It is currently Sat Nov 18, 2017 8:10 am

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 81 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
Author Message
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Mar 21, 2007 11:45 am 
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 1:20 pm
Location: New England
Harold Gervais wrote:
The Idiot is more a curiosity than a great movie and I enjoy Scandal but again would not call it a great Kurosawa film.

"Idiot" -- possibly my favorite Kurosawa film -- one of the greatest adaptations of a great novel ever made (despite the studio slashing). "Scandal" -- I'll take it over "Ikiru" any day of the week.


Top
 Profile  
 

 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Mar 21, 2007 12:33 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 19, 2006 10:09 am
Harold Gervais wrote:
The Idiot is more a curiosity than a great movie and I enjoy Scandal but again would not call it a great Kurosawa film..

Agreed about "Scandal", but I don't think we can judge "The Idiot" at all, as the only version still in existence is the one that was butchered by the studio with about 100 (!) minutes missing. Thus the stupid gaps in the narrative and the general uneven feel it has. But still I must say I quite like it, especially because of Setsuko Hara's performance and the general nods of her role to Cocteau's Maria Casares in "Orphée" (or even more to her role in "Les dames du Bois du Boulogne"). A wonderfully atmospherish film, though probably one of the most 'western' looking of Kurosawa. So, despite of it quite definitely being a far cry from Kurosawa's original intentions, I find it's much more than a pure curiosity.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Mar 21, 2007 12:38 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Mon Nov 08, 2004 3:34 pm
Quote:
Nevertheless, I was surprised to learn that Criterion was working on THE MEN WHO STEP ON THE TIGER'S TAIL ahead of RECORD and some of the other non-CC Kurosawas.

I was surprised too, but very pleased. Its fascinating production history aside—filming underway on the eve of the Japanese surrender, banned by the Occupation government due to revengeful subterfuge by the Japanese censors, one of whom had been humiliated by Kurosawa, and not shown in Japan until 1952—The Men Who Tread on the Tiger's Tail is also one of Kurosawa's most entertaining early films. It's as satisfying in its own way as Kurosawa's later, more earnestly serious work from the forties, with strong story and characters, free of the bathos that mars some of AK's other films from that decade. With the possible exception of Yojimbo, it's also his funniest film, thanks largely to the performance by Enoken, the beloved comic actor with whom Kurosawa had earlier worked as an assistant director and script writer. I think Tiger's Tail is the only film featuring Enoken that is generally available, and it's easy to see why Kurosawa sought him out for this role. There's a commemorative stature of Enoken in Asakusa, the old entertainment district in the northern sector of Tokyo.

I suspect Tiger's Tail will end up as a lower-tier title with few extras, but it would be great to see excerpts from some of Enoken's other film performances, and maybe some historical material on the fate of Japanese cinema in the immediate postwar period, when hundreds of films were rounded up and burned by Occupation forces.

Michael Kerpan wrote:
"Scandal" -- I'll take it over "Ikiru" any day of the week.

While I admire Shimura in many other films, his performances in these two are prime examples of the bathos to which Kurosawa is so often prone.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Mar 21, 2007 1:49 pm 

Joined: Thu Apr 14, 2005 3:59 pm
Location: Columbus, OH
THE MEN WHO STEP ON THE TIGER'S TAIL is an amusing trifle, imho. I suspect it's in the works because (if memory serves) it's the final Kurosawa period film remaining un-Criterionized. And because of the fascinating backstory of its production. The Richie commentary certainly should be interesting!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Mar 21, 2007 5:34 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Sun Nov 07, 2004 7:24 pm
Re. Kurosawa and Eclipse:

An Eclipse box gathering the lower profile early works makes sense, but if there are It Is Wonderful to Create episodes associated with each of them, then they'll probably end up Criterionised. The alternative would be to go the Eclipse way and then collect the relevant documentaries onto the Criterion release of a contempory Kurosawa (e.g. Tiger's Tail).


