MovieChat Forums > Kagemusha (1980) Discussion > A Major Disappointment

A Major Disappointment

posted 17 years ago by AntoniusBlock4
27 replies | jump to latest

(Spoilers)
I list Kurosawa as one of my favorite directors and Ran and Seven Samurai as two of my favorite films so I when I finally got around to watching Kagemusha I greeted it with great anticipation. However, I was left bored and uninterested. The only thing I can really compliment it for is its beauty. The colors and shots are absolutely gorgeous. I've only seen the old Fox Lorber edition of Ran and the picture is horrid in comparison to the pristine Criterion dvd of Kagemusha. (Is the Criterion DVD of Ran as good looking as Kagemusha?) As for the actual film...I thought it was very unfulfilling. Whereas Ran was absolutely gripping in its depiction of Hidetora's descent into madness, I felt nothing for Shingen or his double. Why was Shingen a great man? He was a warlord like any other, I'm not at all convinced by his explanation that his warlike ways were only in the pursuit of peace and unity in Japan. I'm reminded of the billboards at the Air Force base in Dr. Strangelove that say "Peace is Our Profession." We're given too little time with him to develop any affection toward him. Yet somehow Shingen manages to win the double's heart in only a night. You may say that Shingen saved his life but as the leader of the Takeda clan he made the law that sad the double should be crucified for a petty crime. And what of the double... No back story is provided, besides his quick wit and gentleness with Takemaru he's rather bland. Thus his demise seemed pointless and absurd.

As for the pacing of the film...For a 3 hour long film I was surprised at how it failed to develop many of its subplots. The Katsuyori/Retainer conflict was one of the more interesting elements of the film but Katsuyori is introduced so late in the film that you get no real feel for his character or his motivations besides making a name for himself and establishing a legacy independent of his father's. The cuts to Nobunaga and Ieysau I think were superfluous and in the beginning a bit confusing. (And I do know a little bit of Japanese history and am familiar with the major players and events of the period) Instead of having Ieyasu talk about how great of a man Shingen was why not have a few more scenes with the man himself?

And the climactic battle scene? Disappointing as well, the shots are divided between Katsuyori and the retainers sitting and watching, cavalry and infantry driving forward, and Ieyasu's men shooting out from behind a barricade. The viewer gets no real sense of the gravity of the pitched battle happening before them. I kept wishing the camera would pan so you could see the cavalry riding down on the barricade and the devastating effect of the riflemen.

I'm at a loss for what the overall message or moral is to take from Kagemusha as well. Whereas Ran is a dire warning against the greedy, deceitful, and cruel nature of man (a lesson as applicable today as any time in our history) Kagemusha left me with some muddled thought about men as mountains...huh?

And where is the iconic imagery in Kagemusha? Ran had the final shot of the blind Tsurumaru standing at the top of the cliff, completely alone, the picture of Buddha given to him by his now dead sister lying at the foot of the cliff. Man standing before the precipice, unknowing, abandoned by god...

Maybe its foolish to compare it to Ran but it left me utterly uninterested.

Can someone tell me the appeal of Kagemusha to them and maybe address a complaint of mine?

By the way I know that I'm an idiot and know nothing about film so save it.

[–] dv_forever 17 years ago

Kagemusha is really just a warm up for the great Ran five years later. I've never cared for Kagemusha, it's a weak film with terribly slow pacing which cannot be disguised by it's underwhelming story line. Watch it if you're Kurosawa completist for sure but expect to be very underwhelmed. I've seen many Kurosawa pictures and this one is one of his least interesting although still better than others like Red Beard and Dersu Uzala. When Akira is at his worst, he really does suck!

[–] WarNerve626 17 years ago

I disagree. When Kurosawa is at his worst, the movie is still better than about 80% of anything else out there.

[–] PollyGene 17 years ago

EXACTLY! You'd have to be a fool to think otherwise.

Dersu Uzala is a masterpiece, by the way.

[–] TravisLikesSmoothJazz 8 years ago

I disagree with this narrative. Kagemusha is more of a personal story, and asks us questions about our very existense. Ran is grand shakespearean tragedy. Very different movies. I was actually surprised about how good Kagemusha was.

I am an *beep* but my friends compensate for that.

[–] artsy_chickie 17 years ago

You just said everything I thought after watching this film. Everything felt so underdeveloped. By the end of the movie I felt like I knew less of the characters than at the start. I honestly didn't even think the film was shot that well. Maybe he just tackled something more epic than he could handle, I don't know, but I felt nothing at the end.

All that said, I still love Kurosawa.

[–] kashmir511 17 years ago

Hey AntoniusBlock4,

I completely agree with you 100%.
I felt exactly the same way.

