(no subject)
Kumonosu Jo/Throne of Blood
Kurosawa Akira
1957
I came into this movie with some important reference points which may have interfered with my experience of the film: Ran, Kurosawa's adaptation of King Lear and of course Macbeth, my favorite of Shakespeare's works. Ran and, to a lesser extent, Rashomon influenced my expectations of Throne of Blood primarily in that I had high expectations for the cinematography and mise-en-scene. Ran is an intensely beautiful color film and Rashomon in many ways sets the standard for Kurosawa's black and white works. I expected to like the visual aspect of Throne of Blood but I also expected to feel that it would have been better in color. For the first time in my experience, this expectation was dead wrong. I cannot imagine Throne of Blood in color. Without going into too much detail, I feel that Kurosawa's work in this film equals if not surpasses Rashomon and Seven Samurai and is utterly incomparable to Ran insofar as Ran is beautiful for its aesthetic alone while Throne of Blood is beautiful in the way it's aesthetic blends with and reinforces its thematic elements. More than any other Kurosawa film, I feel that Throne of Blood was a seamless and powerful experience. That is not to say that it was a more powerful film than Ikiru - for me it absolutely wasn't. But all its elements blended together sublimely in a way that seems more relevant than in any of his other works that I have seen.
Unfortunately, my knowledge of Macbeth served to interfere with my enjoyment of Throne of Blood moreso than it reinforced it. While Throne of Blood is an excellent adaptation and I feel that the direction Kurosawa took the story in was completely legitimate, I ultimately like Shakespeare's story better. The problem that stuck with me the most deals with the scope of the tragedy and the way the story is mirrored. Macbeth's structure is incredible insofar as Shakespeare crafts the play such that the final act mirrors the first act in ways that heavily emphasize and elucidate on critical thematic elements. This mirroring is both overt and subtle. Kurosawa does an admirable job emulating this strategy from a technical perspective (for example, some of the shots in the final act are brilliantly reflective of shots early in the film), but I feel that certain choices he made actively counter some of Shakespeare's points. Feel free to tune this next bit out -- most of you probably aren't as nerdy as I am when it comes to this stuff --
One of the things I love about Macbeth is how the titular character ends up becoming exactly what he fights against early in the play. Not only does he become a traitor by killing his lord, but he ends up relying on the same methods of power to wage war as the traitors did. He defends his castle in the final act with the same mercenaries that he battled against in the first act, while his enemies attack his castle with both the men who abandoned him and the aid of England. In Throne of Blood, it is the prince and Noriyasu who enlist the aid of the enemies that Washizu fought early in the film and Washizu continues to fight alongside the troops loyal to Spider's Web Castle. They do betray him in the end, but it just doesn't give the same sense of hypocrisy that Shakespeare's version did.
Furthermore, the scope of tragedy in Throne of Blood seems much narrower than that in Macbeth. In Macbeth, part of the tragedy is that not only does a formally noble lord become an utterly despicable traitor, but he causes immense destruction in the process. His initial narrow treachery breeds a much more epic disorder. In Throne of Blood, it's much less clear. It's not clear to me whether or not a battle was actually fought in the end. Washizu assumes that his troops with surrender and offer his head as a token of loyalty to the conquering Noriyasu, but the song in both the beginning and end of the film suggests that perhaps the battle was fought anyway, causing grievous loss to both sides. If this suggestion is correct, then I reverse my claim and actually prefer Kurosawa's version of the tragedy, as it is far more stinging that such a needless battle occured even after Washizu was betrayed by his own men. If the destruction recounted in the end is merely a more poetic way of describing the rise and fall of Washizu, however, then Kurosawa limits the scope of the tragedy to Washizu himself which I feel blunts the impact of the theme.
All in all, its an excellent film and easily my second favorite of Kurosawa's works (behind Ikiru).
Kurosawa Akira
1957
I came into this movie with some important reference points which may have interfered with my experience of the film: Ran, Kurosawa's adaptation of King Lear and of course Macbeth, my favorite of Shakespeare's works. Ran and, to a lesser extent, Rashomon influenced my expectations of Throne of Blood primarily in that I had high expectations for the cinematography and mise-en-scene. Ran is an intensely beautiful color film and Rashomon in many ways sets the standard for Kurosawa's black and white works. I expected to like the visual aspect of Throne of Blood but I also expected to feel that it would have been better in color. For the first time in my experience, this expectation was dead wrong. I cannot imagine Throne of Blood in color. Without going into too much detail, I feel that Kurosawa's work in this film equals if not surpasses Rashomon and Seven Samurai and is utterly incomparable to Ran insofar as Ran is beautiful for its aesthetic alone while Throne of Blood is beautiful in the way it's aesthetic blends with and reinforces its thematic elements. More than any other Kurosawa film, I feel that Throne of Blood was a seamless and powerful experience. That is not to say that it was a more powerful film than Ikiru - for me it absolutely wasn't. But all its elements blended together sublimely in a way that seems more relevant than in any of his other works that I have seen.
Unfortunately, my knowledge of Macbeth served to interfere with my enjoyment of Throne of Blood moreso than it reinforced it. While Throne of Blood is an excellent adaptation and I feel that the direction Kurosawa took the story in was completely legitimate, I ultimately like Shakespeare's story better. The problem that stuck with me the most deals with the scope of the tragedy and the way the story is mirrored. Macbeth's structure is incredible insofar as Shakespeare crafts the play such that the final act mirrors the first act in ways that heavily emphasize and elucidate on critical thematic elements. This mirroring is both overt and subtle. Kurosawa does an admirable job emulating this strategy from a technical perspective (for example, some of the shots in the final act are brilliantly reflective of shots early in the film), but I feel that certain choices he made actively counter some of Shakespeare's points. Feel free to tune this next bit out -- most of you probably aren't as nerdy as I am when it comes to this stuff --
One of the things I love about Macbeth is how the titular character ends up becoming exactly what he fights against early in the play. Not only does he become a traitor by killing his lord, but he ends up relying on the same methods of power to wage war as the traitors did. He defends his castle in the final act with the same mercenaries that he battled against in the first act, while his enemies attack his castle with both the men who abandoned him and the aid of England. In Throne of Blood, it is the prince and Noriyasu who enlist the aid of the enemies that Washizu fought early in the film and Washizu continues to fight alongside the troops loyal to Spider's Web Castle. They do betray him in the end, but it just doesn't give the same sense of hypocrisy that Shakespeare's version did.
Furthermore, the scope of tragedy in Throne of Blood seems much narrower than that in Macbeth. In Macbeth, part of the tragedy is that not only does a formally noble lord become an utterly despicable traitor, but he causes immense destruction in the process. His initial narrow treachery breeds a much more epic disorder. In Throne of Blood, it's much less clear. It's not clear to me whether or not a battle was actually fought in the end. Washizu assumes that his troops with surrender and offer his head as a token of loyalty to the conquering Noriyasu, but the song in both the beginning and end of the film suggests that perhaps the battle was fought anyway, causing grievous loss to both sides. If this suggestion is correct, then I reverse my claim and actually prefer Kurosawa's version of the tragedy, as it is far more stinging that such a needless battle occured even after Washizu was betrayed by his own men. If the destruction recounted in the end is merely a more poetic way of describing the rise and fall of Washizu, however, then Kurosawa limits the scope of the tragedy to Washizu himself which I feel blunts the impact of the theme.
All in all, its an excellent film and easily my second favorite of Kurosawa's works (behind Ikiru).