Review - Ran (1985)
Revised: 7-17-04
Ran (pronounced 'Rawn') is legendary director Akira Kurosawa's last great epic. It is celebrated by film geeks and fanboys for its stylistic and technical choices, but I feel that Kurosawa's work here is self-indulgent and inconsiderate of the audience (much as I feel about Kubrick's 2001: A Space Odyssey).
Ran is a decent retelling of Shakespeare's 'King Lear'. The characters and plot points are mostly still there, but the story has been reworked a bit and, of course, the scale has been increased as the medium of film provides.
The central issue I have with the movie is that, in Ran, Kurosawa has made a film that pleases himself rather than his audience (except for the many loyal fans he had by this time in his career and many film critics who are impressed by his indulgent machinations).
Perhaps the best moments of Return of the King were those of incredible spectacle. Peter Jackson was willing to show his audience the scope of Middle-Earth. Ran is also epic, but Kurosawa denies the audience the pleasure of any spectacle. The giant sets of Ran are shrunk by unflattering camera angles and the flat composition resulting from telephoto lenses. The greatest spectacle of all - a million-dollar live set engulfed in flame - is present on the screen for fewer than 20 seconds in the entire movie.Surrounding the most exciting sequences in the film are hours of layered, connotative dialogue that is more confusing than enlightening. The beauty of the dialogue in films like Finding Nemo or even Annie Hall is that it communicates the base levels of plot and character clear enough for children to understand while simultaneously throwing in more subtle nuggets for adults or repeated viewings. Ran's dialogue often skips the first layer and jumps right to the second, third, and fourth layers (the latter two being all but completely obscured).
In a way, Kurosawa's work in Ran reminds me of some 'modern art,' wherein deviance from accepted practices is apparently, by default, considered genius. Anything that challenges the system is a daring and admirable choice. But I disagree. In brief, most 'modern art' sucks. There are times when a novel choice works for a particular film (Sunrise of 1926 and Memento of 2000, for two varied examples), but most of Kurosawa's choices in Ran detract from the audience's experience.There is one major choice in Ran that works well. Though Kurosawa is often credited with pioneering slow-motion violence in his classic Seven Samurai, Ran's giant battle scene has not a moment of slow-motion (which was cliche by the time of Ran). Instead, Kurosawa shoots the early part of the attack with no ambient sound; only music. Then, in a brutal explosion of gunfire, ambient sound returns in a shocking switch that probably inspired Speilberg's beach scene in Saving Private Ryan. Indeed, one shot in Ran's great battle even shows a man holding his own severed arm, just as in Speilberg's movie.
Another Kurosawa choice that I would normally applaud is his use of extended shots. Unfortunately, the camera is mostly stationary through these shots, and so the result is boredom for the eye. Long shots work fine as long as there is plenty of action in the frame, whether by movement of its elements or movement of the camera (end of Men in Black, 'thieves entering' shot in Panic Room). Even the 85 minute long shot in Russian Ark is never as boring as some of Kurosawa's stagnant compositions.
All this is not to deny that Kurosawa is a masterful filmmaker. I actually prefer Kurosawa's lesser classics like The Hidden Fortress or Yojimbo to Ran's sprawling, static boredom. This film was made for rabid Kurosawa fans and, mostly, Kurosawa himself. Watch Kurosawa's earlier classics instead, which still employ many of Kurosawa's chronic film techniques, but work much better on the whole.This less than glowing review of Ran is not a stunt. For many, challenging the mettle of Ran is like giving a negative review for Citizen Kane. But, this is how I truly feel about this respected 'masterpiece' from a beloved director.
8 Comments:
Great movie even greater director. Pronounced Rawn ??? I prononce it Ran.
/WLIIA
don't forget your master :)
I'm not trying to write an essay that I will submit to a film guild or something: my intended audience is the casual moviegoer. As such, I am not afraid to use language that is colloquial (sucks), but I also do not shy from words that will best describe what I am trying to communicate (connotative). Also, I thought using 'sucks' was an amusing break from previously 'heavy' analysis. But, it's all a matter of taste. Your opinion is noted and then justly forgotten :-)
Alas, I didn't transcribe the movie as I watched it, or I'd be able to quote an example of connotative dialogue. What I mean by connotative dialogue is speech that communicates several things at once, especially things that are not explicit in the actual words used. Usually, this is a good thing, but when it it used with the frequency and especially depth that it is used with in Ran, the viewer tends to miss 50% of what is going on. At least, I did.
