309 Ugetsu
-
- Joined: Tue May 10, 2005 5:33 am
I wasn't particularly satisfied with the samurai subplot either. The real power of the film came from Mori, Kyô, and especially Tanaka (whom I have recently seen another great performance from in Ozu's A Hen in the Wind). The samurai subplot was just uninteresting, and the "reconciliation" struck me as trite. I must confess that I really do love this film, and consider it Mizoguchi's second best after Sanshô dayû. Admittedly though, I have not seen Story of Late Chrysanthemums or Life of Oharu, so this ranking is not set in stone.
I haven't heard Raynes commentary, but I may get around to it sometime early next year. I have not heard much on the Tanaka/Mizoguchi falling out, and frankly, I don't care.
I've been praying for more Mizoguchi films for quite some time, and Ugetsu is a start, but I'd like to see more from Criterion.
I haven't heard Raynes commentary, but I may get around to it sometime early next year. I have not heard much on the Tanaka/Mizoguchi falling out, and frankly, I don't care.
I've been praying for more Mizoguchi films for quite some time, and Ugetsu is a start, but I'd like to see more from Criterion.
- Steven H
- Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 3:30 pm
- Location: NC
This is generally the feeling I had for the film the first time I watched it. Now that I'm giving it another go, I'm having different feelings. I see this as a very plot heavy, with a lot of exposition involved during both stories, but still it seems anchored by Tanaka's character (who is relatively unimportant concerning the plot.) Because of that issue, perhaps there's an awkward feeling? Or because the film is being pulled in so many directions at once: Shimpa tragedy, ghost story, samurai aspirations, etc. all vying for attention. It's such a *big* film for Mizoguchi. I like it for trying to be big, but I can think of many other of his films, that I would call "smaller", I enjoy more, which stick in my head as "Mizoguchi".Michael Kerpan wrote:David --- I am unimpressed by the whole would-be samurai subplot -- some parts are better and some are worse, but none are up to the standards set by Mizoguchi at his best (in the other pasts of this film -- or elsewhere).
I would say this might be his best looking film (with Sansho coming in second), though the editing often struck me as poorly timed (very subjective). I want to see Woman of Osaka.
- Michael Kerpan
- Spelling Bee Champeen
- Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 1:20 pm
- Location: New England
- Contact:
- Michael Kerpan
- Spelling Bee Champeen
- Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 1:20 pm
- Location: New England
- Contact:
- zedz
- Joined: Sun Nov 07, 2004 7:24 pm
I've finally got around to the booklet and was wondering if anybody had more information on the connection between the Maupassant story and the film.
The story (basically an elaboration of a risque joke) doesn't seem to me to be all that close to the Tobei subplot. There are the common themes of a character coveting a particular honour, and ultimately obtaining it by unconventional means, but that's where the similarities end, and there must be plenty of other stories that follow the same template.
Did Mizoguchi (or Kawaguchi or Yoda) actually acknowledge this story as a source, or was this a critic's contribution that has somehow calcified into received wisdom?
The story (basically an elaboration of a risque joke) doesn't seem to me to be all that close to the Tobei subplot. There are the common themes of a character coveting a particular honour, and ultimately obtaining it by unconventional means, but that's where the similarities end, and there must be plenty of other stories that follow the same template.
Did Mizoguchi (or Kawaguchi or Yoda) actually acknowledge this story as a source, or was this a critic's contribution that has somehow calcified into received wisdom?
- gubbelsj
- Joined: Fri Apr 14, 2006 2:44 pm
- Location: San Diego
I, too, would like to know if either Mizoguchi or Yoda explicitly had this story in mind, but I have yet to come across anything officially documenting the connection.zedz wrote:Did Mizoguchi (or Kawaguchi or Yoda) actually acknowledge this story as a source, or was this a critic's contribution that has somehow calcified into received wisdom?
However, I do think there may be more similarities between the story and the Tobei sub-plot than honor achieved unconventionally. Both M. Caillard and Tobei are bumbling fools struck dumb and rendered nearly orgasmic by the mere possibility of being awarded and recognized by society's heroes, being asked to join those coveted ranks. Neither possess any skills that suggest they deserve or could even handle such honors. Both are married to beautiful, intelligent women who seem to be several stages of maturity above their husbands. Both achieve their desired honor not just unconventionally, but through deceit and/or dumb luck (good in Tobei's case, bad in M. Caillard's). And the price of achieving a desired honor comes at the expense of their relationships. Both are cuckolded, albeit for extremely different reasons. The moment of their greatest glory occurs concomitantly with deep humiliation - although M. Caillard, poor sap, isn't even smart enough for that. The connections are subtle, but I think they exist.
