Talk:Yasujirō Ozu

Debate over Ozu's intentions and style

I would argue that this article is heavily influenced by Donald Richie's opinions concerning "mono no aware," which has been argued against by Bordwell, Kiju and Daisuke Miyao. Often this "zen buddhism" filming gives the wrong impression of Ozu, and can be seen as "orientalizing." More differing arguments and interpretations about subjects such as the low camera height and long-held shots of objects should be included in the next revision. Quotations can be found in the books that are listed as references, but I can supply them if help is needed. 209.2.51.215 19:30, 28 March 2007 (UTC)jason

"His predominant theme of the disintegration of the traditional family under modern pressures became even more pronounced in his later works, as he personally felt that postwar society had a corrupting influence on morality. This is especially shown in Tokyo Monogatari, which also uses another common element found in many of Ozu's films – negligent relatives who do not fulfill their duties and obligations to the family."

This entire paragraph is baseless speculation, and really should be either heavily edited or removed. Forweg 16:24, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I believed that it is an agreed point among critics of his work, however it should be properly cited. BeShaMo (talk) 11:25, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Public Domain?

There is an interesting discussion on Akira Kurosawa's talk page about Public Domain, (asserting that Kurosawa's work is not in PD), and it speculates that Ozu's work might be. Can anybody confirm of deny this? BeShaMo (talk) 17:40, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

NPOV

The "Legacy" section is too POV (see WP:NPOV). For example: "This style of filmmaking produced quiet and thoughtful films of rare beauty and elegance." I'll try to get around to fixing it up myself. -- The Fwanksta (talk) 01:52, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Seems much better now than it was in March. I've removed the tag you added, but replaced with a refimprov tag since that section clearly needs better sourcing. If someone feels there are still NPOV issues feel free to re-add that tag, but it looks all right to me. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 02:41, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, it still needs a lot of work... it reads like someone just writing off the cuff... But I dislike tags anyway-- unnecessary graffiti when it's obvious there is work to be done on the article. But someone will get to it sooner or later. Dekkappai (talk) 02:45, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, there are still issues, but I don't think NPOV is exactly the problem. Presumably if sources were added the actual text would change somewhat and sound less "off the cuff" as is clearly the case now. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 02:54, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

romaji mismatch

I'm reasonably sure that Kagamijishi is not a good transliteration of 菊五郎の鏡獅子. —Tamfang (talk) 06:23, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Directors as diverse as...

Let's not add any more directors to the list of diverse directors, it is getting a bit ridiculous. JoshuSasori (talk) 04:37, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

• • Ozu's influence is illustrated by the various directors who cite him. As long as they have sources and as long as they are reputable directors themselves, the list could be theoretically endless. 71.119.193.188 (talk) 22:24, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

No, if the list becomes longer and longer, it becomes unreadable, and disrupts the purpose of the page, making an encyclopedia article about this director. It's already a silly list; if people want to discuss the influence of this director, they should explicitly say something about what influence he might have had, or something. JoshuSasori (talk) 22:37, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

• How is that not pertinent to the director if we cannot add others who have been influenced by him? I agree that it could be elaborated more upon if some of them were quoted (which is in the sources), but plenty of articles on other directors and artists list the subsequent directors they influenced. I don't understand how the list is "silly". The directors listed are particularly renowned for their work in independent and arthouse cinema, which further illustrates Ozu's influence upon that particular style (as indicated in the article). If the directors were obscure, it would be understandable to remove them. 71.119.193.188 (talk) 03:35, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

The sentence reads "Directors as diverse as Jim Jarmusch, Wim Wenders, Abbas Kiarostami,[12] Mike Leigh, Deepa Mehta, Aki Kaurismaki, Kiyoshi Kurosawa,[13] Alexander Payne,[14] Takeshi Kitano, and Pedro Costa have said that they were influenced by his films". Try to read that sentence. Do you notice anything? Yes, that's right, it's unreadable. Nobody can read this sentence and make sense of it. I am not saying "don't add any more directors" but "don't make this ridiculously long, unreadable sentence any longer or any more unreadable". It already needs rephrasing and I am tempted to remove about half the names. JoshuSasori (talk) 08:17, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

