I could be off base, but a blatant propaganda sequel that attempts to elevate Japan's power over foreigners during a time when Japan was actually surrendering its power to the U.S. makes for a very sympathetic irony. Having just come off the heels of Ozu's work, this film made a lot of sense to me. 

For starters, keep in mind that Japan's entire culture had been shifting for decades towards western decadence under Meiji restoration. Traditional foods, dress, fashions, industries, advertising, politics, etc. were becoming overwhelmingly Americanized, essentially dislocating the country from its central identity and ancient traditions. Ozu, of course, had his fair share of qualms with tradition (he certainly criticized harmful traditions, like patriarchal norms and Japanese nationalism), but by and large there's a feeling of loss and longing his characters often feel for the past, especially with the older generation. A distinctly "Japanese identity" in the 20s, 30s and 40s was slowly disappearing from the rising social consciousness, creating an unpleasant sense of fragmentation in the culture and characters who felt defeated. Bordwell states:

“If Meiji has delivered on its promises, there would be no reason to question class hierarchy, military imperialism, or industrial exploitation." 

This story doesn’t question anything, it’s very obedient to state logic and Japanese superiority. But with Japan’s turbulent history in mind, SANSHIRO SUGATA PART TWO, a story about American influence coming to Japan, suddenly makes a little more sense. This might be a stretch, but a story about a marital arts expert defending the honor of Japan's legacy despite the reality (outside the narrative) of compromising that legacy to modernity, westernization and U.S. Occupation feels like borderline historical revisionism. It's propaganda, yes, but it's the kind of propaganda that's trying to use populist cinema in a very specific way, if not to rewrite the country's supremacy, then definitely to embolden an otherwise despondent country that was a) losing the war, b) losing its traditions, and c) losing grasp on its identity and morale. 

This film is a fantasy that has no cultural veracity. It feels aligned with the spirit of Ozu's characters lamenting over a lost culture, but then it moves beyond that loss a la propaganda trying to reclaim it, fictionalize it, forcing foreigners to recognize the glory of Japanese traditions that were dissolving. As Richie implies, the Japanese government was desperately flailing its arms with this one, trying to show how "subtle, agile Japanese judo will always win over massive, mindless American boxing." The story is one dimensional and nationalistic, but I sympathize with why the choice was made. Sugata, though unwritten and cliche in the sequel as compared to the original, is a symbol of wartime hope, a hero who was "protecting a poor, helpless Japanese from a big, brutal foreigner."

Kurosawa may have allowed himself to be manipulated by a puppeteering government, but the result is still fascinating to me. 

It’s a conventional story about Japan's attempt to prove its power in the face of defeat, to bolster a war effort it was going to lose, and to protect its legacies that were fast dissolving. And that’s only the first half of the film. The second half is a fun knockoff of the original which I won’t go into, but needless to say I had a good time with this sequel. I dunno. I could be wrong about a lot of this, but I think this film gets an unfair wrap, and I think I've only come to that conclusion because of how Ozu colored my perspective on what Japan was going through during this tumultuous time.

I think a little propaganda, even if silly and shammy, had to feel encouraging for a country that was being disconnected from itself.

Kurosawa Ranked