Similar to many of his other post-World War II films, Yasujiro Ozu's Tokyo Story focuses on changes within a Japanese family. While superficially, the film seems to only deal with its primary characters, in actuality, the fragmented Hirayama family is allegorical of Japanese families in the post-war era. In looking at Tokyo Story, it is important to look the economic and sociological history of Japan in addition to the film's precise style to notice how Ozu blames his country's explosion into modernity for the decay of the family.

Mellen, Joan. The Waves at Genji's Door: Japan Through Its Cinema. New York: Pantheon Books, 1976.

Call #: PN1993.5.J3 M4

 

In her chapter on Ozu, Joan Mellen gives a close analysis of several of the director's films.  When speaking about his later works, she writes, "Ozu's implicit hope, in all the films he made after the War, was that traditional Japanese values could be continued within the context of the family, despite the social degradation outside," (321).  She develops this idea deeper over the next several paragraphs and goes as far as saying that the preservation of family values, in Ozu's mind, would prevent total "moral anarchy" (321).  While it sounds extreme to label the world as being in moral anarchy, Tokyo Story certainly portrays the Ozu's distress of his contemporary world. 

This anxiety is nicely shown through the contrast between exterior scenes in Tokyo and interior scenes of the family.  Many of the outdoor shots consist of noisy, dirty elements of city life.  While the camera generally remains static, there is significant movement through the frame which gives an unstable and unreliable tint to the world.  On the other hand, the indoor shots-the shots protected from the outside world-have a calm, soothing feel to it.   As Mellen suggests, home and the family can be a valuable shelter.

By the end of the film, however, we see that the family is no stronger than the world on the outside; everyone is separated physically and emotionally.  Despite this inverse, Mellen's analysis seems to be correct because the destruction of the cinematic family allows Ozu calls attention the underlying problem.  Only by recognizing the decomposition of family can his audience put an end to it.