Welcome to Akira Kurosawa info!  Log in or Register?

Film Club: Kagemusha (1980)

KagemushaThis month our AK film club will be taking a look at Akira Kurosawa’s 1980 film Kagemusha (影武者).

It is funny how some things turn out. In the mid-1960s, Kurosawa was at the height of his powers and on his way to make it big in Hollywood, only for his entire career to be derailed by two failed attempts at working with American producers. The failures of Runaway Train and Tora! Tora! Tora!, neither of which project Kurosawa was able to finish, damaged Kurosawa enormously, earning him a reputation of being difficult, expensive, wasteful, unreliable and, some argued, downright insane.

Many bridges had been burnt and the 1970s passed with Kurosawa managing to put out only two films, an output incredibly small for a director who, for over twenty years before his Hollywood misadventure, had averaged more than one film per year. Of these, Dodesukaden was independently self-financed and Dersu Uzala entirely made in the Soviet Union.

And it was not like Kurosawa didn’t want to work anymore. He continued to work on screenplays, and once it started to look like they would never be turned into feature films, he began to paint and draw detailed storyboards in order to leave at least some kind of a visual legacy of what his intensions were with the stories. But there simply was no money to be found to take them further. The Japanese film industry was struggling and production scales typical for Kurosawa were out of the question, even for a director who didn’t have Kurosawa’s reputation. And foreign investors definitely still remembered the failed Hollywood productions.

Yet, Kurosawa had not been as absent from silver screens as his output would indicate. His influence on younger filmmakers continued to grow, and the filmgoers of the 1970s witnessed the emergence of a group of American directors who had been paying especially close attention to Kurosawa’s work. These filmmakers had names like Martin Scorsese, Steven Spielberg, Francis Ford Coppola and George Lucas.

Of these, it was Lucas who had been most visibly enamoured with Kurosawa. So much so that when his enormously successful space opera Star Wars opened in 1977, the more observant audience members could see a number of thematic, stylistic and plot connections with Kurosawa’s work, and especially his 1958 film The Hidden Fortress. The Kurosawa was strong with that one.

Lucas himself was keen to meet his idol, and when he did so he was amazed to hear about Kurosawa’s problems securing financing for new projects. In 1977, Star Wars had amassed almost $200 million in the US box office alone, and the 34-year-old Lucas was looking at a $30 million budget for his planned sequel. And here was a true legend of cinema still keen to create, but unable to do so only because no one was willing to give him a couple of million. This would not do.

Of his planned films, Kurosawa had been working especially hard on three projects. One was a Shakespearean story set in medieval Japan (later filmed as Ran), another a project based on Edgar Allan Poe’s The Masque of the Red Death (which remains unfilmed), and the third an original screenplay titled Kagemusha. All three were period films as Kurosawa saw it impossible to find funding for stories depicting contemporary Japan in the manner that he had done earlier in his career in films such as Stray Dog, Ikiru, Record of a Living Being and High and Low.

Of the three projects, it was the Kagemusha (“shadow warrior”) script that Kurosawa considered the most commercially viable, and he had already been in talks about it with his old film studio Toho. The story certainly seemed interesting: very loosely based on historical characters and events from 16th century Japan, the epic film follows the story of a low-class criminal who, due to his uncanny resemblance of a dying old warlord, is taught to impersonate this noble in order to maintain the illusion of the warlord’s leadership of the clan and to keep both internal and external threats away for as long as possible. The story is a tragedy which ultimately ends in the destruction of the entire clan, and Kurosawa intended it to have contemporary relevance, noting that one of his motivations was to educate the Japanese youth about their historical past. Yet, although Toho had initially showed interest, they had in the end decided to pass due to the film’s estimated budget of $5.5 million, more than five times the cost of an average Japanese film at the time, or the equivalent of about $20 million 2014.

George Lucas, however, was in a position very different from Kurosawa’s. Thanks to some smart business moves, Lucas owned the rights to the Star Wars franchise, effectively giving him unprecedented negotiating power over film studios keen to distribute the film’s sequel. Following a meeting in July 1978 between Kurosawa and Lucas, it was decided that Lucas would help to secure funding for Kagemusha.

Lucas’s battle plan was elegant in its directness. 20th Century Fox, with whom Kurosawa had had his major falling out during the production of Tora! Tora! Tora!, was also the film studio responsible for distributing the first Star Wars film, and as such was also looking to work on the sequel. Together with Alan Ladd Jr (later founder of The Ladd Company) at Fox, Lucas negotiated a deal whereby Fox would co-finance Kagemusha in exchange for the foreign rights. Fox most probably saw it as an investment on Star Wars, more than anything else. Lucas was also able to attach Francis Ford Coppola to the production, and this calibre of foreign backing was enough to bring Toho back to the project. The Japanese company ultimately ended up spending around $6 million on the film, whose total cost climbed to around $10 million, or about twice the original estimate.

