El idiota

It's pretty difficult to judge this film fully. The first half is erratic, and filled with jolting edits, characters that appear and disappear without any introduction. It's a damn shame. The scatological nature of this epic project, adapted from the Russian classic by Fyodor Dostoyevsky, was due to it being horrendously cut down by the studio that funded it. Originally, Akira Kurosawa had created a 266 minute cut of the - incredibly faithful to the source novel - was shortened by 100 minutes. Unfortunately, it would seem that the world may never see the original version, as even when Kurosawa hunted for the missing scenes in the vaults several decades later, he was unable to locate them.

As it is in its now 166 minute format (the longest version available), it is still an incredibly important piece of melodrama. After the devastation of the war, Kinji Kameda (Masayuki Mori) and Denkichi Akama (Toshiro Mifune), travel back to a remote island. Kameda claims that he suffers from an illness, cause by the suffering of war, and simply referred to as idiocy - when expressed on film, this idiocy seems simply to be an innocent, and fundamentally naive view of people. He simply only sees good in people, even if this is not the case. On arriving they both seem to fall for a disgraced woman, Taeko Nasu (Setsuko Hara), who was someones concubine since the age of fourteen, and is being offered for marriage at a price.

What ensues is a strange love triangle that divides not only the two male protagonists, but the community. The film is beautifully shot in black and white by Toshio Ubukata, who had worked with Kurosawa on his previous film, Scandal (1950). It is unfortunate that the films first half suffers so evidently due to extensive cutting. However, it is the relationship between Kameda and Akama that provides the climax (which is seemingly more intact) that provides the films central theme, and its most poignant elements.

www.the-wrath-of-blog.blogspot.com

jonr-3 from Kansas City wonders if the 265-minute version will ever be released.

The answer is a definitive NO because every frame of unreleased footage no longer exists anywhere in any form.

It's a shame, because the film -- fascinating and electrifying as it is in its present form -- would probably have been one of the greatest examples of intertextual cinema of all time had it survived!

One can easily imagine what we're missing simply by examining the way that the initial scene on the train plays out as Mori explains his dream about nearly being executed to Mifune -- and then we are presented with a jarringly disturbing cut to a long intertitle, which basically seems to explain what was cut out by the studio execs [as do the many intertitles which follow]...

Kurosawa's hero-worship of Doestoevsky may be compared to his similar adoration of Gorky and his play "The Lower Depths" -- which is faithfully adapted in the 1957 filmic version -- and although it is much shorter than the tale told by The Idiot {sorry, couldn't resist!}, this reverence in no way makes the film boring or inferior. Just compare it to the 1936 Renoir version (which is quite good in many ways in its own right) to see how this faithfulness pays off...

Read the Doesty and then watch the film and fill in the blanks yourself. Kurosawa's filmic blueprint provides plenty of clues to how the missing footage might have been incorporated into this extremely underseen masterpiece.

Currently clocking in at a mere 2.75 hours -- following the lopping off of 100 minutes from Kurosawa's (unreleased) original version -- this barely scratches the surface of the plot of Dostoevsky's tremendous novel. Kurosawa modernizes the story and moves it from Russia in summer to Hokkaido in winter. The great Russian director Grigori Kozintsev thought this film captured the spirit of the novel remarkably well -- and who am I to disagree. I seriously wonder whether someone unfamiliar with the novel could follow this film, in its currently disjointed state -- but for those who know and love Dostoevsky's story (and characters), this film is a delight and a revelation. By and large, the actors do a remarkable job of capturing the essence of Dostoevsky's cast. I simply cannot imagine a more suitable Rogozhin (Akama in the film) than Toshiro Mifune -- especially when watching him "merely" standing in the background looking like a bomb ready to explode. Next most convincing was Chieko Higashiyama as Satoko, Ayako's mother not Takeko's as IMDB incorrectly records (Elizaveta Prokofyevna Yepanchin in the novel). This "Edith Bunker as Russian noblewoman" character has always been one of my favorite Dostoevsky creations -- and CH gets every aspect of the character right. Setsuko Hara as Taeko (Natalia Fillipovna) and Yoshiko Kuga as Ayako (Aglaya Ivanovna) are wonderful, as is Takashi Shimura as Ono, Ayako's father (General Yepanchin). Masayuki Mori as Kameda (Prince Myshkin, the eponymous hero of the tale) is hard to assess -- as the "idiot" role is hard to envision. I am not certain that he is the perfect Myshkin, but he is certainly a touching one.

Interlinked with the extraordinarily fine acting, is Kurosawa's tremendous direction here (or what's left of it). I recently also saw an otherwise fine Russian version of "Crime and Punishment", which failed to capture the richness of tone of the novel, missing every trace of any sort of humor (an essential element of the book). Kurosawa, on the other hand, managed to ricochet from melodrama to humor to tragedy without missing a beat -- sometimes within the bounds of a single shot. Frankly, I never would have thought this possible. Another interesting facet of the direction here -- this often looked more like a silent film from the 20s or 30s than a film of the 50s.

