16 The Idiot

Discuss releases by Eureka and Masters of Cinema and the films on them.
Message
Author
User avatar
Michael Kerpan
Spelling Bee Champeen
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 1:20 pm
Location: New England
Contact:

#26 Post by Michael Kerpan » Sun Dec 11, 2005 2:15 am

Because of the sound problem on the first copies of this DVD -- and because I really wanted to sample this restored version of the film so badly -- I tried watching Idiot as a quasi-silent film (with subs instead of intertitles). I was surprised how silent-like this film was (so unlike most other Kurosawa).

Despite Shochiku's butchery, I am tempted to believe this could be AK's greatest film. I listened to the introduction, which recounted some of the standard criticisms -- and then looked at the film -- and just don't understand the criticism of the performances. Mifune is virtually perfect here -- and the other three leads are almost as perfect -- and the supporting roles (especially Chieo Higashiyama) are superbly handled.

And the cinematography.... Just some of the most stunning ever.

User avatar
denti alligator
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 9:36 pm
Location: "born in heaven, raised in hell"

#27 Post by denti alligator » Sun Dec 11, 2005 4:04 pm

Despite Shochiku's butchery
How bad can this be? Does he play the Prince Myshkin role?

User avatar
Michael Kerpan
Spelling Bee Champeen
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 1:20 pm
Location: New England
Contact:

#28 Post by Michael Kerpan » Sun Dec 11, 2005 4:26 pm

denti alligator wrote:
Despite Shochiku's butchery
How bad can this be? Does he play the Prince Myshkin role?
Mifune plays Rogozhin, Mori is Myshkin. Both are superb. As are Hara as Nastashya Filipovna and Yoshiko Kuga as Aglaya. Chieko Higashiyama and Takashi Shimura are also wonderful as Aglaya's parents.

Kurosawa's film was 265 minutes (in two parts). Shochiku cut out around 100 minutes -- and it is clear that some sections are ruthlessly (and stupidly slashed) -- while essential sections are gone completely (reduced to a couple of sentences of text screen).

User avatar
denti alligator
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 9:36 pm
Location: "born in heaven, raised in hell"

#29 Post by denti alligator » Sun Dec 11, 2005 11:14 pm

Sorry, Michael. I thought you were referring to one of the actors. Didn't match any names listed at imdb, so I was a bit confused. Thanks for clarifying. Too bad that longer version doesn't exist anymore.

User avatar
Michael Kerpan
Spelling Bee Champeen
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 1:20 pm
Location: New England
Contact:

#30 Post by Michael Kerpan » Mon Dec 12, 2005 9:19 am

denti alligator wrote:Sorry, Michael. I thought you were referring to one of the actors. Didn't match any names listed at imdb, so I was a bit confused. Thanks for clarifying. Too bad that longer version doesn't exist anymore.
Shochiku is, of course, the film company that "owned" (or should that be "pwned" "Idiot". ;~}

For a long time, Kurosawa and Shochiku weren't on spealking tems -- but he did eventually make "Rhapsody in Augist" for them. While doing so, he took the opportunity to scavenge through the studio's archives, trying to find any remains of his original "Idiot". Alas, he found nothing. Still, he didn't search everything -- so maybe the uncut version will turn up someday (though I doubt it). ;~{

User avatar
colinr0380
Joined: Mon Nov 08, 2004 4:30 pm
Location: Chapel-en-le-Frith, Derbyshire, UK

#31 Post by colinr0380 » Mon Dec 19, 2005 9:36 am

Michael Kerpan wrote:Kurosawa's film was 265 minutes (in two parts). Shochiku cut out around 100 minutes -- and it is clear that some sections are ruthlessly (and stupidly slashed) -- while essential sections are gone completely (reduced to a couple of sentences of text screen).
It seems absurd to me that the studio would have done this to the film or thought this would make the film better. Yes it was extremely long (although it doesn't feel that way), but I can't imagine many people who didn't want to see the 265 minute version thinking "wow, I'll go and see it now it is 165 minutes!". It seems like a petty way of editing the film, just to show they could do it.

