Review of Kurosawa's Kagemusha

A second selection from a Japanese director who is associated with the Japanese Art Cinema movement of the late 50s and early 60s. It is Kagemusha by Akira Kurosawa. Kurosawa is, perhaps the best, and most well known of Japanese directors. His early films like Seven Samurai depict Japan in it’s medieval period. Kagemusha is a story that could be re-told in a Japanese history book.

            The film begins with a lot of dialogue and little movement. The Lord of one clan is wounded and they must use an impersonator while the clan finds another leader. The look alike is a common thieve who was to be crucified until he was saved to serve as the Lord’s double. Eventually the Lord’s double accepts his role as impersonator. He plays his plays his part until, after a battle, thinking he is as brave and strong as the real Lord, he attempts to mount the Lord’s horse. The horse recognizes that it is an impostor and throws the impersonator from his mount. This reveals the impersonator and confirms that the real Lord is dead.

            In the end  of the film the Lord’s son, who was passed over as heir, leads the Takeda clan into a foolish battle. The Takeda clan is annihilated. In the final sequence we see the impersonator make a rush to the enemy lines. He is shot and dies in the lake.

            I found the film somewhat slow, confusing, and long. The end scene was long. Perhaps, upon reflection, this was to drive home the devastation and horror of war. In the scene Kurosawa pans over the dead soldiers and horses again and again. It really emphasizes how badly the Takeda clan has lost. It does have the affect of depicting the thousands of lost lives by focusing on the carnage for an extended period. The beginning of the film starts out with a lot of dialogue and little action. It is only at the end of the film that major action takes place. Lastly, it was hard to follow the battle scenes, who was fighting who, who were allies, etc. Perhaps that was not the point of the film. Perhaps the point of the film was to demonstrate how crucial leadership can be in battle. By depicting the death of a great Lord we see how his clan goes into steep decline thereafter.

            I thought the cinematography was good. There are many great long shots showing soldiers moving, the sun reflecting, and so on. The dream sequence with the dead Lord is surreal. The battle scenes are also very good. Close shots of charging soldiers give the effect that the army is huge and the conflict massive.

            Kagemusha is definitely a precursor to Kurosawa’s Ran. I think Ran is the better film. But, Kurosawa may not have been able to make Ran without first having to make Kagemusha. The fight scenes are better, the action is more engrossing, and the story line plays out better in Ran. Yet, both of the films depict the chaos of medieval Japan and Kurosawa must be commended for his efforts at making grand epic films like Kagemusha and Ran.

            The acting is well done. The lighting is a bit dark. In some early battle scenes the soldiers are hard to make out. Yet, this was a turning point for Kurosawa. His previous films had not succeeded. This was a comeback and it goes over well.

Review of Ozu's Floating Weeds

This is the second Ozu film I have reviewed. I really enjoy watching Japanese Art Cinema from the period after the war. I have watched many films by Akira Kurosawa, Yasujiro Ozu, and Ugetsu by Mizzoguchi, which I have reviewed for this blog. Perhaps in another blog I will comment on who is the best film director from this period of Japanese Art Cinema. Certainly, Japan carried the torch of great cinema productions in world Cinema after the decline of Italian neo-realist Cinema. (Sklar)

            The film seems to be typical Ozu. A melodramatic film about a Japanese family hiding a secret, until a scorned lover forces a confrontation and revelation of the secret. The film begins simply enough in a small town. A theatre troupe is visting and will perform. The lead actor, however, has gone to visit his former mistress; who has a child. We learn through dialogue that the actor is the adolescent’s father. Yet, he is posing as his uncle. He spends time with the boy. They go fishing and play games with each other. Everything seems peaceful. This is about thirty minutes into the film.

