MovieChat Forums > Ran (1985) Discussion > Dumb battle scenes?

Dumb battle scenes?

posted 14 years ago by Zoomorph
6 replies | jump to latest

Jiro charged at guns with cavalry, lost, then retreated and did it again, losing even more. Why would anyone make those attacks? Why didn't Jiro's army have/use guns of their own or just use a different strategy?

When the old man was stuck in the tower it seems like there was 5 minutes of people missing him with guns and arrows. I understand it was necessary for the story that he survive, but it seems done poorly.

~ Observe, and act with clarity. ~

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Blueghost 14 years ago

Pretty much. Kurosawa knew tactics from his upbringing all too well, and was in essence giving the audience something to look at. It's part of the madness of the internecine warfare waged by his sons. The OP said it himself, what sane general sends his heavy armor against a well entrenched enemy?

[–] benth04 13 years ago

Well - from 1914 thru '18 several million soldiers were killed in even more stupid attacks: They often marched in closed rows against enemy machine guns.

[–] ThingyBlahBlah3 13 years ago

Jiro charged at guns with cavalry, lost, then retreated and did it again, losing even more. Why would anyone make those attacks? Why didn't Jiro's army have/use guns of their own or just use a different strategy?

Jiro was a stubborn halfwit who thought he was invincible. Kurogane warned him that the battle conditions weren't favorable, and that attacking Saburo's forces was stupid, but Jiro ignored him. Besides, history is replete with military leaders like Jiro who make mistakes that seem obvious to everyone else. Little Bighorn comes immediately to mind. Or how about the Revolution-era British forces that continued to march into battle in nice tight formations, even though the officers knew that it made them easy targets for colonial riflemen?

When the old man was stuck in the tower it seems like there was 5 minutes of people missing him with guns and arrows. I understand it was necessary for the story that he survive, but it seems done poorly.

I guess there are two ways to look at that scene:

1) Story-wise, Hidetora is doomed to live, so that he can suffer for his sins. He isn't lucky enough to die in battle, and he's not even allowed to commit seppuku and die honorably. So you could argue that God, or fate, or whatever you want to call it, is keeping him protected from the bullets.

2) On the technical end, the guns at that time were arquebusses, which were early predecessors of muskets. They had smooth-bored barrels, which made for a very inaccurate weapon that couldn't really be aimed with any precision. All you could do was point it in the general direction of your enemy, fire, and hope for the best before you affixed your bayonet and charged into the fray.

______________________
'It's a mess, ain't it, sheriff?'
'If it ain't, it'll do till the mess gets here.'

[–] liquidsouther 12 years ago

^ This

"He drank. He fought. He made his ancestors proud!"

[–] Kawada_Kira (7282) 4 years ago

The thing that bothered me about the Jiro-Saburo battle scene is that nobody actually died in it. It was so frustrating how the guns were tearing into Jiro's army but nobody fell on the ground and stayed dead. No men, no horses. A few guys fell on the ground, but invariably got back up and ran away. After the bloody grittiness of the castle battle earlier in the movie, I couldn't understand why this battle was so unrealistically bloodless.