It is a great shame that it was edited, although the DVD is a great presentation of the film as it stands now and I must thank peerpee for sending the replacement disc so quickly after my pm earlier this week. The Alex Cox introduction on the disc was great and it was fun to have the scene at the party where Setsuko Hara crosses the room and has a drink in three wipes pointed out!

I'm not that familiar with Dostoyevsky (I've only read Crime and Punishment so far) but I found the film engrossing and as with many of Kurosawa films makes even the most difficult, interior material accessible. In this shorter version I think I can make out subplots that were probably more important in the novel and were perhaps part of the missing footage - such as the character of Karube who we only hear about as Ayako's mother and father talk about him pressurising them on behalf of Mori's character. I guess there would be scenes between him and Mori with the character playing on Mori's 'idiotic' nature to make some money out of the situation of the farm having been sold. As it stands we only see Karube in the scene in which his deception on both sides is revealed and he is sent packing (bringing up issues of misunderstanding that come up again in other work by Kurosawa such as Red Beard) and if there had been more scenes of Karube it would perhaps have been one of the major climaxes of the film, as Ayako's mother realises the truth (and this would also have brought up issues of her own selfishness in helping Mori's character out to cover up their sale of the farm that Karube would have exposed if he had pressed the issue any more). Are scenes like that, or scenes with more of Ayako's mother and father and their motivations, or interaction between Ayako and her brother and sister
SpoilerShow
(especially since the brother plays an important part at the end of the film)
or Mifune and his gang the type of thing that was in the Dostoyevsky and might have been part of the longer version of the film?

Did anyone notice the way that Kurosawa's style was used with this material? I'm thinking of the end of the party sequence where Hara and Mifune leave Mori standing there and then you have the sweep of Mifune's gang between the camera and Mori, very similar to the way Kurosawa filmed his battle scenes!

I also liked the way that the camera mostly stayed static and when it was moved it seemed to be done to eliminate or introduce characters into the frame (and the thoughts) of the others. I'm thinking here of moments like the proposal scene around the table or those in the masterful party scene where a number of characters are introduced, relegated, and fight their way back to centre stage.
Last edited by colinr0380 on Mon Apr 21, 2008 6:04 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Michael Kerpan
Spelling Bee Champeen
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 1:20 pm
Location: New England
Contact:

#32 Post by Michael Kerpan » Wed Dec 21, 2005 1:19 pm

My replacement received too -- and watched (almost) immediately. Thanks, peerpee!

My affection for this film is only deepened by this excellent new release. Despite Shochiku's cuts -- and a very weak (mercifully brief) epilog -- this is now my favorite Kurosawa film (edging out "Red Beard"). I stand in absolute awe of the visual mastery (and extraordinary acting) on display in this film.

User avatar
shirobamba
Joined: Wed Mar 09, 2005 1:23 pm
Location: Germany

#33 Post by shirobamba » Wed Dec 21, 2005 3:11 pm

Michael Kerpan wrote:My replacement received too -- and watched (almost) immediately. Thanks, peerpee!

My affection for this film is only deepened by this excellent new release. Despite Shochiku's cuts -- and a very weak (mercifully brief) epilog -- this is now my favorite Kurosawa film (edging out "Red Beard"). I stand in absolute awe of the visual mastery (and extraordinary acting) on display in this film.
Seconded, Michael! After upgrading from a terrible HK DVD with very imaginative subtitles, I plunged into the MoC version yesterday, and I'm flatted by the visual excellence of Kurosawa's vision.
Scriptwise this must be the best adaption of any Dostoyevsky on film, and one can only speculate, what a masterpiece the original version must have been. (Though there's hope, that if we live long enough, the missing materials might surface from the vaults of Shochiku, as Alex Cox indicated.)
Especially the setting in snowbound Hokkaido seems a stroke of genius to me, allowing K. incredible abstract compositions, while at the same time stressing the metaphorical and psychological meaning of the landscape. (Wonderful: the Sapporo ice festival!! with the masked skaters as a danse macabre.)

