Achille et la tortue

This should be required viewing for everyone in the "art" world. Kitano skewers global modern art culture and also makes fun of his own work.

The story is simply of an artist from childhood to "middle age" (which seems to be around 62) as he tries to be a successful artist. He starts out as an untrained "primitive" but with a certain talent for texture and color. He is insulted at every turn while we get to see the "good" art by "masters" which are all really, really bad. Unfortunately the artist gets progressively worse as he takes advice from gallery owners on how to make his work "sellable", which it never is. Every time the work gets better, he's advised to go in a different direction. Many mildly humorous situations arise but the film isn't going for outright laughs most of the time. The scenes of the "middle aged" artist (played by Kitano) getting his supportive wife to make his art are very long, get progressively cruel (probably part of the point) and could have been cut down a little. The issue of autism isn't directly addressed but the character certainly exhibits symptoms.

This is a very good film although a little long. It may not be as good to someone who has no experience with the art world of today. Kitano created all the art in this film, good and purposely bad.

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.

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.

Kitano trying something different - is kind of something you expect from him. Now while he could have just been doing Yakuza or silly comedies, he goes ahead and does movies like this. It's about art - not just his decision, but what this movie is about. Now there is quite a lot of comedy in it and there is also quite a lot of violence in it too.

It is what he knows to do - and he is good in it. And while I did not look into if there is any autobiographical aspect to it, it does feel like he at least is chanelling something about himself. It may feel like small pieces sown together, but there is craft in that, making it compelling and interesting to see the road and determination of an artist. It is odd, but it is also really good

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.