On MilkPlus, Shroomy said:
I read your review, and I do not think it makes much sense. First you chastise Kurosawa for making a film that is "self-indulgent and inconsiderate of his audience," because Kurosawa had dared to make a movie "that pleases himself rather than his audience," a charge that is not supported by much evidence, but in the next sentence, you turn around and concede that the film has an appreciative audience composed of Kurosawa's many loyal fans and critics (not only did it rank #2 here at Milk Plus, it is #78 overall at IMDB.com, won a lot of awards in 1985, and is one of the few foreign language films to get a national, theatrical re-release in 2000, which was then followed by the DVD release). This begs the question of how you know what Kurosawa's intended audience was in the first place when he created the film, and going further, that he was even under the obligation to please some undefined audience. I did notice that in the comments section of your post, you reveal that you are writing for the "casual moviegoer," which I'm forced to assume you believe should be the intended audience. Ignoring the fact that the "casual moviegoer" is not defined in any appreciable way, from your usage, I do not think it is an easily supported assumption that the "casual moviegoer" would be interested in a nearly 3-hour, Japanese-language adaptation of Shakespeare's King Lear even if Kurosawa followed your personal stylistic prescriptions.
Actually if I was a "casual moviegoer" (and I'm not, I'm a "film geek" though I prefer "elitist film snob") I would actually be insulted when you write:
"Surrounding the most exciting sequences in the film are hours of layered, connotative dialogue that has the same problem as, say, the dialogue of Chinatown; it is often too smart for its audience (at least, on first viewing)."
Yes, this impression maybe the result of your ignorance of Japanese culture, but then you cite an American film as a point of comparison. Basically, I take from this statement that you believe that a film should be completely digestible on it's first viewing to the point of having to dumb itself down. Yeah, accessibility is nice, but not all of the time. Sometimes if you put some work into it, the experience can be quite rewarding.
Also, you description of "modern art" (a very broad term to use so casually) is both an over-generalization and oversimplification, as is your pronouncement that it "sucks." Attacking social and artistic conventions is a component of what is often called "modern art," but (1) it's not an component exclusive to "modern art," (2) it is not the only criteria of what is or is not considered "good,"(the very notion of art and aesthetics often comes into question) and (3) completely ignores the historical and cultural contexts that give rise to specific art movements, especially at the vanguard
Now, onto your ideas regarding Kurosawa's style. I have to say it, but your stylistic expectations are fairly conventional. Ignoring the fact that when I saw Ran theatrically in a 35mm print the battle sequences were sufficiently spectacular (even so, on a big TV screen), an epic does not necessitate spectacle. An epic can be intimist, an example that immediately comes to mind is Olivier Assayas Les destinees sentimentales, which covers 30 years in the life of a bunch of Protestant French brandy and porcelain makers who have to contend with the Belle Epoque, WWI, industrialization, and the Great Depression, but which never loses focus on the human characters, which the filmmaker finds much more interesting. I would characterize much of Ran as "intimist," since it is concerned with Lord Hidetora's karmic comeuppance after a lifetime of warfare and violence, a fact reinforced during the main battle sequence, which takes an almost cosmic viewpoint, with much of the battle being captured in extreme long shots (and the multi-colored warriors snaking around the burning castle, pennants fluttering in the smoke and wind is simply beautiful) and punctuated with frequent cutaways to shots of a cloud-filled sky.
This may shock you, but the stylistic choice of long takes coupled with a static camera is not that uncommon of a choice, especially for non-American films, and I don't even think that Ran is an extreme example of this trend. The key to appreciating this kind of cinema is to pay closer attention to what is going on within the frame itself. One needs to pay attention to the mise-en-scene: the relationship of bodies in space/time, the acting, the usage of color, the tableau, etc. A skilled director (not even having to consider a master like Kurosawa) fills the frame with details that can be sifted through again and again.
You also make the assumption that the film should use a conventional narrative structure, and that it should build to a singular climax without interruption, though the film is actually concluding several subplots at roughly the same time, with more emphasis placed on Lady Kaede's vengeful machinations and Lord Hidetora's reconcilliation with his estranged, and still loyal, son, but the entire ending is filled with vengeance, betrayal, reconcilliation, senseless death, and even a battle. With so much going on, why does one need the plot to conclude at a single point of maximum tension and resolution, as if Ran was some sort of run of the mill thriller? Hell, many good and great films don't even have any tension or resolution. The film doesn't end with Hidetora or his family, but of a shot of the blind prince who has become a devotee of a bodhisattva losing his beloved scroll, completely alone. Complete chaos.
