Let's talk about Mikio Naruse's "Sound of the Mountain"It's sort of funny to me how films like these are seen as arthouse cinema in the modern western world, when the film itself (at least, the way I see it) is a fairly simple family drama that reflects on the psychology of different members and the generational detachment going on between them.Sure, it's well-made and well-written, but it's not an incredibly complex film, the direction itself is fairly simple and basic, even for Japanese cinema of those years...it comes off almost as a soap opera with a stronger psychological component and developement.So, is it considered arthouse simply because it's a foreign film from 1954? Or is there a large artistic merit to it?I didn't dislike it by the way, but the "arthouse cinema" label baffles me...I feel that to a Japanese person in 1954 this would just be a film, nothing artsy about it
>>222317526Arthouse is a pretty vague term. Basically everything non-mainstream is called arthouse. It doesn't mean the movies are particularly avant-garde.
>>222317756But this film WAS considered mainstream when it came out. These domestic dramas were all the rage back then in Japan, they make up 99% of Yasujiro Ozu's filmography after all lmaoIt's true that the real mainstream stuff back then were films that were more inspired by western Hollywood cinema, but those were seen as cheap imitations of said style and lesser works of the Jaoanese film industry, so directors like Naruse, Ozu and Kenji Mizoguchi were probably seen as "elevated mainstream, if you willAnd when it comes to calling them "artsy", I would agree when it ckmes tk someone like Yasujiro Ozu, he is very auteur-ish and has a very distinct style and sense of rythm that may not be for everyone, but Mikio Naruse's works just come of as well put together dramas, nithing too odd or esoteric about them.If Sound of the Mountain was made today in the West it would just be seen as a social drama. A good and complex one, but still, it's not a Jodorowsky or Andy Warhol type show
