ajoyce1va

When reading viewer comments on this forum, I often wonder if they and I have seen the same film. What did the people (there are a few) who liked almost two hours of this nonsense see that I didn't?

In 1923, when Nazimova made this, Art Nouveau and Victorian Decadence were over, over, over, but she pushed ahead anyway. You can blame Middle American socially conservative values for the failure of the project, but I would say that there are plenty of other reasons that "Salome, The Movie" tanked: posturing instead of acting, declarations instead of dialog, buffoonery (Herod and Herodias) paired with painful sincerity (everybody else) and not quite meshing, a really bad dance number from Nazimova, and the overwhelming sense of self-importance that pervades the entire production.

Then there are the absurdities. The Captain of the Guard kills himself because he can't stand the idea that Salome might love someone else. Okay, a bit over the top, but acceptable in a piece of fiction. However, it's absurd to have the character portrayed as (or by) someone who clearly never had any erotic interest in women. Ditto for showing John the Baptist first tempted by Salome and then rejecting her on moral grounds, when either the actor or the portrayal is of someone with the same sexual orientation as the Captain of the Guard.

A one-line review might state: they all stay in character and take themselves very seriously. In this movie, that's not a good thing.

The credits give a nod to the Aubrey Beardsley illustrations as the basis of the costume design. I think there's more to it than that: Nazimova used the Wilde libretto as a framework for the action, but I think she was really trying to bring the Beardsley illustrations to the screen with herself as the center of attention. Give Middle America a little credit for at least a modicum of good taste. This is not artistry -- this is narcissism.

And by the way, one post here suggests that Fellini drew on this film for inspiration. Perhaps, but I see the lines of inspiration going from Herod, as portrayed here, to Harpo Marx, whom Herod very much resembles, and from Herodias to Ma Kettle.

It's interesting to read the earlier reviews for Ran on this forum: the artsy-minded love it, while the roller derby fans hate it. I didn't hate it but must agree that there's enough bad acting from Nakadai to make you want to hold your nose, and lots of terrible writing. For example, we see Hidetora, stumbling around in volcano-land in a preposterous white wig, as he comes out of his stupor to announce "I am lost," and his Fool replies "Such is the Human Condition." Oh, come on!

And some of the actions sequences aren't much better. In the first battle, Tora's captain magically gets inside the castle and opens the gates. As the disaster proceeds, a guardsman comes up to report to Hidetora, finishes his message and as he tries to stagger back to the battle, he dies theatrically right there on the floor. And finally, while the castle burns, Kurosawa shows us pile after pile of bloody, artistically arranged corpse pin-cushions. Yeah, we got the point; get on with the story!

But I wouldn't rate Ran as totally awful because there is much to admire in this film. Many of the domestic scenes show classic Japanese good taste, and the battle sequences are nothing short of amazing. And while I wouldn't care to get it on with ferocious Lady Kaede as (already married) Jiro does, I loved her character as one of the main forces behind the downfall of the House of Ichimonji. Best of all was the cinematography. Most of Kurosawa's greatest work was in black and white, but clearly his understanding of color composition was masterful. If I could keep the court intrigue, the good exterior scenes in the high country, and the battles and cut out all the Hidetora-gone-mad rubbish, I would have enjoyed this movie.

As it was, after over two and a half hours of this stuff, my wife provided the best assessment. As the final credits rolled, she turned to me and said, "Well, that was depressing!"

P.S. An earlier reviewer commented on the anachronistic use of firearms in this film, complaining that samurai would not have used them. Well, yes and no. True 16th Century samurai as shown in this film would have done their work with sword, bow, and lance, but characters like Saburo and Fujimaki would not have scorned the use of men-at-arms with rifles. What was absurd in the final battle sequence was the rate of fire -- impossible for Saburo's small force.

Truly a ham-athon, featuring an impressive array of character actors of that period. I loved Gale (The Spiderwoman) Sondergaard as the house manager -- or would you say butlerette? And seeing the young Alan Ladd in an insipid role -- no Shane moves here! -- was very interesting.

Like a previous poster, I would have liked to see Hugh Herbert get knocked off first, but that wouldn't have made sense within the plot because he wasn't in line to inherit. So we're stuck with him doing his usual schtick throughout the movie.

There is one huge plot-hole. Herbert picks up the old lady's will and uses it as a bookmark, but drops it later. As soon as he does that, a spooky hand (belonging to the murderer, perhaps?) reaches out of the curtains and picks it up. So what happens to it after that?

Anyway, I'm glad I didn't buy a theater ticket to see this old turkey, but it was worth the hour and ten minutes to see it in streaming video on Netflix. Might watch it again some time too.