Sunday, February 6, 2022

The Chambara Films of Akira Kurosawa: Throne of Blood



The third film in my analysis of the chambara films of Akira Kurosawa, is the “positively Shakespearean Throne of Blood. An adaptation of Shakespeare’s tragedy, Macbeth, about hubristic intentions, ambitions for power, and madness, Throne of Blood contextualizes these ideas through the prism of late 15th century Japan. Kurosawa masterfully weaves a jidaigeki (period film) with Noh theater creating an amalgamated Masterpiece of adaptation, isolating the themes of power, fragile masculinity and the patriarchal bargain, as well as the dangers of selfish individualism in a collectivist culture. Kurosawa takes Throne of Blood beyond just a derivate, to give an experience that is wholly unique.




PLOT

After a successful victory over their Daimyo’s enemies, Generals Washizu (Toshiro Mifune) and Miki (Minoru Chiaki) find themselves lost as they travel to “Spider’s Web Castle”. Upon the road, they happen upon a Spirit who tells them their fate. Washizu will be the next Daimyo and Miki’s children will be the first in a long line of feudal era Lords.  Each takes no stock in this ethereal prognostication until the Daimyo satisfies the first of the phantom’s predictions.  This confirmation plants seeds of ambition and desire that ultimately leads to a bloody violent conclusion and confirmation of the specter’s foreshadowing.



 

HISTORICAL CONTEXT

            As stated previously in other essays in this series, Kurosawa is infamous for his western influences. For his literary influences, while Shakespeare takes a close second to Dostoevsky, Macbeth is the first of of three Shakespeare plays Kurosawa adapted (The Bad sleep Well/Hamlet, and Ran/King Lear). Throne of Blood is not a typical shot for shot remake of the classic play. Instead, Kurosawa also pulls from Noh, a classical form of dance-drama theater cultivated in period Kurosawa wanted to depict, the 1400’s, to fuse theater and cinema (Prince 2014). Blending dance, song, poetry and mime with bare sets, and stylized performances which provided paradoxically powerful movements of its principal cast, the inclusion of Noh allowed the film to develop a coldness that is often absent of previous (and future) adaptations (Prince 2014).

            Kurosawa’s “Macbeth” is an amalgamation of western and eastern influences, giving us a different cultural way of seeing this classic story.  Due to its Nohist inspirations: the emptiness of space, and the inky black, white and grey pallet of how it is shot, gives the film a unique calligraphical quality that hasn’t been repeated (until recently). By tying in Buddhist principles to a very western structure, Kurosawa produces the same story of betrayal, power, and violence without the source materials reassuring conclusion (Prince 2014). Rather, in Kurosawa’s tale, the cycle of human violence never ends.

               Production

Kurosawa’s original desire to adapt Macbeth first came to him after the release of Rashomon. However, after learning about Orson Wells’ adaptation released in 1948, he decided to move on to Seven Samurai and later Ikiru.  He eventually circled back to Throne of Blood when he believed enough time had passed from Wells’ film. Kurosawa was not originally slated to direct Throne of Blood, but when the budget ballooned in pre-production, the only way that Toho believed they could recoup the costs and eventually make a profit, is if the film was directed by Kurosawa.  

Shot on sound stages and two specific locations, Kurosawa constructed the exterior of the castle on Mt Fuji for its black volcanic soil, which would add to the stark color pallet he was trying to construct. This decision proved difficult, as they then had to bring in truck loads of Fuji volcanic soil to the Toho soundstage (where the scenes in the interior of the Castle were being shot) so that it would match the exterior shots. This back and forth up and down the mountain proved both economically and emotionally taxing for Kurosawa and his crew, eventually seeking aid from an entire battalion (typically 300-1000 soldiers) of US Marines for transportation and the building of sets.

