A.K. (1985) User Reviews

Samurai Behind the Scene

[gavin6942 · 6/10 · 22 November 2014]

A documentary that shows the production of "Ran" and discusses the film techniques of Akira Kurosawa himself.

This documentary is not necessarily great in itself, as it may mean very little to those not otherwise familiar with its subject, but serves as a wonderful supplement for the movie "Ran". Anyone who loves "Ran" or Kurosawa's work will certainly get something more out of seeing the actors and director at work when the cameras are not rolling. Well, the cameras are still rolling... but different cameras.

Coming from Chris Marker, it is no surprise that even a simple making-of documentary would have some artistic license. He shows some footage via a television set, and some audio via a tape recorder, rather than incorporated into the documentary itself. Clever or pretentious? Who knows?

The making of "Ran"

[Rodrigo_Amaro · 8/10 · 22 September 2013]

It's interesting to see a behind the scenes documentary on an art film instead of those gigantic spectacles showing every trick of an Hollywoodian flick, those we are fed constantly on home videos - a trend so worthy and so special that some directors even plan the DVD documentaries before the actual movie is completely made and/or hit the theaters. Chris Marker's "A.K." takes us on a small but enjoyable journey following the making of Akira Kurosawa's "Ran", one of his most accomplished films. Far from the Hollywood system, this is quite primitive if compared but very special in the way everything is made and composed - the main focus here was the exterior shots, the battle scenes and actors rehearsal, and there was plenty of those since actors weren't allowed to film their scenes repeatedly.

Visually extraordinary just like "Ran" was and the narration and the chapters were brilliantly presented. But I missed certain things: Akira, the Sensei (as he's called in here) doesn't speak about the film and the experience behind this labor of love that took him several years to convince investors to fund the film. But we have shots of him directing cast and crew, so controlled and so happy, a very atypical behavior coming from a director (he only lost his temper in one scene and it's so subtle that you won't notice, and even doing so he was a complete gentleman). And "A.K." forgets to mention how difficult it was the whole process to get to the point where the film was made, "Ran" almost wasn't made. Kurosawa's energy and effort were so significant that the Academy board of directors insisted on a future Oscar nomination for him as Best Director in 1986 and he made it to the final list.

With views exposed and the results achieved by the film (highly praised by critics and audiences but a box-office failure) in the years to come and "A.K." would be a better film. 8/10

There are better and there are worse ways to spend 75 minutes

[Jeremy_Urquhart · 6/10 · 11 September 2020]

It's more artsy and potentially interesting than the average making-of documentary- to the point where it's hard to call it a making-of documentary- but it is a little dull at times, even with the short length.

Still, not bad- just wish Werner Herzog had directed it, as I feel he's better at these sorts of quirky, fly on the wall, occasionally weird, sort of artsy and psychological documentaries/ character studies.

Does tell me I need to watch Ran again though- it's been about eight years. And while 17-year-old me appreciated it, 25-year-old me would probably be able to watch it without feeling bored.

How to make a very good film out of somebody else's masterpiece

[Quinoa1984 · 9/10 · 22 December 2005]

Akira Kurosawa's RAN is generally regarded as one of his very best films. It is clear by the amount of critical praise it received (not to mention it's IMDb top 250 status) that it is regarded by many as one of the director's most challenging, audacious pieces of work. It's King Lear filtered through the simplest, most daring Akira Kurosawa one could figure, with compositions that stay with the open viewer long after the film ends. It is with this in mind that Chris Marker- avant garde director of films like La Jetee- takes on Kurosawa's film for his own documentary project. Like Kurosawa's film, there are some deliberate shots as well, plus narration that sometimes tries for the poetic and sometimes misses.

But its own straightforward, unique qualities parallel those of the film in the film. One example of its difference to a film like Lost in La Mancha is that here the audience has more hindsight as to the actual course of the film (completed) and that it leaves room for any kind of interpretation in presentation. Take when Marker focuses squarely on the images of make-up, the heavy metal costumes for the extras, and the everyday dialog that goes on with people that are taken for granted occasionally amid the filmmaker's own vision of a scene. They're shown in very matter-of-fact ways, as to not obtrude too much into Kurosawa. There are some curious, odd cut-backs to a room with a TV, recorder, and other things that Marker uses to cut away to from the location shooting, which can be hit or miss.

It's seeing the Japanese master himself making this film, and what goes into it, that keeps in fascinating throughout. It's one of the more awe-inspiring films about real modern film-making around.

A pleasure for fans of Kurosawa

[cromwell-3 · 26 January 2000]

Chris Marker's elliptical, oblique documentary on the making of Akira Kurosawa's "Ran" is an uneasy blend of hagiography (usual Cahiers du Cinema stuff) and Marker's trademark meditations on the mediating role of technology in memory and the human experience, plus probably aging, and etc., etc., etc. These Gallicisms seem out-of-place; but the philosophies are easily discarded. What makes the film a pleasure are the glimpses we see of Kurosawa's work processes, in addition to all the detail and work that goes into the making of a true epic.

Missed opportunity

[vogonify · 4/10 · 26 January 2008]

Chris Marker's One Day in the Life of Andrei Arsenevic is a superb account of one man's life through a strange viewpoint of a fellow director. Given that Akira Kurosawa would have been a more "approachable" personality than Andrei Tarkovsky, my eyes lit up on finding A.K. However, it was a disappointment. A.K. is boring, utterly slow and leaves a lot to be desired.

Marker's documentary is primarily shot on location Kurosawa's 1985-release, Ran. Curiously, even the scenes of filming are more or less disappointing. Kurosawa, in one of his last films, can be seen in various moods while an interview of his, plays intermittently in the background. Some of his earlier films like Rashomon, Throne of Blood and the Seven Samurai contribute few snippets, but are restricted to a small corner of the screen while a daft-looking red background overwhelms it.

Thankfully, the one place where some sort of energy finds its way is when Kurosawa's technicians and old faithfuls get attention. It is the most interesting part of the entire documentary. For something which lasts just around 70 minutes and whose main subject is as good an auteur as Kurosawa, Marker's A.K. falls short of expectations.

Making of at its worst

[kmajury02 · 1/10 · 19 May 2005]

I got the Ran DVD and this was packaged with it. i thought it would be great because this is from Chris Marker director of La Jetee. how wrong i was this is boring pretentious filmaking at its best. if you like long takes of a tape recorder and an old man walking round who we are told on numerous occasions that he has impeccable manners then this is right up your ally. Avoid this you could probably learn more about the making of the film from watching it. this provided no insight in the world of Kurosawa all i know about him is he has impeccable manners or have i mentioned that already... But anyway just because you are a competent filmmaker doesn't mean your a competent filmmaker about filmaking. Oh and PS Akira Kurosawa has impeccable manners!