# Talk:High and Low (1963 film)

In High and Low (Japanese title 天国と地獄 Tengoku to jigoku Akira Kurosawa made a political statement by having the main character work as a shoe industry executive who rose from humble origins as a simple leather worker, clearly implying (to Japanese audiences) the main character's burakumin status. The story has the main character selflessly sacrifice his fortune in order to save his driver's son, showing that burakumin are as heroic as anyone else.

--- from burakumin
Gondo himself, importantly, represents a member of the burakumin class  who has risen above his caste and eventually validates himself in the eyes of the audience by his virtuous act, providing the ransom for a child that is not his own.
--- (uncited portion from High and Low)

It is perhaps a little dangerous to use another Wikipedia article as a reference when it does not cite its sources. It gives the appearence in the burakumin article that it is using this article as a reference now and vice versa. Yomangani 09:34, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
I agree, it was probably a bit hasty of me to add the information, considering the political motivations some groups in Japan might have to retroactively associate themselves with a Japanese icon. I'm looking for a source, and will replace the language if I find one. Dhimelright 22:21, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Burakumin are known as the underclass who work with dead animals. In this specific case - Gondo is a leather worker who makes shoes. In the “briefcase and color smoke pellet” scene - he talks of his days as an apprentice who also made such cases. It is clear to Japanese people that even though Gondo has a nice house AKA Heaven - it's still in the burakumin part of town near the Chinese section of Yokohama. This was a common theme in Kurasawa's films. The Kurasawa statement comes from a film class Donald Richie of UCLA gave in the late 1970s or early 1980s. Forgive me for beating people over the head with the obvious. The source is likely an interview done by Richie. - Sparky 02:09, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
The problem wasn't that we were disputing whether he was burakumin or not, it was that the statement was uncited in both this article and the burakumin article, and until we have a verifiable source we shouldn't put it back in. You've given me something to work on with regards to finding a source though, thanks. Yomangani 09:27, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
And? - Sparky (talk) 16:03, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
https://akirakurosawa.info/forums/topic/high-and-low-the-burakumin-issue
- I told you so.  Sparky (talk) 09:50, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
Petty. 167.61.47.143 (talk) 19:51, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Re: the notability of critics, there are voluminous instances of films far less notable than a great film by a great filmmaker with links to minor film blogs. This link is from a major blog site that Wikipedia has its own entry on: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blogcritics; it is written by a film critic that Wikipedia has its own entry on: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dan_Schneider_(writer), about a film released by a DVD company with its own page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criterion_Collection; and about a version of the DVD that is newly released with new features that are detailed in a review that runs some 8 pages long. This is not just a thumbs up or down review. Given these four facts, to call the review non-notable, is absurd, since Wikipedia notes the company that released the dvd, the site that posted the review, and the writer. Given that there is slim linkage, this link provides a valuable resource for filmgoers and dvd collectors. Guffinmac (talk) 13:26, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi Dan. I think what people have a problem with is you using Wikipedia to plug your own reviews. It's not helpful, in fact it's spam. (StevenEdmondson (talk) 19:12, 28 August 2008 (UTC)).

a few recent edits had changed some of the meaningful content of the article, please check the sources provided before rephrasing. Plifal (talk) 09:09, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

although this article is still waiting at GAN, i'd really like it to be at a featured article standard. the biggest concerns i have currently are:

a lack of access to the sourcing for the film's budget (which led me to excise reference to it in the body since no other source mentions it) and audie bock's "the moralistic cinema of kurosawa"
lack of awareness of american copyright law for the images (and maybe other fixed size px concerns)
copyvio concerns for some of the quotations in 'themes' and 'reception' sections
inconsistent capitalisation of sources
are redlinks bad in featured articles? i've seen reviews where reviewers have pointed them out as requiring a fix, and other articles which have them with no issues
the multiref source of the variety  magazines (feels weird/incorrectly formatted but i don't know why)
'cast' section (everyone in it is credited in the title sequence, but it feels a little underdeveloped(?))
general copyediting concerns
there are a few other things i'm aware of, perhaps where more sources are necessary to cite a claim in the article, referenced articles that need translated titles/general cleanup, but those are the main things. tagging @TechnoSquirrel69 per our conversation. any advice is welcome and appreciated!!--Plifal (talk) 10:24, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

also tagging @Eiga-Kevin2 upon recalling our conversation a few months ago. any concerns or comments would be highly appreciated :)
--Plifal (talk) 12:21, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
Thanks for the ping! I'm not necessarily the best person to answer all of these questions, but here's what I can say, in order as above:
This chapter in Kurosawa: Perceptions on Life appears to be available for in-library use at the Seattle Central Library. There may be someone in Seattle willing to scan the relevant pages and send them over. Pinging some Seattle-based Wikipedians — SounderBruce, Peaceray, Buidhe: do y'all have any more information about this?
Are there any specific copyright questions you have? Glancing through the article, I don't see anything that should be a problem. I know there are folks in the #commons channel of the Wikimedia Discord server who probably know a lot more about this than I do. You might consider reading MOS:UPRIGHT for more information about image sizing markup.
I would agree that these sections have far too many quotes, both from a standpoint of copyright infringement and of prose cohesion. In general, I like to use quotes when it would be impossible to paraphrase or summarize the source's ideas without losing significant meaning or detail baked into its particular phrasing. For a few examples, "the specter of miscegenation" is something I would keep, "emergence of a new urban topography ..." can be easily written different terms, and "a masterpiece" that is "full of fantastic ideas" and "great moments" is way overboard. This one might be enough for a reviewer to fail the GA nomination, so I would take a look at that as soon as possible.
There's actually an ongoing RfC discussing capitalization. At this stage, I wouldn't worry about it too much, and it isn't the end of the world to make these kinds of formatting changes if someone asks for it at FAC.
The relevant guideline supports intentional redlinks if the subject is plausibly notable and an article could be created at that title in the future. It's no different with FAs, in my opinion.
I take less issue with the {{multiref}} than the fact that they're shortened footnotes with no corresponding full citations. It also seems like citation overkill for the claim they're ostensibly supporting.
Nothing seems off about the cast on a quick glance through. Maybe consider making the column widths of the two subsections uniform.
Please let me know if there's anything else I can help with, Plifal! Always a pleasure to read through some of your work. :) —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 21:36, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
I am out of the area until early next week. I live in Port Townsend, WA, but I should be in Seattle for the 2025 Seattle International Film Festival Member Preview Night next Wednesday, & I will see if I can get a hold of it beforehand. Peaceray (talk) 21:59, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
much appreciated! theres no pressure but i would be so grateful, thank you!!--Plifal (talk) 23:00, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
this is a big help, thank you! i will begin to work on this soon. re. copyright, my major concern is for the image files that appear to not have american copyright licensing. i'm not confident in my ability to ascertain their licenses, but that's a rabbit hole i can go down if i must! thanks again--Plifal (talk) 22:59, 16 April 2025 (UTC)


### High and Low (1963 film)
i've listed this article for peer review because I would like to get it to featured article status. after a thorough review by @LastJabberwocky, i'd like to take this to the next level, especially with the upcoming 2025 remake by spike lee! also tagging Eiga-Kevin2 who kindly signalled they may have time to look over this when they're less busy.
given it would be my first time promoting to featured article, i need a general lookover in all technical and MOS aspects. image size is something i'm aware needs to be addressed, and will get to it soon. generally the sources cited are high quality (with a couple of exceptions) and the cited material is itself correct and close to the source. i also plan to request a copyedit beforehand. please let me know my shortcomings!
many thanks, Plifal (talk) 12:25, 27 April 2025 (UTC)


#### TompaDompa
I will take a look at this; I had the GAN on my to-do list for quite a while never got around to it. I'll give you a heads-up that this will probably take a fair amount of time as my attention will be divided by several different things both on Wikipedia and off. As a starting point, I note that there are several unlinked names in the cast list for people who do not have an article on English-language Wikipedia but do on Japanese-language Wikipedia, and I would recommend linking these via Template:Interlanguage link. This is not a WP:Featured article requirement, but it is a best practice. TompaDompa (talk) 14:25, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

