Title sums it up really, the thought of a 265 mintute version fills me with horror. Perhaps i'd have found it more endurable if i'd read Dostievsky's book before seeing this film. I seriously doubt it though. Anyone care to challenge my views or share my pain?
sharemaybe your attention span being lengthened would help.
just a thought.
Dostoevsky even thought "the idiot" was by far he worst thing he'd written, IMVHO Kurasawa saw this more as an exercise in showing the world how good at that directing he is if anyone could adapt the Idiot into a reasonable feature film it would be him, and well he didnt.
shareI have never seen that written anywhere.
The Idiot is one of his best Novels Doystoyevsky(you didnt even bother to check the spelling of Fyodors name, i am sure he is glad that someone like you is explaining to the world which novel he loved or hated the most, the story evolves around an epleptic prince. Doystoyevsky himself was epletic. the story was hard for him to write in one of his most sick times in his life. but he never hated it) . You I doubt you have even read it.
there are many japanese Authors who use the Idiot as their starting point, the book is greatly celebrated,. your ideas are completely wrong about this.Kirowsawa made it a movie because the Japanese people and him himself are big fans of the story.
Somehow I would guess that the correct spelling of Dostoevsky invloves Cyrillic. Just a hunch.
The book is great. I'm a big fan of his (RE: my name), and I've never heard anything about him not liking it.
Now if only ben would spell "epileptic" right...
(I haven't seen the movie, though.)
The truth is, Dostoevskij never liked his own writings because he almost never had enough time for a "delicate finishing" he always dreamt of.
But he always appreciated the "Idiot", he definitely liked the 1st part, and in 1876 he wrote in his notebook:
"People, not critics have always supported me. Does any critic know the ending of the 'Idiot' - a scene so powerful that is has no match in the literature. And the public knows it..."
I think that the Hakuchi is probably the best adapttion of the book.
"Dostoevsky" - not "Dostoyevsky" - is the correct English spelling. Or rather as "correct" as transliterations go. Pronounced the same regardless, of course.
share"Dostoevsky" is generally how it is spelled. However, I have also seen it spelled with two i's at the end (which would be a closer match to the Cyrillic) and even with an "ij." Whoever had the "hunch" that the correct spelling involved Cyrillic is, well, correct. In any case, it's not particularly important to the film, is it?
share"Dostoevsky" - not "Dostoyevsky" - is the correct English spelling. Or rather as "correct" as transliterations go. Pronounced the same regardless, of course.Either one is valid. Russian words and names can be transliterated a number of ways. The only real "correct" spelling is the way it's spelled in Cyrillic.
You are an idiot. Not the good kind, like Prince Myshkin, just stupid.
share[deleted]
The Idiot is one of my favorite Dostoevsky books, but I remember disliking this movie, greatly. Kurosawa always drives me nuts, so probably just a matter of taste.
Most tedious though? Hmm, ever see Buffalo 66?
I think Tarkovsky's "Solaris" is incredibly boring. I've never made it thru the first half. I enjoyed Kurosawa's "The Idiot" however. Every shot is perfectly set up and worth watching just for the cinematography -- if you freeze frame in almost any place the composition is good enough to be a still photo by itself. The cinematography is great -- the way he uses the snow (great idea setting it in Hokkaido during winter), his focus on the actors' faces and reactions is brilliant. The nighttime scene of the ice festival, with the characters in grotesque masks wielding sparkling fireworks as they circle and swarm past is magnificent.
Even though it's 3 hrs long it does feels as if parts are missing which would probably be explained by the 265 min version. It's not quite clear why the characters react as they do or how the various relationships evolved as they did. I imagine Dostoevsky's novel is not very "visually" constructed, which must have made Kurosawa's job much harder. Some of the acting does seem over-the-top, too. I guess I liked it because it's rare to find a Kurosawa film that's set in the more or less modern world. In that category so far I've only seen this one and "The Bad Sleep Well," and I'm going to take a look at "Stray Dog."
It's been a while now since I've seen this movie and I think my feelings toward it were based largely upon disappointment as a Dostoevsky fan. I'll keep it in mind to rent again and try to view it for what it is, rather than what I wanted it to be. I'd like to go back and check out the cinematography since it was probably lost on me the first time around. Thanks.
shareRe Kurosawa films set in contemporary times.
