells him not to go close to it.
So coming into this movie I was really frustrated that we had to watch a Japanese movie, especially after last year’s class where we screened Rashmon, no offence but I can only take so much of the same story repeated, however I was really surprised how good this movie turned out to be. There was a solid storyline about a couple of kids in a suburban community fighting to be the leader of a little gang. Simple story but honestly I rather have that then something crazy which I can’t follow. Ozu does a fantastic job making the actors seem like that are human, i.e. with wants and needs but at the same time imperfections and faults. Each character takes on a distinct personality, the older brother is always protecting the younger one while the younger is always being playful and doing that really cool dance to make fun of people. It’s interesting that each has very different personalities but if your look at the wardrobe they all pretty much are conforming to society. The school clothes they wear are all the same and their out of school wear really doesn’t give anything towards their individuality.
ReplyDeleteI can see a lot of movies coming from this type of genre. Is about kids just having fun and being kids, no serious problems in the world and if there are they are minor. It’s a perspective that in real life most people don’t really care about seeing. Since the main characters are these kids the trial and obstacles they face seem so much more real now then they would in everyday life. This type of mive goes right along the same lines as “The Little Rascals” or “The Sandlot” where the most difficult challenge in light is who’s going over the fence to get the ball, or in “I Was Born,But…” The sparrow’s egg.
Having seen Kurosawa’s “Rashomon” last semester in CMP 205, I thought I had some idea of what to expect from early Japanese cinema. But Ozu’s “I was born, but…” was vastly different from what I thought it would be. Ozu’s film is more gentle, contemplative, and meditative. It doesn’t have Kurosawa’s sense of suspense and spectacle, even. But it reaches its audience in a more relatable manner.
ReplyDeleteI was really surprised that the film was not at all, in my opinion, incredibly melodramatic or extremely subtle. Perhaps, I was even more surprised at the inclusion of comedy in the film. In fact, one of my favorite aspects is that it manages to present dramatic and comedic moments in the most honest way possible. This allows the film to maintain a sense of realism. The comedic elements of this film were once again intimately connected with the child characters (much like Chaplin’s Tramp and the Kid). I’ve always found this relationship between silent comedy and children extremely interesting in early cinema. Like “The Blot,” I can see how this film tries to represent society and contemporary issues in a realistic manner. In doing so, the film avoids simple interpretations of characters; even the mother of the boys, who barely gets any screen time during the first act of the film, is allowed a pivotal moment in the narrative.
One of Ozu’s signatures also seems to be the use of low angles, allowing the audience to view and experience this world through a child’s perspective. Stylistically, Ozu’s simple and humble storytelling matches perfectly with his precise framing and limited camera movement. Again, Ozu in an attempt to present reality as honestly as possible avoids calling excessive attention to the camera. Similarly, Ozu is very perceptive to nature, using nature shots to develop the environment and describe the state of the characters. Ozu’s use of naturalism also reveals his admiration for rural Japan, celebrating the simplicity and humility of their way of life.
I was Born, But.. was a funny movie at first. It was very cute how the brothers acted silly. It is something people can relate to when having bullies around. The brothers hiding from the bullies very funny and how the bully would eat the hawks egg to get powerful. It was cute how the man that would take the groceries would confront the bullies to defend the brothers. The one thing I did not like was that the film was very long. Every scene was the same and they were all really lengthy. I liked it at first because I was surprised how the two Japanese boys could act so good during that time. They both walked the same, would do the same stuff. One would look over at the other to copy the face expressions. The bullies did a good job as well playing out their parts and acting as if they were tough.
ReplyDeleteClass level seem to matter to the adults in the film, but the appealing part was that it doesn’t exist amongst the children. They did care about what parent would drive what car but they didn’t put too much mind into it. They were very innocent children that thought about their friends more than what their parents did. In the end, I liked it that the dad came out making faces. All the adults seemed very serious and it was nice seeing that they had a sense of humor as well. Children are always embarrassed by their parents; therefore it was good that Yasujiro Ozu did a whole scene of the kids being mad at their dad. It was a very cute movie of a father and son relationship but the bullying part seemed like it was taking forever.