Kagi (1959)

User Rating:

7.4/10   

Director:

Kon Ichikawa

Writers:

Keiji Hasebe (writer)
Kon Ichikawa (writer)

Release Date:

12 May 1961 (USA)

Genre:

Drama

Plot:

A man getting on in years sets out to find a way to resurrect his flagging virility. |

Plot Keywords:

Train | 1950s | Sex | Japanese | Husband Wife Relationship

Awards:

Won Golden Globe. Another 3 wins & 1 nomination

Cast

Machiko Kyô	...	Ikuko Kenmochi
Ganjiro Nakamura	...	Kenji Kenmochi
Junko Kano	...	Toshiko Kenmochi
Tatsuya Nakadai	...	Kimura
rest of cast listed alphabetically:
Jun Hamamura	...	Dr. Soma
Tanie Kitabayashi	...	Hana
Mayumi Kurata	...	Koike
Kyu Sazanka	...	Curio dealer
Ichirô Sugai	...	Masseur
Mantarô Ushio	...	Dr. Kodama

Also Known As:

Odd Obsession
The Key

Runtime:

96 min | Argentina:100 min | Japan:107 min | USA:107 min

Country:

Japan

Language:

Japanese

Color:

Color (Eastmancolor)

Aspect Ratio:

2.35 : 1

Sound Mix:

Mono

Certification:

Argentina:16 | Finland:K-16

Company:

Daiei Kyoto

Movie Connections:

Referenced in Coming Apart (1969)

Well directed, visual.. but with lousy end

Personally I was disappointed to this since I expected so much from it since I've read the book by Junichiro Tanizaki, which was very unique and great. The characters are seen too dark and sick way in this movie, and viewer can't really emphatize much with them. This alone, makes it fight against the very idea of the original masterpiece of Tanizaki. In addition, the characters are different than described in the book. Especially Kenji's wife Ikuko is much younger than in the book, which steers the movie already out from the right path. In addition, Kimura's character is seen too selfish. Also, the refer to key, which "kagi" means, is somewhat superficial and synthetic. The original book was written through the couple's diaries which offered much more depth to the characters, and allowed person to get inside their heads. The movie tries just shock people, which it really does. Another surprising thing is that the movie was rated K16 here in Finland. May I ask why?? The strong visual content instead makes this movie work, and was the reason why I bothered myself to rate this here in IMDB. It's really well made, and the visual cutting brings up emotions very efficiently. In today's movie, this wouldn't work, but when we think that this was made in '59 it's somewhat interesting. Also, actors do proper job. For all those who have read the book, you might be disappointed to this movie. Others, I can recommend with reservation.