Top Qs
Timeline
Chat
Perspective
Rhapsody in August
1991 film by Akira Kurosawa From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Remove ads
Rhapsody in August (Japanese: 八月の狂詩曲, Hepburn: Hachigatsu no rapusodī)[a] is a 1991 Japanese drama film by Akira Kurosawa based on the novel Nabe no naka by Kiyoko Murata. Starring Sachiko Murase, Hidetaka Yoshioka, and Richard Gere, the story centers on an elderly hibakusha, who lost her husband in the 1945 atomic bombing of Nagasaki, as she cares for her four grandchildren over the summer. She learns of a long-lost brother, Suzujiro, living in Hawaii who wants her to visit him before he dies. Thematic analyses of the film focus primarily on the concern of the nuclear bomb and its remembrance; examining how the use of silence and music have been used to express its horror. Additional focus has looked at the place of family and the role of nature in the film's imagery.
Produced by Shochiku and Kurosawa Production on a budget of $10,000,000 ($24.1 million in 2024), production finished quickly despite logistical problems surrounding Gere's schedule, and difficulty with shooting a train of ants. Initial previews of the film by foreign reporters were often negative in tone, Kurosawa faced accusations of anti-Americanism; some felt the film did not properly contextualize the nuclear attacks by failing to mention Japanese aggression. Reporters were particularly upset with a scene where Clark appears to apologize for the nuclear attacks, whereas most scholarly readings tend to view the scene as a reconciliation among family members without any specific political meaning. Released in Japan on May 25, 1991 to mixed reviews, the film won several Japan Academy Film Prizes. Rhapsody had its Midwestern premiere in Saint Paul, Minnesota where funds were raised to help donate an American sculpture to Nagasaki Peace Park.
Remove ads
Plot
Summarize
Perspective
Kane (an elderly woman whose husband was killed in the atomic bombing of Nagasaki) has her grandchildren visiting her at her rural home in Kyūshū one summer while her children visit Kane's brother in Hawaii. The grandchildren have been charged by their parents to convince their grandmother to visit her brother in Hawaii. On a visit to Nagasaki, the grandchildren visit the spot where their grandfather was killed in 1945 and become aware of some of the emotional consequences of the atomic bombing. They slowly come to have more respect for their grandmother and question the morality of the United States for deciding to use atomic weapons against Japan.
They receive a telegram from their American cousins, who turn out to be rich, and have offered their parents a job managing their pineapple fields in Hawaii. Matters are complicated when Kane writes to Hawaii telling her American relatives about the death of her husband at Nagasaki. Her own two children, who have now returned from Hawaii to visit her, feel that this action will be viewed by their Americanized relatives in Hawaii as embarrassing and a source of friction for reminding them of America's role in the bombing. Clark, who is Kane's nephew, travels to Japan to be with Kane for the memorial service of her husband's death at Nagasaki. After Clark apologises, the two reconcile.
Clark asks to go to the site where his uncle was killed by the atomic bomb, and is moved by the events he sees in the community which commemorate the bombing of Nagasaki. At a local temple, he and the grandchildren observe a Buddhist ceremony where the local community of Nagasaki meets to remember those who had died when the bomb was dropped. He and the grandchildren watch a train of ants climbing over a rose while the others continue to remember the dead. As he continues to talk and interact with his family members, Clark suddenly receives a telegram telling him that his father, Kane's brother, has died in Hawaii and he is forced to return there for his father's funeral.
Kane's mental health and memory begin to falter. She begins to show signs of odd behavior by laying out her husband's old clothing; when a storm strikes, her mental health seems to confuse the storm for another atomic bomb attack and she tries to protect her grandchildren by covering them with sheets, which confuse her younger family members. As the storm intensifies again, Kane becomes more disoriented and mistakenly confuses the storm for the atmospheric disturbance caused by the bombing of Nagasaki which she witnessed visually from a safe distance when her husband was killed many years ago. In her disoriented state, Kane decides that she must save her husband from the impending atomic blast. She takes her small umbrella and walks through the storm on foot to warn her husband while her family chase after her.