excellent, thank you kindly! i'll get around to doing this soon. i very much appreciate you taking a look!!--Plifal (talk) 14:36, 18 May 2025 (UTC)
been through the article and should have now been applied as necessary.--Plifal (talk) 13:34, 19 May 2025 (UTC)
hi @TompaDompa! please don't feel pressured or anything of the sort, but i'd like to send this to fac by the end of next month. i still need to standardise the references (edit: and a couple of source replacements to ensure they're hq) but as far as i can see that's the only major sticking point? if you have any other notes or immediate concerns to bring up then of course i would still so very much appreciate your checking and guidance, but unless this PR gains more traction or you have any idea as to the timeframe of your recommendations that would lead me to postpone this plan, then i shall close it around the 20th-25th of june. wishing you the best!--Plifal (talk) 13:32, 27 May 2025 (UTC)
I have added my first batch of comments. More to come. TompaDompa (talk) 15:00, 28 May 2025 (UTC)
@TompaDompa, thank you so much!!! i've been through some of these but i have a few questions and comments (as below). i genuinely appreciate your effort and prompt response!--Plifal (talk) 09:27, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
@TompaDompa, hi! thank you again for your swift response. i have responded to your queries so far. apologies for any mistakes!--Plifal (talk) 06:30, 7 June 2025 (UTC)
@TompaDompa, thanks for going through the themes section. i have a few concerns between the fixes, and haven't implemented your structural suggestion. i'm not dead-set against it, i just think it would be too impractical. as always, please feel free to challenge and advise on this matter though.--Plifal (talk) 14:55, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
@TompaDompa, i have been through your comments! seems like we've done pretty well so far. i really am so grateful to you! i still have a few queries and other things i would appreciate feedback on. after the peer review my original plan was to go to fac mentoring, but given that you're a co-ordinator(?) or at least active on fac, perhaps this would be ill-advised in terms of providing more work unnecessarily for volunteers. if you have concerns about me submitting this, or otherwise think there's a considerable amount of work to be done i would very much like to know. otherwise, following this process, i will look over it a few more times before i submit.--Plifal (talk) 11:06, 23 June 2025 (UTC)
I am (somewhat) active at WP:FAC, but I'm not a coordinator or even among the more experienced reviewers or nominators there. I don't want to discourage you too much, but I don't expect that my input here will be sufficient preparation to give this article a decent shot at a successful nomination. I'll have to reassess that when I've had time to look through all your responses below (which I'm afraid will take quite a bit of time still), but my general sense after a first pass is that this was perhaps 60–70% of the way towards being ready for FAC when the peer review was opened, and that leaves more to be done than I think I can help with. This is an area where I am unfortunately much more proficient at noticing flaws (which regrettably does not necessarily translate into being able to outline those flaws in a way that is clear and understandable to others) than coming up with fixes and improvements. It would be good to get more eyes on this, particularly from editors with lots of experience writing these kinds of articles. I might suggest requesting further input from WT:FILM. TompaDompa (talk) 00:42, 9 July 2025 (UTC)
i appreciate your detailed remarks, and your comments so far have been incredibly helpful. i've added a request on the talk page for people to take a look, so hopefully it may receive a few responses. please take as much time as you need. the rate you're working at is perfect for me, but whatever the case, please take the time necessary such that you don't become too bored or overwhelmed!--Plifal (talk) 12:39, 15 July 2025 (UTC)
Now that a fresh pair of eyes (David Fuchs below) has started to look at this, I'm going to disengage from this peer review. I would like to help more, but I think I have just about exhausted my ability to do so—after having looked so much at (parts of) this article I'm feeling something akin to semantic satiation and I think further input from me is going to be increasingly unlikely to be helpful (and may even start being counterproductive). There are a few comments of mine below that have yet to be resolved to my satisfaction (but where I have run out of suggestions about what to do to fix the issues I have outlined), but on the whole the article looks quite good to me—noting that I am by no means an expert and have no familiarity with the relevant sources. If/when this article is brought to WP:FAC—and it seems to be getting fairly close to being ready for that—feel free to ping me and I'll try to weigh in there (but I make no promises about doing so promptly). TompaDompa (talk) 19:11, 7 September 2025 (UTC)
@TompaDompa, for all of your hard work, input, and guidance, i can not thank you deeply enough. most sincerely: thank you. i'll ping you as a courtesy if this ever gets to fac, but please do not feel the need to respond—after your help here, there's nothing i can ask of you. please let me know if i can do anything in return. the unstriked comments i will take to mean that the issues remain unresolved (perhaps with the exception of a few general critiques) so i will reexamine and revise those sections and any other relevant parts of the article. again, thank you.--Plifal (talk) 22:53, 7 September 2025 (UTC)
General comments
Sentences like Starring Toshiro Mifune, Tatsuya Nakadai, Kyōko Kagawa, Tatsuya Mihashi, Yutaka Sada, and Tsutomu Yamazaki, it tells the story of Japanese businessman Kingo Gondo (Mifune) struggling for control of the major shoe company at which he is a board member. and Released in Japan on 1 March 1963, High and Low received generally positive reviews both domestically and abroad, and became the highest-grossing film at the Japanese domestic box office that year.—where the subject of the sentence comes directly after some information about it and a comma and is then followed by the rest of the sentence—look out of place in encyclopedic writing, being more reminiscent of the style used by e.g. newspapers. It's not necessarily wrong, but should be used sparingly if at all to maintain WP:Encyclopedic style and tone.
i'll change these sentences in due course and keep an eye out for this pattern further in the article, thanks!--Plifal (talk) 09:27, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
The writing style is at times uneconomical. This is something that is commonly brought up at WP:FAC—strive to write in a manner that is both concise and clear. I might add that clarity includes avoiding any potential ambiguity even in cases where one interpretation would be much more likely than the other.
i can understand this as a general criticism but would you mind giving an example sentence or two that made you think this way?--Plifal (talk) 09:27, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
See the "Plot" section comments for a couple of example sentences. TompaDompa (talk) 14:05, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
New comment: The article switches between giving years in parentheses after the title (e.g. Yojimbo (1961)) and giving years before the title (e.g. the 1962 film My Daughter and I). Either way is okay, but it should be consistent. TompaDompa (talk) 18:03, 28 July 2025 (UTC)
done for all except the insect woman under the retrospective reception subsection considering the year is introduced in the contemporary list's publication. otherwise all should be standardised with years following titles in parentheses.--Plifal (talk) 11:07, 29 July 2025 (UTC)
Lead
Do sources describe the film primarily as a crime film or as a police procedural? Per MOS:FILMGENRE the first sentence should identify the primary genre or sub-genre under which it is verifiably classified—in other words, just one genre. If we are to describe the film with a hybrid genre like this, the sources need to use that combined term—which may very well be the case in some rare instances (I would, for example, not be surprised if sources describe Alien as a "science fiction horror film" more than as a "science fiction film" or "horror film").
different sources use different terms. i would say "police procedural" is probably more common, but "crime" is used (often excluding the subgenre label of police procedural) and may be more representative of the content of the film. i'm not sure what the guidance for that is necessarily.--Plifal (talk) 09:27, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
Go with what the balance of the sources say. Assess the pattern of use of different genres by the various sources both in terms of frequency and source quality, and use the description that best reflects the overall literature on the film. TompaDompa (talk) 14:51, 3 June 2025 (UTC)
academic sources are split as such:
prince refers to it as a detective story (p.188),
conrad a crime story (p.164),
goodwin as a police procedural (p.58),
galbraith in the emperor and the wolf a crime thriller (p.346),
richie refers to it as a suspense-story that he includes in the category of detective-stories (p.185),
phillips as a police procedural (p.15),
yoshimoto as a detective story (p.313),
desser a police-procedure (p.79).
as for contemporary reviews:
oka calls it a suspense film (p.56),
vas refers to it as a policier (p.149),
crist as a character and suspense thriller (p.38),
time doesn't directly refer to its genre but gives a description of it as a suspense (p.104).
other reviews and sources refer to it as such:
bradshaw in the guardian (2025) as a noir procedural,
chapman in indiewire (2024) as a police drama,
keslassy in variety (2025) as a crime thriller,
sharp for the bfi (2025) refers to it as a kidnapping procedural.
the majority of other sources i checked either don't use any genre definition or are split along these lines of detective, procedural, crime, and suspense/thriller. on balance a plurality of sources refer to it as a procedural (including several prominent academics in the field). however, prince, galbraith, and richie, who have written the most comprehensive and influential accounts of the film's production and analysis use (suspense/)detective story or a crime thriller. the lack of consistency causes a problem, but i've tentatively removed "crime" from the lead as police procedural is the most common and to refer to it as a crime film when only a minority of sources directly refer to it as such. although police procedural and detective story could technically be referred to as crime film subgenres, to do so without direct attribution would seem to be editorialising. i would appreciate input on this though.--Plifal (talk) 12:24, 4 June 2025 (UTC)
Is it really so significant that Kurosawa edited the film that it warrants mentioning in the very first sentence?
excised.--Plifal (talk) 09:27, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
Starring Toshiro Mifune [...] and Tsutomu Yamazaki, it tells the story of [...] –
was there supposed to be a comment about this line?--Plifal (talk) 09:27, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
Silly me, it appears I neglected to remove this unfinished comment when I added the first comment under the "General comments" heading. TompaDompa (talk) 14:05, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
when kidnappers, led by Ginjirō Takeuchi (Yamazaki), mistakenly kidnap his chauffeur's son — I don't think mentioning the lead kidnapper's name adds anything here, and adding the actor's name makes it sound like he has the second-biggest role after Mifune (which he doesn't—Nakadai does). I would also not use the plural "kidnappers" here, for one thing because I think it would be more accurate to say that there is one kidnapper and two accomplices, and for another because it is not until fair ways into the film that it is revealed that the kidnapper is not working alone. It's also good to avoid repetition of words—here, "kidnappers" and "kidnap"—where possible. In summary, I would rephrase this as "when a kidnapper mistakenly abducts his chauffeur's son".
done.--Plifal (talk) 09:27, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
Production began in 1962 at Toho Studios. Shot mostly on location at Yokohama, and on set at Toho, filming lasted from 2 September to 30 January 1963. — this does not seem right. In filmmaking, "production" usually refers to shooting the film itself (whereas "pre-production" includes writing, casting, set construction and so forth, and "post-production" includes editing, visual effects, sound mixing, and so on).
i'm not sure i quite understand this? the film started pre-production and filming both in the year 1962 so i wouldn't say it's inaccurate. please also see below.--Plifal (talk) 09:27, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
You are right, I read the dates backwards (i.e. I thought it was from January to September 1963, instead of September 1962 to January 1963). TompaDompa (talk) 14:05, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
Shot mostly on location at Yokohama, and on set at Toho, filming lasted from 2 September to 30 January 1963. — this is somewhat ungrammatical. "Shot mostly on location" should refer to the film itself, but with this sentence construction it refers to filming (reordering, we get "Filming was shot mostly on location", which is nonsensical). This could probably be rephrased more simply.
how about "Production began in 1962 at Toho Studios. Filming took place on location at Yokohama and on set at Toho, it lasted from 2 September to 30 January 1963."? implemented pending ratification.--Plifal (talk) 09:27, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
Filming took place on location at Yokohama and on set at Toho, it lasted from 2 September to 30 January 1963. is a WP:COMMASPLICE, as both parts of the sentence ("Filming took place [...]" and "it lasted from [...]") are independent clauses that could stand on their own. See also User:Sammi Brie/Commas in sentences for additional advice about comma use that might be useful to keep in mind. TompaDompa (talk) 14:51, 3 June 2025 (UTC)
thanks! replaced with a semi-colon.--Plifal (talk) 12:24, 4 June 2025 (UTC)
The film has been regarded as embodying the post-World War II Japanese economic miracle prior to the 1964 Summer Olympics in Tokyo, particularly in its highlighted use of the Kodama express train. – this does not appear to reflect the contents of the body particularly well?
i think the thematic analysis refers to aspects of the economic miracle rather extensively? i see your point about the olympics and kodama express train though. perhaps a better reflection might be: "The film has been seen to represent a moral conflict within the backdrop of the post-World War II Japanese economic miracle." that i've again implemented pending your perspective.--Plifal (talk) 09:27, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
The Olympics and train were indeed the main things I had in mind. I will have to get back to you about the rest once I've read further along in the body. I would also note that "post-World War II" should be "post–World War II" with an en dash rather than a hyphen per MOS:PREFIXDASH, but I see that DocWatson42 has already fixed that. TompaDompa (talk) 14:51, 3 June 2025 (UTC)
sure, take your time.--Plifal (talk) 12:24, 4 June 2025 (UTC)
Plot
I find this plot summary to go into too much detail about the beginning and ending of the film, and too little about the plot investigation part. For instance, the pink smoke seems like a conspicuous omission. Aim for 400–700 words in total, per MOS:FILMPLOT.
done, summary now contains 644 words.--Plifal (talk) 09:27, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
A wealthy executive named Kingo Gondo is engaged in a struggle to gain control of a company called National Shoes. – try to rephrase this in a way that does not use "named" or "called".
"A wealthy executive named Kingo Gondo [...] " → "Wealthy executive Kingo Gondo [...] "
That's an improvement. See if you can also avoid using "called" for the company. TompaDompa (talk) 14:51, 3 June 2025 (UTC)
"a company called National Shoes" → "the company National Shoes"--Plifal (talk) 12:24, 4 June 2025 (UTC)
One faction wants the company to make cheap, low-quality shoes for the impulse market as opposed to the sturdy and high-quality shoes the company is currently known for. Gondo believes that the long-term future of the company will be best served by well-made shoes with modern styling, though this plan is unpopular because it means lower profits in the short term. — this could probably be stated more concisely.
changed to "The board of executives is split between a strategy to make either cheap and low-quality, or sturdy but unfashionable shoes. Gondo seeks to secure the long-term future of the company via a third way, though his plan is not agreed to by the other executives." would it be improved by removing reference to the kind of shoes?--Plifal (talk) 09:27, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
I think it is good to indicate briefly how the three approaches differ. It makes the themes more readily understandable when it is clear that the "Old Man" is unmodern, the rival faction favours the shoe equivalent of enshittification, and Gondo is forward-thinking. The new version loses much of this information, which I would say is a net negative even if it is briefer. See if you can't find a way to convey the main points without making it too lengthy. TompaDompa (talk) 14:51, 3 June 2025 (UTC)
ok, i think the approaches are presented ok, but i've added some details and tried to rework it so it words as such: "The board of the company is split between executives seeking to make cheap and low-quality shoes, and the ageing largest shareholder who makes sturdy but unfashionable shoes. Gondo rejects these plans, envisioning a strategy requiring high production costs for long-term profitability." which should contain the important information while being 20 words shorter than the original.--Plifal (talk) 12:24, 4 June 2025 (UTC)
That's pretty good. TompaDompa (talk) 01:09, 14 July 2025 (UTC)
After a long night of contemplation, Gondo announces that he will not pay the ransom, explaining that doing so would not only mean the loss of his position in the company, but would cause him to go into debt and throw the futures of his wife and son into jeopardy. — this could probably be stated more concisely.
changed to "After contemplating it, Gondo announces that he will not pay the ransom, fearing that doing so would jeopardise his job, his finances, and the future of his family."--Plifal (talk) 09:27, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
That's an improvement. TompaDompa (talk) 14:51, 3 June 2025 (UTC)
His plans are weakened – this phrasing seems odd to me.
done.--Plifal (talk) 09:27, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
The kidnapper is apprehended in the slums by the police while trying to supply another lethal dose of uncut heroin. – I don't think this is correct. Isn't he apprehended at the accomplices' hideout (having gone there to provide them with more uncut heroin)?
you're absolutely right, i can't believe that slipped me by.--Plifal (talk) 09:27, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
The kidnapper at first feigns no regrets for his actions. As he reveals that envy from seeing Gondo's house on the hill every day led him to conceive of the crime, his emotions gradually gain control over him and he ends up breaking down before Gondo. – I share this reading of the scene, but it is nevertheless WP:ANALYSIS.
changed to "The kidnapper proclaims that he has no regrets for his actions. As he reveals that envy from seeing Gondo's house on the hill every day led him to conceive of the crime, his emotions gradually gain control over him as a screen divides the two of them." i've had a bit of difficulty with this one though, it's also the part that other editors have been most active in changing (perhaps predictably).--Plifal (talk) 09:27, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
That's a bit better, but I don't think it's quite right either. To be sure, this is tricky to summarize in a way that is both "just the facts" and clearly conveys the nuances of the scene. I would probably mention the kidnapper screaming/crying (unsure of the best way to describe it) and being dragged away by the guards. TompaDompa (talk) 14:51, 3 June 2025 (UTC)
