Akira Kurosawa was not yet in the middle of his life when he shot ‘Ikiru (Living)’, One of the most beautiful and subtle films in the history of cinema, an effortless masterpiece in which each scene complements the previous one, and which shows a willingness to cling to life even when we have lost our way in it. Now, ‘Living’ does just that. Genuinely and without shame.
Photocopy for 0.20 Euro
We all have our biases when it comes to watching movies, and the group has acknowledged the commonplaces that are keeping us from watching tapes we otherwise would have liked. Iranian cinema is boring, in Spain there are only comedies and Civil War, Akira Kurosawa is only for cultured people. It’s useless to demystify each of these phrases made with facts and clarity: it’s useless that ‘Seven Samurai’ is highly entertaining or that ‘The Hidden Fortress’ influenced ‘Star Wars’. There are those who have insisted that Kurosawa should be synonymous with carefree boredom.
And maybe that’s why ‘Living’ is getting so much praise. In other words: One who does not know God, he prays to any saint. Compared to Kurosawa’s, Oliver Hermanus’ film is basically a carbon copy of The Onion. It’s based in London and stars Bill Nighy (who is always appreciated), but those are simple aesthetic changes: instead of trying to examine its subject matter from a more modern perspective or providing an official aesthetic, just copy and paste, move it to make it lighter (And, be it said less interesting).
Gus Van Sant was severely criticized when he copied the original Hitchcock film shot by shot in “Psycho,” an untouchable of the seventh art that, deep down, is an honest homage that doesn’t hide. It’s Impossible To Modernize Or Improve ‘Psychosis’ As Much As You WantSo why not turn your remake into a meta experiment? At least Van Sant went all out from the start, wanting to convey something with his cinema, so that the very fact of the remake’s existence might be a consideration. But ‘living’ doesn’t do that: as if he’s a naughty student looking over the shoulder of a smart classmate, Copy by changing a few words and hope the teacher doesn’t catch the cheat. Surprise: So it’s done.
very good tracing
I couldn’t help but be surprised (and a little blushed) to see the overwhelmingly positive reviews of ‘Living’: A song for life, a sad but happy act that gives us hopeAn ending that reveals the ephemeral beauty of our days on earth… I don’t know if they’re intentionally ignoring the fact that they’re not interested in breaking out of the original mold a bit as we see Bill Nighy or because people say they have seen more of ‘Ikiru’ than they have, But this remake is, by all accounts, a rough copy-paste.
It is true that, however angry I may be, the general public He will always be more inclined to watch a movie from 2022 than one from 1955, no matter how good it is. And in that sense, a remake that borders on a photocopy makes sense as a tribute, to convey the ideas of a director to a new generation (who, on the other hand, have no interest in seeing ‘the living’). . What’s more, it can also be debated whether post-pandemic The message of hope matters more than ever and Kurosawa’s Carpe Diem.
It’s all true. It is also true that ‘Ikiru’ is not written on the scroll which can only be accessed by password Nor has the passage of time disfigured its tale: It’s on film, it’s been released on Blu-ray, it’s easy to find in libraries, and from time to time on television shows. It’s accessible, captivating, a delightful memento mori, and a turning point in cinematic history that doesn’t need to be brought out of obscurity. If “The Living” intends to shed light on Akira Kurosawa for new generations, it seems like an unusually expensive way to do so.
child without creativity
Sometimes we feel like remakes are over, and that too with a wider reach to the culture No one is going to spend their time re-telling the same story without an aesthetic or official twist Which would justify turning the dial again. Steven Spielberg, for example, showed how to make a remarkable and intelligent remake in the brilliant ‘West Side Story’. but the truth is we are surrounded by remakes, from ‘CODA’ to ‘Full Speed! Destination Asturias’.
‘Living’ is a particularly tasteless one, its greatest achievement in chopping it here and there To remake a film that has lost its nuances but its DNA is still intact, almost like a surgeon makes precise incisions so as not to damage the organs that keep the film alive but that make it a Create a masterpiece. And that’s a shame, because a remake of ‘Ikiru’ isn’t in itself a bad idea: the problem is that it pays it such homage (it also keeps it at the same time) that It becomes a polite tribute rather than a cover.
Sure, Bill Nighy is amazing, and it’s hard to find fault with the tape’s technical invoice, but always live in the shadow of an incomparable work And it needed a strong writer behind it to give it a fresh perspective. Right now, ‘Living’ is no different than a simple cosmetic change, a new outfit for someone who doesn’t need it. All the findings on tape are inherited, it doesn’t have any of its own, and this is where it ties in with its own meaning: What is the reason for being ‘alive’? Maybe none, or maybe seeing an old man swinging on a swing is so immortal it needs reminding every seventy years.