Remove ads
Cast
- Sachiko Murase as Kane (The Grandmother)
- Hisashi Igawa as Tadao (Kane's Son)
- Narumi Kayashima as Machiko (Tadao's Wife)
- Tomoko Otakara as Tami (Tadao's Daughter)
- Mitsunori Isaki as Shinjiro (Tadao's Son)
- Toshie Negishi as Yoshie (Kane's Daughter)
- Hidetaka Yoshioka as Tateo (Yoshie's Son)
- Choichiro Kawarazaki as Noboru (Yoshie's Husband)
- Mieko Suzuki as Minako (Yoshie's Daughter)
- Richard Gere as Clark (Kane's Nephew)
Remove ads
Production
Summarize
Perspective
Development and pre-production
Based on the novel Nabe no naka by Kiyoko Murata, Kurosawa read the book and started development on the film during the production of Dreams (1990).[5] He wrote the screenplay by himself and made several changes to the original story, which focuses on the perspective of the grandmother who becomes increasingly unable to tell the difference between illusions and reality.[6] Finishing the script in about fifteen days, Kurosawa decided to change the location of the story to the outskirts of Nagasaki, making the protagonist's deceased husband a victim of the atomic bomb dropped on the city in 1945.[7] Filmmaker Ishiro Honda also made some uncredited contributions to the script.[1] With a budget of $10,000,000 ($24.1 million in 2024), Rhapsody in August was produced by Kurosawa Production and financed by Shochiku and Feature Film Enterprise No. 2 (an investment partnership of at least eighteen companies, including Imagica and Hakuhodo). It marked Kurosawa's first film produced solely by Japanese studios since Dodes'ka-den (1970).[5]
When she received the script for the film, Sachiko Murase was initially reluctant to accept, but was impressed by Kurosawa's understanding of the suffering inflicted by both sides of the Second World War and considered his attitude and direction to be compassionate and gentle. Despite harboring reservations about the difference between herself and the characterization of Kane, she did not ask to change the character's personality. Richard Gere was cast after Kurosawa asked if he was interested in the role of Clark at a party that celebrated Kurosawa's birthday and 1990 Oscar award. Kurosawa was struck by his interest in Asia and practice of Lamaism; when he was told about the role, Gere offered to act in the film for free but accepted the offer of a minor fee.[8] Originally Gere had prosthetic eyes made to look half-Japanese, but Kurosawa decided on a simple makeup job. Gere practiced Japanese with a dialogue coach, and used a tape provided for him by a friend who was bilingual.[9]
Production
Location shooting in Nagasaki began on 22 August 1990, the film's climax at the elementary school with Richard Gere was filmed over three days from the 24th. That summer was an especially hot one, Kurosawa filmed multiple retakes but Gere's schedule made it difficult to finish early.[10] Additions to the script were made during filming, Kurosawa increased Gere's role in the film, but his contract was only for three weeks. Nearly 100 staff members were traveling across Japan which caused logistical problems as they were filming during the Obon holiday, meaning accommodation and transportation were difficult to book.[11]
To film a scene that showed ants marching in a straight line, Kurosawa employed a professor from the Kyoto Institute of Technology to create a pheromone trail leading to Richard Gere's feet. Working with assistant director Toru Tanaka, they encountered difficulties when the ants continually fanned out in different directions instead of following the trail. Realizing the soil was absorbing the pheromones too quickly, the production team replaced, dried, and remixed the soil with cement. Later scenes involving the use of ants also required a large amount of effort, with Tanaka spending three days on a shot composed of the ants climbing a rose bush.[12] According to Donald Richie, the scene could not be completed because the ants were at the wrong altitude, and was only finished after the crew moved the location of the shoot from Gotemba to sea-level Kyoto.[13]
Kurosawa told Gabriel Garcia Marquez in 1990:
I have not filmed shockingly realistic scenes which would prove to be unbearable and yet would not explain in and of themselves the horror of the drama. What I would like to convey is the type of wounds the atomic bomb left in the heart of our people, and how they gradually began to heal.[14]
Whereas before he worked with composers to make original music, in his final films Kurosawa began using pre-existing music that acted outside of the narrative world.[15] Production finished quickly, and the film was ready to view three months before Shochiku's scheduled release date.[6]
Remove ads
Themes
Summarize
Perspective
Family and generations
