A Masterpiece

Rating: Null/10 (1 January 2008)

King Lear has never really appealed to me. I'd much rather see big Bill's history plays (especially Richard II and III) than suffer through Lear. Ran is based on King Lear but it is so much more. Ran is a true masterpiece of art, drama, image, theater, and music. Kurisawa has taken elements of the greatest art of the west and the east and blended them so seamlessly. Kurisawa looked into Lear and pulled out a gem that I had never seen in Lear -- of how the Gods look down and sob at our evil actions (scene 21 on my DVD) and asks the question "why do we kill each other?" The film is haunting, it is stunning, it is so much more. Usually I can find one or two things wrong with a film, but not Ran. I like the Seven Samauri, but this to me is a much greater film, so much more universal and deep.
To some of the haters: Yes it is overacted, that is quite intentionally a reference to No theater. It is sublimely overacted. Its not supposed to be realistic, its supposed to be grand theater in every sense of the word. The dialog and acting are much more natural then Shakespearean drama which was spoken in blank verse iambic pentameter poetry.
The filming was quite intentionally devoid of close ups. The effect of the long shots is to separate us from the film a distance as if we are the looking down on the world where evil actions predominate... and perhaps we might learn. I finally have a TV big enough that I can appreciate this film the way it was meant to be seen.... but I wish I could see it in the theater.
Yes it is long, but its about half the length of King Lear (If you've seen a Lear that is shorter than Ran, you've seen a heavily edited version).
The film is actually quite accurate historically. Fire arms were used in middle age Japan. They were issued to peasants, not samurai (as depicted in the film wearing the typically conical peasant helmet). Muskets required a few days of training whereas the Japanese long bow required a life time of practice. Muskets proved decisive in a number of Japanese battles. I believe that after the civil wars ended (1608 or sometime like that), fire arms were banned by the Shogun. However, I do question the firing practices of the soldiers. The soldiers in this film all fired in either bad volleys (what we in the reenactment hobby call popcorn volleys) or independent fire. In Europe at the time forces fired in carefully controlled volleys because sparks from one mans gun could set off another gun or power source. The firing sounded more like modern fire arms, but perhaps that was intentional (see commentary on the criterion DVD, scene 20).
Thats about it.
See the film. Ita a masterpiece.