Before watching this film, I read the 700 page novel. Obviously, Mr. Kurosawa had to omit characters and even chapters, but he has made a coherent, wonderful and even a little disturbing film about obsession. Kameda (Masayuli Mori) is given a reprieve from being shot by the Americans in Okinawa post war (a good context to begin this film, the book is set in Russia in the 1850's) and goes to relatives in Hokkaido. He sees a portrait of Taeko Nasu (Ms. Hara) and is just struck by it. He meets her and though she was about to give her answer to one man regarding marriage, she asks Kameda, a veritable stranger whom she feels knows her, to make the decision and he says no. She runs off with Akama (Mr. Mifune) and Kameda follows. Also in the mix is the young, very pretty Ayako (Yoshiko Kuga), who may instead be be throed to Kameda. The choices have to be made, but bear in mind Kameda is still beguiled by Taeko. The acting, with many actors you've seen before or since in films of the period from Japan, are all uniformly good, but no one holds a torch to Setsuko Hara's Taeko. Her role is all about expressions and emotions, and she is absolutely perfect. You see her anguish, her foreboding, her sarcasm in every scene. The beautiful Ms. Hara is just amazing in this role, as she was in so many others. If you are ambitious, read the book first and you'll see what a great job Mr. Kurosawa did in adapting and directing this film. Without reading the book, I don't think you'll like it as much but it will definitely hold your interest. Lastly, the term "The Idiot" is more about Kameda having fits (somewhat like epilepsy), not being weak of mind. One of Kurosawa's best, Setsuko Hara is phenomenal and it is an excellent adaptation to the classic novel.

Dostoevsky was director Kurosawa Akira's favorite author. According to Kurosawa, nobody could depict humanity better. Therefore Hakuchi (The Idiot, 1951) was a passion project for Kurosawa, which he executed as a four-hour magnum opus. As you might guess, movie studios are rarely interested in these sorts of passion projects...

The Idiot was Kurosawa's first film for Shochiku after Scandal (1950). When he delivered his four-hour cut, the studio decided "nope", and edited a 100 minute (!) version out of it. Kurosawa was furious, and didn't make another film for the studio for 40 years. During the filming of Hachi-gatsu no rapusodi (Rhapsody in August, 1991), the director tried to locate a full cut from the studio archives, but the four-hour cut is apparently lost forever. Thankfully what remains for us later audiences, is not the 100 minute briefing by Shochiku, but an edit that lasts almost three hours. As always, it's difficult to say what an extra hour could have added to the narrative. But one thing is sure. At least you would not need to read intertitles in a sound film!

I recently read the Dostoevsky novel and watched a Soviet film adaptation by director Ivan Pyrev (1958). Perhaps Pyrev had witnessed Kurosawa's infamous 100 minute cut, and thereafter decided to not be an "idiot" himself, and to instead do the film in parts. Pyrev's adaptation only tells book one, and he never got to make a sequel for it. I thought his film was okay. As for the book, it wasn't among my favorite things by Dostoevsky, whom I usually adore. I would recommend Kurosawa's film for anyone who happened to like the novel. If you haven't read it, you are going to be a little confused. Imagine how confused the Japanese audiences must have been upon witnessing the 100 minute cut...

Kurosawa's film is interesting, because it differs from anything else that he directed. Partly this comes in the form of negative things. Both the source material and the editing-history make this an unusually unsure film for Kurosawa. The novel doesn't have much actually happening, which is very unlike your typical Kurosawa narratives, that are straight-forward.

Yet the best things in this adaptation are really great. Kurosawa's black and white depiction of winter in Sapporo is stunningly beautiful and helps to capture the emotional coldness of the narrative. The casting is also mostly excellent, once you get used to the fact that General Epanchin's wife is now the grandmother from Tokyo Story (1953). Hara Setsuko has been cast against type as the femme fatale, and this insane contrast serves to keep the film constantly interesting when she is onscreen. Hara is a movie star on the same level with Greta Garbo, and offers magnificent close-ups throughout the film. Mifune's rough temper is also perfect for the role of Rogozhin, and he does great job. Kuga Yoshiko also gives a good performance.

The only one, about whom I have reservations, is Mori Masayuki as the lead character, Prince Myshkin in the novel. In all his versatility, Mori is one of my favorite actors from Japan, but in this version the lead character has been written to be too undetermined. Myshkin as a character is kind, but also verbally talented, and therefore the way Kurosawa has directed Mori to look at everything like a confused puppy didn't really work for me.

Because I am not a great fan of the novel, it is difficult for me to say, what should have been added to make this a better film. It is clear that the first meeting of Mifune and Mori in the beginning has been drastically edited, and other introductions, too, seem to have been cut, making the film more confusing. It is interesting to wonder, if Shochiku had allowed Kurosawa to release the four-hour cut, had he done the film AFTER Shichinin no samurai (Seven Samurai, 1954)...