King Lear Retelling

Shakespeare's Play: King Lear, 1605 (towards the end of Shakespeare's career)

Definitive versions: the best way to pinpoint definitive versions is through the actors who have played King Lear: Orson Welles (1953); Paul Scofield (1971); Laurence Olivier (1983).

Retelling: Ran (1985)

MIKE SAYS If I knew what I was getting into, Ran wouldn't have made the list. Seriously.

I don't even know where to start.  The film is vibrant and colorful; this is what epic cinematography is.  There's no blurry CGI or green screen here. The natural beauty of the locale shines through.  The shots are deliberate, thought out, and elegant.  In short, the level of craftsmanship used to make this film is utterly staggering, and is desperately missing from modern film.

That being said, Good Lord, this film is long.  Like REALLY long.  Like Thanksgiving afternoon long, where you take a good nap and still end up watching an hour of the film.  And NOTHING is shown quickly.  There are no quick summaries, fast cuts, or reestablishing dialog in this film.  No, it takes it's time.  Like showing an army crossing a river . . . from one side to the other.  Or an extended battle montage that goes on for about twenty minutes (I wish I was kidding).

The subtitles were the only thing that kept me from wandering off to do something else, because I couldn't tell what was going on unless I was watching and reading!

The film is masterfully made, but little fun to watch.  There are some quiet, funny moments that are like the prize for sitting through the thing, and the expressions of the actors are so clear and well done that the subtitles are hardly needed at times.

And for those who felt like Shakespeare was out to depress his audiences, Ran is your best argument.  This movie is so tragic that it ends with a blind man, in a dress, alone, on the edge of a cliff.  Forget Citizen Kane,  Ran is your surest bet for making you need mood-altering medications.

While this movie is a masterpiece, it also reminds me of why films like this aren't really made any more . . . because audiences are lazy (myself included).  It was work to get through this film, and it was worth it.  But holy cow, if I knew what I was getting into, I would have avoided it like the plague.  Hmmm, what do you know, another reason to hate previews . . .

KATE SAYS this is a really long film. I watched it with the commentary by Stephen Prince, who just loves the film. I found the commentary not only helpful in understanding the film but fun in and of itself: Prince is just so enthusiastic! (He especially praises Kurosawa for building a $1 million set--the 3rd castle--and then burning it down: no CGI!)

My first impression is that the film is truly thematic--it looks like a movie. And there are some stunning, visual sequences that remind us that films are, in fact, supposed to visual. The old king leaving the 3rd castle is a great example.

My second reaction is that King Lear, the play, lends itself to a wide range of political interpretations. Shakespeare rarely concerned himself with historical context--he is the ultimate character-driven writer. Prince states that the lack of background information in Shakespeare's play bothered Kurosawa (how did King Lear become king?) and sought to rectify this by giving Hidetora a samurai background of constant war.

My thought: all directors do this with Lear. It is as if Shakespeare expertly, cleanly created the ultimate frame story to explore complex political events without the side-effect of excessive confusion. It isn't just that Shakespeare fell back on a stock narrative; it is that he created the fundamental stock myth of character and politics: King Lear can be set in just about any time period and location.

Japanese retellings of Shakespeare are particularly effective: I've seen Shogun MacBeth (live performance) as well as Ran. In some ways, the medieval mentality between Japan and Europe is surprisingly transferable.

I did miss the original characters Gloucester and his sons Edgar and Edmund. Their mirror-story to Lear includes some strong material. But Kurosawa is more interested in the aging king and the MacBeth-like sub-plot with Lady Kaeda.

The Fool, interestingly enough, is the same, being a sharp, ambiguous character within his own right (rather than just a comedic foil).

My third thought: as I stated above, this is a really long film that takes a really long time to say something fairly basic. But then I'm a product of the "Sesame Street" generation (even though I grew up in a house without a television, so it isn't fair to blame Sesame Street). But if it makes people happy, who I am to complain? In fact, this film kind of reminds me of 2001 and Star Trek: The Motion Picture: you can turn it on, leave the room, bake a cake, cut your cat's nails, start a religion, find a cure for cancer, save the universe, come back--it's still going!! A true epic!!