Latest / Houselights: A Film Director Podcast / Rashomon (1950) - Akira Kurosawa | Houselights #271

Transcript

Rashomon (1950) - Akira Kurosawa | Houselights #271 · Houselights: A Film Director Podcast

0:03
Speaker 1: Welcome to the net Palty.
0:20
Speaker 2: Akira Kurosawa was born in Tokyo in nineteen ten, trained
0:24
Speaker 2: as a painter, and became a film director. Raschiman in
0:28
Speaker 2: nineteen fifty made him internationally known, winning major awards at
0:32
Speaker 2: Venice and from the Academy. Over the following decades, he
0:35
Speaker 2: made seven Samurai Yojimbo and dozens of other films. He
0:38
Speaker 2: influenced Lucas Spielberg Leone and established Japanese cinema as a
0:43
Speaker 2: force internationally. He died in nineteen ninety eight. We're starting
0:46
Speaker 2: House of Kirosawa with Raschiman because it's where the world
0:49
Speaker 2: discovered him and where he turned a philosophical problem into cinema.
0:53
Speaker 2: It opened doors to everything after the Samurai films, the
0:56
Speaker 2: crime dramas, and the technical experiments. Before we begin a
0:59
Speaker 2: content war, we'll be discussing sexual assault throughout this episode.
1:02
Speaker 2: It's the basis of the story, even though it isn't
1:04
Speaker 2: explicitly shown on screen. Each testimony deals with what happened
1:08
Speaker 2: to the samurai's wife in different ways, and we need
1:11
Speaker 2: to talk about it to talk about the film. I'm
1:13
Speaker 2: Tristan Rondel, and with me absolutely certain he knows what happened,
1:16
Speaker 2: even though he wasn't there, and ready to tell you
1:18
Speaker 2: his version with complete confidence. Darren Moser and playing the
1:22
Speaker 2: cynical commoner at the gate, convinced everyone's lying, including me
1:25
Speaker 2: and probably himself, John Mills. Roschmond means four people witness
1:29
Speaker 2: the same crime and tell four completely different stories. Truth
1:33
Speaker 2: is onnable, memory is unreliable, and everyone lies to look better.
1:36
Speaker 2: Let's sit under the ruined gate, wait out the rain,
1:39
Speaker 2: and argue about what we just saw.
1:41
Speaker 3: This is houselights. There you go, and thank you for
1:44
Speaker 3: joining us. Everybody.
1:46
Speaker 4: From my point of view, that was a decent intro,
1:49
Speaker 4: although it could have been better because I'd say I'm
1:51
Speaker 4: more the cynical monk than anything else.
1:53
Speaker 3: But that's okay, that's okay, that's okay.
1:56
Speaker 2: That would mean that you would be disillusioned with humanity,
2:00
Speaker 2: and I think that disillusionment went a long time ago.
2:04
Speaker 4: No, no, no, you'd be surprised. It's very recent, much
2:07
Speaker 4: more recent than you think.
2:08
Speaker 3: Yeah, I know.
2:09
Speaker 4: I'm looking forward to talking about this because Raschimon is
2:11
Speaker 4: a movie, like you said, like it puts Kursaba on
2:14
Speaker 4: the international map. It puts Japanese cinema on the international
2:17
Speaker 4: map in a completely different way. And people are still
2:21
Speaker 4: referencing it in film and imitating it in film, both
2:25
Speaker 4: ineptively and expertly. And it's fascinating to see that something
2:30
Speaker 4: seventy six years later can still have such a direct,
2:34
Speaker 4: traceable impact through film. That's I mean, people love to
2:39
Speaker 4: talk about, Oh, this is a great film, this is
2:42
Speaker 4: the greatest movie, and it's it's hard to listen to
2:46
Speaker 4: those conversations sometimes and notice how many times people leave
2:49
Speaker 4: Raschaman out of the discussion. It doesn't occur to people
2:53
Speaker 4: because I can sit there and I can say, I
2:56
Speaker 4: don't know. Let's say, uh, I would look at just
3:00
Speaker 4: pulling out a Touch of Evil. Hey, that's one of
3:01
Speaker 4: the greatest films of all time. Yeah, but Touch of
3:03
Speaker 4: Evil is now sort of like a niche knowable thing.
3:06
Speaker 4: It's it's part of a subgenre that hasn't really survived
3:08
Speaker 4: sort of thing. But people are still making direct reference
3:11
Speaker 4: to Rashamon from Ridley Scott to whomever else in Star Trink,
3:16
Speaker 4: tons of yeah, tons of film, and you know, I
3:20
Speaker 4: just I just I think it's an important work to
3:22
Speaker 4: talk about.
3:23
Speaker 3: I'm glad we are.
3:25
Speaker 5: With start Check now I'm thinking who fired the torpedoes?
3:29
Speaker 6: But uh no, I was thinking of the Riker episode.
3:33
Speaker 5: Oh, yes, that's true, that's true. Well for me, this
3:37
Speaker 5: was first time seeing any Karraslwa besides same here the name,
3:42
Speaker 5: and in researching, yeah, learning the fact that Rashamon is
3:45
Speaker 5: like a verb. Now it's it's defining, not just the
3:50
Speaker 5: unreliable narrator or the multiple points of view. I think
3:55
Speaker 5: purists would say, if you're really doing it the same way,
3:59
Speaker 5: you have it more ambiguous at the end, whereas nowadays
4:03
Speaker 5: we're often as audiences given what is the right answer
4:07
Speaker 5: at the end, which is maybe a hair degree off
4:10
Speaker 5: of a true representation. But that's here, no there, It's
4:14
Speaker 5: still it's a film term now, which is incredible that's
4:18
Speaker 5: still in use, maybe not widely to the public, but
4:22
Speaker 5: in film circles.
4:24
Speaker 4: I would say that that's not just a hair off,
4:27
Speaker 4: because I think with Rachaman you can definitely walk away
4:30
Speaker 4: and there is still that lingering question. But I know
4:33
Speaker 4: several examples that I would offer to you where where
4:37
Speaker 4: when they go back in the last version, they tell
4:39
Speaker 4: is like, but here's what really happened. I think that
4:42
Speaker 4: actually kind of violates the spirit of it because.
4:45
Speaker 5: Oh, I agree, it's they're they're cousins. They're different flavors
4:49
Speaker 5: of the type of filmmaking.
4:51
Speaker 2: Yeah, and it's it's interesting because you know, like you know, Darren,
4:54
Speaker 2: you're talking about it being a verb. It's in sitcoms.
4:57
Speaker 2: I shouldn't say sitcoms, I should say in tell vision.
5:01
Speaker 2: It's become this thing where you like, you know, there's
5:03
Speaker 2: there's always these different types of episodes that you can do.
5:06
Speaker 6: When you do a.
5:07
Speaker 2: Sitcom or a drama or a genre show or something
5:10
Speaker 2: like that. It's just like, Okay, this is the this
5:13
Speaker 2: is the singing episode, Like, this is the musical episode,
5:15
Speaker 2: this is this is.
5:16
Speaker 5: A boss said she said episode.
5:17
Speaker 6: Yeah, this is the he says, she said episode.
5:19
Speaker 2: You know, like this is the episode where all the
5:21
Speaker 2: power goes out. You know, like everyone has those certain things.
