Dan1863Sickles wrote on IMDB:
Someone else put his finger on where this magnificent film falls short
when he said, "Mishima has already said it all, the film simply
repeats." Ultimately, Schrader has made a movie which refuses to
comment on Mishima one way or another, and which becomes somewhat
lifeless and stilted in the final segment as a result. Because he is
bending over backwards not to criticize Mishima, Schrader simply
refuses to examine the uglier implications of his public suicide.
Ironically, this approach hurts the film precisely because Mishima
himself was capable of much more perceptive self-criticism. In the
first two chapters -- "Beauty" (THE GOLDEN PAVILION) and "Art" (KYOKO'S
HOUSE) Schrader's work is nothing short of brilliant. With great
subtlety, he interweaves black and white scenes from Mishima's early
life with lush full-color scenes from his early novels. What makes
these sections so haunting are the subtle, suggestive differences
between Mishima and the people he is writing about. For example,
Mizoguchi, the acolyte who destroys the Golden Temple, is not a
homosexual, nor is he a talented writer. His stammering could be a
metaphor for those things, or it could be a metaphor for nothing at
all. The mystery of creation and imagination, wordless and
inexpressible, really seems to come to life here -- particularly in the
dissolve where the schoolboy Mishima "morphs" into the slightly older
Mizoguchi. [ show more ]
The problems start in the third chapter, "Action." Here Schrader films
scenes from Mishima's RUNAWAY HORSES (one of my personal favorites) as
if they are not just similar, but absolutely interchangeable with
Mishima's militarist activities with the Shield Society. Schrader seems
to assume that the hero of the novel, Isao, is simply a stand in for
Mishima. How can you tell? Because Schrader cuts out precisely those
sections of the novel in which Mishima actually analyzes Isao's
emotions and his illusions. The Isao of this movie is merely a straw
man who spouts platitudes about the emperor and Japan's greatness. The
Isao of the book is a courageous, unselfish, but very human teenage
boy, whose callous and narrow-minded parents are unable to love and who
plainly have had a crushing effect on his psyche. Mishima, whether
consciously or not, included some truly vile scenes of parental cruelty
and manipulation in this book precisely because he understood on some
level that Isao's decision to end his own life was not entirely
unselfish. The connection between the sordid ugliness of Isao's
loveless home and his desire to die a violent death is clear enough in
the book. But it is absent from the movie. Oddly enough, Schrader
thinks he is protecting Mishima in the last section, by not moralizing
about the suicide, but he is actually diminishing him as an author.
The RUNAWAY HORSES section is by far the weakest of the movie. The
final scenes, in which Mishima at the moment of death attains "oneness"
with his heroes, really are quite exhilarating. But they would have
been still richer if Schrader had taken a more nuanced approach to
RUNAWAY HORSES, instead of just viewing it as a "blueprint" for the
last events in Mishima's life.
This is unquestionably a brilliant, inspiring film, but it's not quite
flawless. [ show less ]
Written on IMDB a long time ago.