SHERDOG MOVIE CLUB: Week 34 Discussion - Ran

[Guestx]

I appreciate the invite, but I don't really have anything to contribute. I've seen close to all of Kurosawa's films and Ran was one of the last ones I saw. However, I only saw it once and it's been nearly a decade since. Around when the SMD first started, a few posters in there talked about Ran like it was one of the GOAT. I watched it and let's just say I disagreed. I only watched it that one time 7 or 8 years ago, but based on that viewing, I'd be hard-pressed to imagine a universe where Ran even ranks among Kurosawa's top five, let alone where it's anywhere near a GOAT conversation.

That's not to say that I thought it was a bad film. I didn't. It's nowhere near as boring as Red Beard or as hollow as Ikiru. I just thought it was well short of the best Kurosawa has to offer.

Interesting. Considering your praise in the voting thread for @chickenluver's "nice fucking picks" I admit I'm surprised by that.

 

[Bullitt68]

Interesting. Considering your praise in the voting thread for @chickenluver's "nice fucking picks" I admit I'm surprised by that.

Kurosawa is still Kurosawa. His off games are better than most people's best games. But if you put Ran up against Kurosawa's other films like Rashomon, Throne of Blood, Seven Samurai, The Hidden Fortress, Yojimbo, I Live in Fear, IMO it walks away the loser every time. And if you gather up the best historical epics ever made - stuff like Ben-Hur, Spartacus, The Sand Pebbles, Once Upon a Time in the West, Barry Lyndon, The Deer Hunter, Braveheart, Gladiator, Gangs of New York, etc. - it's a step or two behind IMO. And that's to say nothing about the rest of the amazing films out there.

Maybe it was the hype I had in my mind going into it, but I went in expecting a masterpiece and instead just got a solid Kurosawa film. That's more than you can typically ask for when you go into a film, but that's where I stand on it.

 

[europe1]

I don't want to say that Japanese people all look a like, but I had a hard time in particular telling the sons apart.

Dude, they are literally colour-coded for your convenience!

I really liked this bit... and it speaks a lot of the culture that Ran takes place in. Kurogane cannot directly criticized his Lord nor openly go against his orders. So he acts a fool, does something absolutely absurd, and conveys his message to him without doing anything officially disloyal.

He pretends that Lady Sué must have been a fox-spirit in disguise, and then warns Lord Jiro that ambitious women are often actually foxes out to manipulate and decieve men for their advantage (*wink* *wink*, *nudge* *nudge*). And Lady Kaede's reaction to all of this tells a lot about her character.

It's absurd and funny yet totally in the films milieu.

Have we talked about the battle scenes?

It's interesting how they're made. The camera is pulled way back, giving us a grand view of the affair. But the actually battling focuses much more on the death and carnage than the combat aspects. We often see shots of people being gunned-down from afar, or cut to shoots of people that are dead or mutilated.

We never really see much individual heroics, rousing battle-footage from any of the main characters. But all those colour-coded soldiers does give the scenes an air of dynaminism and spectacle as they move-about as one.

It all works to de-humanize the fighting. Warfare is impersonal, fought between two seas-of-colour.

 

[BeardotheWeirdo]

It should be noted that I've never read King Lear.

I sort-of watched this movie about a year ago, in three or four attempts. I kept falling asleep... I know it's universally hailed as Kurosawa's second masterpiece, but it's just not my kind of movie. I usually get high before I start a movie so by the time I'm two hours into it I'm already a little tired, then to get hit with a scene like that... lights out every time.

Maybe it's because I find real history so much more fascinating than fiction, but if I'm going to spend 3 hours watching a story about some miserable bastards that lived hundreds of years ago, I'd rather watch one that's true, or read about it. I'm definitely in the minority there. It's just such a dark and ugly subject that I don't want to spend three hours watching it when I already know how dangerous power can be. If it increased my overall understanding of history than I wouldn't mind, but this movie didn't do that.

I only have a few minor complaints, the run time, pacing, and the scenes with the old man in the field accompanied by relaxing music... two hours into the film.