And I replied:
Some VERY well-written rebuttals to my review of Ran. Let me see if I can further clarify my position, in detail I didn't want to risk in the review:
First, Joker's complaint about a typo. Even if it wasn't a typo, I don't care. Grammar and spelling are a means to an end, not an end in themselves. They exist only to assist in communication. If meaning has already been communicated, there is little need to step backwards and make sure the grammar and spelling were correct. Grammar and spelling are NOT that important - the meaning is the whole point of communication.
Okay, now on to the more meaty stuff.
Shroomy, my entire review was the support for the charge that Ran is a movie "that pleases [Kurosawa] rather than his audience." But, I think your points about defining Kurosawa's intended audience are important. I do not think that Kurosawa was obligated to please everyone (no director ever is), but the fact that he did not please me and millions of (necessarily vaguely described) 'casual moviegoers' results in a less-than-glowing (but still positive) review from myself.
Shroomy also points out that the 'casual moviegoer' (as discussed in my review) wouldn't necessarily have interest in a 3-hour adaptation of King Lear, even after addressing my stylistic complaints. I think a comparison to Gone with the Wind could be made. Now, I'm not the biggest fan of Gone with the Wind, but even today it enjoys massive appreciation from today's more casual film fans (especially females, obviously). Gone with the Wind is a 4-hour drama/romance (perhaps more 'daunting' than a 3-hour King Lear). So, I don't think we can assume that casual moviegoer is incapable of enjoying 3+ hour long dramas.
I drew a comparison to Chinatown because I personally find Chinatown to be one of the smartest, most tightly-scripted movies ever. But sometimes, a viewer can get lost if they're trying to enjoy the movie instead of study it. A movie doesn't have to dumb itself down to be understood. All those layers can still exist as long as the clearest layer still communicates easily to the audience what is happening. The most obvious (but not best) examples of this are the recent Pixar films, which are clear enough for children to comprehend but contain many layer 'jokes' that the adults catch. Just keep adding layers on top and you've got something that is both comprehensible without having to work (the purpose of film is enjoyment, right? It's an entertainment medium and all that...) AND is layered and smart.
And, I never said the long take/static frame combination was unique, only that it was inferior (in my opinion). There are a few such shots in Ran that are filled with things happening in the background, but Kurosawa did this better and DEFINETELY more consistently in Seven Samurai. So mostly, it's just boring photography that induces sleep and too-convoluted dialogue that induces a headache.
Again, just because there are other films that make similar choices to Ran doesn't make Ran great, only similar. I've never seen Les destinees sentimentales, but I imagine I'd be just as bored by it as I was Ran (probably more).
Remember that in my review, a completely thorough argument is not my #1 priority. Brevity is also an issue. As such, I don't have time to explore tangents like modern art - only to mention them to illustrate. I don't have time to list the thousands of exceptions in modern art to what I'm understanding. Generalization isn't always evil, you see - it is quite often necessary and preferred.
I think perhaps that you are right when I am too critical of Ran's narrative structure. It might seem like a bit of a stretch, but I found myself comparing Ran's simultaneous conclusion of multiple subplots and protagonists to that of American Beauty, and while Ran handles it admirably, it simply pales in comparison to the genius of American Beauty.
Shroomy said "Hell, many good and great films don't even have any tension or resolution." Here, I mostly disagree. There are few films without tension that I would call great (at the moment, I can't think of ANY). Tension (conflict) is at the core of everything compelling and dramatic. And, in any case, Ran has plenty of conflict and resolution, so I don't know what you're arguing here...
Shroomy Replied:
Dude, American Beauty sucks (how's that for brevity). It's a bunch of well-shot, well-acted middlebrow claptrap that uses rigid, arty compositions and other signifiers of modernist art-cinema (hey, that was new once, in the early 60s) to cover up the fact that all it is saying is nothing new, profound or particularly interesting. It's a perfect example of what Manny Farber would call "White Elephant Art" (check out Farber's essay "White Elephant Art vs. Termite Art" which is collected in his anthology Negative Space).
