|
Back
to Film Diary
On
Kurosawa's High and Low
May 25, 2003
in reply to:
-------------------------
As to M and
High and Low, I don't see more than a glimmer of similarity
in the chase and none in the characters. The beauty of Kurosawa's
work for me lay in all the ways he played with highness and
lowness, ethically, financially, with human love and heart,
with family, with cooperation, with respect, and with the
direction of will. The police supported the rich man the way
they did because of what he was as a man and his priorities.
Kurosawa kept stripping away one kind of wealth after another
and finding a deeper more important layer beneath it. That
is what makes it Kurosawa's most profound work for me. The
kidnapper knew he was lacking something and that he could
never be like the man he attempted to rob. True wealth would
have always eluded him as it did the shoe factory managers
who pushed Mifune's character out of the business. They were
separated by a gulf in understanding and heart.
---------------------------
I admit I overstated
my argument in comparing HIGH AND LOW unfavorably to M. But
whatever one can say on behalf of Kurosawa's film, I think
it would have been inconceivable without Lang's stylistic
and thematic groundwork. Both filmmakers have a highly schematized
approach to filmmaking -- although they both use well-placed
emotional bombs that give the impression that the story is
moving dynamically, even spontaneously, it seems all well
devised, structured and executed like a well-oiled machine.
I guess I was working in the direction of what is similar
about both, while you are making the case for the film's novel
achievements.
I really admire
the first half of your argument... but, as if mirroring my
experience of the film itself, I start to have doubts when
it comes to dealing with the kidnapper as a person.
-----------------------------
The kidnapper
knew he was lacking something and that he could never be like
the man he attempted to rob. True wealth would have always
eluded him as it did the shoe factory managers who pushed
Mifune's character out of the business. They were separated
by a gulf in understanding and heart.
----------------------------
I don't know if
you mean to, but the first sentence sounds one-sided towards
the Mifune character, as if for all his integrity and dignity
in the face of his professional and personal travails he was
above reproach. What I find insightful about this film is
that even though Mifune may be a hero in one context, he is,
by virtue of simply being who he was, a villain and a pillar
of oppression in the kidnapper's eyes. You say the kidnapper
knew he was lacking something and could never be like Mifune:
the question then is why? Is it because of the circumstances
of his life that contributed to his sociopathy? Or are we
to read it as the man is simply a bad guy, and a symbol of
all the tragic human evil that Mifune, for all of his stature
and might, simply cannot overcome nor ignore? I think these
are two very different readings that I find irreconcilable,
and for the movie to leave both open for the viewer to take
at the end is I think a flawed ambiguity on its part. I guess
what I dislike about this film is that even though it moves
both geographically and thematically from "high" to "low",
there's still an implicit "high" perspective that Kurosawa
is giving us -- even when we have a "low" person to empathize
with (the chauffeur) our pity is directed at him from above,
much like how Schindler looked at the Jews (esp. the girl
in pink, an idea which was obviously borrowed from HIGH AND
LOW) in SCHINDLER'S LIST. I guess I happen to prefer the "middle"
view offered by IKIRU, or the frantic up-down-up-down of SEVEN
SAMURAI, and one is not inherently better than the other.
Nonetheless I find
your argument interesting; it just reminds me a little too
much of the same basis for arguments for The White Man's Burden
and how sad it is that the Darker peoples can't be as noble
of mind and spirit (I'm certainly NOT implying that you subscribe
to that notion but the same mechanisms of logic are there,
I think). But it's possible I'm misunderstanding you at any
rate.
in
reply to:
3-26
--------------------------------
I think the
chauffeur and the executive are recognizing the same beauty
in righteousness and that the difference between them and
the other execs/kidnapper is in their priorities and values.
To me, this isn't about race or economics as it often seemed
with The Seven Samurai or about a lone act of tenacity and
kindness as it was with Ikiru. Mifune thought that he was
a great man because he was rich and could bend everyone to
his will. As the ability to be rich and bend everyone to his
will moved to the kidnapper, nothing of value was transferred.
When they were opposite each other at the end, they were both
bereft of much they had worked for but the kidnapper still
hated Mifune's character for his unattainable calm and the
former executive was still perplexed at why anyone would want
to act as the young man had. I doubt that he even hated the
young man for what he had done because he lived his life according
to what he had to do not out of jealousy or anger. The exec
was not faultless, but the choices he finally made in each
case were his true wealth and his willingness to recognize
the pleas of his wife and the heart of his chauffeur, and
his willingness to sit in the floor with his old tools helping
the police earned him an inexhaustible treasure in support.
From the kidnapper's point of view, the executive's loss of
dignity and control was weakness. He gloated that he was so
weak that he would pay the ransom even though it was not his
child. All the kidnapper had, however, was threat and intimidation.
He even truly despised himself. He had as much chance in intelligence
and professional ability to succeed as the shoe exec, who
had moved from building shoes to selling them, had, he simply
had no inner wealth to build on because of his skewed focus
about life.
------------------------------------
I must say this
is a thoughtful and even valiant account for the moral argument
underlying the film. I'd even say it contributes more than
other arguments I've read on the film's behalf, who seem so
taken in by the structural properties of the film that they
don't dwell as much on the moral content. I'm so impressed
that I won't stoop to use the same rebuttal that you and Lee
have done in the past with other films, "If this is the meaning
than how come others did't get it? Doesn't this mean the director
has failed to communicate his meaning" yadda yadda yadda.
I think great films both old and new should always inspire
new insights, some that may even reach beyond the grasp of
the director's stated intent, so long as they feel true and
valuable.
