The weekend was consumed by the final football playoffs and more reading, bread baking. Unfortunately I want the Patriots to have a perfect season, but I wanted "Old Man" Favre, a mere 38, to go on breaking records and doing so brilliantly. The Manning family is creating its own football dynasty, so I should be happy at Eli's success, but I'm not. (I like Peyton's commercials even better than his quarterbacking.) I was all prepared to get a splitting headache with my two favorite teams, the Packers and the Patriots, colliding on February 3rd.
Last night was Iain Stewart's continuing coverage of the volatile Pacific Rim on his "Hot Rocks" series, attributing the major Japanese traits and accomplishments to their volcanic mountainous terrain over colliding tectonic plates, meaning frequent earthquakes. I found the Scottish geologist more credible last week when he was exposing how Californians deliberately avoided thinking about their geology while living over the San Andreas fault, also building where poor soil and blazing chaparral contribute to mud slides, earthquakes and landslides ignored alike for the treasured view. John McPhee did this in one of his brilliant books of essays, The Control of Nature, one of the three sections explaining why Los Angeles has no business existing except for human willfulness and the aforementioned denial attitude. In Japan's case, Stewart claimed that the dense population crammed into small coastal plains caused the extreme formal politeness in order to cope, among other traits. And no denial in that scenic landscape: earthquake drills are mandatory for the smallest children up through adult training. Mud slides are contained in costly concrete channels in the worst areas. But putting heavy industry on landfill tempts the earthquake gods. I get easily carried away by geology and geography, too often ignored in cultural influences.
Anyway, from Stewart's Japanese tour, I stayed there with Kurosawa's 1963 High and Low, actually based on one of Ed McBain's (Evan Hunter's) 87th Precinct novels, besides which Kurosawa loved Georges Simenon, France's premier detective fiction writer (Commissaire Maigret novels), and American film noir, which this film certainly is. Kurosawa is right up there with Truffaut and Bergman among my favorite directors, and not just because he turned Shakespeare into brilliant Japanese versions with Throne of Blood [Macbeth] and Ran [King Lear]. (I should mention that I whipped through Bill Bryson's Shakespeare: The World as Stage over the weekend too, not as authoritative as Peter Ackroyd's but briskly establishing our greatest writer's cultural context and everlasting mystery.) Returning to Kurosawa, I've mentioned a number of our westerns based on his originals, his Seven Samurai becoming our Magnificent Seven (and other versions), Yojimbo becoming A Fistful of Dollars and Last Man Standing, Hidden Fortress influencing Star Wars.
The Japanese title for High and Low is actually Heaven and Hell, referring to the villain's last speech when he refuses to see a priest, asking only to see his once-wealthy victim. "My life has been like hell since I was born." "But if I had to go to heaven, I'd really tremble." The whole movie is full of sharp dualities, one being the wealthy victim's having achieved success by his own hard work, learning the shoe trade from the ground up, in contrast to the medical intern complaining about the rich man's fine house sitting on a bluff above his slum-area apartment where he froze in the winter and roasted in the summer. That house generated such hatred that the med student plots a kidnapping and murders three people in his effort to bring the rich man down.
The black-and-white film, with all those film noir night scenes and deep shadows, criminal elements, ominous score, is the most expeditious of all the Kurosawa films I've seen. The weakest part is the beginning, to establish the groundwork for the crimes which will then turn the movie into a fine police procedural briskly moving to capture the criminal. The wealthy man--who married a well-to-do woman whose dowry also set him up--is a corporate executive upset by the profiteering chicanery of the other executives, cheap shoddy shoes glued together, not at all durable, money more important than product. He has mortgaged everything and planned to buy up enough stock to be able to outvote both the boss and the other corrupt, "gruesome" directors. The kidnapper wrecks that plan when he phones saying he has the rich man's son. The crunch is that he doesn't; he has erroneously taken the chauffeur's son, who was wearing the rich boy's western outfit (the boys were playing cowboy). But he says he'll kill the boy anyway if he doesn't get a truly exorbitant ransom. At first the rich man gruffly says it's not his son, so he won't pay. But his morality, more than his wife's and the chauffeur's pleading, changes his mind, meaning that he will lose everything, including his job and the fine house. The dramatic irony is that, though he is financially ruined as the med student wanted, the well-publicized sacrifice makes the self-made rich man into a national hero. The rest, as I said, is how the police search for, find, and trap the young criminal.
What made the movie uncomfortable for me--though it is a beauty I'll talk about in another entry--is that the young intern is called psychotic, mad. But he has the same motivation as the young gunman who recently murdered and terrorized people here at Westroads in early December, one of the latter's notes indicating his rage against the rich. Nor is this murderous vengeance so much psychotic as it is sociological, have-nots striking back at their perceived superiors. I'm referring to what, for instance, we call "going postal," disgruntled workers slaughtering bosses and fellow employees, only too common in our gun culture. We have had political revolutions based on the same sentiment, the French and the Russian, to merely name two. It is murderous class warfare, of course, made easy by the impersonal tool of killing, the gun, so that a mere grudge is cause enough to slaughter strangers--or families, for that matter. (Such political massacres are certainly in evidence in Africa presently.) In one High and Low scene, detectives checking out phone booths to find those with good views upward to the home actually comment that they understand the kidnapper because the house sits on a high bluff arrogantly above the grimy, noisy reality of shacks, "looking down at us." Our idiom is "looking down on us," condescencion the meaning. "Going postal" often includes highly planned plotting, as this movie does. A surprise from another country in 1963, courtesy of a Netflix DVD.