5:24
Speaker 2: Raschamon is one of those. Like the people who are
5:28
Speaker 2: writing the episodes may not know that's what they're doing,
5:32
Speaker 2: but that is the episode that we're getting. It's just like, oh,
5:35
Speaker 2: now from this part like even how I meant your
5:36
Speaker 2: mother did it, It's like, now it's time for Lily's
5:38
Speaker 2: version of the story. Now it's time for Marshall's version
5:40
Speaker 2: of the story, and it's I think there's variance of it,
5:44
Speaker 2: and I think I'm sure people could argue with me,
5:46
Speaker 2: and I'm not saying I'm one hundred percent right, but
5:49
Speaker 2: the you know, there's certain variants where when you like,
5:51
Speaker 2: you have an entire episode and you have the beginning
5:54
Speaker 2: of the episode as one person's perspective, then you get
5:56
Speaker 2: to the second and the third and the fourth, and
5:58
Speaker 2: there might be some olap, but it gives you the
6:01
Speaker 2: complete story altogether, just from different perspectives, and you know,
6:05
Speaker 2: it doesn't repeat too terribly much so that it keeps
6:07
Speaker 2: a momentum going. That's a variant of Rachaman icing whatever
6:11
Speaker 2: you want to call But then like, but the true one,
6:14
Speaker 2: you know, like John, like what you're talking about, like
6:16
Speaker 2: the you know, like no no deluded version is same event,
6:20
Speaker 2: four or five three different tellings of the same exact thing.
6:25
Speaker 4: I'm curious since this is y'all's first time coming across it.
6:30
Speaker 4: I mean, I'm not trying to jump forward to the
6:33
Speaker 4: endings or anything like that. It's always tough going in.
6:36
Speaker 4: I remember the first time I watched Rachaman was not
6:38
Speaker 4: too long ago. Actually, I'd seen other Kurasawa, but Rachaman
6:41
Speaker 4: was just a reference that I got. I understood it,
6:44
Speaker 4: and like I always make reference to. The Simpsons had
6:46
Speaker 4: one of the greatest jokes of all time on the
6:49
Speaker 4: show where it's like, oh, you love Japanese culture, that's
6:52
Speaker 4: not how I recall it. Like, and the thing is,
6:54
Speaker 4: they don't say it's Rachmond Like. It's one of those
6:57
Speaker 4: things where if you've seen Raschaman or understand Raschaman, you
7:00
Speaker 4: laugh and everybody else is like, oh, Homer's just being dumb,
7:03
Speaker 4: and it's just like, it's so funny. It's just a
7:06
Speaker 4: perfect joke. But do you do you find yourself going
7:09
Speaker 4: into a movie like this expecting it just to be
7:12
Speaker 4: an intellectual exercise. You're not expecting to like it or
7:15
Speaker 4: hate it. You're you're just looking at it as Okay, well,
7:18
Speaker 4: it's sort of required that I have to see this
7:20
Speaker 4: so that I can understand the references.
7:22
Speaker 3: I have no expectation of liking it.
7:25
Speaker 2: Yeah, yeah, yeah, you pretty much nailed it. Yeah, I mean,
7:28
Speaker 2: this was no, this is no offense to the film.
7:32
Speaker 2: I didn't go in expecting not to like it, you know,
7:34
Speaker 2: I was totally open to enjoying it. I was totally
7:37
Speaker 2: I was totally open to liking it and appreciating it,
7:40
Speaker 2: but it was very much a technical expert exercise. It
7:44
Speaker 2: was very much like, Okay, this movie is referenced in
7:46
Speaker 2: so many different ways and so many different things. And
7:50
Speaker 2: you know, speaking of which, this movie is based on
7:53
Speaker 2: a two A Kurdugawa short stories, one called Raschman and
7:56
Speaker 2: one called in a Grove. And Raschman provides the gate
8:01
Speaker 2: rainstorm framing device, and in a Grove provides the murder
8:05
Speaker 2: sexual assault story. And I actually did a number of
8:08
Speaker 2: years ago a mini documentary on an opera that was
8:11
Speaker 2: based off of In a Grove. And so I've been
8:14
Speaker 2: surrounded by this story and the source material and being
8:19
Speaker 2: a film student, this is it's so embarrassing to admit,
8:23
Speaker 2: but you know, like I know so much about Raschamon
8:26
Speaker 2: and Kirasawa without on an intellectual level, without actually experiencing Kirasawa.
8:31
Speaker 2: It's very embarrassing. And I don't know why. It's one
8:33
Speaker 2: of those missing frames in my life, but it just is.
8:36
Speaker 2: And so I'm super excited for this house and it's
8:40
Speaker 2: so when I went into it, I was kind of like, Okay,
8:43
Speaker 2: this is an old movie. It's an old black and white,
8:45
Speaker 2: it's an old foreign film. I'm sure it's going to
8:48
Speaker 2: be like Casablanca, you know where. I'm just going to
8:51
Speaker 2: experience it from a technical aspect. I'm going to be like, Okay,
8:54
Speaker 2: look at that camera movement, look at the editing, like
8:57
Speaker 2: this is something that you need to watch and experience
9:00
Speaker 2: and ingest as a film lover. And I was surprised.
9:03
Speaker 2: I was surprised at how how interesting the story was,
9:06
Speaker 2: the pacing was, the editing was, the cinematography everything. Darren,
9:09
Speaker 2: what about you?
9:11
Speaker 5: Yeah, I mean I went in blank slate. I think
9:14
Speaker 5: that's one of the things. And it's probably going to
9:16
Speaker 5: continue with Kirasawa if you don't research at all, even
9:21
Speaker 5: the titles like I don't know what russiamne is. Is
9:23
Speaker 5: it a place? Is it a person? Is it an emotion?
9:27
Speaker 5: I don't know. So I had zero contact and we
9:30
Speaker 5: start in the rain, and I'm like okay, and then
9:34
Speaker 5: I was like, this is really interesting framing device for
9:37
Speaker 5: a completely different story. But yeah, I too was captivated
9:42
Speaker 5: by I mean the model lighting in the cinematography and
9:47
Speaker 5: the way they always keep a clear silhouette of the
9:52
Speaker 5: actor in front of that background. Even when it's all
9:55
Speaker 5: black and white. You would think they would get lost
9:57
Speaker 5: in it so easily, but they don't. And it's one
10:01
Speaker 5: of those movies that I have to put on my
10:05
Speaker 5: context hat as far as remembering this is far enough
10:11
Speaker 5: or long enough ago that things are new, meaning I
10:15
Speaker 5: can't watch it and be like, oh, look, it's a
10:18
Speaker 5: multiple point of view and unreliable narrator. Yeah, so what's
10:23
Speaker 5: the big deal? Oh no, that hadn't been done like
10:26
Speaker 5: that before, So you have to give it that context of, oh,
10:31
Speaker 5: this is amazing because it was the first time or
10:34
Speaker 5: it was the first time it was applied in that way.
10:36
Speaker 5: And I will also say the fights were really interesting,
10:42
Speaker 5: like I actually felt the peril, which I feel like
10:47
Speaker 5: modern cinema I just don't, maybe because they're using guns
10:52
Speaker 5: or whatever, and there's so much plot armor in modern
10:56
Speaker 5: fights that it's almost predetermined who's going to walk out.
11:00
Speaker 5: I didn't know how it was going to happen, but
11:02
Speaker 5: you felt, or at least I felt the fear in
11:06
Speaker 5: the moments as they each gained the upper hand, as
11:09
Speaker 5: they each tried to figure out what, you know, if
11:12
Speaker 5: going into this fight was worth going but what do
11:14
Speaker 5: you think, No, I.
