(Japan 1985 161m) DVD1/2
Chaos theory
p Masato Hara, Serge Silberman d Akira Kurosawa w Akira Kurosawa, Hideo Ugoni, Masato Ide ph Takao Saito, Masaharu Ueda, Asaichi Nakai ed Yoshiro Muraki m Toru Takemitsu art Yoshiro Muraki, Shinobu Muraki cos Emi Wada
Tatsuya Nakadai (Lord Hidetora Ichimonji), Akira Terao (Taro), Jinpachi Nezu (Jiro), Daisuke Ryu (Saburo), Mieko Harada (Lady Kaede), Yoshiko Miyazaki (Lady Sué), Shinnosuke Ikehata (Kyoami), Masayuki Yui (Hirayama), Hitoshi Ueki (Fujimaki), Takeshi Namura (Tsurumaru), Hisashi Igawa (Kurogane),
Ran is an old man’s eulogy to himself, or rather to his career. A long dreamt ambition or dream brought to life. Many filmmakers have reworked Shakespeare, indeed Joe Mankiewicz did a gangster reworking of King Lear himself as House of Strangers (with Edward G.Robinson as the patriarch). Kurosawa himself had already adapted Macbeth to Japan as Throne of Blood in 1957, and probably made the greatest version of that tale yet filmed, too. There had been other straight versions of King Lear; one recalls Kozintsev’s widescreen monochrome epic from 1970 and two excellent TV versions in the years leading up to Ran, starring Laurence Olivier and Michael Hordern respectively. But where the latter two were little more than filmed theatre, Ran is pure cinema, a radical version of the great tragedy which, though slow to set its scene, is so intrinsically detailed and gorgeously shot as to have you hooked from the start.
Lord Hidetora has been a warrior warlord for over 50 years. He has destroyed anybody in his path to try and create a large, impregnable territory, but he is getting old. He decides to split his land in three between his three sons, one getting each castle with the eldest getting the overlordship. However, the youngest believes, correctly, that the elder two are deceiving their father and will turn on him when they are given the chance and power to do so. Hidetora does not heed the warning, however, and banishes him and his loyal follower Tango from the kingdom.
At first we think the youngest son is the disrespectful spoilt brat, but we soon see that he is the only one who really cares for his father (exemplified when he cuts off two tree branches to stick in the ground as shade for his father sleeping in the sun). Yet there is treachery here. The eldest son’s wife, Lady Kaede, wants revenge for her father-in-law’s murdering her entire family. Contrastingly, second son Jiro’s wife, Lady Sué, has no hatred for him, despite the fact that he also killed all her family, bar her brother whose eyes he gouged out. Hidetora is slowly stripped of all respect and nobility and his entourage and concubines are all killed after treachery gets them besieged by his eldest son’s forces. Yet these sons are weak, lead on by the ruthless desire, not excluding sexual, of Lady Kaede, truly one of the most terrifying female figures in cinema, sporting two dark grey marks on her forehead that might once have been horns.
The title means “chaos” and Kyoami was right when he said “it’s a mad world when only the mad are sane.” Though this is a film well remembered for its battles, and they are magnificent, the colour and look of the film are equally striking, reminiscent of King Hu’s A Touch of Zen. There are also many other Shakespearean references here; the foreign warlord coming in at the denouement recalls Hamlet, the regret for past crimes Richard III, the scheming woman pushing on her husband(s) Macbeth. Hell, the scene where the evil Lady Kaede is tricked and brought a statue’s head is straight out of Snow White. The performances are suitably demonstrative, mixing the Bard with Kabuki theatre (Nakadai’s Lear figure staggering like a zombie out of his blazing castle and Harada’s Kaede, moving in and out of scenes like the Angel of Death, are the standouts), and the costumes are ravishing. But this is Kurosawa’s film, one in which the die was already cast long before Jiro is told so. In the final tragic sequences on the desolate Asuza plain, we can only agree with Kyoami’s earlier outpouring; “man is born crying and when he has cried enough, he dies.” Kurosawa had by now earned the right to stop crying.
Click on names for archives
Writers/Founders
I’m actually quite shocked to see this masterpiece outside of the top-ten. I have a feeling that you’re getting as many of the high-profile films out of the way before going super-obscure in the home stretch. Then again, there’s plenty of great well known films and rarities alike in the rest of the decade, so I doubt we’re going to see a repeat of the shocker which capped the 70’s poll. Not that there’s anything wrong with that, necessarily. This is just one of those films I honestly thought could’ve been a contender for the top-spot, depending upon the ebb and flow of your personal preference.
Anyway, it’s a favorite of mine. Arguably the crowning achievement of Kurosawa’s career. Exquisite use of color, composition and movement. Great performances, and an expert handling of Shakespearean drama and Japanese history alike. I dare say this is a film which could be called flawless, with only a smidgeon of hyperbole.
Once again the gifted and resilient Bob Clark, who has officially (and in a very good way) become the conscience of this site, jump starts the thread with a fantastic contribution. Your capsule summary of the film’s attributes is dead-on, and your disappointment at the placement is fully understood, though Allan’s subsequent choices will strive to justify it.
All I can say is Allan’s No 13 choice, schedules to post tomorrow will have many scratching their heads frantically! If you were surprised by THIS placement, wait until tomorrow. I’ll say no more. Stay tuned.
Great piece on a great film. I would agree with Bob that it’s a flawless work but my weakness has always been for Kagemusha which I consider a complementary work to this film in important ways. The final battle sequence in the latter is also my single favorite sequence from either film. I should also add that Kagemusha is my personal favorite in all of Kurosawa.
Indeed Kaleem. I know you have more than once presented extraordinary arguments to back up that position, some at this very site.
This does seem too low for this countdown. It’s a stunning widescreen epic that almost stretches the possibility of the medium. It’s not to be compared with the source material, but I would think it’s one of those Shakespeare adaptations that stands near the top in this category. I prefer it to Kagemusha.
Again, Mr. Fish has written with authority and precision.
Yes, “authority and precision”. That’s a very good way to put it there Frank. Allan owns both with his writing. It’s one of the great Shakesperae adapatations for sure, though I prefer a few others ahead of it.
I have great respect for this film, and yet never see it without a piercing regret that Nakadai is in the King Lear role and not the person who could have been and should have been, if it hadn’t been for Kurosawa’s intransigence: Toshiro Mifune. How tragic that Kurosawa and Mifune fell into a senseless feud (because of the two years it took to film Red Beard) and never worked together again. To my taste, Nakadai is adequate, and yet never exudes the fierce power (and its tragic derangement) that is needed for the Hidetora role, and that Mifune could have done, in spades. For me, in Nakadai’s long career, his only role that I found really satisfactory was as the young sociopath in Yojimbo.
Lovely lament there Margaret. I think both Allan and I would agree with you that Nakadai’s most famous role and most accomplished performance was in YOJIMBO. I do want to go on record in agreeing with you completely on Mifune, and the unfortunate fact that he wasn’t here.
I must disagree– Nakadai makes this picture complete. With Mifune, Hidetora’s past as a brutal warlord would’ve been all-too apparent right from the start. He would’ve been a picture of virility throughout the entire picture, as he is in “Red Beard”, despite his insistice upon pacifism throughout most of that film.
Thanks to the wiry, chameleon-like Nakadai, however, Hidetora is a far weaker creature, and all the better for it. It allows us to be surprised by his strength in the boar hunt, to sympathize with him early on in his error-of-judgement with his sons, to believe wholeheartedly in the fragility of his character as his mind descends into feeble disrepair.
