What's wrong with sappy soap operas? Actually, scrap that. What is a "sappy soap opera"?
The thing about films is that their greatness tends to lie in their execution. Some people like to say that such-and-such film has beautiful cinematography, but this means absolutely nothing if he/she can't clarify what is meant exactly by that beauty (beautiful for what? in what context? how?). If the film is crap, who gives a *beep* about whether it looks nice. Yes, we can certainly make those generic and boring aesthetic claims. But how do they ring significant if the narrative conforms merely to that of a "sappy soap opera" -- a classification that puts virtually anything in the bin before examination? Is the burden now on someone else to show you otherwise?
I won't deny that the film is based on a melodramatic premise, most of Ozu's films are working-class family melodramas (I think it's called the Shomin genre or Shomin-geki). However, by saying that it is "not much more than a sappy soap opera" does little justice to it. It is a "beautiful" film because of how the delivery lays in service to the content. Where and when are we so fortunate to come across melodramas that are so gently and carefully crafted? You may be right that it isn't a great film, but sure as hell it isn't just any soap.
Anyway, intellectuals don't tend to indulge in sappy soap operas very much, it would be a rather unintellectual and basic indulgence. As a result, we have problems laying out what they actually are (you see, other than serving as objects of research and criticism, soap operas are far too low for our kind).
Stanley Cavell on those who might find his response to Bette Davis' transformation in Now, Voyager as camp:
"Anyone who thinks such responses are "camp" either is camping himself or else grew up in a different world from mine." (The World Viewed, p.6)
Whatever that "camp-ness" is I will gladly take it.
reply
share