Sight and Sound (2002) Greatest Films Club - Page 4

Back to this Rashomon thing, I think an artist should be true to the moral and/or philosophical beliefs he holds. So if Kurosawa is more of a humanist, or at least sympathetic to the human condition then certainly you should walk away from one of his films with that mindset.

I don't think anyone would see Ikiru or Red Beard as contradicting the final tone of Rashomon. And in fact I think the same human optimism comes through in Seven Samurai, Sanjuro and even the darker, cynical Yojimbo.


The key (and this is tricky) is differentiating the ending created for the artist versus the ending created for the audience (or specifically the box office). If Kurosawa sits back and considers his work and says "I don't like that ending, that doesn't express how I feel about life" then I think modifying the ending to his emotional needs makes perfect sense.

Of course, as with all artists, that doesn't mean we have to agree with either his beliefs nor his method of telling them. I don't think he totally contradicts the rest of Rashomon with that ending, though it certainly puts a new slant on things. To me he has just modified the story to represent himself as an artist more than the original writer.

Out of the cradle, endlessly rocking

I watched Intolerance via a TCM time-shift and was again very impressed. Once you get past the limitations of the day (1916) the complexity of this work emerges as a seamless whole. By the time we get to the last 15–20 minutes, the artifice of the various story lines disappears and the increased tempo of the cross-cutting just sweeps the viewer along to the conclusion.

I do feel that the coda could have been discarded.

I would like to try my hand at this, please add me to the list with 44 viewed so far :b

--
Holadem

Thanks Seth, that's a brilliant summation of what I essentially feel about the 'humanist' ending of Rashoman.

I was really annoyed after the screening of Rashoman, because our TA was trying ardently to convince us that while a good movie it's not a Japanese movie because its so western with the very evil, very western humanism ending. The TA then attacked me when I tried to bring up the point that humanism seemed like a somewhat universal idea to me, and even if it is western in origin, why should we sneer at its iteration and adoption in other cultures? Someone else brought up the point, "I don't watch Japanese films to learn about culture," and the irrational response to that was "well, I'd like to think that there is more to movies than simple entertainment." :þ And actually this TA isn't very bad, he's generally very openminded.

Adam

I wasn’t there Adam, so I can only offer what you already know: Kurosawa was always viewed by the Japanese as being too Western. Even after he became famous on the world cinema stage, he was not embraced within Japan.

And this film was made in 1950, only five years after the end of WWII.

I have the new Criterion on my shelf, unviewed. I need to watch it again in order to discuss with confidence.

Adam, great to know you saw Sherlock Jr. The billiards scene, motorcycle, falling off from the poll and into the car, the film is flat out astonishing. Combined with the humorous and witty use of the film medium itself--who can ever forget the closing moments?--Sherlock Jr. is still my favorite Keaton.

Whether we have a favorable view on the ending or not, I do think it is a distinct break with most of the film. The bulk of the movie is a modernist construction, and the end is definitly not.

I share the favorable opinions on Rashomon's ending. Part of the consideration is that Kurosawa was not widely known to the international audience before Rashomon, so it's impossible to say that Kurosawa was pandering to western audiences. I have read In The Grove and Rashomon (both avaliable in the Criterion DVD, which is very highly recommended), and though the premise Kurosawa uses is similar to the texts, the texts themselves are not satisfying in cinematic terms.

Just to clarify things (without taking sides on Rashomon since I do think it's a strong Kurosawa film, irrespective of its influences or possible compromises), Kurosawa may not have been known in the West, but Japan at the time (1945-1952) was under American occupation and films made by the Japanese were subject to scrutiny and censorship by the Americans.

Several filmmakers found their artistic integrity and cultural identity so severely compromised that they decided to stop working completely. Even the very prolific and highly regarded Kenji Mizoguchi was only able to create a few films during this time, and he even acknowledges that films like Utamaro and His Five Women "played" to American ideals of an egalitarian, class structure-less society. Kurosawa certainly was no exception, and one could argue that his acceptance in in the West is because of his progressive, "Western" outlook (which is not the same as deliberately "pandering") that was conducive to what the US and the postwar, non-monarchy Japanese government were allowed to show the outside world as representative images of the "new" Japan.

