So I would have to say that Ran is exceptional in that it was the first film we have watched in class this year that I really disliked. When I do not particularly like a film, I usually try to find some aspect of it that I can appreciate but I just could not get into Ran. Early into watching Ran, I thought that I was enjoying it because I found the plot really gripping. Then I remembered that it Ran is an adaptation of King Lear, a story I already enjoy, so it is no wonder it was engrossing. Still, the adaptation was well done, so my overall impression of Ran is that I would have loved it had the film not been so prolonged. However, my main issue with Ran is not simply that it was long—some of my favorite movies are over two hours—but that was so unnecessarily long that it detracted from the film. In my opinion, it is such a shame because Kurosawa’s impressive use of mise-en-scene—especially his use of color in costumes and scenery—was lost as a result of the painfully draw out story.
I feel that Akira Kurosawa tried too hard to emphasize the suffering which resulted from Lord Hidetora’s hubris. Initially I felt a great deal of compassion towards his character. However, as the story drug on, I became so fed up with the film that I ceased caring. I could not feel a connection to his character, only extreme annoyance that he made all the wrong decision. I also felt that I would bash my head against the wall if his jester had one more emotional break down or starting waxing philosophical one more time before the end of the film. Although the theme of the wise fool might work for King Lear, I did not find Kyoami’s speeches profound, only infuriating.
I was also very disappointed by the battle scenes. For the most part, they were well choreographed but they were themselves so draw out that I lost interest. I remember at one point actually laughing because it seemed as though Kurosawa used the same footage of a soldier being shot off his horse over and over for one scene. In any case, I felt battle weary after all these scenes rather than impressed by the choreography.
In saying that, I still have to admit that Kurosawa is a great film maker. His idea to make an adaptation of King Lear was a clever one and his use of colors was brilliant. I only wish I could have appreciated these aspects more but they just could not make up for an overworked story.
Image From: http://www.geocities.com/nobukaze23/nomura_mansai_ran_2.jpg
1 comment:
Joy,
I understand how you can tire out over the 3+ hours of a Kurosawa film, and I think many of your observations are valid. However, there are a couple of things you need to remember about Kurosawa and Japanese film in general.
First, Ran was meant to be a gigantic visual spectacle and the masterpiece of his cinematic career. Kurosawa was a painter, When planning Ran, he (over ten years)hand painted the majority of the storyboards for the film. (Note that he was also going blind by the time he finished filming Ran.) Visuals were everything.
Second, I don't claim to be an expert at all on Japanese literature or film symbolism, yet there is a stark difference between how plot is presented in Japanese film and Western film. In Western film, the focus is the central plot, and small details are sacrificed to push the plot through. In Japanese films that I have seen, and stories I have read (albeit translations), the small details and multiple perspectives are what tell the story. The central plot is simultaneously a winding road and a stage for each detail and perspective to play out. Yet it is not always the central focus of the film. This method of story telling is always a lengthy process.
A good example of this is a series of short stories by Ryūnosuke Akutagawa (It was also set to film by Kurosawa in Rashomon). It presents a story from multiple, perspectives, the characters not always telling their part in a truthful or linear manner. It has inspired Western cinema more than we recognize.
Post a Comment