I also wonder how much credit actually goes to William Shakespeare. Yes the movie is fantastic, yes the cinematography is excellent, the acting, the story telling, it is extremely well done but how much is Kurosawa riding on the coat tails of one of the most famous stories of all time?

Where would Shakespeare be without the real history of Empires and Kingdoms?

Ran ended up as King Lear, but it didn't start that way. I'm guessing the similarities would've been obvious so he decided to just turn it into King Lear rather than face accusations of "stealing" from Shakespeare.

Similar stories played out all through history. Chinese Emperors turned every male in his palace into eunuchs so they wouldn't lust for his power. Mankind was ruled by tyrants for millennia, many humans still are.

According to Wikipedia it's also the true story of Mori Motonari and his three sons. He was a feudal lord in Japan during the Sengoku period.

It was a nice touch to see all the different colored banners and flags. It was like a giant game of paintball or something. Makes me wonder if the armies of that time and location actually wore colored flags on their back or if that was just done for the movie. It basically made it so you could identify each faction in a large crowd.

I know that's part of why each different clan in Scotland had their own type of Tartan. I don't know much about Japanese history though.

 

[JayPettryMMA]

Ran time! I had forgotten how long this movie was, but it needed that time to tell such a terrific story. I'm a sucker for Shakespeare, so watching this with a greater understanding of King Lear after taking a Shakespeare course in college, it was a whole different experience. I will admit, I had to start this movie, watch about 80 minutes of it, and then come back to it to finish it later. Epics get me like that, I want to stop and digest everything I'd seen and heard so far. They put so much into those films that I need a minute to process. This is no exception.

Oddly enough, as far as all movies go, Ran is spectacular. As far as Kurosawas go, however, this one is great but not nearly his best. Funny how that works. Context matters.

This movie was so beautiful. Their use of brilliant colors really made every scene shine in some way, be it the costumes, the scenery, the buildings, or even the little things in the background. Even during the massacres, with the low lighting, smoke and dust blowing around, provided for a great contrast with the bright colors of a uniforms or blood was excellent. Some of the most effective shots in the whole film were on the battlefield. You have to imagine, and most war movies especially older ones stray away from, that battlefields were brutal, blood and short-lived. Dan Carlin in Hardcore History talks about those kinds of battles, and how most of the killing and skirmishes took place in an afternoon and that was that.

Despite how much there is to this movie, I don't have nearly as much to say about it as I thought I would.

As far as themes go, madness and hopeless ring through this film as strongly as they go. From the beginning of the movie, when they went on that hunt and then didn't even eat the boar they killed, you could sense that despite the characters' best efforts, they were going to fail and fail miserably. As for madness, look at Papa Bear (my name for Lear/Ichimonji). We see him gradually descend into if not madness then at least to a diminished capacity because guess what, he's old and has been through a lot. To go from laughing with his boys to "I'm outta here, my family wants to kill me, and by the way, burn down all the villages" in the span of an hour is really something. The actor really sells his madness well, especially in his eyes and mood swings.

The music was fascinating, because it was at times almost terrifying. It was a droning kind of ambient that was enveloped by silence at times, only to burst forth and become a major part of the scene. When the characters were silent, the volume of the music would sometimes grow to offset what was going on and usually build tension. When there was great combat, they would leave out the sounds of war and instead have the music play over it to major dramatic effect. During that big massacre, when the music was playing throughout it, when they have the music stop and single gunshot ring off, it was very powerful.

Guns, by the way. Good lord. We really saw them to full effect, and they showed the end of an era more than anything. To go from swords and feudalism to guns and imperialism was a sight to behold.

It took me about a half hour to realize that the fool was played by a man and not a woman. Then I did a little looking into Peter and I was intrigued by his history. I understand Kurosawa's casting of him.

Beautiful film. Still surprises me that it was only made a little over 30 years ago, because it feels like something that was made much earlier.

8/10. Now it's time for an Aussie Western.