And so, in summer 1979, Kurosawa was back behind the camera, thanks to the same film studio that a decade earlier had fired him from set of Tora! Tora! Tora! and suggested that the director suffered from mental instability, which in no small part contributed to Kurosawa’s difficulties in financing his films for the next ten years. Energised by the financial backing as well as the enormously positive public reaction to the news of a new film from him, Kurosawa set out to deliver his comeback. Yet, if Toho and 20th Century Fox had been hoping for a smooth production, they would soon be disappointed.

Kagemusha‘s lead role, which in fact mandates a single actor to play two roles, had been written specifically with the popular Japanese comic actor Shintaro Katsu in mind, and Kurosawa had indeed been able to secure him for the role. Yet, the personalities of the two men did not mix well and after an already troublesome pre-production period, Katsu ended up leaving the film set on the very first day of shooting. Accounts differ over whether he resigned or was fired, but the outcome was the same: the film that Kurosawa had just started to shoot was now without its leading man. Fortunately, Kurosawa’s name and connections were still enough to deal with emergencies of this scale, and Tatsuya Nakadai who had previously had major roles in Kurosawa’s Yojimbo, Sanjuro and High and Low, was soon attached to take over the lead role. The replacement would affect the shooting schedule, but the crisis was thus averted. However, Nakadai’s double performance, which most probably leans less towards the comic than what Katsu’s would have been, is by many considered disappointing, with Donald Richie calling it simply bad and Mitsushiro Yoshimoto criticising it as needlessly exaggerated, while Stephen Prince sees Nakadai’s performance as bland and less powerful than what Toshiro Mifune, who was never considered for the role, could have supplied. To be fair, much of the rest of the cast has also been the target of these critics, whose views it must also be said are not universally shared.

Katsu’s departure would not be the end of production difficulties. While Katsu was trying to drum up press coverage to get back at Kurosawa, the production also had to face a number of other challenges, including a nearby bomb scare, Nakadai being hospitalised after falling off his horse, a typhoon sweeping through the film’s Hokkaido set, the challenges of shooting a period picture in modern Japan littered with power lines and telephone wires, as well as the health-related resignation of Kazuo Miyagawa, the legendary cinematographer who had earlier worked on Rashomon and Yojimbo and who was to be the cinematographer also on Kagemusha. Miyagawa, who remained on board as a consultant, was replaced by the young Shoji Ueda and the earlier Kurosawa regular Takao Saito, both of who would continue to work with Kurosawa until the end of his career.

Another change of key personnel happened in post-production when Kurosawa fell out with composer Masaru Sato. Despite having successfully worked on ten of Kurosawa’s previous films, from Seven Samurai to Red Beard, Sato decided to walk out following Kurosawa’s insistence on controlling the scoring process. Sato was quickly replaced by Shinichiro Ikebe, who had previously scored only four films. Opinions differ over the quality of Ikebe’s score, some such as Stuart Galbraith calling it “awful” while others, such as the undersigned, considering it one of the most memorable and fitting scores of Kurosawa’s long career.

Nakadai, Miyagawa, Saito and Sato were not the only familiar faces on the Kagemusha set. A number of Kurosawa’s regular actors including Takashi Shimura and Kamatari Fujiwara had roles in the film, while Kurosawa’s old friend and collaborator Ishiro Honda, best known for his Godzilla films, worked in the film as a close aide to Kurosawa, and would continue in this role until his death in 1993. Finally, and perhaps most importantly, Kurosawa’s trusty right hand woman Teruyo Nogami was once again by his side, as she had been since Rashomon, and is credited as both the script supervisor and assistant producer. Nogami’s later scattered recounts of the production are interesting and something that one should turn to, if interested in reading more about the behind the scenes events.

Despite the well-oiled machinery provided by the Kurosawa regulars, the various setbacks and personnel changes resulted in the production falling behind the schedule, although perhaps by less than what Toho or 20th Century Fox had at times feared. Following a six month shoot and a frantic and energetic post-production period, Kagemusha finally opened on April 27, 1980, just two weeks after its originally intended opening date.

Kurosawa, however, was not finished with the film and took it back to the editing room. The result was a new cut about 20 minutes shorter than the 179 minute one that premiered in Japan. The exact reasons for this shorter cut are unclear, some suggesting that the original cut, finalised in just three weeks, was rushed out to make the opening date and the later shorter version was Kurosawa’s preferred edit, while others see the shorter cut as an alternative version made solely for the foreign market (see here; also, see here for the differences between the two versions). Whatever the reasons are for the two cuts, the shorter cut is the one that was shown abroad and continues to be released outside of Japan, while the Japanese releases continue to be the longer edition. A notable exception to this is the Criterion release of Kagemusha, which despite being an American release is in fact the original longer cut.

There was plenty of anxiety preceding the film’s release. Toho had ended up investing five to six times more money into Kagemusha than for an average production, and Kurosawa himself had his reputation very much on the line. Surely, if the film flopped it would mark the end of the now 70-year-old flimmaker’s career.

Luckily for everyone, the film did not flop. In fact, it turned out to be a big commercial hit both domestically and abroad, ending up not only profitable but in fact more than doubling the studios’ investment into it. Kurosawa had succeeded in making his comeback, and although he would not be returning to his pre-1965 rate of putting out a film every year, he was now able to create again. Kagemusha opened Kurosawa new doors to alternative investor models, and just like Kagemusha, his next two films would be partially financed by foreign investors.