Yet, the most interesting and radical aspect of production came narratively during the films climax. When Washizu attempts in vain to rally his soldiers to go out and fight the coming onslaught from Noriyasu’s forces, rather than listen and follow the orders of their commander, the army, previously established as having a penchant for overwhelming their enemies with a hail of arrows, begin to loose them upon their Lord. This sequence was shot with real arrows while star Toshiro Mifune was in frame. Instead of achieving this through special effects, trained archers were used; creatin a choreography between them and Mifune, involving Mifune waving his hands during the sequence to indicate the direction he was moving to the archers off screen.  Every arrow hit was real, (except for the shot through the neck) taken by Mifune who wore wooden blocks of protection under his costume. Some of the closer arrow shots were hollowed out and launched on wires for added safety. This process resulted in Mifune showing real fear during the sequence which added to the gravity of the climax and the overall legacy of the film.

 


SOCIAL ANALYSIS

            A lot has been written and analyzed about Macbeth and its many adaptations. The themes of greed, hubris, and ascending the ladders of power have been tilled over for centuries.  Yet, the elements that Kurosawa uses to demonize individualism through his changes to Shakespeare’s original story, the mechanisms of power, and the expressions of fragile masculinity and the patriarchal bargain, are Sociologically interesting and valuable to explore.

 

            Individualism vs. Collectivism

            What makes Kurosawa’s adaptation of Macbeth interesting and popular, regardless of the narrative changes and liberties, is the criticism of individualism in favor of a collectivist mindset. Individualism, prominent in Western cultures, support egocentric ambition and grasps at money and power. Your ability to succeed is not based in any sort of loyalty to a collective or other group, but in your own cunning, ingenuity, and uniqueness. Thus, focusing on the rights of the individual as opposed to the group.  Collectivism, common in Eastern cultures, sees value in the social group and group formation as valuable and important to the overall function of society.  The changes made by Kurosawa to Macbeth in Throne of Blood, highlights this difference and places individualism, not the theatrical tragic flaw of hubris (commonly the downfall of Sir and Lady Macbeth in the play), as the catalyst for the demise of its central characters. 

            The replacement of the thematic catalyst of hubris for Individualism in Throne of Blood happens through minimal narrative changes. Firstly, Asaji becomes pregnant (unlike Lady Macbeth) which motivates Washizu to furthering the plans to kill Miki. This then allows for greater context for Asaji’s mental breakdown motivated by the birth of a stillborn child, rather than just guilt and paranoia. Once Washizu becomes Daimyo at the beginning of the film, he clearly states that he has no intention of any further malevolent machinations. He is resigned and almost happy to both have his position, and then give that position up to Miki’s heir. Yet, it is the temptation of his own dynasty that motivates his later actions in the film. Secondly, the death of Washizu is not from single combat with Noriyasu (the Macduff proxy) as it is in the play. In its place, Washizu dies by being felled by arrows from his own troops. In that last action, Kurosawa highlights Washizu’s individualistic ambitions to retain power as madness; one that needs to be eliminated by the collective action of his people. This anti-individualism is reinforced by the chorus at the end of the film, indicating to the audience that Washizu’s soul never made it to the afterlife. His soul remained on earth in eternal purgatory, and thus is presented as a cautionary tale of western individualism.

     Fragile Masculinity and The Patriarchal Bargain

            One of the powerful mechanisms of socialization (social learning) in any society is gender socialization. The process by which individuals learn what it means, and how to perform the gender identities that are considered acceptable within their society. These messages are then reinforced by various social institutions for the purposes of governance and social control. Typically, in western Patriarchal (male centered) societies: the values, ideals, and behaviors associated with masculinity and maleness are exalted, encouraged, and normalized; made both invisible and hegemonic.  Yet, because masculinity is valued and expected (especially among men), this minimizes the way that identified boys and men can express themselves. Because these masculine standards are so rigid, they can only perform (a narrow form of) masculinity without sanction. Thus, any social situation identified boys and men find themselves in (especially cis gendered men) they may be called upon to validate their masculinity. This also means that every social situation, is another chance their masculine performance will be interrogated and revoked. The revocation and reinstatement of individuals’ masculinity is a cycle of cis gendered social control that makes masculinity itself fragile.