Most of all, however, it allows his dark days as a despotic, brutal warlord to sneak up on the audience in a way that wouldn’t have been possible with Mifune. Nakadai’s range, furthermore, gives the character the epic, tragic sweep it needs. Mifune was fun and all, but honestly, he could only ever play one or two different types of personalities, over the years. Nakadai’s never quite had the same movie-idol charm or magneticism as Mifune, but he was capable of pulling of more kinds of roles. That’s what “Ran” needed– not a big-time star, but a character actor.
Bob, you’ve given me a lot to munch over here, but I must still respectfully disagree with the choice of Nakadai. For me the crux of my objection is Nakadai’s extreme physical fragility in the role, and the fact that he never convinces me he would have been up to ragingly successful despotism in the past. We need some convincingly smouldering embers here, and in him I just don’t see it.
In regard to Mifune, I think his extreme charisma as an actor led to under-appreciation of the fact that he was fully capable of great delicacy and subtlety in many roles (I recently saw The Quiet Duel, Stray Dog and High and Low over again, and found his range remarkable.) It was Kurosawa himself who said in his memoirs that Mifune had remarkable skills. But, sadly, I believe that Kurosawa knowingly chose a lesser actor for Ran, out of hurt vanity and pride; after all, as Kurosawa saw it, he’d been challenged by an underling (Mifune), and he never really forgave him. Kurosawa wasn’t called Tenno, The Emperor, for nothing!
Maggie, that fragility is what makes Nakadai perfect, in my opinion. It carries so many implications about the character that are much more telling than the physique Mifune would’ve brought to it. Perhaps Nakadai’s Hidetora was, in his youth, much more robust and strong, and we’re simply witnessing him in his decline, something that fits perfectly with Lear’s theme of aging. Or, perhaps he was always this way, which frankly makes his character even MORE interesting. Less than imposing stature doesn’t make you a weakling, after all, nor does it preclude you from having the martial knowledge or amoral appetite necessary to become a bloodthirsty military despot. Just ask Napoleon, or Hitler.
And if I had to mention a high-point from Nakadai as a performer, aside from his stunning, Noh-like turn here, I’d say “The Face of Another” long before the gun-toting bad guy of “Yojimbo”. That Teshigahara picture represented a real challenge for an actor, as half of it must be done bandages, making it a largely vocal performance until one mask comes off for the other one. When his “face” is revealed, he uses his in a way that makes sure you don’t take your own for granted ever again, a wonderfully nervous, perverse and insatiable use of a film-actor’s most important tool. A far better performance (not to mention a far better film) than Kurosawa’s throwaway ronin popcornism.
Bob, you make some valid points, eloquent and persuasive. But I wouldn’t quite discount the physical performance Naladei gave in YOJIMBO, (the Teshigahara film is one I also greatly admire), nor would I assume that Mifune wouldn’t have least equalled him in RAN.
All I know is that with Mifune, “Ran” would’ve been a completely different film. Hell, I’ll go as far to say that I don’t think it would’ve worked entirely, with his domineering presence. This is Lear we’re talking about, remember, where the number-one priority is conveying vulnerability. Usually we think of Lear as simply mad, and if that’s all that were necessary than sure, Mifune had done crazed characters before in “Rashomon”, “Seven Samurai” and “Drunken Angel”. But his insanity always came with a strong hint of imposing physical threat– he might’ve been crazy, yes, but he’d still be strong enough in body (and just enough in mind) to murder you in cold blood if you were anything less than an expert fighter yourself. His characters were often out of their minds, but they never entirely lost them.
Lear/Hidetora, on the other hand, demands a different type of madness. Here is a character at one time so proud, bold and ruthless, yet frightened enough by the prospect of death to open up emotionally to his sons, so much so that in his blind devotion he is caught off guard by betrayal both actual and percieved, to which he can only respond by retreating deeper and deeper inside himself. His character is a tragic introvert, instead of Mifune’s extroverted fiends. He’s forced to confront the dark deeds he’s done, the criminal naivety of his end-of-life crisis, and the consequences of his actions. The paranoias, self-loathing and emotional insecurities of the character are much more challenging than the bandits, samurai and thugs of Mifune’s past. The part demands somebody who can portray weakness of the mind, and that’s something that Nakadai delivered which I really don’t think Mifune had in him. He could’ve done the part of a madman again, certainly, but he didn’t have the chops to play the fool.
Well, one for the annals, but I agree that Mifune isn’t right for Ran, as he wouldn’t have been right for Kagemusha. To be honest, I get rather miffed when Nakadai is dismissed for, though he wasn’t as explosive an actor as Mifune, in his understated way he was more diverse and worked with a lot more major directors. In America sadly he’s seen merely as a Kurosawa actor, but that’s pure blind ignorance, as though he did some good work for Kurosawa (Ran, Kagemusha, High and Low and Yojimbo especially), he did more varied work elsewhere for Teshigahara (The Face of Another), Naruse (When a Woman Ascends the Stairs, Daughters Wives & a Mother), Okamoto (Sword of Doom), Gosha (The Wolves). Best of all was his work for Kobayashi, from Black River and the Human Condition trilogy to Harakiri, Kwaidan and Samurai Rebellion. He did his most personal work for him.
The epic ‘Ran’, which means “chaos” in Japanese, perfectly captures the spirit and atmosphere of this film. Essentially a Japanese version of Shakespeare’s KING LEAR as established here, RAN follows the story of the Great Lord Hidetora, who decides to divide his kingdom among his three sons: Taro, Jiro, and Saburo. What occurs is the systematic and tragic destruction of Hidetora, his family, and his kingdom as the sons continuously conflict with each other. Deep emotion and stunning action scenes accentuate the violence and tension of the film. RAN is also one of Kurosawa’s greatest, easily on par with RASHOMON, THE SEVEN SAMURAI, and YOJIMBO. The only missing element is the late, great Toshiro Mifune. Excellent review, Allan Fish.
It’s interesting Bill that both you and Margaret above note the absence of Mifune.
The last two sentences of Allan’s review are rapturous. This great film is one of the “crowning glories of Japanese cinema”. How’s that Sam?
Suitably exaggerated hyperbole, Joe.
You stole my thunder Joe! Copycat.
This is a breath-takingly beautiful essay. The opening and closing sentences border on the poetic and I was hooked from the moment I started reading this piece. Yes, I agree that the battle sequences are justifiably stectacular and renowned. However, Allan is absolutely correct to passionately point out that there is so much more here. The use of the color red, symbolic of the blood-letting that will ensue is striking. Also highlighted in this essay is the rare but completely justified rave for Harada’s performance as Kaede. Her turn is easily one of the most skillful and memorable depictions of scheming evil ever put on the screen. She is a beautiful serpent sliding, ghost-like, into the garden with thoughts of dominating destruction on her mind. Kurosawa may have waited almost his entire career to muster up this MASTERPIECE, but, true to his regular form, delivered completely. This film is in my top 10 and a film I admire and defend, violently, if need be. One of Kurosawa’s greats. Thank you for this Allan.
Top-rank observations here Dennis!
And, I’ll also go one further by admitting that, I too, always thought the marks on Kaede’s head might have been scars from horns, sawed off.
And, Dear Allan, fight as you might against praise, you can just sit there and take it whether you like it or not. This is absolutely on of your best essays and beautifully written. So just swallow the praise. It’s that good!