@TompaDompa, how about "The kidnapper proclaims that he has no regrets for his actions. He reveals that envy from seeing Gondo's house on the hill every day led him to conceive of the crime, (caterwauling/shrieking) as he's dragged away and a screen divides the two of them, leaving Gondo alone."? used shrieking as caterwauling feels a little strange to use, but may be more accurate.--Plifal (talk) 12:24, 4 June 2025 (UTC)
I don't think that gives the right impression of the sequence of events here. Putting a period after the first clause and a comma after the second makes the connection between the second and third clause stronger than between the first and second, when it should really be the other way around. I also think it's worth noting that the kidnapper starts out relatively calm and collected (cocky, really) and only becomes outwardly emotional after a while (my reading of the scene is that failing to get a rise out of Gondo is what ends up breaking his composure). I would probably say something like The kidnapper tells Gondo that he has no regrets for his actions, explaining that envy from seeing Gondo's house on the hill every day led him to conceive of the crime. and then use the second sentence to state that he gradually loses his composure before the whole being dragged away part. I'm not entirely sure how to phrase that last part, however. Perhaps something along the lines of As they talk Gondo remains stoic while the kidnapper gradually becomes more emotional, eventually breaking down crying and screaming before being dragged away by guards as a screen divides them, leaving Gondo alone.? I don't know, the first clause in particular is still a bit clunky. TompaDompa (talk) 01:09, 14 July 2025 (UTC)
i changed it to this: "The kidnapper relates that he has no regrets for his actions, explaining that envy from seeing Gondo's house on the hill every day led him to conceive of the crime. Gradually losing his composure, he shrieks as he's dragged away and a screen divides the two of them, leaving Gondo alone." i actually quite like your formulation, i'm not sure how much including a passage of gondo's reaction is interpretation outside the scope of the article though, especially given that we only see his face in the reflection of the glass. I also removed reference to Gondo in the first clause because its inclusion leads to a lot of "Gondo" "Gondo" "Gondo" in the preceding sentences.--Plifal (talk) 12:39, 15 July 2025 (UTC)
I think it's okay to describe that Gondo is outwardly unemotional at the beginning of the conversation and remains so throughout, as long as it's done in a way that doesn't imply anything about his inner emotional state ("stoic", as I had above, is probably a word to avoid for this reason). Whether it would be an improvement is up for debate. TompaDompa (talk) 23:57, 20 July 2025 (UTC)
hmm i guess i still don't want to detract from the focus on the kidnapper in the final moment. if i can think of a good way of including it, i will.--Plifal (talk) 07:06, 26 July 2025 (UTC)
maybe it's just an inability of me to read it differently, or maybe it's a quality of mifune's acting that he's able to subtly portray the suppression of obvious emotion, but i'm not quite sure the word "stoic" fits here. i agree that it works, but only partially; i don't think it adequately communicates that there is a level of sadness to the character of gondo that comes through in his responses during this scene. i'm not sure how i would convey this though. what do you think?--Plifal (talk) 13:13, 6 August 2025 (UTC)
Production
co-written by Akira Kurosawa with Hideo Oguni, Eijiro Hisaita, and Ryūzō Kikushima – "with [...] and"?
fixed.--Plifal (talk) 09:11, 5 June 2025 (UTC)
The story is based on Evan Hunter's novel King's Ransom (1959), Toho purchased the rights to produce the film version of the book – MOS:COMMASPLICE.
fixed.--Plifal (talk) 09:11, 5 June 2025 (UTC)
the rights to produce the film version of the book – could be stated more concisely.
changed to, "the rights to adapt the novel in [...] "--Plifal (talk) 09:11, 5 June 2025 (UTC)
the summer of 1961 – MOS:SEASON.
excised. upon reviewing the source it only says they met to discuss the purchase of rights in the summer but does not give a precise date when.--Plifal (talk) 09:11, 5 June 2025 (UTC)
While adapted from Hunter's novel, the film contains significant differences. – we already know that the film is an adaptation of the novel, so it does not need to be stated again.
excised.--Plifal (talk) 09:11, 5 June 2025 (UTC)
The explanation of the differences between book and film is not very clear to me—how was it changed?
changed to emphasise that much of what happens in the film after the shift from the house is not present or significantly different in content from the novel.--Plifal (talk) 09:11, 5 June 2025 (UTC)
New comment: Unlike the novel too, drugs are featured, and Gondo does not catch the kidnapper himself. – "Unlike the novel too" feels pretty clunky, and "drugs are featured" does not really explain much. If the drugs part is something that the sources go into more detail about it should probably be expanded a bit, and otherwise it could probably be removed. TompaDompa (talk) 01:09, 14 July 2025 (UTC)
gone over it to explain: "In a departure from the novel that emphasises the social perspective of the film's protagonist, drugs are featured, and Gondo does not catch the kidnapper himself." though this comes from contemporary primary and academic secondary sources, it may be argued that if it verges too close to analysis it should be excised. i'm not tied to it, but i think it's fair to consider it an important adaptational change.--Plifal (talk) 12:39, 15 July 2025 (UTC)
That doesn't seem quite right (those are two different departures from the novel—do they both emphasize the social perspective?), and "emphasises the social perspective of the film's protagonist" is not entirely clear to me, but I think it's an improvement. TompaDompa (talk) 23:57, 20 July 2025 (UTC)
changed to " [...] that emphasises social issues and the class perspective of [...]". and the answer to your question is, according to bernstein, yes. i didn't want to dwell on it due to undue weight and possible problems of analysis, but he emphasises that as the underlying difference.--Plifal (talk) 07:06, 26 July 2025 (UTC)
Much better. "In a departure from the novel that emphasises [...]" doesn't really work for something that refers to both changes, however—a plural construction should be used. TompaDompa (talk) 23:19, 27 July 2025 (UTC)
changed to: "The film departs from the novel by placing emphasis on social issues and the class perspective of the film's protagonist; drugs are featured, [...] ".--Plifal (talk) 09:01, 28 July 2025 (UTC)
That's good. One (hopefully) final comment on this: "The film [...] the film's protagonist" is needlessly repetitive, and just "the protagonist" would be better. TompaDompa (talk) 18:03, 28 July 2025 (UTC)
my goodness i'm so sorry to be so delinquent in checking these things. i can't thank you enough for your perseverance. if more needs to be done, please always tell me!!!!--Plifal (talk) 11:07, 29 July 2025 (UTC)
but Kurosawa, after seeing Tsutomu Yamazaki portray the kidnapper's with such passion changed his opinion in the edit. – there appears to be a comma missing.
fixed.--Plifal (talk) 09:11, 5 June 2025 (UTC)
kidnapper's – typo.
fixed.--Plifal (talk) 09:11, 5 June 2025 (UTC)
changed his opinion in the edit – I would say "while editing the film". I would also pick some other phrasing than "changed his opinion" (changed his mind, perhaps?).
done.--Plifal (talk) 09:11, 5 June 2025 (UTC)
These changes in adaptation recontextualised the source material, reframing the story around a moral and social critique of modern Japan. – if this was the explicit intention it should be noted. If this was the result (in some other person's opinion), it belongs elsewhere (alongside thematic analysis).
bernstein reads a little cagey about this, but moved it to thematic analysis to be safe, and added a bit of information.--Plifal (talk) 09:11, 5 June 2025 (UTC)
The script was written straight-to-final draft – I daresay the average reader will not be sure of either the precise meaning or significance of this.
glossed ("straight-to-final draft (a process that creates a production-ready screenplay without writing prior drafts and treatments),").--Plifal (talk) 09:11, 5 June 2025 (UTC)
Kikushima took a seat on the board of Kurosawa Productions – ditto.
changed to, "During the creation of High and Low, co-writer and producer Ryūzō Kikushima took a seat on the board of Kurosawa's self-financed production company: Kurosawa Production." but i'm not a big fan of this, i don't think it makes it much clearer and leads to the repetition of production/producer and kurosawa.--Plifal (talk) 09:11, 5 June 2025 (UTC)
I agree. What is the significance of this? TompaDompa (talk) 23:26, 22 July 2025 (UTC)
well, just that at the same time as the production of high and low, there was a large number of professional shifts occurring in kurosawa's life (managing of his production company, later-mentioned hollywood and olympic ventures). that the film's screenwriter was involved in this process seemed significant, but may be better excised.--Plifal (talk) 07:06, 26 July 2025 (UTC)
My intuition says that it should be excised, but of course if the sources make a big deal out of it (in the specific High and Low context) we shouldn't overrule them editorially. TompaDompa (talk) 00:06, 27 July 2025 (UTC)
reading the source it's only really a passing mention and only describes it as occurring sometime between yojimbo and 1968; so i've excised it.--Plifal (talk) 13:26, 27 July 2025 (UTC)
Kurosawa said after the release of Red Beard (1965) that he made High and Low because his friend's son was kidnapped. Despite not being particularly impressed with the writing of Hunter's novel, he was apparently struck by the concept of such a kidnapping. Even though he was shocked at the brazenness and cruelty of the crime, Kurosawa felt that his criminal deserved sympathy in tandem with the sadistic impulses he was subjected to. – it is not entirely clear to me when this is referring to the fictional kidnapping and when the real kidnapping.
fixed to make this clearer, only the first sentence refers to the real kidnapping, it's unfortunate that richie does not expand on this detail!--Plifal (talk) 09:11, 5 June 2025 (UTC)
cameos of his previous collaborators – by.
fixed.--Plifal (talk) 09:11, 5 June 2025 (UTC)
One is filmed on location, overlooking the city. – should be past tense.
fixed.--Plifal (talk) 09:11, 5 June 2025 (UTC)
as the location set could not photograph the outside well enough at night – the location set could not photograph?
oh yes, you know, the famous location sets that can operate cameras ;)
fixed to, "as the outside of the location set could not be photographed well at night."--Plifal (talk) 09:11, 5 June 2025 (UTC)
New comment: The "Filming" subsection is well-structured with one paragraph for the filming of the first part of the movie, then one paragraph for the train scene, and finally one paragraph for the remainder of the movie. It seems a bit unbalanced with the last paragraph being so (relatively) short, however, consisting largely of two brief and unrelated anecdotes. If it is possible to expand this paragraph while remaining within the bounds of WP:PROPORTION (i.e. without overemphasizing aspects that the sources gloss over), I think that would be an improvement. TompaDompa (talk) 23:26, 22 July 2025 (UTC)
i've exhausted the english language sources (and admittedly smaller-than-hoped-for number of japanese language sources) known to me that detail the production of kurosawa's films; there doesn't seem to be anything more.--Plifal (talk) 07:06, 26 July 2025 (UTC)
Alright. TompaDompa (talk) 18:55, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
Many of the takes shot for the film's first half were ten minutes long, and may have been longer if the capacity of the cameras' magazines were larger. – the second half of the sentence comes across as expressing uncertainty about actual events (i.e. "it is possible that they were longer") as opposed to uncertainty about hypothetical events (i.e. "it is possible that they would have been longer"). I'm guessing the latter is the intended meaning.
yes, that is correct, thanks! fixed.--Plifal (talk) 09:11, 5 June 2025 (UTC)
The film is shot using TohoScope – should be past tense.
done.--Plifal (talk) 09:11, 5 June 2025 (UTC)
Long-distance lenses were used, particularly during the first half of the film to obtain close-ups. – why those lenses for those shots? There are several different types of lenses that can be used for close-up shots.
added the detail that it's because the cameras rarely entered the set.--Plifal (talk) 06:29, 7 June 2025 (UTC)
required nine cameras to film [...] One camera was positioned under the bridge where the money drop took place, while another four cameras followed the two detectives. – what about the rest of the cameras?
the cameras aren't all directly accounted for in the sources, as far as i can tell, there are six following the people inside the train, there's two at either end of the train filming the diegetic information, and one under the bridge. not sure where i got the "four" number from in the sources, but it would make sense to me because one is needed to film one of the cameras filming the kidnappers, and one is needed to film gondo. changed to, "One camera was positioned under the bridge where the money drop took place, two eight-millimetres photographed the kidnappers at the ends of the train, and detectives were each followed by two cameras."--Plifal (talk) 06:29, 7 June 2025 (UTC)
The scene could only be done in one take due to the reservation and use of the express train. – to do a scene "in one take" usually refers to using a long take with no cuts. Here, I gather that what is meant is that they only had one attempt at getting it right.
that's correct. "The scene could only be done in one take due to the" → "There was only one attempt to film the scene due to the".--Plifal (talk) 06:29, 7 June 2025 (UTC)
four cameras followed the two detectives [...] one of the two cameras following the detectives – I'm confused about the number of cameras here.
changed to, "During the take, one of the cameras following Takeshi Katō on the train malfunctioned and did not capture the scene. The crew had to reshoot the scene featuring him on a different day." also: see above.--Plifal (talk) 06:29, 7 June 2025 (UTC)
one of the two cameras following the detectives on the train didn't capture the scene – how come?
see above.
the crew had to reshoot all the scenes featuring him on a different day – who is "him"?
see above.
New comment: The crew had to reshoot the scene featuring him on a different day. – "the scene featuring him" does not seem right; "the scenes featuring him" or "the parts of the scene featuring him" seem more appropriate. Even better, "his part" or "his parts", with or without "of the scene". TompaDompa (talk) 00:55, 24 July 2025 (UTC)
done. changed to, "The crew had to reshoot his part on a different day."--Plifal (talk) 07:06, 26 July 2025 (UTC)
a blue sheet was used to disguise alterations made to the second floor of a nearby building that was hiding an actor's face – I don't understand quite what this is saying.
essentially, there seems to be a kind of rumour mill that kurosawa destroyed a building that was in the way of a planned shot during the ransom exchange. there's no reliable source detailing this though, and nogami talks about this being exaggerated. instead, they made minor alterations to the second floor of a building that was disguising one of the kidnapper's faces, they then used a blue sheet to cover these alterations. changed to, "According to script supervisor Teruyo Nogami, during this scene, a blue sheet was used to disguise alterations made to the second floor of a nearby building that had been hiding the face of one of the kidnapper's accomplices,".--Plifal (talk) 06:29, 7 June 2025 (UTC)
I still don't quite follow, I'm afraid. I would suggest trying to put this in what might be called causal or chronological order (so something like: in order to A, they did B, which meant that C, and so they also did D, and this required E, the solution to which was F). TompaDompa (talk) 23:26, 22 July 2025 (UTC)
ok, how about this? "According to script supervisor Teruyo Nogami, during this scene, a nearby building hid the face of one of the kidnapper's accomplices. To fix the issue, a blue sheet was used to disguise alterations made to the second floor of the building, a job conceived and executed just a day before filming took place."--Plifal (talk) 07:06, 26 July 2025 (UTC)
Oh, the face being hidden was a problem? I didn't get that from the previous versions. Do I understand it correctly that the building was altered so it wouldn't hide the face, and then the blue sheet was used to disguise the alterations? If so, I still don't think this makes it quite clear enough: the alterations should be mentioned before the blue sheet, and the role of the blue sheet should be made clearer if possible (I don't quite understand how the blue sheet helped?). TompaDompa (talk) 00:06, 27 July 2025 (UTC)
yes, that's how it seems to be referred to in nogami's recollections. unfortunately, she doesn't provide any further detail about the event (i was actually surprised at how non-comprehensive and patchwork a lot of information about the film's production is). changed to: "According to script supervisor Teruyo Nogami, during this scene, a nearby building hid the face of one of the kidnapper's accomplices. To fix the issue, alterations were made to the second floor of the building with a blue sheet used to disguise these alterations, a job conceived and executed just a day before filming took place."
as a matter of record, i'll post the relevant extract from nogami 2014: ' [...] 撮影は明後日なんだよ。 [...] その家は木造の二階家で、邪魔をしていたのは子供の勉強部屋だった。 [...] 根津さんは奥さんに「撮影一日だけです。その間、二階をとりこわし終わったらすぐ元通りにしますから！」と強引に頼みこみ承諾してもらった。撮影当日はブルーのシートで隠されていた。' here, blue sheet is written in katakana, and i'm unsure what else (apart from tarpaulin) it could possibly be referring to. before this passage nogami notes that the second floor was obstructing the kidnapper and child; after this passage nogami writes that the house's original carpenter was employed to reconstruct the elements of the second floor.--Plifal (talk) 13:26, 27 July 2025 (UTC)
Alright, I think that does the trick. If you feel confident that tarpaulin is what is meant, by all means use that instead of "blue sheet". TompaDompa (talk) 23:19, 27 July 2025 (UTC)
i'll stick with blue sheet since i'm only 60:40 on it, and in my mind that encompasses tarpaulin.--Plifal (talk) 09:01, 28 July 2025 (UTC)
During a conversation scene between actors Isao Kimura and Takeshi Kato, Kurosawa dyed the nearby river with black paint and poured dirt into it to make the environment filthier. – the first part seems like excessive detail (it could simply be "For one scene").
done.--Plifal (talk) 06:29, 7 June 2025 (UTC)
In the editing of High and Low, Kurosawa presents past and present together at the same time in the continuity of his narrative. – I don't understand quite what this is saying, and I'm not entirely sure that it is in the right section. Also, try to avoid using the verb "present" and the noun "present" close together like this.
while it may be veering a little into analysis, it should be noted that richie is basing his writing on kurosawa's formalistic style on conversations he had with the man directly while this film was being shot. i'm not entirely sure what he's trying to say here either, and he doesn't really expand on this, but reading the passage in context, he seems to be referring to an innovation in editing that depicts high and low's "continuity from one action to the other" (p.193). i.e., that the action of high and low's continuity plays with chronology. what specific examples he has in mind are anyone's guess though.
tentatively changed to, "Kurosawa focuses on the continuity of character actions in the editing of High and Low. The film's narrative chronology shows past and present simultaneously." if you have advice on this though, or if you would move/excise it, please let me know.--Plifal (talk) 06:29, 7 June 2025 (UTC)
I guess it might refer to the police investigation scenes cutting back and forth between showing the field work and the cops reporting the field work? Anyway, this is a case where I think that if we can't figure out just what the source is trying to say, we are better off omitting it altogether—otherwise, we are bound to either unintentionally misrepresent the source somewhat (by rephrasing incorrectly) or leaving the reader confused (by staying too close to the source's impenetrable language). TompaDompa (talk) 23:26, 22 July 2025 (UTC)
i agree, excised.--Plifal (talk) 07:06, 26 July 2025 (UTC)