In Rhapsody in August, Kane is shown to model behavior for her grandchildren whereas her own children view her cynically as being old-fashioned. Professor of Japanese and cinema Linda Ehrlich sees the film's perspective as one that focuses on the extremes of age while reducing the middle generation (who were born and raised during the war and its aftermath) to caricature.[16] She comments that Kurosawa connects children and the elderly to an idea of innocence which is associated with the theme of nature.[17] To film scholar Stephen Prince, the growing connection of the younger generation to Kane advances their historical understanding and reconciliation, whereas Kane's assimilated Hawaiian older brother is thematically forgotten and the middle generation are condemned for their opportunism.[18] Historian David Conrad writes of the connection between the generations and how Clark acts as a medium for growing international cultural exchange.[19] Clark is able to play with his Japanese nieces and nephews, and shames his cousins by freely offering the wealth they sought to cajole from him. Because he is a nisei (second generation) hāfu, he represents a possibility for a new geopolitical and familial relationship in a world no longer bound by the framework of the Second World War and Cold War.[20]
Mitsuhiro Yoshimoto, in his study of Kurosawa's filmography, states that "the present is haunted by the past", examining how Kane's story about her brother's elopement and subsequent life in the forest near a large tree twisted by lightning is understood by her grandchildren who become taken with the image of the tree when they go searching for it.[21] The grandchildren also tease one another, with Shinjiro being told he looks like Kane's youngest brother, and dresses up as a kappa as in a story Kane tells about this brother. Because of Kane's self-distancing from her memories, she only remembers just prior to his death, that her older brother did move to Hawaii, as a result family links take on a traumatic undertone.[22] Prince summarily describes the film's politics as metaphorical for being contained within the family, and not focused on the broader history of the war.[23] Film scholar James Goodwin argues that the introduction of Clark, and his request to view the site where his uncle lost his life to the bomb, reintegrates the family unit and connects them to a social and psychological past.[24]
Death and memory of the atomic bomb
In Donald Richie's The Films of Akira Kurosawa, the author considers Kurosawa's aim to have been for "the viewer to remember and then forgive" the dropping of the atomic bomb.[6] However, he writes that the film's assignment of blame for the destruction of the atomic bomb is too simplistic for the subject matter.[6] Similarly, Ehrlich believes that Rhapsody distorts the form of innocence by undermining its sincerity with simplicity, writing that unaddressed complexities of wartime suffering are not adequately expressed—and so detract from—the suffering inflicted by the atomic bomb.[25] Prince refers the film's politics as "curiously evasive".[26] Much of the film's dramatic narrative occurs off-screen (e.g. the death of Suzujiro, the parents' trip to Hawaii), which he indicates is also Kurosawa's approach to the history of the atomic bomb due to the fact that it had already occurred. As a result, everything is left to recollection which deprioritizes action in favor of memory.[27] Yoshimoto, in writing on Rhapsody's political statements on the atomic bomb, considers the film's question of commemoration. He writes that, while the children's perspectives on why America had not donated a memorial to Nagasaki Peace Park are not treated unequivocally, it is not a historical distortion to question why America had not done so.[28]
In The Warrior's Camera, Stephen Prince identifies Rhapsody in August within Kurosawa's late filmography as a form of "psychobiography".[31] On this theme, Conrad notes Kurosawa's casting of a woman as a central character for the first time since the 1940s, which he suggests may have been Kurosawa commemorating his late wife, who died in 1985.[32] As a reference to Kurosawa's former work, Prince examines the director's use of the axial cut (a jump cut that pushes in to focus on the characters) in the silent conversation between Kane and her friend. He describes its use in Rhapsody as a form of quotation, a technique whose use is more iconographic than narrative.[33] Kurosawa does not show any direct depiction of the bomb, but uses the depiction of the a massive eye overlaid on the mountains as a representation of Kane's recollection and Kurosawa cinema of memory.[34] For Goodwin, the silent conversation between Kane and her friend is indicative of the bomb's unspeakable horror and an attempt to frame the past in a personal context without using conventional narrative or cinematic forms such as a flashback.[35] He considers the silence itself to express reflection.[36] This personal reflection of memory he likens to a monologue.[37] Yoshimoto likewise comments on the lack of visualization and use of silence by witnesses to the atomic attack as a means of remembering the event and mourning the dead.[21]
In a 1991 Kinema Junpo feature upon the release of the film, Reiko Kitagawa wrote on the link between grandmother and grandchildren, seeing in the natural world an analogue to the memory of the atomic bomb itself. The children experience death through the songs they sing, the remains of a large tree (serving as a reminder of the brother who lived in the forest near a large tree struck by lightning), the waterfall, the twisted jungle gym, and the storm.[38] To Ehrlich too, the film's natural scenes represent the connection between a micro and macrocosmic view of the bomb, giving the example of how the expressionistic image of the eye overlaid on the mushroom cloud is mirrored in the eye of a snake seen at the waterfall.[39] Goodwin sees in the image of the 'eye' an abstraction of human consciousness and an awareness of a new age.[40] Writing about the bomb's commemoration, Conrad comments on the film's depiction of smaller, local ceremonies as a form of private practice, rather than large public events to memorialize the bomb victims.[41]