11:16
Speaker 4: Know, I think what you're identifying there. I'm glad you
11:18
Speaker 4: mentioned the choreography of the fights and everything like that
11:21
Speaker 4: is it does feel more brutal and more real because
11:24
Speaker 4: we are not in the era of the I always
11:27
Speaker 4: mispronounced it the belletic, you know, the ballet type, the belletic.
11:31
Speaker 4: You know, Oh, the John Wick gunfights are all about
11:34
Speaker 4: staging and camera work and move which it looks beautiful. Yeah,
11:38
Speaker 4: you know, the matrix of matrix effect or the John
11:40
Speaker 4: wu effect where it's like the bullets are flying, but
11:42
Speaker 4: it's really just sound and effects sort of thing.
11:44
Speaker 3: Whereas this is the trigger.
11:46
Speaker 5: Someone's gonna die, it's gonna hit. He's never gonna miss right,
11:49
Speaker 5: plot won't allow it.
11:51
Speaker 4: But there, you know, layered on top of that, I
11:53
Speaker 4: think also, you know you're calling out, oh, this had
11:56
Speaker 4: never been done before. This is I think a very
12:00
Speaker 4: apt comparison to Citizen Kane in the US, where Caine
12:04
Speaker 4: comes out and it's not until later that people realize, oh, wow,
12:09
Speaker 4: this is a great film and look at what it
12:10
Speaker 4: all did for the first time. Now, international audiences recognize
12:14
Speaker 4: Raschamon more readily than Japanese audiences, and that's specifically because
12:19
Speaker 4: if you look at the reviews of the time, a
12:21
Speaker 4: lot of the Japanese critics were like, oh, he's breaking
12:23
Speaker 4: all these rules.
12:24
Speaker 3: Well, what are you doing here?
12:25
Speaker 2: Man?
12:25
Speaker 4: This is crazy what's going on? And it's get crossed.
12:28
Speaker 4: But it's it's so fascinating to see how that just
12:33
Speaker 4: repeats through time. People get locked in this is what
12:37
Speaker 4: cinema is, this is what movies are supposed to be.
12:41
Speaker 4: One person comes along and says, you know what, I'm
12:42
Speaker 4: gonna do it differently, I'm going to do it this way,
12:45
Speaker 4: and nine times out of ten, the reaction.
12:48
Speaker 3: Is, oh, well, what is this amateur hour?
12:51
Speaker 4: You don't you understand what the rules are here, what
12:53
Speaker 4: you have to do with everything? And it takes that
12:55
Speaker 4: outsider's perspective to look at it and say, oh, wow,
12:58
Speaker 4: that's that's dangnis eat man, that's that's pretty cool what
13:02
Speaker 4: you pulled off there.
13:03
Speaker 5: I mean, I think of momento like, oh, I'm going
13:05
Speaker 5: to tell a story backwards and put the ending at
13:08
Speaker 5: the front, and it's but I'm not going to be
13:10
Speaker 5: rewinding it. And it's still it's hard to wrap my
13:13
Speaker 5: head around how that movie is constructed. You know, if
13:15
Speaker 5: you want to talk about breaking the rules.
13:17
Speaker 3: One in a billion type of movie that one is.
13:19
Speaker 3: That's for sure.
13:20
Speaker 2: I want to review real quick for our listeners and
13:22
Speaker 2: for ourselves. We have four different stories and so I
13:26
Speaker 2: think we should all agree on what we're calling it.
13:28
Speaker 2: So we have the Bandit, Taju Moro he So it's
13:34
Speaker 2: a It's basically I seduce the wife. She baked me
13:37
Speaker 2: to kill husband to save her honor. I fought samurai
13:41
Speaker 2: honorably and one. Number two wife's testimony masago bandit raped me,
13:45
Speaker 2: husband looked at me with contempt. I fainted holding dagger,
13:48
Speaker 2: woke to find husband dead, implying accidental or suicide. Number
13:52
Speaker 2: three Samurai through a medium. Yes, wife encouraged bandit, baked
13:57
Speaker 2: bandit to kill me, I committed suicide and shit Number
14:01
Speaker 2: four woodcutter, I secretly wis it witnessed it. All three
14:05
Speaker 2: were cowards. Bandit begged wife to come with him. Wife
14:09
Speaker 2: go toed both men to fight. They fought clumsily and
14:12
Speaker 2: desperately banned it one almost by accident. Now, Darren, you
14:16
Speaker 2: were talking about the fight choreography. I love, I absolutely
14:20
Speaker 2: love that. The Bandit's testimony when it comes to the
14:23
Speaker 2: fight was an eight battle, right, and everybody was awesome
14:27
Speaker 2: with swords. And then when you get to the passer
14:29
Speaker 2: by the woodcutter, he's just like they were a bunch
14:31
Speaker 2: of fools rolling around in the dirt.
14:34
Speaker 3: Yeah, didn't know what they were doing.
14:36
Speaker 4: You know, it's amazing that anybody even got hurt, Yeah,
14:38
Speaker 4: because they you know, look at these chumps fighting like this.
14:41
Speaker 2: Which lends itself to believability because no one looks good
14:45
Speaker 2: in this scenario, right, no one knows look good. Not
14:48
Speaker 2: saying it is it is the one, but I think
14:50
Speaker 2: that that's what a lot of people gravitate towards because
14:54
Speaker 2: it's the last one, and because everybody looks like fools, right,
14:57
Speaker 2: and so you know, no one's going to paint themselves
14:59
Speaker 2: in it negative light.
15:00
Speaker 5: And it's the only one told through the other framing device,
15:05
Speaker 5: which kind of intrinsically lends it a little more credibility
15:08
Speaker 5: because it is not actually technically they all come through
15:12
Speaker 5: the framing device because the other people are relating their
15:18
Speaker 5: encounter at the police station, so it's already second hand, secondhand.
15:23
Speaker 4: But the thing is, I think it's a I think
15:27
Speaker 4: the movie is a very clever trap because it bates
15:30
Speaker 4: you into asking the question of which one is the
15:33
Speaker 4: true version, And I think that its ultimate sort of
15:37
Speaker 4: subversive point is, well, the truth is all dependent on
15:42
Speaker 4: who the person is and how they experienced it, because
15:44
Speaker 4: you can rewrite your own memory. So to the bandit, yes,
15:48
Speaker 4: I fought an epic battle defeating a samurai. To the
15:52
Speaker 4: other guy, he's got his view where he's like, it
15:54
Speaker 4: just looks like a bunch of people rolling around, whether
15:56
Speaker 4: they know what they're doing, where it's like, you know,
15:57
Speaker 4: how many times do you get something where somebody views
16:01
Speaker 4: a martial arts fight in reality and they're like, what
16:05
Speaker 4: are they even doing? They're just rolling around with each other,
16:07
Speaker 4: And then you have martial arts experts or fans looking
16:10
Speaker 4: at it, going oh my gosh, look at oh wow,
16:12
Speaker 4: look he got that arm bar just in the right
16:14
Speaker 4: Oh how did.
16:15
Speaker 3: You do that?
16:16
Speaker 5: And the other person's like chess when you don't know it,
16:18
Speaker 5: and you're like, right, oh, they did the Queen X
16:21
Speaker 5: five move, and you're like, I just saw a piece move, don't.