It is one of his greatest essays. Of this there can be no question Dennis.
Yes, Lady Kaede is in a class by her own! I’m always astonished all over again by that scene where she sets her sights on her husband’s murderer, his brother Jiro…when( still in mourning robes) she woos Jiro by leaping on him and half-slitting his throat, licks his blood, and makes violent love to him before he even knows what hit him. No wonder he goes around in the rest of the film with a stunned look, as though he’d been hit in the face by a two-by-four.
Then she follows up by arranging the murder of Jiro’s saintly wife, involves him in a major war without his consent and destroys his entire dynasty for fun. What a woman!!
Nakadai WAS finally cast. As Kaleem, Bob and I concur, this is a flawless film that hits you from every corner of the medium. It’s a knock-out in every sense of the word. So, why lament over something that wasn’t. Yes, it is regrettable that Mifune and Kurosawa ended their personal friendship and artistic relationship, but considering this is Kurosawa (a master film-maker who envelopes every aspect of the production) I’m sure he wouldn’t have chosen an actor who he felt would have given less to the role than he envisioned. Ron Howard said his original choice to play The Grinch was Jack Nicholson, he claimed Jim Carrey was his second. Well, as much as I like to entertain the notion that Jack would have been perfect it is Carrey’s performance we have. I don’t think the director would choose any two people thinking they would give completely different performances. Film is, for the most part, the vision of the director. Nakadai plays the Lord here. I’m sure he gave Kurosawa EXACTLY what he wanted.
Agreed. To paraphrase “The West Wing”, Nakadai might not’ve been the first choice, but he was the last choice, and the RIGHT choice. “Ran” wouldn’t have been the movie it is without him.
As for “The Grinch”– I don’t care who’s playing the lead, or who was supposed to. An ugly, awful film from start to finish. Did the world really need a live-action version of Dr. Seuss? Coulndn’t we have been thankful enough for the Chuck Jones short, and call it a day? Ron Howard really has no business directing anything, frankly. He was involved in two decent pictures, one that owed its success more to Tom Hanks’ NASA fetish, and the other to Daryl Hannah’s butt.
BobN I was using a broad aside with THE GRINCH to illustrate a more intricate point in lightning speed and with split-second timing. I have no love nor any interest in THE GRINCH or any other film involving Ron Howard. As a child actor, Howard was barely passable and his self congratulatory Oscar wins at the 2001 Oscars for that trashy A BEAUTIFUL MIND only validates to him that he has the right to commit further atrocities towards the medium of motion pictures. I’ve liked NONE of Howards films from his earlier “jokey” films to his more recent “serious” fare. With the exceptions of a few mediocre moments in APOLLO 13 you can take all of his work and flush it down the fuckin toilet.
This would probably end up number 2 on my list of favorite films of the 80s, so I’m a bit more shocked about this placement even more than Blue Velvet. This film is one of the great epics done by the master who redefined the epic. Akira Kurosawa was 75 and this film proved the man was still ahead of his time. In Ran there is a brutal kill sequence involving the slash of a blade, and a fountain of blood spraying off screen to the wall. Its such a brilliant scene and one that has been so influential in film and especially in animation. Though a film with so many great scenes, one truly stands out as not only the best scene of the movie, but one of Kurosawa’s greatest scenes ever (right up there with the final battle in Seven Samurai and the wonderful ending of High and Low). It was the great sequence where Hidetoro sees his castle fall and wonders through the flames. Each step he takes, the worse his psyche gets. Its a brilliant scene and on that proves Nakadai’s performance was incredible. I’ve been also seeing the arguments forming above between replacing him with Mifune, and I think I have to side with sticking with Nakadai for this one. He plays it so intensely and this was a performance that felt more like stage acting and even abit like Kabuki theater at some points. This works because Nakadai has had stage training and Mifune doesn’t. But this doesn’t mean Mifune couldn’t have played the performance well. Mifune has proved he could play an aging samurai before in Masaki Kobayashi’s phenomenally underrated Samurai Rebellion. But the final product was a masterpiece, and changing it would be unnecessary. This is one of the greatest films ever by maybe my all-time favorite filmmaker. As I said before, I know this is Allan’s list and 14 is high, but it is not high enough.
Anu, you have again blessed this site with your passionate, high-octane insights! I do agree with much of whatyou say here, though I am still not sold on Mifune being a weaker choice that Nakadai, even in light of Bob Clark’s probing examination of the vulnerability that must be part of any great Lear performance. I’ve seen the work on stage times five times in my life and every performance is far different than the next, and there are other qualities that need to be part of the mix. But I’ll save a discussion on this for now. Your position that Kurosawa is the greatest of all filmmakers is shared by Kaleem Hasan.
that’s a fantastic comment Anubhav..
I have to agree with Allan on the Nakadai point. Most critics do share the view that Mifune should have done these films. But I think that these are twilight films and are better served by a less dominant screen presence like Nakadai. With Mifune the texture of the films would have been very different but I wonder if he would have really served these subjects well. I suppose it’s always tricky commenting on a director-actor combo as prolific and as revered as Kurosawa-Mifune but Kagemusha and Ran are an older director’s films, ‘late’ works if you will. Now I do know the history and Nakadai was obviously not Kurosawa’s first choice but this might be one of those serendipitous developments for Kurosawa. Ultimately the dialectic (as Stephen Prince defines it) in most of Kurosawa is between the strong individual and the larger social order. By the time these two late films come around the individual is slowly losing out to larger historical forces. There cannot be an ‘overman’ in those films, at least of the kind Mifune always suggested.
An older comment on Kagemusha:
[This film is in every way a triumph of narrative and technique and among other things one of the most
remarkable uses of color can be seen here. Stephen Prince (the Warrior’s Cinema, Criterion commentaries) makes the very valuable point that despite some similar themes this is not a film like Ran (though I nonetheless think there’s some value in twinning them) and is essentially unique in the Kurosawa corpus. He
furthermore suggests that this is like a Shakespeare history play and much like the Bard Kurosawa very
obliquely presents the history of his subject. In fact most of the very important events occur as it were ‘offstage’.
But I am going to pick a scene here as an example of why I think Kurosawa is simply the greatest Japanese
director and one who can provide an unequaled level of richness in terms of meaning and interpretation
without being an ‘intellectual’ director like Antonioni. In other words Kurosawa can often be as profound
without sacrificing the entertainment of his story!