Clark's apology
The scene where Clark meets Kane and apologises to her caused significant controversy when the film was released.[42][43][44] The children's parents—Clark's cousins—enamored with the wealth of their Hawaiian family, deliberately fail to tell Clark that his uncle was a victim of the bomb. Richie describes the parents' self-serving behavior that seeks to forget the effects of the bomb as impeding the reconciliation between Clark and Kane. Richie reads the apology scene as an atonement for the use of the atomic bombs.[45]
However, Galbraith views the scene instead as an apology from Clark for his insensitivity in asking Kane to go to Hawaii during the anniversary of her husband's death; that Clark's apology comes from his acceptance of responsibility of possibly having offended her.[42] Conrad and Prince likewise read the scene as an apology for failing to realize his family's suffering.[19][46] Yoshimoto similarly states that Clark's apology reflects his status as a family member, and not an American. That is, that Clark is not apologizing for the bomb, but for failing to realize that he and his family had acted selfishly in talking of themselves and not understanding the extent of her pain.[47] Prince goes on to analyse Kane's general anti-war response as indicative of Kurosawa's feelings, but criticizes the film's tone as unpersuasive when the adolescent characters become the voice of conscience and narrate about the city's forgetfulness.[46]
Kane's departure
Prince examines the events preceding Kane's departure as a collapse of the past into the present, where the memory of the atomic bombs becomes indistinguishable from a thunderstorm. Forced to live in the present day, the final sequence embodies her attempt to return to the past which she has been stuck in.[48] Yoshimoto sees the final scene of Kane's march through the storm as a departure from the film's realism and notes the connection between the past and present of the death of her husband, and the death of her older brother in Hawaii.[22] To Galbraith the scene indicates that Kane's endurance in the natural world lasts as long as it is remembered by future generations.[29] Prince continues, viewing the final moments of Kane appearing to march in place as a visual representation of her contradictory and unattainable desire to escape the postwar era, despite centering her concerns on the atomic bomb which defined it.[49] Whereas Kitagawa views the umbrella Kane carries to shield her from the storm to be a symbol of life, Nishimura views the sequence to be symbolic of her death and ascension to heaven.[50][51]
Music and religion
Yusuke Kataoka writes on the image of the Virgin Mary in the film, analyzing how the "Stabat Mater" (a piece played during mass describing Mary's sadness after Jesus' death on the cross) is played when the children visit Nagasaki Peace Park for the first time, and again when Clark visits the site where his uncle was killed. Kataoka describes this repetition as a means of reconciliation between both sides of the family, and Japan and the United States more broadly.[52] Regarding the scene of ants climbing up a thornless rose while the bomb is commemorated by worshippers chanting the Heart Sutra, Kataoka identifies the rose as a symbol of Mary, and considers the scene to be a kind of dual religious lament.[53]
Richie comments on the use of Schubert's "Heidenröslein" as a leitmotif heard throughout the film—in addition to the sudden change in the final scene from choreographed long-shots to a rhythm of fast-cutting—as an affirmation of survival and the human condition.[54] Goodwin examines the use of Schubert's piece in this scene and compares the "rose" referenced in the song to the rose climbed over by a colony of ants, with the flower's color and bloom a reference to the sight of the bomb.[55] Galbraith identifies the lyrics of the song with Kane herself, and suggests that this mirrors the similarly unexplained scene following a train of ants while the atom bomb survivors chant nenbutsu.[29] Yoshimoto also identifies these associations and analyses them as an allegory for the preciousness of life against the traumatic recovery of memory from the nuclear blast.[56] Kataoka sees in the use of "Heidenröslein" a counterpoint to the "Stabat Mater", where the use of music outside the narrative world, and Kane's growing delusions, subvert the image of reconciliation by implying the continued danger of nuclear weapons.[57]
Remove ads
Release
Summarize
Perspective
.jpg)