- kinjitsu
- Joined: Sat Feb 12, 2005 1:39 pm
- Location: Uffa!
gubbelsj wrote: I, too, would like to know if either Mizoguchi or Yoda explicitly had this story in mind, but I have yet to come across anything officially documenting the connection.
In his book, Mizoguchi and Japan, Mark Le Fanu cites two Maupassant stories that influenced Mizoguchi and Yoda in writing their scrreplay. The first, 'Decoré', transposes "the kernel of its Second Republic intrigue back into medieval Japan, and onto this they have woven strands of yet another Maupassant tale, 'Bed 29' (about a husband who comes across his wife in a hospital for venereal diseases). As the sources on which the movie is based multiply and ramify, the genius involved in seeing they could all fit together becomes, I think, more and more compelling. The trick, in each case, is to take what you need, and discard the inessential. So the different rivulets of plot feed into an ongoing stream, and in the process become lost in their own origin."
Le Fanu maintains in his notes that Mizoguchi was ultimately responsible for synthesizing the (Akinari and Maupassant) stories together, basing this on a interview with producer Hisakazu Tsuji (Cahiers), as well producer Maisachi Nagata and production designer Kisaku Ito (mentioned in an essay on the script by Joanne Bernardi), none of whom disclaim otherwise.
- gubbelsj
- Joined: Fri Apr 14, 2006 2:44 pm
- Location: San Diego
- Michael Kerpan
- Spelling Bee Champeen
- Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 1:20 pm
- Location: New England
- Contact:
- kinjitsu
- Joined: Sat Feb 12, 2005 1:39 pm
- Location: Uffa!
Speak of the devil! I thought you would chime in sooner or later but am surprised you didn't recommend that gubbelsj read the relevant chapters in David Bordwell's Figures Traced in Light.Michael Kerpan wrote:I recommend you borrow Le Fanu's Mizoguchi book from a library -- I don't think it is worth buying. Mainly it discusses plots -- and the writing of the scripts -- and provides a whitewash of Mizoguchi's behavior. It sheds little light on the visual aspects of Mizoguchi's work.
- King of Kong
- Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 7:32 pm
- Location: New Zealand
- Contact:
- Michael Kerpan
- Spelling Bee Champeen
- Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 1:20 pm
- Location: New England
- Contact:
Yes, Bordwell's chapter on Mizoguchi IS indispensable. ;~}kinjitsu wrote:Speak of the devil! I thought you would chime in sooner or later but am surprised you didn't recommend that gubbelsj read the relevant chapters in David Bordwell's Figures Traced in Light.
Also quite useful -- the volume on Ugetsu edited by Keiko McDonald.
MEK
- gubbelsj
- Joined: Fri Apr 14, 2006 2:44 pm
- Location: San Diego
I've enjoyed everything I've read by Bordwell, I'm sure Figures Traced In Light will be no exception. Many thanks for the recommendations. The Rutgers / McDonald volume has long been on my wish list.
Incidentally, I didn't mind the Shindo documentary on the Criterion set as much as some did (although the scenes with Kinuyo Tanaka made me squirm a bit). Even though Shindo quickly brushed off or explained away any accusation leveled against Mizoguchi, at least the events were put on record, unlike in Kiselyak's A Constant Forge. Now there was some hagiography for you. And it didn't have a close up of Cassavetes' urine bottle, either.
Incidentally, I didn't mind the Shindo documentary on the Criterion set as much as some did (although the scenes with Kinuyo Tanaka made me squirm a bit). Even though Shindo quickly brushed off or explained away any accusation leveled against Mizoguchi, at least the events were put on record, unlike in Kiselyak's A Constant Forge. Now there was some hagiography for you. And it didn't have a close up of Cassavetes' urine bottle, either.
- daniel p
- Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 9:01 pm
- Location: Melbourne, Australia
Check out the booklet...King of Kong wrote:I viewed Ugetsu again recently. I enjoyed it as before, though, as before, I was a little put off by the schematic nature of the plot. One could offer the justification that it is based primarily on fable-like literary sources, but I'm keen to hear some more thoughts on this.
- Michael Kerpan
- Spelling Bee Champeen
- Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 1:20 pm
- Location: New England
- Contact:
What struck me on going through this again is how fundamentally superficial this was. Yes, there are interesting bits -- but nothing remotely revelatory. It struck me as very much the work of a fanboy.gubbelsj wrote:Incidentally, I didn't mind the Shindo documentary on the Criterion set as much as some did (although the scenes with Kinuyo Tanaka made me squirm a bit).