 

[JayPettryMMA]

Has everyone seen that Tom Cruise Last Samurai movie? Did anyone else think they really ripped off the end of Ran, with everyone getting gunned down?

 

[Guestx]

Has everyone seen that Tom Cruise Last Samurai movie? Did anyone else think they really ripped off the end of Ran, with everyone getting gunned down?

I can't say that really crossed my mind or that I see that much of a similarity.

 

[europe1]

Has everyone seen that Tom Cruise Last Samurai movie? Did anyone else think they really ripped off the end of Ran, with everyone getting gunned down?

Kagemusha is probably a more fitting influence, as both it and Last Samurai feature a samurai army facing-off against a rifle-armed, japanese opponent and ending with a cavalry charge.

In Ran, the gunfire thing is more incidental, with all armies brandishing firearms. In Last Samurai and Kagemusha, the firearms vs katana aspect is elevated to a story-point in-and-of-itself.

 

[europe1]

Despite how much there is to this movie, I don't have nearly as much to say about it as I thought I would.

One thing about Kurosawa I think is that he always has a very clear message that he wants to convey, and he does so in a very didactic, straight-forward manner. There's none of that muddled hullabaloo concerning the message that more self-styled artsy directors often use, where the message is hidden or unclear somewhat (or non-existant) and you're supposed to dig and speculate about it. Kurosawa made some truly profound films with unmatched craftsmanship, but his didactic approach leaves argumentative internet-nerds like us with the feeling that we can't say much more except "look how fucking awesome all of this is you guys!!!"

when they went on that hunt and then didn't even eat the boar they killed

Yeah, the film is just filled with so many small moments like that which inform us about the characters in a very economical fashion. Papa Bear does it for the sport and marshal virtue, he doesn't even bother to eat it.

 

[Werdun]

Loved this movie. First japanese movie ive seen except some animes and didnt dissapoint.
i had some basic knowledge of king lear so the story didnt come as a surprise but didnt matter still enjoyed the shit out of it. Always been a huge medieval freak and its funny how much medieval japan and europe have in common.
Ill leave the more in depth analysis to others...

 

[chickenluver]

Ok quick review coming in. I don't want to spend much time talking about the craft on display. Obviously a high level of craft is par for the course with Kurosawa. This movie stands out to me mostly because of the use of color. Only Kurosawa's last six films were in color, and this one really makes good use of the format with the color coded soldiers. The color of the blood and the shots of dying soldiers were beautiful and terrible.

Lady Kaeda really steals the show for me. I think she's the most interesting character, and Mieko Harada gives a performance that is really different from Nakadai as Hidetora, yet just as proficient. It's an ice cold performance. Just the way she moves and speaks is amazing, how she creepily floats around only moving her feet which you can't see move under her robe, almost silently. How she unfolds her robe when she stand up and folds it back again so formally the exact same way each time. Her vocal delivery is something else too. I can understand someone thinking she sounds very irritating, and when she hits those really high notes it is rather abrasive, but I just love watching her scenes.

I had her character totally wrong as I was first watching the film. I was taken with her scenes from the start, but I didn't figure out her scheme on my own. At first I took her for ruthless and ambitious, prodding the eldest son to seize authority because it would increase her position. She seemed genuinely upset that her husband had died. Then when she laughed at him and said that she only cared about herself and that she wouldn't be a widow or a nun I thought I had her figured out. Then when she said she had to marry him and Lady Sue had to be killed(!) I knew she was out of her mind. Finally when she gave second son her battle advise I thought she was incompetent. Looking back now I feel stupid for not putting it together, but I can give myself a pass for being a dumb teenager and also for not knowing Lear as well as now therefore not seeing how all the characters correspond.

