我出生了，但……

        电影上映于1932年。正是日本持续50年战争的时期前段。电影里很多地方都有映射出这一点，比如教室里的“爆弹三勇士”的字牌，亦或是当父亲问到孩子将来的梦想，而孩子回答“大将军”等，都体现出在当时的年代，武士是在日本除了帝皇的最高等级。而也正因为这样的一个背景，让小津安二郎原本想要拍摄的喜剧，到最后变成了一部令人反思的颇为伤感的作品。
        电影的开始讲述了孩子们和父亲搬到了一个新的地方。在这里，所有的一切都是崭新的。房子，土地，人群。从电影里我们看到，主人公一家住在火车铁轨旁，而在当时，火车时是最高的城市化象征；它象征着时代的进步，也映射出主人公一家地位等级的提升。
        孩子们刚刚到了新环境，不免被人欺负。但他们不甘心，于是找到了卖酒的男人，借着母亲向男人买了酒，让男人帮他们出了口气，教训了一下那个平日总是欺负他们的另一个小孩。这时，当他们指着又一个坐着的小男孩要求同样也要教训他一下时，卖酒男人说，“他不行。他的父母买的酒比你家的多。”这时，等级地位就很明显地体现出来了。
        而为什么说这是两个平行的世界呢？因为这样一帮小孩子的群体，有大有小，有强有弱，在成人的世界中，亦是同样如此。在小孩们父亲的公司里，我们很明显地看到了地位的划分，这点在之后的大家聚在一起观看的电影里，更是表达地十分清晰。
        而就在小孩子与大人一同观赏的这部电影中，两个已经变成小霸王的孩子却看到了自己一直引以为傲的父亲的窘状。父亲为了取悦上司而做着各种鬼脸，这样的“上司给指令，父亲便遵从”的场景不免让两个孩子也想到了现实生活中那些处于下等地位只懂得听从命令的小孩们。尽管一同观看电影的大人与小孩口中所说的关于父亲的“好笑”或许真的是发自内心的仅仅感到好笑而已，但在这两个小孩的眼里，此时每个人的言论与笑容都化为了一把利剑，刺伤了他们年幼的自尊心。音乐此时也从欢快的节奏变得有些沉闷。两个小孩回到家后闷闷不乐，开始指责父亲为什么要阿谀奉承，为什么要低声下气。孩子们不服气，认为父亲很丢人，宁愿父亲不去挣钱，也不要为了他们的生计而降低自己的地位。
        于是就有了孩子们的绝食战争；同时，也出现了影片中最为令人难过且让人充满无力感的镜头：父亲和母亲看着熟睡中的孩子们，说着，希望他们以后不要过着和我们一样的生活。
        而后的早晨，孩子们和父亲一同坐在院子中，面对着铁轨，手里拿着饭团，终于理解了父亲的艰难。这也就出现了我题目中所提到的”互教互懂“的观点：父亲看到上级却碍于孩子在身旁没有上前打招呼，直到孩子们提醒，他才上前。在这里我们看到，父亲的世界教会了孩子关于现实中为了生存所必须存在的等级制度，而这一镜头却让我们感受到成人也同样从孩子们的世界里学习着生存之道。
        小津安二郎说这本是一部喜剧，最后却拍成了悲剧。而在我看来，他却给了这部电影一个非常好的结尾。孩子们一如既往地做着”打手势你趴下“的游戏，仿佛昨日意识到的等级制度今日在他们的世界中已不复存在。这定是一门在他们的成长道路上的重要的一课，但这门课所映射的关于社会的现实性，在他们的这个年纪，毕竟还是抵不过孩子们纯真的本性。
        当然也有人说这部电影，在当时的环境背景下拍摄出来，本就是个悲剧。不管孩子们今后如何努力，面对战争的压力，都无法从这样的已经定型的社会地位逃脱出来。这也是二战为人们带来的悲哀。

——I was born, but…

Ozu’s movie I Was Born, But... is an undoubted hilarious silent comedy. But speaking of the dark side, Ozu mentioned in an interview:“I started to make a film about children and ended up with a film about grown-ups…”. Movie through a comparison of the hierarchies of the adult world and the hierarchies of the children's world presents both the humor of everyday life and the sad realities of life.
As David Bordwell said, “The film is built around the social use of power.” This film explores the ways the world works. For adults, the determiner is financial, and the social classes. For children, the determiner is physical strength, sparrow eggs, and their father. Ozu reveals us a harsh reality：Not only in the adult's world but also in the children word, that these principles underlie social hierarchies, and the social fabric are the systems in which we must compromise.
   A common misreading by the Western audiences believed this movie is accused the hypocritical in the adult world. In the one hand, “Ozu demonstrates human encounters without judgment. Ouz’s observation of family life and its social decline are respectful.” On the other hands, in this movie, is hard to say children characters are pure innocent. They have their own priorities, different the grownups, children's simply measured by strength. They already live under the rules, just hadn’t understood the unjust hierarchical social customs of the real world yet. The boys define they have the best father during the kids’ arguments. But in the home movies, they saw a different light about their father. Who seem is not an important “somebody” they had worshiped, but as a “nobody” who has to fawn on Taro's father.
       Paternal authority always is an important part in the Asian cultures. “Japanese father was the head of the traditional family system” Without this background, it maybe a little confused for the Western audience how the boys' shifting attitude towards their father. At first, he is an exemplary hero. After the home movies, he is an embarrassing fool. Also, their father realizes he was disappointing his sons. He was so despair, even want dependency on alcohol to numb his sorrow.
      Frame is also an important method to narrative.“Ozu's objects are almost never divorced from narrative or thematic functions in his films.” An obvious symbol such as in this scene Ozu captures father’s sadness through the classic “tatami shot”. When father told mother he didn’t cozy up the boss because he enjoys it, audiences begin to empathies with his shame and panic. Is he hypocrisy? Maybe, but we couldn’t blame him.
“In most Ozu films the structure presumes this "return” and it is this which makes the final reels of these pictures so compelling.” Ozu reproduced a particular scene which the father and the boys walking together in the ending of the movie. They met Taro and father's boss; father struggled about whether or not to greet his boss, the younger brother said, “You’d better say good morning to him.” It’s a similar scene as the earlier at the beginning of the movie. But this time they establish a mutual understanding relationship.
The movie’s final scene is the most perfecting ending I can imagine. The brother admitted Taro’s father is better. Seem the conversation between father and sons made the boys realize what is the reality. In the children world, it takes more strength to accept your dad is better than my dad. After that, the boys began to “cast” on Taro. Everything seems same as before. They were grown up，but still preserving that childish aspect.
When I was watching I was born, but… I feel both of comedy and pathos. Is it comedy? Or, is it tragedy? It seems hard to simply definition. Just like Wim Wenders said, through Ozu’s movies we’ve been seeing all families in the whole word, we see our parents, our brothers and ourselves.

Reference
 David Bordwell, Ozu and the Poetics of Cinema
 Wim Wenders, Mary Zournaz, Inventing Peace: A Dialogue on Perception
 M.E. Lamb, 2003, The role of the father in child development (4th Ed.)
 Kathe Geist, Narrative Style in Ozu's Silent Films
 Donald Richie, Yasujiro Ozu: The Syntax of His Films