Guys, it's past midnight here, so I'll try to be brief for now. Not sure whether I'll manage though.
Sloper, I must admit that I remember the details of "Ronin" far worse than you. So, your words about the significance of the drunk scene sound correct to me. Perhaps my comparison to the mislead-hero-tale was not quite to the point, then. I haven't seen "Zulu" and thus cannot comment on it, either.
Sloper wrote:
But didn’t he picture himself, even if dishonestly, as reforming a corrupt system – the failures of the Weimar Republic, the supposed effects of ‘international jewry’ and so on?
Sure he did, and apparently he really believed in what he said (and wrote in his infamous "Mein Kampf"). There just wasn't any sort of reality check on his part.
Sloper wrote:
I was reacting to lubitsch’s statement that the ronin should have fought against the shogunate if they thought it was corrupt, and that this would have been preferable to their willing submission and suicide. It seems like an odd point, and I was suggesting that rebellion against a ‘corrupt’ system can in certain contexts be just as objectionable as the self-immolating acquiescence lubitsch takes issue with.
Yes, point understood. For me it's just very hard to picture Hitler as someone justly rebelling against an oppressive system. There certainly were shortcomings in Weimar society and politics, and the economic situation must have been even far more terrible than we can imagine today; still, there were reasons for this, and the main reason was that Germany lost WW1, a war that was started by the German country itself. Arguing this should certainly not make us forget the misery of the people, who, as Schreck argues, were probably just the victims of the machinations of those in power, but it should help to keep things in perspective. If Hitler really had had a sort of political understanding, he wouldn't have blamed the Jews or the allies, but those in power: the militarists, the capitalists, the monarchists and imperialists (not in the Marxist sense, as Germany indeed had some colonies until the end of WW1).
"Triumph" and Hitler as a god-like figure:
Sloper wrote:
Hmmm... That’s a very subtle reading of the way this kind of demagoguery works, and a persuasive one. I’d never really thought of it like that, but it makes sense. But in that case, we identify with the crowd’s identification of Hitler, don’t we – rather than the direct identification with Oishi we are encouraged to feel in 47 Ronin? I don’t mean to split hairs about this, it’s just that – again – I feel lubitsch’s connection between the rows of samurai hanging on Oishi’s words and a Nazi rally is a bit off the mark, partly because the ronin don’t resemble blissed-out disciples, but mainly because Oishi is not made out to be godlike in the way you describe – he’s a humble and flawed leader, asking his followers to co-operate with him in trying to do the right thing.
Yes, I think that's the main difference indeed; there's still this distance between the ideal that Hitler wants/seems to embody and which remains unreachable – just as in Christian lore we can only come to God THROUGH Christ, but not become LIKE Christ; if we disregard some more mystic interpretations for the moment. Oishi is far, far more human and 'reachable'.
Sloper wrote:I’m just preparing to teach (or maybe just talk to) another round of students about the great Middle English poem, Sir Gawain and the Green Knight – another story about a hero who has to triumph through submission, and in which violence and prowess are negated in favour of the stoic acceptance of death. It always divides students: some don’t see the point of it all, and find it silly and annoying (it doesn’t quite open itself to the term ‘offensive’); others find that it really says something profound about the human condition. I’m in the latter camp, but I admit that it takes a certain kind of mentality (perhaps the remoteness from the real world I occasionally get flak for) to enjoy stories like this.
Oh great that you mention "Sir Gawain". My much venerated English professor, who has helped me in more ways than I can enumerate, is probably the foremost authority on the book here in Germany. He has a very particular take on it (he believes it's basically a Gnosticist text), a view that I don't necessarily share, but he has made me absolutely admire that text for its sheer poetic depth and intensity. For me, it's foremost an expression of the way fate and natural cycles work on our perception and life, and it's deeply steeped in natural/pagan religiosity; it's more in this sense that I also see that text as an expression of a necessary submission, or rather succumbing to forces greater/beyond our own.
Sloper wrote:
For the 47 ronin, the equivalent to this great love is the fulfilment of honour – a more problematic concept, obviously, but the process is similar, and the film moves me in just the same way as Dreyer’s does.