Critical reaction to Kagemusha was and has been positive overall, with the majority of contemporary critics seeing it as an excellent comeback from a director whom they had missed. The views of some later writers have been coloured by the need to see Kagemusha as some kind of a dress rehearsal for Ran, the film that Kurosawa would go on to make next. And it certainly is true that Kurosawa himself was quoted at the time of making Ran as saying that he had been wanting to make Ran all along, but had decided to practice first with Kagemusha, a film similar in production scale and type. However, approaching Kagemusha solely as a companion piece to Ran does of course not do either film any justice.

When Kagemusha is considered purely on its own terms, the discussion typically turns to its problematization of identity and reference. Donald Richie notes the dichotomy between reality and illusion to be the film’s central theme. Richie, whose interpretations of Kurosawa’s works typically begin with the identification of such a dualism, argues that the film deals with reality and illusion through the main character, who during the course of the film gradually assumes the role of the dying warlord Takeda Shingen. In Richie’s view the film ends with a statement that reality and illusion are in this case one and the same, as the thief-turned-impersonator ultimately loses his own identity and becomes Shingen. (209-210)

This is a view largely shared also by David Desser, who calls Kagemusha “a tragedy of signification” where the tragedy “arises within the nexus of an individual confronting a series of signs, of signifying practices, and then losing sight of their (and his) nature. … There are two planes in which the process of signification is examined in Kagemusha: the manner in which signs influence others and the manner in which signs influence the conception of the self. A single figure, that of the kagemusha, the shadow warrior, becomes intimately connected with both processes as he becomes a sign used to affect the actions and perceptions of others and as he himself, in the process of becoming such a sign, is reinterpreted.” (116) Ultimately, writes Desser, by taking the role of the pretender the thief loses his own true self.

Desser suggests that “Kagemusha is structured by a series of situations in which the operation and importance of signs is both implicitly and explicitly acknowledged”. (119) Desser refers to instances where signs influence the action in the film, such as the bamboo flute during the siege segment, the various banners during the battles, the significance of costumes and dress, the appearance of the rainbow before the final battle, the onlookers’ unmasking of the thief when they find out that he has no battle scar on his shoulder and therefore cannot be the warlord, and of course the initial discovery of the thief who in his external appearance is almost identical to the old warlord that he later comes to stand for, although only after he has learnt the warlord’s various mannerisms, including his signature twirling of his moustache and his position within the clan as “the mountain”. Desser also points out that this main character is never given a name, and is therefore identified only through his actions. (122)

For a film arguably so deeply guided by signs and signifiers, it is perhaps not surprising that one typical criticism launched towards Kagemusha has to do with its formalism, in which it is typically compared to Kurosawa’s earlier Throne of Blood. Although Stuart Galbraith IV congratulates the film as a “masterpiece of form and style”, he writes that Kagemusha “is crushed under the weight of its intractable formality. … Every idea is so carefully controlled that the humanity is lost and the film can’t escape a mechanical quality. Kurosawa here seems to be self-consciously making an exhaustively structured Kurosawa film.” (558) The film’s heavy reliance on structural constructs to deliver its message is also discussed by Richie, who likens it to an opera and notes that the film is not only exclusively about its theme, “it is the theme”, even more than it is the story that it depicts. (210-211)

Richie also calls the film Kurosawa’s most pessimistic and ends his essay half wondering whether the coldness of the film would have been averted and more human warmth been present had the original comic actor Shinato Katsu remained as the lead actor instead of the “miscast” Nakadai (213), although David Desser has noted that while not a comic actor of Katsu’s standing, Tatsuya Nakadai certainly was no stranger to comedy himself. (122) Also in Desser’s view the film is more pessimistic than typical of Kurosawa, but probably also intended as such, and in his view this darker and bleaker take on the samurai film represents Kurosawa’s re-evaluation of the whole genre, which suggests that in Kagemusha Kurosawa is delivering the message that ultimately the samurai film “is a mere sham”, much in the same way as Kurosawa’s idol John Ford re-evaluated the western genre in his later works, and most notably in The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance.

Stephen Prince writes on the film’s technical side, arguing that “the visual structure of the film is sedate in the manner of Kurosawa’s late works. As a sign of this diminishing formal aggressiveness, wipes, once the favourite transitional device, may not be found in Kagemusha. … Kurosawa keeps cutting to a minimum and concentrates on creating pictorial effects within the frame. Composition stresses balance and a centering of the human figure rather than fragmentation and asymmetry.” (278) All in all, Prince considers Kagemusha as lacking the dynamism present in Kurosawa’s earlier work and sees it as announcing a new, more pessimistic direction in Kurosawa’s cinema where an individual is no longer capable of directing the course of events, and is instead “but the epiphenomenon of a ruthless and bloody temporal process, ground to dust beneath the weight and force of history”. (280)

