Prompt for First Paper:
Ozu’s Tokyo Story is considered by many critics to be one of the greatest films ever made. At the very least, Ozu is a distinctive filmmaker. What do you think makes him so distinctive and his work so engaging? How do you think this film can be best interpreted? One might recall Wim Wenders' comment:
As thoroughly Japanese as they are, these films are, at the same time, universal. In them, I've been able to recognize all families, in all the countries of the world, as well as my parents, my brother and myself. For me, never before and never again since has the cinema been so close to its essence and its purpose.
For Wenders, the purpose of film is "to present an image of [humanity] in our century, a usable, true and valid image, in which [we can] not only recognize [ourselves] but from which, above all, [we] may learn about [ourselves]. (Language adapted slightly)
Have we learned anything about ourselves from watching this Ozu film?
Film scholar David Boardwell, who admires Ozu's "compassionate detachment" reflects on the ending of Tokyo Story like this::
Thanks to Ozu’s compassionate detachment, the final scenes take on enormous richness of feeling, as we watch characters contemplate their futures. Noriko smilingly says to Kyoko, “Isn’t life disappointing?”; Shukichi assures Noriko that she must remarry; the neighbor jovially warns Shukichi that now he’ll be lonely. Yet the momentous revelations are tempered by the poetic resonance of everyday acts and objects. Shukichi greets a beautiful sunrise—signaling another day of brisk fanning and plucking at one’s kimono. An ordinary wristwatch links mother, daughter, and daughter-in-law in a lineage of hard-earned feminine wisdom. And the roar of the train headed back to Tokyo dies down, leaving only the throbbing of a boat in the bay.
Do you find points in this film where there is considerable "richness of feeling"? What do you find in this world Ozu creates?
Remember, all of your papers for this class should triangulate between YOU, the FILM, and some CRITICAL ASSESSMENT OF THE FILM by a scholar or a film critic. For Tokyo Story, we have Desser's "Intoduction" or Kathe Geist's chapter on "Buddhism in Tokyo Story," as well as the numerous other reviews and comments posted online. Yoshimoto’s Intro I.pdf, also lays out some parameters for the discourse on Japanese film studies which might be useful. But the basic charge for this paper is to write an essay on Ozu's Tokyo Story which discusses the film within some critical framework. You could, if you wish, contrast Ozu's style with Mizoguchi's. For that, you would want to bring in some of Bock's or Lopate's commentary. Remember, though, you need to argue for your claim about whichever film you focus on and make a case for your point of view.
Length, 3-5 pages.
Due Feb. 14.
General Instructions for Papers
"Have something to say, and say it as clearly as you can. That is the only secret of style."
— Matthew Arnold
- Film Titles should either be in italics, such as Tokyo Story or in quotes “Tokyo Story.” Yoshimoto uses italics throughout his book as does Desser. I think that is the best convention to follow.
- When we use quotation marks for any purpose, commas and periods go inside the quote “marks,” while colons and semicolons would fall outside like this”:
On the value of writing, short, crisp, clear sentences:
There’s nothing wrong with well-made, strongly constructed, purposeful long sentences.
But long sentences often tend to collapse or break down or become opaque or trip over their awkwardness. They’re pasted together with false syntax. And rely on words like ‘with’ and ‘as’ to lengthen the sentence. They’re short on verbs, weak in syntactic vigor,full of floating, unattached phrases, often out of position.
And worse — the end of the sentence commonly forgets its beginning, as if the sentence were a long, weary road to the wrong place.
- Tense. Often in lit papers or film studies papers, because the experience of reading the novel or watching the film is a recurring experience for readers/viewers, we talk about how a film “makes” us feel a certain way rather than “made” us feel even though both are possible.
- Introduction
- We only get one chance to hook the reader into reading our papers. So a paper that opens with:
Great filmmakers have the ability to draw the attention of the viewer regardless of the subject matter. Filmmakers may have differing ways of doing this, but Ozu Yasujirô, a world renown filmmaker from Japan, relies heavily on unconventional techniques—at least by Western standards—of keeping the viewer’s attention…..
Is going to do a better job of hooking the reader in than something like:
Yasujirô Ozu is a great Japanese film director....OR
Yasujirô Ozu’s films portray the change in lifestyles and social structure in Japan as a result of the Occupation.
While each of these statements may be true, think about it. Are they exciting? Interesting? Engaging?
So try and be dynamic in your opening paragraph. You should probably consider writing or rewriting your Intro after you have completed your paper so you can have in mind the main points that your paper is making before you write the Intro.
In the case of your first paper on Ozu's Tokyo Story, you have a couple of assigned essays on the film. You also have access to numerous reviews and commentaries. Make good use of these resources at your disposal.
So you could open your paper with something like:
Ozu's films are considered masterpieces by many, and Tokyo Story "is generally acknowledged to be one of the greastst films ever made." (Desser, p. 2). Critics usually point to XXXX znd YYYY in Ozu's film. In this essay, I will consider Tokyo Story from the point of veiw of ZZZZZ and AAAAA; or I will draw upon the work of scholars like SoAndSo and SoAndSo in order to argue that this film is best seen as a QQQQQQQQQQQ.
Drafts.
This is not a Writing Centered course but rare is the student or scholar who can write a perfect--or even above average paper--in a single draft. It is not unusual to find a great introductory sentence or paragraph near the end of a paper's first draft. Joan Didion once wrote something to the effect that “we write in order to discover what it is that we think, believe, or feel about something.” Writing is a process of discovery so a better paper is going to be one that gets written, and then revised, and rewritten. You should plan your time to allow for this.
Quotes.
Use some! Quote dialogue from a scene if you wish. Quote from the wide variety of secondary sources available to you. When you are working with an entire book devoted to Ozu’s Tokyo Story, or Yoshimoto’s book on Kurosawa with all the detailed discussions/analyses of his style and the films we are watching at your disposal, as well as extensive film reviews and discussions linked to the syllabus or in PDF form on WISE, and not a single quote appears anywhere in your paper, I would have to wonderwhy you are not taking advantage of these valuable resources.
As indicated on the syllabus, papers will be evaluated primarily on the basis of their Organization and Clarity.
1. Does the introduction make a clear "claim" or have a strong thesis statement? Does the body provide adequate supporting evidence for the paper's argumetns?
2. Is the body of the essay is well organized, with a clear focus, and does it advances a coherent argument? Does it flow well, feature crisp, clean prose and is generally clean, i.e., free of errors in grammar, syntax, and spelling?
3. Does the essay demonstrate close engagement with the films under review and does it effectively integrate arguments from the assigned or collateral readings?
4. Does the conclusion echo the claims or questions that you have raised in your introduction and does it poins out how you have successfully addressed them as you indicated that you would?