They say that F.F.Coppola insisted that Akira Kurosawa should receive Nobel Prize for his filmmaking. Many american masters share such a high estimation of Kurosawa's art and it had helped this master in making "Kagemusha"and "Dreams".
Perhaps, Kurosawa was one of few directors who had been officially and publicly praised on both side of "Iron Curtain" in Cold War period. Like other masters of cinema, he suffered very much after the decline of film industry and of "studio system". It's not coincidence that he made most of his classical works with highly humanistic theme and excellent portrayal of social reality from late 1940 s to the beginning of 1960 s. "Heven and Hell"(63) and "Akahige(Red Beard)"(65) was the last two pieces in his filmography characterized by all merits of prosperous industrial "system" of cinema. But then, the system had collapsed everywhere in the world with such rare exception as Soviet and Indian cinema.
It's natural that Kurosawa was impressed by large studio set for Tarkovsky's "Solaris"(72) when he visited Moscow. On the other hand, still young Tarkovsky complained that the film's premier was held not in the "first-rate" theater, comparing it with the official rating of the film of veteran S.Gerasimov. Tarkovsky' s self-image as a filmmaker seems taint by arrogance, when compared with Kurosawa's words that he is not at all a genius, he only try very hard because he doesn't want to lose.
Tarkovsky had extremely strong intuition in filmmaking, but he was not so strategic and logical as to be expected by readers of his book "Sculpting in Time". For example, his indisputable masterpiece "Andrei Rublyov" was completed as a result of double rewrite of screenplay and numerous re-editing. Its screenplay translated into English(Faber and Faber) is not at all ideal form of screenplay, and frankly speaking, not for cinema, because of the lack of dramatic tension and too loose composition.
In this sense, Kurosawa's "Akahige" is a pure contrast to "Andrei Rublyov". Based on the novel of Shugoro Yamamoto, his scenario (as his following 3 films) is characterized by economy and logic of dramaturgy for cinema. Namely, there is no superfluous episode or scene, no inconsistency of "point of view"(focalisation, if using the term of narratology). The composition of the film is made so that the audience would go through the whole process of a young man's becoming a true doctor, his realization of the mission of the profession, growing up into an adult.
"Akahige" is a kind of Buldungsroman. And Kurosawa made it in such a way from the beginning. He had a very logical thinking, though maybe it worked on subconscious level. Sometimes his dramaturgy was even too logical that the wealth of his imagination which appeared in 40 s, 50 s
and after 80 s seems suppressed in 60 s and 70 s.
On the contrary, screenplay "Andrei Rublyov" was free from dramaturgy. It's partly a poem in prose and at first it contained even an allegorical episode, such that Tarkovsky himself criticized in his later years. His intuition was superb in terms of imagery, including the selection of actors, locations and physical details. But in terms of dramaturgy his intuition often didn't compensate the lack of strategy.
Interesting is that these two masters publicly (not in personal diaries ) praised each other, Tarkovsky added Kurosawa in the list of a few cinematic geniuses, where was no place even for D.W.Griffith. Kurosawa said that he loves all of Tarkovsky's films. Apparently, they understood each other's works better than ordinary "cinephiles"did.
Perhaps, Kurosawa was one of few directors who had been officially and publicly praised on both side of "Iron Curtain" in Cold War period. Like other masters of cinema, he suffered very much after the decline of film industry and of "studio system". It's not coincidence that he made most of his classical works with highly humanistic theme and excellent portrayal of social reality from late 1940 s to the beginning of 1960 s. "Heven and Hell"(63) and "Akahige(Red Beard)"(65) was the last two pieces in his filmography characterized by all merits of prosperous industrial "system" of cinema. But then, the system had collapsed everywhere in the world with such rare exception as Soviet and Indian cinema.
It's natural that Kurosawa was impressed by large studio set for Tarkovsky's "Solaris"(72) when he visited Moscow. On the other hand, still young Tarkovsky complained that the film's premier was held not in the "first-rate" theater, comparing it with the official rating of the film of veteran S.Gerasimov. Tarkovsky' s self-image as a filmmaker seems taint by arrogance, when compared with Kurosawa's words that he is not at all a genius, he only try very hard because he doesn't want to lose.
Tarkovsky had extremely strong intuition in filmmaking, but he was not so strategic and logical as to be expected by readers of his book "Sculpting in Time". For example, his indisputable masterpiece "Andrei Rublyov" was completed as a result of double rewrite of screenplay and numerous re-editing. Its screenplay translated into English(Faber and Faber) is not at all ideal form of screenplay, and frankly speaking, not for cinema, because of the lack of dramatic tension and too loose composition.
In this sense, Kurosawa's "Akahige" is a pure contrast to "Andrei Rublyov". Based on the novel of Shugoro Yamamoto, his scenario (as his following 3 films) is characterized by economy and logic of dramaturgy for cinema. Namely, there is no superfluous episode or scene, no inconsistency of "point of view"(focalisation, if using the term of narratology). The composition of the film is made so that the audience would go through the whole process of a young man's becoming a true doctor, his realization of the mission of the profession, growing up into an adult.
"Akahige" is a kind of Buldungsroman. And Kurosawa made it in such a way from the beginning. He had a very logical thinking, though maybe it worked on subconscious level. Sometimes his dramaturgy was even too logical that the wealth of his imagination which appeared in 40 s, 50 s
and after 80 s seems suppressed in 60 s and 70 s.
On the contrary, screenplay "Andrei Rublyov" was free from dramaturgy. It's partly a poem in prose and at first it contained even an allegorical episode, such that Tarkovsky himself criticized in his later years. His intuition was superb in terms of imagery, including the selection of actors, locations and physical details. But in terms of dramaturgy his intuition often didn't compensate the lack of strategy.
Interesting is that these two masters publicly (not in personal diaries ) praised each other, Tarkovsky added Kurosawa in the list of a few cinematic geniuses, where was no place even for D.W.Griffith. Kurosawa said that he loves all of Tarkovsky's films. Apparently, they understood each other's works better than ordinary "cinephiles"did.
