Review of Ran (1985) by Kyle M — 21 Apr 2016

I bristle a little at terms like 'epic', 'sweeping' and 'magisterial' as sometimes they seem like euphemisms for 'overlong', 'indulgent' and 'you've got to like this because it's by an auteur'. There is no question that Kurosawa is a phenomenon, and his films are all worthy of serious attention. 'Seven Samurai' is an absolute classic. 'Ran' is a good but not great film, though. Its strengths lie in its robust characterisation, philosophical insights into the human condition and in its superb retelling of the King Lear story. The actors are all top notch in spontaneity and vigour. The cinematography and colours are beautiful in the recently restored 4K version. But the direction and editing, in my opinion, are undisciplined. Most of the battle scenes are haphazard, repetitive and overlong (and the fake blood looks ridiculous), though the sense of peril in pre-CGI days is palpable at times. There are waaaay too many scenes of the increasingly mental Hidetora (a consistently intense Nakadai) wandering around woefully in wastelands with his loyal fool Kyoami (a girlish and watchable Pita).

There are some outstanding scenes of really gripping drama, especially when the psychotic seducer Lady Kaede (Mieko Harada) is on-screen, and I enjoyed the stalwart, unflinching loyalty and integrity of men like Tango, Fujimaki and Kurogane. The film's themes are superb: irresponsibility, ambition, fidelity, authority, power, futility, sexuality, forgiveness, religion and many others besides. But it's hard to fully root for any of the characters and there is no real hero, as Hidetora himself is revealed progressively to have been a bit of a monster in his younger years. If the film was trimmed by at least 40 minutes to get it near the two hour mark, it would be touching greatness. Instead, it's incisiveness is lost in the flab of excess footage.