It's unclear to me whether the final-cut ending replaced the original ending entirely or if the original ending would have been placed after the final-cut ending.
it's the latter, the set was built and the scene filmed, with the plan for it to have been a psycho-type ending of wrap-up. changed to, "The crew spent two weeks filming the original ending scene to have followed the confrontation between Gondo and the kidnapper Takeuchi, but Kurosawa ultimately decided to cut it in favour of the final ending."--Plifal (talk) 06:29, 7 June 2025 (UTC)
The film was test-screened in mid-February. – this seems out of place in the "Editing" subsection.
maybe? but i don't think this fits anywhere else. kurosawa's films didn't really have a "post-production" period since he edited every day after shooting, and the test screenings pre-date release. it would seem shoehorned pretty much anywhere in that section.--Plifal (talk) 06:29, 7 June 2025 (UTC)
Hm. Was it the final cut that was test-screened, or was something changed after? A brief statement along the lines of "[...] no further edits were made after this point" or "[...] after which [description here] changes were made" could help a lot here. TompaDompa (talk) 23:26, 22 July 2025 (UTC)
i'm working from two different sources with both statements here and neither gives any context really. my impression is that he decided he wanted to change it before (or at least independently of) the test-screenings, but that's not said in either mellen or galbraith so i'm hesitant to include any such statement.--Plifal (talk) 07:06, 26 July 2025 (UTC)
Scored by Masaru Satō, High and Low was the eighth film he worked on with Akira Kurosawa. – newspaper style and ungrammatical.
changed to, "High and Low was scored by Masaru Satō, his eighth collaboration with Akira Kurosawa."--Plifal (talk) 06:29, 7 June 2025 (UTC)
Don't use a comma with that phrasing. You can change the comma to an em dash, or rephrase it slightly. If you rephrase it, a semicolon might be the most appropriate punctuation. TompaDompa (talk) 23:26, 22 July 2025 (UTC)
done, used em dash.--Plifal (talk) 07:06, 26 July 2025 (UTC)
New comment: The film includes stock music from The H-Man – the year should be given here. TompaDompa (talk) 18:03, 28 July 2025 (UTC)
done.--Plifal (talk) 11:07, 29 July 2025 (UTC)
New comment: The film includes stock music from The H-Man, the music of which was also produced by Satō. – needlessly wordy; "[...], also by Satō" would suffice. TompaDompa (talk) 18:03, 28 July 2025 (UTC)
done.--Plifal (talk) 11:07, 29 July 2025 (UTC)
The contextual focus on the use of music extended to either supporting or combatting the image with aural cues, as he did with the use of trumpets with the discovery of clues in the film. – this is needlessly intricately phrased and very difficult to parse.
changed to, "The music's context either supports or combats the image by way of aural cues, for example, the use of trumpets with the discovery of new leads in the film to amplify the success of the investigation."--Plifal (talk) 06:29, 7 June 2025 (UTC)
That's better, but still needs further polishing. Why "The music's context" instead of "The music"? Why "combats" (as opposed to e.g. "contrasts")? "Aural cues" strikes me as a conspicuously technical term. And so on. TompaDompa (talk) 23:26, 22 July 2025 (UTC)
i suppose i wanted to infer that the use of music was often contextual. "aural cues" doesn't seem especially technical? especially with an example. changed to, "The use of music either supports or contrasts the image by way of aural cues, for example, the use of trumpets with the discovery of new leads in the film to amplify the success of the investigation."--Plifal (talk) 07:06, 26 July 2025 (UTC)
I suppose "aural" is strictly speaking no more technical a term than "visual" is (and "visual cue" is a relatively familiar collocation), but it's not very often used this way—I think it's probably more common to say "auditory" or use "sound" as a modifier (e.g. "sound cues"). Anyway, this new phrasing works well. TompaDompa (talk) 18:55, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
Themes
I would divide this into subsections by theme/aspect analysed.
this came up in the good article review, and i apologise but i do have to push back a bit on this. apart from a couple of cases, a clean break between themes would require a significant amount of editorialising; each author presents their argument with multiple themes interwoven into a singular analysis. i can't reasonably separate what richie says about intertextuality from what he says about morality, for example. i know that these are two themes that could have their own section, but it would end up being the case that multiple sections would have overlapping content. i have already tried to do this softly with each paragraph informing overarching ideas, and ideally i agree it would be better, but e.g. die hard, branded to kill, all the star trek films, are FAs without this structure and i don't think it would work to impose one in this case.--Plifal (talk) 12:55, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
i've sandboxed the themes section to play around with it. i still think it will be difficult, but i agree that, for its length, it would be better in sections. Plifal (talk) 09:10, 22 August 2025 (UTC)
TompaDompa created a rough mock-up. take a look and see what you think. some guidance definitely necessary. apologies for re-arranging so late in the game.
--Plifal (talk) 09:44, 22 August 2025 (UTC)
(please check the diffs to see the placement of the picture) further to this i was thinking it might work to include an old and new map of yokohama to illustrate the differences, although it might be a little off-topic. thanks to the film i also know where gondo's house is though, and modern and 1930s maps of the area supposedlly in the public domain (i have yet to check) happen to focus on that area. thoughts?--Plifal (talk) 03:39, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
I note that this section being a bit difficult to follow and its language overly scholarly was brought up at Talk:High and Low (1963 film)#Reply to a request to edit via the GOCE. I do not think this issue has been fully resolved. In essence, this is a WP:Make technical articles understandable issue.
thank you for sticking to this! it was something i've been mulling over since i thought it might come up again. following the above essay for phillips, deleuze, and prince i've generally kept to the 'one level down' rule of thumb (from postgrad down to undergrad) in the vein of  e.g. mulholland drive. for specific concerns addressed please see below. otherwise i've gone through the section and changed a few things.--Plifal (talk) 12:55, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
a scholar and acquaintance of Kurosawa Donald Richie – either swap the indefinite article of a definite one ("the scholar [...]") or reorder this ("Donald Richie, a scholar [...]")
done.--Plifal (talk) 12:55, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
It's now "In his analysis of intertextuality, Donald Richie, scholar and acquaintance of Kurosawa notes [...]". There should be a comma after "Kurosawa".
done.--Plifal (talk) 07:06, 26 July 2025 (UTC)
acquaintance of Kurosawa – I'm unsure if this is an WP:ENGVAR thing, but I believe it should be "of Kurosawa's".
in both varieties it's acceptable, but in british english the current formation is considered more formal.--Plifal (talk) 12:55, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
I'll take your word for it. TompaDompa (talk) 23:57, 20 July 2025 (UTC)
To Richie, the moral character of the film is black and white, Kurosawa aligns Gondo with the representatives of heaven. – this seems like an anacoluthon. The final clause does not really follow from the rest of the sentence in a natural way.
fixed to, "To Richie, the moral character of the film is black and white. Kurosawa aligns Gondo with the representatives of heaven, 'heaven' [...] "--Plifal (talk) 12:55, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
New comment: Kurosawa aligns Gondo with the representatives of heaven, 'heaven' and 'hell' are contrasted until Gondo and Takeuchi are forced to reconcile with the fact that they had caused each other pain. – this sentence seems off. Upon encountering the comma, I expected a list (of sorts) but instead got another independent clause. That's a WP:COMMASPLICE, but in this case replacing it with a semicolon does not seem to me like the best solution—I'm unsure how best to go about it. TompaDompa (talk) 23:57, 20 July 2025 (UTC)
yes, it's too clunky. i don't know either. how about: "To Richie, the moral character of the film is black and white. Kurosawa aligns Gondo with the representatives of heaven, 'heaven' and 'hell' are contrasted until Gondo and Takeuchi are forced to reconcile with the fact that they had caused each other pain." → "To Richie, the moral character of the film is black and white: Kurosawa aligns Gondo with the representatives of heaven, with 'heaven' and 'hell' contrasted until Gondo and Takeuchi are forced to reconcile with the fact that they had caused each other pain."? maybe imperfect and a little inelegant, but implemented until i can think of a better phrasing.--Plifal (talk) 07:06, 26 July 2025 (UTC)
had a think, and i haven't implemented this but wanted to know your opinion: "Richie considers the film's moral conflict to be black and white, with the contrast between 'heaven' and 'hell' seen in Gondo's alignment with the representatives of heaven until both he and Takeuchi are forced to confront each other's pain in the final scene." not 100% on this but may offer a better-structured sentence.--Plifal (talk) 13:13, 6 August 2025 (UTC)
Stuart Galbraith IV also evokes Dante in the depiction of the film's environment – "evokes"?
don't know how, when, or why this change occurred but it used to be "invoke", switched back.--Plifal (talk) 12:55, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
the houses of the shanty town downhill (foreground) – it seems like a stretch to describe the houses as being in the foreground. The characters in the frame are in the foreground.
fixed to, "(middle ground)".--Plifal (talk) 12:55, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
Stephen Prince notes, in his study of Kurosawa's filmography [...] – this paragraph is rather difficult to follow due to a large amount of MOS:JARGON and whatnot.
edited and replaced some of the jargon..--Plifal (talk) 12:55, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
When asked in 1975 whether it was correct to view the film as being anti-capitalist, Kurosawa responded [...] – given that somebody felt it necessary to ask this question, it seems like there should be more to say about anti-capitalist readings of the film?
one would think! but explicitly talking about anti-capitalism? apart from a passing mention, not so much. it's usually talked about in terms of class relations in modern japanese society, and less in a marxian/socialistic sense. yoshimoto says little more than the quote you singled out about below. neither galbraith nor richie even mention capitalism. cahiers du cinéma frames the film in similar terms in its review, but that was contemporaneous and i included it in the 'contemporary reception' sub-section. any more than what i included i felt would be wp:undue.--Plifal (talk) 12:55, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
That's a shame, and somewhat surprising. TompaDompa (talk) 23:57, 20 July 2025 (UTC)
the film's foregrounding of Japan's economic growth (such as the proliferation of personal luxuries, cars, and air conditioning) reflects its growing internationalism – does "its" mean "the film's" or "the country's"?
the country's, changed to, " [...] reflects the nation's growing internationalism."--Plifal (talk) 12:55, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
Should probably be "country", both because that seems more accurate and to avoid the repetition in "nation"/"internationalism". TompaDompa (talk) 23:57, 20 July 2025 (UTC)
done.--Plifal (talk) 07:06, 26 July 2025 (UTC)
He comments that [...] the film ends by condoning capital punishment as an acceptable outcome of the justice system. – is this the consensus view among scholars? I have seen quite a few non-scholarly sources arguing that the police pursuing the death penalty for the kidnapper is supposed to reflect poorly upon them, noting that it leads to an additional and avoidable death that would not have happened had they arrested the kidnapper earlier.
it seems to be shared by more than just conrad. it's a scene that's had multiple interpretations. from yoshimoto: "In High and Low, anything seems to be permitted as long as "humanism and democracy" are protected. Nowhere in the film can we find any expression of remorse for the victims - except the rich victim, Gondo - or doubt about capital punishment, which is inherently class biased yet so unreflectively affirmed by the film.", quoting yoshimoto quoting burch, "Faithful to the ideology that had dominated Kurosawa's films since the very start, [High and Low] tells us that 'there is much misery among us but our police force is excellent' and that 'a chauffeur may earn less than a capitalist but class difference can succumb to good will and human solidarity.'" (yoshimoto 2000, p.306). prince, deleuze, galbraith, and richie are silent on the issue.--Plifal (talk) 12:55, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
On a related note, it seems to me that the portrayal of the police is an aspect that should be covered here. See e.g. https://www.jstor.org/stable/44075989 p. 34, which says that The police allow the kidnapper to try out the potency of some heroin he has purchased by killing a junkie with an overdose. If this event does not suggest that the police are as ruthless as the kidnapper, it slightly undermines the viewers sense of their unalloyed triumph in capturing him. and notes this as unusual in the police procedural genre (I don't entirely share this reading, interpreting the addict's death as an unforeseen complication rather than something the police "allow").
this kind of explicit condemnation (rather than fuzzy appeals to moral ambiguity on both sides of the law) does seem to be relatively out of line with what other sources say. role of police is also mentioned in richie and goodwin. have nevertheless included a short passage that reads: "The role of police has also been criticised by film scholar James Maxfield as revealing the structure of Japan's capitalist society itself to be "a significant crime". He suggests that the police's inaction to save an addict who becomes a victim of the kidnapper's uncit heroin characterises them as uncaring. This also weakens the audience's belief in the investigation's success." following after conrad's words on capital punishment.--Plifal (talk) 14:55, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
That last sentence is a bit clunky, but otherwise the addition seems good. TompaDompa (talk) 18:55, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
left as-is for not, but would it be improved by making the last two sentences one sentence? a la "becomes a victim of the kidnapper's uncut heroin characterises them as uncaring, weakening the audience's belief in the investigation's success."? Plifal (talk) 11:22, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
That would be an improvement, yes. I don't think "the audience's belief in the investigation's success" is the right way to phrase it, however—the investigation is obviously successful in the literal sense that the crime is solved and the culprit apprehended. I'm guessing the point the source is trying to make is somewhat different? TompaDompa (talk) 14:42, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
there's a nuance perhaps i'm not capturing, a "faith in the outcome". the point being that regardless of whether or not the ivestigstion is a literal success, maxfield's thesis is that the police failing to protect this victim of the kidnapper's when they're tailing him suggests the audience should take a more sceptical view of the police work as a whole.--Plifal (talk) 15:49, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
I just realized that this is a rephrasing of the source's If this event does not suggest that the police are as ruthless as the kidnapper, it slightly undermines the viewers sense of their unalloyed triumph in capturing him. which I myself quoted above, so I'm feeling a bit silly right now... Anyway: yes, what you are saying is precisely it. TompaDompa (talk) 20:34, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
In addition, he describes "the specter of miscegenation" that is evoked in the nightclub scene, which highlights the contemporary social restriction on interracial dating while subtly placing foreign influence under suspicion by linking it to criminality. – this needs to be expanded, or at least clarified.
changed to, " [...] nightclub scene by having foreign men and Japanese women dancing together. The scene highlights the contemporary social restriction on interracial dating while subtly placing foreign influence under suspicion by linking it to the location of criminal activity."--Plifal (talk) 12:55, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
That is a substantial improvement. Thanks! TompaDompa (talk) 23:19, 27 July 2025 (UTC)
Due to changes in developing infrastructure Yokohama was rebuilt – this does not seem grammatical.
changed to, "As Yokohama was rebuilt, its streets and society did not fit with older maps of the area."--Plifal (talk) 14:55, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
its streets and society didn't fit with older maps of the area – MOS:CONTRACTION.
fixed.--Plifal (talk) 14:55, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
Yoshimoto thus views the contemporary spatial reorganisation occurring in Yokohama as an interpretation that is part of the investigation which forms each characters' subjectivities. – this is probably the clearest example of overly-academic language. This sentence is borderline incomprehensible to the average reader.
changed to, "Yoshimoto thus views the contemporary redevelopment of Yokohama as part of the investigation's interpretation of evidence which forms each characters' subjectivities."--Plifal (talk) 14:55, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
That's somewhat better, but still quite opaque. TompaDompa (talk) 20:42, 5 August 2025 (UTC)
how about this? "Yoshimoto thus views the characters' subjectivities as being formed by the contemporary redevelopment of Yokohama, the detectives having to interpret the new social and spatial changes to progress in the investigation."--Plifal (talk) 13:13, 6 August 2025 (UTC)
That's much better. The meaning is fairly clear, though I still don't think the line of reasoning is. Or in other words, I think I understand what Yoshimoto is saying, but I don't understand Yoshimoto's thinking. How is one related to the other? TompaDompa (talk) 23:50, 8 August 2025 (UTC)
well, it's because the rebuilding of space is connected to complexities in yoshimoto's argument about the mnemonic power of environments that were destroyed after the war. this he sees in the film as it constructs cinematic space in relation to people's experience of social space rather than its ('mere') aestheticisation. he points to panoramic views, the sounds of trains, the dockyards, the disrupted image of enoshima etc. as requiring interpretation by modern technology for the police to 'read' the city and progress in the investigation. all this i attempt to sum up with: "the film as an embodiment of urban anxiety during Japan's post–World War II recovery".--Plifal (talk) 03:55, 9 August 2025 (UTC)
I think this might be possible to clarify for the casual reader by adding a "rather than" or "as opposed to" clause (or similar). TompaDompa (talk) 18:55, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
sorry i'm not sure i quite understand this, which part could use that clause to say what?--Plifal (talk) 11:16, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
"the detectives having to interpret the new social and spatial changes to progress in the investigation" would be clearer if we explained what the opposite (or alternative, at any rate) would be. TompaDompa (talk) 14:42, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
as far as i understand there is no alternative ? essentially, yokohama was destroyed during the war and rebuilds -> kurosawa makes film that conceptualises the new yokohama in cinematic space -> the police need modern equipment to interpret the new yokohama thereby progressing in the investigation.--Plifal (talk) 15:53, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
