|
Akira Kurosawa's DreamsRating:
Release Date: 18 March, 2003 Retail Price: $19.98 OUR Price: $14.99 You SAVE: $4.99! Cast: Complete Cast (7 total) |
Akira Kurosawa's Dreams Reviews
"Dreams" Is a Redeeming Kurosawa Film
I'm writing because I recently watched Akira Kurosawa's "Dreams" for the first time last night. My father, about fifteen years ago, showed this film as part of a seminar series on film appreciation. I had not attended it, but knew of its reputation. It had just released when he showed it. Although I didn't view the movie, I do remember one of the people who, after the movie ended, called it "propaganda." I write this review because I, now, have seen the film and, having spent a lifetime paying attention to the cinema as an art form, feel more equipped to discuss that comment with some wisdom.
I understand more now about where he was going. Personally, I think he's full of trash. I get so sick of these idiots who are always trying to utilize their opinions to stop others from making theirs, or to foul-mouth an artwork to circumvent its moral message because it doesn't fit with the trend of business relations. Someone views an artistically meritous film where the moral message is in showing viewers the affects of a shot gun blast and a few idiotic cretins are going to start shouting "propaganda" because gun manufacturers don't want anyone to think about it. It's the same with this movie. Just because Kurosawa depicts a regiment of dead soldiers doesn't mean it's not justified. To proclaim "Dreams" as merely propaganda is just a way for someone to pass off something unpopular to missile-toting politicians who use such paintings to frighten their opposition. That means Kurosawa is not a propagandist just because he reminds politicians of the deadly effects of radiation and other diseases with which all of humanity should concern themselves as knowledge. It doesn't tell people not to do it; it tells people what happens when we do use it. If that is a way to tell people to not maintain nuclear war, then it's the viewers who invent that connection as a healthy relationship with their society. In other words, it's necessary and not merely propaganda. The Nazis were good at labeling things, and so are the American neo-conservatives. Can't such stupidity cease? Perhaps it doesn't matter, since the movie exists whether any fool dismisses it publicly as propaganda even when it is not. After watching this film, I, and I believe most people, won't be thinking "propaganda" when they leave the theater (or entertainment center). They'll be worried a lot more about nuclear holocaust. Kurosawa has a right and a reason to make "Dreams."
First, he was about 80 years old when he released this film. If he talks about nuclear holocaust, or any other humanistic view, it's because he cares about what happens to the rest of the human race after his death. Eighty is very old, and it is much nearer the end of his life than it is to the beginning. He died at 89. If he were going to make any statement to the rest of humanity, it would look much like "Dreams." Let's not mince up his meaning.
Second, he was Japan's greatest film maker. Japan was the recipient of a nuclear holocaust which the United States brought upon it. If an American says something like "propaganda," he clearly doesn't understand. Japan was a country of war in the forties. It was because of their war the U.S. used nuclear war against it and it has had to live with those effects. Since Japan's surrender in that war, their country has mostly become a country of what some would call conscientious objectors, at least as far as nuclear warfare is concerned. I am saying the country is against the use of nuclear war because they have had to learn a lesson about it the hard way. That nation's largest director should be doing exactly what he did.
Third, he titled his work "Dreams." One must understand that this title is a designation to people who have not seen it. It is an appropriate title because it summarizes the content. If someone goes to watch this movie, it makes no sense to run out screaming a label like "propaganda." If it had any effect upon its viewers, it will be doing its job. It is a faithful representation to precisely what it claims. It is a necessary film and therefore a good film because it does what it should.
I am so sick of certain irresponsible people who recklessly label a movie as "propaganda" any time there's a serious discussion exploring a view more than a pedestrian comic point of view. In a ten or fifteen minute segment of this film, viewers can understand what is happening on the screen, partly because of its visuals and partly because of its dialogue. However, this film is a little minimalistic, and this agrees with me. This movie would not be any good if it were just a suspense film that treated nuclear holocaust like a casino crap out. There's nothing to make fun in a statement like this, so why dramatize it? I understand his logic, and I appreciate it. It's just too bad more people can't stand to see when someone else can do the right thing!
Dreams
I have nothing but respect for director Akira Kurasawa. The only Japanese director I know by name. Like every other movie of his that I have seen, this is Japanese with English subtitles. Eight interrelated stories for a total of two hours. I watched two stories. 30 minutes, or 1/4 of this film. Still bored, I gave up. His use of the colors of nature was positively breathtaking, but I just got bored. Every color of the rainbow, I suppose, since the cover plus what little dialogue I read leads me to believe that's a unifying theme. I also read on the jacket what this film "is about," and I'm with him. But, well, I didn't watch it. I may have just been in the wrong mood.
More Customer Reviews (46 total)
You like Akira Kurosawa's Dreams?
|
© 2004, 2005, 2006 DVD Booty | Don't Plunder Our Cache of Booty, Matey!
Hosting made possible by donations from debt relief, Debt Relief Clearing House, and Payday Loan Shark