Back to Ran. Not you attempt to rebutt my contention that a three hour adaptation of King Lear would not appeal to the majority of casual moviegoers by citing the popularity of the nearly 4-hour Gone With the Wind. While I personally think there is probably a gulf between your perception of the movie's general popularity among the casual moviegoer (the one time I sat through the entire thing, I thought it was a chore), you neglect one important, nay, I say critical aspect of my argument. Gone With the Wind is in English, Ran is in Japanese. Most people I know who art not cinephiles groan when I tell them I watch a movie that is 3-5 hours in length, I can't imagine there response if it was not in English. Also, what evidence do you cite that Ran disappointed "millions" of casual moviegoers. I know for a fact that Ran was not a very successful movie in Japan circa 1985, at least in terms of box office, but what evidence do you cite that "millions" of casual moviegoers (for the sake of argument, since your original review implicitly stated that the casual moviegoer was probably American, and at the very least, English-speaking) (1) actually heard of Ran, (2) if they actually heard of Ran, actually have the opportunity to see it theatrically or on DVD/VHS, and (3) actually saw Ran?
I personally have no doubts that an audience of casual moviegoers can watch a 3+ hour film just fine, look at the example of Titanic, but in terms of films like Ran, which at least has a relatively well-known director at the helm, the opportunity to see it is limited. Jonathan Rosenbaum has a lot to say on this topic in his book Movie Wars, check it out.
I think you make a fallacious distinction between "entertainment" and "work," as if the two were mutually exclusive. Sometimes immense pleasure and entertainment can result from work, it can be a rewarding experience in and of itself, the gaining of knowledge, the new experience, that singular "Eureka" moment that comes from applying oneself, intellectually, emotionally, or physically. I think you stumble in your argument because you equate "entertainment" with "accessibility" (not to mention the fact that film is just a medium, and it is not necessarily an exclusive "entertainment" medium, it can inform, or exist as an object of aesthetic appreciation, and then there are those unclassifiable experiences, such as Chantal Akerman's Jeanne Dielman, 23 Quai du Commerce, 1080 Bruxelles, which, in a million years I would never describe as "entertaining" in a conventional usage of the term). Accessibility is a fine thing but it does not necessarily mean that the film is in and of itself good because it is accessible, it just means it was accessible. Likewise, just because a film is difficult or inaccessible does not mean it is any good, far from it, because like most films, difficult and inaccessible films are often crap.
I feel that your view of what films should be are too-blinkered. I think that one should be catholic in one's tastes, otherwise, they are cutting themselves off from whole realms of experience. No one has to like anything in particular, but one should not poo-poo a movie because it does not neatly fit into one's worldview. I mean, I have no problems with the fact that yesterday I went to Anchorman: The Legend of Ron Burgundy, then went home and watched the DVDs of the BBC series The Office, and then today went to see Tian Zhuangzhuang's remake of Springtime in a Small Town, and enjoyed all three (not that any of these films were particularly inaccessible, though I did not get every cultural reference in The Office). Sure, they are all related in some ways, but they are also different, and one should approach different types of films in a different manner rather than trying to pigeonhole them into some kind of paradigm.
It's actually hard to think of a director who exclusively bolts down a camera in a static frame at all times in all movies (and Ran is not an example either), but by calling the combination of long takes/static cameras inferior you're ignoring such directors as Robert Bresson, Jacques Tati, Yasujiro Ozu, Hou Hsaio-hsien, Abbas Kiarostami, Takeshi Kitano, and Jim Jarmusch, just to name a few off the top of my head (and I'm distracted by The Simpsons right now). All of these directors have utilized the long take/static camera set-up in their films, and to characterize their films as "inferior" just seems myopic. And les destinees sentimentales is a great film, you should see it if you get the chance, but watching other contemporary French films as a warm-up to this three hour film may be a good idea.
One last comment in regards to tension and resolution in films. Again, you make the assumption that films are purely narrative, which ignores the abstract, experimental, and non-narrative filmmaking of the avante-garde; even films which are "narrative" do not necessarily have tightly plotted, three-act structures, some are just episodic, or experimental, or just follow the day in the life or have anything conventionally "dramatic" to occur. Jeanne Dielman is one such example, since I mentioned that earlier. One of the most interesting experiences I have had in a movietheater was watching Tony Conrad's Flicker, which is a 30 minute film of nothing but alternating black and white frames which causes a strobe effect, all to a mechanical drone.
I replied:
You make some excellent points about the problems that naturally arise from the brevity and ambiguity of the language used in my review of Ran. Perhaps at some point I will correct this in my review.
But, I think most of our disagreement is quite clear now. You think American Beauty sucks. I think it is the greatest film ever made. While it is not the most original film in terms of subject matter, it is groundbreaking in its narrative structure - it did perfectly what Magnolia tried to do, but failed. I feel it is the most 'perfect' in terms of structure, scene, sequence, character, resolution, and setup/payoff. Of course, the acting and direction are also excellent.
