Idiot is a wonderful film. Setting the film a t the present time and o n h is own national soil makes a very interesting film version. It's o n quite a different principle, a n d actually very exciting. Ima- gine making Electra in a modern setting.

For the first time Kurosawa were allowed to create something completely on his own (this was after the success with Rashomon), and it was to become an adaptation of one of his idols' works, Dostoevsky's Idiot.

The result was a 4.5 hour film. By the studio (Shochiku) he was immediately asked to return with something shorter, which he did. He had cut the film with a full 90 minutes, but this was not enough for the producers who cut another fifteen. This was done mainly from the opening of the film, which meant that the film lost much of its natural flow. Intertitles were inserted to summarize that which had been taken away. However, after this explanation, a whole lot of new characters had appeared making it extremely hard to grasp.

This was the last time Kurosawa lacked artistic control. The film picks itself up after a while, but will probably forever remain stained by the disjointed opening.

Kurosawa's superb adaptation of Dostoevsky's classic novel is elegiacally rendered but usually cited by fans and critics as the master filmmaker's weakest work. Regardless of the near universal hatred hurled at the film, this transposition of Dostoevky's masterpiece from 19th century Russia to postwar Japan finds Kurosawa at his most deeply earnest and emotive.

Often considered one of Akira Kurosawa's lesser films, The Idiot is based on the Russian novel of the same name. The film does have some issues, but I believe these issues have to do with the fact that studio forced him to cut it from a 265 minute film to a 166 minute film. You can easily tell sections that were cut out and some parts of the film do seem to feel a bit rushed because of it. However, The Idiot contains some of the most emotionally riveting scenes captured on celluloid. I honestly view the film as a masterpiece and it's a true shame that the full version doesn't exist.

The beginning is a mess, with long title cards and narration over-explaining the backstory and characters and weird within-scene wipes that look like clumsy attempts at cutting down the running time, but after a half hour or so it settles into a fantastic dark melodrama, told through Kurosawa's aggressively shifting compositions and the expressions of his remarkable group of actors (Setsuko Hara, Toshiro Mifune and Masayuki Mori? This ranks with Naruse's Flowing as arguably the best cast in 50s Japanese film). Three men, two women, too much money, too much snow. Everyone's damaged, everyone's crazy. Kurosawa's humanism fits surprisingly well Dostoyevsky's notional ideal of universal guilt and personal responsibility.

Idiot is a wonderful film. Setting the film a t the present time and o n h is own national soil makes a very interesting film version. It's o n quite a different principle, a n d actually very exciting. Ima- gine making Electra in a modern setting.

This is probably the first film by him that I didn't like. I don't really have an idea why I didn't like it because it was a well made film with some interesting ideas going on in it, but it didn't seem to interest me at all or did I really care how it ended. I guess I can't like all of his films.

It feels that something's missing. Then I found out, Kurosawa had to (it was the producer who told him to) cut it down around 100 minutes of its original version. The moods were a bit awkward, and did some leap. I can't complain to see Setsuko Hara and Toshiro Mifune: the beauty and the rowdy. I realize it would be a tough job to put Dostoevsky's work on the screen since it must deal with the deepest soul of human beings. It will be interesting to see the complete version, so I can't say it's a failed work, yet. But yes there's something missing.

Kurosawa's superb adaptation of Dostoevsky's classic novel is elegiacally rendered but usually cited by fans and critics as the master filmmaker's weakest work. Regardless of the near universal hatred hurled at the film, this transposition of Dostoevky's masterpiece from 19th century Russia to postwar Japan finds Kurosawa at his most deeply earnest and emotive.

For the first time Kurosawa were allowed to create something completely on his own (this was after the success with Rashomon), and it was to become an adaptation of one of his idols' works, Dostoevsky's Idiot.

The result was a 4.5 hour film. By the studio (Shochiku) he was immediately asked to return with something shorter, which he did. He had cut the film with a full 90 minutes, but this was not enough for the producers who cut another fifteen. This was done mainly from the opening of the film, which meant that the film lost much of its natural flow. Intertitles were inserted to summarize that which had been taken away. However, after this explanation, a whole lot of new characters had appeared making it extremely hard to grasp.

This was the last time Kurosawa lacked artistic control. The film picks itself up after a while, but will probably forever remain stained by the disjointed opening.

The Idiot was intended by Kurosawa to be over 4 hours long. Instead it was chopped down to about 2 3/4th hours with narration and text clumsily replacing whole swaths of story. The story is also moved from 19th century Russia to post-war Japan, but it still feels like 19th century Russia without much for adjustment. It's like a modern dress Shakespeare adaptation without consideration of whether the modern dress is adding anything to the story. Kurosawa is perhaps too faithful to the source.

Despite all of that, it almost comes together and is certainly an interesting, ambitious film from source material that Kurosawa clearly loves. And there are many profoundly beautiful shots and compositions to be found. It's not a masterpiece, but it's a flawed film where you can see the genius of Kurosawa all over the place.