Karisuma

Kiyoshi Kurosawa is one of the most amazing stylists around. I loved his "Cure" for its distanced, analytical camera work - but I'm no fan of that movie's ending. Then I've seen "Kaïro" and was amazed because it had a completely different style. Scary and finally apocalyptic in a way I've never thought it would go. "Charisma" is the third Kurosawa-movie I've seen and again, its style is amazing. Sometimes the camera watches a scene from far away and gives the action a distanced, neutral look. The shots in the forest are amazing. Sometimes green and lush, sometimes misty and foreboding.

But what about that story? I've read many interpretations - that this is an analysis of Japan's society, that this is a neutral (which would fit the style) look at a confrontation of "wrong" and "right". Well, that's all rather intriguing - but no, it doesn't satisfy me at all. Now that I think about it, I'm actually very disappointed by the story. No one in this movie acts rationally which lifts the movie away from reality and lessens its social commentary. It had flashes of brilliance where I clearly saw what Kurosawa was aiming at - but he could not sustain his ideas for the full running time. Sometimes I thought this was a parody and all Kurosawa wants to do in the end is laugh at the viewer who was expecting something that makes sense.

That said, I have to admit that it gives you a lot of thought fodder - just not in any rewarding way. Even if it is a clever commentary on Japan's society, that would not be enough for almost 2 hours. So the only really great thing about this film is its visual glory. I'm still not sure whether I like Kurosawa's movies or not. I certainly won't forget them.

Rating: 6/10

I started watching this film without knowing much about it... and after the final frame.. I can honestly say I still do not know much about it. I've read some of the other comments about this movie from other viewers and each made some interesting comments and observations.

There were surreal elements as well as a very peculiar (and original) premise for a plotline but there's no need for me to re-summarize what's already been said. The pace was too slow IMO and several times I thought it was about to end when another 5 or 10 minutes were tacked on. There were a few shocks and surprises along the way but the sheer length of the movie and it's ambiguous ending renders it hard for me to recommend.

As someone else stated, it does make you think and that is probably what all good films hope to achieve. One would just hope for a clearer thoughtscape to ponder on.

This is one of the strangest, complex films I've ever seen. When you read the synopsis, you'll probably realise that the writer and director, Kiyoshi Kurosawa, is working on many different levels, and you'll equally stay involved with the story due to the outstanding visuals. Kurosawa's camera work is typically brilliant, allowing the viewer to escape into the mysterious rural Japanese landscape.

Part philosophical drama, part social study, part ecological investigation, part surrealistic, Kafkaesque black comedy, Kurosawa has clearly crafted a film that demands repeated viewings. My first viewing was focused on the ecological themes present throughout the film; the whole idea of man's control over nature, without realising that nature doesn't reason. It just is. Applying Spinozan logic, nature is the infinite essence of the universe and doesn't need controlling. Nature doesn't act out of emotion and reason; it is perfect and simply is. There's just so much more thematic material open to interpretation so it's hard to place one specific genre to the film, but Kurosawa skillfully builds up disturbing dramatic moments with his trademark perfect camera work, boasting stellar cinematography of the Japanese landscape.

The film might not be my favourite, but 'Charisma' is certainly up there as one of Kurosawa's best films. If you're interested in strange but nonetheless interesting examinations of reality, then be sure to check this one out.

Charisma begins with a conundrum that intrigues me, a hostage situation where a cop points a gun at a young man holding at gunpoint a politician with the demands, scribbled on a scrap of paper, "to restore the rules of the world", and will the cop carry out justice or will he recognize another kind of justice already unfolding in front of him. The cop walks away, because he feels sympathy for both victim and victimizer as he later reveals to his superior, and the film quickly shows that non-action or a refusal to be involved in the world, compassion from a distance, has dire consequences.

Kurosawa seems to be concerned here with the law of nature, the ways of the world. If life is a game with stakes of life and death, how do we play it and how does it reflect on the universe. The phrase "the rules of the world" is repeated later in the film, it's a linchpin holding themes together, but how does the film pursue this broad philosophy, does it poetically infer something important?

The cop protagonist is brought into a mysterious forest world, which is threatened to be tipped off balance by a rare toxic tree. It doesn't take a lot to understand that this secluded ecosystem stands for the world at large but I like that Kurosawa readies him for this existential playground by stripping him of manmade identity, this contract established between the individual and society, preparing him for an initiation process where the self will be reinvented, born anew with new perspectives.

It's downhill for me from this point. Kurosawa pursues his argument by a schematic representation, by an obviousness of symbolism, by characters drawn to clearly stand in opposites who literally speak out their role in the film. A character wants to destroy the tree to save the surrounding ecosystem, another wants to protect it because it's unique. We understand this, but they go on to tell the camera.

Kairo's strong card for me is the grand guignol representation of an abstract world, the stage of a horror theater where the self is dissolved. In Charisma, Kurosawa reaches for a similar absence of logic but only as means of formulating logic on a secondary level, by an allegory of "this stands for that". I like the fact that I'm watching a film morally and aesthetically preoccupied, one that tries to grapple with ideas, but it's not a surreal film, and it doesn't evoke a picture of a meaningful world by poetic means, rather it draws one by rational ones.

This illustrates the failure of allegory for me. An allegoric world is an abstraction of a part of the world we recognize, with the abstraction used to concretely talk about that part. The basic means are cryptic as opposed to poetic. Once we grasp the key that abstracts, it's no longer a challenge.

The cop wavers between the two sides, until he settles for a point of view that encompasses both. This balancing act of selective involvement that upsets the rules in the world of the film and brings chaos can be meaningful, if we accept that a new world can only come to pass through the fires of destruction.

Philosophy by means of an allegory makes for a boring film for me, and more, for a film that doesn't stimulate the senses, but invites pen to paper in an effort to decrypt a riddle.

It's a difficult film, but not very bright.

Charisma was my favorite movie at the Toronto Film Festival. The only film I've ever seen that pondered whether a tree was evil, exceptional, or just another tree. And also wonders about man's attempts to control the natural order.