Responding to much of the above discussion, Mitsushiro Yoshimoto takes a fairly contrarian view to Kagemusha and its place in Kurosawa’s oeuvre. Yoshimoto refutes both the idea of Kagemusha marking the beginning of a new pessimistic stage in Kurosawa’s career, or that the self and its relationship with the world is in some way markedly different in Kagemusha than it is in Kurosawa’s earlier work. He argues that Kurosawa’s whole post-war oeuvre has been marked by similar darkness that gives the films their power and poignancy, and that especially in the immediate post-war works, the “status of the individual self is [already] intensely questioned”. (349)

Yoshimoto also refutes the idea of approaching Kagemusha as a straightforward dichotomy of reality and illusion, arguing that the film in fact consistently problematizes this dualism and seeks to offer tertiary options. As an example, Yoshimoto notes that the opening scene does not introduce us to two but three related characters, signifying the original (lord Takeda Shingen), the copy (the thief), as well as the intermediate, Shingen’s brother Nobukado who although not visually identical to Shingen has previously on occasion stood for him. (350) To this list Marsha Kinder (in Perspectives on Akira Kurosawa) adds a fourth: of the three characters, only Shingen casts a shadow.

Yoshimoto also points out that the thief’s identity is not lost in his attempt to become Shingen, but that he has already been removed of it when the film begins since, in order to become Shingen, he has been rescued from public execution and therefore symbolically no longer exists. (351) In a somewhat related manner, James Goodwin has noted that even at the beginning the two characters are more alike than one might at first realise: as the killer of his own son and the banisher of his father, Shingen is no better than the common criminal who stands as his double. (194)

In Yoshimoto’s view, “what are mentioned as the unique features that distinguish Kagesmusha from Kurosawa’s earlier works are not particularly new”. (351) In addition to the double, which is a prevailing motif in Kurosawa’s whole output, Yoshimoto identifies the use of shadows, the significance of dreams, the discord between father and son and the prevalence of Noh related imagery as features which Kagemusha shares with many of Kurosawa’s earlier works. “The problem with Kagemusha“, writes Yoshimoto, “is not that it marks a radical turning point in Kurosawa’s career but that it resembles Kurosawa’s earlier works too much” and that those motifs “are not integrated into a new whole but exist as mere fragments. … Kagemusha looks like a pastiche, rather than a critical appropriation, of this own films.” (352) Yoshimoto also criticises the film’s colour palette, suggesting that the finished film in fact ironically “looks like a ‘remake’ or a ‘double'” of the paintings and drawings which Kurosawa meticulously prepared while originally working on the screenplay. (354)

Of the film’s individual scenes, it is the already mentioned six minute opening scene as well as the final battle scene which are the most memorable, and also the most discussed. The opening scene is the longest single shot in any Kurosawa film, although technically of course it wasn’t a single shot as it features Tatsuya Nakadai simultaneously in two roles. This fairly unusual static and quiet single camera scene not only immediately introduces us to the three major characters of the film and the world that they inhabit, but, as Kurosawa often does with his first scenes, also puts forward the work’s central thesis. In its composition, the scene is very theatrical, and we as the audience are looking inside, into what is going on.

In contrast, the final major scene of the film is set in a battle field and is presented as a largely dynamic montage. Again, it is an unusual way of depicting the events and works as a total reversal to the opening scene, in that we as the audience are not actually witnessing the core action, but are primarily shown the various characters’ reactions to it. This time, we are not looking inside, for it is in fact almost as if the characters are looking outside, at us, another common device in Kurosawa’s cinematic repertoire.

And so, with this somewhat lengthy introduction, we come to September 2014, when our very own Akira Kurosawa online film club will be discussing Kagemusha. So, what is your own take on the film? Is it a fascinating discourse on subjectivity, horrors of aggression and the paradoxes of identity? An entertaining if a little boring action flick? Kurosawa’s ultimate statement of pessimism and bitterness? A new beginning or a collection of earlier motifs? An exercise in didactic filmmaking? A dress rehearsal for Ran? Too red (do tell us which print you are watching) or too sonically too bombastic? Bland acting or featuring a brilliant Tatsuya Nakadai? Something else?

The home video availability of Kagemusha is very good, with more information available from the DVD and Blu-ray pages. Meanwhile, the comments and forums are open, as always, and you may also find some inspiration from our earlier Kagemusha discussions, including the following:

In October after Kagemusha, our film club will be taking a look at something a little different, namely Shohei Imamura’s 1983 film The Ballad of Narayama. And discussion is of course still also welcome for our previous entries, including last month’s film, Hayao Miyazaki’s Princess Mononoke. For information about their home video availability and the full film club schedule, turn to the film club page.


Discussion

  link

lawless

First commenter on Kagemusha, which I guess is fitting because this is the first time I’ve seen this film. I know, I know; I don’t know why, either. For some reason I wasn’t aware this film existed when it came out, whereas I knew about and saw Ran when it was first released, but haven’t seen it since.

Anyway, here are my thoughts on the version I saw, which was the uncut Criterion Collection 180-minute version. These thoughts are mostly, but not entirely, uninfluenced by Stephen Prince’s commentary, of which I’ve only heard the first third and which, btw, indicates which cuts were restored.