That would be "rather than being able to rely on previous familiarity" or something along those lines, no? That's probably not the right way to phrase it, however. TompaDompa (talk) 15:55, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
ooooh i see! it reads a bit clunky to me though--like, it's not necessarily true that they had "familiarity", just that the new world is so radically new. maybe: "Yoshimoto thus views the characters' subjectivities as being formed by the contemporary redevelopment of Yokohama. Due to large-scale alterations to the environment the detectives are thus required to interpret the new social and spatial changes to progress in the investigation."?--Plifal (talk) 17:17, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
He [...] considers its class commentary reactionary – how so?
changed to, " [...] and considers its class commentary reactionary for primarily sympathising with Gondo, which de-emphasises his class status in favour of promoting a humanistic ideal."--Plifal (talk) 14:55, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
Due to this class divide, by the film's final scene, Gondo's heroic actions as the protagonist are associated with a psychology that is shared with the kidnapper. – how so?
changed to, "Due to this class divide dramatised by Gondo's loss of wealth, the film's final scene superimposes Gondo and the kidnappers' faces over each other, visually associating them with a shared psychology." unfortunately goodwin doesn't really get into more detail than that.--Plifal (talk) 14:55, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
Okay, I understand "the film's final scene superimposes Gondo and the kidnappers' faces over each other, visually associating them with a shared psychology", but I don't understand the "Due to this class divide dramatised by Gondo's loss of wealth" part? TompaDompa (talk) 20:42, 5 August 2025 (UTC)
sorry, it was phrased incorrectly, my intended meaning was like this: "As this class divide is dramatised by Gondo's loss of wealth,". does this make it a bit clearer?--Plifal (talk) 13:13, 6 August 2025 (UTC)
Yes. TompaDompa (talk) 23:50, 8 August 2025 (UTC)
Release
High and Low was released in Japan on 1 March 1963. Upon High and Low's release in Japan – a bit clunky with the film's title twice in rapid succession.
changed to, "Upon the film's release in Japan [...] "--Plifal (talk) 11:06, 23 June 2025 (UTC)
people called Akira Kurosawa's household and threatened to kidnap his daughter – it is not self-evident to me that this is in the correct section.
i wouldn't know where else this could go, since it deals with the impact of the film on the director at the time of release.--Plifal (talk) 11:06, 23 June 2025 (UTC)
Hm. I'm not sure either. Anyway, I think it would be best to give the kidnapping stuff a separate paragraph. TompaDompa (talk) 21:46, 29 July 2025 (UTC)
done.--Plifal (talk) 09:40, 30 July 2025 (UTC)
New comment: In emphasising the lenient sentencing of Japanese kidnapping laws, Kurosawa had intended to inspire tougher sentences—but was instead blamed for their increase. – this is not entirely grammatical. "Their increase" is presumably meant to refer to the kidnappings, but going by the sentence construction it must either refer to the laws or the sentences. TompaDompa (talk) 21:46, 29 July 2025 (UTC)
yes that's correct. changed to: " [...] instead blamed for the increase in crime."--Plifal (talk) 09:40, 30 July 2025 (UTC)
During the production of The Bad Sleep Well [...] Kurosawa had asked for. – this seems rather WP:OFFTOPIC for this article (as opposed to e.g. the Akira Kurosawa biography article).
hmmm. i agree. i've truncated some of the content to make it more relevant to the film itself, originally included because these were negotiations that took place over the course of kurosawa's career in the 1960s, and kurosawa's budgets were steadily growing up until and beyond high and low's release, a concern among the japanese olympic committee. that these negotiations ended soon after the film's release seems notable to the context of the film itself.--Plifal (talk) 11:06, 23 June 2025 (UTC)
Prior to release in the United Kingdom, a 1967 cut, done by the British Board of Film Classification, received a minor edit to its content. – is this unusual? My impression is that the BBFC regularly makes (made?) cuts to films to remove various types of material deemed objectionable (I seem to recall headbutts being a specific thing they censor), and our article on them would appear to bear this out.
it's not unusual in general, but as far as i know (i haven't really looked into it), this is the only time the bbfc did it for a kurosawa film. i wasn't aware it was considered common practice to not include details like this, so excised (at least for now).--Plifal (talk) 11:06, 23 June 2025 (UTC)
In January and February 2023, the BFI ran a Kurosawa Season, providing platform for guest hosts (Asif Kapadia, Sonali Joshi, and Ian Haydn Smith) to discuss the major themes permeating Kurosawa's work, starting with High and Low. – I believe one-off screenings of films released years or decades ago (as opposed to re-releases when the film remains in theaters for several weeks in a row) are rather common. I personally watched this very film in the cinema just a couple of months ago.
i wouldn't consider a dedicated kurosawa season by the bfi a one-off screening...--Plifal (talk) 11:06, 23 June 2025 (UTC)
I see your point, kind of, but it is still completely different to the practice of releasing a film anew with regular screenings for weeks. Oh well, I won't force the issue. TompaDompa (talk) 21:46, 29 July 2025 (UTC)
my confusion is just that it fulfilled those conditions, being played multiple times over a couple of months. (unless i'm missing something,) it doesn't strike me as being any different than the "Kurosawa & Mifune" film festival—just with the BFI label attached to it.--Plifal (talk) 09:40, 30 July 2025 (UTC)
A VHS version of the film was released by Home Vision Cinema, with The Criterion Collection responsible for the release of a DVD. – when?
unfortunately richie doesn't say, and i feel that including a date (that i have been able to find on low quality sources) would constitute original research.--Plifal (talk) 11:06, 23 June 2025 (UTC)
Alright. Sometimes we have to accept that we simply don't have the sources we would need to say the things we want to say. TompaDompa (talk) 21:46, 29 July 2025 (UTC)
Reception
During the film's opening week at the Toho Cinema in New York, ticket sales were dampened by the assassination of John F. Kennedy. – probably worth clarifying that the assassination happened a few days before the opening (22 November versus 26 November), not when the film was already in theaters.
changed to, "Ticket sales during the film's opening week at the Toho Cinema in New York were dampened by the assassination of John F. Kennedy four days prior." since i mentioned the precise american release date in the previous section.--Plifal (talk) 11:06, 23 June 2025 (UTC)
The critical and commercial success of Kurosawa's films during the 1960s prompted 20th Century Fox to approach him with an offer to direct the Japanese half of Tora! Tora! Tora! (1970), a film about the attack on Pearl Harbor. Kurosawa initially accepted the job as the director, but, due to difficulties during production, was replaced. – it is not self-evident to me that this is in the correct section.
moved to 'release'.--Plifal (talk) 11:06, 23 June 2025 (UTC)
High and Low was re-released in the United States in 2002 as part of the "Kurosawa & Mifune" film festival – why is this here and the BFI thing in the "Release" section?
i did mention it in the release, just not by name, an oversight on my part! removed the name in the 'reception' and added it to the 'release'.--Plifal (talk) 11:06, 23 June 2025 (UTC)
I would just note for the record that Box Office Mojo gives the lifetime gross of High and Low in the US and Canada ("domestic") as $46,808, which is one-twelfth (rounded) of the $561,692 they give for the 12-film "Kurosawa & Mifune Festival" as a whole and the same figure they give for e.g. Yojimbo, Sanjuro, The Hidden Fortress, Throne of Blood, and Rashomon (all of which were also part of that festival).
this is something i was unsure about, i picked up on it but decided initially not include it for that reason (since it wasn't necessarily indicative of the film's gross). if you think it's important to include though then i will.--Plifal (talk) 11:06, 23 June 2025 (UTC)
No, it shouldn't be included. Having noticed this peculiarity, I just figured I would put it in writing in case it comes up further down the line (say, at WP:FAC). TompaDompa (talk) 18:55, 7 July 2025 (UTC)
What do the sources say about the overall critical reception? Examples can be useful, but individual reviews are WP:Primary sources about the critical reception and we really want WP:Secondary sources that Wikipedia:Analyse, evaluate, interpret, and synthesise the contents of those primary sources.
unfortunately our main sources for this don't say much of anything on the subject. galbraith quotes and summarises the content of individual interviews (outside of what i already included re. american reviewers being bemused by a mismatch between formal style and genre and "tremendous popular and critical response" (2002, p.357). richie says nothing. the other sources mostly analyse the film from varying perspectives. as such i chose to include perhaps a wider variety of primary reviews than normal since it's what (at least galbraith) did focus on, and it provided the widest possible range of responses available.--Plifal (talk) 11:06, 23 June 2025 (UTC)
the many contemporary Japanese films that used this aspect superfluously – "used this aspect superfluously"?
clarified, changed to, "Critic Masahiro Ogi praised Kurosawa's approach, contrasting his eye for details to the way other contemporary Japanese films used them superfluously."--Plifal (talk) 11:06, 23 June 2025 (UTC)
It is not clear to me what it means to use them superfluously in this context. TompaDompa (talk) 23:57, 20 July 2025 (UTC)
sorry, i missed this. rephrased for clarity, though i can't think of the proper way to phrase it: "Upon viewing the film, the critic Masahiro Ogi praised Kurosawa's approach, contrasting his eye for details to their excessive use by other contemporary Japanese filmmakers."--Plifal (talk) 09:40, 30 July 2025 (UTC)
I'm sorry to keep going on about this, but I still don't understand what it is that Ogi thought other filmmakers did wrong? TompaDompa (talk) 18:55, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
nosorry! i'm sorry!!! i'm (ogi is) referring to specifically the use of details in films, that other filmmakers used them excessively, but he doesn't really say what kurosawa does right in comparison, so i've been stuck on how i should phrase this for about a year ;-;
--Plifal (talk) 11:19, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
So basically "details (whatever that means in this context) are good when Kurosawa uses them, but bad when others do"? Haha, I can see why that's difficult to phrase for Wikipedia. TompaDompa (talk) 14:42, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
exactly that!!! it's impossible!!!--Plifal (talk) 15:54, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
Oh well, I might suggest that this is another case where a source makes a point that is so difficult to make sense of that it would be better to leave it out entirely. If a point is so important that it must be included in our article, somebody will presumably have made it coherently. TompaDompa (talk) 20:34, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
that's a shame. removed, but it doesn't leave much in the way of japanese criticism--and it was already pretty thin.--Plifal (talk) 09:09, 22 August 2025 (UTC)
That's a fair point on Japanese criticism. Is there a way to include Ogi's point about this film without bringing up the parts about other films that make it less-than-coherent, while also not misrepresenting the source? TompaDompa (talk) 14:48, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
unfortunately not. it comes from crist's review and she doesn't expand on what he said beyond talking about "details". unfortunately that's all i can find on japanese criticism, and it comes after spending 18 months searching in flea markets for old copies of kinema junpo.--Plifal (talk) 15:49, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
That's a terrible shame. Oh well, we are as usual at the mercy of the sources we have available to us. TompaDompa (talk) 15:55, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
Tadao Sato believed that the film [...] to be drained of thematic and sentimental meaning – ungrammatical; he either believed it to be so, or he believed that it was. I would also use a different word than "believe" here (e.g. "consider" or "find").
changed to, "considered the film [...] ".--Plifal (talk) 11:06, 23 June 2025 (UTC)
He accused the characters of acting irrationally – "accused"?
changed to, "He thought the characters acted irrationally, [...] ".--Plifal (talk) 11:06, 23 June 2025 (UTC)
"hackneyed, and at times impausible  [sic]" – per MOS:SIC, the typo should simply be fixed.
fixed.--Plifal (talk) 11:06, 23 June 2025 (UTC)
Those reviews with a score forming an average of 8/10. – sentence fragment.
changed to, " [...] 24 critic reviews; those with a score formed an average of 8/10."--Plifal (talk) 11:06, 23 June 2025 (UTC)
As of 2024, it was the 6th highest-rated feature film on the social film-cataloguing site Letterboxd [...] As of March 2025, High and Low was in the top 250 films rated on the media database IMDb – per MOS:FILMAUDIENCE, "Do not include user ratings submitted to websites such as the Internet Movie Database". This applies even if those ratings are reported by otherwise-reliable sources—it's the WP:Reliability equivalent of garbage in, garbage out as the data remains "tainted" by originally coming from the unreliable sources even if we get it from a downstream source. That being said, Collider is not a high-quality source (and possibly not even reliable, see WP:RS/VALNET) and as such should not be used for WP:Featured articles (WP:FACR 1c).
thank you for letting me know. left this in following another user's edit, but thought it may be a problem. excised.--Plifal (talk) 11:06, 23 June 2025 (UTC)
Legacy
The first paragraph here combines two rather disparate topics in a way that does not seem natural to me.
moved the first half to the release section.--Plifal (talk) 13:16, 2 July 2025 (UTC)
In emphasising the lenient sentencing of Japanese kidnapping laws, Kurosawa had intended to inspire tougher sentences; but was instead blamed for their increase. – this is not the correct punctuation to use as the last part of the sentence, after the semicolon, is not an independent clause. See MOS:SEMICOLON. I might change it to an em dash or rephrase the sentence.
done.--Plifal (talk) 13:16, 2 July 2025 (UTC)
The 2019 Korean film Parasite, directed and co-written by Bong, has a similar premise as High and Low – similar premise to.
fixed.--Plifal (talk) 13:16, 2 July 2025 (UTC)
The 2019 Korean film Parasite, directed and co-written by Bong, has a similar premise as High and Low – I would think it worth mentioning that the perspectives are kind of flipped (in Parasite, the viewpoint characters are the impoverished criminals), assuming of course that there are appropriate sources to cite for that comparison.
that's the only direct source i found. i wouldn't want to add more than that to contextualise it.--Plifal (talk) 13:16, 2 July 2025 (UTC)
Very well. TompaDompa (talk) 21:16, 31 July 2025 (UTC)
Bong confirmed that Parasite's themes of class disparity, as well as the design of the wealthy family's house, were directly inspired by Kurosawa's film. – overstating (or even misstating) what the cited source says quite a bit.
this originally used an unreliable citation which made a stronger claim, when i found the original source i foolishly forgot to update the text. changed to, "The 2019 Korean film Parasite, directed and co-written by Bong, has a similar premise to Kurosawa's film: a family living in an expensive house on a hill are unknowingly shadowed by criminals living in the poorer, lower part of the city.  Bong affirmed these similarities between High and Low and Parasite's framing of the class difference."--Plifal (talk) 13:16, 2 July 2025 (UTC)
The design of a set in The Batman (2022), and the premise of a deleted scene for the film, were revealed by its production designer to have taken inspiration from High and Low. – this is not self-evidently WP:DUE.
see below.--Plifal (talk) 13:16, 2 July 2025 (UTC)
The Batman's director, Matt Reeves, had previously cited Kurosawa as one of his filmmaking heroes. – this gives off the impression of trying to imply more than can be stated explicitly using the cited sources, especially in combination with the preceding sentence.
i excised this bit, but do not think discussion of the batman is so undue as i read the policy. discussion of the film is half of the interview, the placement is not as prominent as other aspects in the article, it doesn't reflect a minority perspective of either film etc. (per chinlund, "a lot of the design was coming from [High and Low].") nevertheless changed to, "The final prison sequence also inspired the set design for the asylum in The Batman (2022)." in order to focus on the set design aspect.--Plifal (talk) 13:16, 2 July 2025 (UTC)
That seems reasonable. TompaDompa (talk) 21:16, 31 July 2025 (UTC)
American actor and director Chris Weitz named High and Low his favourite Kurosawa film, stating that he's "drawn a lot from [it]". – this is not self-evidently WP:DUE.
excised, but isn't it quite common for articles to contain a couple of examples of filmmakers who cite that particular film as their favourite?--Plifal (talk) 13:16, 2 July 2025 (UTC)
Maybe, but a WP:Featured article hopeful should take a fairly strict approach to WP:DUE. Weitz isn't really a high-profile filmmaker whose opinions of this kind can be presumed to be worthy of inclusion (unlike, say, Steven Spielberg), and in the end it's the overall literature on the topic that determines what should be included and what should not. TompaDompa (talk) 00:42, 9 July 2025 (UTC)
The Indian film Inkaar (1977) has been described as a Bollywood reproduction of High and Low. – why say "has been described as" rather than just stating it plainly in WP:WikiVoice? Is it controversial?
no, doesn't seem to be. changed to, "The Indian film Inkaar (1977) is a Bollywood remake of High and Low."--Plifal (talk) 13:16, 2 July 2025 (UTC)
Apple Original Films, in collaboration with A24, announced in 2024, that Spike Lee would be directing a reinterpretation of the film titled Highest 2 Lowest, starring Denzel Washington, Ice Spice, ASAP Rocky, and Jeffrey Wright. – I hardly think who announced it and when is the salient part here. That's the kind of thing that belongs in something like a piece of news reporting, but not here. The same thing can be said about listing the actors, though that is not quite as conspicuous.
fixed to, "Apple Original Films, in collaboration with A24, produced a reinterpretation of the film directed by Spike Lee titled Highest 2 Lowest." minus necessary checks to fix mistakes that i know have popped up in the process of the peer review, i hope that's the body mostly over :) thank you so much for your continued dedication @TompaDompa!--Plifal (talk) 13:16, 2 July 2025 (UTC)
I would combine the two sentences on Highest 2 Lowest and trim details to just mention that it is a remake, the title, the director, and the release date. Something like "A remake directed by Spike Lee, titled Highest 2 Lowest, is set for release in theatres on 22 August 2025 and on streaming on 5 September." TompaDompa (talk) 00:42, 9 July 2025 (UTC)
done.--Plifal (talk) 12:39, 15 July 2025 (UTC)
New comment: Now that Highest 2 Lowest has been released, set for release in cinemas on 22 August 2025 and on streaming on 5 September 2025 is out of date. I would suggest simply noting that it was released in 2025, without going into the whole theatrical vs. streaming thing (which will get increasingly irrelevant as time goes on). TompaDompa (talk) 21:35, 30 August 2025 (UTC)
fixed. should the sourcing be updated too btw? since it gives a prosepective release date, or is the fact that it was released verifiable such that it's unnecessary?--Plifal (talk) 02:08, 31 August 2025 (UTC)
It should be updated sooner or later. It is WP:VERIFIABLE that it was released in 2025, but the more time that passes the more conspicuous it will be to cite sources from before the release. TompaDompa (talk) 21:31, 31 August 2025 (UTC)
done for now, may do so again if i see a "now released on streaming" article.--Plifal (talk) 12:57, 2 September 2025 (UTC)


