Review of Ran (1985) by Stephen R — 03 Jun 2010

Ran could have been a victory lap. In 1950 Akira Kurosawa turned the conventions of film narrative on their ear with Rashomon, a film so unlike anything before it that Kurosawa's producers and actors insisted it didn't make sense (it did), and in 1954 he made The Seven Samurai which is not only the most influential action/adventure movie of all time, but is one of the 4 or 5 best movies ever made by anyone. With a handful of other classics thrown in for good measure (Ikiru, Throne of Blood, Yojimbo), Kurosawa's place as one of the masters of cinema is undeniable. By 1985, he had absolutely nothing to prove, except maybe to himself.

By the late 60s Kurosawa's native Japan had turned on him, declaring that his style had become too westernized and he was essentially banished from the Japanese studio system. He was signed to work on his first American film in 1970, but was fired by 20th Century Fox. He attempted suicide, his eyesight was going, and nobody wanted to finance his films. To make things worse, at the ripe age of 65, Kurosawa had his biggest idea yet, a massive adaptation of Shakespeare's King Lear set amongst the warlords of 15th century Japan. He spent ten years storyboarding the shots for the film he would call Run (which translates to chaos or revolt), designing the costumes, and most importantly, trying to rustle up the money to make what would eventually be the most expensive production in Japanese history. After this decade of preparation, he would team with French film producer Serge Silberman, and Ran would finally get off the ground.

Like Lear, Ran begins with a man dividing his land among his children. Lord Hidetora has spent his whole life taking over all the land he could see, and killing everyone who stood in his way. Now, in his 70s he has given his land to his three sons in hopes that this will allow him to live his remaining years in peace. What he's actually done, is given everybody access to an army. This is Kurosawa's bleakest film, a sense of dread hangs over all the proceedings. This may also be Kurosawa's deepest work thematically: madness, honor, death, war, sex, God, and family are all within the auteur's wide grasp.

Visually, Kurosawa has few equals. He fills every inch of the frame with his unique mixture of authenticity and artistry. It's not just the cinematography, which is of course exhilarating, it's the production design, the costumes, the make up. Ran is a complete visual experience. Kurosawa's battle scenes are a reminder of just how poorly most battle scenes are filmed. Instead of obsessing over trying to make the audience feel like we're in the middle of the action (which we never really will anyway) Kurosawa pulls back and let's us see the whole gruesome spectacle. The majesty, the violence, the hatred.

What stands out about Ran for me, as it does for all Kurosawa's work, is his purity as a storyteller. He's the undeniable master of the cinematic epic (David Lean is #2 and then it's a long way down to #3), and you can't make films with the weight and length that he does without perfect pacing. A Kurosawa film is never rushed, never hectic, but also never boring and never lethargic. He always moves at just the right speed, and for the life of me I can't point out an example of this aspect of his genius. So, how did he do it? Why did his films move so much more smoothly then other filmmakers? It must come from inside of him. No, tricks, no techniques, this is the only way he knew how to tell a story. He probably never even thought about it, and that is the sign of a great filmmaker.

Ran is brilliant in every way a film can be brilliant. It strikes us in our hearts, our heads, and our eyes. I would be remiss if I didn't mention the philosophy that Kurosawa so tastefully sprinkled through all of his movies. His films were always full of interesting questions, and in Ran he poses one of his toughest. Is God somehow permissive of human atrocity or having created human beings is He Himself powerless to stop us?