From those pantheon of Japanese cinema, we do sense some certain threads of what they like called "the elements belongs to their own country". To be more clear, we do need to pull out those Kenji Mizoguchi's UGETSU and Kurosawa's DRUNKEN ANGEL, and we concluded that those didactic moral inclusive plots are somehow, inherited in those Japanese cinema culture.
And this time, Takeshi Kitano, most commonly known as famous for being a virtuoso in gangster, mobsters movie, chose to not to begin with a story in a particular rambunctious way, to be compared, it's kind of kiddish but intriguing.
We can hardly tell those what we expected the provoking cinematic sleights in his oeuvre, and also this is not what he really passionate bout. I think Takeshi Kitano is someone that really wanted to tell some stories instead of doing a play of cinematography, from inside and outside, the most poetic sequences are not such obscure than any of those cinema masters (riding a bike in a freely sky).
But we do see some beguiling way about Takeshi Kitano handled about those sequences of kids in the school and outside school, and I think this could be the most heartfelt part of the whole movie. From Jean Renoir's perspective, he believes that the windows in the movies can be a fundamental motif of the cinema (though it's quite Hermeneutics), that the characters can see across the windows but they can't really get in touch with the freedom, or whatever outside the windows, the struggle between the freedom and the limits (Jean-Luc Godard adapted those ideas in his 1962 masterpiece VIVRE SA VIE). What Takeshi Kitano did was that created a perfect isolation between the students in the classroom and the two outsiders through a glass, and later we see how they jocularly played with these limits by using a fake doll of the teacher to bounce upon the solemn system (a slapstick), the students laughed but they can only laughed on the seats without movements, and that is what I call the perfect isolation between the freedom and limits that applied in those peculiar topic of children's decadences. We also see similar threads in his striking composition (wilds kids standing and those teachers sitting) and direct cuts between the teachers and students, he definitely knows what he believes and we he perceives.
But then they entered the fight club. So from now we can pull out YOLO (2024), 100 YEN LOVE (2014) and KIDS RETURN (1996) into the same arena, and then we will see ROCKY (1976) pop out and said you guys are all wilted. Or DAS BOXENDE KANGURH (1895) by Max Skladanowsky said the same things. The comparison between the years by years simply is nonsense, but I still wanted to point out, the serious problems of YOLO is not plagiarism (though it is somehow, but we all plagiarize, classics will be refreshed in modern eyes), it's about the intention of Leying in doing boxing, in comparison, KIDS RETURN did this part nearly perfect, but we have nothing to complain, how could expect a standup comedian who never learned any sleights of cinema (it's not really important at all, director needs to read to learn everything about arts) to make a good movie?
Back to the film, KIDS RETURN then entered a stage like the kids in GERMANY YEAR ZERO by Rossellini did when he tried to poison his father and suicide. How could a film with kids not be moralizing and intriguing? I think we are here through a peephole (as Takeshi Kitano doesn't have what they called a "cache" frame) to peep those kids get into the society and facing across the systems outside the system, the power outside the power, and the hierarchy outside the hierarchy, then they probably grow up, or gave up, that's the didactic part.
The taxi driver is quite the best part of the film, it elucidated you can not escape no matter where, the world is tough.
Susumu Terajima's performance is perfect, I can still recall him in the RAN. The boxing part in the latter part is getting redundant and sterile, a little too didactic, but impressive at the end.
And this time, Takeshi Kitano, most commonly known as famous for being a virtuoso in gangster, mobsters movie, chose to not to begin with a story in a particular rambunctious way, to be compared, it's kind of kiddish but intriguing.
We can hardly tell those what we expected the provoking cinematic sleights in his oeuvre, and also this is not what he really passionate bout. I think Takeshi Kitano is someone that really wanted to tell some stories instead of doing a play of cinematography, from inside and outside, the most poetic sequences are not such obscure than any of those cinema masters (riding a bike in a freely sky).
But we do see some beguiling way about Takeshi Kitano handled about those sequences of kids in the school and outside school, and I think this could be the most heartfelt part of the whole movie. From Jean Renoir's perspective, he believes that the windows in the movies can be a fundamental motif of the cinema (though it's quite Hermeneutics), that the characters can see across the windows but they can't really get in touch with the freedom, or whatever outside the windows, the struggle between the freedom and the limits (Jean-Luc Godard adapted those ideas in his 1962 masterpiece VIVRE SA VIE). What Takeshi Kitano did was that created a perfect isolation between the students in the classroom and the two outsiders through a glass, and later we see how they jocularly played with these limits by using a fake doll of the teacher to bounce upon the solemn system (a slapstick), the students laughed but they can only laughed on the seats without movements, and that is what I call the perfect isolation between the freedom and limits that applied in those peculiar topic of children's decadences. We also see similar threads in his striking composition (wilds kids standing and those teachers sitting) and direct cuts between the teachers and students, he definitely knows what he believes and we he perceives.
But then they entered the fight club. So from now we can pull out YOLO (2024), 100 YEN LOVE (2014) and KIDS RETURN (1996) into the same arena, and then we will see ROCKY (1976) pop out and said you guys are all wilted. Or DAS BOXENDE KANGURH (1895) by Max Skladanowsky said the same things. The comparison between the years by years simply is nonsense, but I still wanted to point out, the serious problems of YOLO is not plagiarism (though it is somehow, but we all plagiarize, classics will be refreshed in modern eyes), it's about the intention of Leying in doing boxing, in comparison, KIDS RETURN did this part nearly perfect, but we have nothing to complain, how could expect a standup comedian who never learned any sleights of cinema (it's not really important at all, director needs to read to learn everything about arts) to make a good movie?
Back to the film, KIDS RETURN then entered a stage like the kids in GERMANY YEAR ZERO by Rossellini did when he tried to poison his father and suicide. How could a film with kids not be moralizing and intriguing? I think we are here through a peephole (as Takeshi Kitano doesn't have what they called a "cache" frame) to peep those kids get into the society and facing across the systems outside the system, the power outside the power, and the hierarchy outside the hierarchy, then they probably grow up, or gave up, that's the didactic part.
The taxi driver is quite the best part of the film, it elucidated you can not escape no matter where, the world is tough.
Susumu Terajima's performance is perfect, I can still recall him in the RAN. The boxing part in the latter part is getting redundant and sterile, a little too didactic, but impressive at the end.