Ran - Criterion Collection
Rating:
- GoodThe DVD, put out by Wellspring, as The Masterworks Edition, actually offers some different features than the later two disk The Criterion Collection of the DVD. Both DVDs offer enhanced versions of the film. The Wellspring DVD still has some dirt and splotchiness, although the colors are well restored. And unlike Criterion, Wellspring uses gold subtitles, which are easier to read than the white subtitles Criterion uses. The DVD I saw has production notes, the film in a 1.85:1 aspect ratio, a restoration demonstration, and two film trailers. The chief difference lies in the commentaries. The Criterion version has only one commentary by film historian Stephen Prince, and has a documentary on Kurosawa called AK, by French filmmaker Chris Marker, as well as Toho Studios It Is Wonderful To Create series of documentaries on Kurosawa. By contrast, Wellspring has no featurettes, but a second film commentary, by film producer Peter Grilli. Grilli's commentary is flat and uninvolving, filled with sweeping generalities about film, in general, and this one specifically,; as well delivering few specifics on Ran, much less individual scenes and moments- either within the diegetic reality, or in the making of the film. It is also punctuated by several minutes long periods of silences. It begs the question of why was this person hired to do the commentary? The second commentary is also by Stephen Prince, and it is reportedly similar, but not exactly the same, as the later commentary he did for Criterion. Prince is a very hit and miss commentarian. This offering is one of his better ones. While he always trends to over-prepare and come across as bland and reading notes, this commentary is quite scene specific, and Prince seems to have loosened up a bit.
Overall, the screenplay by Kurosawa, Masato Ide, and Hideo Oguni is a good one, although, as mentioned before, a better fleshing out of the characters was needed. The cinematography by Asakazu Nakai, Takao Sait, Masaharu Ueda shows that good scenery alone does not make for great cinematography. One need only look at films like Sean Penn's Into The Wild or Walter Salles' The Motorcycle Diaries to see that beautiful mountainscapes do not equal great art. Kurosawa's men, by contrast, show how framing and flattening out imagery with telephoto lenses can render reality into a sort of Japanese flat art depiction of the world. This also illustrates the superfluity and flat out wrongheadedness of most critical writing on the use of certain types of cameras or lenses to get certain effects, in this film and in general. Why? Because the flattening of images (such as in the openings ceremonial scenes in the mountains, or in certain interior ceremonial shots, especially when the frame is crowded) is not important for how it is achieved, but for what it imparts to the viewer. In these cases, the flattening of images into an almost Classical Oriental illustration makes the objects and characters in the frame seem to be closer to each other (sometimes almost on top of each other) than they really are in the internal reality of the film's narrative, which, in turn, makes the scenes seem and feel almost claustrophobic. This, then, makes the viewer feel what the characters do emotionally, as they are uneased by the internal circumstances and crowding, just as the viewer is by the external composition onscreen. Thus, viewers understand the aggression onscreen viscerally, cued by what amounts to a subliminal visual testosterone (think of the effect crowding has on male interactions at sporting events, or in cases of road rage). That these effects are achieved via a certain lens or camera technique are, again, far less important than what they impart into the viewer. That so few critics understand this about art, in general, and cinema, in particular, is typical of just why so much art and criticism is so bad, repetitive, and dependent upon the seeking out of artistic intent, rather than artistic effect. Why? Because intent is rather a simplistic declaration, whereas effect is a multifarious cogitation. There are also several jumpcuts in the film that depict emotional fragility of characters and moments. These all work well, and are employed so well that one often does not notice them, except subliminally, or upon rewatch. The score by Tôru Takemitsu has an otherworldly feel that really meshes beautifully with the images. It also is obviously influenced- at least emotionally- by Jerry Goldsmith's landmark score for The Planet Of The Apes.
I began this essay commenting on critical cribbing, and one of the most annoying examples of such are when films that are not epic are lauded as such, as if scale had anything to do with quality. Ran is a great example of an epic film that is not a great film. But, it is also an example of a work of art that is essentially cinematic. The totality of the work could simply not be represented in any other form of drama. The visuality of it is essential, and something no bit of epopee, painting, nor even a novel, could replicate the experience of. Yet, mainly its lack of a higher meaning or insight dooms it from the greatness some of the previously mentioned earlier Kurosawa films had. Also, it suffers from a bit of predictability; not only to anyone in on the derivations from Lear, but also in the sense The Godfather, Part III did. When one understands that Hidetora is more of a Mob chieftain than king, one can almost sense, with each betrayal by his two oldest sons, that he senses, like Michael Corleone does, that `Just when I thought I was out....they pull me back in.' But, as a motto for the works of Kurosawa, is such a pull a bad thing? I think not. Oftentimes, when an artist has been as consistently great as Kurosawa was, his bar is set so high in expectation of ineffably great things that when one gets merely demonstrably terrific stuff from him, well, it seems wanting, although from lesser lights it would be praised sky high. Ran is a film that falls just shy of Kurosawa's greatest works, but stands leagues above the vast majority of the films we all watch. If that praise seems faint, then catch it when it falls onto you.