The thief posing as the Lord Shingen is watching a Noh performance (the only such filmed performance in a
Kurosawa film, for someone who adored Noh this itself is noteworthy). There is a marvelous doubling going
on here that almost makes one dizzy as it unfolds. The thief is of course Shingen’s double. But there are
also two ’stagings’ or Noh performances here. The obvious one and the performance that the thief and the
dead Shingen’s Lords are putting up. So they’re watching the play but also ‘playacting’ for anyone who’s watching them. Just as the Noh actor wears a mask the thief is actually a kind of ‘mask’ of the dead Shingen. There is another detail here that Prince brings up. Noh plays often had stories of a dead Lord
who roamed around as a ghost. Well the thief impersonating the Lord is a kind of ghost of Shingen. Two masks or two ghosts confront each other. The thief who is mask and ghost and actor versus the actual Noh
actor who is of course actor and mask but also ghost to the extent that the man who is actor becomes the
man who is character. This does not end it still. Because perched above are the spies (from Nobunaga and
Ieyasu, Shingen’s rivals) who are witnessing the Noh performance but who are really interesting in this
‘other Noh’! They want to know if this is the real Shingen or a double. They are in essence trying to pierce the truth of this other Noh even as they watch the actual Noh and take it for a given! Of course this scene therefore also becomes a marvelous statement on art and at the very least on the idea of art as
representation. It is the very point of Noh that the mask ‘takes over’ the actor. This is a very common
trope in Japan and in fact one used very powerfully in something like Onibaba. But the point is that the potential effort to pierce through the Noh actor’s mask destroys the truth of the Noh theater and its world. Once one attempts this one loses that deeper perspective on any world one has access to since Noh claims to show us truths we would not otherwise see. It is ironic therefore but entirely appropriate that the spies are not able to figure out that it is not ‘really’ Shingen witnessing the performance. Or better still that the spies are not watching one but two Noh performances. They forget the ‘rules’ of Noh and as such the truth eludes them.]
though I would always take Mifune over Nakadai. Not to deny the talents of the latter but I don’t see him as an exceptional actor and/or screen presence (barring Yojimbo). Whereas Mifune was just a grand lion on screen. A force of nature.
I agree with you about Mifune and Nakadai, but man Nakadai was pretty damn exceptional in Masaki Kobayashi’s films. Nakadai was Kobayashi’s Mifune and I always enjoyed their work together (especially Hari Kari). And man people forget that how god Japanese Cinema was in its prime. They gave Kurosawa, Kobayashi, Mizoguchi, Ozu, Kon Ichikawa, Hiroshi Inagaki, Nagisa Oshima, etc. Man people talk about French New Wave, New German Cinema, New Hollywood…Why does Japan’s golden age get overlooked?
Partly because Kurosawa is one of the few foreign directors to truly enter the mainstream due to the blockbuster powerplayers who looked up to him. The directors of the French New Wave and New German cinema were influential as well, but few of them broke in with filmmakers and audiences in the same way– maybe Godard and Fellini, but it’s a stretch.
While we’re mentioning overlooked Japanese greats, I’ll add Hiroshi Teshigahara to the mix. A great director whose work stretched from avant-garde (his Kobo Abe films) to the classically composed (“Rikyu”, a fine, surprising medieval Japan film).
I don’t get it. All this ping-ponging back-and-forth over Nakadai and Mifune. What does it matter? Nakadai plays the aging Lord. Kurosawa was never heard complaining about the performance. I disagree entirely on the fact that Mifune would have been better with the actor finally chosen. I think that the director chose, in his head, two actors he felt would help realize his vision. Nakadai or Mifune, they would have been a hair different. Mifune pissed off the Great Director. They parted ways. No problem. Nakadai is also up for it. WHAT’S THE POINT GUYS? I’m not mad, but its an argument of “what if’s” rather than talking about the merits of this masterpiece. I think its a flawless film. Kaleem seems to think so too (one of the greatest fans of Kurosawa on the planet. Geez, EVEN BOB thinks its pretty flawless. Then Nakadai was right for the role. Are we to question a master like Kurosawa? Not me.
Hear, hear. It’s useless to complain over a filmmaker’s choices during casting. It reminds me of when Mifune was considered by director [REDACTED] for the role of [REDACTED] in the original [REDACTED]. Sure, seeing him play the part made famous by [REDACTED] would’ve been interesting, but the latter inhabits his role so well, it’s pointless to say Mifune would’ve been better. Likewise, Kyle MacLachlan was seriously considered to play [REDACTED] in 1999’s [REDACTED], and while it would’ve been tremendously cool to see Agent Cooper fill the robes of a [REDACTED], in the end we got the perfectly cast [REDACTED], who does the mythical mentor role here as well as when he took a darker spin on it in “Batman Begins”.
By the way, does anybody else hear a ringing in their ears? Never mind, it’s probably just me…
Coppola wanted either Laurence Olivier or Marlon Brando for Don Corleone. Both men were tall. Both were able to play different ethnicities. Both were men getting older. Both were extremely talented. When Olivier bowed out due to scheduling conflicts with SLEUTH, Coppola then went to Brando. AND??????? See my point? In the eyes of the DIRECTOR, the vision was not changing that extremely if he got one actor or another. We have Brando. I go by what I see. Brando IS Don Corleone.
Stephen King has always complained that Kubricks choice of Jack Nicholson in the lead role of THE SHINING was all wrong. Jacks performance has widely been praised as one of the greatest elements of one of Kubricks best films. So here’s my question. WHAT THE FUCK DOES STEPHEN KING KNOW ABOUT MAKING MOVIES? I’m sure Kubrick didn’t know much about writing best-selling shlock horror novels. However, you never saw Kubrick questioning King. My point is, the DIRECTOR calls the shots. If Kurosawa had no problems with Nakadai then that is the FINAL word. Acting, particularly in a film this visual is just one of the MANY elements the director controls. I doubt he would pick someone that would topple the rest of the dominoes.
“WHAT THE FUCK DOES STEPHEN KING KNOW ABOUT MAKING MOVIES?”
Exactly the same as he knows about writing books. Zing!
Anubhav: I think the greatest, certainly the most iconic stars have a very strong signature. This on the flip side also limits the extent to which they can be truly diverse. So Mifune had to play more or less strong characters. De Niro is that way too. Nakadai was in the other camp. More actor than iconic star (though he was of course famous), he could fit into a variety of roles precisely because he didn’t have that sort of signature. Ironically his strongest such star-actor persona-performance was in Yojimbo and Okamoto then built on this in Sword of Doom. It’s the famous hedgehog/fox analogy. The Fox knows many things but the hedgehog knows one big thing. Mifune is the hedgehog, Nakadai is the fox. In the world of cinema though hedgehogs usually triumph over foxes. Kurosawa incidentally though Mifune was astonishing for his speed. He once said that Mifune could express within a matter of seconds what took two minutes for other actors. But again Kurosawa made the kind of cinema where speed was privileged. Clearly Antonioni would have had no use for such an actor. LOL!
Getting back to the ‘greatest’ director argument these things do become subjective beyond a point though I personally think that Kurosawa is the closest one gets to a cinematic Shakespeare which is to say there might not be another director who combines profundity with accessibility the way he does (of course in very literal terms I don’t believe, as I’ve argued before, that the cinematic medium has a Shakespeare or a Bach or so forth, i.e. a film-maker of that pre-eminence). But the other thing to always keep in mind with him is that he is in many ways (and as Yoshimoto has argued in his very fine book) the very template for ‘Japanese cinema’. In other words he defines the reception of Japanese cinema in the West as well as the Japanese self-image in the same contexts more than any other director before or since. I would add to this that for the West Kurosawa is also along with Bergman and Fellini part of a ‘triumvurate’ that for the longest was considered the very essence of ‘foreign’ cinema. The histories have been shaped accordingly.
See the thing that killss me with this conversation is that we’re talking about KUROSAWA. This not a film directed by some pimple-faced geek kid fresh out of film school trying to realize his visions while getting drunk at a local tavern and pulling off a gang-bang with his friends in the dormitory. We’re talking about a man who is inarguably one of the 50 greatest directors in the art of film-making. Would we question Bergman’s casting? No. Welle’s? No. Fellini? No. Scorsese, Spielberg, Kieslowski, Truffaut, Ford, Hitchcock, Wilder, Murnau, Chaplin?????? No, no, no, no, no and NO! Kurosawa was far more brilliant and a helluva lot smarter than us. He knew exactly what he was doing. So why question him. I’m just glad he lived long enough to commit masterpieces like RAN and DREAMS to celluloid for all of us and for history.