I allow myself to express a bit of doubt about the "extraordinary acting", at least of Mifune, who overacts a lot, especially his grimacing during his confrontations with Kameda/Mori seems a bit too exaggerated, and looks, as if he imagined himself in a silent film.

Now, about the favorites, there's still strong competition from the likes as "Ikiru" and "Red Beard". I guess in the end of the day, there's not much difference in quality between them, though I admit, that the latter two are leaning far more towards the sentimental.

And finally I ask myself what idiots at Shochiku are responsible for the scandal of the shape of the soundtrack of this "best" available source.

User avatar
Michael Kerpan
Spelling Bee Champeen
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 1:20 pm
Location: New England
Contact:

#34 Post by Michael Kerpan » Thu Dec 22, 2005 9:34 am

> And finally I ask myself what idiots at Shochiku are responsible for
> the scandal of the shape of the soundtrack of this "best" available
> source.

It seems to me that the sound quality of many (most) Shochiku films during the 40s and dawn of the 50s is problematic. The 1937 "What Did the Lady Forget" strikes me as sounding better than the 1947 "Record of a Tenement Gentleman", for instance (and let's not think about the war-time Ozu films). I can't imagine what the problem might be.

> I allow myself to express a bit of doubt about the "extraordinary
> acting", at least of Mifune

Different strokes for different folks. ;~} I loved the silent film nature of the acting here.

Dipping into the novel, I note AK's version is radically simplified from the novel (and probably this would still be true -- even if the "lost 100 minutes" were found).

User avatar
Lino
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 6:18 am
Location: Sitting End
Contact:

#35 Post by Lino » Thu Dec 29, 2005 1:21 pm


Murasaki53
Joined: Sun Jul 02, 2006 2:54 am

#36 Post by Murasaki53 » Sun Apr 20, 2008 6:26 am

Finally got around to watching this. And it just seems to consist of scene after scene of overwrought soul-baring.

It's left me wondering whether the missing 100 minutes is just more of the same.

But then in Kozintsev's King Lear: the Space of Tragedy I read this:

"Kurosawa's Idiot, I thought, was a miraculous transformation of a classic onto the screen. Dostoevsky's pages came to life, words - the subtlest definitions - took shape. I saw Rogozhin's eyes on the screen, wild, flaming, burning coals of fire - exactly the eyes that Dostoevsky described...I found myself in Dostoevsky's world...among...the fantastic collection of his characters - their strange encounters and partings."

He then goes on to say that what he most admired about the film was Kurosawa's ability to "express on screen the 'fantastic reality' about which the author wrote so persistently."

So in order to be faithful to the novel, did Kurosawa actually intend the acting to be this overheated?

I'd really like to know because in spite of my seemingly dismissive opening comments I keep thinking about this film and its strange intensity. It definitely has something in spite of itself.

User avatar
Michael Kerpan
Spelling Bee Champeen
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 1:20 pm
Location: New England
Contact:

#37 Post by Michael Kerpan » Sun Apr 20, 2008 11:37 am

All I can say is that Idiot is my favorite novel (along with Austen's Persuasion), and from the first time I saw Kurosawa's film, I was stunned by how perfectly he caught the spirit of the novel. Nothing here struck me as overacting.

This is the film that caused me to re-assess my dismissal of Kurosawa -- after my severe allergic reaction to Rashomon many years before.

Murasaki53
Joined: Sun Jul 02, 2006 2:54 am

#38 Post by Murasaki53 » Sun Apr 20, 2008 12:45 pm

Hi Michael,
I wouldn't say that there's overacting in this film. It's just that almost every scene is climactic.

And this left me wondering whether the novel is anything like that.

This film is exercising a strange kind of hold over me. If those missing 100 minutes were miraculously rediscovered, I'd be after the DVD in spite of my reservations.