I appreciate your well-expressed arguments and am considering your point about my conception being 'too-blinkered,' (though, I'm not quite sure what that means. Does it mean 'narrow-minded'?). I certainly think I could be more understanding and 'forgiving' of films that do not please my specific film tastes. However, I do not think that one needs to be catholic in one's tastes (with films, or anything). Taste is a very individual quality, and should remain so. Of course, one with more universal tastes will have a bigger plate of foods to enjoy, but with regard to film and many other subjects, the plate is already so big that I could watch one good-to-excellent movie within my tastes every day for the next 20 years and not 'run out' of eligible material.
I haven't taken as much time to hone my arguments as you have, but I think perhaps you understand now what I am trying to say. I will keep looking at this thread in case you offer further comments. It's been a very interesting discussion.
At this point, I (very slightly) revised my review of Ran. The original review read:
Ran (pronounced 'Rawn') is legendary director Akira Kurosawa's last great epic. It is celebrated by film geeks and fanboys for its stylistic and technical choices, but I feel that Kurosawa's work here is self-indulgent and inconsiderate of his audience (much as I feel about Kubrick's 2001: A Space Odyssey).
Ran is a decent retelling the play 'King Lear'. The characters and plot points are mostly there, but the story has been reworked a bit and, of course, the scale has been increased as the medium of film provides. Memorable scenes include two epic battles, a woman dominating a man on many levels, and the unveiling of a model fox head.
The central issue I have with the movie is that, in Ran, Kurosawa has made a film that pleases himself rather than his audience (except for the many loyal fans he had by this time in his career and many film critics who are impressed by his indulgent machinations).
Perhaps the best moments of Return of the King were those of incredible spectacle. Peter Jackson was willing to show his audience the scope of Middle-Earth. Ran is also epic, but Kurosawa denies the audience the pleasure of any spectacle. The giant sets of Ran are shrunk by unflattering camera angles and the flat composition resulting from telephoto lenses. The greatest spectacle of all - a million-dollar live set engulfed in flame - is present on the screen for fewer than 20 seconds in the entire movie.
Surrounding the most exciting sequences in the film are hours of layered, connotative dialogue that has the same problem as, say, the dialogue of Chinatown; it is often too smart for its audience (at least, on first viewing). Some of this may be only because I am not familiar with most of Japanese culture and history, but I suspect that Kurosawa's intent was to have Ran's dialogue mirror its action and spectacle by being understated and mostly hidden.
In a way, Kurosawa's work in Ran reminds me of 'modern art,' wherein deviance from accepted practices is apparently, by default, considered genius. Anything that challenges the system is a daring and admirable choice. But I disagree; modern art sucks. There are times when a novel choice works for a particular film (Sunrise of 1926 and Memento of 2000, for two varied examples), but most of Kurosawa's choices in Ran detract from the audience's experience.
There is one major choice in Ran that works well. Though Kurosawa is often credited with pioneering slow-motion violence in his classic Seven Samurai, Ran's giant battle scene has not a moment of slow-motion (which was cliche by the time of Ran). Instead, Kurosawa shoots the early part of the attack with no ambient sound; only music. Then, in a brutal explosion of gunfire, ambient sound returns in a shocking switch that probably inspired Speilberg's beach scene in Saving Private Ryan. Indeed, one shot in Ran's great battle even shows a man holding his own severed arm, just as in Speilberg's movie.
Another Kurosawa choice that I would normally applaud is his use of terribly long shots. Unfortunately, the camera is mostly stationary through these shots, and so the result is boredom for the eye. The preferred use of a very long shot includes plenty of exciting movement (such as the opening to Boogie Nights or the 'thieves entering' shot in Panic Room), so that the viewer is never bored. Even the 85 minute long shot in Russian Ark is never as boring as some of Kurosawa's stagnant compositions.
In the final hour of the film, Kurosawa continually interrupts the building momentum of the film without good reason. If you're going to break building tension, I feel you should only do it when the audience needs a breather or some comic relief, neither of which is necessary throughout Ran.
All this is not to deny that Kurosawa is a masterful filmmaker. But, if you are a typical movieviewer, you may find it hard to enjoy Ran. This film was made for film geeks and, mostly, Kurosawa himself. Watch Kurosawa's earlier classics instead, which still employ many of Kurosawa's chronic film techniques, but work much better on the whole.
This less than glowing review of Ran is not a stunt. For many, challenging the mettle of Ran is like giving a negative review for Citizen Kane. But, this is how I truly feel about this respected 'masterpiece' from a beloved director.
Post a Comment
<< Home