|
Back
to Film Diary
What
Kurosawa and Godard might have in common
This was written
in a thread discussing Godard's PIERROT LE FOU which led to
a discussion of didacticism in fim (specifically Godard's
films), which in turn led to a discussion about Kurosawa's
didacticism. The message text to which I responded to is in
italics:
May 21, 2003
3-21-03
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I strongly
disagree with jiankevin [that's me] who wants to label all
traditional narrative films as fully didactic. This dilutes
the word "didactic" to the point where it is practically
meaningless.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
sure,whatever,
but you have to see the point here that I was making -- that
traditional narrative films operate in a way that enforces
a way of seeing on the viewer. In that regard, it has an equal
claim to the word "didactic" to describe what it is doing
than what you are arguing for Godard and Pierrot. But if it
makes the word useless to describe both, so much the better.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I even object
to his consistent criticism of Kurosawa as didactic. Yes,
Kurosawa's movies present a strong worldview, but that seems
insufficient to justify using a generally derogatory and politically
loaded word like "didactic." I'd prefer to restrict the word
"didactic" to describing movies like I Am Cuba, which is didactic
and brilliant.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I kind of touched
on this in a response to bkamberger explaining my problems
with William Wyler. I don't so much have a problem with whatever
view on the work Kurosawa is pushing -- and you can even say
that, like Bergman, he's not so much didactically pushing
a worldview as he is restlessly exploring it. I just don't
happen to always appreciate the restlessness with which Kurosawa
and Bergman do their exploring -- as I explained with the
case of HIGH AND LOW, I feel like Kurosawa uses a lot of narrative
maneuvering to give the impression that he has explored society
inside out, but that ending only makes me feel that he's scratched
the surface, that we've only begun to move from Mifune's cloistered
view of the world of good vs. evil into something that treats
the underlings of the world like human beings. but in any
case the word "didactic" fails to describe this problem --
I'm not even sure anymore if the ending of RASHOMON, which
I originally used that word to criticize, would even qualify
as "didactic".
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Brief digression,
responding more to jiankevin than ali: Many traditional artists
use their art to present their subjective and occasionally
judgmental worldview, rather than the approach of opening
up a non-judgmental presentation that encourages multiple
interpretations. jiankevin likes the artistic freedom provided
by the latter approach, but I'd like to claim that the well-articulated
presentation of a worldview (the Kurosawa approach) offers
just as great opportunities for artistic reflection by the
audience on the content of the material. In other words, there's
never been a strict dichotomy between audience-as-audience
and audience-as-artist. In addition, the non-judgmental presentation
is discreetly loaded with an aesthetic point of view that
celebrates its own openness -- it may present an open-minded
worldview but a worldview nevertheless. (This is a little
off the Pierrot topic, because I find Godard's style in Pierrot
closer to Kurosawa's than, say, Mizoguch's.)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I think you might
be on to something with that comparison. I agree that Kurosawa's
presentation of his worldview is well-articulated, though
not masterfully articulated -- though to be really fair I
don't know if Godard deserves the title "master" -- he's not
so much interested in achieving mastery in the classical sense
as he is in interrogating the very meaning of "mastering"
an artform. But back to Akira. In his most singular films,
Kurosawa's vision can be described as a world in perpetual
chaos and turmoil (ahh yes, there is a connection to Godard
with this much), and I see that reflected in Kurosawa's restless
narratives, with their sudden shifts in event, tone and outlook.
Judging from RASHOMON,
IKIRU, SEVEN SAMURAI, and HIGH AND LOW, Kurosawa thrives on
using big swathes of drama to take the viewer from one emotional
or philosophical high to another. He'll set up the viewer
to think and feel one way and then take them on a big swing
in another direction. While I at times find this a bit too
coercive at times, I also think it's a natural reflection
of his own thought process -- he strikes me as a very moody
personality who will go from one extreme to another in working
over a given issue. At his best , the sheer energy invested
in these enterprises is staggering, and leaves no stone unturned
until every consideration has been made and we are face to
face with a moment that speaks to an ineffable condition:
samurai contemplating the farmers in the end of SEVEN SAMURAI,
or a playground planted precariously in the middle of a bustling,
impersonal city in IKIRU. Obviously the ending of HIGH AND
LOW features a similar juxtaposition, but it didn't leave
me with the same feeling, that Kurosawa had worked every angle
to the story -- the kidnapper was less a human being than
a symbol of vengeful, oppressed humanity. And it's moments
like these that leave me feeling that Kurosawa at times relies
too much on the sheer momentum of his storytelling to entertain
the viewer, such that it risks distracting both director and
audience from the thorough examination of the themes, and
the impression of profundity supercedes the real achievement.
I see this same trait in Kurosawa's #1 disciple Spielberg
in SCHINDLER'S LIST, SAVING PRIVATE RYAN and MINORITY REPORT.
Anyway, there is
noone quite like Kurosawa, and Lord knows he has influenced
filmmaking all over the world like few before or since, with
his aggressive, robust, manic-depressive cinema. Attributes
that, wouldn't you know it, might also apply to Godard.
|
