Ran (1985) [Re-upload] [Film Review]

Ran; or, King Lear done right

     In a world gone mad, it’s madness to be sane.

The herein review was created out of my conference presentation about King Lear in late 2015. Later, the post-conference publication was in preparations, so I deleted the review as I incorporated some of the excerpts into the article. However, the publication never came to fruition, thus I decided to re-upload the original review.

Release Info

Directed by: Akira Kurosawa Starring: Tatsuya Nakadai, Daisuke Ryû, Mieko Harada, Yoshiko Miyazaki

Language: Japanese Original Title: Ran Runtime: 160 min

 

Plot

Set in the Sengoku period, we follow the life of Lord Hidetora Ichimonji (played by the epic Tatsuya Nakadai) who decides that it’s high time to retire and thus divides the kingdom between his three sons Taro (Akira Terao), Jiro (Jinpachi Nezu), and Saburo (Daisuke Ryû). Needless to say, Saburo is the only son sane enough to warn his father about probable disloyalty of his offspring, but Hidetora rejects such accusation and banishes the youngest heir, giving only Taro and Jiro a share in the land. Well, not very long afterwards, it turns out that indeed Hidetora’s sons turn against him, stripping him of his title and massacring his troops. Devastated and on the brink of madness Hidetora, with a faithful Fool (Pîtâ) to accompany him, is on the run through a raging war in Ichimonji kingdom. The father’s only hope for redemption is his rejected son Saburo.

 

The pain of adapting Shakespeare

Obviously, as with the rest of Shakespeare’s plays, King Lear has had countless cinematic adaptations with many big-name actors starring in the leading role, and Kurosawa already had his takes on Shakespeare before with the famous Throne of Blood and The Bad Sleep Well. However, it was twenty years after these two films when he finally decided to make Ran. On a side note, the title is not an English verb, but a Japanese word meaning “chaos”. In a nutshell, we can sum up Ran as a pessimistic study of the lust for power, betrayal of the father, and the outbreak of morbid wars. This film is the most grim, dark, and depressing motion picture out of the whole of Kurosawa’s repertoire, completely contradicting the social and often optimistic messages of his previous films (such as Seven Samurai, Yojimbo, and Sanjuro).

 

Lesson of the Three Arrows

Allegedly, Kurosawa became inspired by the so-called “Lesson of the Three Arrows,” a tale about a Japanese warlord who handed each of his sons an arrow, asking each to break it. Then handed each son three arrows, requesting all three be broken together. The inability to do so implied the message “united we stand”. However, Kurosawa stated the following: “When I read that three arrows together are invincible, that’s not true. I started doubting, and that’s when I started thinking: the house was prosperous and the sons were courageous. What if this fascinating man had bad sons?”

That’s why Lord Hidetora has sons in the story (not daughters, as in the play): Taro (first son), Jiro (second son), and Saburo (third son); and it’s the youngest of the whole bunch who breaks the three arrows by snapping them against his knee, reiterating in this way the horrible truth to his ignorant father.

King Lear vs. Lord Hidetora

Highly interesting is the also the change which Kurosawa made with regard to the main character of the tragedy. In the play, we get to know that Lear was the king of Britain, a man “more sinned against than sinning”, and a blind ignorant trying to be the king without any responsibilities. Paradoxically, Kurosawa wanted to create “Lear with history,” a man haunted by his past misdeeds. In contrast to Lear, Hidetora is, or used to be, a bloodthirsty monster, a tyrant who created his kingdom out of the ashes of conquered lands by ruthlessly killing women and children. Naturally, the obvious choice to play such a badass character would be Toshiro Mifune who did an amazing job in the previous Kurosawa’s adaptations of Shakespeare, yet considering the fact that Mifune and Kurosawa were cross with each other since the making of Red Beard, a not so obvious second-choice man was hired for the part.

 

In my opinion, Tatsuya Nakadai in Ran gave the most outstanding performance in his entire acting career. Crappy latex make-up to make him look like an 80-year-old did not stop Nakadai from the stealing the show for himself and providing one of the most interesting as well as menacing interpretations of Lear. In addition, it should be pointed out that the actor did most of the stunts himself, including getting out of the castle that was really on fire! (The best sequence in the whole picture).

 

Frail men, strong women 

Another interesting addition to the original story is also the preservation of a woman as the evildoer. In King Lear, the daughters do the dirty job, but in the movie it’s Lady Kaede (Mieko Harada) who pulls the strings. She encourages the two sons to rebel against their father and later turn against each other, thus leading to the fall of the Ichimonji clan. That wicked witch is literally an impersonation of bad karma.

 

Nevertheless, on the other hand, Kurosawa does not so much amplify female viciousness but puts it in question. Apart from Kaede there’s also Sue (Yoshiko Miyazaki), a girl whose family was slaughtered by Hidetora, but the king spared her and treated… as a sort of a pet in his court. She is the only one apart from Saburo who is truly kind to Hidetora for she finds strength and consolation in the teachings of Buddha, informing Hidetora about the working of Karma before all hell breaks loose.

Last but not least, there’s also the issue of irony presented in the movie. When running along with the Fool, the two engage into pondering upon existential matters. When mad Hidetora states pitifully “I’m lost”, the Fool replies ironically “All men are lost,” enhancing the nihilistic tone of the whole picture.

 

Recommendations

All in all, what makes Ran such a unique adaptation of Shakespeare? Well, it’s certainly a visual masterpiece that everyone should watch before they die, but it’s great for it transposes the themes from the original play (chaos, injustice, madness, reconciliation), and also adds new motifs which amplify the original ones (gender reversal, irony, religion, violence, and bloodshed). I even dare say that the relation of Ran to King Lear can be described as the same of an exceptionally beautiful painting to a well written description of it. In other words, Ran is the visual extension of Lear.

Overall score: 10/10

If you're interested in finding out more about Ran, check out the following books:
Galloway, Patrick. 2009. Warring Clans, Flashing Blades: A Samurai Film Companion. Berkeley: Stone Bridge Press. (p. 63-69)
Prince, Stephen. 1991. The Warrior’s Camera. Princeton: Princeton University Press. (p. 284-291)