MartinHafer This is a very simple film about a single dad and his relationship with his son spread over more than a decade. Personal happiness seems to always take a back seat to devotion to duty in this film, though it is obvious that despite the distance between the father and son that they truly love each other.I guess I'm going to be the radical among all the reviewers and give this film a rather average score of 6--though it's very close to receiving a 7. Having seen quite a few other films by the famed Japanese director, Ozu, I realize just how similar but how inferior this film is compared to them. Like his trademark style, the film features many low angle and static camera shots as well as the occasional seemingly irrelevant transitional shots, though it did seem a bit less polished and professional in style than his later films. However, despite the similarity of style, the story itself just seemed rather unfinished and anticlimactic--like it was missing something. Because of this, I really think that if a person not familiar with and in love with Ozu's work saw this, they'd soon get bored and never seek out one of his films--which is a great loss. At no point does the film engage you like his greater works like UKIGUSA (FLOATING WEEDS) or BANSHUN (LATE SPRING). Those who are familiar with his other films, however, will revel in the familiarity and will probably not mind the weak story about devotion to duty above all else--which another reviewer astutely pointed out was meant to bolster the Japanese war effort.FYI--The print shown on Turner Classic Movies was pretty rough and needs restoration badly. I doubt if a better version exists, as TCM usually shows the best available copy of each film.

john What would be your perfect death? After an evening out with friends you suddenly are taken ill the following morning, living just long enough to deliver a perfectly honed homily from your hospital bed before slipping peacefully away. It doesn't usually happen like that, of course, but in this Ozu film it appears as the reward for an exemplary life. A widower bringing up his son alone feels obliged to resign from his post as school teacher after the death of a pupil for which he feels responsible. His search for work elsewhere leads to separation from the son even while the latter is still at school. The close bond between them is evoked by shots early and late in the film of their fishing together. These are beautifully economical, the pair framed together from behind. Later when the son himself has become a teacher he wishes to resign his post to be closer to his ageing father who is now a bureaucrat in Tokyo. The father explains to him the importance of dedication to duty as the only path to happiness, a message accepted by the son who is only able to spend a brief time with the father who dies shortly afterwards. As this might suggest it is more simplistic in its morality than later better known films such as 'Tokyo Story'. The poignancy of the film derives from a much simpler conflict between social duty and family ties. This is doubtless partly accountable in terms of the war time context in which the 'good father' would be the one who cheerfully accepted the absence and possible death of his sons. Nonetheless a certain psychological complexity is permitted. The father blames himself for the death of the student in a boating accident on his failure to exert proper authority. However what we see is his involvement in a game of 'Go' which distracts his attention while the boys disobey his instructions not to go boating. Lack of competence and authority he can confront. Neglect of duty he cannot. At the time of writing (August 2005) a pretty dreadful copy of this is drawing very respectable audiences in a Paris cinema. It is certainly a moving experience but its problematic political subtext should not be ignored.

rschmeec Whether the father is a "good father" is questionable. We first see him abandoning a career as a schoolteacher, for which he seems eminently fitted, because he is unwilling to accept responsibility. This tendency is amplified as he separates from the son, presumably for the son's sake, but this can be interpreted as another abandonment of responsibility.The son is portrayed as suffering deeply because of the separation, and this emotional pain is repeated in several scenes in which they are together again for short periods of time.As the movie progresses, the son is portrayed as larger than the father, often filling the screen in interiors that have a very low ceiling. The son is always dutiful, (in contrast to the two students at the beginning of the movie); the father continually urges the son to work hard, to give it all he has, in order to get ahead. But the father appears pathetic in his subordinate clerical position; his emphasis on "giving it all one has" is countered by the son's simple desire to be with the father. Human relations trump the value of hard work.

Daryl Chin (lqualls-dchin) Most of the films of Yasujiro Ozu take a very restricted time period: a few days at the most. "There Was a Father" is unusual in that the time span is actually quite long: it stretches over a number of years (this is also the case with "The Only Son"), as it chronicles the relationship of a widower with his son. The father, a schoolteacher (played by Chishu Ryu), struggles to make sure that his son has advantages that he never had; in this case, the son is appreciative of all that the father has done, and the relationship is one of the most heartwarming of all familial relationships in Ozu's work. "There Was a Father" represents one of the most beautiful depictions of a good parent in all of world cinema.