Kagemusha, a Sombra de um Samurai

This film is set at the beginning of the Warring States era of Japanese history, which most Japanese film viewers would have studied extensively in school. Unfortunately for Western viewers, these historical aspects are therefore given little exposition, making some aspects of the film hard to follow for those without such schooling.

Here are some attempts at "liner notes" to help in understanding and appreciating the film (warning: I'm not Japanese and have not had Japanese schooling):

* Shingen Takeda is a warlord vying for power with Oda Nobunaga and his ally Ieyasu.

* Takeda had a reputation for the military prowess of their cavalry. Thus, you see lots and lots of horses featured in the film. Horses were important to the clan. Takeda's symbol is the four diamonds (the exact symbolism is explained in the film). Just as in the West, use of such heraldic symbols in war banners and clothing was very useful in figuring out who is who. So, keep in mind that when you see the four diamonds, whatever their color, those are Takeda forces.

* Nobunaga was known for his adoption of many Western ways. This is why he wears European-influenced clothing and doesn't have the standard samurai haircut (basically, shaved head, topknot). Nobunaga was also known for his use of rifles in battles. So, one of the themes of the film is the struggle of tradition against the influence of the West (in the film, mostly shown through the use of guns although their is also a brief shot of some clerics). Nobunaga's symbol is the five-sectioned flower. Nobunaga is also known for his love of Noh dramas, a dramatic form incorporating difficult-to-understand archaic language and restrained, careful action, somewhat like the film "Kagemusha" itself. Nobunaga launches into a bit of Noh at one point in the film.

* At this early time, Ieyasu was mostly known for his political survival skills. Ieyasu is probably best known to American viewers as the basis for James Clavell's Toranaga character in "Shogun". (Nobunaga is also in "Shogun" albeit as a minor character and under a different name.) The events in this film take place roughly two decades prior to those in "Shogun".

* Takeda's generals each also have their own symbols to help you track them. One of Ieyasu's generals also has a "symbol" (actually, the character "hon", which IMDb will not display).

* Haircuts are a sign of rank. This is why all the lords (except Nobunaga) have a certain haircut, all the pages have the same hairstyle, and so forth. The haircut~rank connection figures even more strongly and explicitly in Kurosawa's "Throne of Blood".

* Japanese men during this period often changed their names as their status changed. For example, in "Toshie to Matsu", Toshie, who is one of Nobunaga's (and, later, Hideyoshi's and Ieyasu's) generals/lords is granted the honor of changing his name to one which incorporates part of his lord's name into his own. Keep this in mind as Takeda's son discusses the use of his father's name and symbol.

* Miltary success and bravery in battle were key means of advancement. Thus, military leaders of this time are often depicted as ever-volunteering to do brave (even stupidly brave) things in hopes of gaining greater status. In "Kagemusha", Takeda's son is desperate for such advancement.

After spending a decade (or so) in solitary confinement from the Japanese Film Industry Akira Kurosawa returns to make his semi-masterpiece "Kagemusha", which he called a dress-rehearsal for "Ran", made in 1985.

Kagemusha is, probably, the best example of cinematic overkill where nobody actually cares. Cinematic overkill is when someone constructs a complex multi-layered movie, stage epic-battles, introduce likeable and complex characters without having a very complicated message. The message of "Kagemusha" is simply this: If you pretend long enough to be something else you'll become it. Too simple, maybe, for what's delivered.

Not that "Kagemusha" is a bad movie. It's haunting, it's spectacular and it's just great. I keep thinking about it over and over. I can't get it out of my head. Simply put "Kagemusha" is a masterpiece, albeit one up for debate. Not all Kurosawa fans would like it, but that's they're business. Personally, this is one of the movies currently that I'd really like to see again.

PS: Thank goodness for George Lucas and Francis Ford Copolla who funded this movie.

I saw the director's cut about twenty years after I first saw the film. Kagemusha is as magnificent now as before, but what has changed in the meantime is my appreciation of the meaning of Shakespeare's plays. The history plays and most of the tragedies were about the political dilemmas facing the new Tudor state. The Elizabethan audience sat on the edge of their seats waiting to see how political order might be restored once it had been set in disarray. The Wars of the Roses sequence culminates in the late political tragedies -- Julius Caesar, Macbeth, Hamlet and Lear. The question is always the same. How is an impersonal modern state possible when its leader is a person, the King? Or is rule by office compatible with the human flaws of the person occupying it? Shakespeare was the client of a conservative aristocratic faction, no rabble-rousing democrat he. But he went so deep into this political question in the course of writing all his plays that he dug deeper into this core issue of modern politics than anyone since.

Kurosawa approaches the same question through the notion of a double,"the shadow of a warrior", Kagemusha. Here the contrast between the office of the political leader and its personal incumbent is brought vividly to life in so many ways. The period is the Japanese equivalent of England's War of the Roses, the transition from feudalism to the beginnings of the modern state. The losing side in this case is the one that tries to resolve the contradiction of personality and office by a subterfuge, a thief masquerading as a lord. The winning side and founder of the Japanese state is the Tokugawa clan. The climactic battle symbolises the passage from traditional to modern warfare, as the horses of the losers are mown down by fusillades of gunfire. The credits run as the corpse of the double crosses a submerged flag whose abstract symbolism shows us which aspects of feudalism the modern state will borrow. Personality is vanquished.

The aesthetic vision animating this movie is incredible. There is so much to look at and admire, perhaps interpret. One striking feature for me was the persistent strong breeze ripping through the banners, a symbol of the winds of change running through 16th century Japan, contemporary to Shakespeare's period. Because this drama was made by and for the modern cinema, in many ways Kurosawa's masterpiece is better than Shakespeare.

Akira Kurosawa is certainly one of the most important directors who ever lived. Most of his most famous films were made in the 50s and 60s. Rashomon, Ikiru, Yojimbo, and The Seven Samurai may be the four most famous films he made, and they were all in black and white. That format was wonderful. His films had a definitive look in that era.

I would like to suggest, though, that he was the single best director of the color image who has existed thus far (whose work I am familiar with). I have only seen two of his color films (I don't even know how many he made), this film and Ran, but his sense of color in these two films is exquisite. I had to pause it several times during Kagemusha just to stare at the beautiful composition.

I personally think that Kurosawa's talents rested mainly in the technical aspects of his films rather than the content (and I'm sure many people would argue against me here). So as for the film itself, I'd give it a 9/10 for two reasons. I was only emotionally involved during small sections of the film (the end was particularly powerful), and the story was somewhat difficult to follow (I was confused during Yojimbo and The Seven Samurai, too). I prefer Ran to this film (and to all the other films of his I've seen, which include Rashomon, The Seven Samurai, and Yojimbo). Still, Kagemusha is very good.

I am a fan of Kurosawa and have seen many of his films many times. There is a sweep and an ache to Kagemusha that is genuine and has remained in my heart's memory. Unlike Ran, it is not Shakespearean. Unlike Seven Samurai, my favorite all-time film and I believe the best film ever made, it is not a western.

Although epic, it is about a sweet and rueful soul swallowed by karma and history. It is redemptive without overt sentiment, and the lead performance by Tatsuya Nakadai is nuanced and unforgettable.

I will always remember this film, not for its complexity or savagery, but for the simplest moments between Lord and subject, between the highest self and the lowest self, and most particularly, the very real pain of a man caught in the vise of his own life and death.