316 Ran

[solaris72]

The film is so stylized in so many other ways, why can't time the time of the battle itself also be stylized?

[PfR73]

Remeber that one of Hidetora's sons comments to the effect that each 1 of Hidetora's men is like 100 of his.

[Godot]

if this is indeed an entirely reflexive scene

I'm not sure I understand what you mean by "reflexive" in this context. Can you expand on that?

[benm]

by reflexive i mean that kurosawa had a clear sense of the battle in his head and then during the editing stage he was content with the final product, in particular that the scene does not come off as absurd (which is how i read it).
I hold kurosawa to higher standard than other directors since I can only imagine that he had more control over his final product as opposed to say most hollywood action directors. with movies like the island, the action sequences are just downright silly and i would guess that that's to make them last long and have lots of big blasts.

but i didn't recall what PfR73 reminded us of so it makes more sense now and seems less absurd to me.

[ka mai]

I had seen the Masterworks edition of Ran several times, and it looked fine on my 27", but viewing the Criterion on my new 51" widescreen definitely felt like I was seeing it for the first time. I'm just in awe of the precision and the beauty of this film.

The most interesting aspect of most of Kurosawa's work for me is the tension and the struggle between an idealism and a pessimism. The brutal, decisive victory of Kurosawa's pessimism in this film makes it stand out from the rest of his work, but also makes it difficult to compare. I think it is visually his most striking film (if only for the brilliant use of color), and it drives home its point powerfully. At the same time, it lacks the unresolved tension that I value most in Kurosawa's films from '49-'65 (I would also include Rhapsody in August in this group). In films like Stray Dog and High and Low it feels like Kurosawa is using his complete mastery of framing and editing to try to dissect issues and questions about idealism and pessimism that he really doesn't know the answers to. This feature also reveals itself in the bittersweet touches that keep the end of of Seven Samurai from being a "happy ending" or the hopeful theme that arises from Watanabe's otherwise sad tale in Ikiru.

Ran almost completely lacks this kind of tension, with every action leading towards the total destruction of all parties involved. I think this allows Kurosawa to focus even more intently on the precision and formal structure of Ran, but I find it difficult to say that it is one of the "best" or my "favorite" Kurosawa's.

benm:
I find the setup to the burning of the castle confusing in the same way. Was the castle completely abandoned after Saburo's forces left or was there some group remaining to defend it? In addition to the fact that the battle goes on for longer and at a larger scale than you would expect for one that was 30 men vs. hundreds, I think we may see well over 30 different bodies (who aren't wearing Toro or Jiro's armour) in the carnage that ensues. This is obviously incidental to the incredible power and effectiveness of the scene, but I'm just curious if I'm missing something here plot-wise. Are Toro and Jiro's forces attacking only the 30 retainers or is there another party involved?

[Godot]

by reflexive i mean that kurosawa had a clear sense of the battle in his head and then during the editing stage he was content with the final product, in particular that the scene does not come off as absurd (which is how i read it).

It sounds like you are referring to how successfully AK translated his imagination to the frame, and how realistic the scene is (as opposed to metaphoric). How well it reflects his vision.

But I don't think of AK being necessarily "reflexive" in the literary/analytical sense (meaning, the film refers to the medium itself), in the way that Godard and Hitchcock are textbook examples of reflexive directors, and so many others (Lang, Keaton, Allen, Bunuel, Fellini, DePalma, Powell, Greenaway) have peppered their work with elements, scenes, or whole films that comment on the filmmaking process and audience's role.

[toiletduck!]

Ran almost completely lacks this kind of tension, with every action leading towards the total destruction of all parties involved. I think this allows Kurosawa to focus even more intently on the precision and formal structure of Ran, but I find it difficult to say that it is one of the "best" or my "favorite" Kurosawa's.

A large portion of this is stemming from the source material. It's a tad tricky to make King Lear seem bittersweet, and I for one am grateful that Kurosawa swerved from his m.o. to embrace Lear's grand tragedy. His honesty to the tone of the source (despite a divergence from his style) combined with his willingness to tweak the story enough to make it his own is a primary reason I have no qualms in calling this one of my favorite Kurosawas.

[ka mai]

You made me realize that I should clarify my statement (by completely revising it). I guess what I was really trying to say is that Ran clearly is one of his "best" films (effective, powerful, accomplished, beautiful, artistically successful), and I'm grateful for it too. I wouldn't call it one of my "favorite" Kurosawa films, because the thing that interests me most about Kurosawa is the tension between an idealized individualism and a pessimistic view of the world and society that is present in his earlier films. I think Ran offers a fascinating and powerful resolution of this tension (society is inherently and inevitably self-destructive), but I am more interested in the films where the tension is unresolved.