1. I had thought it was Ran that Kurosawa painted storyboards for, believing he’d never get to make it, but apparently that was also true of Kagemusha. Or am I confused?

2. Overall, while not my favorite Kurosawa film, or even my favorite of his later films — that would be the even more depressing Ran — I like it better than Red Beard (sorry guys, while I appreciate it in retrospect more than I did while watching it, I don’t see Red Beard as some sort of masterpiece) or Dersu Uzala. While it hits high points that Dodesukaden, which I’ve grown to like more than I did at first, and which features uniformly excellent performances, doesn’t, its low points are lower than Dodesukaden‘s, too.

In some ways, it’s a very frustrating film. I’m not sure if that’s because its outlook is bleaker than that of previous Kurosawa films. While Yoshimoto’s point that it’s not as big a departure as people think, especially since its themes and symbolism can be seen in prior Kurosawa movies, is well-taken, I agree with Prince (in his commentary) and others who see it as something of a departure philosophically and tonally.

3. One reason it’s so frustrating is the way the movie deliberately keeps the audience at arm’s length from the characters through the way it’s filmed, written, and acted. It is not an emotionally warm film the way other Kurosawa films are. As I’ve seen mentioned previously on this site, it takes a remote, bird’s-eye/God’s eye view of things, and there is no real POV character. The closest we come is Shingen himself, and he dies not long after the movie starts. Whether this is due to the historical nature of the material — as Prince notes, this is more of a historical drama than the kind of character-driven movie Kurosawa was known for — or for some other reason, it seems to be a deliberate, and sometimes offputting, choice.

The most natural way to change this would have been to make the thief/double the POV figure. But that would have made this an almost completely different film. For one thing, could the thief have remained anonymous in such a film? It seems like the thief’s alienation and our failure to get to know him is part of the film’s point. Also, I don’t think the poignant view of the thief’s dead body floating downstream along with the banner of the clan he chose to rally behind at the end of the movie would have been possible, or made sense, in a movie that made him the POV character, and it seems to me that the entire movie is meant to lead up to that very image.

4. Nakadai, Nakadai, Nakadai. I had confided in an e-mail to Vili how much I’ve come to love and admire Tatsuya Nakadai and his acting range, particularly after watching the second disc of The Human Condition. I know his performance here (and even in Ran, I believe) has often been criticized. Personally, I think he does just fine as Shingen; it’s as the thief that it feels like there’s something missing. As the movie stands, it’s hard for me to imagine what it might have been like had Katsu not left (or been fired); there’s little evidence left of humor or light-heartedness. But let me suggest that the problem is less that of Nakadai’s performance and more of the structure of the movie itself. That said, I can see why some have bemoaned the fact that Mifune wasn’t considered for the role. He probably would have brought more dynamism to the role of the thief than Nakadai did, although he might not have been available.

5. Which leads me to a consideration of another historical drama that Mifune starred in that dealt (pseudonymously) with some of the same history and a few of the same characters: Shogun which, since it was broadcast in 1980, the same year as Kagemusha, might have prevented Mifune from participating irrespective of Kurosawa’s feelings about him. It seems fashionable among Kurosawa fans to criticize Shogun and Mifune’s appearance and performance in it. I do not for the life of me understand why. It’s not as masterfully shot as Kurosawa’s films — as TV miniseries, why would it be? — but it’s got great performances and (dare I say it?) an even more compelling (and far more dramatic, dynamic, and entertaining) story to tell than Kagemusha does. Sorry, from the point of view of pure entertainment — which, after all, was the criterion by which Kurosawa measured film and filmmaking, at least according to the clip that runs at the beginning of every installment of the documentary It Is Wonderful to CreateShogun wins over Kagemusha hands down. The fact that Shogun includes a female POV (which Kagemusha completely lacks) doesn’t hurt, either.

Back to the point. I still don’t understand the hate for Shogun. Is it because it was TV? Because it was Western TV? IDK. I think Mifune was perfect for the role. (Essentially, he was playing a fictionalized version of Tokugawa.)

6. One of the things Prince mentions is that the script assumes a knowledge of the players in the drama of the late Sengoku period just before Japan became unified under Tokugawa rule. I think that’s related to the obliqueness Vili sees in the script for Seven Samurai; Kurosawa scripts involve so much showing rather than telling that sometimes the exposition is part of the background. (And sometimes the exposition comes out via the use of background characters, like the reporters at the beginning of The Bad Sleep Well.) Fortunately, I already knew a lot about the Sengoku period before watching this; in part that’s due to having read and watched Shogun, although that didn’t prevent me from misidentifying Nobunaga and Tokugawa at first. Also, is it me or does Kurosawa include far fewer clues in the script as to who is who in this movie than usual?

7. Perhaps one of the most notable things about this movie (as compared to other Kurosawa films) besides the coldness/omniscient POV, which has a tendency to distance us from the action and the characters and makes this movie more formal in feeling and less “emotional” than we’re used to (although less emotional doesn’t mean it’s not moving), is its relative lack of dynamism. Sure, there are action scenes, but there are also a lot of static scenes of people sitting around in traditional Japanese rooms that come across as very “stagey.” This is particularly noticeable in the first 1/3 to 1/2 of the movie. For awhile, I almost thought I was watching a Mizoguchi film. (Not really, but you get my point.) This ties into Prince’s point about this being more a historical drama and less a samurai film. It’s also part of the reason the film niggles at me. Dynamism is to me the hallmark of a Kurosawa film; a Kurosawa film that is less than dynamic just feels weird.