• No, I don't think it's unreadable. But if it really bothers you so much, rephrase it. Don't remove the names, especially if they have sources. You can find sources for the remainder and I'll do the same. Plenty of other articles list off influences of other directors in a sentence, though there are other ways do it. On the Ingmar Bergman page, there influences are listed with bullet points. Or to reduce the repetition, we could include more quotes from directors, while keeping other directors unquoted, e.g. "other directors influenced by Ozu include...". Removing them hastily just because you don't like how it is organised is not rationale. 71.119.193.188 (talk) 19:27, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

"No, I don't think it's unreadable. But if it really bothers you so much, rephrase it. Don't remove the names, especially if they have sources. You can find sources for the remainder and I'll do the same." - an ever-growing list of names is unreadable by normal human standards. "Removing them hastily just because you don't like how it is organised is not rationale. " - I am not suggesting removing the list but not adding any more names to it. I assure you that it is unreadable already, whether you agree with me or not. JoshuSasori (talk) 23:07, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

• Like I said, I don't find it unreadable. Unless you're appealing to some Wikipedia guideline, I don't think you have an argument here. You don't need to assure me that it's unreadable when I've read it and patently disagree. Though, you did already imply that you were going to remove some of the names: "I am tempted to remove about half the names." Again, there are plenty of other ways to list the influences. However, I'm not the one who has a problem with the status quo. So if you think there's a problem, I suggest you reorganise it yourself. 71.119.193.188 (talk) 03:38, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't find it unreadable - OK, well if you get bored of editing Wikipedia, you might want to read the phone book for its entertainment value. I'm not the one who has a problem with the status quo. So if you think there's a problem, I suggest you reorganise it yourself. - no, the problem I have is that the list of names of directors has continually been added to over the last few months, resulting in something which is already unreadable and likely to become bizarre if it gets any longer. For the sake of those eccentric people who don't derive great pleasure from reading the phone book, it would be much better to write something meaningful about how Ozu influenced the other directors, rather than hack even more things into an ever-growing list. I guess this discussion is just going to go on and on and on though. JoshuSasori (talk) 04:26, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

• I'd invite you to spare me of the gibes about my supposed interest in the phone book and whatever else remarks you'd have about me that might imply I'm a freak of nature. The style used of listing influences amongst artists in a sentence is not limited to this article, and I'd also invite you to reword it, since it is of concern to you and not me. I'm sure you'd have ideas about it since you've stated you're not going to remove the sourced material in your most recent posts. 71.119.193.188 (talk) 09:36, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

There is nothing in the above comment (dated 04:26, 24 July 2012) which is a "personal attack". It just points out that most people find long lists of names difficult to read, using reductio ad absurdum. JoshuSasori (talk) 10:01, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

• "if you get bored of editing Wikipedia, you might want to read the phone book for its entertainment value." That's a personal attack. 71.119.193.188 (talk) 19:43, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

No it isn't. JoshuSasori (talk) 23:04, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

• Yes, it is. 71.119.193.188 (talk) 02:31, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

No, it isn't, but perhaps you are trying to provoke me into making a personal attack. JoshuSasori (talk) 03:54, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

• Yes, it is and no, I'm not. 71.119.193.188 (talk) 04:51, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Producer

The JMDB puts him as a producer of Bloody Spear at Mount Fuji but article does not mention it. Any inputs???? JoshuSasori (talk) 03:05, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

C class article?

Regarding the wikiproject box assessment at the top of this page, I think this article is better than C-class. I would like to request reassessment. Thank you. NotYourFathersOldsmobile (talk) 05:39, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Marked as British English

Judging using the first version available, [1],

He did not use sound until 1936 or colour stock until 1958. His personal shot was one taken from only three or so feet from the ground, a viewpoint of a person on a tatami. He was also strongly in favour of static camerawork and careful composition where no single actor would dominate a scene.

I've marked this as "Use British English". NotYourFathersOldsmobile (talk) 09:03, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Yasujirō Ozu. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100726084327/http://www.dgj.or.jp/about_g/chronology.html to http://www.dgj.or.jp/about_g/chronology.html
• Added {{dead link}} tag to https://www.cjspubs.lsa.umich.edu/electronic/facultyseries/list/series/ozu.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:19, 6 December 2017 (UTC)