Thing about Kaeda though is that she doesn't fit perfectly with her closest corresponding character. In Lear her character is a man, just like Lear has three daughters instead of sons, and he isn't married to either daughter although he does romance them. The biggest difference is that his machinations sabotage his own family and don't have a direct effect the character of King Lear himself. This change made it hard to see coming. ANYWAY the reveal from Keada, very calm and cold which probably means she was happy as fuck since she would scream like mad when she was upset, is an all time great moment IMO. This movie has more than one great moment, but that one stands out. Having her death be in the same shot, and especially to have it be so fast and the amount of blood that sprays on the wall, makes the scene brutal and tragic on top of the excitement at the realization of her manipulations. I honestly feel happy for her in that moment.

The movie is one of my small handful of favorites that I consider to be my favorite movie or the GOAT movie or however you want to word it. The most mind blowing thing IMO about its adapted script. With Kurosawa's Macbeth he was working with one of Shakespeare's shortest plays, a straightforward narrative with no side-plot, and a basic concept/theme that is easy to transfer to any number of different settings. King Lear is almost twice as long as Macbeth, with a larger cast, a more complex intertwined narrative, and a major side-plot. The way the film and play fit together is very complex, and I honestly feel like I need to spend a few days or even weeks studying them together to fully understand it. Even though it's Lear in a foreign setting with some rather radical changes, it manages to be the greatest cinematic realization of the play that I've ever seen, and maybe the greatest film of any Shakespeare, along with Kurosawa's own Throne of Blood, Manciewicz's Julius Caesar, Welles' Chimes at Midnight, Polanski's Macbeth and Branagh's Hamlet.

It's difficult to compare the Kurosawa films with the others however, because they translate the language and setting while the others retain Shakespeare's words. When thinking about Shakespeare films I tend to separate them into two categories based on that. I'm usually in favor of using his words, because a huge part of enjoying the films is hearing the words spoken and seeing the scenes play out, but Throne of Blood and Ran are so great because they execute the scenes so that they don't need the words. And actually many of lines, at least according to the subtitles, are very similar to lines from the play. I wish I understood Japanese so I could directly examine the translation.

 

[chickenluver]

Does he deserve it?

IMO he absolutely deserves everything The thing is though is that it's difficult to see that while watching the film itself because you don't see any of his terrible deeds. You get a sense of his arrogance, and of course you hear a lot about what he's done, notably from his surviving victims, Sue, her brother Tsurumaru, and Kaeda, but hearing about it is different from seeing him do it, especially while seeing him suffering, going mad, and being haunted by his past, thinking he's in Hell, seeing demons etc. But what he did to them is a tiny sample. He'd waged war non-stop for 50 years, then for 20 years on-and-off. He indirectly killed thousands of people, and certainly orphaned and/or mutilated plenty as well.

I'll also mention a certain religious element to the film. Especially near the end, the idea of doubt is introduced.

Do the gods even hear us? Is there some Buddha who cares?

Yeah. I don't know if I've seen such an explicit God is Dead/There is No God message as the very end. Tsurumaru drops the scroll off the cliff, the Buddha scroll that his sister gave him to protect him, there is a shot of it sprawled on the ground followed by a closeup on the face, then back to the blind man on the cliff... THE END Doesn't get much bleaker.

Well... maybe chickenluver should really be the one responding to this, but I think it's much more on Kurosawa's favour.

Ran really only has the skeleton of King Lear. Hell, not even the much-vaulted Shakespeare dialogue remains. Several characters are changed quite drastically too. Crucially, Lord Hidetora is a much more evil figure than King Lear is. King Lear is about a fairly-innocent (yet vain I suppose) man suffering unjustly under the cruelty of the world. Ran is payback time, the ancient sins of Lord Hidetora coming back to haunt him, violence always been retaliated with more violence.

Plus, so much of the movie is a craftsmanship spectacle. All those colours and maneuvers. It's truly cinematic. The richness of Ran is in it's visuals -- and area of which Shakespeare obviously holds no domain.

I agree completely that this movie is so great because of Kurosawa, the craftsmanship spectacle aspect, and even though Shakespeare's plays are a great source for adaptation, it's still very difficult to make a truly great Shakespeare film that works on all levels.