            Then, the kabuki master’s current girlfriend drops in on the actor with his former mistress. She makes a scene and the actor and the current girlfriend argue about what he is doing there with the older woman. Later on, the young actress pays off her friend to seduce the young boy. This occurs in what is a great scene. Two Japanese actresses sitting side by side, putting on make-up, preparing for to go on stage, and discussing how one of them will seduce the young boy. The seductress takes the money from the other girl. In the next scene we see the young actress showing up at the post office to seduce the young boy. Her charms could not be resisted and the boy falls hard for her. He takes leave from his job and they spend all their time together. Eventually he finds out that she was paid to seduce him. But, she, apparently has fallen for him.

            In the climax of the film the young boy and young actress show up at the older woman’s house, presumably to declare that they are getting married. The older woman and older actor think she has told him that he is his father. An argument ensues and the older actor slaps the young actress and calls her a slut. He then begins to slap the young boy. The young boy pushes his father down. Emotionally upset, he runs upstairs. The old actor leaves to return to the road and the life of an itinerant actor.

            I thought Floating Weeds was a very good melodramatic film. Similar to another Ozu film Tokyo Story. Yet, Tokyo Story has a more visceral emotional impact, the death of the mother and the conflict between modernity, urban living and respect for tradition and traditional ways of life. There is no larger theme in Floating Weeds. It is one of humiliation of the actor. He is embarrassed about his status as an itinerant actor. He is ashamed that he cannot be a better father. He is ashamed of who he is.

            Another film that I think draws a comparison is Arthur Miller’s Death of a Salesman. Both have a secret that is revealed in the end and both end with the humiliation of the male lead. Yet, again, Floating Weeds doesn’t have that powerful of an ending. The father simply leaves like he has done in the past and returns to the road

            The editing style is simple. A lot of shots from a distance within the house. No extreme close-ups but angles on characters when they are talking. There are several establishing shots of a light house. The camera doesn’t move so much. In terms of lighting, Ozu makes use of it in the critical scene where the boy falls in love with the actress sent to seduce him. The teenage boy is seen standing in the dark. Perhaps to symbolize is ignorance of the secret about the young actress’s intentions to seduce him and disrupt his relationship with his uncle. The scene works well.

            Ozu is a master of building up to confrontation. In Floating Weeds we are led into a small town, enjoying the scenery, the world seems at peace. Yet, Ozu builds up the tension. The audience learns of the secret. A plan is hatched to reveal the boy’s father. All this comes to a culmination of conflict between the teenage boy and his mother and father.

            Perhaps this film would not get made in current times. The film has a soap opera quality. The emotional understatement also belongs to the era in which it was made. It belongs to the pre-1960s era of understatement and respect for a morality typical of the 1950s and early 1960s. Much of this changed after the social changes of the 60s and 70s. Floating Weeds is an example of how Japan was prior to the changes of the 60s.

Review of Felini's La Dolce Vita

My first impressions of Felini’s La Dolce Vita was that it is a pointless film. The plot wallows around with no apparent direction for practically the whole time. Yet, on reflection, the film develops from an innocence and naivety to a lost world of hedonism and consumerism.  Shot in 1960, I think this film is in a similar genre as other neo-realist films of the 50s. It delves deeply into the life of a journalist seeking meaning in life; as a lover and writer. Yet, the only way he finds fulfillment is through money and sex leading to the conclusion that Italian society was empty, soul-less, and lacking any meaning.

            The film begins simply enough with helicopters bringing the Pope a statue of Christ to St. Peter’s square; a gesture of religiosity and of high morals and purpose. Contrasted with the end of the film and we see that the main character has devolved into something unholy, less then when we began the film. The dead fish perhaps symbolizing his dead mortal soul.

            Throughout the film we are taken on short story after short story about Mastroianni finding peace and contentment in life, finding the “sweet life.” He is a reporter who wants to be a serious writer, but he covers movie stars and sensational stories. He also works with the paparazzi. The film is setup as a conflict between Mastroianni and his choice of lifestyle; what will he choose? The life of a serious journalist who marries his fiancé or the life of a publicity agent who lives the life of a free bachelor? In the end Mastroianni chooses the life of the carefree bachelor. Essential to this choice is the suicide of his idol, the intellectual who plays the organ and socializes with poets, artists, and so on. His suicide, is the conflict of the film. It depicts Mastroianni’s conflict about settling down or living an, apparently, meaningless lifestyle of parties, sorely lacking in morality or seriousness. But that is what Mastroianni’s character chooses; the hedonistic life of Rome, not the life of a serious journalist and dedicated husband, a scoundrel who sells his words to the highest bidder.

