sacrifices
by Douglas Messerli
Tadao Ikeda, Yasujirō Ozu, and Takao Anai (screenplay), Yasujirō Ozu (director) 父ありき(Chichi ariki) (There Was a Father) / 1942
One might justifiably read Yasujirō
Ozu’s 1942 film, There Was a Father,
as a statement not only of the masculine bond between father and son, but how
that bond is crucial to the survival of order in pre-World War II Japan. The
father of this film, in this case, Shuhei Horikawa (Chishū
Ryū), is a gentle authoritarian who
imposes his views as a mathematics teacher not only upon his loving pupils, but
upon his adoring son, Ryohei (Haruhiko Tsuda). A trusting and good boy, whose
only complaints seem, at first, to be devoted the decayed condition of his
shoes—his father is happy to buy him new shoe polish, but argues that the shoes
are still wearable. Ryohei is a model son, who clearly will go on to high
school and college, playing an important role himself in the society as is
destined by his education.
The day before he reveals this change to his son, the two go on a
fishing trip, where they are shown, as critic Tony Rayns describes it, “casting
their lines in unison and then the boy standing stock-still as his father casts
again. The effect of that momentary refusal to act in sync is indescribably
poignant,” which is reiterated in the dinner-time discussions between father
and son when Shuehi reveals to Ryohei his plans. When the boy breaks down in
tears, the father utters the horrible cliché that all males have been forced to
hear from time immemorial: men don’t cry.
Buy Ryohei does cry, even when, after suffering alone for years, he has achieved the position of a chemistry professor at a provincial school. After all the years of have living apart, Ryohei tells the visiting father—who has supported him by becoming a clerk in a Tokyo textile plant—that he plans to leave his teaching post and join him in the capital city. His father reacts strongly, insisting that it is the boy’s destiny to teach (we have already witnessed the young man blithely explaining to his students the chemical power of TNT), to help educate Japan’s future soldiers. This time, Ryohei is fully aware that adult males are not permitted tears, but he cries nonetheless, and we feel in his welling tears the years and years of loneliness and loss of familial life his has suffered. If Ozu is clearly telling us that something is amiss in this pre-war society, something that makes even grown men like Ryohei break taboo of public male lamentation.
Another way of pointing to the failures of the father’s logic is that
whenever father and son are together, as in many Ozu films, usually dining, we
see distractions of life—a bevy of giggling women, the intrusion into the
background of extraneous events—that distract us from Shuhei’s badgering
clichés of societal order, and show us an energetic back-world that stands in
opposition to the stand-offs between father and son. Gradually we perceive that, in fact, Shuhei
was perhaps not a fit teacher, but a man dedicated only to the order of systems
such as his beloved mathematics.
By film’s end, the son has finally passed his military medical exams, which make it clear that he will soon be off to war. On a 10-day leave from teaching to be with his father, the son and elder again fish together, this time in tandem. And without much protest Ryohei accepts his father’s demands that he marry the equally obedient daughter of Shuehi’s former teaching colleague, Hirata.
During Ryohei’s stay, his father and Hirata are celebrated by their
former students. Although the students tease and even mock their former
teachers, it is clear that they still admire and love them. But in their
celebrations we also see that the world has passed Shuhei by. These former boys
are now almost all married and have, at least two children, one having already
four. Shuhei and Hirata are now empty old men whose lives have passed. And
these young, virile men will soon all be going off to war. To what purpose, we can
only ask, has Shuhei and Hirata even educated them?
We cannot be sure of precisely what that painful scene might actually
have said about the war. The movie was censored by General Douglas McArthur, and
this scene, in particular, was highly edited. Yet we know that the event surely
has an effect on Shuhei and his dedication to the status quo, for when he
returns home, having too much to drink, he becomes ill and dies soon after.
Clearly, he has sensed that his time is over, a life lived in obedience but
without most of the joys of loving and fully living life.
The last scene of the film shows Ryohei returning by train (a symbol
throughout this film of the distances that keeps father from son) with his new
wife, an urn which holds his father’s ashes safely stashed away in the
overhead. Ryohei, as we perceive, has become a man in his father’s mold, who
will blindly go off to war, perhaps never to return to his far-too obedient
wife, himself having never been able to experience the true ties of love he so
desperately sought.
Many critics, including Rayns, have argued that we do not really know
what Ozu felt about the war. Ozu later served military duty twice (even though
we know that some of the joys he had in his service was that we could take in
Western movies such as Citizen Kane
stationed in China and Singapore).
But I would argue that this threnody of a film makes it quite clear that
living one’s duty does not mean the same as living one’s life. Even if later
Ozu’s sons and daughters of the sad Toyko
Story seem mean and selfish in comparison with Ryohei’s loving obedience,
they at least have their own lives to live, with their own problems to solve.
Ryohei has little ahead, even if he survives the battles of the war. And, it is
quite apparent, that he also is unfit to be a teacher.
Los Angeles, June 25, 2017
Reprinted from World Cinema Review (June 2017).
No comments:
Post a Comment