16:23
Speaker 5: I don't know. I don't have the context for the
16:25
Speaker 5: epicness of that moment.
16:27
Speaker 4: But while the particulars might, you know, differ in everything
16:31
Speaker 4: it's all true for each person because of the fact
16:35
Speaker 4: that there it's how they live with it, and it's
16:38
Speaker 4: like how you live with the memory is going to be,
16:42
Speaker 4: you know, colored by so many different things. And it's
16:45
Speaker 4: a very difficult thing to say given the subject matter, right,
16:48
Speaker 4: That's a very difficult thing to say because you wouldn't
16:51
Speaker 4: you know, there are certain things you would never want
16:53
Speaker 4: to think are subject to memory or interpretation. And you know,
16:59
Speaker 4: like I'm not saying that, like you know, oh well,
17:01
Speaker 4: therefore each one is the gospel truth. I'm saying that, like,
17:04
Speaker 4: each person, no matter what the truth was, is gonna
17:07
Speaker 4: remember it that way. So in a sense, even experiencing
17:10
Speaker 4: the event isn't truth. It's truth from your still, from
17:14
Speaker 4: your perspective. I think that's the really subversive, clever thing
17:18
Speaker 4: that it does while it's baiting you into this debate
17:21
Speaker 4: of like which one is the truth?
17:22
Speaker 3: You know, it's not that simple.
17:23
Speaker 4: It's like you have to take a piece from each
17:25
Speaker 4: one and sort of like put it together like a puzzle.
17:29
Speaker 5: Tristan, I'm curious, what do you think about the wife's
17:32
Speaker 5: point of view, because I felt hers stood out a
17:36
Speaker 5: little differently. I mean, the husband is dead or the
17:39
Speaker 5: samurai is dead, and so in a way it doesn't
17:43
Speaker 5: matter as far as it pertains to the rest of
17:46
Speaker 5: the of the trial or the inquisition and the Bandit
17:51
Speaker 5: is kind of you know, he starts off with, oh,
17:52
Speaker 5: you're gonna kill me anyway, so he I kind of
17:55
Speaker 5: discount his telling because he's kind of given up. But
18:00
Speaker 5: the wife, I feel like it felt the most of
18:04
Speaker 5: a story that got changed by regret and grief on
18:08
Speaker 5: what happened, because she's basically throwing herself at the mercy
18:12
Speaker 5: of the court of you know, oh you you wouldn't.
18:16
Speaker 5: Yeah again, like it's an accident or I did you
18:18
Speaker 5: know it wasn't meant to happen, especially since the other
18:23
Speaker 5: attributes or tellings really paint her in a very poor light.
18:28
Speaker 2: Yeah, I think it's definitely by design, because when you
18:32
Speaker 2: look at the wife's testimony, it's and what little I
18:38
Speaker 2: know about Japanese culture, except especially during feudal Japanese culture,
18:43
Speaker 2: you know, like with her being assaulted, it would not
18:46
Speaker 2: be out of the realm of possibilities for the husband
18:50
Speaker 2: to look at her with disgust, like with blame, like
18:53
Speaker 2: you lit them do that to you? You know how
18:54
Speaker 2: could I like, I can't accept you your damage goods.
18:57
Speaker 2: You know, we've all heard the story. We've all seen
18:59
Speaker 2: it in countless cultures around the globe even today. And
19:03
Speaker 2: and then like she's you know, like she lits, she uh,
19:06
Speaker 2: you know, cuts his bonds and all he does is
19:09
Speaker 2: stare at her, and she knows exactly what's going to happen.
19:11
Speaker 2: She knows exactly what he's thinking. Even though he doesn't
19:14
Speaker 2: move a muscle, he doesn't change facial expressions, she knows
19:17
Speaker 2: exactly what's happening. She sees the rest for life in
19:21
Speaker 2: that single moment when she's staring at her husband and
19:25
Speaker 2: she faints holding the dagger, waits wakes up to him,
19:28
Speaker 2: you know dead. I think this is my interpretation again,
19:32
Speaker 2: like this is this is one of those things where
19:34
Speaker 2: you know, Kirasawa himself has said, like there is no
19:38
Speaker 2: right or wrong, there is no like. Life doesn't work
19:41
Speaker 2: this way life, Life doesn't always give you a definitive answer.
19:45
Speaker 2: But to me, when you look at the woodcutters perspective,
19:49
Speaker 2: you see a woman who is unhinged. And I don't
19:52
Speaker 2: say that lightly and I don't say it with disrespect.
19:55
Speaker 2: She has she is she's broken, like she she she
19:59
Speaker 2: was physically assaulted, she was pursued by her her tormentor,
20:05
Speaker 2: and then she recognizes that her husband will not want
20:09
Speaker 2: her or take care of her anymore. And she's in
20:12
Speaker 2: a culture where that's totally okay at the time and
20:16
Speaker 2: her life, so you know, it is over right, and
20:19
Speaker 2: so like, I can totally see her going into a
20:21
Speaker 2: fugue state and acting quote unquote rational but not remembering
20:26
Speaker 2: any of it. And so I can I can see
20:29
Speaker 2: like a mixture of the woodcutter's testimony and the wife's
20:31
Speaker 2: testimony being true, like a combination of the two.
20:35
Speaker 4: What about the the factor that somebody says, ah, well,
20:40
Speaker 4: none of you are telling the truth because you keep
20:42
Speaker 4: saying dagger and he was killed with a sword, like,
20:45
Speaker 4: you know, does that you know, that sort of thing
20:47
Speaker 4: adds its own ambiguity because is that true? You know,
20:50
Speaker 4: or because of course the you know, you later find
20:53
Speaker 4: out somebody took the dagger, you know, and it's like,
20:56
Speaker 4: so what what part of it is actually Well, that's the.
21:01
Speaker 2: Thing though, is that the woodcutter is the one who
21:03
Speaker 2: said he was killed with the sword, right, and so,
21:05
Speaker 2: but he also could be the person who stole the
21:08
Speaker 2: dagger exactly exactly.
21:10
Speaker 5: Has reason to change it, yes, exact to hide his.
21:13
Speaker 4: Crime right well, also because he witnessed a thing and
21:17
Speaker 4: instead of doing anything at all, he saw it personal
21:22
Speaker 4: gain by taking something from it. You know, I got
21:26
Speaker 4: to ask if you know this is your first time,
21:28
Speaker 4: so Darren, you've never seen any other Carosawa Tristan.
21:31
Speaker 3: You have seen some Crosawa, right a.
21:33
Speaker 6: Man, haven't.
21:35
Speaker 2: It's insane students, right, stupid?
21:41
Speaker 4: There you go, there you go, I'm not I've seen
21:44
Speaker 4: I'm better than both of you. This is nice, nice
21:46
Speaker 4: to know, that's from my point of view. But with
21:50
Speaker 4: t Shira Maffune, you know, goes on to become quite
21:53
Speaker 4: a name, a long collaboration with This is not the
21:57
Speaker 4: last time you're could encounter to share a Muffune in
22:00
Speaker 4: one of Kurasawa's films. And he plays Taijamorrow or Ty
22:06
Speaker 4: I'm going to butcher names and stuff like that. But
22:09
Speaker 4: as also fellow Star Wars fans, I'm sure you guys
22:11
Speaker 4: know he was one of Lucas's original picks to play
22:14
Speaker 4: Obi Wan Kenobi when Star Wars came around. And what
22:18
Speaker 4: I want to know is, was he a revelation to you,
22:21
Speaker 4: did you see something in his screen presence, because he
22:26
Speaker 4: does go on to become quite a name in Japanese
22:28
Speaker 4: cinema from this point. So did you see that in
22:32
Speaker 4: his performance? Is that something it did grab you?
