Ran is no question a great work of art. I wouldn't go so far to call it the "best film ever made," but won't quibble with that.
However, in comparing "Ran" to its partial source material, you write:
"Kurosawa took "King Lear" - arguably, Shakespeare's best play - and actually made it better. By setting it in Japan and changing Lear's daughters into sons - the two eldest fighting over their father's throne, slaughtering his army, and attempting to murder him - the tragedy is so profoundly epic, Kurosawa makes it feel as if the Heavens are weeping and as one dying gaurd proclaims "Hell is upon us!"
You haven't explained at all how or why changing the setting to Japan, and the sex of the warring siblings -- makes this "better" than the original. In case you hadn't heard, King Lear already IS a "tragedy [that] is so profoundly epic." You then use a simile ("as if the Heavens are weeping") that goes nowhere. I'm not saying the argument can't be made, but just that this isn't it.
Ran benefits from extremely powerful visual tableaus and set pieces, and of course the superb acting of its principles, and (duh) the overall direction and cinematography, plus phenomenal score. But I actually find it somewhat wanting in its power to move or effect on a deep, cathartic and emotional level. Yes, there are powerful and poignant moments, but these are nowhere close to the poignancy and depth of King Lear (especially when wrought by great actors and directors). But then, I feel it's a bit silly to compare: the one is largely a visual form, the other verbal. Of course, they converge in the realm of drama (and storytelling), but Shakespeare's poetry contains wisdom and profundity unlike just about any other artform or medium, save for others of his great plays.
I believe one of the most cathartic elements of the original is that we have a daughter (Cordelia) who never wrongs her father (and is simply loathe to make pretty speeches to win the greater part of his kingdom), but who is condemned nonetheless. Thus, when they reconcile -- only when it is too late -- it is all the more poignant. What could be more touching than Lear, flitting between madness and sanity, believing her lips may still be moving? Conversely, the Emperor in Ran has three equally unpleasant sons; the youngest happens to be the opposite of Cordelia, and is most brash. In fact, it is HE who must come around in the end and recognize he has wronged his father. That is an interesting reversal, but is far less dramatic and powerful. In specific comparison after another (e.g. the guilelessness and yet wisdom of the "holy" fool in Lear vs. the Puck-ish but impatient one in Ran), Shakespeare for me comes out way on top.
I do love how Kurosawa kind of takes liberally from a variety of sources, including the Lady Macbeth-like Lady Kaede.
reply
share
craigjohnson20
15 years ago
You haven't explained at all how or why changing the setting to Japan, and the sex of the warring siblings -- makes this "better".
In the timeframe of "Ran", men wielded more power than women did - I did mention that sexual politics come into play. There is also honor amongst Japanese warriors that cannot be fully explained; The dishonour Ichimonji's eldest sons hold to their father, as it pertains to Japanese culture, is inconceivable. Compare that to, say, the women who use their bodies as human shields to protect Ichimonji against the guns fired by his son's armies - they are not his blood; but they will not hesitiate to die for him.
reply
share
maxjohnson1971
15 years ago
Just put this on my Netflix que. Netflix is like a Godsend to me!
"H.I., you're young, you got your health... What do you want with a job?"
reply
share