Ozu - His Life Vs. His Movies

Paul Schrader considers three levels to be studied in Ozu's films:

1. Personal level
2. Zen level
3. Transcendental level

It means: the influence of his life in his movies; the influence of the Japanese cultural space (with its essential Zen dimension) ; the influence of everything that's beyond the Japanese; when we speak about the Transcendental level , it's about what is common in all various civilizational approaches (what is similar in the movies of Ozu, Bresson, Dreyer).

Let's talk now about the personal level. How important is the influence of the life of Ozu in his movies?

Schrader says it's minimal. IMHO, I would say rather, yes and no.

Yes, the influence of his life on his movies is minimal, because Ozu does not speak ever about himself, does not perform self-analysis. His discretion is Mozartian, Chekhovian.

No, because the man lived all his life unmarried, remained together with his aging mother: and all his movies are about families and about generational gap within families.

After watching several of his movies, we get the feeling that Ozu is there, among his personages. We do not see him (as we see Hitchcock in his famous cameos), however we know he's there: in those small Japanese bars from the periphery, drinking sake and joking with the other patrons, knowing each other for ages; in that small station in Kamakura, looking with appetite at the railroad tracks, waiting for the train, getting in with the others, staying inside the car with a book in his hands, only not reading it, rather observing the others; at the Noh theatre, watching the actors with amazement and imagining each attendant as a player in the performance; in the houses, watching what the family members are talking about, not interfering, because he's too discreet, while also too curious.

Does this mean that his life is in his movies? Rather, his movies are his life.

(Yasujiro Ozu and Setsuko Hara)