Anyway, I guess I'm saying that I don't completely agree with the TA, but he does raise some valid points.

Some of this influence is also because, like the New Wavers later, Kurosawa was a fan of American movies. John Ford was his favorite director.

I'm having a great time discovering Douglas Sirk. All That Heaven Allows is about the dark side and hypocrisy of the American Dream. A culture that creates a prison for its members. Whereas Written On The Wind was a work of bravura camera movement, All That Heaven Allows uses grand lighting to make its greatest impression. I was most reminded of Dario Argento's Suspiria as one of the only other films I've seen that uses lighting to such great effect.

The music, set design, costumes, everything within the bounds of the camera lense is used to tell the story and to tell a story that is much deeper than merely what the actors are saying or they're actions onscreen. This is art of a very high caliber, though it's also easy to see why these films could be misinterpreted.

Also very fun to compare this to Haynes' Far From Heaven now that I've finally seen its precursor.

I'll definitely be adding both these Sirk films to my collection and will probably pick up Imitation of Life as well.

Might be awhile before my next entry. My order is still screwy due to out-of-stocks at Netflix and I'm still working on 2002 films and Criterions rather than sticking all the list films at the top. I think Nanook of the North is next on my list.

Okay, I finally counted mine up.

Once I get a chance to watch Jules and Jim that I have rented, plus Broken Blossoms in class next week and then Caligari in class in a few more weeks, I will be at 115 films seen.

I have a few others like Greed that I have seen parts of but not the whole film, or not recent enough to fairly count IMO.

I have many others queued up at Netflix too.

Of course someone like Brook has me at a disadvantage what with only catching 47 of the 2003 films when I've doubled that. (yes, I understand the merits of seeing the classics over new crap...accessibility has some effect on that)


great film, really a precurser to those Disney wildlife/lifestyle "documentaries". There is plenty of setup and storytelling going on, but its great filmmaking especially for its time.

I'd like to join the challenge too. I've seen 45 films.

Brook, I likewise have a big problem with Wages of Fear's conclusion. A cinematic WTF moment for all eternity, with no reasonable explanation, and sloppily done to boot. What an unnecessary and nihilistic downer.

I'm up to 205 now after seeing (A?) Taste of Cherry last night and The Red Shoes, Cries and Whispers and Day of Wrath during the past month. Had I actually been paying attention to the list instead of just borrowing what I came across and was interested in, I could be much farther along. The local public library has a good deal of the pictures I haven't seen readily available (to say nothing of the University library).


The Red Shoes : I'd rate all four of these films as excellent, but this one was my favorite of the batch. After hearing for years about cinematographer Jack Cardiff's work on this film I was not disappointed at all... in fact, the Technicolor gorgeousity actually exceeded my expectations. Stunning work. The story held up for me as well, thanks to a very crisp pace (save the break for the ballet number... but that was such a jaw-dropping visual extravaganza I didn't mind the plot postponement). Initially, I was put off by the ending, but soon grew to accept it as the conclusion necessitated by its fairy tale roots.

A Taste of Cherry 1/2: Roger Ebert must've been pretty God-damned grumpy when he saw this to only give it one star. Despite all the potential negatives regarding Badii's character (no explanation for his death wish; vague with his passengers, etc.), I still found myself quickly enmeshed in this, for me, new world (It's my first Iranian film) of dusty landscapes and golden trees. I also admire Kiarostami's use of long takes and his eschewing of the traditional two-shot (probably more budgetary, I realize). One shot in particular struck me: that of Badii's shadow over the grate at the construction yard, with dirt and rocks pouring down into the abyss (a nice potential foreshadow). I've rambled long enough, so I'll end saying that I too didn't much care for the ending. You mean the movie is fiction and made by filmmakers? Shoot, I never woulda guessed if I hadn't seen it for myself. BTW, Brook, could you post or give me the jist of Rosenbaum's defense of the ending. I'd like to read it.