I've got to disagree with you when you say that Ran only has the skeleton. The dialogue Shakespearean dialogue isn't gone, it's translated. Yes of course it's not a direct translation the way that a Japanese text made for reading or performance would be, but as I said in my other post, many lines and scenes have been observed very closely. More importantly plot elements have been retained and combined in various ways. For example, in Lear after being out in the storm, Lear, the fool, and the corresponding advisor character find a hut and enter to get out of the storm. In the hut is Edgar from the family that the side-plot concerns. Edgar however has not been blinded, it was his father who had his eyes gauged out, and not by Lear or years earlier, but during the course of the play. Since the way the side-plot was translated was so different from the original, the element of eyes being gauged out didn't need to be in the film, but Kurosawa or one of the other screenwriters got the idea to incorporate it as one of the terrible deeds of Hidetora's past. So I wouldn't say it's the skeleton of King Lear, rather it's the skeleton and most of the flesh taken over by a symbiotic organism that transforms it into a completely different creature.

Also, Lear is NOT about a vain yet innocent old man suffering unjustly under the cruelty of the world. Lear may believe that, after all he claims to be "a man more sinned against than sinning" but the truth is that Lear suffers so because it was his God-given right and duty to be King and to rule, yet he attempted to abdicate the work and responsibility while continuing to reap the benefits and luxuries. His choice to step down and split the kingdom was an affront to God.

This is not what I personally believe, and it may not be what Shakespeare believed either, his plays probably contain few of his real thoughts and opinions. The plays more accurately reflect the thoughts and beliefs of his audience, the general public, and perhaps more importantly they reflect what the ruling monarchy would deem acceptable. This is why it's funny when people quote Shakespeare as if he has these nuggets of wisdom, when the words from his characters, not the man himself, and often they're contradictory or sometimes complete bullshit. The most hilariously ironic is when people quote from Hamlet "brevity is the soul of wit" without realizing that the character who speaks that is a rambling windbag and after saying that immediately proceeds to go on a rambling, long-winded speech. idk maybe I'm judging unfairly and when people say that they know it's ironic that the character says it, so they're being intentionally ironic...

Anyway, sorry for the tangent. You did totally hit the nail on the head with the difference between Lear and Ran being that Lear suffers not because of any of his actions before the play, but only because of his decision at the start of the play, whereas Hidetora is plainly made out to be a ruthless warlord, and his past deeds cause his misfortune, with the decision to abdicate merely being the catalyst. This is the key difference IMO.

I did find it interesting how they translated some of the scenes though. For example, in King Lear, Lear's break with his daughter comes from when he asks her to praise him. The daughter replies that she has no words for such a thing (meaning that she loves him so much that she can't put words to it). Lear, however, interprets this as meaning that she doesn't want to praise him.

In Ran however, the break between Saburo and Lord Hidetora comes from Saburo challaging Hidetora's belifs, wisdom and wishes. Lord Hidetora has decided that peace and order shall reign after his death, his sons being the custodians of this legacy. Saburo objects that this is a foolish assumption, that the sons are children of war and therefore will want to war themselves. Lord Hidetora interprets this as Saburo challeging his authority, challaging his power to rule and control the world as he wishes.

This is true, but there are similarities in the scenes. In Lear the elder daughters praise him in an even more over the top manner than in Ran. The youngest pointedly accuses them of kissing ass and refuses to do the same.

That's exactly how the scene in Ran plays out, the difference being that it's not enough to get Hidetora angry enough to ban him. Lear never gets a warning like Hidetora does. His advisor speaks out against banishing his child and gets banished himself for it, but nothing is said about upcoming tragic events for Lear, or well there is but in his presence. The main point though is that it's the frank speech that gets both Cordelia and Saburo banished. Kurosawa recognized that the scene in Lear as is wouldn't work so he tweaked it slightly. That's the story of the whole movie for me.

The jester doesn't always make jokes though. At several points he speaks the truth that the Samurai's decorum prevents them from saying in public. He is there to speak the unspoken truths that simmer under the situation.