22:37
Speaker 5: It did for me. I mean, he was definitely the
22:39
Speaker 5: most interesting character of the entire movie, and not because
22:44
Speaker 5: he was kind of crazy. I mean, it's easy for
22:46
Speaker 5: the crazy characters to kind of be the most memorable
22:49
Speaker 5: or like you don't know what they're gonna do, or
22:51
Speaker 5: they're laughing or you know, reacting. He just I mean,
22:55
Speaker 5: he communicated a ton with just his expression, just the
22:59
Speaker 5: little things like occasionally swatting at the flies, was like
23:03
Speaker 5: he's in this weird state of calm right before battle.
23:08
Speaker 5: It just was so unique and interesting. So yeah, I
23:13
Speaker 5: completely buy Kursaw being like, oh, we're hitching our wagons
23:17
Speaker 5: together and you're gonna be my star for many of
23:20
Speaker 5: This is the second movie he was in for Kursaw
23:22
Speaker 5: in nineteen fifty, like they already were working together.
23:28
Speaker 2: Speaking of which, oh my gosh, Okay, So the timeline
23:31
Speaker 2: that they filmed this it was I think thirty seven
23:34
Speaker 2: days and then it released in the cinemas that same month.
23:38
Speaker 4: Yeah, no, I think I think post production was only
23:40
Speaker 4: like a week or something like that.
23:41
Speaker 2: It was thirty seven days of shooting, a week of
23:43
Speaker 2: post production, and then it released at the end of
23:47
Speaker 2: the month.
23:48
Speaker 6: That's insane.
23:48
Speaker 4: Well, I think I think, if I read correctly, somewhere,
23:51
Speaker 4: the post production was even delayed by like two fires
23:54
Speaker 4: or something like that, so like it could have been
23:56
Speaker 4: less than a week that they turned that around, you know.
23:59
Speaker 4: I mean, I'm a technical standpoint, from a filmmaking standpoint,
24:03
Speaker 4: you know what, you know, I take that as a
24:06
Speaker 4: statement of a filmmaker who definitely has a vision and
24:10
Speaker 4: knew how to get exactly what he wanted on set.
24:13
Speaker 4: Like this is not a guy who was like, oh,
24:15
Speaker 4: let's try this. This is a guy who walked on
24:17
Speaker 4: set and it was like, now this is what we're doing.
24:20
Speaker 4: You go there, you go there, do this thing. You
24:22
Speaker 4: go there, you go there, you do this thing. And
24:24
Speaker 4: there's a plus and a minus to that approach, I
24:26
Speaker 4: guess you can say. But it's I'm glad you called
24:29
Speaker 4: it out, Tristan, because it's one of those things when
24:32
Speaker 4: you and I'm not saying this in like a grumpy
24:35
Speaker 4: old man shaking your fists sort of thing, I swear,
24:38
Speaker 4: But when you see things where people are like, well,
24:40
Speaker 4: we didn't have a script when we started filming, and
24:43
Speaker 4: it costs US eight hundred and fifty billion dollars to
24:45
Speaker 4: make the movie and we got to we got to
24:47
Speaker 4: make like three or four trillion to break even after marketing,
24:51
Speaker 4: and you're like, and you go see that movie and
24:53
Speaker 4: you're like, eh, and then this movie, like you're saying, oh,
24:56
Speaker 4: we shot it in like a month, we post production
24:58
Speaker 4: in a week, and uh, seventy years later, people are
25:00
Speaker 4: still referencing it like what a statement of art and
25:03
Speaker 4: craft as well, that somebody could craft something like that
25:06
Speaker 4: that resonates, that sticks with everybody for so long. That's,
25:11
Speaker 4: you know, triumph of the human spirit over technology. I guess, right,
25:14
Speaker 4: something like that.
25:15
Speaker 2: It's one of those things where it's it's true where
25:19
Speaker 2: when you make art and you believe in it and
25:22
Speaker 2: it has a much bigger possibility of staying power, right
25:28
Speaker 2: where if you just churn something out, even if you
25:30
Speaker 2: throw tons and tons of money at it, it doesn't
25:33
Speaker 2: mean that it's going to have a lasting legacy, even
25:35
Speaker 2: if it's big and makes a lot of money. I mean,
25:37
Speaker 2: because like Rachamon they were really excited about all the
25:41
Speaker 2: international praise it was getting, all the critics that loved it.
25:44
Speaker 2: It got the Lion Award at Venice, it got the
25:47
Speaker 2: Honorable the Honorary Oscar at the Academy Awards, and some
25:53
Speaker 2: say that, like Rachamon is the reason why we have
25:56
Speaker 2: why we had the Foreign Film category is because they're like,
26:00
Speaker 2: oh God, if more movies worldwide are coming out like this,
26:02
Speaker 2: we need to we need to catch up with the times.
26:05
Speaker 2: And but the thing is that didn't translate into dollars
26:08
Speaker 2: at the time, and they were so angry.
26:10
Speaker 4: Right, I think this was like the fourth most profitable
26:13
Speaker 4: movie that that I think die studios.
26:17
Speaker 3: I think that's how you pronounce it.
26:18
Speaker 4: Yeah, because like it was, originally Toho was supposed to
26:21
Speaker 4: do it and then they were like, nah, we're good,
26:23
Speaker 4: and so the studio like this wasn't even like the
26:25
Speaker 4: most successful film of this studio for that year. So yeah,
26:29
Speaker 4: it's very again drawing another comparison to Citizen Kane there
26:34
Speaker 4: where it's like that was not a financially successful film
26:37
Speaker 4: by any stretch.
26:38
Speaker 3: And you know, so.
26:40
Speaker 4: What is it about art that makes it so difficult
26:43
Speaker 4: sometimes for to find that audience at first go it's wild.
26:48
Speaker 3: It's really wild.
26:49
Speaker 5: One last thing I wanted to say about Toshiro. I
26:52
Speaker 5: just did a quick look up, and we're going to
26:54
Speaker 5: be seeing a lot of him because of the other
26:57
Speaker 5: other ones we're covering in the House of Casawa. At
27:01
Speaker 5: least the next three he's in, so he's definitely a mainstay.
27:08
Speaker 4: I do want to say, since we're just starting this house,
27:10
Speaker 4: and it's probably not the only time I will reference
27:12
Speaker 4: it through this series, but a movie that I did
27:17
Speaker 4: on a sister show here on the Nerd Party Network
27:20
Speaker 4: was about a Kurosawa movie starting to share Maffune called
27:23
Speaker 4: High and Low. We will not be covering it on
27:26
Speaker 4: this stretch, but anybody listening to me, including my two
27:29
Speaker 4: co hosts, that I'm looking at right now, do yourself
27:33
Speaker 4: a favor and watch it.
27:34
Speaker 5: It is.
27:35
Speaker 4: It's a stunning film. It is absolutely stunning, and I
27:39
Speaker 4: it came out thirteen years after this, and it's an
27:43
Speaker 4: amazing film. You've got to see it. Sorry, Sorry for
27:45
Speaker 4: that brief detour there, But thirteen years later, to sher,
27:49
Speaker 4: Maffune was still working with a Kira Kurasawa in a
27:53
Speaker 4: different film like which is amazing. You know, that's a
27:57
Speaker 4: long collaboration. That's like a de Neiro score, sazy length
28:01
Speaker 4: collaboration going on there.
