Achilles to Kame

Achilles and the Tortoise is the last installment in a loose trilogy actor/director Takeshi Kitano has made about the figure of the artist. Whereas the first two entries, Takeshi's and Glory to the Filmmaker, could basically be described as one big self-referential absurdist joke, Achilles is a more controlled film, with a proper story and a precise set of themes, albeit decorated with cheerfully absurd humor.

Such a scenario occurs right from the beginning, in an animated prologue which explains the bizarre title: as pointed out by the philosopher Zeno, if Achilles (the fastest mortal man, according to Greek mythology) and a tortoise competed in a race, and the latter had even the slightest advantage (say three feet), logic demands that in the time required for Achilles to reach that point, the tortoise would keep moving forward, and therefore the famous warrior, paradoxically enough, would never be able to catch up with the notoriously slow animal.

In Kitano's film, Achilles would be Machisu, a young boy fascinated by art, and the tortoise is success. Despite the boy's determination and occasionally bold choices of subjects (he has a knack for painting macabre events), his lack of stylistic originality makes all galleries shun him and most of his friends abandon him. Only his wife will keep supporting him, even in his older days (at this point, Kitano himself plays the role), when they're practically broke and their own daughter is ashamed to live in the same house as them.

Kitano's passion for painting is quite well known among those familiar with his work (he personally makes all the artwork that shows up in his movies), and so Achilles and the Tortoise is a good opportunity for him to use his hobby as a tool to reflect on the elusive subject of art and its various ramifications. Naturally, he does this with his usual penchant for darkly humorous set-ups, especially in the third act, with some scenes so audacious it's doubtful even something like Six Feet Under would have featured them. And yet one does not feel repulsed by those scenes. On the contrary, it's the absurdity of the plot, paired with Kitano's quietly composed directing and minimalistic performance, that constitutes the movie's primary point of attraction. In fact, Kitano's on-screen presence is so charismatic that perhaps he would have been better off shortening the first section of the picture and granting his quirky alter ego more room. Furthermore, the straightforward "happy" ending feels completely at odds with everything else, but then again coming up with a suitably crazy epilogue might have proved too arduous a task.

Ultimately, the only thing that seriously damages a part of this strange and, in its own way, funny opus is the running time (almost two hours), with minor help from the somewhat off- beat conclusion. Nevertheless, Kitano fans are likely to find something to embrace yet again, and anyone with some kind of interest in art should take a good, close look at this original take on the matter.

The movie does not work in only one level; so it can be seen as a sampling of art, in this case: "painting"; from different viewpoints or dimensions. Good actors, humor Kitano style, the Japanese twisted style; however it is a mixture of 2 or 3 movies in one; changes radically from one part to another (the movie is not formally divided) and the only connection seems the art itself (that s not bad at all...) The first half has a coherent development of the script, good photography and shows us the protagonist as a school kid then as a young man. He, an almost autistic person that seems unaffected by the (good and bad) things that happen in his life. Perhaps the answer to why he continues to fail in his work. Failure to get emotionally involved in a way o another in such episodes or not take part physically or to be mentally affected by them, makes an artist that will not acquire the necessary skills (after assimilate and process its) to then translate them into his work; normally a way to say things or feelings of what a person (an artist) can not say in another way. We see a person who may have a natural talent for painting, or based on to paint and repetition developed good capabilities but do not know how to let out his own creative streak, which just ends up imitating the great painters or following great schools of painting in an evident level.

-in a second part of the movie, changes completely and we see Kitano, fulfilling the lead role and with his rough style and Yakuza pose, this main character loses all silence and dedicating autism demanding constantly to his suffered side kick wife; dragging them in a not so good life. In this part the artist is showed like an "art junkie" There s kind of humor here and the shots are more TV like ones. The movie could be better or could be at least two movies...

I like different films especially from Japan and this fits the category, interesting from beginning to end, a sad film in my opinion but with lots of messages for art lovers if you look that deep into the story, a bit like Rembrandts 'Nightwatching'.

Didn't quite get the ending but it didn't seem to matter. Gosh to have a wife like he had, so patient and supportive all his life but sad for the daughter who had to endure so much also all her life.

The title is a stunning one. Okay the Tortoise is the pursuit of success but what is the Achilles, the inability over time to achieve that success? Good acting throughout but cant take it as a comedy with a western mind.

Another relentless study by Kitano of an artist with no talent who refuses to give up, this goes on far too long and bludgeons the viewer with its relentless picture of a helpless sycophant trying to become a success by imitating his betters or copying trends that have just gone out of style. There is a disconnect between the early passages of the artist as a boy, which are fable-like, haunting, and touching (but also droll and odd) and the segments of the artist as an adult and "old" man (when Kitano himself takes over), the latter being simply a series of conceptual put-ons. Throughout the film is hurt by its suggestion that art of limited merit has no merit at all; that a child artist wouldn't produce anything of interest. And its later scenes are increasingly brutal and macabre. Another example of Kitano's limits as an "auteur." His work is distinctive and persistent, but there is a coldness, even a cluelessness, about it that is unappealing. The Allociné critic rating of 3.0/70 is full of raves, showing Kitano's strong "auteur" status among the French. Seen in Paris in April 2010.

People may think that creators make a living by what they want to do. The working to keep living looks similar to what they really want to do at first. But, actually it's different for some people. Even if he seems to do what he wants, everyone wants more honor really.

This's the story about lives of an unsuccessful artist, Machisu and his wife. He had been nearby where he wanted to reach. That's why he had felt more frustrating by not reaching there. Neverless, he must create some things. I can image how tough it is. But he had to answer a need because he made a living by it. And his pride must not be able to let him publish the garbages to the public. How easier it is to make it just "a hobby".

If his goal was just realistic arts, his job will be replaced by AI easily. Is the art which has the goal worth?

It's just the "foundation" to give the persuasion and reality on his own opinion. Everyone can copy and draw realistically with practicing a lot. There's the trend and the styles everyone likes. So it's a bit stupid to ignore the flow stubbornly. The creators who make new things must know new and good ones and choose to adopt or reject them. There's some things --- sold well, liked by creators and acknowledged by everyone. It's exciting to live with them, but is also very tough. It's like a marathon without the goal. They're running out of breath forever. When they would stop it, it's "the End" really.

To go different way from the others, it would be a detour. Machisu couldn't creat even good things because he held too complexed things. There's something about him that made everyone feel that he looked great. But that kind of expectation became a handicap and dragged him down. He's like Achilles who cannot overtake the Tortois.

There's an absolute difference between getting the top selling and the talent.