Incidently, I don't think that the shift in strategies Kurosawa uses in Ran is an abrupt swerve or solely attributable to the fact that he was adapting Lear. The direction that Dodeskaden, Dersu Uzalu and Kagemusha progressed in led quite naturally to a film with Ran's tone. I believe it is mentioned in the Criterion booklet somewhere that the idea for Ran started with a historical story he wanted to tell, and he then developed the parallels with Lear after he realized how many were already present. I would argue that he chose to adapt Lear because he wanted to use certain cinematic strategies and tell a story with a certain tone rather than the other way around.

[Michael Kerpan]

I hope someday people here get to see Kozintsev's "King Lear". Kozintsev was a great fan of "Throne of Blood", but I think he topped Kurosawa's version of "Lear" -- in terms both of visual inspiration and fidelity to the essence of Shakespeare's masterpiece.

[toiletduck!]

acrakes:

I do remember feeling a sense of calm but also tying a lot of it in to an utter catharsis as well. My poor Ran Criterion has been dying for some attention, with any luck I'll be able to take it in sometime this weekend. It's also been a while since I last read Lear. I'll keep your thoughts in mind and hopefully can tackle them at the same time. If nothing else it'll be a great study - thanks.

ka mei:

A little clarification on my part as well: I didn't mean that the dire sense of finality made the film the "oddball" in the the Kurosawa canon (and I have yet to see Dodeskaden and Dersu Uzalu, which was probably a factor as well), only that where Kurosawa started and where Kurosawa ended are worlds apart and I appreciate his ability to veer without losing any of the mastery.

Like I mentioned, I have yet to explore the Criterion, but it's easy enough to believe that Kurosawa chose to make the Lear connection due to historical parallels, but, as you mention, I do believe he had a bleak tone already in mind. Referencing Lear (and possibly elements of the historical story) provides a springboard to the deep end for even the most fatalistic spirit.

Regarding "best" and "favorite" Kurosawa, I wholeheartedly agree that Ran is one of Kurosawa's best (although my Kurosawa viewing admittedly has a couple of glaring holes). It also happens to be my favorite Kurosawa and one of my favorite films, period -- partially for the same reasons I find it among his best, partially for nostalgic reasons (it was the second or third Kurosawa I saw, back when I was in the baby steps of foreign film, and it fucking blew me away), and I think a good deal because of an even greater love for Shakespeare (probably another reason I put so much weight on the Lear connection).

-Toilet Dcuk

[Titus]

Anybody else spotting some pretty noticeable edge enhancement on this disc? I haven't heard any complaints, but my copy seems to be suffering from it. Relatively pronounced at certain points throughout.

[richast2]

Something interesting I discovered when I was flipping through the special features (SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER)

On the second trailer, it includes a clip of an alternate shot of the scene where Kaede states that it's been her goal to take down the entire house (and is ultimately beheaded). Instead of being seen head-on as she is in the final film, the shot used in the trailer is from her left side. The emotional impact of watching her stone-cold face is completely lost.

[Narshty]

I'm not much of a Kurosawa fan, but was still, for the most part, bowled over by Ran. With his much-adored works of the 50s and 60s, I find them stylistically murky - the performances in particular almost always straddle somewhere between a Hollywood-esque naturalism and a more over-emphatic Noh style, with one foot on each shore that I find rather bizarre and cold. With Kagemusha and Ran, he's gone all the way over to the acting school of puppetry, and far more satisfying it is too.

Kurosawa's ever-present tendency towards didacticism is much easier to take when the performances are stylised representations of humanity, rather than supposedly fully breathing humans. Gone is the moving camera too - except for maybe one shot in the castle-storming sequence an hour in, Kurosawa's gaze is steely, remote and steadfast. I find this distanced pessimism in the film far more convincing than the supposedly life-affirming goopiness of several of his "golden era" works.

Of course, being Kurosawa, he has to have his one moment of unnecessary "in case you were unsure what the film was about" indulgence with that woeful exchange about "the gods crying for humanity" towards the end, especially when the very final scene says everything in that speech with vastly more power and eloquence and not a single spoken word.

Indeed, the descriptions of the film I've seen in many reviews as having a languid pace are nonsense. The rhythm within individual scenes is certainly deliberate, but the script itself is tighter than a snare drum. As such, it's a completely riveting film detailing one long downward spiral, moving with a rhythm and assurance that many directors would burn half their negatives for.