It's interesting to see the fool in this setting since it's so Shakespeare and so non-Japanese. He's actually expanded upon and humanized greatly compared to the play. Those moments with the two of them together while Hidetora's losing his mind were very sad and touching, especially when he was about to run away but couldn't do it. In the play the fool just disappears 3/5s in then during Lear's last speech he says "And my fool hanged" and it's like wtf? when did that happen? I did see one production that showed the fool getting hanged directly after the last scene that he's in, which was a nice touch.

Like... there are several points in this movie where they are just filming the clouds. Does that mean that Kurosawa ordered some hapless intern to go look for specific cloud-formations? Talk about getting the short end of the stick.

It was an honor for those who got to serve at the feet of Kurosawa-san. That was the greatest time of that interns life, and certainly by far his greatest contribution to the arts and to posterity. Don't you dare belittle that.

 

[chickenluver]

Where would Shakespeare be without the real history of Empires and Kingdoms?

A damn good poet. He'd also have The Tempest still.

 

[europe1]

Just the way she moves and speaks is amazing, how she creepily floats around only moving her feet which you can't see move under her robe, almost silently

I really like that moment where she springs on the middle-son with a knife and subdues him (plus points for doing so against a trained warrior).

I think it's a factor of Kurosawa's dynamism again. He films Kaede moving so slowly, yet deliberately. The speed and decisiveness of that motion comes so suddenly that it's striking, but you can totally believe it just based on how she has carried herself so far in the film.

Same with that execution scene, she is dead-cold as she deliver those lines and then the Katana-decapitation comes suddenly and with great bloodshed. Kurosawa is playing-off the contrast between the slow and subtle and the speedy and ostentatious.

ANYWAY the reveal from Keada, very calm and cold which probably means she was happy as fuck since she would scream like mad when she was upset, is an all time great moment IMO.

I honestly feel happy for her in that moment.

Yeah... me too. Sort of hard not to after she delivered that monalouge about how Papa Bear murdered her parents and married her off to his sons. Her entire life and dynasty has been destroyed by the Ichimoto clan and now she ruins them as a reply. Life-long vengence realized.

The movie is one of my small handful of favorites that I consider to be my favorite movie or the GOAT movie or however you want to word it.

I'd probably rank it around 30-20 in my all-time list.

Manciewicz's Julius Caesar

You're a fan of that one, huh? It certainly contains a slew of amazing and notable performances. And not just from Brando.

rather it's the skeleton and most of the flesh taken over by a symbiotic organism that transforms it into a completely different creature.

Kurisawa's... The Thing?

"a man more sinned against than sinning"

Yeah that was the line I was thinking of.

but the truth is that Lear suffers so because it was his God-given right and duty to be King and to rule, yet he attempted to abdicate the work and responsibility while continuing to reap the benefits and luxuries. His choice to step down and split the kingdom was an affront to God.

I really like that analysis. I did feel like something was missing when I wrote about Lear's character. That sort of ideological-historical encapulation puts his decision into a greater context.

plays probably contain few of his real thoughts and opinions.

Obviously it is only The Taming of the Shrew that contains Shakespears true opinions.

Where would Shakespeare be without the real history of Empires and Kingdoms?

To be fair... where would anyone be? History is such a vast and ubiquitous source of influence that it touches every creative endeavor. Even stories not copy-pasted from real-world events draw an immense amount of inspirational matter from the past.

 

[chickenluver]

Yeah... me too. Sort of hard not to after she delivered that monalouge about how Papa Bear murdered her parents and married her off to his sons. Her entire life and dynasty has been destroyed by the Ichimoto clan and now she ruins them as a reply. Life-long vengence realized.

Something about that I never picked about how that all went down is Kaeda said that when she was married to Taro HER family was living in the biggest castle, and presumably the bosses of the area. After the marriage her father and bothers "let their guard down" and THAT was how Hidetora overthrew them and seized the castle.

You're a fan of that one, huh? It certainly contains a slew of amazing and notable performances. And not just from Brando.