[–] adam_hebert 17 years ago

Antonius--

I agree with you on the following terms:

-A major strongpoint of Kagemusha is its aesthetics. Vibrant colors give life to extremely sterile and pristine environments which accurately depict (to my knowledge) 16th century Asia.
-The subplots were fairly undeveloped and /or seemed relatively unimportant.

However, I must argue with your general review of the film. Kagemusha is a wonderful testament to the importance of semiotics throughout history; the use of signifiers transcends cultures, time periods, and languages. Kagemusha is a tale which expresses the manner in which objects or people take on new meaning through the use of such semiotics. In its most basic sense, Kagemusha would not be the "shadow warrior" if he did not have Shingen to shadow. Hence, the signifier relies on the signified. Film itself, as a medium, relies on the same premise; a combination of a selection of sings (paradigms) gives meaning to otherwise meaningLESS objects / people.

Kurosawa extensively uses telephoto lenses and shoots his actors from far away in order to establish this ideal; the character himself is not relevant so much as his ability to stand for an idea or a representation is relevant. For example, the first scene shows the three men framed in long shot. Only the lord Shingen casts a shadow on the wall, while the other two men function as "shadowless" doubles. While shadowless, they are the shadows of Shingen, who now possesses three shadows. Shingen, like Kurosawa, understands the power of using and manipulating semiotic factors to one's advantage. Sometimes an object's face value pales in comparison to its deep rooted functions of communication.

As Marsha Kinder notes, in her article on Kagemusha, "Kurosawa demonstrates how signs can be the basis of certainty about historical matters of lfie and death. Were there any fewer ellipses in the signs concerning the deaths of JFK, Malcolm X, MLK, Jesus Christ, or any other iconic hero from the past." In essence, all important (and unimportant) historical events are based on the interpreter's reading of sign material. We act as bricoleurs by breaking down the constant stream of semiotic material into a meaningful whole. Similarly, the spies and generals in Kagemusha constantly attempt to understand the signs of Shingen's death (or injury) in order to discover the meaning behind the event.

On the subject of the last battle: I personally found Kurosawa's technique effective. Concealing information has always been an extremely effective technique, and by crosscutting with the generals' reactions the viewer learns all that is needed without seeing the horrific battle (a dramatic departure from Akira's technique in Seven Samurai!).

The finale: A brilliantly poignant moment in cinema. Kagemusha, through his semiotic relationship with Shingen, has been permanently transformed. The film previously tells us that "when the original is dead, the double has no meaning." What the ending tells us is that by shadowing the original the double becomes the original, metaphorically speaking. Kagemusha floats past the flag in the ocean, while Shingen lies dormant on the ocean floor. The two are linked, but distinct nonetheless. Furthermore, Kagemusha's dream sequence takes on meaning here; the surreal sky (rainbow) and pond of water (ocean) is presented once again ina different (but strikingly similar) way. Here, Kurosawa is challenging the viewer to interpret visual representations in a semiotic way and store them for later use.

Although I do prefer both Ran and Seven Samurai to Kagemusha, it is an extremely interesting text which provides a unique story as well as a brilliant commentary on the power of signs in film as well as life itself.

[–] PillowRock 17 years ago

> By the end of the movie I felt like I knew less of the characters
> than at the start.

I think that what you are naming as a weakness of the movie was actually a major part of the point of the movie.

Kagemusha raises questions about the nature of a person's identity. How much of one's identity is *truly* endemic to the person? How much of it is actually defined for them by the roles that we all play? It never tries to answer those questions with any kind of completeness. And that's OK, sometimes it is sufficient for art to raise a question.

One could argue that this is an issue that was more prevalent in feudal Japanese society than in modern Western society. A persons role in society, and the behaviors that were appropriate for each societal role, was more rigedly defined and enforced. However, that issue of individual versus roles as a defining quality for identity or "self" is far from moot in modern society as well.

[–] Xcalat3 17 years ago

I wouldn't say major but I did expect much more than it eventually was

7/10

I Worship The Goddess Amber Tamblyn

[–] kkawachi 17 years ago

I also went into this movie with huge expectations, and left dissapointed for the first time.

And for the first time only.

As I rewatched the film i took notice of details not there before. The "old" Kurosawa method is discarded, and replaced with a slower, colder, pace and tone. Mostly I focused on the character of the double. Nakadai's performance is brilliant the more you watch it. In particular his chemistry with Yamazaki is impressive. I think, perhaps unfairly, that a very Japanese mindset is necessary to enjoy the film. Knowledge of history does also help.