To be fair Dennis great directors can make errors of judgment and even if they don’t they often have to compromise because of commercial pressures. As I probably said either earlier in this thread or elsewhere Kurosawa’s ratios on both Kagemusha and Ran a really a bow to the studios that wanted a ratio more adaptable for TV. In general after the 60s and early 70s no director was encouraged to make a truly widescreen film. Kurosawa always preferred the wide (wider and widest!) frame. Now he was great enough to accommodate his vision to the ratio that was imposed on him but it still wasn’t his first choice. Much as his first choice of actor for Kagemusha was Shintaro Katsu (Zatoichi) but the latter was a prima donna and Kurosawa who was ‘imperial’ on the sets himself couldn’t stand it and got rid of him. Again Katsu was a big star in those days but hardly a Mifune and assuredly inferior to both him and Nakadai. Kurosawa wanted a more playful and certainly more energetic character for Kagemusha. In the end he settled for Nakadai. Mifune later very much wanted to make his peace with the director but the latter wouldn’t relent.
I still believe Kurosawa worked best in 1.33:1 and 1.85:1, Kaleem. He may have longed for and preferred 2.35:1 himself, but to me his results were uneven. Yes, he shot a few great pictures that way– “Yojimbo”, “High and Low” and “Dersu Uzula”– but in others, there’s a rigid quality to his angles and camerawork that hurts the overall quality. Granted, this has less to do with the scope of the picture than the practical issues of working with the larger, bulkier cameras at the time, but there’s such a fluidity and nimbleness to the motion in his 1.33:1 movies that it makes up for the smaller dimensions of the screen. Had he been working with anamorphic-lenses or Super-35 processes that would be developed later, this obviously wouldn’t have been an issue, but those 50’s and 60’s TohoScope films of his could be dodgy, stagey affairs at times.
And allegedly, Kurosawa and Mifune did reconcile, before the end of their lives. At the funeral for Ishiro Honda (Kurosawa’s longtime friend, frequent collaborator and co-director of later films like “Ran” and “Dreams”, and the creator of “Godzilla”), the two were said to have met face to face for the first time in years, and embraced. At least they came to terms personally, if not creatively.
“This not a film directed by some pimple-faced geek kid fresh out of film school trying to realize his visions while getting drunk at a local tavern and pulling off a gang-bang with his friends in the dormitory.”
I assume you’re referring to Brett Ratner.
Dennis, for me Kurosawa was THE GREATEST director of all, not one of fifty; but that should not lead us to humbly accept every casting choice he ever made. I’d contend that he knew exactly who he wanted for Kagemusha and Ran, and his intransigent pride forbade him to make the offer. (Kurosawa mentioned more than once in his memoirs that he came from a samurai family. And how!) What’s required in Ran is exactly what Nakadai can’t do: convince us that this increasingly deranged ancient king really was once a great lion with absolute lordship who devoured everything he wished. You are claiming for Nakadai something he never had. The next natural question would be this: did Mifune show evidence that he could have managed this aging and blunting of his fiery presence? Samurai Rebellion proves to us (and you!) that he did. CoUld he have slowed himself down? (Kaleem Hassan mentioned his extremely quick responses. Kurosawa said they were three times as fast as the average Japanese actor.) I think he could have, especially under Kurosawa’s strong direction. There are scenes in Red Beard which Mifune plays so quietly, and with such patience, that we can hardly believe it’s the same man who leaves sliced limbs littering the landscape in so many movies…
In regard to the specific claim that we shouldn’t question casting choices, I say we should, and with gusto!
Can’t agree, Margaret. He may be the best to you, and our old friend Kaleem may nod, but I couldn’t place him ahead of at least two dozen others.
As for questioning, that’s fine, so long as it doesn’t become a redefinition of pernickety.
Two dozen others. God, do you employ overkill to make a point. He’s in the Top 10 by any rational barometer of measurement.
OK, so if he’s in the top 10 WITHOUT A DOUBT, Mr I never Make a Rash Statement, I would put all the following at least on a level with Kurosawa. Which would you not?
Eisenstein
Tarkovsky
S Ray
Mizoguchi
Ozu
Visconti
Antonioni
Rivette
Godard
Renoir
Bresson
Dreyer
Bergman
Powell
Hitchcock
Lang
Murnau
Wilder
Sturges
Ford
Lubitsch
Von Stroheim
Von Sternberg
Bunuel
Ophuls
Chaplin
Welles
Kieslowski
Hawks
Kubrick
My statement was that he wasn’t ahead of maybe 20 others. There’s 30 I wouldn’t put him ahead of.
As for irrational statements, the last time you were rational you were suckling on one of your mother’s breasts.
He’s with them all there. I’m not prepared to issue a ludicrous numerical ranking.
As far as the personal attack, so what else is new?
You said…
He’s in the Top 10 by any rational barometer of measurement.
I’m proving that it is you, not me, making irrational statements.
I stand by my original statement, which is neither rash nor irrational, regardless of that roll call.
Kaleem, brilliantly stated! I agree with your summation on Kurosawa’s stature as one of the three in the triumverate. They do represent, some would say good and others bad, the view we have of perfected world cinema. I hold Kurosawa in the same esteem as I do Bergman and, to a lesser extent, Fellini. I also agree with your assessment of strength in Mifune as an actor. Although I think the correct phrasing of your sentence should read: “DeNiro WAS that way too.” Unfortunately, Mr. DeNiro’s days of being considered a great actor are long behind him. He hasn’t batted one out of the park since GOODFELLA’S. He’s become one of Amercan movies biggest disappointments.
thanks right. Quite right on the ‘was’ bit. LOL! Do agree as well that De Niro’s best days are certainly behind him.
Mifune was known for strong characterizations. He really could’nt play weak. Keleem, you rightfully pointed this out in DeNiro as well. Actually, very few actors can play extreme polar opposites. DePardieu is also a strong persona on screen, whereas Trintignant was often cast in softer roles. Olivier could go either way. Case in point: Notice his muscle as the Nazi dentist in MARATHON MAN compaired to his meek Nazi hunter in THE BOYS FROM BRAZIL. Brando could go either way as well as seen with his performance in APOCALYPSE NOW (strength) and his totally different turn in LAST TANGO IN PARIS (weakening). In the U.S., particularly because we don’t really possess the chops to be well rounded thespians, the ability to play opposite is even more rare. Gene Hackman can do it. Jimmy Stewart and Spencer Tracy had the ability. Jack Nicholson is probably the most diverse of them all. Fact is, the abilty to play any type is the test of true talent. Talent in acting is not about specialities. Still we applaud that anyway.
We applaud it partly for the reasons I got into earlier but also because the diverse actor might not necessarily be phenomenal at doing all the different roles the way the strong signature star can. I don’t necessarily think one is preferable to the other.
In other words we don’t count it against Homer that he just wrote epics!
In my opinion, Toshiro Mifune would be in my list of the ten greatest actors who ever lived and if you think he cant play weak, just watch Stray Dog, High and Low, Drunken Angel, or even Samurai Rebellion. Each of the characters he played in those movies had a “tough guy” facade, but were really deeply emotional characters and in a way weak. The first film, Stray Dog, is maybe the best example. Hes one of those great actors that you might not think of as a great actor when you look at his most popular performances, but the man has a diverse film career with very subtle and nuanced performances. A lot of people said he just played tough guy samurai roles, and while very many films he did were samurai epics, you have to look at works like Drunken Angel, Stray Dog, High and Low, and of course The Bad Sleep Well. Maybe one of the greatest actors who ever lived and hell I would have loved to see him in an Antonioni film.