I don't know the
scripture that goes "don't judge another lest ye walk a mile
in his moccassins", but that would be the touchstone of my
response.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I think the
chauffeur and the executive are recognizing the same beauty
in righteousness and that the difference between them and
the other execs/kidnapper is in their priorities and values.
To me, this isn't about race or economics as it often seemed
with The Seven Samurai or about a lone act of tenacity and
kindness as it was with Ikiru.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What kind of bothers
me about your argument is that it doesn't completely trump
the basis of your own criticism of SEVEN SAMURAI as I remember
it, that is how the farmers are treated as an inferior class
in that film. What is Mifune in HIGH AND LOW but a modern
day samurai bound by his own honor in an honorless world,
and his chauffeur his loyal servant and thus a reflection
of his own honorable image? I don't know if asserting the
inferiority of certain humans due to moral depravity is THAT
much better than asserting inferiority due to class depravity,
even though I would never want to argue you completely out
of your position -- I just feel there's more to it than positing
the good over the evil in the world.
But this argument
here fascinates me, because it does speak to a kind of complexity
that I admire:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mifune thought
that he was a great man because he was rich and could bend
everyone to his will. As the ability to be rich and bend everyone
to his will moved to the kidnapper, nothing of value was transferred.
When they were opposite each other at the end, they were both
bereft of much they had worked for but the kidnapper still
hated Mifune's character for his unattainable calm and the
former executive was still perplexed at why anyone would want
to act as the young man had. I doubt that he even hated the
young man for what he had done because he lived his life according
to what he had to do not out of jealousy or anger. The exec
was not faultless, but the choices he finally made in each
case were his true wealth and his willingness to recognize
the pleas of his wife and the heart of his chauffeur, and
his willingness to sit in the floor with his old tools helping
the police earned him an inexhaustible treasure in support.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And I'd buy that
last sentence completely if the movie had ended at that point,
but it simply didn't. That might be one virtuous observation
Kurosawa lights upon over the course of the film, but I don't
think it's the ultimate one, which I would think would have
to happen at the end, esp. when the final moment is so memorable.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From the kidnapper's
point of view, the executive's loss of dignity and control
was weakness. He gloated that he was so weak that he would
pay the ransom even though it was not his child. All the kidnapper
had, however, was threat and intimidation. He even truly despised
himself. He had as much chance in intelligence and professional
ability to succeed as the shoe exec, who had moved from building
shoes to selling them, had, he simply had no inner wealth
to build on because of his skewed focus about life.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
But what I still
don't like is how the kidnapper comes out of this -- he seems
to be a foil for a moral argument put forward at his expense,
which I tend to find reductive. It's not that I'm sympathizing
with his actions, I just want to be able to see him as a three-dimensional
figure rather than a symbol for something lacking in humanity.
Your account of the story through Mifune's eyes speaks more
to what I'm after, though it's speaking to a three-dimensionality
of Mifune's character and his inability to comprehend the
underpinnings of what has been perpetrated against him in
the movie by this terrifying yet helpless man staring at him
from behind the plexiglass. Unfortunately I don't think we
ever really see the kidnapper's worldview, except in broad
terms, either as a narrative symbol of bankrupt morality as
you stated, or in more cryptic terms as the social menace
that shall forever haunt the upright and noble-minded.
3-28
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Both the high
and the low were given an opportunity to learn from their
mistakes. Kurosawa tears the executive down before allowing
him to see the true value of his life. He has to learn that
his duty as a human being is more important than his power
and wealth. The working with the tools was his bottom point,
and Kurosawa rewards his virtue with the outpouring of support
which is insufficient to maintain his former place but more
than sufficient to preserve his value to the community. He
is resposible for the young angry man without intending to
be so and perhaps that is some small recompense for the limited
portrait we see of the kidnapper.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What kind of bothers
me about your argument is that it doesn't completely trump
the basis of your own criticism of SEVEN SAMURAI as I remember
it, that is how the farmers are treated as an inferior class
in that film. What is Mifune in HIGH AND LOW but a modern
day samurai bound by his own honor in an honorless world,
and his chauffeur his loyal servant and thus a reflection
of his own honorable image? I don't know if asserting the
inferiority of certain humans due to moral depravity is THAT
much better than asserting inferiority due to class depravity,
even though I would never want to argue you completely out
of your position -- I just feel there's more to it than positing
the good over the evil in the world.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I think of
Mifune's character more like the potter in Ugetsu. He is a
poor tradesman who made good by dint of his labor and his
ability to improve production standards in the factory. I
think the argument here is different from Kurosawa's usual
modern Samurai (e.g. the doctors in Red Beard). This is a
very egalitarian Western story by a Western author and Mifune
represents height in attainment, at least to me, more than
he is shown as different from his chauffeur or from the police
officers. He has his trophy wife and his trophy house and
his flaunting of his wealth is what rubs salt into the wounds
of the bitter medical services employee. You are right that
Kurosawa is still showing differences in an unfair way, but
I can at least live within the logic of this story in a way
I usually cannot with his work. This difference between rich
and poor is a real source of resentment and there are entirely
different world views depending on culture and economics.
There is good logic to the claim that religion and law are
designed to fit the logic of the rich rather than the poor.
Perhaps moral depravity is in the eye of the beholder, but
Kurosawa is not up to that question.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And I'd buy that
last sentence completely if the movie had ended at that point,
but it simply didn't. That might be one virtuous observation
Kurosawa lights upon over the course of the film, but I don't
think it's the ultimate one, which I would think would have
to happen at the end, esp. when the final moment is so memorable.
|
