Paul Schrader considers three levels to be studied in Ozu's films:

1. Personal level
2. Zen level
3. Transcendental level

It means: the influence of his life in his movies; the influence of
the Japanese cultural space (with its essential Zen dimension) ; the
influence of everything that's beyond the Japanese; when we speak
about the Transcendental level , it's about what is common in all
various civilizational approaches (what is similar in the movies of
Ozu, Bresson, Dreyer).

Let's talk now about the personal level. How important is the
influence of the life of Ozu in his movies?

Schrader says it's minimal. IMHO, I would say rather, yes and no.

Yes, the influence of his life on his movies is minimal, because Ozu
does not speak ever about himself, does not perform self-analysis. His
discretion is Mozartian, Chekhovian.

No, because the man lived all his life unmarried, remained together
with his aging mother: and all his movies are about families and about
generational gap within families.

After watching several of his movies, we get the feeling that Ozu is
there, among his personages. We do not see him (as we see Hitchcock in
his famous cameos), however we know he's there: in those small
Japanese bars from the periphery, drinking sake and joking with the
other patrons, knowing each other for ages; in that small station in
Kamakura, looking with appetite at the railroad tracks, waiting for
the train, getting in with the others, staying inside the car with a
book in his hands, only not reading it, rather observing the others;
at the Noh theatre, watching the actors with amazement and imagining
each attendant as a player in the performance; in the houses, watching
what the family members are talking about, not interfering, because
he's too discreet, while also too curious.

Does this mean that his life is in his movies? Rather, his movies are
his life.