Yeah it's probably the best example of Shakespeare on film that puts 100% of the focus on performances. The costumes and sets look very nice of course, although I have no idea how accurate they are. That's party why I didn't nominate it since the only things to talk about are the performances and dialogue. Not that there isn't ample material for discussion there, but maybe a batter choice for a Shakespeare/plays-on-film course. The fact that the movie is so good says a lot about the quality of performances.

I look at the central performances this way: Mason is excellent, Brando is a revelation, and Gielgud is a virtuoso. That movie just by itself was enough for me to know Gielgud is my favorite Shakespearean actor. I've long been a Brando fan having seen plenty of his young-and-strapping roles not just his old man roles. This seems hard to fathom now, but when Brando was first announced as Antony people thought he would be terrible. His nickname back then was "The mumbler" probably mostly due to Streetcar Named Desire, and everyone thought he would butcher Shakespeare's word. What a shock when he articulates every line clearly, and steals the show to such an extent that Mason complains that he, as the lead role, isn't getting enough focus. And then Brando never did Shakespeare again.

Kurisawa's... The Thing?

I really like that analysis. I did feel like something was missing when I wrote about Lear's character. That sort of ideological-historical encapulation puts his decision into a greater context.

Yeah it's important to Ran as well because the abdicating responsibility while wishing to retain luxury is the common link between Lear and Hidetora. In fact the wording is almost the same. Lear says he'll retain "the name and any additions of a King" while Hidetora claims he'll retain the title of privileges of Great Lord. Well how the fuck can that work? How can one have the privileges of a King/Great Lord when absolute rule has been given to another? What if he disagrees with his children? What if the children disagree with each other? Lear/Hidetora have been in a position of absolute authority for so long they've forgotten how reality works. Of course Lear doesn't even really address any of these issues, but since the Japanese didn't believe in the divine right of rulers in 1985 Kurosawa needed to emphasis these practical, secular concerns.

Obviously it is only The Taming of the Shrew that contains Shakespears true opinions.

lmao I wonder if you say this because you know that Taming of the Shrew is the play with the most controversy over Shakespeare's true authorial intent?

 

[europe1]

Something about that I never picked about how that all went down is Kaeda said that when she was married to Taro HER family was living in the biggest castle, and presumably the bosses of the area. After the marriage her father and bothers "let their guard down" and THAT was how Hidetora overthrew them and seized the castle.

Unless my memory is faulty, I think I read somewhere that that's one of those instances that Kurosawa plucked straight out of historical anecdotes. Says a lot about what bullshit, revisionist-history bushido was.

Mason is excellent, Brando is a revelation

I also think it's a good film to point out the acting-evolution going on at that time. Mason is excellent -- but he is the sort of classical, silver-screen, star-charisma that Hollywood was built on. Brando is a whole diffrent kind of beast.

When they hold their monolouges in front of the People of Rome after the assassination, and Mason goes first, I was like "damn, Brando ain't never going to top that". And then Brando steps up and I'm like &&%*¤#½§<!

Another guy that I thought was really great was Louis Calhern as Ceasar. Usually Ceasar is portrayed as this formal, uptight, larger-than-life figure but Calhern totally subverted that by giving a very humane performance -- and did so with brilliance and apperent ease, which is especially impressive considering his limited screen-time. It also serves well to underscore the drama of the assassination, making the impact of that event linger and have resonance.

lmao I wonder if you say this because you know that Taming of the Shrew is the play with the most controversy over Shakespeare's true authorial intent?

Haha. Yeah I was just being farcical and had that in mind.

My humor may be a bit morbid but the very existence of that play is amusing to me. And yeah the authorial intent is a bit quiz, especially considering those depictions of ideal gender-relations were considered extreme even in the Medieval day.

 

[chickenluver]

I also think it's a good film to point out the acting-evolution going on at that time. Mason is excellent -- but he is the sort of classical, silver-screen, star-charisma that Hollywood was built on. Brando is a whole diffrent kind of beast.

True. Plus you've got a third type in Gielgud representing the old school English theatrical approach.

