Ran (The Criterion Collection)
|
Our Price: $99.76 Availability: Usually ships in 1-2 business days Buy Used: from $48.00 (click here) Category: DVD See more DVD releases |
|---|
Buy this DVD movie at online store in your country
Canada
Canada
Movie Reviews of Ran (The Criterion Collection)
Movie Review: Great film now out of print
Summary: 5 Stars
Great film. Unfortunately, Criterion just announced this title as 'out of print' due to rights issues. Grab one while you can!Movie Review: An Alluring Descent Into Betrayal and Madness
Summary: 4 Stars
If there is one word I would use to describe "Ran", it would be 'UNFORGETTABLE'. I shall do my best to describe what a powerful impact this film had on me, but as with some of the true classics in cinema, such efforts can be futile.
"Ran", directed by Akira Kurosawa, is a faithful but reimagined telling of Shakespeare's 'King Lear', using feudal Japan as the backdrop. Before I begin, I will give you a brief character list, since I personally have a tendency to confuse foreign-language names when I read reviews:
Lord Hidetora Ichiimonji --- The warlord who intends to give up his power
The Three Sons:
Taro --- oldest, married to Lady Kaede
Jiro --- the middle
Saburo --- the youngest, most loyal and loving of his father
Lady Kaede --- married to Taro, her family & lands were conquered by Hidetora
The opening shots of the beautiful mountains leave the viewer uneasy as the brooding music plays over the credits. Our tension is justified, because we suddenly see Lord Hidetora aim his bow at a hunted boar. His fierce gaze is as intimidating as his precise aim.
The story begins with Lord Hidetora (played by Kurosawa regular Tatsuya Nakadai) announcing to his family & court that he will divide his kingdom among his three sons. Saburo (the youngest) objects, because he believes that the division will lead to jealously and corruption, possibly war. But Hidetora knows no compromise, and bans his youngest from his lands.
It turns out that Saburo was right, as older sons Taro & Jiro begin to plot against each other for the lands. Meanwhile, Hidetora begins to go mad. He has turned away his most loving son. The sons he chose to reward have abandoned him. He is too proud to acknowledge his errors. His jester fails to amuse him during his sorrows. And when the ensuing battles leave Hidetora's castles in ruins, he descends into madness while wandering the lands he conquered. The destruction only deepens his descent.
Sadly, only through more bloodshed and chaos do the lessons and appreciation of life come to the men who survive the story. Only when that which matters most is lost, does life seem precious.
I can't really say if "Ran" is well-cast, because I don't speak Japanese, and I also understand that Kurosawa's dramatic style tends to overexaggerate the dialogue and emotions. In other words, Kurosawa's dramas love to have the characters use grand gestures when a simple facial expression would suffice. However, I think anyone will agree that Tatsuya Nakadai deserves high compliments for his lead role. His body language does the story a great service as he aimlessly wanders his ruined country. His face is weary from battle, and is in a constant trance for most of the picture.
Mieko Harada gives a fascinating performance as Lady Kaede, the woman who has been wronged by the Ichiimonji clan, and yet is bound to them through marriage. In Kurosawa's interpretation of 'King Lear', Kaede is closer to Lady Macbeth. Her role is to be loyal to Taro, but yet she possesses the power, confidence, and manipulative presence he lacks. Kurosawa's films don't often have strong female roles, but Lady Kaede is easily one of the best.
As powerful as "Ran" was for me, I can't say it's perfect. I've long admired Kurosawa's work, but "Ran" has scenes that go on for way too long. There are many scenes where characters just sit and talk, with very little movement. This wouldn't be a problem if the camera had more closeups or cuts, but instead some viewers may become restless during some conversations. The opening banishment of Saburo is one of the toughest to sit through.
In fairness, the unmoving distanced camera fits the story of "Ran". As I learned from Stephen Prince's DVD commentary track, the distanced camera is to imply how the gods of the earth have abandoned the corrupt creatures who inhabit it. I guess the best way to sum this complaint of mine is that Kurosawa's direction fits thematically, but occasionally falters theatrically.
Sometimes Kurosawa demands that we go to his pictures, rather than have them come to us. But when the dark, deceptive web of "Ran" gets spun, it tangles you up and rarely lets go. As these characters plot to control the lands, it becomes a gripping story of despair. There isn't a ton of violence in "Ran", but when it's there, it hits you hard. There is an unforgettable sequence where Hidetora's Castle is raided and burned. It concludes with a mournful music score and no sound effects, and I promise if for nothing else you won't forget it.
My appreciation for "Ran" has been cemented by its unforgettable ending. Simply put, in the hundreds of movies I've watched in lifetime, I don't think one has haunted me and impacted me as much as "Ran" has. I refuse to give it away. If you are patient and willing to descend into this desparate tale, then you will have earned the privilege to see the tragic ending under the blood-red skies.
"Ran" is not a perfect film, but it is exactly the way Akira Kurosawa intended it to be. Every single camera shot & scene --- for better or worse --- fits the dramatic flow of the story. I warn you that this film requires YOU to enter IT, and not the other way around. It will not be fed to you the way you expect. But then again, great art requires our horizons to be challenged. Once you break the boundaries that American movies have cemented in our minds, you experience a sensation that no other film can provide.
"Ran" is a one-of-a-kind experience. Go to it. It will not come to you.
DVD NOTES
---I've read countless reviews that this 2-disc set is the only way to experience "Ran". I haven't seen the other releases, such as the Masterworks disc or the Blu-Ray set. However, I can vouch for this Criterion set's superb quality. The video colorfully & richly maintains the cinematographers' work. I'm no sound expert, but I could hear everything from the most intimate conversations to the most hushed sounds of nature.
The great rewards are in the bonus features. Stephen Prince's commentary was probably my favorite of his tracks for Kurosawa DVDs. Sidney Lumet gives a great introduction on Disc 1, pretty much summarizing how Kurosawa impacted him, and what "Ran" is probably about at its core. Finally, Disc 2 has a 75-minute documentary detailing how "Ran" came into production. Like the other Kurosawa featurettes in the Criterion Collection, this one is a great watch.
Movie Review: Good
Summary: 4 Stars
The 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.
Movie Review: Ran
Summary: 4 Stars
This 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.
Movie Review: Ran
Summary: 4 Stars
I enjoyed watching ran. it was quite different than most American films in a lot of ways. it had an unique combination of humor and drama. I particularly liked the large battle scenes. i think a lot of the epic battle scenes in movies that i like now were heavily influenced by this film. this film has an interesting mix of both American and foreign film styles. The influence of Japanese Noh theater is clearly strong. While some American audiences might be put off by some aspects of the film, i still think it reaches a wide, diverse audience nonetheless.