Alphonso

#39 Post by Alphonso » Sun Apr 20, 2008 3:18 pm

Michael Kerpan wrote:This is the film that caused me to re-assess my dismissal of Kurosawa -- after my severe allergic reaction to Rashomon many years before.
You're allergic to the intelligent and ground-breaking?

User avatar
sidehacker
Joined: Sat Mar 17, 2007 2:49 am
Location: Bowling Green, Ohio
Contact:

#40 Post by sidehacker » Sun Apr 20, 2008 3:41 pm

No, he said Rashomon, which is none of those things. Ground-breaking, I'll give you that, but only in a historical sense as it sparked a worldwide interest in Japanese cinema. On it's own terms, though? Pretty unremarkable. I am on The Idiot side when it comes to the two groups of Kurosawa fans.

User avatar
Michael Kerpan
Spelling Bee Champeen
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 1:20 pm
Location: New England
Contact:

#41 Post by Michael Kerpan » Sun Apr 20, 2008 4:53 pm

Rashomon has wonderful cinematography (as one would expect, given the involvement of Miyagawa), but that about as far as my admiration goes (even after AK's general rehabilitation). And, to tell the truth, I love Ubukata's cinematography in Idiot even more than Miyagawa's in Rashomon.

User avatar
Tommaso
Joined: Fri May 19, 2006 10:09 am

#42 Post by Tommaso » Mon Apr 21, 2008 5:02 am

sidehacker wrote:No, he said Rashomon, which is none of those things. Ground-breaking, I'll give you that, but only in a historical sense as it sparked a worldwide interest in Japanese cinema. On it's own terms, though? Pretty unremarkable. I am on The Idiot side when it comes to the two groups of Kurosawa fans.
Hey, there's a need for a third group for people who love both these films, and I'm definitely in it (after all, I can't think of any Kurosawa film I'd dismiss completely, apart from "Sugata II" perhaps). The fact that "Rashomon" sparked a worldwide interest in Japanese films isn't much important for me; what I find indeed groundbreaking is the idea of showing us the same story four times from different points-of-view. I'm not sure whether Kuro actually was the first who did that (if anyone knows earlier examples, please tell them, I'm curious), but the effect was thought-provoking and marvellously executed. The whole film's look is pretty wonderful as well, not just because of the cinematography, but also because of the costumes, for example. The only shortcoming for me is Mifune, to whose 'overacting' style you'd have to get used, here more than in most other films I've seen with him. But apart from this, it's completely unclear for me why Michael doesn't like the film (but, well, he also doesn't like "Ran"...).

User avatar
colinr0380
Joined: Mon Nov 08, 2004 4:30 pm
Location: Chapel-en-le-Frith, Derbyshire, UK

#43 Post by colinr0380 » Mon Apr 21, 2008 9:52 am

Tommaso wrote:The only shortcoming for me is Mifune, to whose 'overacting' style you'd have to get used, here more than in most other films I've seen with him. But apart from this, it's completely unclear for me why Michael doesn't like the film (but, well, he also doesn't like "Ran"...).
I don't mind Rashomon too much (after all I did use an image from it as my avatar here for three years!) and actually have no trouble with Mifune's (or Mori's or Kyo's) overacting, which fits in well with the idea Kurosawa seems to be trying to get across which is that there is no way of getting at an objective 'truth' because our sense of reality is filtered through our own perception which can blind us to the realities of a situation (even the ghost cannot be trusted!) either consciously by wanting to hide the 'truth' or unconsciously by prejudice and that maybe there is no such thing as 'reality'.

I don't want to speak for Michael Kerpan but for me while this is an interesting and beautifully created argument for this point of view, it is one which I do not fully buy into. I feel Red Beard is the perfect companion for Rashomon as this theme of perception is more fully developed and there is the suggestion that while people perceive things through their personal biases and baggage and sometimes make wrong decisions because of that there is actually a wider world beyond ourselves - a world created through interaction and mutual understanding and empathy created by trying to put ourselves to one side when considering others (i.e. just because I'd kill someone for their money it doesn't mean I can apply the same to the way everyone else would act in that situation).