 According to Bourdieu (1998) “the social order functions as an intense symbolic machine tending to ratify the masculine domination on which it was founded.”(p 9).  Thus, men need to be men, or they are sanctioned until they reclaim their masculinity in ways that reinforce the narrowly defined and dangerous forms of masculinity accepted by the Patriarchy (usually using sex or violence to achieve it). It is not just cishet men that police other men in this system. Cis gendered women are also socialized to critique men’s performance of masculinity; the result of which is immediate emasculation. It is this masculine sanctioning that Asaji uses against Washizu in Throne of Blood when she questions his resolve to their agreed upon actions (and therefore his masculinity). Mifune’s long vacant stares indicate the depth of her evisceration of his fragile masculinity with such a simple look. Washizu is then pressured to salvage his masculinity through the added violence against Miki and his sons.

Women, socialized into a misogynistic and patriarchal culture are given value in their bodies, and in their relationships (especially with cishet men). Thus, cishet women are often taught to find value in themselves in this system through their relationships with other people, rather than believing they have value outright. Not only does this reinforce the norm of women performing a lot of emotional labor for all their male relationships (sons, husbands, fathers etc.); this also encourages the patriarchal bargain.  The patriarchal bargain is the different strategies employed by women in a patriarchal system to maximize security and optimize life options with varying potential for active or passive resistance in the face of oppression (Kandiyoti 1988).  Given that Throne of Blood is set in the 1400’s, in a masculine emphasized caste system, the patriarchal bargain is presented as one of the only legitimate avenues for women to gain status and power. Asaji motivates and berates her husband into violence to seize power for herself through him. Her ruthlessness (overtly gendered male in Feudal Japan) is hidden behind a façade of diminutive femininity, manipulating her husband through social and symbolic castration to be able to access the power that is denied her through a gendered social system.

Power and its lure      

The Weberian definition of power is the ability to realize your will even when others resist (Weber 1978). This presupposes that a person has already acquired said power (in whatever material or symbolic form it takes). To acquire power, you need to understand where power resides, and while there are many forms of power that exist, the masculine misogynistic domination of the patriarchal rule that resides in the institutional system seems to take precedence in Throne of Blood.

Power is usually generated by those who are in positions of high authority in powerful social institutions (usually men) who set the value of the different forms of capital (Financial, cultural, and Symbolic)[1], and as such, have an undue advantage in the struggles for power within a particular field[2].  The habitus (habitual behaviors/norms) that is affected by those types of capital is a form of bio power[3] that “The Power Elite” (again usually men) has over the rest of the structure, especially those within the “mass society” (the everyday public outside positions of power).  Therefore, the ignorance and apathy of “the mass society” is the product of the inability to acquire multiple forms of capital and habitual behaviors even if they are potentially able to access it through the symbolic capital. (Mills 2000, Foucault 1977, hooks 2000, Bourdieu, 1987). This raises a couple of important and seemingly opposite points:

1.      Symbolic Capital- abstract forms of privilege based upon a variety of intersecting identities (race, gender expression, sexuality, disability) does not guarantee access to, nor exercise of other forms of power, while also not acting as a barrier to that power (as it does for marginalized identities)  

2.      Symbolic Capital does make the acquisition of other forms of power easier through Symbolic Power: the ability to impose meanings upon others as “normal” or “natural” without seeming coercive. This happens when a power system sets cishet able-bodied white men as the default. This makes the symbolic power invisible to those that have it, transforming expectation into entitlement

   In Throne of Blood, both Washizu and Miki are introduced as “Men of Power” through their Military prowess and command over their armies. At the outset of the film, both understand their power and where it comes from. (Mills 2008). However, after their encounter with the Spirit in Spider’s Web Forrest, and the fulfillment of its first proclamation, for Washizu, this privilege becomes invisible. Then, as the story progresses, his ambition to amass power becomes an expectation. As the bodies begin to pile, and the blood continues to flow, that expectation is rationalized into entitlement to explain the violent murders he either performs or condones; using the words of the spirit as evidence.  This is the demagoguery of masculinity, one that needs to be dismantled.

