Unlike in King Lear, both characters in Ran are victims of Ichimonji. This makes Ran both more cynical and less tragic than Lear. King Lear's metaphoric blindness is that he mistakes kingly power for absolute power over love (of his children) and nature (particularly on the heath but it comes up constantly throughout the first half of the play). Another aspect of his 'blindness' is that he thinks his 'king-ness' is inherent and inalienable, or 'natural.' This makes the questions of what's real and what's symbol or playacting of central importance in Shakespeare's play (which is really a novel-length poem). Ichimonji is blind to 'nature' too, but in Ran the focus is shifted to the effects of his despotism, and it's more implied that that's the 'natural' mode for rulers.
What you bring up is particularly interesting compared to Shakespeare's trilogy of King Henry VI where all the same elements reside but in everyone else instead. This is just an assumption, but I feel that Kurosawa read a lot of western theater and, as he said himself (somewhere), he started in this era to make every film as if it was his final, including every ounce of philosophy he could cram in and so on, thus I think Ran is not simply an adaptation of King Lear but more uses Lear as a backdrop - he said he never set out to adapt it but things fell into place. In Ran the despotism is a main focus, yes, but why wouldn't it be the natural mode to suffer from it? It's not just about a king but anyone with power, and as we know there is a hierarchy, but no matter where one is on that hierarchy a lot of people delude themselves into kingship.
The ending of Lear also feels much more ambiguous due to the questions surrounding Edgar. The bit of stagecraft he performs for his father to stop his suicide off the cliff of Dover is one confusing-ass scene that I still don't know how to feel about. What's more blatantly problematic to me is his statement to Edmund at the end of the play blaming his (Edmund's) and Gloucester's downfalls on "the dark place where he was got" (out of wedlock), and calling it just. That made me really distrust Edmund, who is going to be the new ruler.
The faux-suicide in the play is a LOT harder to work around than in Ran where he literally does fall...far, I actually breathed in when he fell. I can't really answer it since Gloucester wasn't insane like Lear unless Gloucester was absolutely beside himself to the point of unfeeling. As far as your other qualm, I interpreted differently. He says wedlock cost Gloucester his eyes because Edmund interprets the act as such. He also says the gods are just, and maybe that's what you meant, but it was a Christian ruled era.
It's not totally far-fetched to take that as an intended (and horrible) moral for the whole story, but I don't quite buy it. The blinding of Gloucester is the most horrific thing in King Lear and possibly in all of literature. (the murder of Macduff's family comes close). I mean it's almost physically painful to read. I've never seen it performed but I can almost imagine how horrible it would be to watch.
I don't know why it would be the moral of Lear though. Gloucester's blinding and the reuniting of Lear and Cornelia are, to me, the major events.
By now I've forgotten who is supposed to be left to take the throne at the end of Ran, or if it simply ends in chaos. I do remember the final scene, in which Kurosawa creates his own striking picture-moral of the blinded victim and the indifferent gods. It's a very bleak image, but it also felt much simpler and more heavy-handed than the ending of King Lear, because it seems more appropriate to take it at face value as a summation of the whole.
On the whole, Ran just feels more arid to me than the play. As incredible as they are (and I consider it almost a great movie just because of them), the set-pieces don't feel like they're supporting as rich a structure as the ones in King Lear.
The throne is an eidolon, Ran is chaos, and thus its name is misleading - or at least to me, but I referenced that in my first sentence. I still have no idea how I feel about the final shot. I know the play's conclusion was a bit of a crawl so by the end I felt totally empty anyway but Kurosawa emptied me before he showed that shot, so that was quite bold and maybe for Kurosawa simply intrepid in the sense that it didn't alarm him that's how it ended. I get the impression you didn't like this much?
At one point the Fool makes a reference to Merlin (who he states isn't even born yet!) which just underlines the unreality of the setting.
Well just like the play he's half nonsensical, so it was probably a purposeful joke.
I'm not sure if Ran is experienced the same way by a Japanese audience, but that's an interesting question.
That's exactly what I want to know, too. Yoda, hire more Japanese people!
I thought it was pretty funny, partly added to by the fact that the genders of the 'analogous' characters in the play are reversed. Also Kaede is definitely one of the standout creations of the movie.
Yes and yes. Kaede is definitely ferocious, but I think she was wholly dismantled from the fox analogy. I still am taken aback by that monologue.
Like I implied in my answer to the first question, I think it's a symptom of the difference in depth between Ran and Lear. Kurosawa's storm is a visionary set-piece (like the storming of the castle) both visually and sonically (also like the castle). Shakespeare's is also a place for discussion about nature and reality and adds more to the development of Lear as a character.
Mark also touches on this a bit, I feel I can't add:
Originally Posted by mark f
Later, during the spectacular, color-coded battle scenes (the most-impressive ones being presented silently), everything seems dark and grimy, especially the dark smoke filling Heaven with Man's wrath and selfish pollution.
Originally Posted by Mark F
Watching it in the theatre, it fully qualifies as an epic. It begins and ends "small", but the middle has the "cast" of thousands, the locations and castles are spectacular, and the battle scenes are gigantic and almost unparalleled in scope in film history. Maybe you think that's a simplistic view and a cop-out, but those are the things I think of when I think "epic film".
I heard he had to import horses because of how many extras there were. I'm glad you mentioned the small/large/small ratio though, I didn't really consider that.
Originally Posted by SEDAI
Yup. Just unrelentingly bleak, grim, and harsh. I have had folks get physically angry at me for showing them the film and not warning them that is was so grim. The man is forever waiting, and now totally alone after dropping the scroll.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't he the one who basically said "screw Buddha"? I almost feel like he gave up on his life
because his sister gave him that scroll. I hate his sister because of that.
You've answered it in the question - it's too personal on too many levels. It's an anti-epic.....but the scenes surrounding the interactions of the characters are all done on a very personal, sort of exposed way, which in effect thrusts you into the middle of things as a silent observer. Kurosawa focused more on viewer interaction and manipulation....
Interesting. I can definitely agree with that. I remember exactly what you mean about Lawrence too, and you finally made me realize why I didn't like it as much as I was supposed to.
Take note on how Ran has a downward trajectory, thematically and physically. Note how the locations descend as the film moves along, starting on a mountain and ending in the valley of death.
Well this thread is over, here's your cookie