I would rate this movie as above average, but not nearly the masterpiece that most other reviewers here see it as.
**SPOILER WARNING**
Plot Synopsis:
A man who's life is perfectly routine and without passion finds out he has a terminal disease. Distractions, such as drink and women are unsatisfactory, so he throws his remaining energy towards a selfless act. Posthumously, his endurance and accomplishment are an inspiration to his former colleagues in a Kafkaesque bureaucracy.
Analysis:
On the whole, the acting in this movie is superb, with the exception of the protagonist, who constantly overacts, with his haunted, wide-eyed look that quickly becomes monotonous after the first dozen or so close-ups. However, there are some effective scenes, such as his newfound girlfriend's boredom and revulsion at Watanabe's pathetic, desperate attachment. His former colleagues are also impressive in their admiration for the deceased.
The plot itself is also a mixture of successes and disappointments. Watanabe's realization of the meaninglessness of his life is presented too suddenly. Finding out that one has a terminal illness is certainly a shock. Still, I believe it would have been more effective to show the emptyness of Watanabe's life gradually dawning on him as he attempted to live it his routine way, rather than immediately running off to seek to live it more fully.
However, Watanabe's disillusion with hedonism is effective and essential. Hedonism only leads to the repetition and boredom that mirrors too closely his earlier life. Watanabe buys company, but it is empty of genuine human affection: the women he is with are only interested in his money.
Watanabe's attempt to live vicariously through a younger, vivacious woman is also convincing, as is her quickly growing tired of a brooding man likely twice her age.
The most unsatisfactory parts of the movie come in the second half of the film, following Watanabe's decision to redeem his life through selfless service. In order for him to succeed several artificial contrivances are necessary which wind up detracting from the effectiveness of the film.
Watanabe is fortunate to be in a position where he can be effective. A mere clerk certainly could not have accomplished the creation of a park. As a clerk would Watanabe have been satisfied with being responsible for the installation of just a bench, or a trashcan instead of the park? The park, though relatively modest, is still a contrived contingency for effectiveness of the redemption through service solution.
Further contingencies are Watanabe's superior's eventual yielding to pressure, and the gangster's deferance to a man who has nothing to lose. Both are unconvincing.
A final note should be made in comparing this film to another movie that treats similar themes of existential meaning, Groundhog Day. Both films avoid the real reprecussions and the ultimately unsatisfactory answers that their protagonists come up with by ending the movie immediately after the answer is proposed.
In Groundhog Day Bill Murray is redeemed through love and caring for others, and the film immediately ends. However, had he gone through as many repetitions of his caring, selfless days as he had days to learn to play the piano or throw cards in to a hat he would likely find his answer unsatisfactory. Likewise, the reality of being married is also sidestepped by immediately ending the film.
In a similar way, the park that is built by Watanabe is a fantasy park, which is really left unexamined by immediately ending the movie. Furthermore, selflessly devoting one's life to the service of others fails as an antidote to the meaninglessness of one's own life, because one is just passing the buck. Essentially, one is saying that someone else can do better with the life you give them than you can. This is not at all clear.
Weaknesses like these are the sorts of things many Hollywood movies are guilty of. They pull punches in order to create an inspiring and uplifting film. These weaknesses are also what seperate this film from masterpieces worthy of the designation such as works by Kafka and Ingmar Bergman. At their best, the latter do not pull punches. Kurosawa, of course, has his own masterpiece, which I find much more mature than Ikiru. Namely, Ran. Of course, since Ran was based on King Lear, Shakespear must be given some credit.
Still, there are some admirably realistic scenes even in the second half of Ikiru. Watanabe's superiors are hypocritical and self-serving in their robbing Watanabe of credit for the park. And despite Watanabe's colleagues' inebriated, freverent pledges to work as hard as he, in emulation they quickly fall back in to apathy.
All in all, despite many weaknesses of philosophy and plot this movie is well worth seeing for its attempts at dealing with an issue many people find uncomfortable. Namely, how is one to live one's life?