            I thought the film was excellent. Perhaps the best neo-realist film. It portrays the changes taking hold of modern industrialized society. The main character goes through rejection, confusion, and aimlessness. The plot reveals this lack of direction, this apparent crisis in Italian society. In contrast Rosselini had subjects to write about, the war in Italy and Germany, the devastation that Italy suffered at the hands of allied bombing raids. But, La Dolce Vita has moved past all that. It focuses on the high modernist times in Rome. A time of apparent lack of direction, of aimlessness, of hedonism. The central unifying theme is whether Mastroianni should remain committed to his life as a journalist and to his fiancé or whether he should reject those bourgeoisie values and turn to a life focused on money and sex, which he does.

            I think Felini’s major conclusion is that the “sweet life” is better than a typical middle class bourgeoisie lifestyle. By choosing to have Steiner commit suicide, I think, he is choosing to show the hollowness and insanity of bougeosie life. Hedonism, sex, money, freedom, that is what Mastroianni wants, that’s what he chooses against the prevailing bourgeoisie culture and values of the times. Is it the wrong choice? I think that is the question which the viewer is left to decide.

            Italian film history takes a turn with Felini’s film La Dolce Vita. Clearly it is still in a similar vein as the neo-realist films of the 40s. But it shows a new and different society that has emerged out of the immediate post- WWII era.

Review of My Week With Marilyn

My week with Marilyn marks a departure for me. Not affiliated with any specific film movement such as Italian neo-realism, the film is a period piece about the dark side of Marilyn Monroe that would ultimately lead to her untimely death due to overdose.

            The film has a docu-drama quality to it. The film’s main character wrote the book on which the film is based He was a documentary filmmaker and writer which is probably why the film version has a documentary quality to it. Set in London around the high modern time of the early 1960s the film follows a young British elite as he chases his dreams of stardom. Employed by Laurence Olivier productions he develops a relationship with Marilyn. He aids her through the production of the film with Olivier. In the climax of the movie Marilyn and the young man tour around England and she leads him on enflaming his infatuation with her. In the end she finishes the movie and as foreshadowed throughout the movie moves on to her untimely death.

            The scene is set with Marilyn and the young man headed for some kind of collision. Marilyn seeks to be respected as an actress and loved by her husband Arthur Miller. She constantly has to struggle against her own perception of inferiority as an actress. She doesn’t think she’s talented enough to do the picture with Olivier, who, throughout the movie, complains about Marilyn’s tardiness and unpreparedness. Yet, by the end of the film she has convinced everyone that she has talent and is a great actress. In the final scene Olivier and the young man sit watching Marilyn perform star struck by her ability to act and mesmerize an audience.

            I thought the film touched on issues about the legacy of Marilyn; was she just a sex symbol? Did she ever gain the respect of critics as a serious actress? Did her personal life lead to addiction and overdose? Why do famous people continue to in a career that has brought them so much pain and suffering? The film portrays the dark side of Marilyn. It shows her trying to gain credibility and a “normal” way of life, something she has craved since childhood. So, I suppose, the essential question is when the young man asks her why doesn’t she give it up? Why must she continue her show business career? Marilyn doesn’t answer this question and, perhaps, we will never know the answer to why this tormented soul could not find a home, family, and the bourgeoisie life she evidently desired.

            The themes that I took away from the movie are that fame has a dark side, that being immensely famous isn’t all that great when people don’t respect your talent. Yet I find that the movie doesn’t discredit her being known as a sex symbol. It seems to conclude that Marilyn was great and is more than just an empty icon, a sex symbol. Yet it doesn’t disprove the assumption that Marilyn was no serious actress. It merely reinforces the notion that Marilyn is a sex symbol. She seduces you and then breaks your heart. She exploits your emotions with her sex appeal, then like the young man, leaves you in admiration of her beauty.