Actually guys you fell for my rouse. I put that commentary up to see what you would say. True to form, you botyh chimed up. This blog roll has been so interesting I couldn’t stand anymore silence. Brilliant replies from both of you.
Ran would be ichiban in the 1980s list that I’ve so far kept to myself, but I confess to seeing far less of Eighties art house cinema than Allan. If I recall right from the initial publicity, Kurosawa wanted to call it “Chaos” but was compelled to use the nearest Japanese equivalent, so that arguably western concept must have mattered much to him. As for the casting, we should consider whether Mifune still had the chops for such a role as of 1985. My impression is that he was pretty much a spent force by then. At his best he could have handled the role easily, but could he have given his best at this late point? I wouldn’t trade in the reality of Nakadai’s work for any theoretical dream-casting. I watched Kagemusha just recently, after being conditioned to view Nakadai as a regrettable substitute for Shintaro Katsu, and I thought Nakadai was as good then as he was in Ran. I feel no need to imagine better performances by anyone else.
Samuel, great commentary there. I too cannot imagine anyone else in the role than Nakadai. BOB-it could be Brett Ratner or, in the 80’s, the now departed John Hughs. Kaleem, your comments here today have kept me enthralled (Christ, I’m starting to sound like Schmulee-next I’ll be using words like “blessed”, “fabulous” and “fecund”-LOL!). I like to think of myself as an amateur expert on Kubrick, the art of animation, Disney and JAWS. But, you my friend, could conduct a master-class on Kurosawa. I like to think that I learn here in return for the few comments I leave here from time to time. I knew a lot about Kurosawa before today but I’m delighted to say you taught me even more. I could spend hours picking your brain. Anu, you too have kept me coming back to this thread repeatedly. Bob, my late night nemesis, you hover all day dropping tid-bit bombs of info. I loved this thread.
And although I meant every word of praise in the above comment, I also told Sammy I’d monitor the site while he was away in Manhattan meeting with out-of-town friends. So, guys, how’d I do? Or do I need to dot this commenyt with more adjectives and explaitives? THIS WAS A SENSATIONALLY FABOULOUS THREAD and I’M OVERWHELMED BY THE INCREDIBLE GENIUS YOU ALL RAPTUROUSLY PONTIFICATED YOUR THEORIES AND VIEWS. WONDERS IN THE DARK IS BLESSED TO HAVE SUCH INTENSELY INTELLIGENT AND TREMENDOUSLY TALENTED BLOGGERS!!!!! Think Sammy would approve those last lines guys? LOL! Goodnight guys!
HAHAHAHAHA!!!!! I just read your reaction to the Stephen King commentary, Bob. I’m cracking up because your response is so on the money. And as to the “pinple faced geek” post, it could also be Brian Singer, but that would be a gay gang-bang in his dormitory… Not that there’s anything wrong with that. Different strokes..
Dennis, you are a character. Thanks for the moderation.
Margaret, Anu, Samuel and of course Bob and Kaleem were again at the top of their game here. I’m in school, and I’ve just finished reading this marvelous discourse.
Allan it’s not just a question of ‘naming’. Anyone can put up a list of names. Whether I consider Kurosawa the greatest director or not is a separate issue from the number of directors I would think belong to those truly upper echelons of film-making and it is here that half of your list (at the very least) strains credibility. Haven’t come across too many (if anyone!) who’d put Powell on a par with Kurosawa! C’mon! And I’m surprised to see Lang here since just the other day you suggested that there were a dozen or two over Lang! In any case (and these are just examples) an Eisenstein or a Murnau can be placed in that stratosphere. Not the likes of Hawks! But even conceding this entire debate the sheer question of influence places Kurosawa among really a small handful of directors. Again ‘naming’ is not point but is one coherent as one does this? Nonetheless I have been greatly fascinated by your iconoclastic lists. Who would have thought you were a closet Rosenbaum?! I know many here have been quite perturbed by the fact that Ran didn’t make it to your top 10 but they would be less so if they knew as some of us here do that Antonioni’s Passenger did not make your top 50 (or 100.. whatever it was..) for the 70s! Rosenbaum never sinned so much!
Mr. Hasan is good. Real good.
you are too kind Mr Gallo. we now sound like those guys in Diamonds are Forever!
Mr Hasan getting touchy and slagging off Hawks. Now there’s a surprise, as for attacking Powell, well, suppresses giggles.
Howard Hawks was a great director in his day, influential to many of the finest filmmakers of recent past, but there’s little reason to revisit any of his work today. His best pictures, “To Have and Have Not” and “The Big Sleep”, owe more to the chemistry of their stars than to anything else (I’ve always preferred Bogy & Bacall in the weirdo “Dark Passage”, by Delmer Daves). Powell & Pressburger were powerful and productive in the 40’s, but other than that their work was presentable, polished but not quite anything to write home about. Even Powell’s solo efforts never really rose above cult-sensations– “Peeping Tom” is impressive, but hardly an essential horror classic, and “Age of Consent” is remarkable largely as the first time Helen Mirren got her kit off. But hey, maybe that IS enough to make him a better director than Kurosawa.
To be honest, Fish, that list of yours is rather fair, although any reasonably smart cineaste could also question a lot of your choices just as easily as coming up with a list of their own with at least half the entries different from yours. I’m glad to see Lang up there, though. There are few directors better than Kurosawa, Kaleem, and Lang IS one of them…
“Howard Hawks was a great director in his day, influential to many of the finest filmmakers of recent past, but there’s little reason to revisit any of his work today.”
I don’t have the time or the inclination to get into a protracted argument on this, Bob, but I’ll just say that I couldn’t possibly disagree with this more than I do. Hawks made many great films that I watch regularly.
Hey, don’t get me wrong. I didn’t say he isn’t a great director, nor that his films aren’t worth watching now. Just that there isn’t any great need to. Allow me to articulate the point a little clearer– Hawks did some great stuff, but none of it is really essential viewing. At least not in the way that Kurosawa’s greatest works are, which is why I was a little harsh on him in comparison. What I’m really objecting to isn’t the consideration of Hawks as a cinematic talent, but rather at the insistance of him being a greater one than Kurosawa. No need to get hawkish, here…
And again to be even more clear for others concerned here if someone wanted to put 6 or 6 or even 10 directors over him I could understand this if the choices were let’s say ‘educated’ ones. But you just throw out a list with tons of names and one almost gets the sense that yeah Kurosawa also ran (pun intended)! I am amused though that you keep bringing up my definite inclination toward Kurosawa as an ‘excessive’ matter from time to time. Meanwhile you have Powell up there!
I am re-introducing my top 10 for the 80s here:
https://wondersinthedark.wordpress.com/best-films-of-the-1980s/#comment-12025
I am leaving the school now to escort by full brood to see CLOUDY WITH A CHANCE OF MEATBALLS in Ridgefield Park. The list you re-introduced here Kaleem is exceptional in every way, shape or form. Masterworks abound.
I’m saying that I couldn’t place Kurosawa ahead of any of those names I listed. Sam said he was int he top 10 guaranteed. That just isn’t a cast iron fact. As for the dismissals of Hawks, we’ve been through that, Kaleem, you’re in the minority of slightly less than 3. Every film connoisseur worth their salts praises Hawks infinitely. Only a complete snob could do otherwise…hang on a minute!