Rating:
- RanThis 1985 Japanese film is based on the plot elements of King Lear. Primary difference is substituting three sons for three daughters.
Hidetora, the patriarch, decides to retire and turn over the affairs of his kingdom to his three sons--Taro, Jiro, and Saburo. Since Taro is the oldest, he receives the greater portion of the House of Ichimonji. This suits Taro's wife Kaede just fine for the time being. William Shakespeare would have been proud of Kaede--she's cunning, intelligent, devious, beautiful and isn't afraid to use her sexuality for her own ends.
As the story goes, the old man is losing his sanity, his grip on reality. He held his kingdom together by shredding a lot of blood and instilling fear in his subjects and enemies, Lords Fujimaki and Ayabe. When his youngest son, Saburo, tells him that his making a tragic mistake, Hidetora disinherits the young man and sends him away. Of course, Saburo's servant Tango defends his master to the old man and is vanquished as well.
It does not take Hidetora much time to realize that he cannot trust his eldest son. So, he, his faithful companion, Kyoami, and his personal guard which are a group of mighty men go to live with Jiro, the second son. Unknown to the old man, Kaede has convinced her husband to form an alliance with Jiro to kill the old man and his personal guard.
There is a fateful meeting between Hidetora and Sue, Jiro wife. Hidetora had killed her family and taken the land, but Sue has embraced her religion and refuses to hate her father-in-law.
As the story progresses, there is intrigue and betrayal on almost every level. The battle scenes are bloody. Like King Lear this film has no happy endings for the House of Ichimonji or its servants.
The cinematography is just plain gorgeous. The Oscar winning costumes are colorful and rich.
The character of Kyoami is well written. Some of the best lines in this piece of art are said by him--"Heaven is far away but hell can be reached in a day. In a mad world only the mad are sane. "
One of the most honorable servants is Kurogane, military commander of Jiro. His moral compass is constantly tested by Jiro and Kaede. The climax between Kurogane and Kaede is a surprise, but you accept this as the way it had to end.
I would like to end this with words from Tango: "Men seem to prefer sorrow over joy. They're forever seeking out suffering and rejecting peace." The solitary flute playing brings this film to closure.
Rating:
- Another Display of Directorial Ineptitude from the "Master"Review in one sentence: This movie has zero energy. What follows is my fragmented, chronological lambasting of this "masterpiece."
The characters are cardboard cutouts with very little in terms of actual development. The opening scene begins with an argument between Hidetora and his three sons. It's almost like it assumes retroactive character maturity that was never established to begin with. It would have been nice to see some color in terms of personality, with each of these three key players given some screen time before the big fallout. In the seemingly endless line of miscalculations made on the part of our favorite "masterful" filmmaker, Akira Kurosawa ("AK") decides to provide *his* kind of "color" - vague one-liners. The "pranks" of the third son are referenced, but we get no actual development of his character (he does have one good moment later on). As for the other two sons, we don't even get AK's fuzzy caricatures. This viewer was left wholly indifferent by all of these sons, and their opaque motivations didn't help matters.
Even worse is the portrayal of the vitally important fifth character. In AK's infinite stupidity, he chooses to have the key puppetmaster (Lady Kaede) simply state that her father and brothers were murdered by Hidetora and that her mother committed suicide. There is ample opportunity for a flashback (or a lengthy opening historical segment) that actually fleshes out her character while allowing the viewer to experience her sorrows directly, but AK simply settles for dull monologue by a one-dimensional personality. At one point (early in the film), she's sitting down and simply states that she's happy to be living in her old residence again. It's an utterly robotic, emotionless, tedious series of statements that are boring as hell. Only AK could portray vengeance in a manner this dull.
We get the first battle and see a bunch of generic guys killing each other with no reason to care who actually wins. Some women that we don't know kill themselves along the way. There are some decent visuals though. Not bad, but not exactly scintillating.
After the battle we get some of the vintage overacting that shows up in most of AK's films. Hidetora goes crazy and frolics in the grasslands. When his two buddies show up to comfort him, he stares into space, opens his mouth as wide as a Pez dispenser, and has a hissy fit while his jester runs around singing. It's a total disaster of dramaticism. But that's not all. Hidetora's buddies carry him to some random shack, only to learn that the resident just so happens to be a dude that got his eyes gauged out by Hidetora years ago. Impractical coincidence alert! So what does this blind dude do to the man who handicapped him for life? Does he curse him? Does he lunge at him with a knife? No. He plays a sad flute song. Hidetora then promptly throws *himself* through a wall. Such a "masterful" filmmaker, AK is.
We go back to Lady Kaede, who magically goes from stoic carelessness to knife-wielding lunatic in 5 seconds flat, then takes another turn to hysterical crocodile tears only a few minutes later. Hey AK, that flashback would have been REALLY helpful. And do you know what else would have been helpful? A little relationship development between Kaede and the two sons to help the viewer in understanding exactly why these powerful men are wrapped around her little finger. You did have 160 minutes to use here. Why not use them properly for a change?