8. Which leads me to a related point: The script doesn’t feel quite as crisp or as excellent as most Kurosawa scripts. Maybe it’s the length of the movie; particularly in the middle, it feels long, like it sags. I might actually like the original overseas version better. Heresy, I know.

9. I have mixed feelings about the use of color here. I must have gotten used to it in Dodesukaden, because other than the overly bright initial scene its oversaturation didn’t bother me on second viewing. The color in Dersu Uzala was so understated as to be almost invisible. And as I recall, I found the use of color in Ran both effective and realistic. Here, I found the color both a boon, as in the scene where the window was opened to show snow, or the soldiers passing on the horizon at dusk, or the blue light on Shingen’s brother and the urn containing Shingen’s body, or to denote different groups and clans, and a bane, as in the thief’s nightmare and other places I can’t think of right now, where color is used in an unrealistic and unsubtle way. It’s almost a form of magical realism, which is something that doesn’t always work for me. Here, it counteracts the realistic detail. In other places, the colors are so disparate that they’re almost painful to look at. (I’m thinking of some of the color combinations on robes that are seen at the same time.) I feel similarly about some of the lighting choices.

I also wonder how much his background as a painter influenced him here.

9. Random thought: Can the skullcaps be any more obvious? (Something that distracted me mightily during several viewings of Seven Samurai only to dissipate later on.) Given what a perfectionist Kurosawa was, I don’t understand this.

10. I can’t think of anyone who films horses better than Kurosawa or uses them more effectively in film. Not even directors of Westerns. Teruyo Nogami’s book Waiting on the Weather explains how they filmed the scenes of the dying horses — which, btw, I think go on too long (in the uncut version, at least). (Short version: The horses were tranquilized.)

11. To some extent, I thought the theme of misunderstanding between father and son (something we’ve also seen in Ikiru, for instance) overshadowed the theme of doubles/identity, at least in terms of emotional resonance, until near the end of the film, when the thief is cast out of the Takeda compound and mocked before futilely sacrificing himself for the sake of the clan with which he’s come to identify. I found these scenes — basically, the last 5-10 minutes of the movie — very moving. But what exactly it all means, other than the end of a clan and the passing of an era, I’m not sure. Is Kurosawa bemoaning (or pointing out) the fact that when it comes to nation-building, there are always winners and losers, that what happens to the losers isn’t always deserved (or that others suffer along with those who deserve it), and that who’s the winner and who’s the loser is random? When watching the movie, it seems profound and moving, but once I sit and think about it, I’m not sure how profound it is. I think Kurosawa achieves more artistically when he focuses on the relationship between what happens to individual characters and society at large rather than when he focuses more on group dynamics as he does here.

12. I know Kurosawa had a falling out with the original composer for the movie. I thought his replacement did a good job.

  link

lawless

One last thought: I was especially fond of Yamagata and Nobunaga. To what extent this is attributable to the actors and to what extent it is attributable to the characters and the script, I don’t know, though Nobanaga’s Noh performance in response to news of Shingen’s death was masterful. But I wanted to mention it.

I finished watching the commentary. Even though I disagree with Prince on some points — I think he, like many others analyzing Kurosawa in particular and Japanese film (not to speak of film) in general, overinterprets some things — I found it very helpful, particularly his discussion of the actual historical record.

  link

Vili Maunula

Thanks for all these comments and observations, lawless!

lawless:Stephen Prince’s commentary, of which I’ve only heard the first third and which, btw, indicates which cuts were restored.

I also made a list of differences some years back, if you are interested in the details.

lawless: I had thought it was Ran that Kurosawa painted storyboards for, believing he’d never get to make it, but apparently that was also true of Kagemusha. Or am I confused?

He did it for both films, and also for his later films, except for I think Rhapsody in August. Or at least I don’t remember seeing drawings for Rhapsody, although that doesn’t mean that none were made. I do remember drawings for The Sea Is Watching as well.

Now, the really interesting question is whether he also did drawings for The Masque of Black Death, the third film he was working on in the late 1970s along with Kagemusha and Ran. I don’t think that such drawings have been released or exhibited, but I may be mistaken. If drawings exist in number and detail similar to Ran and Kagemusha, and if Kurosawa Production is still working or planning an anime adaptation of the script, it would be interesting if they kept Kurosawa’s art style for it.

lawless: As I’ve seen mentioned previously on this site, it takes a remote, bird’s-eye/God’s eye view of things, and there is no real POV character. … One reason it’s so frustrating is the way the movie deliberately keeps the audience at arm’s length from the characters through the way it’s filmed, written, and acted. … it seems to be a deliberate, and sometimes offputting, choice.

