Movie: Ran

Just saw Ran… Kurosawa, the great Kurosawa. Same banal emotional response to the cover of the book – unable to see the parallels between Lear and Hideroto beyond the most obvious ones. But someone like Kurosawa must have nuance upon nuance in a nuance there. A simple story with an obvious moral to it but with an exquisite interweb of references not only within this work, but also with works of others both by himself as well as others. I can imagine getting great pleasure (significantly more than from this dilettantesque viewing that I had) that one might get from looking beyond the obvious… but, alas, takes time. And consistency, neither of which I seem to have.

Still, movies like this make me wonder about his purpose. Was it to tell “a tale of human folly”? Or to use that as a vessel for, almost, improvisation. After all, someone who has done extensive work as he must be relatively bored with the plainness of the self-evident truths that permeate this world all having roots in the ten commandments (or some other moral tablets/fiber)… Yet even in the beginning, then Saburo breaks the three arrows, it seems he is toying with the idea of there being something more to a tale than the obvious indicators… the integrity of some characters who happen to be on the wrong side, for instance (the General), the obligatory tragedy on a happy-ending high as Saburo gets shot with the backdrop of the blind man with his eyes gouged out losing his faith as he stumbles blind… Interesting how some thoughts only form when the situation is described…

Anyway, random thoughts on Ran… speaking of, what does Ran mean?



Filed under Uncategorized

2 responses to “Movie: Ran

  1. Anonymous


    Ran means chaos in japanese. This movie is extremely long and very very deep. I would recommend watching something lighter if you are really interested in japanese movies.

    Found ya,

    • Re: Ran

      Whoever said I don’t like deep? 😉 Suppose I did want to see something on the lighter side – recommendations?

      May be I am just not getting something, but Ran seemed deep in an obsolete sort of way – ideas that have been said… and since it was 1985, was he the first?

      It’s a bit strange how ideas tend to have a tendency to become hackneyed soon after being discovered :\

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s