[Mr Sausage]

Of course, being Kurosawa, he has to have his one moment of unnecessary "in case you were unsure what the film was about" indulgence with that woeful exchange about "the gods crying for humanity" towards the end, especially when the very final scene says everything in that speech with vastly more power and eloquence and not a single spoken word.

That always seemed to me the most "Shakespearian" moment in the film (and I don't mean that as a judgement of quality). It actually struck me less as Kurosawa and more a further attempt to incorporate the play and its author into the film. I think it works, because it doesn't actually summarize the movie's themes very well; it's so direct and simple that the complexities of the movie, and even our moral understanding of the characters--Lady Kaede for example, even tho' she is easily a 'villain' has more understandable moral purpose to her actions than Jiro and co.--seem to outstrip it. It always gave me the sense that the events are not easily summarizable, even by the penetrating 'fool.' The mention of the gods clinch that for me, since the movie is so obviously without gods and without outside manipulation that their sudden presence in this speech throws you off a bit. The great manipulator of events is indeed human: Lady Kaede. She could well have been a meddling god, but is not.

But Kurosawa's instincts are right, and he ends the film on an image.

Out of curiosity, what do you think of Throne of Blood and the stylized 'memory' sections from Rashomon?

[Narshty]

Throne of Blood certainly I'd place in the halfway-house category. In Ran, all the actors seem to be divested of all contemplation and inner thought, but not so in the earlier Shakespeare film. Rashomon's style I don't have a particular problem with, but the deliberately arch acting is again Kurosawa deciding to underline the fact for the audience that these recollections aren't reliable.

My main problem with Kurosawa is that, despite his undoubtedly massive intelligence and imagination, a great deal of the time he still seems to be at pains to cater to the lowest common denominator within his audience. Rare is the occasion he'll hint at something rather than spell it out with expositionary dialogue or demonstrating it at length on screen. Either that, or he has a terror of being misinterpreted. In most of his films, I find myself feeling very, very talked-down to.

[HerrSchreck]

I think that's just where his head is at, viz his literary tastes-- Shakespeare & Dostoyevsky sprayed blood & spit & pathos (well, maybe Billy more than Fyo) left & right. The greatness is the more old fashioned high art of the telling itself as in Shakes & Dosty, the human absorption in the emotions & twists of the simple tale told beautifully, the majesterial nature of the fabric, the timelessness of the stories. I think the loud volume of Kurosawa, Narshty, comes from his very sincere frustration that the human animal never appears to learn from it's own revered wisdom tales, or it's own horrendous mistakes. The level of concern for the State Of The Human Race is about as sincere in Kurosawa as exists in the history of film. It's his frustration with the apparent hopelessness (which he seems to not want to cop to) of the species that makes him want to scream it from the rafters. Later in his career, when he didn't have other writers to tell him "Ku, you're going way over into the soup on that," he got real klunky. I have little interest in his post-REDBEARD work, though there are inspired moments here & there and some grand cinematography & visual design.

[hearthesilence]

The first time I saw this was at boarding school during a cable broadcast on Bravo. It was about an hour to curfew on a weeknight, and I didn't think I'd be able to finish it. A friend of mine who never heard of Kurosawa sat down and watched it with me, and then the residential monitor on duty came by on rounds and watched it with us. We ended up watching the whole thing, i.e. the monitor let us stay up late to watch it (which was a big deal). I had already heard so much about Ran, so I had very high expectations, but these two people knew nothing of it and it was pretty cool how much they liked it. The next day they were still talking about it; I'd be walking to class and one of them would be like, "Dude, what was that movie we saw last night?" Anyway, I got a kick out of it because most people in that dorm rarely watched Shakespeare or a 1980's Japanese film unless it was for school or if it was Japanimation, respectively.

[Mr Sausage]

Throne of Blood certainly I'd place in the halfway-house category. In Ran, all the actors seem to be divested of all contemplation and inner thought, but not so in the earlier Shakespeare film. Rashomon's style I don't have a particular problem with, but the deliberately arch acting is again Kurosawa deciding to underline the fact for the audience that these recollections aren't reliable.

My main problem with Kurosawa is that, despite his undoubtedly massive intelligence and imagination, a great deal of the time he still seems to be at pains to cater to the lowest common denominator within his audience. Rare is the occasion he'll hint at something rather than spell it out with expositionary dialogue or demonstrating it at length on screen. Either that, or he has a terror of being misinterpreted. In most of his films, I find myself feeling very, very talked-down to.

I don't think we'll ever come to terms over Kurosawa.