The film certainly keeps its distance, and in a way it is similar to the later Ran. Having said that, especially after the first hour or so the thief does become a fairly strong POV character in my view. In an interview in 1986, Kurosawa actually mentions that Kagemusha was made from the viewpoint of the thief “who sees the specific battles which he is involved in, and moreover the civil war period in general, from a very circumscribed point of view”, whereas Ran was made from a larger and more objective viewpoint, “based on my wondering how God and Buddha, if they actually exist, perceive this human life”. (Cardullo, 139-140).

Yet, even with the thief at the centre of the story, Kagemusha certainly never really invites us into his inner world, and the end result is a little distant.

lawless: The most natural way to change this would have been to make the thief/double the POV figure. But that would have made this an almost completely different film. For one thing, could the thief have remained anonymous in such a film? It seems like the thief’s alienation and our failure to get to know him is part of the film’s point. Also, I don’t think the poignant view of the thief’s dead body floating downstream along with the banner of the clan he chose to rally behind at the end of the movie would have been possible, or made sense, in a movie that made him the POV character, and it seems to me that the entire movie is meant to lead up to that very image.

This is an interesting thought. Could expand on this a little as I’m not really sure if I follow you reasoning? As I see it, it would certainly have been a very different film, but I don’t instantly see a reason why the two aspects of the film that you mention (anonymity and the final scene) could not have been possible had the point of view been more permanently attached to the thief.

lawless: Nakadai, Nakadai, Nakadai. … I know his performance here (and even in Ran, I believe) has often been criticized. Personally, I think he does just fine as Shingen; it’s as the thief that it feels like there’s something missing.

I do agree with this to some extent, although given that there are relatively few scenes with Shingen, it is difficult to really evaluate Nakadai’s performance as him. In any way, all in all I think Nakadai did a fine job here.

lawless: Shogun which, since it was broadcast in 1980, the same year as Kagemusha, might have prevented Mifune from participating irrespective of Kurosawa’s feelings about him.

Considering the number of times that Mifune mentioned his wish to work again with Kurosawa, I would think that had Kurosawa approached him with Kagemusha during production planning in 1978, he would have said yes. However, you are absolutely right that the situation was quite different in July 1979 when Katsu departed Kagemusha: the shooting of Shogun had just started in June and would go on until the end of the year. While Nakadai was also tied up in a production, he was going to be available much sooner.

Having said that, it of course should be mentioned that at least according to Nogami’s recollections, Nakadai was Kurosawa’s immediate choice after Katsu left, and Mifune’s name didn’t come up then, either.

lawless: It seems fashionable among Kurosawa fans to criticize Shogun and Mifune’s appearance and performance in it. I do not for the life of me understand why.

I haven’t actually noticed that trend specifically in Kurosawa circles, but I suppose a reaction like that might have something to do with “Hollywood doing a samurai film”, which doesn’t seem to go down well with many fans of the genre. Another reason might be that in many parts of the world what was shown was not the miniseries but a feature film cut, which from what I have gathered was rather confusing as it cut the whole story down to two hours. This was also the version first released to the North American home video market.

I personally haven’t actually seen the series, or if I have, remember nothing of it, so I cannot really comment on its qualities. But I did read James Cavell’s book three or four times sometime between ages 13 and 15, so it was a big part of me and my summers when growing up.

lawless: Also, is it me or does Kurosawa include far fewer clues in the script as to who is who in this movie than usual?

I think that there is an element of that, although it also seems to me that at least the Criterion subtitles don’t always transmit all the information about interpersonal relationship that the Japanese dialogue includes. And when the subtitles do make a point of including them, it admittedly sometimes leads to somewhat clumsy expressions like “this Takeda clan of ours”.

Mind you, I’m not saying that the subtitles are bad, far from that, but rather that my understanding is that the source would be challenging for any translator.

lawless: Dynamism is to me the hallmark of a Kurosawa film; a Kurosawa film that is less than dynamic just feels weird.

Many indeed seem to be bothered by this, Richie perhaps being most vocally disappointed by Kurosawa’s change in dynamism and apparent world view after Red Beard. I personally don’t mind, and actually really like Kurosawa’s later, more static approach. I’m not saying that it’s better or worse than his earlier style. It’s different.

lawless: Which leads me to a related point: The script doesn’t feel quite as crisp or as excellent as most Kurosawa scripts. Maybe it’s the length of the movie; particularly in the middle, it feels long, like it sags. I might actually like the original overseas version better. Heresy, I know.

Not necessarily heresy at all, as it may well have been also Kurosawa’s preferred (and intended) version. As I briefly mentioned in the introduction, it is not entirely clear why Kurosawa cut two different versions.

lawless: I have mixed feelings about the use of color here. … In other places, the colors are so disparate that they’re almost painful to look at. (I’m thinking of some of the color combinations on robes that are seen at the same time.) I feel similarly about some of the lighting choices.

The funny thing is that just like we don’t really know what length the film should be, we don’t have a particularly good idea what it should look like, either. My guess is that you were watching Criterion’s DVD print, which probably has the most vivid colour palette of the various prints. Criterion toned it down for the Blu-ray release. Check out some of the comparison pictures at DVD Beaver.