This is true Allan, Kaleem’s position on Hawks is in the extreme minority. Likewise with Powell.
Sam and Allan, whatever my positions on Hawks might be I doubt many would want to put him in a top 10. But let’s see here the famous BFI Sight and Sound Poll from ’02, a British poll (!)..
The top 10 directors in a critics’ poll:
http://www.bfi.org.uk/sightandsound/topten/poll/critics-directors.html
The top 10 directors in a directors’ poll:
http://www.bfi.org.uk/sightandsound/topten/poll/directors-directors.html
On a related note, Facets sometime back in their bulletin asked a number of top filmmakers, a few critics and actors, fewer writers around the globe to list 10 films they were ‘most passionate’ about. Since the lists are more than 100 I cannot put up all of these but I will select some:
Almodovar
Night of the Hunter (Laughton)
Rules of the Game (Renoir)
All About Eve (Mankiewicz)
Leave her to heaven (Stahl)
North by Northwest (Hitchcock)
Out of the Past (Tourneur)
Midnight (Leisen)
Some like it Hot (Wilder)
Touch of Evil (Welles)
Senso (Visconti)
Bertolucci
Rules of the Game (Renoir)
Sansho the Bailiff (Mizoguchi)
Germany year Zero (Rossellini)
Breathless (Godard)
Stagecoach (Ford)
Blue Velvet (Lynch)
City Lights (Chaplin)
Marnie (Hitchcock)
Accatone! (Pasolini)
Touch of Evil (Welles)
Angelopoulous
Citizen Kane (Welles)
Ivan the Terrible (Eisenstein)
Ordet (Dreyer)
81/2 (Fellini)
Nosferatu (Murnau)
L’Avventura (Antonioni)
The Gold Rush (Chaplin)
Ugetsu (Mizoguchi)
Pickpocket (Bresson)
Persona (Bergman)
Ken Burns
Seven Samurai (Kurosawa)
Discreet Charm of the Bourgeoisie (Bunuel)
Raging Bull (Scorsese)
Citizen Kane (Welles)
Rules of the Game (Renoir)
Last Tango in Paris (Bertolucci)
Pelle the Conqueror (August)
Tree of the Wooden Clogs (Olmi)
Chinatown (Polanski)
Vertigo (Hitchcock)
Jonathan Demme
Shoot the Piano Player (Truffaut)
The Conformist (Bertolucci)
Yojimbo (Kurosawa)
Nothing but a Man (Roemer)
Antonio das Mortes (Rocha)
Black Orpheus (Camus)
Five Easy Pieces (Rafelson)
Muriel (Resnais)
Coming Home (Ashby)
Ceddo (Sembene)
Milos Forman
Amarcord (Fellini)
American Graffiti (Lucas)
Citizen Kane (Welles)
City Lights (Chaplin)
Deer Hunter (Cimino)
Children of Paradise (Carne)
Giant (Stevens)
Godfather (Coppola)
Miracle in Milan (De Sica)
Raging Bull (Scorsese)
Godard (chooses to list the ‘top 10 American films from the sound era’)
Scarface (Hawks)
Great Dictator (Chaplin)
Vertigo (Hitchcock)
Searchers (Ford)
Singin’ in the Rain (Donen/Kelly)
Lady from Shanghai (Welles)
Bigger than Life (Ray)
Angel Face (Preminger)
To Be or Not to Be (Lubitsch)
Dishonored (von Sternberg)
Peter Greenaway
Last Year at Marienbad (Resnais)
Breathless (Godard)
La Notte (Antonioni)
Rules of the Game (Renoir)
Seventh Seal (Bergman)
Strike (Eisenstein)
Throne of Blood (Kurosawa)
Fellini’s Casanova (Fellini)
81/2 (Fellini)
The Marquise of O (Rohmer)
[on a personal note I should add that I am thrilled with Greenaway’s inclusion of Casanova. I thought I was the only person who considered the film a masterpiece!]
Jim Jarmusch
L’Atalante (Vigo)
Tokyo Story (Ozu)
They Live by Night (Ray)
Bob le Flambeur (Melville)
Sunrise (Murnau)
The Cameraman (Sedgwick/Keaton)
Mouchette (Bresson)
Seven Samurai (Kurosawa)
Broken Blossoms (Griffith)
Open City (Rossellini)
Richard Linklater
Some Come Running (Minnelli)
Pickpocket (Bresson)
2001: A Space Odyssey (Kubrick)
Goodfellas (Scorsese)
The Mother and the Whore (Eustache)
Los Olvidiados (Bunuel)
In a Year with 13 Moons (Fassbinder)
Citizen Kane (Welles)
Fanny and Alexander (Bergman)
Carmen Jones (Preminger)
John Woo
citizen Kane (Welles)
Wild Bunch (Peckinpah)
2001: A Space Odyssey (Kubrick)
Godfather 2 (Coppola)
Le Samourai (Melville)
Seven Samurai (Kurosawa)
Lawrence of Arabia (Lean)
West Side Story (Wise/Robbins)
Raging Bull (Scorsese)
Mean Streets (Scorsese)
Kenneth Turan (LA Times critic, lists a top 12)
Casque d’Or (Becker)
Children of Paradise (Carne)
Day After trinity (Else)
Decalogue (Kieslowski)
Dybbuk (Ansky)
Earrings of Madame De (Ophuls)
Eyes without a Face (Franju)
First Contact (Anderson/Connolly)
I was a Fugitive from a Chain Gang (LeRoy)
Leolo (Lauzon)
Shop Around the Corner (Lubitsch)
Touch of Evil (Welles)
Tarantino
Good the Bad and the Ugly (Leone)
Rio Bravo (Hawks)
Taxi Driver (Scorsese)
His Girl Friday (Hawks)
Rolling Thunder (Flynn)
They All Laughed (Bogdanovich)
The Great Escape (J. Sturges)
Carrie (De Palma)
Coffy (Hill)
Dazed and Confused (Linklater)
Five Fingers of Death (Chang)
Hi Diddle Diddle (Stone)
Paul Schrader
Rules of the Game (Renoir)
Tokyo Story (Ozu)
Pickpocket (Bresson)
Citizen Kane (Welles)
Lady Eve (P. Sturges)
Beauty and the Beast (Cocteau)
Conformist (Bertolucci)
Vertigo (Hitchcock)
Searchers (Ford)
Wild Bunch (Peckinpah)
Studs Terkel (does a top 13)
City Lights (Chaplin)
Bicycle Thief (De Sica)
Citizen Kane (Welles)
Ikiru (Kurosawa)
Grand Illusion (Renoir)
Wild Strawberries (Bergman)
Apu Trilogy (Ray)
La Strada (Fellini)
Fame is the Spur (Boutling)
Modern Times (Chaplin)
Baltic Deputy (Heifitz/Zharkhi)
Cabinet of Dr Caligari (Wiene)
Last Laugh (Murnau)
Tim Robbins
Battle of Algiers (Pontecorvo)
The Clowns (Fellini)
Don’t Look Back (Pennebaker)
Lower Depths (Kurosawa)
McCabe and Mrs Miller (Altman)
My Man Godfrey (La Cava)
Nashville (Altman)
Network (Lumet)
Underground (Kusturica)
Waiting for Guffman (Guest)
Sydney Pollack
Casablanca (Curtiz)
Citizen Kane (Welles)
Conformist (Bertolucci)
Godfather 2 (Coppola)
Grand Illusion (Renoir)
Leopard (Visconti)
Once Upon a Time in America (Leone)
Raging Bull (Scorsese)
Seventh Seal (Bergman)
Sunset Boulevard (Wilder)
Sam Mendes
Citizen Kane (Welles)
Fanny and Alexander (Bergman)
Godfather 2 (Coppola)
Piano (Campion)
Red Shoes (Powell/Pressburger)
Sunset Boulevard (Wilder)
2001: A Space Odyssey (Kubrick)
Taxi Driver (Scorsese)
Vertigo (Hitchcock)
Wizard of Oz (Fleming)
Makavejev
L’Age d’Or (Bunuel)
Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs (Disney)
Triumph of the Will (Riefenstahl)
Asphalt Jungle (Huston)
Rashomon (Kurosawa)
Cabinet of Dr Caligari (Wiene)
Ecstasy (Machaty)
Ashes and Diamonds (Wajda)
Earth (Dovzhenko)
Michael Haneke
Au Hasard Balthasar (Bresson)
Lancelot of the Lake (Bresson)
Mirror (Tarkovsky)
Salo (Pasolini)
Exterminating Angel (Bunuel)
Gold Rush (Chaplin)
Psycho (Hitchcock)
A Woman Under the Influence (Cassavetes)
Germany Year Zero (Rossellini)
L’Eclisse (Antonioni)
Sidney Lumet
Best Years of our Lives (Wyler)
Fanny and Alexander (Bergman)
Godfather (Coppola)
Grapes of Wrath (Ford)
Intolerance (Griffith)