**SPOILER WARNING**
Plot Synopsis:
A man who's life is perfectly routine and without passion finds out he has a terminal disease. Distractions, such as drink and women are unsatisfactory, so he throws his remaining energy towards a selfless act. Posthumously, his endurance and accomplishment are an inspiration to his former colleagues in a Kafkaesque bureaucracy.
Analysis:
On the whole, the acting in this movie is superb, with the exception of the protagonist, who constantly overacts, with his haunted, wide-eyed look that quickly becomes monotonous after the first dozen or so close-ups. However, there are some effective scenes, such as his newfound girlfriend's boredom and revulsion at Watanabe's pathetic, desperate attachment. His former colleagues are also impressive in their admiration for the deceased.
The plot itself is also a mixture of successes and disappointments. Watanabe's realization of the meaninglessness of his life is presented too suddenly. Finding out that one has a terminal illness is certainly a shock. Still, I believe it would have been more effective to show the emptyness of Watanabe's life gradually dawning on him as he attempted to live it his routine way, rather than immediately running off to seek to live it more fully.
However, Watanabe's disillusion with hedonism is effective and essential. Hedonism only leads to the repetition and boredom that mirrors too closely his earlier life. Watanabe buys company, but it is empty of genuine human affection: the women he is with are only interested in his money.
Watanabe's attempt to live vicariously through a younger, vivacious woman is also convincing, as is her quickly growing tired of a brooding man likely twice her age.
The most unsatisfactory parts of the movie come in the second half of the film, following Watanabe's decision to redeem his life through selfless service. In order for him to succeed several artificial contrivances are necessary which wind up detracting from the effectiveness of the film.
Watanabe is fortunate to be in a position where he can be effective. A mere clerk certainly could not have accomplished the creation of a park. As a clerk would Watanabe have been satisfied with being responsible for the installation of just a bench, or a trashcan instead of the park? The park, though relatively modest, is still a contrived contingency for effectiveness of the redemption through service solution.
Further contingencies are Watanabe's superior's eventual yielding to pressure, and the gangster's deferance to a man who has nothing to lose. Both are unconvincing.
A final note should be made in comparing this film to another movie that treats similar themes of existential meaning, Groundhog Day. Both films avoid the real reprecussions and the ultimately unsatisfactory answers that their protagonists come up with by ending the movie immediately after the answer is proposed.
In Groundhog Day Bill Murray is redeemed through love and caring for others, and the film immediately ends. However, had he gone through as many repetitions of his caring, selfless days as he had days to learn to play the piano or throw cards in to a hat he would likely find his answer unsatisfactory. Likewise, the reality of being married is also sidestepped by immediately ending the film.
In a similar way, the park that is built by Watanabe is a fantasy park, which is really left unexamined by immediately ending the movie. Furthermore, selflessly devoting one's life to the service of others fails as an antidote to the meaninglessness of one's own life, because one is just passing the buck. Essentially, one is saying that someone else can do better with the life you give them than you can. This is not at all clear.
Weaknesses like these are the sorts of things many Hollywood movies are guilty of. They pull punches in order to create an inspiring and uplifting film. These weaknesses are also what seperate this film from masterpieces worthy of the designation such as works by Kafka and Ingmar Bergman. At their best, the latter do not pull punches. Kurosawa, of course, has his own masterpiece, which I find much more mature than Ikiru. Namely, Ran. Of course, since Ran was based on King Lear, Shakespear must be given some credit.
Still, there are some admirably realistic scenes even in the second half of Ikiru. Watanabe's superiors are hypocritical and self-serving in their robbing Watanabe of credit for the park. And despite Watanabe's colleagues' inebriated, freverent pledges to work as hard as he, in emulation they quickly fall back in to apathy.
All in all, despite many weaknesses of philosophy and plot this movie is well worth seeing for its attempts at dealing with an issue many people find uncomfortable. Namely, how is one to live one's life?