The same thing actually happened with Ran, although there we don’t have a Blu-ray edition from Criterion as they lost the rights to the film before it was released. So, in that case we are left with a fairly vivid Criterion print and the more toned down European versions: see here.

Which prints are closer to Kurosawa’s vision, we don’t really know. Kurosawa was also starting to have problems with his eyes around this time, so even if we had the print that Kurosawa preferred, it’s difficult to say if his eyes saw exactly what we would be seeing.

lawless: Random thought: Can the skullcaps be any more obvious? (Something that distracted me mightily during several viewings of Seven Samurai only to dissipate later on.) Given what a perfectionist Kurosawa was, I don’t understand this.

Interesting, this for once doesn’t really bother me with Kagemusha! But maybe it will now that you mentioned it.

lawless: I found these scenes — basically, the last 5-10 minutes of the movie — very moving. But what exactly it all means, other than the end of a clan and the passing of an era, I’m not sure. Is Kurosawa bemoaning (or pointing out) the fact that when it comes to nation-building, there are always winners and losers, that what happens to the losers isn’t always deserved (or that others suffer along with those who deserve it), and that who’s the winner and who’s the loser is random?

I am wondering if the various approaches to the film haven’t been a little too blinded by its period setting. In interviews at the time, Kurosawa mentioned that the reason he was working on period films was that one could no longer make a contemporary film like Ikiru as it would never be shown in Japan (Cardullo, 119). He also talked about Kagemusha as a film that intended to teach the Japanese youth about their background, although right now I cannot seem to produce the reference.

Kagemusha certainly is strong in historical detail, although it does also feature some curious historical inaccuracies and the whole thing is, of course, very much a “what if” scenario.

One way of giving the film a more contemporary interpretation would be to see it as something of an allegory of early 20th century Japan leading up to World War II. The death of Shingen from gunfire marks the end of the traditional samurai way, allegorically standing for the end of the Tokugawa period (just like in real life it led to the era) and the beginning of large scale societal changes that happened after the Meiji Restoration. A pretence of old ways remains, however, and is only brought to a disastrous end when the military leadership decides to move against a more modern and formidable Christian opponent (Nobunaga as the Allies).

However, my currently preferred way of approaching the film is to consider it more from the point of view of individual responsibility and self identity. The film starts by establishing that Takeda Shingen is not a very nice human being, especially when that is what it takes for him to reach his goals. The rest of the film then shows how various people — the kagemusha, the generals, the servants, the foot soldiers — destroy their lives because of this less than ideal person who doesn’t even exist.

Whether this is considered with pre-WW2 rise of Japanese fascism (cf. No Regrets for Our Youth and others) or post-WW2 westernisation and corruption (cf. The Bad Sleep Well and others) in mind is not important. The main message is to not blindly base your entire life on some other person or ideology, no matter how influential or charismatic it seems. As Nobukado soliloquises towards the end, a copy without its reference is nothing. An identity blindly based on a reference has no content and will lead to tragedy. In this sense, Kagemusha is very much a typical Kurosawa film.

lawless: I know Kurosawa had a falling out with the original composer for the movie. I thought his replacement did a good job.

I find myself surprisingly uncertain about the score at the moment. When I wrote the introduction, I hadn’t yet watched Kagemusha again, and wrote that it is “one of the most memorable and fitting scores of Kurosawa’s long career”. And I still think that the music is great and memorable.

However, when watching the film some days ago, I kept thinking that the score was entirely wrongly used. It popped up in places where it didn’t seem to belong, bringing an almost comical aspect to scenes that didn’t need it. There are parts where the music works well, but less often than I remembered.

  link

Ugetsu

Well, I had this evening put by to watch it again and found that… I’ve mislaid my dvd of Kagemusha. Oh well.

It is a film I’ve always wanted to see in the cinema – when I’ve watched it before, I’ve never been able to shake the notion that I’m watching a dry run for Ran, so I don’t think I’ve ever been able to appreciate it fully as a major work in its own right. I’ve also been a bit conflicted about Nakadai’s performance. Its very good in parts, but in other respects it doesn’t quite work for me. In some respects though, I’ve felt it was a little underwritten – perhaps its the translation, but I never found the major characters entirely convincing. As a spectacle, it works very well for me, although again, I’m sure it would look far better on the big screen.

  link

ssj

somewhat late to this discussion, but i finished watching kagemusha last night; it took several installments to get the job done.

appreciate all the analysis above. it helps me better understand the film, but i can’t say i truly enjoyed the whole, despite several elements that were well done (costumes, sets, and the intimate moments). agree there’s a coldness to the proceedings, and though the sight of banners and horses can be thrilling in small doses, i think kurosawa could have been more aggressive in cutting the military pageantry—i don’t need to see every battalion round every corner. ditto for the confusing battles at night; even if they were meant to represent the chaos of battle, the boredom i felt siphoned away the poignancy of the deaths of pseudoshingen’s assistants.

i don’t think i’ll watch this one again. looking forward to watching the bad sleep well, sanjuro, and throne of blood.

Leave a comment

Log in or Register to post a comment!