Yôsô

I saw this movie without knowing anything about it besides a priest doing magic. So I sort of expected a bit of fantasy like movie set in Japan. But it is more about a priest/monk coming to the Imperial court and trying to help the sick Queen rule against the corrupt ruling officials.

I think the acting was great and I did end up enjoy the movie a lot. I would though not recommend this movie to all. Many will be bored as there is very little action in this movie. Mostly it is about the main characters impact on the world and how the world around him affects him.

So all in all more a Japanese political drama than fantasy. Maybe not a masterpiece but definitely worth a look if you find it :-)

Reading the synopsis of YOSO I was struck that this might be a light hearted comedy with its tongue firmly in its cheek as a Buddhist monk called Dokyo finds himself possessing mystical powers , This isn't the case at all because the Japanese aren't known for their sense of humour . Instead what we have is a typical Japanese film from the period that drowns in a sombre sea as a Priest uses his powers to save the life of a Queen and finding himself hated by the Queen's cabinet who wish to install her son on the throne . , I was instantly reminded of a true life obscurantist of the 20th Century , that involving Rasputin and wondered if it directly inspired that film ? Again typical of Japanese cinema from this period every scene is beautifully framed and contains very good set design but the music which feels like it belongs in a horror film or melodrama is painfully intrusive

It also suffers from another flaw and that is the line between the good guys and bad guys are too broadly drawn . This was a major fundamental problem with Masaki Kobayashi's other wise stunning film trilogy THE HUMAN CONDITION and here Teinosuke Kinugasa brings the same flaw to this film in that Dokyo isfar too pious and righteous to take entirely seriously while the bad guys are obvious greedy for power but we never learn why this is the case for their ulterior motives . Of course there is a subtext of religion here but this is nullified early in the film where Dokyo promises the soul of his mentor that he will improve the lot of the masses which isn't a pledge that is unique to religion and could easily have been made by a secularist . In other words regardless of your religious views the line between good and bad merely exist to make up the story and in effect we have a very simplistic - though well made - film about the abuse of power when it could have tried a lot harder to be complex

The Empress has been ill, despite all the prayers and temples built. Raizô Ichikawa, a Buddhist monk from the mountains is brought to the palace in accordance with a prophecy and lo, the Queen gets better. Celebrations are proclaimed, but on Ichikawa's advice, they are stopped. A tax holiday is proclaimed for the poor, and the rich and powerful are terrified. A rebellion is raised, and crushed, but despite the growing accord between the monk and the Empress, court intrigue continues.

It's set in Japan's Nara Era (710 - 794 A.D.). The story is loosely based on Empress Koken-Shotoku and Dokyo, a Yamabushi mountain warrior monk who practiced a rugged, intense form of Vajrayana Buddhism.

Teinosuke Kinugasa's movie strikes me as complicated. It is a clear story of compassion set against the implacable intricacies of the powerful ever seeking more power. It is also intensely Japanese in a way that is not clear to my Western mind, a modernized -- and thus incorrect -- view of the island nation when it was struggling to find its own mythic identity. In many ways it seems to me that it could have easily been slanted in the other direction, becoming variation of the death of Rasputin.

Kinugasa is a fine director, and his actors are skilled. Nonetheless, when dealing with mythology, it is important to remember that the symbol may remain the same, but its meaning changes in every era, and for every individual. With its black-and-white characterizations, this seems to me a hagiography. It will speak strongly and clearly to those who already believe its message, but be meaningless adulation of clay idols to those who do not.