28:03
Speaker 5: I think for me, one of the interesting aspects is
28:09
Speaker 5: it's a very timeless movie as far as it's made
28:12
Speaker 5: in the fifties. But it's black and white and it's
28:15
Speaker 5: a period piece, so it's not like, oh, it's made
28:19
Speaker 5: in the fifties in that modern time and they're wearing
28:23
Speaker 5: suits and it's obviously stuck in a moment. This has
28:27
Speaker 5: a timeless quality where I mean, except for the fact
28:32
Speaker 5: that modern film cameras would probably capture it a little differently,
28:36
Speaker 5: like you could produce the same results today. Maybe you
28:40
Speaker 5: wouldn't have to die the rain with ink to make
28:43
Speaker 5: it show up on the film. But I think when
28:47
Speaker 5: movies are able to be timeless like that, it I
28:51
Speaker 5: don't know, not saying it makes it easier to digest.
28:55
Speaker 5: I think it just takes a piece of it away
28:57
Speaker 5: where you don't have to worry about that and just
29:00
Speaker 5: let the story. You know, I could show this to
29:04
Speaker 5: my kids, I could show this to my parents like
29:06
Speaker 5: it could have been seen at any time and it would.
29:08
Speaker 5: I mean, I'm not showing it to my kids I'm
29:10
Speaker 5: just saying kids, different generations can experience it in different decades,
29:17
Speaker 5: and I think get the same result, which I think
29:19
Speaker 5: is which is great.
29:21
Speaker 6: Yeah.
29:21
Speaker 2: This is one of those reasons that you know, like John,
29:23
Speaker 2: you and I talking about about how it has lasting power,
29:25
Speaker 2: is that even though it takes place in feudal Japan
29:30
Speaker 2: or you know, like an earlier time, in ancient time,
29:34
Speaker 2: this could happen just with different clothing, like replace the
29:36
Speaker 2: swords with knives, you replace the kimonos with you know.
29:42
Speaker 4: Whatever, replace the jungle with the inner city or something
29:45
Speaker 4: doesn't matter.
29:45
Speaker 2: Yeah, absolutely, And that's one of those things where and
29:49
Speaker 2: I think that's another reason why I like, even the
29:51
Speaker 2: monk's reaction is timeless or you're just like, oh my god,
29:56
Speaker 2: like people are so terrible, Like I just I just
29:59
Speaker 2: can't do this anyme.
30:01
Speaker 5: Well, you want to talk about a hook at the beginning,
30:04
Speaker 5: like he's laying it on thick and he's like I
30:07
Speaker 5: can't believe like what I just witnessed. And I'm like,
30:10
Speaker 5: what what did you watch? Like, please tell me because
30:13
Speaker 5: apparently it is extremely traumatizing. And all I'm going off
30:18
Speaker 5: of is your tiny bit of dialogue, Like man a,
30:22
Speaker 5: what a hook, but just I think this movie also
30:26
Speaker 5: is a great rallying cry to student film because it
30:31
Speaker 5: has three locations. Like, don't say you can't make a
30:35
Speaker 5: movie because you can't find three locations. It has the grove,
30:41
Speaker 5: the gate, and the courtyard, you know, the police courtyard
30:45
Speaker 5: and the courtyard is one angle, like a lockedop shot
30:49
Speaker 5: looking one direction. And it's just but you never feel it.
30:55
Speaker 5: I never felt like I wasn't. I mean, maybe the
30:58
Speaker 5: grove is the most maybe there's an A and a B.
31:01
Speaker 5: You know, it's a large expansive area. Maybe you throw
31:05
Speaker 5: in the shore of the river, but like basically it's
31:07
Speaker 5: three locations and that's just incredible.
31:11
Speaker 3: Yeah, it is it.
31:12
Speaker 4: And I like that you said you never feel trapped
31:16
Speaker 4: by the limited locations because Kurrasawa and his cinematographer are
31:23
Speaker 4: working so hard to make the shots interesting that you
31:26
Speaker 4: don't have the chance to get bored with what you're
31:29
Speaker 4: looking at. I think, what can happen a lot? And
31:31
Speaker 4: this is this is where you know, the director of
31:34
Speaker 4: photography really needs a lot of credit. Is that framing
31:38
Speaker 4: it in a certain way? You know, the DP and
31:40
Speaker 4: the director have to work together really really well to
31:43
Speaker 4: frame it. And to say, Okay, how are we going
31:45
Speaker 4: to make these shots interesting and compelling enough? And you know,
31:49
Speaker 4: to your point, you can have three locations so long
31:53
Speaker 4: as you're making the right shot selections, as long as
31:56
Speaker 4: you're editing things together in a way that you never
31:58
Speaker 4: give the audience the chance to get bored enough to
32:02
Speaker 4: start analyzing it and realize that they're you know, they're
32:06
Speaker 4: never going to leave these three locations.
32:09
Speaker 5: Although I want to say one thing though, and I
32:12
Speaker 5: kind of give it a little bit of a pass
32:13
Speaker 5: because it was the beginning and the movie was kind
32:15
Speaker 5: of just rolling, but I kind of want Tristan's input
32:18
Speaker 5: on the woodcutters walk into the forest, which in my
32:23
Speaker 5: mind felt like it went on for an eternity, like
32:29
Speaker 5: he's like, oh, yeah, I'm go I tell you a
32:31
Speaker 5: story and I would just walk it through the forest
32:32
Speaker 5: and then he's walking and walking and walking and I
32:36
Speaker 5: and I'm not going to say I didn't feel bored
32:38
Speaker 5: with it, but I felt like, when's it gonna get there?
32:42
Speaker 5: Like I was actually kind of did it feel like
32:45
Speaker 5: that kind of sequence went on a tad too long?
32:50
Speaker 6: No, it felt like an eternity.
32:51
Speaker 2: I'm I'm right there with you, like I thought we
32:55
Speaker 2: were going to get a secondary title sequence because of it,
32:58
Speaker 2: And if that was made today, that's where your title
33:00
Speaker 2: sequence would have been, Like you would have had a
33:02
Speaker 2: little bit of rain and then.
33:04
Speaker 5: The titles scrolling up on the trees around him as
33:07
Speaker 5: he walks deeper into the forests.
33:10
Speaker 4: Yeah, no, okay, hold on, this is this isn't Baby Driver.
33:13
Speaker 4: Let's not get out of control there.
33:15
Speaker 2: But yeah, it's I think it definitely went on way
33:18
Speaker 2: too long.
33:18
Speaker 3: It was.
33:19
Speaker 2: That was one of those things where I'm just like,
33:20
Speaker 2: are we patting the run time?
33:21
Speaker 6: What's going on?
33:22
Speaker 2: There's really only two things that I very much was
33:26
Speaker 2: just like I don't like that, Like I would have
33:28
Speaker 2: done something different, But you have to give it a pass,
33:30
Speaker 2: especially for the time that it was made, where things
33:33
Speaker 2: were much more literal and certain teams, like when when
33:35
Speaker 2: people were traversing from point A to point B, you
33:39
Speaker 2: often would show them going from point A to point B,
33:42
Speaker 2: and so it's very much a product of its time.
