If you order your cheap custom essaysfrom our custom writing service you will receive a perfectly written assignment on Review on Akira Kurosawa's "Ran". What we need from you is to provide us with your detailed paper instructions for our experienced writers to follow all of your specific writing requirements. Specify your order details, state the exact number of pages required and our custom writing professionals will deliver the best quality Review on Akira Kurosawa's "Ran" paper right on time.
Our staff of freelance writers includes over 120 experts proficient in Review on Akira Kurosawa's "Ran", therefore you can rest assured that your assignment will be handled by only top rated specialists. Order your Review on Akira Kurosawa's "Ran" paper at affordable prices!
Akira Kurosawa's Ran
Akira Kurosawa used the different elements of film, mostly the image/camera or the visual elements, in order to convey an intensely felt humanist message, the tragedy of the destruction of a family. It is very obvious that Kurosawa must have used Shakespeare's King Lear as a source for this film but it must be noted how creative he was in combining Shakespearean tragedy with the Japanese style of drama and the artistic condition of modern man (during that time, which was probably before the Tokugawa period (personal research)). The plausible difference between the two could be that in Shakespeare's King Lear, Kurosawa's three brothers were really three sisters. In addition to that, it is most obvious that it is not Shakespeare's style to be gory, grotesque, bloody or detailed in battle scenes but with Kurosawa, he expounded on the battle scenes (blood and all…) probably to emphasize more the whole preoccupation of the film.
The word Ran in Japanese means "chaos", "fury", "revolt". Ichimon in Japanese means "family" or "clan", Ichi meaning "one" (taken from a Japanese dictionary). This may advocate a sense of unity particularly in the family. The "chaos" part may intend to show what happens when the unity of a family is destroyed or in this film, how the family was destroyed. What happens in the film is that the heritage of past sins of the father, Hidetora Ichimonji, corrupts the relationships between family members leading the sons to be against each other and their father. Other themes that may follow the main one may be loyalty and betrayal, appearance and reality (deceit), vengeance and forgiveness, and man's nature itself.
It seems that the artistic medium Kurosawa mostly used is the camera and image. It is the metaphorical quality of the image, scene, and the visual choreography of the entire work that the artistic achievement and meaning emerge (much like the movie In the Mood for Love, which has much symbolical scenes… also considering that it has less dialogue). An Example is when Hidetora illustrates the strength of solidarity by handing each son an arrow, which individually, can easily broken in two. However, when banded together, the arrows will not bend so easily. The images are of life; the characters, their emotions, their blood, all vivid, all real. At least that's how it seems to me because the Japanese way of acting is so much different from that of the Hollywood or American style. Since Kurosawa based this on a pre-Tokugawa period (which denotes time of chaos---research), it may seem that for him, history works as a metaphor and symbol, with images and scenes reflecting the social and moral condition of man which may still be applicable at present.
It is very apparent that Kurosawa spared no expense in producing the full emotional and dramatic effect of the film (although it was said that at first he couldn't find any sponsor for funds in producing it). The colors of the army standards, the mob of the running troops, the advance of the rushing cavalry, the luster of the armor, the bright red color of the blood, and the architectural beauty of the castle or the setting itself all combined to produce an all-encompassing hallucinatory effect. Kurosawa "decentered" the characters in favor of the lavishly picturesque landscape. Though the dramatic, character-centered scenes had an ample number of close ups and medium shots, much of the rest of the film consisted of long or extreme long shots. The obscuring of characters into the landscape added the effect of rendering the scope of their lives insignificant in the face of time and place. Kurosawa was amazing in being as creative and resourceful with the setting. It was a masterly way that he combined historical settings, spectacular battle sequences in color, humor, a deep exploration into the nature of human folly and madness (not in the satirical way Shakespeare sometimes does) and how he tainted the serene landscape with human hues of tragedy and destruction.
I once asked Akira Kurosawa why he had chosen to frame a shot in Ran in a particular way. His answer was that if he hed panned the camera one inch to the left, the Sony factory would be sitting there exposed, and if he hed panned an inch to the right, we would see the airport - neither of which belonged in a period movie. Only the person whos made the movie knows what goes into the decisions that result in any piece of work. (Sidney Lumet in Making Movies, 15)
Mostly, the color-coded battle sequences fix Ran in the mind. Yellow for Taro, the eldest son. Red for Jiro, the second son, and finally, blue for Saburo, the youngest son. Flagmen on horses charge through a forest, picked off by volleys from concealed riflemen; a sideways charge of the Light Brigade. The first great battle, the storming of a castle, is in all probability Kurosawas inimitable representation of chaos. A slaughtered bowman drips blood like a waterfall, from the rampart where he lays, shot full of arrows. A foot soldier is glimpsed, gone nuts, sitting and weeping and playing with a severed human arm. The last scene--a shot of a blind man about to walk off a precipice--sums up how Kurosawa could have seen the past, and perhaps the future. During the storming of third castle, the combined armies of Hidetoras two eldest sons marched, ran, and galloped in formation, reminiscent of the the tumult of battle noise, the battle scenes unfolded and flashed by with all the intensity of the passage of historical time and the eternal suffering of humanity. Perhaps this was a reflection of man and his nature (with regards to the present war with Iraq…). Color brought life and added a new dimension to the whole film. The colorful and beautiful kimonos or costumes were surreal and true to (the traditional/old Japanese) life and so was the use contrasting colors in conveying madness and power and the like. Even the make-up seemed peculiar but not exaggerated and was also symbolical much like Lady Kaede, the wife of the oldest son. Her eyebrows were painted perched high on her forehead in perpetual disapproval, (and could herself be inspired by Lady Macbeth) but this was actually a product of Japan's "Noh" theater her make-up represents the face of remorseless Vengeance (while mourning the death of her husband later in the movie, she impassively crushes a butterfly between her fingers…she also hates Hidetora for killing her family and stealing their castle). Her very exact opposite would be Lady Sue, Jiro's wife. Lady Sue who functioned as the "Buddhist conscience" of the film almost certainly baffled old King Hidetora as she demonstrated no ill-will or hatred towards him, even though he had killed her family, destroyed her castle, and gouged out the eyes of her brother Tsurumaru. Her compassion and active atonement for the sins of the world contrasted sharply with any other character and offered a solution for breaking the cycle of not forgiving that ensnared all the other characters including her own brother. Interestingly, her face is never shown, nor that of her brother's. They are spirit-like, floating somewhere above the political maneuverings (much like that of the spouses of the main characters in In the Mood for Love)….. [vengeance versus forgiveness].