Cries and Whispers 1/2: Pre-capsule kudos to Criterion for including that Bergman interview on the DVD. I actually liked it better than the movie it accompanied (and as you can see, I liked the movie). Sven Nykvist's work here is just brilliant and worthy of all the awards and attention it received. Even at moments where the story wasn't fully engaging me, Nykvist kept me grounded and interested in the film, if not the plot. It's an emotionally draining film, and very stingy in giving out moments pleasure, joy, or happiness amidst all the darkness. Despite that, I've got just two semi-major complaints: the actress who played Agnes never convinced me that she was an actual flesh and blood character. Each movement, each swallow, each breath came across to me as predetermined and calculated. She never rang true for me. The other moment is the (I assume) infamous broken glass scene. It's one thing to suggest what she's done, it's another to have her wipe her own blood on her face. (I can only assume this was done to increase the shock effect. Worked in my case, obviously. Still not convinced I needed to see that though.)

Day of Wrath 1/2: More superb Dreyer, which can be forgiven if it doesn't reach the heights of Passion of Joan of Arc or Ordet (few do). Beautifully shot, of course, with great acting across the board (the old persecuted woman still wasn't as pitiful as the toothless one from Haxan though). I'm a tad unclear on the ending however (at times like this, I'm glad Pascal is an HTF member ): Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)

All in all, some great films. Maybe I'll go back one of the days and catch up on the dozen or so mini-reviews I still owe the original S&S thread.

Whoops, I'm actually at 204 films now.

Evan

Evan, regarding Day of Wrath's ending:

Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)

Seth, I have the equal "disadvantage" in regards to 2002 films. With two young children I don't have a chance to go to the theater that often. In past years I was able to see a lot more new movies. I've also been renting them steadily and putting off the films on this list and other classics I'd really rather see.

Evan, I so wish I had a library where I could access these films. Just like the last poll, I could run through all the films I have access to in a couple of months if I concentrated my Netflix rentals and be left with no way to see the remaining 90 or so.

To answer your questions:

Rosenbaum's fine review of Taste of Cherry can be accessed through IMDB.

Remember that Cries and Whispers is a movie coming from a director heavily grounded in theater. Of course the breating is orchestrated/predetermined to create a theatrical sense of heightened reality and a grand guignol centerpiece to the emotional tug-of-war the film presents.

And agree on the Bergman interview, just might be my favorite extra on any DVD. The interview on the Wild Strawberries disc is excellent as well.

As for Day of Wrath, I think the ending is intentionally ambiguous. The viewer is to make up their own mind. My personal interpretation is that she is not a witch, but the stress of the situation and the superstitious beliefs of the time have caused her to convince herself that she's a witch.

I also initially had a problem with The Red Shoes ending, but completely accept it now. Earlier this week I finally got around to watching it with the Jeremy Iron's novel audio track. Very worthwhile as it sheds some additional light on certain characters and is particularly interesting during the ballet scene.

watched a few more from the list over the last few weeks including An Autumn Afternoon, Battleship Potemkin, the Third Man, 400 Blows, Jules and Jim, Breathless, the Searchers, the Shining, and Casablanca, Vertigo, and a few other Jimmy Stewart films not on the list--boy he's a terrific actor

anyhow, I'm up to 60 (got your PM, Thi, this 60 count includes the Godfather/Three Colors trilogies counted per your instructions)

Regarding Day of Wrath, I also do think that Anne is deliberately left ambiguous, in much the same way that her duality has always been presented, making her an enigmatic character throughout the film (like being the only one wearing somber clothes with embellished collars, or her sneaking through the rectory that parallels Herlof's Marthe's earlier evasion of the inquisitors).

By the way, Ray Carney also agrees with Donald's view of the film's ending in his book, Speaking the Language of Desire, in which he ascribes Anne's actions as her realization of the impossibility of coexisting in both a physical and imaginary realm, and her words ultimately reflect her resignation of the latter.