33:45
Speaker 2: But also the wipes. I couldn't stand the wipes because
33:48
Speaker 2: you got them at the beginning, but then basically you
33:50
Speaker 2: didn't really see him after that.
33:53
Speaker 4: I the one thing I'll say is yeah, that walk
33:56
Speaker 4: takes a long time, but I think it goes a
33:58
Speaker 4: long way toward reinforcing for the rest of it. They
34:02
Speaker 4: were in the middle of nowhere. How far out were you? Oh,
34:06
Speaker 4: you wouldn't even believe. Were you out by that tree?
34:08
Speaker 4: Oh no, I was past that tree. Well, were you
34:10
Speaker 4: past the creek?
34:10
Speaker 3: No?
34:10
Speaker 4: No, no, I no, no, keep on going. I was
34:13
Speaker 4: way out there. There's no way anybody else could have
34:15
Speaker 4: seen what I'm telling you right now. Oh no, there's
34:17
Speaker 4: there's not a chance that somebody in the town saw this.
34:20
Speaker 5: I mean, it's definitely intentional. It wasn't. I don't for
34:25
Speaker 5: a second think they were like, boy, we need to
34:27
Speaker 5: path this eighty eight minute run time. So let's at
34:30
Speaker 5: a ten minute walking sequence in the forest. Not that
34:34
Speaker 5: it was ten minutes, but it felt like ten minutes.
34:36
Speaker 4: So yeah, no, But but that's what I'm saying, is like,
34:38
Speaker 4: I think it just it emphasizes that idea of isolation. Well,
34:42
Speaker 4: why didn't somebody go to help. Why didn't somebody hear
34:45
Speaker 4: the shouts? Why didn't somebody hear the fight? Well, because
34:48
Speaker 4: we were literally miles from anywhere, guys, And I think
34:52
Speaker 4: that that walking sequence reinforces that they were nowhere near anybody.
34:59
Speaker 4: It doesn't I'm not dismissing, you know, the point at all.
35:02
Speaker 4: I'm saying like, I think that was probably the intent
35:04
Speaker 4: behind it.
35:05
Speaker 2: So I want to talk about the lighting in the
35:08
Speaker 2: movie because lighting played a key role in this. You know,
35:13
Speaker 2: it's it's dark, it's rainy at the beginning, or I
35:15
Speaker 2: should say in the framing device. And then you know
35:18
Speaker 2: you see light and shadow mixed a lot in the grove,
35:22
Speaker 2: and it was it's also incredibly hard to do that
35:25
Speaker 2: with black and white in the grove, like when you
35:28
Speaker 2: have light going through this, going through the trees and
35:31
Speaker 2: the leaves and everything like that. And apparently they weren't
35:35
Speaker 2: getting the light bounce that they needed on set, like
35:38
Speaker 2: the normal reflector that you would have used during that
35:42
Speaker 2: time just wasn't giving them the light that they needed.
35:44
Speaker 2: And so they from they stole a full body mirror
35:47
Speaker 2: from the costume designer and use that to reflect the light.
35:52
Speaker 2: And that's how you get such stark contrast in the grove.
35:55
Speaker 2: And I think that in itself is such a cool
35:58
Speaker 2: thing to know, and you can really tell, you could
36:00
Speaker 2: really see it, like everything is exposed properly, you know,
36:04
Speaker 2: like even when they go deep into the shadow, you
36:06
Speaker 2: get silhouettes, and you get hair lights, and you get outlines,
36:09
Speaker 2: and it's and then at the very very end, when
36:12
Speaker 2: he picks up the baby and he starts walking out,
36:14
Speaker 2: it stops raining. The sun comes out. And I want
36:18
Speaker 2: to know from you guys, how did you interpret the light?
36:21
Speaker 2: What did you notice about the light when I mentioned
36:23
Speaker 2: the lighting? What's the first thing that comes to your brain?
36:25
Speaker 4: Well, the first thing that comes to my brain is
36:27
Speaker 4: I think the lighting reinforces that that whole confused nature
36:32
Speaker 4: of things, where like it's everything's broken up, there's no
36:36
Speaker 4: clear definition. Uh, you know for you now it does.
36:40
Speaker 4: I'm not contradicting what you're saying with it, like everything's
36:42
Speaker 4: framed well and you know contrast right, I'm saying like
36:45
Speaker 4: the light itself is inconsistent, you know, the dappold lighting
36:49
Speaker 4: and everything like that. What I'll offer is, interestingly enough,
36:53
Speaker 4: I think some people have offered that the sun itself,
36:56
Speaker 4: the sunlight, represents evil, and I think that's a wretch
37:00
Speaker 4: and a half. But you know, I just wanted to
37:04
Speaker 4: put that out there. But I do I think that
37:06
Speaker 4: the way that they use the lighting gives it this
37:09
Speaker 4: distorted is the wrong word, but just that lack of
37:12
Speaker 4: clarity that the stories themselves reinforce.
37:17
Speaker 5: I mean, I'm just amazed that this is pretty much
37:20
Speaker 5: an all exterior movie. The control of lighting they have,
37:26
Speaker 5: I mean, if any of these were on sets, I
37:28
Speaker 5: couldn't tell. I don't think they were, But especially in
37:32
Speaker 5: the grove, I think that's the one I think of
37:34
Speaker 5: most when you say the lighting, because it had this
37:39
Speaker 5: uncanny way of having the modeled light from the trees
37:46
Speaker 5: land on the subject, but they were also then hit
37:50
Speaker 5: by the mirror so that they were bright enough to
37:53
Speaker 5: stand out from the background. Because every shot in this
37:58
Speaker 5: movie when you're in that forest, the background is so busy.
38:03
Speaker 5: There's leaves everywhere, trees everywhere, leaves everywhere, And it's amazing
38:11
Speaker 5: how there were times there was also a little bit
38:14
Speaker 5: of depth of field, but for the most part, it
38:16
Speaker 5: wasn't depth of field that was breaking up the foreground
38:20
Speaker 5: subject and the background. It felt like they were bold
38:24
Speaker 5: exposed with the same light. They just were able to
38:28
Speaker 5: capture your foreground subject really cleanly, and they never got
38:34
Speaker 5: lost in the forea. Even there was one shot that
38:39
Speaker 5: I kind of noticed when the bandit was he was
38:43
Speaker 5: looking at the wife. I'm trying to remember whose point
38:45
Speaker 5: of view it was, but the point is he was
38:47
Speaker 5: looking through different branches and it was the only thing
38:52
Speaker 5: that caught me was the fact that they had the
38:55
Speaker 5: light on him. So he had to put his eyes
39:00
Speaker 5: not in shadow, but purposely put them in the light
39:04
Speaker 5: to look through the branches. And I'm like, gosh, that
39:06
Speaker 5: must be painful, because you know, visually it makes sense,
39:12
Speaker 5: but technically you're looking into the sun to get the
39:16
Speaker 5: shot in this moment, so that the shadows fall above
39:20
Speaker 5: and below your eye, because I'm like, the only way
39:22
Speaker 5: his eyes are lit is if the light is hitting them.
