Ran has always been on my radar but I never got motivated enough to watch it before this week. The reasons I would want to watch it are straightforward and of obvious appeal to me, it’s a Jidaegeki (i.e., Japanese period piece) featuring samurai, directed by Akira Kurosawa and typically considered one of his best films standing equal or near to Roshomon, Seven Samurai, Ikiru, High and Low, etc., and it’s a loose adaptation of Shakespeare’s King Lear.
The reasons I never watched it are also clear to me, it doesn’t feature the great Toshiro Mifune as it was made after the actor and director had their falling out. It’s in color, which for me, makes samurai films less appealing. (I find that there’s something less believable about a samurai film when it’s in color, as if color is an abandonment of B&W’s stark realism.) Also, I’m not as familiar with King Lear as I am with Hamlet and Macbeth.
Ran stars Tatsuya Nakadai, who in my opinion is the second greatest actor from Japan. Depending on my mood I might at times put Takashi Shimura as the second greatest actor from Japan, but I’ll stick with this ranking for now, largely because Nakadai is also the star of one of my favorite films Harakiri (1962; dir. Kobayashi).
Ultimately, I found myself looking more fondly upon Kurosawa’s earlier film Throne of Blood (1957), which bears similarities (betrayal and violence begetting violence) while also featuring aspects that I’ve already spoken positively about (i.e., it stars Mifune, it’s B&W, and it’s an adaptation of Macbeth). I think I’m in the minority here, but this review is one man’s perspective.
Other reasons that Ran doesn’t quite stack up for me were that I didn’t find myself identifying fondly with any of the characters. The most interesting character was the jester and Lord Hideotora (Nakadai). While Nakadai was excellent, his performance was largely contemplative and profound. Conversely, Mifune’s performance is animalistic and passionately intense.
Ran has an epic battle scene involving what seemed like thousands of flaming arrows. That said, even this epic scene where Lord Hideotora waits for a fate that doesn’t come, I couldn’t help compare it to Throne of Blood’s arrow scene where Mifune is encountered by several volleys of arrows landing inches from him as his men turn against him. The stakes felt much higher in that scene. Partially because Mifune did the stunt with real arrows but also because Mifune’s character Taketoshi Washizu depicted palpable fear and dread during his men’s revolt.
I also feel like Throne sets the stage better for the tragedy, having encountered the witch in the forest, and the creepy voice modulation and audio/video manipulation which makes the audience feel uneasy in the presence of what must clearly be supernatural. Whereas in Ran, the stage is set due to old age and the hubris of an old man.
Ran’s main themes include family betrayal, violence begetting violence, and paternal hubris. Throne of Blood’s main themes are also betrayal and violence begetting violence. Throne has more of an eerie supernatural atmosphere while Ran is more grandiose and technicolor. Throne is a leaner, tighter story; while Ran is longer and drawn out.
In conclusion, both are great films, but one is easier to rewatch, is as impactful, and I think more rewarding. That one to me is Throne of Blood.
The Curated Life Worth Reading 
Leave a comment