Kurosawa probably used what he could have learned about battle scenes in earlier samurai epics (most especially since Ran was almost near to his last film). He uses several static cameras to film the action, cutting between them. Because his cameras dont dart and whirl, we may not be encouraged to think of ourselves as participants but as gods, observing, taking the long view here, and then a close-up look. He doesn't use panning or swish pan, nor wipes or fades but just simple montage cuts. Individual frames of the montage offer one stunning depiction of violence after another a multitude of arrows protrudes from a fallen Samurai; two of Hidetoras concubines perform "seppuku" upon each others outstretched blade; bloody bodies piled in deaths repose; a quintet of Hidetoras battle weary Samurai stand upon the castle steps in hopeless defense of their Lord; a wounded Samurai sits motionless on the ground holding his recently severed arm; riders and foot soldiers, shrouded in dust created by their massive movements charge laterally across the screen. These images of unbelievable power run uninterrupted for almost six minutes until broken by the sound of a single shot unseating Hidetoras son, Taro, from his horse. The battle frenzy is sustained for a full fifteen minutes in a total assault on the senses. The impact of the assassins bullet on Taros back symbolically and abruptly restored the noise of battle and the viewer to real time, ending a brief, contemplative, and moving interlude in the films plot development. This is all amazing for me but may be gruesome, useless, or a waste of time for other critics. Then he also manipulates the weather. Gentle at first, then increasingly stormy as brother fights brother, and ultimately hurricane force as Hidetora goes insane and wanders the wilderness with his fool. This is all punctuated by large, billowing clouds that was frequently cut as if to emphasize the immateriality of it all. Clouds finally give way to a red sunset as the death toll mounts and we are left with complete destruction in the movie's final scenes.
According to Roger Egbert of Chicago Sun-Times Inc. biweekly reviews of classic movies, perhaps the most important of the films elements was Akira Kurosawas personal philosophy and how he worked it into the entire film. By choosing to focus on the key "Buddhist principles" of redemption, forgiveness, and lack of hatred, Kurosawa transformed Shakespeares tragedy into a profound statement of the human condition. Moreover, the entire film is tinged by the reality of impermanence how Hidetora lost within months what he had gained and struggled for over a lifetime, his descent from ultimate power to utter wretchedness over the course of the film (which demonstrates the futility of life!!), the greed and bloodlust of his sons who betrayed him likewise resulted in ultimate ruin for his clan of Ichimonji, a concept once unfathomable in his younger, more virile days, and many more including Lady Kaede's manipulation.
Then, in the end, we are left with a blind man alone at the edge of a precipice, apparently at sunset. Subsequently, one must ask, where are the redemptive human or moral forces of Shakespearean tragedy, or is this Kurosawa's final image or perception of man, in which there is no redemption?
In a movie review by David Ng, he noted that in Kurosawa's Rashomon, he wrote in his autobiography, "human beings are unable to be honest with themselves, about themselves… even the character who dies cannot give up his lies. This cynicism informs Ran's ideology who can endure a world where God is present but powerless, where family members betray each other, where insanity is the only means of survival? Niccolo Machiavelli of the Renaissance era, famous for "the end justifies the means", believed that humans by nature were bad, evil. They were thankless, fickle, false, studious to avoid danger, greedy of gain, devoted to you while you are able to confer benefits upon them, and ready, while danger is distant, to shed their blood and sacrifice their properties, their lives, their children for you. But, in the hour of need, they turn against you (taken from a reading in my Renaissance Literature class). Shakespeare, with his novels and plays didn't concretely state these things but implied them through the personalities of his characters. We have fickle and deceit with the brothers and even the king himself. Impulsiveness, greed and being pragmatic (in a bad way) are also impersonated by his characters (including Othello, Merchant of Venice, and even King Lear). It is a great probability that Akira Kurosawa believes these same principles or concepts about man and affirms or illustrates them through his films, most clearly in this film. He may believe the same thing, that men are fickle and deceitful, greedy and thankless. But there are holes in the box such as the situation of Lady Sue, who was probably the only forgiving character in the whole movie! This may still show hope amidst a chaotic environment. And this most especially shows man's power, man's capability to generate change and to forgive.
Please note that this sample paper on Review on Akira Kurosawa's "Ran" is for your review only. In order to eliminate any of the plagiarism issues, it is highly recommended that you do not use it for you own writing purposes. In case you experience difficulties with writing a well structured and accurately composed paper on Review on Akira Kurosawa's "Ran", we are here to assist you. Your cheap research paperson Review on Akira Kurosawa's "Ran" will be written from scratch, so you do not have to worry about its originality.
Order your authentic assignment and you will be amazed at how easy it is to complete a quality custom paper within the shortest time possible!
0 comments:
Post a Comment