Don't compare this one to Ran, despite the similarites in subject matter they are about as different as one can make a film. Perspective and inspiration for these two films diverge so widely, but Kurosawa brings them together so well, its no wonder he deserves his place among the best directors of all time.

[–] pressureworld 17 years ago

Adam beautifully summed up the film "The film previously tells us that "when the original is dead, the double has no meaning." What the ending tells us is that by shadowing the original the double becomes the original" This film is simply wonderful

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] kirby-37 17 years ago

I couldn't disagree more with the assessment of this film as a failure. It is a great tiumph of Kurosawa precisely because it is so different from his other masterpieces, and functions on a completely different plane from them. The so-called lack of development is intentional, symoblizing the impossibility of the "shadow" to achieve independent life once the original is gone. And just as Shingen was the life force of he whole Takeda clan, the characters of the film are mere shadows in his absence. And the cinematography of the film is beyond brilliant and a great artistic achievement.

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] ferr-mail 17 years ago

Of the Kurosawa films I've seen this is in my top 3. I think it helps to have an affinity for the warring states period of Japan in order to really love this movie.

To have Takeda, Nobunaga, and Tokugawa come to life through the eyes of Kurosawa is great.. and it's the little details of history that Kurosawa dashes in, almost invisible at times, that pushes this movie over the top for me.. after Nobunaga and Tokugawa's meeting Oda says he "must stop those religious rioters in Ise", which is a reference to the battle between Nobunaga and the corrupt warrior-monks of Mount Hiei.

[–] nihilistdude2000 17 years ago

I agree with pretty much everything the orginal poster said. It seems to me Ran is everything that Kagemusha tried to be. Sort of like....Kagemusha was the precursor to the masterpiece that is Ran. But yeah, I have to say Kagemusha was a weak film from Kurosawa. I couldn't wait for the final 15 minutes to end. The long drawn out battle scenes were boring, and the shots too drawn out of the horses wallowing around and stuff.

And to whoever said Dersu Uzulu sucks you are a fool. It was nominated for an Academy Award for Best Foreign Film. Actually, I think it won. I agree about Red Beard though. My least favorite Kurosawa. Couldn't even finish it.

"Hey Neighbor, you got about one f ucking second to live buddy" - Frank Booth

[–] Trouter2000 17 years ago

I think the problem with Kagemusha lies not in the film itself, but rather in the way people view it. Kurosawa is often regarded as a very western director in comparison to his counterparts, and in almost all of his films he has a flavor which appeals to a universal audience because it isn't held down by cultural aspects. However, of all his films I have seen Kagemusha is his most Japanese; I like Japanese cinema and it was no problem with me, but I understand how many people would not be expecting it after seeing such films as Yojimbo or Ran.

Its equally good to all but his greatest work, but I think it is far less accessible then any of his other films.

Last film seen: Pickpocket 9/10

[–] ruzhyo2000-1 17 years ago

I have to disagree with nearly everyone here. I liked Kagemusha more then Ran. The only films of Kurosawa's I think that compete with it in my opinion are Seven Samurai, Yojimbo, and Ikiru.

To say that the ending didn't focus enough on the action is absurd. Kurosawa uses a technique of 'implying' actions are happening instead of actually showing them happen. This is something Kurosawa is known for, (he does this in Seven Samurai as well), and he pulls it off perfectly. After all, it should be easy enough for you to visualize thousands of cavaly and infantry troops being slaughtered by a hail of gunfire, then why show it when it's not nearly as important as the double's reaction?

I don't view Kagemusha as having nor needing an overall moral. Does every truely great movie have to be a warning? Kagemusha is a much more simple piece than Ran, yet still maintains a great amount of power in the way it is told, and I appreciate it more for this.

I never really talk a lot about Kurosawa's movies with others, I just watch them, so I didn't know that Ran was generally regarded with such a higher regard than Kagemusha. I saw the symbology and understood the message, but I think it somewhat missed whatever chord it intended to strike with me, whereas Kagemusha, a simple film that is told beautifully and with some of the greatest examples of cinematography I have ever seen (Kagemusha is one of the first films where I was simply awe struck by the scenery), was a perfect hit. I must say that I regard Kagemusha as a masterpiece, and Ran as simply one of the greats.

[–] KAarman 17 years ago

I totally agree with you!

Kagemusha is simply a great story. And it is so beautiful in both scenery and characters that it makes Ran pale is comparison.

While Ran contains the universal message of human suffering, Kagemusha is a story, a story that inspires the hell out of me, but also at the same time transcendes itself.

I acually cared about the people in Kagemusha, at least more so than in Ran, it is a more human film than Ran.

i could go on, but other people have described it already.