Ozu’s use of character ambivalence and irony is similar to that of Czech director Milos Forman, and an interesting comparison can be drawn between their films. Both perfected a form of light comedy which contrasted documentary “realism” with flashes of human density. In their comedies, disparity is reflected by a tragicomic attitude toward character and a resultant irony. Their early films, given cultural differences, were remarkably similar, but Ozu’s later films moved gradually out of the light comedy category and acquired a weight as yet unknown to Forman’s work. This is because the later Ozu films employ transcendental style: by changing superficial “realism” to the rigid everyday and by changing mild disparity (character ambivalence, irony) into unexpected decisive action, Ozu transforms human density into spiritual density. Assuming that Forman and Ozu started from an analogous base in light comedy (Black Peter vis-à-vis I Was Born, But . . .), Ozu’s evolution may be hypothesized thus: the twin influences of the age of postwar Westernization heightened the innate conflict between Zen culture and modernization in Ozu and forced him little by little to intensify his already schizoid style so that the differences could no longer be resolved but had to be transcended. The compassion of Ozu’s later films is so overburdening and disparate that rapprochement cannot be achieved by laughter as in light comedy, but only by a deep spiritual awareness. (Milos Forman is still a young director, of course, although the surrealistic conclusion of Firemen’s Ball suggests that his career will take a different course.)