What Should’ve Won That Could’ve Won: 1985

The Year: 1985
What the Nominees Were: The Color Purple, Kiss of the Spider-Woman, Out of Africa, Prizzi’s Honor, Witness
Other Movies That Should Have Been Considered: Albert Brooks’ Lost in America and Allen’s Purple Rose of Cairo are great films. For that matter, Back to the Future is a better movie than Out of Africa. Outside of America there was Kurosawa’s Ran and another great Japanese film, Tampopo.

What Did Win: Out of Africa
How It’s Aged: Not well. Generally considered one of the worst Best Picture winners, this lovingly-shot travelogue is more of an advertisement for going on safari than a meaningful motion picture. The actual story is terribly un-involving.

What Should’ve Won: Ran
How Hard Was the Decision: Hard. I love Witness and Lost in America, but put them head-to-head against Ran, and they just get blown out of the water, so once again, I had to invoke “The Parasite Rule” which states that, very rarely, when everything goes exactly right, a foreign film can win Best Picture. (So far, I’ve only invoked this rule once, for another Kurosawa film, High and Low, but we will see it again.)

Director: Akira Kurosawa
Writers: Kurosawa, Hideo Oguni, and Masato Ide, based on “King Lear” by William Shakespeare
Stars: Tatsuya Nakadai, Akira Terao, Jinpachi Nezu, Daisuke Ryu, Mieko Harada, Peter

The Story: Aging warlord Hidetora decides to divide up his kingdom amongst his three sons, but keep his own army. His younger son tells him he’s a fool and gets banished in return. The older sons quickly turn on Hidetora, and each other, and the kingdom falls into warfare.

Any Nominations or Wins: Kurosawa had fallen out of favor in Japan, which didn’t even submit the film as their entry for Best Foreign Film. Nevertheless it was nominated for four awards. It lost for Director (the only time Kurosawa was ever nominated), Art Direction, and Cinematography, but won for Emi Wada’s stunning Costume Design.
Why It Didn’t Win: After Japan snubbed the film, Sidney Lumet took it upon himself to campaign for the film to get other nominations. The fact that it got a Director nomination is an indication that the Academy took it seriously, but foreign films always face huge hurdles, and no one was particularly surprised this one couldn’t mount them, even in the face of weak competition.

Why It Should Have Won:

1. How do you adapt one of the greatest plays of all time? Step one: fix its flaws. “Lear” is great, but its biggest weakness is that its Gloucester subplot is too similar to its main Lear plot (both about foolish fathers bestowing their lands on the wrong children). This movie eliminates the subplot entirely, but then, ingeniously, it takes some of the evil done by characters in that subplot, and attributes that evil to the main character instead. There’s still a character with eyeballs gouged out, but now it was Hidetora himself who did the gouging, in his younger days. This whole saga is not just punishment for being a vain fool, as Lear was, but the consequences of a lifetime of hideous violence. The story is much stronger when it’s about chickens coming home to roost.
2. Kurosawa’s greatest previous masterpieces were done in black and white, and his color films to this point had not exceeded those, but finally with this film he proved that he could compose symphonies of color, beginning with roiling green fields under an expanse of blue sky, then with the clashing primary-colored banners of the sons, which eventually get covered in just one color: red. (As with any production of Lear, he gets to have great fun with the storm as well.)
   
3. One of the odder things about this adaptation is that it changes the daughters to sons, presumably because it just wouldn’t happen with daughters in Japan, but surely Kurosawa was aware that primogeniture was just as much of a thing in England as it was in Japan and the whole point of the original was how unusual (and, in Shakespeare’s view, foolish) it was to pass your land on to your daughters. Ultimately, this revision works and we do get one great female role, with Mieko Harada as the bloodthirsty powerbroker who engineers the entire tragedy as righteous revenge.
   
4. Nakadai’s performance as Hidetora was partly inspired by Noh Theater (as you can tell from his stagey-make-up) which can be a bit alienating to American viewers, but Kurosawa was always a westerner at heart, and when the arrows start flying and (thousands of) horses start galloping, all stagey-ness falls away and this becomes a David-Lean-style epic for the ages. One of the best things about writing this series is that I get to rewatch these movies that I had only seen before forty years ago pan-n-scan on VHS. This movie demands better than that.
   
   
   
5. The fool is a great character in Shakespeare’s play, but isn’t there for the beginning or end of the story, presumably because Shakespeare intended for him to be doubled with the actor playing Cordelia. Here the fool is present throughout (beautifully played by a non-binary one-namer named Peter) as both comic relief and existential conscience of the film. (His outfits are the one thing in the movie that make me say, “Oh, right, it was the ’80s,” though I suspect that was intentional. He has the perspective of the 20th century.)
   
   
   

Ah, 1985: The politics here are fascinating...