According to de Beauvior (2011):

            Indeed, [man] is a child , a contingent and vulnerable body, an innocent, an unwanted drone, a mean tyrant, an egotist, a vain man: and he is also a liberating hero, the divinity who sets the standards. His desire is a gross appetite, his embrace a degrading chore: yet his ardor and virile force are also a demiurgic energy…that woman confined to immanence tries to keep man in this prison as well; thus the prison will merge with the world and she will no longer suffer from being shut up in it: the mother, the wife, the lover are all jailers; society codified by men decrees that women is inferior: she can only abolish this inferiority by destroying male superiority (p 655, 754)

Given Beauvior’s point, this could be an interesting motivation for Lady Macbeth to manipulate her husband into the killing of Duncan in other (future) adaptations of Macbeth, that I have yet to see.

 


CONCLUSION

Throne of Blood is a Masterpiece and is heralded as one of the greatest Shakespeare adaptations in history. Even without the romanticized dialogue, typically retained in most adaptations, Kurosawa invokes the classic emotions of the play in a Japanese cultural context. It’s recontextualization of the Scottish story into Feudal Japan speaks to the universality of desire, greed and cunning within a militarized patriarchal system. One that endlessly rewards violence and deception with more of the same.  Yet, regardless of its organization as a cautionary tale, that does not guarantee the public perception and consumption of it will see it as such.

 

REFERENCES

Bourdieu Pierre 1987. Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgement of Taste Massachusetts: Harvard University Press

 

_____________ 1998. Masculine Domination. Stanford: Standford University Press

 

  de Beauvior Simone 2011. The Second Sex New York: Vintage Books

 

Foucault Michel 1977. Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison. New York: Vintage Books   

 

hooks bell 2000. Feminist Theory: From Margin to Center 2nd edition  Massachusetts: South End Press  

 

Kandiyoti, Deniz. 1988. “Bargaining with Patriarchy.” In Gender and Society 2, no. 3 pp 274–90. Retrieved on 1/3/22 Retrieved at http://www.jstor.org/stable/190357

 

 Mills, C. Wright 2000. The Power Elite New York: Oxford University Press

 

______________2008 “On Knowledge and Power” Pp. 125-137 in The Politics of Truth: Selected Writings of C. Wright Mills New York

 

 Prince, Stephen 2014. “Shakespeare Transposed” in The Current New York: The Criterion Collection Retrieved on Feb 6 2022. Retrieved at https://www.criterion.com/current/posts/270-throne-of-blood-shakespeare-transposed

 

Weber Max 1978. Economy and Society  California: University of California Press.

        



[1] Economic Capital- wealth (income and assets)

Cultural Capital – Education and other forms of knowledge, skills, goods and services

Social Capital- Family, acquaintances and other Social Networks

Symbolic Capital- legitimation, Abstract forms of privilege (white, male, hetero, able bodied) 

 

[2] 1)          They are arenas of struggle for control over valued resources (forms of capital) which become social relations of power.

2)            They are structured spaces of dominant and subordinate positions based upon types and amounts of capital  Usually unequally distributed

3)            The impose upon actors (individuals) specific forms of struggle they are the space in which conflict resides

4)            Fields are often structured by their own internal mechanisms of development allowing them to hold some autonomy

Bio Power is the ability to control how a person experiences their body Through:

-Controlling how their body functions (when they can eat, sleep, use the restroom).

-Controlling how the body is represented (restrictions on how the body is expressed