- skuhn8
- Joined: Tue Dec 14, 2004 4:46 pm
- Location: Chico, CA
Finally finished going through the whole Ugetsu package. This was my first Mizoguchi experience. Very impressive beautifully crafted film. I, too, felt the samurai subplot felt a little forced and at odds with the feeling (at least my experience) of the rest of the film.
But...that documentary! What the hell is that? Before last week I knew nothing about KM other than that he was a director. Japanese. No longer amongst the living. After sitting through an exasperating 2 1/2 hours I learned that he used a urine bottle on the set, was married, and made a lot of films. Easily one of the worst documentaries of a film maker i have ever seen. I spent the last hour imitating the interviewers obnoxious grunting sounds....what's up with that? A compilation of interviews with people too polite to really say anything of substance hardly a good documentary makes. The whole thing should have been edited down to 45 minutes tops. I mean, interviewing his wife's nurse! She contributed absolutely nothing to an understanding of Mizoguchi. There were probably four people there who had anything useful to say. Ok, rant over. Sorry. I just really want my 2 1/2 hours back. [Rrrrr...grunt]
But...that documentary! What the hell is that? Before last week I knew nothing about KM other than that he was a director. Japanese. No longer amongst the living. After sitting through an exasperating 2 1/2 hours I learned that he used a urine bottle on the set, was married, and made a lot of films. Easily one of the worst documentaries of a film maker i have ever seen. I spent the last hour imitating the interviewers obnoxious grunting sounds....what's up with that? A compilation of interviews with people too polite to really say anything of substance hardly a good documentary makes. The whole thing should have been edited down to 45 minutes tops. I mean, interviewing his wife's nurse! She contributed absolutely nothing to an understanding of Mizoguchi. There were probably four people there who had anything useful to say. Ok, rant over. Sorry. I just really want my 2 1/2 hours back. [Rrrrr...grunt]
- Michael Kerpan
- Spelling Bee Champeen
- Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 1:20 pm
- Location: New England
- Contact:
I find Shindo's "documentary" to be quite problematic. I think all the interviewees knew he was a fanboy who wouldn't be interested in much in the way of candid discussion -- and I find Shindo's hectoring interview of Tanaka (who wouldn't let herself be pushed around) pretty offensive.
The problem with Mizoguchi is that he was a "not very nice" (to be polite) man who made wonderful films -- and Shindo's film paid much more attention to the man than to the films.
The problem with Mizoguchi is that he was a "not very nice" (to be polite) man who made wonderful films -- and Shindo's film paid much more attention to the man than to the films.
- skuhn8
- Joined: Tue Dec 14, 2004 4:46 pm
- Location: Chico, CA
Well, I got the impression that this doc is really about the man more than the films, that is, that was the objective--as evidenced by the opening audio salvo where the crew is struggling to film the floor where Kenji spent his last days. And that is already where I knew I was in trouble. I don't care what the floor of a hospital looks like where Stalin, Mizoguchi, my grandfather or anyone else died. It's their works, where they lived and created that concerns me. The scene with Tanaka was actually a highlight for me. They tried to crack her and she held up with such regality--not coyness, no--regality. That was worthy if unintentional on the part of the doc filmmakers. And the grunting. Is this how interviews are handled? I don't mean to be culturally insensitive, I seriously want to know if serious conversations consist of such grunting punctuating every 2-3 words of the interview, perhaps as encouragement?
-
- Joined: Thu Sep 15, 2005 6:02 pm
- Location: Brooklyn, NY
Gee, everyone really hates that documentary...I enjoyed it myself. A little disjointed (and long-winded), and certainly not a definitive biography of his life, but enjoyable, unique, enlightening in certain regards.
I must say I'm surprised that the discussion about Ugetsu's opening shot, which seems to be screwed up on the DVD, just sort of fizzled out and isn't mentioned anymore. I see a lot of heated discussions and arguments on this board about really minor, esoteric things (like cover art, and other things that have little or nothing to do with the films themselves), but here the legendary opening shot to a masterpiece is apparently ruined, and nobody wants answers, no one wants to mention it...Do people not want to admit that Criterion probably made a pretty serious error? Much worse than the old cover to Viridiana.
I must say I'm surprised that the discussion about Ugetsu's opening shot, which seems to be screwed up on the DVD, just sort of fizzled out and isn't mentioned anymore. I see a lot of heated discussions and arguments on this board about really minor, esoteric things (like cover art, and other things that have little or nothing to do with the films themselves), but here the legendary opening shot to a masterpiece is apparently ruined, and nobody wants answers, no one wants to mention it...Do people not want to admit that Criterion probably made a pretty serious error? Much worse than the old cover to Viridiana.