Over 90 minutes in and we finally get a well-written moment when a stone fox-head is returned to Lady Kaede. Then again, even a broken clock is right twice a day. Of course, AK immediately follows this brief success with another laughable attempt at manipulation. The blind dude and his sister (who has become a target for assassination) are escorted to safety. His sister spots an old castle and tells him about it. He asks where it is. Now, any thoughtful sister would give her blind brother some idea of where this castle is. Perhaps she could take his hand and point it in the right direction. Unfortunately, this is one of those "masterful" Akira Kurosawa movies, so she simply blurts out "Over there!" The blind dude turns to the right, turns to the left, and asks "Where?" Some sad music accompanies this hopelessly incompetent scene where AK so blatantly reminds the viewer that - yes - the blind dude is, in fact, BLIND! Good ole AK wanted the viewer to feel sorry for the blind dude, so he constructs this ridiculous scene to pile it on. I laughed. The direction here is so terribly amateurish that only fanboys could possibly deny AK's clumsy incompetence.
Hidetora gets amnesia and babbles senselessly. Stuff like, "Who am I?" and "I'm lost." "Such is the human condition", replies the jester. Give me a break. In a truly hilarious moment, the jester tells Hidetora to simply jump off a cliff if he's so disturbed about everything. Hidetora promptly jumps off a cliff. I laughed. Later on, Hidetora suddenly remembers that he has three sons. I'm serious.
We get the final battle, which is pathetic. First of all, the blue samurai army somehow gets their hands on some semi-automatic rifles. What on earth are semi-automatic rifles doing in this period piece? Next, the editing is atrocious. The sequence is so badly cut up that one wonders if a young Paul Greengrass was hired as the action director. Third, the battle strategies suck. The red army rides around in circles while the blue army shoots them down. Not good.
AK finishes things off with his patented overdramaticism. Hidetora even goes so far as to say - out loud, no less - "Things are getting dark." Wow. Just wow.
Rating:
- Bridled chaos...A lot of my friends rave this film as one of the best films of all time. I'm not in that boat quite yet, but I must say that this ambitious retelling of Shakespeare's `King Lear' is not just an impressive undertaking but it is also one of the more engrossing and rapturous `variations' of this story I've ever seen. With great attention to detail and directorial flourishes that will keep the audience on edge, `Ran' is certain to leave a lasting impression.
I'll be honest; I thought the opening segment went on for far too long. In fact, I was becoming a tad restless waiting for the film to actually begin, but after all is said and done I'm actually glad they elaborated on that hillside opening, for it established character needed to truly flesh out the films many layers.
The film tells the story of an aging Japanese Lord, Hidetora, who, nearing death, decides to leave his entire kingdom to his eldest son, Taro. What seems like a good idea to him (and him alone) turns out to be yet another hasty and foolish decision on his part; a decision that costs him dearly. His daughter-in-law, bent on vengeance over the harsh way her family was treated, uses her husband's newfound power to wreak havoc on the kingdom, and the jealousy that overtakes the Lord's middle son, Jiro, proves to be disastrous. But there is always the youngest son, Saburo, whom the Lord banishes in the films outset due to his apparent disrespect. With all the chaos surrounding Hidetora, chaos with which he had a direct responsibility towards, he begins to reflect on his own decisions and how they have placed him in the predicament with which he finds himself.
Is there a road to redemption?
What I found so fascinating about this film was the way in which it tackled so many weighty themes without ever feeling rushed or compact. That may be due to the WISE decision to stretch this out nearly three-hours in length. All three sons represent a completely different side of their father, and watching their respective stories unravel helps up understand fully the man behind it all, and the man who seems to be suffering the most. In the final scenes, where Hidetora seems to understand where he went wrong and comes to his decision as to what he wants to do with the remainder of his life; it's heartbreaking.
The performances are very strong here, especially from Tatsuya Nakadai, who really understands how to relate Hidetora's conflicted emotional state. You can see the anger the brims from his confusion and the eventual stagnant complacency that comes from the understanding of complete failure. Of the sons, I was most impressed with Jinpachi Nezu (who plays Jiro) and I also found Masayuki Yui's portrayal of the loyal Tango to be commendable and noteworthy.
In the end though, the real star here is Akira Kurosawa. He has shelled out quite a few masterpieces, and while I don't consider this his finest work (I go between `Red Beard' and `Ikiru') this is certainly one of his most respectable when you consider all the time, effort, a meticulous attention needed to make this work. Not only is ever set piece authentic and eye catching (not to mention every costume) but every character is beautifully fleshed out and ever sequence is marvelously edited to create a cohesive and visually stunning work of art. The battle scenes are flawless, and the tower burning scene is one of the most impressive sequences in the history of cinema; hands down.
I recommend `Ran' without any hesitation.
Rating:
- Good movie - Poor Video QualityRan's a great movie that deserves a better transfer. I saw the film in the theater a week before getting this blu-ray. It was a scratchy print but it didn't have the noise that is prevalent in this disc.