#### David Fuchs
 Doing... Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 19:26, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

@David Fuchs: Just in case this fell off your to-do list. Z1720 (talk) 21:11, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
Hey Z, still on my list, I unfortunately managed to lose my doc with in-progress comments so starting over. Sorry for the long wait, Plifal. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 12:45, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
nosorry!!! please take your time. i'd ask you, if you could, to please take a look at the themes section via my sandbox that i linked above since i think that kind of structure is what i want to implement.--Plifal (talk) 12:50, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
Sorry for the lengthy wait. Overall, I think the article is in solid shape. Some initial thoughts are as follows:

The police undertake an investigation using clues from the kidnapper's phone calls and Shinichi's memory to determine his identity.  Feels like a line that the kid was safely recovered is merited. As it is the plot section goes from doing the money drop and then the kid is just abruptly reintroduced.
done.--Plifal (talk) 08:31, 5 September 2025 (UTC)
 The largest change between the novel and the film occurs after the structural shift from Gondo's house to the police investigation: much of the story during and after the ransom exchange is not present in the original work. While after rereading I understand what this sentence is trying to say.
sorry, i'm not sure what the issue you find in the readability is here, how do you think it should be rephrased?--Plifal (talk) 08:31, 5 September 2025 (UTC)
Sorry, looks like I cut off my comment. At this point in the article you haven't really described there being a structural shift in the film, so to me bringing it up here just is needlessly confusing. You've already introduced the idea that there were departures in the adaptation, so why not just say much of the story during and after the ransom exchange is not present in the original work.? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 16:50, 9 September 2025 (UTC)
sure! done.--Plifal (talk) 14:25, 10 September 2025 (UTC)
Given the contents, I think you should probably just combine the preproduction and filming subsections, given that the second paragraph of the preproduction section is filled with info that feels much more like it's part of filming.
done.--Plifal (talk) 08:31, 5 September 2025 (UTC)
I think the themes section as currently in is better than previous versions. I think you should double-check intros now that the content has been reshuffled: David Conrad gets dropped without warning at the end of the first subsection, and gets "historian" appended only in the commercialism subsection.
i've taken a read through and addressed your point here, i'm a bit blind after reading through this so many times though so please forgive me if i've made some mistakes!--Plifal (talk) 08:31, 5 September 2025 (UTC)
The narrative change that occurs between the wealthy Gondo's home and the geographical movement down the hill into the shanty town below it during the second half presents a variety of perspective, which offers an entirely opposed view to the ordered and confined space of the first half. This was a bit hard for me to understand. I think you could just say The shift from the wealthy Gondo's home and the geographical movement down the hill into the shanty town below it during the second half offers an entirely opposed view to the ordered and confined space of the first half or similar, since "the variety of perspective" seems weirdly formal (unless it's supposed to be the variety of perspectives") and also seems like it's repeating itself when you say the second half offers a contrast to the first half.
it is supposed to be the latter, apologies! i'm not sure quite what you mean about it repeating itself though, i'm sorry!--Plifal (talk) 08:31, 5 September 2025 (UTC)
Just that it's probably an unnecessarily complex structure to the sentence when you're being redundant. The point you're trying to make is when the narrative shifts, so to does the perspective on events. Telling us that it's the first and second half twice doesn't really tell me anything new. What the sentence does leave me wondering is if this change is reflected in the cinematography or themes or anything beyond the narrative structure, and simplifying it would make it clearer the extent, e.g. if this is just about the ordered, confined first half leading to the more expansive pursuit in the lower-class environs. So something like The narrative change from the wealthy Gondo's home to the shanty town below offers an  opposing view to the ordered and confined space of the first half or similar. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 16:50, 9 September 2025 (UTC)
i like that formulation, thanks! done.--Plifal (talk) 14:24, 10 September 2025 (UTC)
I'm not sure the first part of the second paragraph of release really connects enough to High and Low. It's an interesting anecdote, but the timing seems coincidental rather than related to the film.
that is a shame. i thought it would be good to include considering it presents context surrounding the release of the film, but this is the third time someone's mentioned it, so deleted.--Plifal (talk) 08:31, 5 September 2025 (UTC)
Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 21:54, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