Another guy that I thought was really great was Louis Calhern as Ceasar. Usually Ceasar is portrayed as this formal, uptight, larger-than-life figure but Calhern totally subverted that by giving a very humane performance -- and did so with brilliance and apperent ease, which is especially impressive considering his limited screen-time. It also serves well to underscore the drama of the assassination, making the impact of that event linger and have resonance.

Yeah good call. That assassination scene is devastating. Et tu Brute? chokes me up every time.

My humor may be a bit morbid but the very existence of that play is amusing to me. And yeah the authorial intent is a bit quiz, especially considering those depictions of ideal gender-relations were considered extreme even in the Medieval day.

It's an odd one. Not a particular favorite. According to the most up to date scholarship it may be his very first written play.

 

[BeardotheWeirdo]

@europe1 @chickenluver

For the record, I wasn't trying to imply that Shakespeare needed history to become the great writer he did, or that history is responsible for his success.

Everyone has the same history to draw from, and no one else has come close to achieving the level of success that he achieved.

 

[chickenluver]

@europe1 @chickenluver

For the record, I wasn't trying to imply that Shakespeare needed history to become the great writer he did, or that history is responsible for his success.

Everyone has the same history to draw from, and no one else has come close to achieving the level of success that he achieved.

lol yeah I know. I gave a serious reply. Without those histories and prior writings that he stole his plots from he would have left a small body of work. The Tempest is the only play out of 37 that has no known source for the narrative. I would say he did very much need history to be the great writer that he was. Some people are great at creating characters and plots. Shakespeare was not one of those people. He needed his sources, otherwise he'd have a reputation today as a great writer of Romantic sonnets, nothing more.

edit: perhaps I shouldn't say "a great writer of Romantic sonnets, nothing more" like it's something to sneeze at. His collection of sonnets is generally regarded as the finest in the language.

 

[iThrillhouse]

Alright! I finally finished this one this morning! I started it at 1:30am on Friday and finished the castle siege then decided to finish the rest later!

The only other Kurosawa movie I've seen was Rashomon so that set a pretty high standard.


I'm pretty shocked that Kurosawa was nearly blind while making this movie because some shots are just gorgeous.

favorites

Spoiler

I think some of you wrote about the themes of the movie a lot better than I could write about. I think one of the most impressive aspects of the films use of imagery was showing cloud cover/clouds/the sky to foreshadow coming violence/doom. There are shots of the lords and their soldiers standing by and you see cloud cover darken the scene as they speedily roll in....and i 'm like 99% positive it wasn't fake because they are wideshots that would imply them being unable to use light diffusers unless they were absolutely massive



This scene was great, after Kaede gave the instructions to kill Lady Sue I thought for sure we were gonna get some gnarly severed head shot, but instead we got this which was so much better!

Lady Kaede's overall plot to destroy the Ichimonji clan was great in its reveal. and her demise was something that I'm sure inspired Quentin Tarantino for Kill Bill Vol.1

I also thought it was interesting that after this scene where Kurogane basically defies his lord/ladies orders he emphatically tells Jiro that they will all die fighting for him...I think in any other movie Jiro would have him killed for disobeying, but this movie goes to lengths to show how respect is shown between Lords-Lords, Lords-Soldiers, and even Lords and their jesters.


I got lost in some of the conversations and kind of forget who was in the scene, but I think thats cause id get lost staring at the framing of the scene and the artistry and totally forget to read the subtitles so the context was sometimes lost on me....


even having to take 2 days to watch this I honestly dont think it felt like a long movie. The first half up in to the siege is SPEEDY as hell, and the last half is slower but has a very suspensful final act,

If you guys want a SLOW feeling 3 hour movie watching Paint Your Wagon or re-watch Enter the Void, because those are CHORES to watch. This was a fucking delight as far as im concerned...will probably rewatch again...

I think I saw the criterion version on sale at amazon so I might pick it up!

Great selection for the week...

10/10

Not sure if better than Rashomon though....really tough to pick...