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Mar 21, 2007 6:35 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 2:58 pm
Location: Paris, Texas
I hope they are not thinking of still releasing one Kurosawa flick a year. I mean Drunken Angel this year, I Live in Fear next year, and so on. Damn where is Dodes'ka-den? If the elements are bad, why don't they just release them under Eclipse.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Mar 21, 2007 11:34 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 2:09 pm
Tommaso wrote:
Harold Gervais wrote:
The Idiot is more a curiosity than a great movie and I enjoy Scandal but again would not call it a great Kurosawa film..

Agreed about "Scandal", but I don't think we can judge "The Idiot" at all, as the only version still in existence is the one that was butchered by the studio with about 100 (!) minutes missing. Thus the stupid gaps in the narrative and the general uneven feel it has.

I'm aware of the history of the film and the way it was treated & cut but I can't consider what doesn't exist or what might have been. The film is worth seeing but in the form we have access to, it isn't close to his best work. I'd love nothing more than for the missing film to be discovered so we can all judge what Kurosawa wanted but short of that, well, I'm glad I've seen it and I'm glad I own it.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Mar 21, 2007 11:40 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 1:20 pm
Location: New England
Harold Gervais wrote:
{Idiot} isn't close to his best work.

Sez you. ;~}


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Mar 21, 2007 11:47 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 9:36 pm
Location: "born in heaven, raised in hell"
I'm with Michael on this. It was MoC's Idiot and Scandal that made me like Kurosawa. Then Criterion's Bad Sleep Well came along and blew me away. I simply do not understand how Seven Samurai (boring!), Roshomon (the best of his so-called masterpieces), Ikiru (maudlin), Throne of Blood, and Sanjuro get thumbs up from fans and critics while these films are considered second rung.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Mar 22, 2007 12:19 am 
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 1:20 pm
Location: New England
denti alligator wrote:
I'm with Michael on this. It was MoC's Idiot and Scandal that made me like Kurosawa. Then Criterion's Bad Sleep Well came along and blew me away. I simply do not understand how Seven Samurai (boring!), Roshomon (the best of his so-called masterpieces), Ikiru (maudlin), Throne of Blood, and Sanjuro get thumbs up from fans and critics while these films are considered second rung.

Rashomon made me allergic to Japanese cinema for decades -- while "Idiot" and "No Regrets" (which I watched only due to my devotion to Setsuko Hara) made me reconsider my aversion for Kurosawa.

Every fan can (must) create their own Kurosawa -- and MY Kurosawa is the one who made Idiot, Red Beard, Lower Depths, Stray Dog, Throne of Blood (as examples) -- and not the one who made Rashomon, Ikiru and Ran. ;~}


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Mar 22, 2007 12:41 am 
User avatar

Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 2:09 pm
denti alligator wrote:
I'm with Michael on this. It was MoC's Idiot and Scandal that made me like Kurosawa. Then Criterion's Bad Sleep Well came along and blew me away. I simply do not understand how Seven Samurai (boring!), Roshomon (the best of his so-called masterpieces), Ikiru (maudlin), Throne of Blood, and Sanjuro get thumbs up from fans and critics while these films are considered second rung.

And I guess I don't understand how anyone can think Seven Samurai boring. It's been 30 years since I first saw it, it is something I re-visit almost yearly and I still find it to be one of the most exciting movies I've ever watched. I'm glad you and Michael feel the way you do, and like I said....I'm happy to have seen both The Idiot and Scandal but when you stack them up against the rest of his work, they pale in comparison. Still, they are all part of a whole and even failures, for me at least, like The Idiot, even if beyond Kurosawa's control, is a better film than most people direct in their entire careers. The Idiot is incomplete and it feels that way. High and Low was the Kurosawa for me that got me interested in his work and to this day it is still one of my favorites. You & Michael like different ones. Got it.

Michael Kerpan wrote:
Rashomon made me allergic to Japanese cinema for decades -- while "Idiot" and "No Regrets" (which I watched only due to my devotion to Setsuko Hara) made me reconsider my aversion for Kurosawa.