            Whatever other movies are made about Marilyn this is certainly one that provides an in depth look at what Marilyn struggled with throughout her life; loneliness, addiction, divorce, and industry exploitation.

Review of Mizoguchi's Ugetsu

            Kenji Mizoguchi’s Ugetsu is set in 16^th century Medieval Japan. Mizoguchi weaves a story around a pottery merchant who is overcome with greed by his success in the pottery trade. Right from the start the film brings us into the chaos of Medieval Japan. The life of a simple farmer and pottery trader is constantly unsettled by civil war. The marauding bands rape and pillage the villagers. Against the odds the pottery merchant sells his wares to great profit. But the lure of great profits foreshadows turmoil to come in the pottery merchants life.

            With great skill and strength this simple villager makes pottery and transports it to a trading center. There he meets a Medieval Lady who buys some of his pottery and asks him to deliver it to her manor.

            This is all set-up. The greedy merchant, the noble Lady, and the chaos of war provide context for the story. The noble Lady appears on the screen quite conspicuously. An overhead shot follows her as she makes her way to the pottery merchant. This film was made in the 1950s. It’s style has some surreal qualities to it; the introduction of the noble Lady, the scene on the lake, and the scenes at the noble Lady’s manor. I thought the cinematography was very good. As the story progresses the camera becomes more surreal in line with the plot. When the pottery merchant makes his way to the noble Lady’s manor, he is taken in and seduced by the noble Lady. He can’t resist. She charms him and persuades him to stay with her and be her husband.

            So the story is set-up, a greedy merchant out for riches and status can’t resist a mysterious noble Lady who has a keen interest in his goods. Now the film progresses into confrontation. The dramatic action rises between the characters of the film. The pottery merchant’s friend becomes a samurai through less than honest ways, the friend’s wife is raped and turns to prostitution, and the pottery merchants wife is killed by marauding soldiers. Throughout all this action the pottery merchant is seduced deeper into the noble Lady’s plot to marry him.

            This is where the climax of the film comes. When the pottery merchant attempts to buy things for the noble Lady, he is refused and told to take his things and leave. Unknown to him is that the noble Lady is an evil spirit back from the dead. On his way home the pottery merchant runs into a religious person who says he can rid the pottery merchant of the spirit of the noble Lady.

            The pottery merchant returns and the noble Lady discovers sanscrit writings on his skin. He implores the noble Lady to let him go home, he has a wife and child. But the evil spirit refuses to let him go. In the best scene of the movie,  the pottery merchant lashes out against the noble Lady and her nurse. Swinging a samurai sword, he falls through Japanese doors and ends up on the ground, throughout this sequence the evil spirit calls out the pottery merchant’s name. The voice of the ghost gives the scene a dream-like, surreal quality.

            Thus the conflict ends. The pottery merchant makes it back to his village. He finds his wife and child alive and his greatly relieved. But as day breaks, the village leader tells the pottery merchant that his wife had been killed. Another dream had taken a hold of the pottery merchant.

            Ugetsu was a fantastic story about greed and ambition. It warns it’s viewers to not be greedy or ambitious because they lead to the wrong path in live. At the end of the movie the pottery merchants friend has given up his quest to be a samurai and has returned to a simpler life of self sacrifice as a farmer. The pottery merchant for giving in to his greed for profit and ambition to status as a noble encountered an evil spirit, and perhaps, lost his wife because he was away too long. In the end he returns to the simple life of making pottery.

            I thought this film presses upon traditional Japanese values of self-sacrifice and humility. Made at around the same time as Akira Kurosawa’s Seven Samurai and Yasujiro Ozu’s Tokyo Story, the film has similar high standard, Yet Mizoguchi delves into a moral tale intertwined with mysticism, unlike Ozu who focuses on personal relationships or Kurosawa who focuses more on Samurai.

            A great film, great plot development, great setup, and the conflict with the evil spirit was, at least to me, totally unpredictable.