39:25
Speaker 5: But they did. Yeah, I mean again, I was amazed
39:30
Speaker 5: that a black and white movie like this did not
39:34
Speaker 5: lose them into the background, because I feel like that
39:36
Speaker 5: would have been so easy to do. Or you give
39:40
Speaker 5: them only side lighting or something. Something could have been
39:44
Speaker 5: off where you're not lighting it right and they would
39:46
Speaker 5: just vanish into that noise. But I could, I could
39:50
Speaker 5: always tell even their swords, thin swords that are in
39:54
Speaker 5: the shrame are sparkling in the sun. Every they This
39:58
Speaker 5: is obviously a person who knows how to shoot black
40:00
Speaker 5: and white, how to expose it, how to light it,
40:03
Speaker 5: how to depth the field it, and it worked like
40:07
Speaker 5: you give the camera to a novice, and this type
40:11
Speaker 5: of especially the grove setting, it could easily look like
40:15
Speaker 5: trash easily.
40:16
Speaker 4: M Yeah, there's there's actually somebody who offered just slung
40:23
Speaker 4: as we're talking about the lighting and everything. It's a
40:25
Speaker 4: professor Kako. MacDonald said that supposedly. Now this is not
40:31
Speaker 4: Curasawa's own words. So Curasawa was waiting for a big
40:34
Speaker 4: cloud in that final shot to leave the hint that
40:39
Speaker 4: the child is walking out into a world where darkness
40:43
Speaker 4: can happen at any time. How true is that? No
40:46
Speaker 4: idea because that's not from Currosawa's mouth. And I think
40:50
Speaker 4: that a lot. I think what's really interesting, especially talking
40:54
Speaker 4: about it, you know, with you guys, I've seen this before.
40:57
Speaker 4: I've heard some of the discussion before, I've heard the
40:59
Speaker 4: bast and forth. I think what's interesting is a movie
41:02
Speaker 4: about the ambiguity of perspective, has seventy six years of
41:06
Speaker 4: discourse around it that in and of itself is ambiguous
41:09
Speaker 4: because it's everybody's personal perspective on things laid over what
41:13
Speaker 4: Kurasawa was doing, and it's mind numbing, because there are
41:17
Speaker 4: even essays out there that the whole thing is an
41:20
Speaker 4: allegory for what happened to Japan and World War two,
41:24
Speaker 4: even though the story it's based on was written in
41:26
Speaker 4: nineteen twenty two, and so people will then say, oh, well, yeah,
41:30
Speaker 4: but Curisawa made some changes and that's that's what he
41:32
Speaker 4: was really saying. But unless it's directly from Curasawa's mouth,
41:38
Speaker 4: all of this discourse, all of this discourse just you know,
41:42
Speaker 4: beautifully and poetically reinforces the film where it's all going
41:48
Speaker 4: to depend on a person's perspective what they want to
41:50
Speaker 4: lay over the story and the experience. It's wild to
41:55
Speaker 4: watch how it's like it's this own meta experience within
41:58
Speaker 4: the experience of discussing the experience of the film. And
42:01
Speaker 4: it's like, is this inception? Is this originally inception right now?
42:05
Speaker 4: Like is that what happened with this? I don't know,
42:07
Speaker 4: but I just I find it so fascinating because it's
42:11
Speaker 4: it does it illustrates how all film discussion, all film criticism,
42:16
Speaker 4: is that so much of it is weighted by perspective.
42:20
Speaker 2: All right, Well, we've been going on for a while now,
42:22
Speaker 2: and I feel like we could keep going for the
42:25
Speaker 2: double amount of time, and so per tradition, I'm going
42:28
Speaker 2: to go with Darren here and how many how many
42:31
Speaker 2: missing daggers are you giving this film?
42:34
Speaker 5: There's no dagger. It's a missing dagger. Although I will
42:37
Speaker 5: say as far as the more modern movie that uses
42:42
Speaker 5: the Russiaman, I have to give it to nineteen eighty
42:45
Speaker 5: five's Clue, which had like four endings that they don't
42:49
Speaker 5: really ever tell you which is the right one. They
42:52
Speaker 5: actually leave it ambiguous, which I think is really fun.
42:56
Speaker 3: And it's just a movie not no, no.
43:00
Speaker 6: This is how it really happened.
43:01
Speaker 3: Yeah, but then the.
43:02
Speaker 5: No, but then someone else comes in and says, this
43:05
Speaker 5: is how it really happened, And then someone else comes
43:06
Speaker 5: in and says, no, this is how Like there's four
43:09
Speaker 5: endings to that movie.
43:10
Speaker 3: I think we need to have House of Clue to
43:12
Speaker 3: settle this.
43:13
Speaker 5: I will talk about Clue telling Blue in the face.
43:15
Speaker 3: So yeah.
43:16
Speaker 5: I love the fact that they also would put it
43:19
Speaker 5: on different reels, so different theaters got different endings.
43:23
Speaker 3: I think it's too well for the box office though, that's.
43:25
Speaker 5: No, but yeah, I like the concept that's more of
43:29
Speaker 5: a Netflix era thing that would work.
43:32
Speaker 3: Yeah, that would be pretty cool.
43:33
Speaker 5: But all that to say, I'm giving this four missing daggers.
43:37
Speaker 5: This was an incredible start, giving just a little room
43:42
Speaker 5: to grow. But I definitely want to watch it again,
43:47
Speaker 5: you know, reevaluate or not reevaluate, just watch it again
43:51
Speaker 5: for the joy of watching it, for taking in the
43:55
Speaker 5: nuances of the performances and the characters. And I know
43:59
Speaker 5: I'm not going to be able to tell whose story
44:01
Speaker 5: is true, because that's not the point, but just just
44:05
Speaker 5: wallow in it. Even with the third act weird left
44:09
Speaker 5: turn of the baby that was a little much. I
44:12
Speaker 5: didn't quite quite get that. But yeah, for four daggers for.
44:17
Speaker 6: Me, John, how about you five?
44:19
Speaker 4: And I don't care like there are gonna be a
44:21
Speaker 4: lot of fives in this house. I'm gonna spoiler warning.
44:26
Speaker 3: I do like it. For me.
44:27
Speaker 4: It all comes back to this was a missing frame
44:32
Speaker 4: for me for many, many years. And then there was
44:34
Speaker 4: one day where I was like, oh, you know what,
44:35
Speaker 4: screw it, I'm just gonna watch Raschmon. And this wasn't
44:38
Speaker 4: in the distant past either, it was it was fairly resent.
44:42
Speaker 4: It's like within the last decade, and I was like,
44:44
Speaker 4: all right, let me just put this on and I
44:46
Speaker 4: put it on and I was just like, oh, oh goodness,
44:49
Speaker 4: oh wow, I get it, and I just I've loved
44:52
Speaker 4: it since I saw it the first time.
44:54
Speaker 2: So it's a solid five for me. It's a fine
44:57
Speaker 2: for me as well. This wasn't so much me falling
45:00
Speaker 2: in love with it or falling head over heels over
45:03
Speaker 2: it is just the craftsmanship, what it did for the culture,
45:08
Speaker 2: what it did to the zeitgeist, and how much it's
45:11
Speaker 2: been referenced. This was very much a pioneering movie and
45:15
Speaker 2: it was a great opening internationally to Kirasawa. And so yeah,
45:20
Speaker 2: five stars.
45:21
Speaker 6: One d percent. This deserves it.
45:23
Speaker 2: And I think everything that we said prior proves our
45:27
Speaker 2: points here, Darren, what are we doing next week?
45:30
Speaker 5: Oh, next week, We're continuing again in the House of
45:33
Speaker 5: Kirasawa with nineteen fifty four's Seven Samurai. Next on House Lights.
45:40
Speaker 1: Join the Revolution, Join the Net Party.