MovieChat Forums > Kumonosu-jô (1961) Discussion > Fatalistic Movie?

Fatalistic Movie?

posted 16 years ago by kennyandphilly
4 replies | jump to latest

According to the guy who did the commentary for the Criterion DVD, Throne of Blood is Kurosawa at his most fatalistic. Washizu is painted into a corner, not only as a result of the witch's prophecy but due to the arguments made by his wife, and he really doesn't have any choice but to murder the ruler and to seize the throne. If he doesn't kill the ruler at the first opportunity, then it is inevitable that the ruler will learn of the prophecy from Miki and seek to murder Washizu. To paraphrase Washizu's wife, in these wicked times, it's sometimes necessary to kill to avoid being killed oneself, and this is the destiny confronting Washizu.

While I can certainly see where this commentary is coming from, I disagree with this view of the movie. Washizu has no choice only if his wife is correct: (1) that Miki will inevitably inform the ruler about the prophecy; and (2) that the reason the ruler has picked Washizu to lead the attack on the enemy and Miki to guard the castle is because he wants to keep Miki safe and wants Washizu to face arrows from both directions. However, I think it is just as likely that Washizu, and not his wife, correctly reads the situation--that Miki is his friend who will never speak to the ruler about the prophecy, and that the reason that Washizu was picked to lead the attack is because the ruler trusts him and wishes to honor him. In a way, Throne of Blood is a little like Rashomon in that you have two competing views of reality, Washizu's and his wife, and it is because Washizu chooses to accept his wife's view, whether because he truly believesa it or because it gives him an excuse to seize the throne, that the movie proceeds as it does. Looked at in this way, I don't think that Throne of Blood is fatalistic at all. It is rather, as the chorus says at the start of the movie, about a man who was murdered by his ambition, or rather by the view of reality that he accepted to realize that ambition. Do you agree or disagree?

[–] gorockets66 16 years ago

I just rented this movie through NetFlixx and have not yet seen it. I also wanted to thank you for this perspective. Also reminds me a bit of Shakespeare's Macbeth.

The Point of departure is not to return.

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Brude_Stone 16 years ago

My contention about Macbeth/Throne of Blood has always been that he chose the method and form of how his fate played out by his deeds, but not the outcome itself. Had he not chosen a path of evil to effect the prophesied ends, they would have still come to him but in a different form. He could have chosen a path of righteousness, and then would have become king under some other circumstances (the king dies in battle or of a burst appendix, whatever, and he's chosen by his peers to succeed him, perhaps), yet would not have been tainted by sin so that he would lose his kingship so violently, clearing the way for Banquo's/Miki's son to rule after him. Instead, I think Banquo's son would have come to rule in a natural way, probably as his chosen heir as was his plan originally (I can think of any number of other scenarios where that happens without murder, betrayal or war).

[–] VTJoker 16 years ago

Completely agree. His wife even says something along the lines of "the first prophecies have been fulfilled without you doing a thing." I think if he would have just sat back and done nothing, he still would have become king. And also, because he would have chosen the moral course of actions(do nothing) as opposed to the evil course(kill the king) that his wife implanted in his brain, he would have also done the right thing in naming Miki's son as the heir. This was his plan until he was swayed by his wife to do otherwise.

In less words, they could have done nothing, and the prophecies still would eventually be fulfilled.