Rashomon, by suggesting there is no truth to be found creates a cyncial, individualistic world where 'good' and 'bad' acts are relative, only redeemed by conscious physical acts of kindness, such as the woodcutter with the baby at the end of the film. Red Beard through an optimistic, maybe even naive, world that immediately confronts people with the errors of judgement they make of others suggests that all people are flawed but worth understanding (you need to understand the motivations behind superficially bad acts before you write a person off) and that you can do this not by having to make any grand gestures yourself but simply by treating others with respect and understanding that 'bad' actions might have a deeper meaning.

I suppose 'reality' is somewhere in the middle!

User avatar
Michael Kerpan
Spelling Bee Champeen
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 1:20 pm
Location: New England
Contact:

#44 Post by Michael Kerpan » Mon Apr 21, 2008 10:03 am

This is a thread to sing the glories of Idiot -- not pick at the flaws of Rashomon. ;~}

One thought -- almost all the acting in Rashomon bothers me a lot (to me, Mifune is not any more bothersome than the rest). But I think what really hurts the film is the frame Kurosawa imposes on it -- that over-the-top (and totally unbelievable) monk really aggravates me.

I think Idiot features some of the most perfect performances in all of AK's catalog of films (all four of the leads -- plus Chieko Higashiyama -- who might be the most perfect of all in terms of nailing Dostoevsky's character).

Murasaki53
Joined: Sun Jul 02, 2006 2:54 am

#45 Post by Murasaki53 » Mon Apr 21, 2008 12:13 pm

Is it possible to argue that just as some of the characters in the Idiot are almost deleriously self-obsessed that in Rashomon we also meet protagonists that bend the truth of an event their way?

User avatar
colinr0380
Joined: Mon Nov 08, 2004 4:30 pm
Location: Chapel-en-le-Frith, Derbyshire, UK

#46 Post by colinr0380 » Mon Apr 21, 2008 1:39 pm

I guess the difference is that Rashomon is actively showing these different interpretations as being impossible to reconcile while The Idiot takes place in a relatively realistic world where the characters are having their consciences pricked by someone who reflects their compromises and flaws back in their faces through no fault of his own.

By being in the presence of someone 'truly' good it throws new light on the character's situations and makes them contemplate actions they otherwise would never have questioned or accepted as necessary. It also feels like a move of relativity - shifting from major actions such as rape and murder to more minor, but just as important, situations of being pimped out in marriage or stealing someone's property (maybe one and the same thing!) and a move from action being disputed to emotions changing perspective, with characters coming to different conclusions about the same events based more obviously on the way they feel than on literal events being disputed.

I love The Idiot, however I still feel that Red Beard is the masterpiece that Kurosawa was working his way through to as that film moves beyond the need for a catalyst character to knock all the others into their dilemmas, instead showing in intimate epic fashion the way that we are presented with little examples of how to live our lives throughout our life and it just takes being open to the world and understanding of what it is that we see to notice them - and to be less harsh of others who may not notice.
Last edited by colinr0380 on Wed Apr 23, 2008 4:45 pm, edited 3 times in total.

User avatar
HerrSchreck
Joined: Sun Sep 04, 2005 11:46 am

#47 Post by HerrSchreck » Mon Apr 21, 2008 4:18 pm

colinr0380 wrote:
Tommaso wrote:The only shortcoming for me is Mifune, to whose 'overacting' style you'd have to get used, here more than in most other films I've seen with him. But apart from this, it's completely unclear for me why Michael doesn't like the film (but, well, he also doesn't like "Ran"...).
I don't mind Rashomon too much (after all I did use an image from it as my avatar here for three years!) and actually have no trouble with Mifune's (or Mori's or Kyo's) overacting, which fits in well with the idea Kurosawa seems to be trying to get across which is that there is no way of getting at an objective 'truth' because our sense of reality is filtered through our own perception which can blind us to the realities of a situation (even the ghost cannot be trusted!) either consciously by wanting to hide the 'truth' or unconsciously by prejudice and that maybe there is no such thing as 'reality'.

