Some time ago, I read "King Lear" (Zhu Shenghao's translation) again, and watched the "King Lear" produced by the National Centre for the Performing Arts before the New Year. I used the iPad to watch the adaptation of Lear on the high-speed train back to Beijing. Wang's movie "Chaos" by Akira Kurosawa.
Rather than saying that "Chaos" is adapted from "King Lear", it is better to say that Kurosawa has rewritten an epic masterpiece in another dimension of time and space. In addition to borrowing the story structure of "King Lear", "Chaos" is very different from "King Lear" in terms of story details, character depiction, and art form. The above differences are ultimately due to the two works. The connotations of the thoughts expressed are different.
"Chaos" focuses on digging out the ugliness of human nature and satirizes mainstream values, and satirizes idealism to a certain extent; while "King Lear", in addition to digging out the ugliness of human nature, sings passionately through the idealized character Cordilla. In addition to humanism, there is also a distinct humanism in Kent. King Lear himself has changed from a feudal monarch who insists on his own actions to a benevolent humanist who sympathizes with the people's suffering.
In order to focus on the ugliness of human nature and satirize idealism, Kurosawa made the following adaptations:
1. The biggest change in the film is the deletion of the branch plots of Gloucester and his two sons Edgar and Edmond. , And joined the character Mrs. Maple who is somewhat close to Edmond. Due to cultural factors, Mrs. Maple cannot do bad things independently like Edmond. She can only use men to make the plot more compact and contradictory. centralized;
2, the protagonist of different backgrounds: "chaos" in the account of the show tiger background, he was born in a small town, fought for many years, murderous, unscrupulous was able to rule a country's fortune on the following gram he was seen human ugliness, but Ideally believe that one's own status can still be maintained after the real power is handed over to his son; in "King Lear", the background of King Lear is not explained, and King Lear is just a feudal king;
3. The origin of the story is different: "King Lear" originated from Cordilla's unwillingness to flatter King Lear like the two sisters, and was deprived of the right to inheritance by King Lear, expressing the author's humanistic ideals; and "Chaos" It was because Saburo told his father the truth about Xiuhu-you yourself made your fortune through the following unscrupulous means, how can you believe that your son will obey you obediently after obtaining the territory? Saburo is well versed in human nature and believes that mainstream values and ideals cannot restrain people's desires. Xiuhu, who disobeyed the mainstream value ideals, was deprived of his rights. Here we can see that "King Lear" extols humanistic ideals, while "Chaos" satirizes idealism;
4. The contradiction is more acute: in "King Lear", the army of Gonaril and Reagan did not directly attack King Lear. They attacked the French army led by Cordilla (only King Lear happened to be in the army), which was nominally a war between the two countries; while "Ran" Nakataro and Jiro personally led the army to directly attack his father Xiuhu and set fire to it. Burning the city in an attempt to force Xiuhu to cut his belly;
5. The exposed human nature is even more ugly: For cultural reasons, there is no subordination problem between Gonaril and Reagan in "King Lear", and the two have been united on the King Lear issue until In the end, they killed each other because of the fight for Edmond. In "Ran", Jiro was subordinate to Taro for cultural reasons, but Jiro was stronger than Taro in terms of ability. Killed Taro directly on the spot, and seized the position of Taro and his wife, Mrs. Maple;
6. Different artistic techniques: "King Lear" makes a lot of use of natural intentions, such as the storm before King Lear goes mad, with a lot of lines, and Li The complex and contradictory moods of King Er are perfectly combined at this moment. King Lear has achieved this fate due to his own tyranny and autocracy; “Chaos” uses realistic intentions, Xiuhu defeated the three cities he made his fortune, the city is burning, but Xiuhu said nothing. , I made my fortune here by unscrupulous means, but ended here because of my sons’ unscrupulous means. Xiuhu got this fate because of his trust in the idealization of human nature. At this time, no words are better than words;
7. Different tragic methods: In "King Lear" Cordilla brought the French army and met with King Lear, Kent and others. When the audience was full of hope, he was defeated and captured. The audience was tense. When he was executed by Edmund again, people can’t help sighing; Saburo’s army in "Ran" won a great battle in a hearty battle, just when the audience was excited, Saburo was suddenly killed by a sniper, and the plot turned anxious. The next, it makes people feel good fortune;
8. The ending is different: Although "King Lear" is a tragedy, both King Lear and Cordilla are dead, but in the end Edgar, Duke of Albany, Earl of Kent and other positive roles All are still alive. This ending gives people hope. The author expressed the humanist ideals with a hopeful ending; "Chaos" is also a tragedy. Not only Xiuhu and Saburo died, but eventually the army of the princes fought in various kinds of battles in the city. This ending was disappointing. , Even desperate, the author expressed his irony of idealism and respect for reality with this ending.
Finally, "Ran" is a very excellent work. It fully integrates the history and culture of ancient Japan through a story structure similar to "King Lear". It continuously digs into the ideological connotation of "King Lear" and satirizes it. The mainstream values and ideals fully express what the real world is like.
I was thinking, if Saburo and Xiuhu were alive in the end, after Saburo ruled this land, will he continue to maintain his father's status even if he loves his father deeply?
View more about Ran reviews