I find I'm liking them more than his historical films (apart from Seven Samurai, of course, the best film ever made by anyone anywhere...)
Check out Ikiru, Drunken Angel, High and Low, I Live in Fear, as well as Stray Dog. Enjoy!
I've finally seen this film, and I must say that I didn't understand it. I own the book, but I haven't read it yet, though I may in the future to better understand what Kurosawa was attempting. Its seems that everyone in the story is crazy. The Idiot, Kameda is touched, and Taeko is damaged as well, but why can nobody else see this? You have all of these other people falling in love with these complete lunatics, and it drives them crazy. Mifune's character, seems normal at first, but he falls in love with this completely irrational woman, who will fall in love with him, and then reject him for his friend, the Idiot. In the end , Akamma kills her just to be rid of the trouble that she has caused for him and his beloved friend Kameda.
Now all of this is not so crazy or unbelieveable, but why in the world would Ayoka fall for Kameda? Ayoka is a normal girl, who has men courting her, and she falls for an insane man who is completely out of touch with reality. The entire Akoya sub-plot is unbelievable to me, and the fact that it is this device which brings us to the (probably inevitable) climax is what de-rails the story for me.
also, that the film was this long without any pomp and circumstance, only very heavy dialogue sequences and only one (really good, but short) montage, combined with the missing scenes and the not-so-believeable Ayoka sub-plot; made this one of my least favorite of Kurosawa's
I think that in this film Kurosawa is trying to say that madness is a communicable disaese
I find your comment really interesting but don't ever forget to put an 'spoiler' alert before if you're telling the film's conclusion; it's an imprudence, not everybody has read the book to figure it out.
shareI haven't seen the movie yet but I've read the book, and to somehwat explain it in the books own owrds... Ayoka falls for Kameda because his "noble simplicity of spirit and boundless trustfulness". She says that she began loving him because he is easily deceived, but just as easily forgives everyone that deceives him.
Really depressing ending, though.
Yeah, watch Stray Dog. It's really a fantastic movie. If you're going to like it, then I recommend seeing also High and Low.
Last week I watched Red Beard, one of the best movies I've ever seen.
All movies are of course from Kurosawa. A fantastic director.
Back to the "The Idiot" ... possible spoiler ahead ...
I didn't read the books, so what happened at the end?
Kameda went insane or did he killed himself realizing what he did or what?
...the thought of a 265 mintute version fills me with horror.Matbe the full version without the idiotic (no pun intended) cuts that Shochiku made would make more sense. As it is, Setsuka Hara being in a movie is worth (my) watching it share
Kurosawa's fury about the cuts makes sense.
All the important critics (Richie, Galbraith) seem to think that the cuts, which ended up being clumsily replaced by incomplete intertitles, ruined the overall effect of the film.
As it is, although certainly not his best, it is a fine adaptation of a difficult book. Read the book carefully and compare it to the film, and I think it's amazing how well it transfers to the culture of northern Japan (where people sit in chairs and use knives and forks!)...
The cast is awesome, imo. And as mac alain states, ANYTHING with Setsuko Hara in it is worthwhile!
Richie actually makes a bit fun of her overacting, but I'm certain that was the style that Kurosawa was going for.
Also I think Masayuki Mori was fantastic. Kurosawa gave him a lot of important roles after Rashomon and this film...
LS
(Obviously, Mifune is spectacular, as always!)
Also I think Masayuki Mori was fantastic.Oh, absolutely. He very much carries the film, and that is not taking anything away from the other actors. share
Yes. I have seen Forrest Gump. That is tedious cinema. "The Idiot" is intelligent cinema.
share[deleted]
I wanted to love this, or even like this, or even just to find it OK - but I really struggled to watch the whole thing. It is so self indulgent - there is such a lot of over acting in it, and many many scenes that could easily be trimmed down to convey the same message in half the time.
I gave it 2/10 - and I am a Kurosawa fan. :-(
[deleted]
I love Kurosawa, truly. But this was....too long and dragging.
share