Kurosawa: The Most Versatile Director of All Time

In otherr words, fbaezer, you are just too knowledgeable to give us the benefit of your knowledge? Pardon me while I fall down laughing...I have 2 degrees in Modern European history and I seriously doubt I know less about the history of Fascism in all its national varieties than you do. But since you fail to define the term, let me make a stab at it:

Broadly speaking, fascism is right-wing authoritarianism.

See how easy that was, fbaezer? You could have done it yourself.

Larry, on your question regarding his masterpiece, I'd have to agree with Samurai -- it simply makes you feel alive. But Ikiru makes you want to live (no pun intended).

Tim--Welcome to A2K!

It is so hard to pick ONE Kurosawa masterpiece. Certainly SEVEN SAMURAI is one. But I'd hate to overlook other beloved movies like RASHOMON, THRONE OF BLOOD, YOJIMBO, and IKIRU. Even his second-tier movies like HIGH AND LOW and THE BAD SLEEP WELL would be another director's crowning achievements.

Just got back from a double feature of THRONE OF BLOOD and THEHIDDEN FORTRESS, the second I'd never seen before. THRONE is a classic, especially the last half hour when the tragedy kicks in for the Macbeth/Lady Macbeth characters. HIDDEN FORTRESS is more of a popcorn movie, a pure entertainment, but lots of fun. Mifune's spear duel with the enemy general is the high point in terms of action. I vaguley saw the STAR WARS connection, but it is really a loose influence on the Lucas film...they both have embattled princesses and that's about it.

Sorry for shamelessly baiting you on Kael giving a bad review to "Raging Bull" because it was about boxing (no, I didn't mean it to be a dumb sexist remark). I haven't researched if she ever gave a boxing movie a good review but one has to agree that the majority of critics disagree with her on that one (even though it will never be on the top of my list as "Goodfellas" still is). Anyway, back to Kurosawa.

"Throne of Blood" I saw at the Hollywood Vogue theater as I remember while I was attending my first college art classes and I was enthralled with the imagery. I kept comparing it with Welles' version of "MacBeth" and here Kurosawa excelled in his storytelling as well as the editing, not to mention the perfect pairing with the cinematographer Nakai. I just saw it again on a cable channel and am still impressed.

Sorry for shamelessly baiting you on Kael giving a bad review to "Raging Bull" because it was about boxing (no, I didn't mean it to be a dumb sexist remark). I haven't researched if she ever gave a boxing movie a good review but one has to agree that the majority of critics disagree with her on that one (even though it will never be on the top of my list as "Goodfellas" still is). Anyway, back to Kurosawa.

"Throne of Blood" I saw at the Hollywood Vogue theater as I remember while I was attending my first college art classes and I was enthralled with the imagery. I kept comparing it with Welles' version of "MacBeth" and here Kurosawa excelled in his storytelling as well as the editing, not to mention the perfect pairing with the cinematographer Nakai. I just saw it again on a cable channel and am even more impressed.

Kael liked plenty of violent movies, including the work of Sam Peckinpah. I don't see what a majority vote in aesthetic matters proves--a majority of critics thought DANCES WITH WOLVES was a worthy movie, too, when in fact it was sentimental slop (as Kael also wrote.) If you are going to go by majority opinion, Lightwizard, you are eventually going to have to say that the most popular movie (with critics or audiences) is also the best. That is a plainly ridiculous position. There are great directors like Antonioni, Godard, and Bergman who have made masterpieces that audiences AND critics rejected. Does that make their work no good? Conversely, if all the critics say that Spielberg is a better director than Robert Altman, does that make it true? Stop waving the stick of majority opinion, Lightwizard. It's unconvincing and doesn't help you make your case.

Waving a stick of majority opinion? That's quite a metaphor, larry.

I don't believe "Dances With Wolves" is anywhere near the top of a list with respected worldwide critics. Maybe the critic for USA Today. It certainly did receive all rave reviews. I still don't believe "Raging Bull" is quite as bad as Kael's review and anyone has the right to dissent from their fellow critics. In rereading the review, I don't believe she made her case and missed the point of the film. She was criticizing the same thing Scorcese was indicting about the boxing game. That one particular review doesn't work for me and many of her reviews do work for me. The other directors you mentioned were met with controversial responses to their films where many of them amended their opinions in later years. I don't recall ever reading a bad review of those director's films and won't bother to research it. You keep trying to put words in my mouth about judging films not on my own but by popular majority of critics and the movie goer. Why would you even think that? Just because of one remark about the initial release of one film that got likely only one bad review by one critic (I'd like to find another) and has been held in high esteem ever since? No, you won't find a lot of movies on the list compiled by Sight and Sound because they don't even poll most of the pop critics. Naturally, most of them are European and especially British critics (Sight and Sound magazine is bound with the BFI).

Lightwizard, are you trying to say that Pauline Kael was the ONLY critic in America who didn't like RAGING BULL? If so, you are surely mistaken. And even if she had been, that would not make her wrong. Many, many times Kael was the only critic who praised a film--like Robert Altman's THE LONG GOODBYE--which over time has established itself as a classic. You are still wedded to the herd principle. If enough critical cows moo, it must be a masterpiece.