Passion of Joan of Arc (Dreyer)
Ran (Kurosawa)
Fellini’s Roma (Fellini)
Singin’ in the Rain (Donen/Kelly)
2001: A Space Odyssey (Kubrick)
Mira Nair (lists a top 12)
An Angel at my Table (Campion)
Battle of Algiers (Pontecorvo)
Decalogue (Kieslowski)
Double Life of Veronique (Kieslowski)
81/2 (Fellini)
Godfather (Coppola)
In the Mood for Love (Kar-Wai)
La Jetee (Marker)
Music Room (Ray)
Pyaasa (Dutt)
Raging Bull (Scorsese)
Time of the Gypsies (Kusturica)
You have 20 luminaries here, a wide representation from auteurs to critics to actors to the John Woo kind of filmmaker. No lists is definitive but gives a sense of where people are. Note the frequency here. Hawks occurs 3 times, Powell occurs once. Some of the other illustrious names, well people can do the count! Sure, there are some names that don’t seem to have adequate enough representation. But Kurosawa isn’t one of them! Check out the top directors any which way you want. By the way when I chose those names I did not omit any very important name. Sam has this catalog and could easily confirm this. Could there be a different list of top 20 names where it could be the opposite? Unlikely. Because the very well represented director is unlikely to disappear on any important list. And again I’ve put up the Sight and Sound poll here as well which again does not contradict the results here at all.
What am I arguing for here? The fact that my position on Kurosawa is very much the mainstream one in these matters. It is Allan’s on Powell or Hawks that isn’t finding enough representation. I’m not trying to upend anyone here but I like being precise!
You like being precise, if only being precisely annoying. But we’ve had this argument a millon times before and I don’t wish to revisit it, life’s too short.
Here is Moviemaker’s list of 25 most influential directors (scroll below):
http://www.filmsite.org/directors.html
Hawks is mentioned, still below Kurosawa and Powell isn’t there at all! And to accept Hawks here one would also have to accept Spielberg pretty high up.
Here’s TotalFilm:
http://www.filmsite.org/greatdirectors-totalfilm.html
Hawks at 4, Kurosawa at 11, but hey Spielberg’s 3 and Powell’s 16!
Yet another poll:
http://www.theyshootpictures.com/gf1000_top100directors.htm
I don’t need to spell out the results here!
Again my only point with all this ‘evidence’ is that you’re far more likely to run into Kurosawa irrespective of the poll than you are Hawks and Powell does far far worse. Do I accept such polls as meters of truth? No! I’ve forever said this. I don’t even rank films in all my lists over here. But as I’ve always said I like to argue with some evidence.
“Kaleem, you’re in the minority of slightly less than 3.”
I would have thought Allan that you’d empathize with me after you didn’t place Passenger in the top 50 for the 70s (or top 100, whatever).
Just in your Ran thread there are half a dozen people who cannot believe it wasn’t in the top 10!
Just on in from a very overrated THE INFORMANT (Soderbergh).
Kaleem, these lsist are stupendous, especially the only with the director’s individual top tens!!! These are keepers!
Thanks Sam.. and again to be absolutely clear I am not against any sort of list, even the most idiosyncratic ones. But one cannot sometimes use the majority argument and at other times dismiss it when one has the most minority positions. This is my entire point. I wouldn’t have brought up these lists (of which the Sight and Sound poll is of course the most famous) if I hadn’t been challenged on the Kurosawa/Powell/Hawks deal.
Leaving all of this aside (and this is one of the problems with film viewers) is that everyone’s too obsessed with lists. We all love them, we all indulge in them but ultimately there should be more of a space for constructive criticism. Having favorites for reasons of nostalgia or whatever is not a problem. But one ought to be able to separate these from more objective opinion. at least there should be the attempt. This is where arguing endlessly over lists doesn’t get anywhere. Reasons matter far more. In other words I might disagree completely with someone but understand where they’re coming from. Just throwing out names beyond a point is not useful. My favorite critic Rosenbaum has had a lifelong resistance to Kurosawa and even as he’s softened some of his positions of late he prefers something like Rhapsody in August to many of the samurai films. So it’s still a rather strange position. Nonetheless I am always clear as to what motivates his decisions. Kael never liked Resnais or Antonioni, I don’t agree with her reasoning but it’s there. But one just goes in circles when one just debates lists because no case has to be made at any point. Even the drawing up of lists are problematic for this reason. So one is absolutely sure that x film is only the 26th best film of a decade while another one is as definitely the 19th best! How does one arrive at these numbers?! Which doesn’t mean as I’ve stated here and many times before that one cannot do this for fun. I’ve done it right here on this blog, I’ve taken part in every such poll (even if I haven’t really listed films in order beyond the top one or two). The way all of this is connected with the matter at hand is that I made a case for Kurosawa as one of the greatest directors, Allan made a separate point to you about how so many could be over him or with him on the list. Now he drew up a list of illustrious names. I just picked up on Powell and Hawks but I could have selected others. What does this list really tell you? It’s such a diverse list that one wonders what criteria could be put in place for placing all of those with Kurosawa or above him. Surely with a director of the latter’s pre-eminence the burden of doubt goes the other way. So if one wants to argue against Murnau that’s fine but the case should be made. Simply ‘dissing’ Murnau won’t really do. When Allan suggested he preferred Ozu and Mizoguchi I didn’t have any issues. If he called them greater as he often has (since like many many people separately personal likes and dislikes from more objective opinion is a challenge for him.. I mean this in the most civil way) that is fine too. My problem begins when a whole list of names is just thrown out without the slightest explanation and then when challenged the responses are sarcastic and snide. This is why I began this entire exercise. Otherwise I’ve been chuckling inwardly as I’ve been looking at many of the rankings here and reflecting on older debates!