And here, while we're talking literature, I'm equally reminded of Mishima's "Runaway Horses". A problematic, dangerously affecting, but perfect text which manages to combine the ideas of love (for Japan, the Emperor) with the notion of honour and which is exuding a wild, irritating, often very sensual emotionality that is sometimes hard to resist.
lubitsch wrote:
To put it harshly, Eisenstein and colleagues never rise above the level of state propagandists, Tarkovsky dangerously extols the Russian soul against European soullessness, Rossellini preaches too much about holy fools and a cruel world which doesn't recognize true values, Tati is too conservative in his French idylls vs. the modern environment and Antonioni hits you with a sledgehammer to get modern alienation across. Every of these directors nevertheless managed to create complex structures and stunning visual ideas, but there is this fundamentally one-sided core to their work (please let's not start to discuss each of these filmmakers here, consider me a fool, but let's not turn the thread into a big metadiscussion) . I do not see such grave limitations with filmmakers like e.g. most of Wyler, Hawks, Scola, Lumet, Preminger, most of Tavernier, Ozu, the late silent Pabst and so on because these directors tend to observe and analyze the topics they investigate
I'm very tempted to turn this into such a metadiscussion, as this would probably avoid considering you a fool because one could differentiate things a little more, but I'm backing out on this for the moment. Apart from Tarkovsky: really, Tarkovsky talks about THE soul, not a particular Russian embodiment of it. The questions raised in "Solaris" have absolutely nothing to do with a specific cultural background, they are universal to mankind and pretty timeless on top of it. While "Solaris" is my favourite Tarkovsky film, I guess the same observations go for all his other works, too. The topics Tarkovsky deals with are often beyond 'observing' and 'analysing', that's the whole point of his films. He shows us those areas where we fear to tread because we can't handle them in any rational way, areas which we can only glimpse at thanks to such outstanding works of art that rare individuals like Tarkovsky were able to make.
lubitsch wrote:Without any context it's a rather pointless affair to make a film about strong convictions as is the case in Jeanne d'arc and 47 Ronin, one has to contextualize.
I think you seriously underestimate the capacity of viewers to apply those 'lessons learned' to any given or chosen context. The determination and belief of Jeanne could easily be transferred or seen as a model for a specific context concerning the individual viewer's actual life situation. This even works in Rivette's version.
lubitsch wrote:
Tommaso already pointed out that our admiration of Oishi, the sage and wise leader can be paralleled roughly those of Hitler in Triumph of the Will.
No, I didn't say that, and I hope my further explanations above have made my point a little clearer. Hitler in "Triumph" appears as flawless, god-like, whereas Oishi might be sage, but is still human. And for me, that makes all the difference. Quite apart from the fact that "Ronin" is far less visually manipulative than "Triumph".
lubitsch wrote: I can not confirm that in the Third Reich cinema the leader figures are led astray, they are very straight from the beginning, be it Carl Peters or Ohm Krüger. It's only in the youth period like in Steinhoffs Der junge und der alte König where the character has first to develop or in a split of the leader as in the Russian Chapayev where the leader is supported by a Polit commissioner who counterbalances the weaknesses of the leader.
Okay, I take your word on it. I was vaguely thinking of what I read about the Horst-Wessel-film, for instance, but may have confused this anyhow. Perhaps I was also thinking of the general 'trials and tribulations' that a charismatic figure must undergo in order to follow his 'fated' task; think of Maisch's "Schiller", for instance.
david hare wrote:. And its formal beuty is a far cry form the stylistic hollowness of someone like Leni in Triumph, in which the endless travellings through empty collonades past unpopulated vistas of architectural ennuie, eventually climax in mass grouping of automatons worshipping a media created deity with a mustache.
Absolutely true, but I'm not just fully sure whether Leni is to blame entirely for that. People often think it was her who created these vistas and mass processions; in fact it was Speer, of course. That's not meant as an excuse, but I suppose even an anti-Nazi director would have basically come up with similar images if he/she had had to film that event. The problem with "Triumph" is rather its lack of a commentary – which might have put things into perspective – and, even more, Leni's highlighting of those elements which would have been objectionable even without her willing 'assistance'.
And now, seeing that I didn't manage to be brief, I bid you all Goodnight for now....