I found the film really bad, and in vengeance against those who hail it as a masterpiece, I thought I would write a long review explaining why it actually sucks. No matter how poorly I accomplish this task, I expect that reading this review will still be more interesting and entertaining than watching the film! Indeed, "boring" is the most apt adjective to describe this trite work of cinema.
On the positive side, the film portrays a historically interesting social context, postwar japan, a time when the old clashes with the new, and the influence of the US is felt throughout.
However, it lacks not only enough density of interesting information, but also depth.
With regards to the story:
The main plot tells us of a 27-year-old girl and how she becomes mildly sad because of the marriage her caretakers arrange for her. You will see the occasional coca-cola sign and baseball reference, signaling postwar USA presence, and some circumstantial evidence that times-are-changing in Japan (e.g. her uncle is divorced, her girlfriend works as a secretary for a living). And there will also be the occasional scene showing us how change comes slowly (such as a traditional Japanese theater, or the main plot theme). The two provide a nice old-vs-new theme to the whole movie, which might be really nice if it was well executed.
Unfortunately, the events are presented in a sparse, disconnected whole. Most characters, particularly female characters, fluctuate between shallow and histrionic. Several of the characters (such as her cousin, or the professor's assistant) are disposable, and serve little purpose other than to fill the movie with distractions (I wouldn't write this if only the scenes in which these characters appear were significant, or even just beautiful, but they are not). It is not that the story is bad --- I think that the same story could possibly make a great movie --- it is simply that it is badly told.
With regards to the shooting: There are some beautiful scenes. These are mostly indoor scenes, but also the theater scene and one or two outdoor scenes. But it is hard to make nature look pretty in black and white, and the cinematographer was no Yusov. However, the various dull, poorly chosen, poorly filmed outdoor scenes go on forever.
The acting is not worth mentioning. The actors were not given difficult roles, but they were not up to playing even those. Occasionally I got the feeling that the actor was reciting his lines (esp. the father), or that the actor was overplaying them (esp. the girlfriend).
Overall it makes for an extremely dull piece of cinema. Save yourself the time.
On the positive side, the film portrays a historically interesting social context, postwar japan, a time when the old clashes with the new, and the influence of the US is felt throughout.
However, it lacks not only enough density of interesting information, but also depth.
With regards to the story:
The main plot tells us of a 27-year-old girl and how she becomes mildly sad because of the marriage her caretakers arrange for her. You will see the occasional coca-cola sign and baseball reference, signaling postwar USA presence, and some circumstantial evidence that times-are-changing in Japan (e.g. her uncle is divorced, her girlfriend works as a secretary for a living). And there will also be the occasional scene showing us how change comes slowly (such as a traditional Japanese theater, or the main plot theme). The two provide a nice old-vs-new theme to the whole movie, which might be really nice if it was well executed.
Unfortunately, the events are presented in a sparse, disconnected whole. Most characters, particularly female characters, fluctuate between shallow and histrionic. Several of the characters (such as her cousin, or the professor's assistant) are disposable, and serve little purpose other than to fill the movie with distractions (I wouldn't write this if only the scenes in which these characters appear were significant, or even just beautiful, but they are not). It is not that the story is bad --- I think that the same story could possibly make a great movie --- it is simply that it is badly told.
With regards to the shooting: There are some beautiful scenes. These are mostly indoor scenes, but also the theater scene and one or two outdoor scenes. But it is hard to make nature look pretty in black and white, and the cinematographer was no Yusov. However, the various dull, poorly chosen, poorly filmed outdoor scenes go on forever.
The acting is not worth mentioning. The actors were not given difficult roles, but they were not up to playing even those. Occasionally I got the feeling that the actor was reciting his lines (esp. the father), or that the actor was overplaying them (esp. the girlfriend).
Overall it makes for an extremely dull piece of cinema. Save yourself the time.