Akiresu to kame (2008) Reviews

• Art for art's sake - with added black humor

  MaxBorg892008-10-02

  Achilles and the Tortoise is the last installment in a loose trilogy actor/director Takeshi Kitano has made about the figure of the artist. Whereas the first two entries, Takeshi's and Glory to the Filmmaker, could basically be described as one big self-referential absurdist joke, Achilles is a more controlled film, with a proper story and a precise set of themes, albeit decorated with cheerfully absurd humor. Such a scenario occurs right from the beginning, in an animated prologue which explains the bizarre title: as pointed out by the philosopher Zeno, if Achilles (the fastest mortal man, according to Greek mythology) and a tortoise competed in a race, and the latter had even the slightest advantage (say three feet), logic demands that in the time required for Achilles to reach that point, the tortoise would keep moving forward, and therefore the famous warrior, paradoxically enough, would never be able to catch up with the notoriously slow animal. In Kitano's film, Achilles would be Machisu, a young boy fascinated by art, and the tortoise is success. Despite the boy's determination and occasionally bold choices of subjects (he has a knack for painting macabre events), his lack of stylistic originality makes all galleries shun him and most of his friends abandon him. Only his wife will keep supporting him, even in his older days (at this point, Kitano himself plays the role), when they're practically broke and their own daughter is ashamed to live in the same house as them. Kitano's passion for painting is quite well known among those familiar with his work (he personally makes all the artwork that shows up in his movies), and so Achilles and the Tortoise is a good opportunity for him to use his hobby as a tool to reflect on the elusive subject of art and its various ramifications. Naturally, he does this with his usual penchant for darkly humorous set-ups, especially in the third act, with some scenes so audacious it's doubtful even something like Six Feet Under would have featured them. And yet one does not feel repulsed by those scenes. On the contrary, it's the absurdity of the plot, paired with Kitano's quietly composed directing and minimalistic performance, that constitutes the movie's primary point of attraction. In fact, Kitano's on-screen presence is so charismatic that perhaps he would have been better off shortening the first section of the picture and granting his quirky alter ego more room. Furthermore, the straightforward "happy" ending feels completely at odds with everything else, but then again coming up with a suitably crazy epilogue might have proved too arduous a task. Ultimately, the only thing that seriously damages a part of this strange and, in its own way, funny opus is the running time (almost two hours), with minor help from the somewhat off- beat conclusion. Nevertheless, Kitano fans are likely to find something to embrace yet again, and anyone with some kind of interest in art should take a good, close look at this original take on the matter.

• Who is worse? The "bad" artist or the "bad" art world?

  ChungMo2009-02-28

  This should be required viewing for everyone in the "art" world. Kitano skewers global modern art culture and also makes fun of his own work. The story is simply of an artist from childhood to "middle age" (which seems to be around 62) as he tries to be a successful artist. He starts out as an untrained "primitive" but with a certain talent for texture and color. He is insulted at every turn while we get to see the "good" art by "masters" which are all really, really bad. Unfortunately the artist gets progressively worse as he takes advice from gallery owners on how to make his work "sellable", which it never is. Every time the work gets better, he's advised to go in a different direction. Many mildly humorous situations arise but the film isn't going for outright laughs most of the time. The scenes of the "middle aged" artist (played by Kitano) getting his supportive wife to make his art are very long, get progressively cruel (probably part of the point) and could have been cut down a little. The issue of autism isn't directly addressed but the character certainly exhibits symptoms. This is a very good film although a little long. It may not be as good to someone who has no experience with the art world of today. Kitano created all the art in this film, good and purposely bad.

• Truly amazing film.

  ethSin2009-03-10

  Beat Takeshi's "Dolls" is one of my favorite movies, and I really enjoyed his other films "Kikujirou no Natsu", "Zatoichi", and "Brother". However, his last two films I viewed, "Kantoku, Banzai!!" and "Takeshis'" were nothing but narcissistic garbage, so I expected nothing from this movie. To my surprise, it turned out to be a fantastic film that's not only funny, but also deep. The story follows the life of a boy who loves art and destined to become an artist, though fail to achieve success due to lack of originality and excessive imitation. What I really liked about this film is that it explores what art really is, and pokes fun at the absurdity of some of today's so-called 'modern art'. It also depicts the suffering of an artist whose works are not 'understood' by others. It's interesting Kitano Takeshi's films are often artistic in its own way. Makes me wonder if his previous two films were too artistic for me to comprehend? In any case, I enjoyed this film tremendously, and there were many memorable moments. Casting was done extremely well, especially in the 'college days', and all the actors gave a great performance for this wonderful movie.