thank you so much for your comments so far David Fuchs, i have some questions above, but highly appreciate your input!--Plifal (talk) 08:31, 5 September 2025 (UTC)
David Fuchs, thank you kindly for your review thus far. unless you have any more comments, since this peer review has been open for a while, i'm thinking of closing it so i can move on to fac. it may not quite be ready to be fa, but i hope after a couple of tries it will make it to that point.--Plifal (talk) 03:50, 27 September 2025 (UTC)
@Plifal Hey, understandable. I'll try and give some further comments in this weekend if you want to leave it open a little longer, otherwise do as you will. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 11:57, 2 October 2025 (UTC)
David Fuchs, not at all, i'm happy to wait! i'd prefer for the article to be in the best shape possible, but i don't want you to feel bound to a commitment you have no or little interest in. looking forward to any further comments.--Plifal (talk) 13:10, 2 October 2025 (UTC)
David Fuchs, so sorry to be a pain, but is there more to come? since it's been a couple of weekends now, unless you have any strong objections about the article's readiness, i plan to close this peer review by the end of this week.--Plifal (talk) 04:14, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

I am not always active in the GOCE, but I saw this request for c/e and took it on. I have already went through the entire article and agree with having it maintain GA status. My biggest concern is that the Theme section reads like an acedemic paper starting around the second paragraph. While most of the information there is relevant, there is a lot of 'highbrow' words that get in the way of an average reader. I did the edits in a single sitting, but when I got to this section I strongly wanted to take a break to refresh my brain before continuing. In my opinion, the average reader would be turned off by the language in that section and it should be heavily reworded to make it easier to read - maintaining the same information. BigChrisKenney (talk) 08:12, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