Kurosawa was approached by Orion Classics to theatrically distribute the film in America, and a deal was finalised in August 1990.[29] The film was previewed in March 1991 before being shown out of competition at the 1991 Cannes Film Festival in May.[44][29] American reviewers took umbrage with what was perceived as anti-American sentiment. Concerned about the impact of its commerciability, Shochiku encouraged some large companies within Japan to sell tickets directly to their employees. A pre-order ticket campaign saw ¥300 of the ¥1,300 ticket price go to the Japan Bird Protection Association which was assisting birds that were affected by the Gulf War.[29] The film was distributed in Japan by Shochiku, the first time Kurosawa had partnered with the company since directing The Idiot (1951).[5] It was released in Japan on May 25, 1991.[1]
The film opened in America on December 19, 1991.[58] In 1990 James Scheibel, the mayor of Nagasaki's American sister city, St. Paul, Minnesota, visited Nagasaki and learned that there was no sculpture in the Peace Park from the United States. Rhapsody in August held its midwest premiere in St. Paul in 1991 as part of the efforts to raise funds for the Constellation Earth sculpture, which was donated to the Peace Park and formally unveiled in September 1992.[59]
Remove ads
Reception
Summarize
Perspective
Box office
In Japan the film earned upwards of $10 million in rentals.[60] The film's box office chances in America were cut by a series of negative reviews and bad publicity concerning the film's political content. As a result, returns were unremarkable.[61] Opening in seven theaters to a box office of $26,771 ($61,803 in 2024), the film accured $516,431 ($1.19 million in 2024) in total.[58] The film saw some financial success in Europe, garnering $5 million before it had premiered in Japan.[60]
Critical response
Rhapsody in August has an approval rating of 60% on review aggregator website Rotten Tomatoes, based on 15 reviews, and an average rating of 6.1/10.[62] The film received mixed reviews upon its release in Japan.[9] Writing in Kinema Junpo on the film's release, Yu Hamano praised the film's structure, in particular emphasizing how the film switches from stillness to motion in order to capture the conflicting emotions that permeate the film.[63] Nishimura also focused on the film's structure, believing it employed a jo-ha-kyu rhythm adopted from Noh theatre that informs a dreamlike and symbolic approach to the theme of death.[51] Conversely, Susanne Schermann wrote that the film was not dreamlike at all, rather it depicted a mundane family life that shows Kane as overcoming tragedy by forgiving the past through interactions with her family. Schermann called the final scene "ambiguous and haunting" and considers Kurosawa's handling of the Second World War to advocate for a humanist condemnation of violence evident as a theme in his work since his first film, Sanshiro Sugata (1943).[64] However, Japanese cultural critic Inuhiko Yomota, addressing some of the film's political content, commented: "Many critics, myself included, thought Kurosawa chauvinistic in his portrayal of the Japanese as victims of the war, while ignoring the brutal actions of the Japanese and whitewashing them with cheap humanist sentiment."[65]
In America, the film was received poorly. For instance, many Americans criticized Gere's casting as a half-Japanese man.[9] The film was further criticized for being overly-sentimental, and accusations arose that Kurosawa's film was anti-American.[67] Critics of Japanese militarism at both the Tokyo Film Festival and Cannes Film Festival believed Rhapsody failed to contextualize the focus on the atomic bomb by addressing Japanese war crimes and the attack on Pearl Harbor.[43][68] During the press conference at its premiere at Cannes, one journalist asked, "Why was the bomb dropped in the first place?"[43] Kurosawa anticipated that his intentions may be misread, an effect Galbraith attributes to the broader conservative culture of the era as a reaction to the Japanese economic miracle, but denied any political motivations when conceiving of the film.[69] Roger Ebert wrote that the film was viewed as a disappointment at Cannes. In a three out of four star review, he continued that it was not among Kurosawa's best films, but that it worked as a personal meditation on the effect of the atomic bomb.[43]
Vincent Canby of The New York Times argued that the film's message was targeted toward a Japanese audience rather than a Western audience, describing Kurosawa's message as being anti-war, but believed that Clark's apology was for the American bombing of Nagasaki, and that this should have been contextualized.[44] Kevin Thomas of The LA Times praised the film's focus on family via the exploration of nature and religious tradition, but both he and Desson Howe of The Washington Post specifically criticized Kurosawa's failure to mention Pearl Harbor despite the American relatives in the family being from Hawaii.[70][71] Howe panned the film and considered it a misfire.[71] A review in Deseret News praised the film for its sentimental tone and depiction of trauma.[72] A four out of five star review in Empire magazine published in 2000 rejected accusations of the film being overly-sentimental, praising Gere's acting and the use of weather in the film.[73]
Accolades
Remove ads
See also
Notes
References
External links
Wikiwand - on
Seamless Wikipedia browsing. On steroids.
Remove ads