PANACHE DIFFERENCE

Yasujiro Ozu's films are explorations of space, although his later films are pre-occupied with the notion of the passage of time. His camera investigates the emotional spaces which divide and unite the characters of the film, the household and the workplaces, the architecture of small suburban Japanese towns and of sake bars and offices. His images are always simple but carefully constructed with the traditional rigorous Japanese geometry. Almost often his films are concerned with the unit of family.

Japan being a feudal society, the locus of power resided in the family. Post WW-2, the change and flux of the Japanese society, the demands of the” new and independent woman" or the breaking up of the family unit as result of the Japanese society giving way for newer cultural and economic currents-has been specifically portrayed in his films. Let us consider the examples of the 2 films "Tokyo Story" and "Early Summer" where Ozu tries to bring out the pathos of everyday existence and the changing Japanese bourgeois society respectively.
For example in "Tokyo Story", the journey of the parents from the countryside to the suburbs of Tokyo which occurs in a heartbeat of screen time, actually is a long process, both literally and metaphorically. The changing value system in JAPAN which has also been portrayed in "Early Summer" through the mature and independent Noriko[Satsuko Hara] is actually an indication of Japanese society at that time. His films were mostly shot in middle-class Japanese interiors which brought out the home as a kind of stage for the inevitable conflicts between the family members. The decision which Noriko makes in spite of her family's dissonance is not the outcome of an irrational whim of an immature girl but the new-liberated Japanese woman!

The plots, the characters, the backdrop of Ozu are very "JAPANESE”, irrelevant of the fact that they evoke universal sympathy.

Kurosawa's composition of frames picturesque, his projects were grand and won for him both critical and audience acclaim. His camera ventured into unknown spaces, while Ozu's was fixed-the entire drama unfolding in front of it.Ozu almost never panned the camera or faded to the next shot. Whereas Ozu was mostly confined to the Japanese interiors,Kurosawa explored the open Japanese wild territories. The fixed camera position of Ozu is similar to his treatment of films-there is no action, nothing really happens in the story. Kurosawa's way of making films was very different from that of Ozu,two of the major reasons being-he shot mostly outdoors and chronologically[one of the very few to do so],which made his films a gala affair!Ozu was very minimalist in his style-the simple decor, the minimum dialogue, the almost elegant mise-en scene -which forced the audience to go beneath the surface of drama and look for inner meanings.

Since Kurosawa's films did not essentially deal with typical "JAPANESE subjects" like Ozu, his films for the first time could open the doors of Japanese cinema to World cinema,though it must be mentioned Ozu's was a quiet and powerful study of the rapidly disintegrating Japanese feudal society.

HAD THE REBELS SUCCEEDED IN DRIVING OUT THE BRITISH IN 1857

Probably 2007 is not so late[?...lol] to comment on d most important event which took place 150 years ago in colonial India-the 1857 revolt-which in no way can be called a Sepoy mutiny, merely!So coming to the point........what might have been the consequences had the rebels succeeded???

The leaders of the rebellion were mostly the dispossessed native rulers,feudal lords,peasants,etc who were all united by anti-British feelings[not nationalism].Hence if power was seized,the feudal class and the native rulers would have continued with the feudal economic system for ages to come since they provided no blueprint for an alternative economic plan!A feudal economy would have meant no maximization of production because such an economy does not provide any incentive to improve production.Since the newly western educated elites condemned the movement,their initiative in formulating a new economic structure and active participation in d freed nation is doubtful.

Driving out the British at that point in time would have spelled doom for the education system of our country.Western Education in India was started only 20-25 years before the revolt i.e. roughly around 1830s,the pedagogs being mostly British.Western Education was indeed what India was in need for centuries because her cultural progress had become stagnant under centuries of Muslim rule. Doom and how???It was essentially Western Education that triggered off the feeling of nationalism among the Indians which in turn gave birth to the urgency for parliamentary democracy and "Swaraj". Nationalism is the only force which can integrate the various ethnic groups of India.But in 1857 the rebels were not even remotely touched by nationalism.They were all inspired by regional or provincial patriotism which meant that they did not refrain from fighting other Indians as long as they did not come from their provinces.Hence communal unrest would have been more frequent than, probably it is now.

It was with the help of the British that eminent personalities like Ram Mohan Roy and Iswar Chandra tried their best to eliminate social evils like Sati,Child Marriage,etc.Though frankly speaking, they were still carried out in practice,well after the laws were passed.And these great men were all products of Western Education,after all! Hence in some way or the other,the defeat of the rebels was a gain for the future generations to come.

##### This is a mere hypothesis and plz don't take it seriously.I've only tried to pen down the major consequences according to my historical views.