@BigChrisKenney, thank you kindly for taking this on! i understand your point and do agree to some extent, but my issue is that by doing so you lose a lot of the substance of what's actually being said, since i'm essentially summarising twenty plus pages in a sentence or two sometimes. i may not be the right person to do this as one person's 'highbrow' isn't necessarily another's, but as an idea, e.g. a form of remediation: a critique of nascent financialisation through the subsumption of television and consumer culture. might be rephrased a form of remediation: which acts as a criticism of early financialisation in the absorption of popular and consumer culture in society. is this the sort of thing you were thinking, or does it not go far enough?--Plifal (talk) 08:39, 23 May 2025 (UTC)
"i may not be the right person to do this" (to be clear, i will do this, and within five days, pending your response). thanks again!--Plifal (talk) 08:43, 23 May 2025 (UTC)
@Plifal In terms of mediation, it does just that, and that is a good way to put it. It is not always easy to take technical, professional, or academic language and make it easy to understand.
Personally, I would go a bit further and break it down into more easily digestible words, but I'm having a hard time doing that, myself...
Something like "which acts as a criticism of the then contemporary (new?) process of placing media into categories (genres?) to 'help sell more copies of that work' - or - 'better facilitate sales'".
Here, I believe, the rendered sentence contains the essences of 'financialisation', 'nescent', and 'subsuption' without having the average reader stop and think about what the sentence means.
I think what you proposed earlier is better than what was originally mentioned. However, there might be better ways to break it down. My proposed edits are suggestions. It already has GA status, and rightfully so.
I hope this helps? BigChrisKenney (talk) 09:49, 23 May 2025 (UTC)
@BigChrisKenney, yes, it does thank you! i'm looking to take this to featured article status, in which case i should imagine this is something that might be brought up. i'll go through the section again and try to reconfigure it, tagging you again when completed for comment. i will be largely unavailable this weekend but will see if i can get through it today.--Plifal (talk) 09:58, 23 May 2025 (UTC)
@BigChrisKenney, hi, i've sinced glossaried and rephrased much of the section. while i think the themes section of any article has the disadvantage of being the most scholarly, i think it's easier now to understand for the average reader. of course i'm open to further revisions, but i'd have to ask for more actionable comments or phrases that you consider particularly difficult to parse. i didn't use your wording as above, since upon re-reading the article it didn't really fit the analysis given but i'd like to know how you see it at this point. many thanks!--Plifal (talk) 10:58, 23 May 2025 (UTC)
I think those changes do a lot to add to the article's readability! Good luck on your way to acheiving FA status! BigChrisKenney (talk) 00:06, 27 May 2025 (UTC)