Every fan can (must) create their own Kurosawa -- and MY Kurosawa is the one who made Idiot, Red Beard, Lower Depths, Stray Dog, Throne of Blood (as examples) -- and not the one who made Rashomon, Ikiru and Ran. ;~}

It's all a matter of degree. I agree with you totally on Red Beard, Stray Dog, Throne of Blood and Ran. Rashomon is one of those movies that I recognize as important but don't really enjoy a whole lot. Ikiru I just find to be a beautiful movie and a very moving one.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Mar 22, 2007 7:11 am 
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 19, 2006 10:09 am
Harold Gervais wrote:
And I guess I don't understand how anyone can think Seven Samurai boring. It's been 30 years since I first saw it, it is something I re-visit almost yearly and I still find it to be one of the most exciting movies I've ever watched.

Incidentally, I just re-watched it last evening, and while I don't find it boring, I still find it is somewhat too long. There are a lot of social and personal subtexts of the characters explored, but one gets the point after 2 1/2 hours, but it still goes on for one more. For me, "Samurai" doesn't have the relentlessness and power of "Throne of Blood".

Harold Gervais wrote:
The Idiot, even if beyond Kurosawa's control, is a better film than most people direct in their entire careers.

That's precisely what I wanted to hear. Seriously, I can understand that everyone has preferences if it comes to Kurosawa, but what I find interesting is that he constantly explores the same themes of social criticism and the role of the individual against the 'system', regardless of whether he makes a crime thriller, a social drama like "Ikiru" or a period film. Thus I find his work pretty unified and it would be hard for me to pick a favourite. Still I wonder about the dislike expressed here against "Rashomon". Whatever you think of the story or the acting, the film is endlessly inventive and astonishing visually, in a way that even Kuro himself hardly matched again.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Mar 22, 2007 8:39 am 
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 1:20 pm
Location: New England
One of the main things I _dislike_ about Rashomon is the acting -- and this is despite being a big fan of Mifune, Kyo, Mori (et al) in general. Idiot, on the other hand, has absolutely stunning performances by virtually everyone. ;~}


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Mar 22, 2007 9:56 am 

Joined: Thu Apr 14, 2005 3:59 pm
Location: Columbus, OH
I understand the tendency to nitpick the canonized classics and latch on to pet films which are lesser celebrated. But, as I've already posted on this thread, I find something worthwhile in every Kurosawa picture -- including those generally regarded as masterpieces.

SEVEN SAMURAI is, imho, one of the handful of best films ever made. Its length limits the frequency with which I revisit it, but otherwise is not an issue for me. I enjoy the fact that Kurosawa takes the time to develop the film's setting and large cast of characters. And it's not as if the film lacks action. Indeed, it's probably the quickest-feeling 3 1/2-hour movie I've ever watched.

RASHOMON is something of an anomaly in the Kurosawa filmography, because it strikes me as a rather cool, intellectual film -- a rumination on the elusive nature of truth, absent the warm emotional core and driving narrative normally found in Kurosawa's best films. But nevertheless it's a brilliant idea, impeccibly executed. Yes, it's beautifully photographed, but (imho, anyway) it's well-acted, too. Especially when you consider that the actors have to render different versions of their characters for each conflicting version of the story. I was going to say they are, essentially, asked to play four different characters. But actually, what the cast is called upon to do is more difficult and subtle than that: They are asked to create four distinct "takes" on a single character, while maintaining a recognizable outline common to all versions. They have to come up with something different, yet the same, multiple times. In some instances, especially with Mifune, some of these takes are extreme and exaggerated, but the variation in styles is necessary to create the distinctiveness required for each telling's version of the character.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Mar 22, 2007 10:21 am 
User avatar

Joined: Mon Nov 08, 2004 3:34 pm
Quote:
I understand the tendency to nitpick the canonized classics and latch on to pet films which are lesser celebrated. But, as I've already posted on this thread, I find something worthwhile in every Kurosawa picture -- including those generally regarded as masterpieces.