Todo sobre mi madre/All About My Mother, which I enjoyed thoroughly, but which, for me, is somewhat spoiled by its endless homage to—well just about to everything.

There are, in no particular order an ongoing homage to Tennessee Williams’ A Streetcar Named Desire and to characters contained within the play to the point that one of the characters says while crossing the street, I’ve always depended on the kindness of strangers, and of course, given the movie’s title, the homage to All About Eve, which just in case we don’t get it, has a scene with the TV showing Bette Davis meeting Eve, in the foreground; there is the homage to Fellini with the cars circuling fantastic whores; there is the homage to gay writers with quote from Capote early on, Williams throughout and some poetry by Garcia de Lorca later. And on it goes—I think that there must have been some Sirk references as well, given the heavy melodrama, but if so, I missed the direct references.

It is not entirely clear to me if each of the characters is meant to represent a counterpart in various plays and films, but it is likely.

But one thing we do know, is that nothing is as it seems. Some of the women are men, a nun is pregnant, a father is a woman (sort of), the real characters are actors (and they play many parts)—we are told this almost immediately as we are taken to a play very early in the film and much of the film is either onstage or backstage.

This is a wonderfully complex film, filled with great humor and wonderful characters. I just wish that Almodóvar could be just a little less self-consciously clever some of the time. There is an awful lot of, ‘look what I can do’ in his direction.

But on the other hand, he takes us through this improbable story with confidence and never falters during the hour and a half where we are being treated to another world altogether.

I would never argue the western influence on Kurosawa's work, obviously Ford having a huge impact on his own style/themes.

But what I would argue is the idea that "too western" is a bad thing. I don't expect all films to have the same moral codes or philosophies that are found in western cultures, but at the same time I don't think western culture films nor Hollywood films are inherently bad, weaker, wrong, etc.

Schindler's List is a very western, Hollywood film complete with happy ending even. That doesn't diminish it's power as a film.

And on the other side of things I think some foreign films appear "better" to western audiences because of the alien themes/philosophies. That "uniquness" when compared to the films a person was raised on can be mistaken for "clever" or "inventive", when in fact the work could be very run-of-the-mill when viewed from within the culture.

For example, consider the idea that hero doesn't shoot first in western philosophy/morals. We see so much of this that we would probably considered it cliched or hackneyed. But to someone from a culture that is perhaps amoral by comparison to our own culture this concept might seem fascinating and fresh.

In fact it might explain Kurosawa's fascination with Ford. I think other cultures are often fascinated with the most mundane aspects of another culture (think of the 50's rock fashion in Japan for example or the wave of kung-fu interest in the US during the 70's).


So it's true that Kurosawa was a more "western" director in terms of themes (and perhaps even some narrative techniques), but that is consistent across his work (which means that Rashomon can't be "weaker" because of such an ending in comparison to his other work) and should not be regarded as inherently wrong.



PS - one obvious benefit of a list like Sight and Sound's list is that a viewer will be seeing all sorts of cultures and techniques.

I was not making a right or wrong (or that the ending made the film weaker or stronger) argument. Only that the Japanese felt Kurosawa too Western.

I really need to open up my new copy of Rashomon so that my memory is refreshed enough to discuss with some rigor.

Of course Kurosawa was not only influenced by Western directors, but writers as well. Not only the obvious ones such as Shakespeare and Evan Hunter, where he used their works as a basis for his, but ones such as Dostoevsky, from whom he borrowed at least one character and from the existentialists whose influence you can see in almost every one of his films.

Now this is very non-Japanese, especially given the traditional themes and settings used by Kurosawa in many of his films. We are presented with a society with a very rigid class structure and are given the idea that individuals can choose to act (and live) outside their class and that they are rewarded (at least internally) for doing so—ideas not easily acceptable to post-war Japan.

But I ramble. More when I’ve reviewed some more Kurosawa. I think I’ll fire up Red Beard tonight (also unopened) to recheck these thoughts. If I can’t locate these idle thoughts in this film, I’ll have to rethink.