I'm rather amused that part of the reason you like Ran (and Kagemusha it seems) is that the characters are reduced to cyphers in the machinery of the art. I can certainly see the formal unity in that, even if I am not totally convinced it is the case.

I think Herrshreck is right to a point about the "blood and guts bluster," a method I am rather ambivilant about, which makes it even stranger that I would not only hold Kurosawa in the esteem that I do, but thoroughly enjoy how he uses that method. Yet he is within that bluster also enormously subtle, both with character and with technique. I cannot recall any moments off the top of my head, but I do remember that beautiful image in Red Beard with the bells among the falling snow when the two lovers meet again. It's moments like that where he proves he can be as equally quiet and moving as loud and thrilling.

[ando]

I saw this film for the first time two nights ago with the subtitles turned off. I did it deliberately because, although I do not understand the Japanese language, I wanted to experience a Kurosawa "classic" unhindered by verbiage (translation, commentary or really, any sort of interpretation). It was difficult at first. But Kurosawa, as far as the narrative goes, makes it quite easy to follow.

Ran doesn't have the narrative sweep of Seven Samurai. And why should it? It's an altogether different experience - a galvanizing of a community as opposed to the disintergration of one. Though it's certainly true Ran could not have been possible without Seven Samurai. Kurosawa had his working methods established and his creative disciples supporting him so that he could take as long as he liked in creating a potent visual statement. I don't think it's necessarily a pessemistic one, but one that clearly shows the blind folly of men.



The shot above (of the burning castle) is the obvious centerpiece of a film that (as someone mentioned) has few visual surprises but (as I just mentioned) some wonderfully subtle moments, especially with regard to the acting, which despite its high theatricality, is not "generalized" or "stock". There's an appropriate tragic distance that the audience feels, for instance, when one watches a good production of any of the Greek classics (in cinema I'm reminded of Pasolini's Medea with an impressive Maria Callas) and at the same time total empathy with the characters. The situations are universal, but no less powerful because of it. Because Kurosawa has mastered the technical end of the production the high pitch of the acting performances are remarkably in tune.

For example, I remember many of the crew commenting that Kurosawa took great pains to ensure that the light was exactly right for a particular shot before the they could resume - sometimes waiting for days before the sun set just right below the horizon over a cliff near Mount Fuji (I'm recalling that last shot as the flute player stumbles near the cliff's precipice or the setting sunlight reflected off the opulent costumes of the players when Lord Ichimonji confronts Lady Sue and Jiro on the hill).

[Titus]

DVDtimes has posted two reviews/comparisons of the Criterion release of this with that of the R2 Warner and the new Optimum here.

Their reviews show that the Criterion has a heavy reddish-orange tint to it that the other releases don't (the straight review of the Criterion release linked at the top of the new Optimum review has more extensive analysis over this). Can anyone whose seen this theatrically confirm whether or not Criterion's look for the film is accurate? It's violently different from all other DVD releases out there.

[Greathinker]

Can anyone whose seen this theatrically confirm whether or not Criterion's look for the film is accurate? It's violently different from all other DVD releases out there.

No. But accurate or not, it seems far more appropriate.

[zedz]

I saw Ran in 35 several times, but that was quite a while ago. My memories are of extremely rich colours, particularly reds and golds, and that's better represented by the Criterion in those screen shots. It's most obvious in the second capture (Hidetora seated alongside his standard): the rich gold of the kimono and standard is far closer to my experience of the 35mm than the pallid yellow of the other two.

[solaris72]

I saw Ran in 35 several times, but that was quite a while ago. My memories are of extremely rich colours, particularly reds and golds, and that's better represented by the Criterion in those screen shots. It's most obvious in the second capture (Hidetora seated alongside his standard): the rich gold of the kimono and standard is far closer to my experience of the 35mm than the pallid yellow of the other two.

I saw it in 35mm recently and definitely agree with your assessment.

[Tommaso]

That comparison surprises me. I have watched the Criterion version just a few days ago, and I did not notice any of the orange tinges that indeed appear to be really distracting on those screen-shots. It looked completely natural to me, with all colours just right, never over-saturated. And you know how critical I can be about those reddish/pink skin tones on so many early Criterions.

[tryavna]

I think perhaps that so many multiregion-capable reviewers have been alerted to/angered by Criterion's manipulation of certain films (e.g., some of the Melville titles) that they've come to believe that, when the colors don't compare between a Criterion and an R2, the Criterion must be wrong. That's rather sad, but understandable. It's a good thing that we have so many members on this forum who have actually seen the films in question on the big screen. I'm willing to trust the word of Zedz and Solaris.