Sure, there's "something worthwhile in every Kurosawa picture," but if a viewer values one film over another, this hardly constitutes "nitpicking." It's a mistake to insist upon a consensus, even by implication, that doesn't promote an open evaluation of a director's complete filmography, especially one as rich and varied--and variable--as Kurosawa's.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Mar 22, 2007 10:27 am 
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 1:20 pm
Location: New England
I'm with you on "Seven Samurai" (though there are other Kurosawa films I personally love more, I would never badmouth 7S in any way, as it is also wonderful).

The acting in Rashomon may well be technically accomplished -- but I simply don't _enjoy_ the performances -- or find them particularly interesting.

When I look at this film, I see a product aimed squarely at Western art house audiences -- in a more blatant way than Kurosawa's previous and subsequent 50s films. This makes sense -- as Daiei was far more focused on trying to export films to the West at this point than either Shochiku (pre-Rashomon) or Toho (post-Rashomon). FWIW, I have the same problem (albeit to a lesser extent) with Ugetsu (another Daiei product). The fact that a Japanese film is made (mostly) for Western tastes does not mean it is necessarily bad -- but such films simply feel a bit "synthetic" to me. (Ones like 7S -- made with an eye to both domestic and foreign audiences work much better -- for me).


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Mar 22, 2007 11:24 am 

Joined: Thu Apr 14, 2005 3:59 pm
Location: Columbus, OH
ltfontaine wrote:
It's a mistake to insist upon a consensus, even by implication, that doesn't promote an open evaluation of a director's complete filmography, especially one as rich and varied--and variable--as Kurosawa's.

You may be misreading me here. I'm not insisting upon consensus. However, I am not discounting it, either. As I see it, the experience of watching a film is deeply personal, and variable not only from viewer to viewer but from viewing to viewing even for the same viewer -- especially if there is a significant length of time between viewings, and the individual's life experiences and cultural and cinematic reference points change in the interim. There are films I loved in high school (decades ago) which hold no interest for me today and others which bored me then that fascinate me now.

I do not assume that a film is flawed simply because it fails to connect with me, personally. Nor is a film necessarily good because I happen to like it. I like plenty of bad films, and there are consensus-great films by consensus-great filmmakers that do nothing for me. For instance, I would rather gouge out my eyeballs than sit through anything by Andrei Tarkovsky. But this does NOT mean that I think Tarkovsky is a fraud or that anyone who appreciates his work is misguided. It means simply that his work fails to connect with me individually. I do not discount the established directorial canon that recognizes Tarkovsky as a great director.

Michael Kerpan wrote:
When I look at this film, I see a product aimed squarely at Western art house audiences ...

Interesting point, Michael! Since RASHOMON and UGETSU are both major favorites of mine, perhaps I am simply a better reprsentative of the audience to whom these films were designed to appeal!

This makes me wonder how many of my other favorite Japanese films were "made (mostly) for Western tastes"? At least my affection for Kurosawa is egalitarian enough to encompass all his films, to a somewhat variable extent depending on the picture.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Mar 22, 2007 11:34 am 
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 19, 2006 10:09 am
ByMarkClark.com wrote:
SEVEN SAMURAI is, imho, one of the handful of best films ever made. Its length limits the frequency with which I revisit it, but otherwise is not an issue for me. I enjoy the fact that Kurosawa takes the time to develop the film's setting and large cast of characters. And it's not as if the film lacks action. Indeed, it's probably the quickest-feeling 3 1/2-hour movie I've ever watched. .

I sure agree, and I had no intention to nitpick when I said that I do prefer "Throne of Blood" and find it "Samurai" somewhat too long (although it's indeed still rather quick-feeling for a film of that length). I only wonder why it is THIS film that enjoys such a mythical status, whereas other Kurosawas which I don't find any worse do not. Has it something to do with its impact on the West and its subsequent remake by Hollywood? That it's a great action film? Incidentally, for me it's precisely when the action starts after 150 min. or so that it slightly (only slightly) lets me down. The strengths of "Samurai" for me are much more in the character portrayal, for example in how the tragedy that underlies the exalted, comical behaviour of the Mifune character becomes more and more apparent. This is certainly one of his most touching performances.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Mar 22, 2007 11:35 am 
User avatar

Joined: Mon Nov 08, 2004 3:34 pm
Quote:
When I look at this film, I see a product aimed squarely at Western art house audiences -- in a more blatant way than Kurosawa's previous and subsequent 50s films. This makes sense -- as Daiei was far more focused on trying to export films to the West at this point than either Shochiku (pre-Rashomon) or Toho (post-Rashomon).