- skuhn8
- Joined: Tue Dec 14, 2004 4:46 pm
- Location: Chico, CA
Check out the Jules and Jim thread regarding forum members wrath regarding minor CC mistakes. Re Ugetsu: It's just that there was no resolution, no definitive answer on the matter. I think this comes down to an "available sources" issue. It doesn't appear that the CC is responsible for this. No mention on the commentary either FWIW. It matches the other dvds available, what are you going to do. Yes, there was some copy from TCM that differed, with a different intro for the domestic Japanese market I believe.
Anyway, certainly not disappointed with the CC for including said doc as that wasn't responsible for higher price point, just disappointed that someone who purports to be a acolyte takes so little interest in the films of such a revered director.
Anyway, certainly not disappointed with the CC for including said doc as that wasn't responsible for higher price point, just disappointed that someone who purports to be a acolyte takes so little interest in the films of such a revered director.
- Michael Kerpan
- Spelling Bee Champeen
- Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 1:20 pm
- Location: New England
- Contact:
Short of reviewing copies of very early release prints of Ugetsu, how does one resolve the opening shot issue? Criterion definitely didn't do anything "wrong". They didn't muck up the source they used here.
It is useful have Shindo's film -- because it does give us snippets of interviews with some interesting people -- just like Tokyo ga gives us the interviews of Chishu Ryu And Yuharu Atsuta. Too bad someone more perceptive didn't make better use of the access he had -- as many ofg the interviewees are now beyond re-interviewing.
It is useful have Shindo's film -- because it does give us snippets of interviews with some interesting people -- just like Tokyo ga gives us the interviews of Chishu Ryu And Yuharu Atsuta. Too bad someone more perceptive didn't make better use of the access he had -- as many ofg the interviewees are now beyond re-interviewing.
- Gregory
- Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 4:07 pm
Michael, I'm a little perplexed in some ways by all the short comments you've made about this documentary (or is it a "documentary"?). I'd be interested in clarifying your position. You seem to criticize Shindo for failing to delve sufficiently into personal issues while at the same time saying that he shouldn't have focused on them in the first place: First you criticized it for "glossing over certain unsavory aspects of Mizoguchi's personal behavior." Then you stated that these aspects are relatively unimportant to you compared to a careful analysis of the films. Finally, you seem to explain one of the film's weaknesses by speculating that "all the interviewees knew he was a fanboy who wouldn't be interested in much in the way of candid discussion." Candid discussion of his life, presumably, because the film's entire purpose was biographical not a critical evaluation of his work. Finally you say that "The problem with Mizoguchi is that he was a 'not very nice' (to be polite) man who made wonderful films -- and Shindo's film paid much more attention to the man than to the films." It seems you've got Shindo coming and going.
What kind of approach do you think he should have taken? If he had really tried to dig all the skeletons out of MIzoguchi's closet, it probably would have come across as "sleazy," as you characterized Shindo's dramatized script about Tanaka, which I thought was rather impersonal in some respects. On the other hand, he couldn't really have attempted a critical film analysis because he's not a film critic or a film scholar. If he had tried, it might have been interesting (although certainly very different from Bordwell) but that wasn't the kind of project he was inspired and equipped to do.
About his being a "fanboy" (a term of abuse you've used a few times in this thread): I think the generally accepted definition of the term has to do with people who are especially nerdy about their hobbies (and often related to things targeted at children: Superman, Star Wars, etc.). Fanboys do not typically hold the same occupation as their idols and I don't believe they ever work with them, as Shindo did on Genroku Chushingura. It seem far more accurate to say that the latter was his mentor, but maybe that's just me.
What kind of approach do you think he should have taken? If he had really tried to dig all the skeletons out of MIzoguchi's closet, it probably would have come across as "sleazy," as you characterized Shindo's dramatized script about Tanaka, which I thought was rather impersonal in some respects. On the other hand, he couldn't really have attempted a critical film analysis because he's not a film critic or a film scholar. If he had tried, it might have been interesting (although certainly very different from Bordwell) but that wasn't the kind of project he was inspired and equipped to do.
About his being a "fanboy" (a term of abuse you've used a few times in this thread): I think the generally accepted definition of the term has to do with people who are especially nerdy about their hobbies (and often related to things targeted at children: Superman, Star Wars, etc.). Fanboys do not typically hold the same occupation as their idols and I don't believe they ever work with them, as Shindo did on Genroku Chushingura. It seem far more accurate to say that the latter was his mentor, but maybe that's just me.
I agree with this assessment. I can see how extremely high hopes for the film could be dashed, but I can't imagine anyone not finding a few worthwhile things in it -- the archival Mizoguchi interview footage is an obvious example.montgomery wrote:...certainly not a definitive biography of his life, but enjoyable, unique, enlightening in certain regards.