• Kitano the Painter

  Onderhond2009-03-11

  After two introspective films before Achilles to Kame, Kitano is back to complete his trilogy. With Takeshis' he explored himself as an actor, Kantoku: Banzai! revealed Kitano as a troubled filmmaker and Achilles to Kame, third in line, is telling us something about Kitano as a painter. And art. Or non-art, for that matter. The film starts of rather slow. Kitano seems to reach back to the feel-good 50s try-outs he made in Kantoku: Banzai! Soft lightning and swift switches between humor, slices of life and drama of the poor make up most of the first 30 minutes. A few scarce moments remind us we are watching a Kitano film, most of them coming from the interaction between the young kid and the village retard. Scenes that are not unlike the ones between the grandpa and little girl in Ishii's Taste of Tea. While those first thirty minutes are quite pleasant, the humor is warm and comforting and the score is pretty spot on (staying very close to the work of former Kitano regular Hisaishi), as a Kitano flick the film is definitely missing something vital. That something is added when we jump a couple of years forward to the painter's college years. It is obvious that Kitano's style starts to flourish in a more modern Japanese environment. This is also the time when things start to go wrong for our young painter. Up until then he has been following his heart, making the paintings he likes best. But apparently, that is not to the liking of the young art dealer who is asked to sell his work and our young painter is urged to start following art lessons. He begins learning about art, which kick-starts his everlasting journey to grasp to concept of Art (with a capitol A). Visually this second part is much more like the films that made Kitano famous. Static camera views, harsh lighting and many shots of stark facial expressions. The structure too becomes more like his older work, reminding me a lot of Kikujiro. Where the first parts grounds the trip the main characters are about to make, the core of the film lies in the sketchy scenes that follow. Our young painter teams up with his classmates and through several (often very funny) attempts eh tries to capture the core of art, spirit and originality. After this second part the film jumps to the current time, Kitano himself (of course) portraying the painter as someone who has lost touch with reality, still running behind this idealized image of capturing the essence of art. In this third part the film really starts to shine as Kitano himself can fool around to make the best of the scenes he's in. He is visibly enjoying himself as probably a couple of those scenes were largely improvised on set (remembering the docu I once watched on Kikujiro). Kitano will always remain Kitano, no matter what character he plays, but since he's playing himself that's hardly a fault. Apart from that, his mannerisms and posture are gold in the comedy scenes. Still, Kitano's character starts to sink deeper and deeper to the point where the comfortable life around him is shattered to pieces, with Kitano unable to let go of his self-induced passion. The first section of the film is obviously the weakest but important for Kitano's vision on the subject. The moment he goes to school to learn about art he loses his spirit and becomes a parody of what an artist is supposed to be. Kitano pretty much trashes artists, art dealers, self-indulged amateurs and buying customers alike as he questions and undermines the importance of art and its function in our society. It is nice to see a director doing this so openly and directly. Even though the film revolves around Kitano as a painter, it is easy to broaden the perspective and to see this film as a comment on art and art appreciation in general. On how people approach art, want to understand art and want to profit from it. It is also good to see that Kitano can walk away from it in the end with a contented heart and a freed soul. Achilles to Kame is a film that combines the themes and topics of his two latest outings with the style and feel of his earlier work. The comedy is typical for Kitano, the acting (with a neat little cameo for Terajima), directing, structure and pacing are all very much like his earlier films too. Even the music seems to come right out of Hisaishi's office. It's very nice to see all these things come together to create something that feels like the current Kitano, bearing his past baggage and showing multiple sides of his personality as a director, while still remaining very consistent in style and feel. A must for Kitano fans and probably art fans alike (as all paintings were made by Kitano himself and are apparently based on existing paintings). Probably not the best place to start for people not really familiar with Kitano's earlier work as a director, but as a fan of his directorial efforts this is a pretty complete and awesome film to behold. 4.5*/5.0*

• Exquisite and Disturbing

  p_radulescu2011-03-18

  A small boy seems to have a wonderful gift for painting, and that's what he's doing all day long, painting. As his father is very rich everybody is encouraging the boy. The father bankrupts and commits suicide, followed by the mother, the boy remains alone and he continues painting, against all odds. And painting is what he'll do for all his life, against all odds, sacrificing everything, his life, his self-respect and the respect of the others, his family, everything, never getting public recognition. A story that's tragic, while put before us with a mix of surrealism and black humor. Behind the story there are autobiographical elements. It comes in the life of director Takeshi Kitano after a long artistic career, during which he tried different ways. I've read about it that's the third movie in a louse trilogy, dealing with the condition of the artist. I didn't watch the other movies, so I'll speak only about this one. The title sends to the well-known paradox of Zeno: Achilles can never catch the tortoise though the distance between them gets smaller and smaller. Here in the movie it is the artist playing Achilles, while the tortoise is the never reached public recognition. It is a movie about art and artists, about their place, their value, their meaning. A movie that is itself an exquisite artwork, a lesson of modern art. As I was watching it each image was cutting my breath. Exquisite and disturbing, and as autobiographical suggestions are loosely implied, this movie might be, to a certain extent, a form of exorcism. A beautiful movie putting bluntly brutal questions. Is art necessary? Is it moral to be an artist? Is the artist just a mentally disturbed guy, a deviant? And, when becomes an artwork truly unique? This movie does not give simple solutions, actually it shows how complicated are the answers. The name of Turkish writer Elif Shafak comes here in my mind, she was saying in an interview that art (in this case this movie) should not come with quick fixes, rather it should look for all nuances, making matters more complicated.