Michael, this view of Rashomon as “a product aimed squarely at Western art house audiencesâ€


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Mar 22, 2007 3:07 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 1:20 pm
Location: New England
ltfontaine wrote:
The baffled astonishment with which Daiei received the worldwide acclaim for Rashomon reflected their overt hostility to the film throughout its production; the studio thought nobody was going to appreciate or even understand the film, at home or abroad. As it turned out they were wrong on both counts, as the film was a great financial success within and without Japan.

I disagree with your analysis of Daiei's motivations. They may have been surprised by the _size_ of Rashomon's success, but they almost certainly had their eye on cracking Western markets when this was made -- and shipped abroad. As early as the latter 20s, Japanese studios had been trying to come up with a way to crack Western markets. Shochiku's first venture had been to compete on the West's own terms -- and there was little market. PCL made the same mistake in trying to get US attention with Naruse's very Hollywoodesque (in comparative terms) "Wife Be Like A Rose" in the mid-30s. Only the coming of the war years put a temporary end to this quest.

Daiei owned far fewer theaters than its main Japanese rivals after the war -- and its rivals were thus able to limit the visibility of its productions in Japan. Rashomon was (in part) a speculative venture -- to see if Daiei could get a foothold in the West. Certainly this venture succeeded far beyond anyone's expectation. (The film received a very poor reception in Japan prior to its success in the West).

I do not sense the same sort of "orientalism" one sees in "Rashomon" in Kurosawa's subsequent Toho works -- while it is quite obvious in many of Mizoguchi's last films for Daiei -- as well as in schlock like Kinugasa's "Gate of Hell".

At this same time, Daiei was also trying other speculative ventures to expand its market -- such as making the first Japanese films patterned on Western science fiction films.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Mar 22, 2007 6:07 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Mon Nov 08, 2004 3:34 pm
Michael Kerpan wrote:
I disagree with your analysis of Daiei's motivations. They may have been surprised by the _size_ of Rashomon's success, but they almost certainly had their eye on cracking Western markets when this was made -- and shipped abroad. As early as the latter 20s, Japanese studios had been trying to come up with a way to crack Western markets. Shochiku's first venture had been to compete on the West's own terms -- and there was little market. PCL made the same mistake in trying to get US attention with Naruse's very Hollywoodesque (in comparative terms) "Wife Be Like A Rose" in the mid-30s. Only the coming of the war years put a temporary end to this quest.

Michael, we must be drawing on different historical sources here.

The Naruse film, Kinugasa's Crossroads, and a few others had been shown in the U.S. before the war with negligible impact, but even if these movies had been influenced by Western films, there is nothing to suggest that their directors had tailored the work to suit foreigners. After the war, the Japanese industry reconsidered the question of international distribution, and Daiei even contracted with Goldwyn and Disney for this purpose, but prior to Rashomon, the industry was less intent on refining their films for western tastes than in using them as a means of exporting Japanese culture. About this effort in the period prior to Rashomon, Donald Richie writes in The Japanese Film:

Quote:
The constant refrain among Japanese producers, directors, and critics was that the main purpose of showing Japanese films abroad was to introduce Japanese customs and culture in the world ... The cinema was to be Japan's cultural emissary, and the industry stuck to this concept with the evangelistic zeal of a true missionary. The new Japanese way of life was to be the salvation of the world.

The Japanese sent out into the world films that they thought would accomplish their goal of promoting authentic Japanese culture. They did not set out to westernize their product as the means to attract interest abroad until Rashomon alerted them to just how this might be done.