I don't want to speak for Michael Kerpan but for me while this is an interesting and beautifully created argument for this point of view, it is one which I do not fully buy into. I feel Red Beard is the perfect companion for Rashomon as this theme of perception is more fully developed and there is the suggestion that while people perceive things through their personal biases and baggage and sometimes make wrong decisions because of that there is actually a wider world beyond ourselves - a world created through interaction and mutual understanding and empathy created by trying to put ourselves to one side when considering others (i.e. just because I'd kill someone for their money it doesn't mean I can apply the same to the way everyone else would act in that situation).

Rashomon, by suggesting there is no truth to be found creates a cyncial, individualistic world where 'good' and 'bad' acts are relative, only redeemed by conscious physical acts of kindness, such as the woodcutter with the baby at the end of the film. Red Beard through an optimistic, maybe even naive, world that immediately confronts people with the errors of judgement they make of others suggests that all people are flawed but worth understanding (you need to understand the motivations behind superficially bad acts before you write a person off) and that you can do this not by having to make any grand gestures yourself but simply by treating others with respect and understanding that 'bad' actions might have a deeper meaning.

I suppose 'reality' is somewhere in the middle!
A great post colin, and really gets the the meat of the matter... I think the conflict resident in the conflicting visions of each film is very much relevant today viz competing visions of the world. Todays media/information glut-- epitomized by the internet-- finds people very easily able to use it (say the web) to locate a community that reaffirms a preexisting point of view. Folks go on the web looking for a community of like-minded folks. Are you a WW2 reenactor? Flower arranging? Jesus freak? Into B&D? Into pics of dead people? Contemplating suicide? The web will plug you into a vast preexisting community of like minded folks with that same singular obsession. The nature of cooperation has led to a fear of offense and a general "hands-off" notion when it comes to criticizing your brothers notion of reality. When folks arent hurting one another this is generally a good thing.

I think this is why there are Rashomon ripoffs today (Crash, that new one thats all over busstops right now). The web has taught people to speak more about the thngs they like (and find affirmation on in the web), but stay quiet about the things they don't. "Don't be a troll." People are consciously learning to hold their tongue whereas in the past they would speak freely and offend whomever wasn't "represented" or "visible".. i e in the fringe. an "easy target".

Redbeard, which I agree is AK's masterpiece (I like Rashomon too, but dont own it) gets at the issue of ethics, and the measurement of individuals viz their own life. It gets to the core issue of empathy, and the ability to look across lines of personal lives to view what its like over there with this group, that group, etc. And that it is possible to tune into a more expansive frequency of reality via empathy... and that, beyond the "live and let live" code, you can 1) be a Dynamite Human Being, and 2) NOT a moralizing right wing shit. The ideal "truth" that you speak of somewhere in the middle ground Colin is, imho, when a left-leaning person can stay away from "condemnatory morality" (i e hypocrite christians), yet have the ethics that kick in to recognize when suffering and ignorance have gone too far. And that genuine goodness requires a complete absence of "morality" or judgment in cases where others would classically do nothing but. Redbeard has turned off all judgment of the actions of the poor in his clinic. His proximity to life (i e Rashomon) doesn't inform his ideas about the whores, the alcoholics, etc he treats... unless to say "I am learned enough to see that these people are merely trying to survive in a system grinding them into the dust." That's a man who is thinking anti-rashomon-style, and employing empathy.

Thems are rare individuals indeed.

And I loved The Idiot.

User avatar
Michael Kerpan
Spelling Bee Champeen
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 1:20 pm
Location: New England
Contact:

#48 Post by Michael Kerpan » Mon Apr 21, 2008 4:40 pm

If it had been Red Beard or The Idiot that I had seen decades ago, instead of Rashomon, how different my (cinematic, at least) life would have been.

;~}

(What's so wonderful about Red Beard is that it says that even those of who are not saints can at least learn live like a good human being..)

Post Reply