Thi,

For the main page, Sunrise is now technically "available" in R1 via Fox's misguided (IMO) mail-in offer, and should be arriving within a few weeks for the early birds.

Really wish I could just buy it in a normal fashion, or at least be able to buy films I'm actually interested in (in owning on DVD, I mean--my time-shifted TCM copies serve me well enough at the moment).

Evan

Raise the bar to 34, please. I just watched The Passion of Joan Of Arc and i must say that it is one of the most astonishing films i have seen.

The acting, directing and editing are all superb; and with the optional "Voices of Light" score, it becomes a masterpiece. 1/2 out of 5

As of today, I've only seen about 65 of the films on the list.

Last 5 films seen for the 1st time: Rashomon (A+), Dr. Strangelove: How I Learn To Stop Worrying And Love The Bomb (A+), Do The Right Thing (A), On The Waterfront (A), Barry Lyndon (A+)

Last 5 films seen for the nth time: Modern Times (A+), It's A Wonderful Life (A), Psycho (A+), The Best Years of Our Lives (A), Raging Bull (A+)

The discussion by Seth and Adam on Rashomon inspired me to watch both that (and Red Beard) over the weekend.

I’ll not add at this point to their very fine comments, as I’m still trying to resolve what I believe to be Kurosawa’s view of the world and the themes of Rashomon.

Right now I’m of the opinion that the ending was added to include a characteristically Kurowawan perspective, ‘that one man can and does make a societal difference’, decidedly a more optimistic view of human nature than the conclusion that he leads us to on the nature of truth.

Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)

In any case, I’ve just started to listen to the commentaries, so perhaps Richie and company will change my mind (which is still in a state of flux).

I think, I've mentioned this on the old S&S thread, but I also read Rashomon similarly to Lew in that the idea is in the elusiveness of truth, and how one can or should conduct his life in the realization that that absolute truth may never (or cannot) be known.

Keep in mind again that we are talking about immediately postwar Japan, and how in the early 20th century, the Japanese blindly obeyed the word of the Emperor as unquestioned, absolute truth (and before the Meiji Restoration, the Tokugawa shogunate exercised such repressive control over the people that conformity and knowing one's "social place" became second nature). After the defeat of Japan in WWII, the postwar generation (dubbed the apure, from the French word, aprés) went through some sobering soul searching, and began to examine their deeply entrenched national culture that led them to such barbarous and inhuman acts out of a myopic sense of duty to Hirohito.

In that sense, Kurosawa is symbolically voicing the sentiment of his generation in Rashomon when he poses the question that if a person cannot be certain what is truth (not even from a "higher authority", like the Emperor), then how does one know how to behave in a seemingly godless world?

I opened my brand new copy of he Life and Death of Colonel Blimp and (as usual with P&P) was incredibly impressed. This is not one that I had seen before and I think that it may rapidly become one of my favorites.

Among many other things, this may be the best treatment of ‘moving from the old moral code to the new, win-at-all-costs attitude’ that I have seen. Very strange to see moments of outright propaganda leavened by drawing room comedy. I am still thinking about the film and I’m not sure if it is primarily a comedy or a ‘get behind the war effort’ film.

In either (or both) cases, it is superb.

We must have similar looking shelves Lew. I have Colonel Blimp, Red Beard, Rashomon, and 8 other Criterions still unopened.

2002 Sight & Sound Challenge: 69
Last 4 Fillms Watched: Ran (A), Jules and Jim (A+), The 400 Blows (A+), Some Like It Hot (A)

I’ve always known that you had excellent taste.

I just watched Aguirre, Wrath of God for the first time in about ten years Yet another impressive film from Herzog—and the first of the Kinski/Herzog efforts.

I just love the cinematography in this film—right from the opening shot of the Conquistadors and their local slaves descending from the Andes to the river to the final short, circling the raft with Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)

Also enjoyed Herzog’s commentary on the DVD—especially the part where he discussing Kinski and his ‘out-of-control’ approach to acting and to life.