No, I doubt that Paulene (sic) was the only critic that didn't like "Raging Bull," I'm saying it would be difficult to find one then or now who doesn't laud the film and considers it a classic. I remember other very good reviews of "The Long Goodbye" but I think it will take another ten years before it can hope to become a classic. It still is a three star film and not as good as Altman's other efforts. I don't slavishly follow a concensus of critics because my top ten list doesn't entirely match theirs. Of course, the list in Sight and Sounds has some influence in that I revisit the films I haven't seen in many years and it may or may not cause me to revise my list. That mine may come up with similarities to the list is because I have decided on the reviewing that it belongs on my list. "Raging Bull" is not on my top ten list of the best films of the last twenty-five years and it had nothing to do with where Kael liked or disliked the film. I don't disagree that it probably belongs there because of the filmmaking and I don't believe these critics are hero worshipping Scorcese as a herd of cattle (your metaphor). I do agree with a few points in here critique but I'm not sure it's because I'm biased about prize fighting. So you're shot gun wedding to the "herd" principal isn't going to work. Moo to you, too

BTW, "The Third Man" appears on my top ten list and not on their list.

Here is a list of critics who don't consider RAGING BULL a classic or laud it as a great film:

J. Hoberman, The Village Voice
Jonathan Rosenbaum, The Chicago Reader
Carrie Rickey, The Philadelphia Inquirer

And I repeat, even if 100% of the critics said it was a great film, what would that prove?

You're right -- it doesn't matter.

I am glad that you agree with me, LW. Art is not a democracy. We do not conduct polls to determine what is and is not studied in English class, and the opinions of critics are--in the final analysis--irrelevant to film.

Of course, art is not a democracy -- one man's meat is another man's poison. I don't agree that well written essays on film are irrelevant and disposable. No man is an island and I do read opinion as a supplement and to determine exactly why I do like or don't like a film. Not for conformation but to see if I can go back to the film and appreciate it more -- the ones I like as well as the ones I don't like. Kael has contributed more to this enjoyment than any other critic although obviously I have some reservation about the points she makes in disliking or liking a film. Just like a director who doesn't always perform and deliver a great film, a critic can sometimes deliver a not-so-great review. Sorry if I look for underlying reasons why they might not like a film but that's my perogative and there's not intent on insulting the critic, especially if they've passed away (as if Paulene would care if I don't agree of if I commited a typo on here first name). It would be tantamount to criticizing Ebert because of his weight.

If you need a critic to tell you why you like or don't like a movie, then you are substituting the critic's taste for your own. Film is a fairly easy art to appreciate compared to abstract painting or lyric poetry, so I don't quite understand why you need a critic to tell you any such thing. Certainly some critics are smarter than others, but I have never yet read one who told me why I liked a movie or disliked it if I didn't already know. Call me arrogant, but my OWN taste determines my likes and dislikes, not the whims of some self-appointed connoisseur like Roger Ebert. I was looking at his book on the Great Movies today--what a pitiful piece of bad writing, bad scholarship, and sloppy thinking.

I didn't say anything of the sort -- I said I don't read reviews for conformation of my taste in films. On older films, I sometimes read them and it's likely to prompt me to rent a film or try and catch it on cable because I wasn't sure what I liked or disliked about the film. Call me curious with an imperfect memory for every film I've ever seen but I've found it a revelation to return to a film and see it again and sometimes I've found I agree with a critic as to its flaws and/or attributes. On new films, I may or may not pay any attention to the critics. It's rather like betting on a horse when one isn't an expert on horse racing -- with a computer it wouldn't take long to do some quick research and come up with some good horses to bet on. I don't form my opinion on a film according to any one critic nor by any comments on these boards. I disagree about Ebert's book but perhaps you could do better -- you must believe you know more about film than him? I don't always agree with Ebert -- the recent entry "Written on the Wind" is a dubious choice as a great movie. I do think Ebert tries to be a populist at times in recommending movies he believe a certain sector of his audience might like -- he's perhaps trying to be a little too servicable in that regard. You might enjoy his "Book On Film" which is his complilation of other writers on film.
BTW, he consistently expresses a high regard for Kael even if he sometimes disagrees.

I'm also curious about the fact that you represent yourself as a writer -- are you a writer of original work or a critic?

You said, "I do read opinion...to determine exactly why I do like or don't like a film." That's what I was talking about when I spoke of substituting a critic's opinion for your own opinion.

I never said I knew more than Ebert, just that his GREAT MOVIES book is a slovenly piece of work. However I don't regard him as a particularly smart critic. I had a higher opinion of the late Gene Siskel--the wrong partner in that duo died first.

Yes, I am a writer. I have been a reporter and a critic. Now I write fiction and plays. I don't know how I am "representing myself", whatever the hell that means. It sounds vaguely insulting. I have a book coming out in June. You will be able to order it from Amazon.com. I am indeed a writer. Sorry to disappoint you.

You took that out of context -- I said reading as a supplement without delineating how much influence they actually have other than they may exact my assessment on the film because I agree or disagree on something I did not remember. It's more likely something I missed when I saw the film and time has passed and I don't recall exactly why I liked or disliked a film. Unlikely that any review on its own would compel me to accept or reject seeing and older film. I may see the film again and still disagree with the critic and on the other hand agree. It may not be for the same reasons as I'm naturally going to have a different outlook. If you are trying to intimate I'm a conformist, you don't know me very well.

No, I wasn't alluding to your writing as being insulting. That's up to you whether you think it's kosher to change hats from the original writer to being the critic. It can be misread but on these forums in anonymity and you might not believe that's important. BTW, Ebert did win the Pulitzer.

You're also saying you would have preferred Ebert to die first?

Between Siskel and Ebert, I found Siskel to be far more intelligent, astute, and perceptive. So if one of them had to die first, I would have preferred that it be Ebert. The fact that he won the Pulitzer doesn't impress me. Janet Cooke won the Pulitzer for a series of WASHINGTON POST news stories that turned out to be totally fictitious.