Quote:
Rashomon was (in part) a speculative venture -- to see if Daiei could get a foothold in the West.

Ironically, while Rashomon touched off the Japanese fever to replicate its internationally alluring period-film flavor, the film itself had been anticipated, during production, not as a potential hit with foreign audiences, but as a failure-in-waiting with audiences in Japan and elsewhere. Nagata, president at Daiei, strenuously objected to making the film, thinking that audiences would be confused and alienated by its structure and thematic subjectivity. Yoshimoto Mitsuhiro, in his book about Kurosawa, reports that Nagata “expressed bewilderment over what the film was about.â€


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Mar 22, 2007 8:02 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 1:20 pm
Location: New England
I think we are talking a bit at cross purposes. What the Japanese wanted to export after the war were films that depicted a vision of Japan that they thought Westerners would be interested in. It was not a question of "westernizing" the films as much as finding the most marketable blend of self-produced orientalism. Their was no real interest in exporting _truly_ authentic Japanese films such as Ozu and Naruse -- because these lacked the exotic trappings that were deemed essential to capture Western interest.

By contrast, in the pre-war era, the film industry (and government) were quite averse to selling anything smacking of backwardness or old-fashioned culture -- the aim was to try to create some possibly exportable films that would show that Japan was just as modern and advanced as the West. This effort never had much success. The one film made for export that displayed significant "orientalism" was Fanck's goofy "Samurai's Daughter" (which was ultimately a German film -- despite Mansaku's Itami's contributions as co-director).

Naruse did not specifically make "Wife! Be Like A Rose" in a Hollywood-inspired fashion to sell to the West -- but to satisfy Japanese cravings for this sort of modern Western-style film making. I would say that Kurosawa did the same for most of the 50s films that are criticized as "made for Westerners" -- rather they were made primarily for Japanese who wanted to see Japanese films that took into account the things they liked about Hollywood films.

All the same, ever since the 20s (with the exception of the war years -- when the west banned Japanese films), the industry kept an eye open to creating cinema marketable to the West. While this would hardly have been the primary reason for making any film (until, perhaps, _after_ Rashomon), it was not something that was not kept routinely in mind.

P.S. The "poor reception" I was speaking of regarding "Rashomon" was the Japanese critical one.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Mar 22, 2007 9:15 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Mon Nov 08, 2004 3:34 pm
Quote:
I think we are talking a bit at cross purposes. What the Japanese wanted to export after the war were films that depicted a vision of Japan that they thought Westerners would be interested in. It was not a question of "westernizing" the films as much as finding the most marketable blend of self-produced orientalism. Their was no real interest in exporting _truly_ authentic Japanese films such as Ozu and Naruse -- because these lacked the exotic trappings that were deemed essential to capture Western interest.

Michael, we agree that, after the war, the Japanese were intent on conveying a positive image of Japan via the exportation of films that would engage Westerners and fill them with admiration for “the new Japanese way of life.â€


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Mar 24, 2007 8:23 pm 

Joined: Fri Mar 23, 2007 10:32 am
fred wrote:
Michael Kerpan wrote:
I have yet to see "Sanshiro Sugata"

It's very great. I saw a beautiful restored print, but there's also a good R4 dvd. Way better than the Chinese disc. There are a couple of references to it in Johnnie To's Throw Down. By no means necessary to the enjoyment of that film, but knowing the Kurosawa may add a little...

Fred, what other Kurosawas do you like? I've seen about 5 or so of his films, all "classics," and just don't think that they're so good. But some of the posts here have inspired me to see some of his lesser known works. I'll definitely try to see some of the ones that Michael mentioned, for instance. But I'm not going to buy anything until I'm convinced, so I can only see ones on R1 dvds.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Mar 24, 2007 10:03 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 5:11 pm
Location: Florida
You can download Sanshiro Sugata off of Google Video for free since it's public domain. Not the best quality, but eh....


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 81 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group




This site is not affiliated with The Criterion Collection