Talk:Ran (film)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Featured article star Ran (film) is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on June 1, 2008.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Japan, a project to improve all Japan-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other Japan-related articles, please join the project. All interested editors are welcome.
Featured article FA This article has been rated as FA-Class on the assessment scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
Japan To-do:
Film Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Films. This project is a central gathering of editors working to build comprehensive and detailed articles for film topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Featured article FA
This article has been rated as FA-Class on the quality scale.
High
This article has been rated as High-importance on the priority scale.
Peer review This Arts article has been selected for Version 0.5 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia. It has been rated FA-Class on the assessment scale (comments).
Ran (film) is part of WikiProject Shakespeare, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Shakespeare on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Featured article FA This article has been rated as FA-Class on the quality scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
Low This article has been rated as low-importance on the importance scale.

Contents

[edit] ran

OK, this looks good for an initial expansion, but more work has to be done. I'm out of the game until the Criterion Collection edition comes out in another month, but anyone who has The Warrior's Camera handy is welcome to continue. I'm not very happy with the quotes, but I don't have my copy with me so I can't put some better ones up. Palm_Dogg 14:21, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Good article listing

I see you've self-nominated this as a Good article - and I thoroughly agree and support this nomination. This is well on it's way to Featured standard IMHO. I'll perform a more full review when I get a serious chunk of time - so please don't hold your breath. For now, well done, sir. :-) --Estarriol 10:46, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Character Links

I noticed that a couple of the characters names have working links. Ikoma links to the Japanese city of Ikoma, Nara and Tango links to a disambig page, which doesn't include the Ran character (although it does include the Tango Province of Japan). These links should be edited so they're not pointing to incorrect pages, but I'm not sure of the naming convention in this case - for example, would you use Tango (Ran character)? Or Tango (Ran 1985 film character)??

Secondly, and forgive me if I'm wide of the mark on this, but if the names Ikoma and Tango were used in the film intentionally as being representative of those real Japanese regions, then something should be noted about this... Gram 21:11, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

No clue about Ikoma/Tango, but cleared out the character links. Palm_Dogg 15:14, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Applause

As a new Wikipedia contributor, I have to say that I find this article rich and well-forged. Those who contributed to it should feel pleased with themselves. This is excellent work on a movie that deserves excellence. Thank you. --BridgeBurner 06:14, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Different Interpretation

I think when you were dicussing The film in comparison to the play, Lady Kaede may not have been somewhat representing Goneril, but more likely embodying Edmund, in his lust for distinction, and the affection of two of Lear's children for him that led them to be deceived. As well as Lady Kaede's obvious lament of her birth, thinking she would have been a better man/ruler than Hidetora's sons if she had been born to the position, very much akin to Edmund's lament over his bastard standing, when he is obviously more competent than Gloucester's legitimate heir Edgar.

    --ThyLostUlalume 22:25, 29 May 2006 (UTC)ThyLostUlalume

I agree that Kaede is closer in nature to the scheming nihilist Edmund. Edmund seeks to avenge his bastardy by destroying all vestiges of the existing social order represented by Lear, just as Kaede seeks to eradicate Hidetora and his family in retribution for the destruction of her family. Both seem to contemplate a universal destruction rather than a mere act of revenge. Kaede is the wife of two of Hidetora's sons, just as Edmund contemplates becoming the lover of one (or both) of Regan and Goneril. The hatred of Kaede for Sue may be a parallel of Edmund's hatred for his half-brother Edgar as well. Anaxagoras7 (talk) 01:42, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Overmystification of title

Isn't the interpretation of "乱" as "chaos, wretchedness" a typical example of Western mystification of words of Eastern languages, when wwwjdic lists the word (the word, not the kanji) as simply "revolt; rebellion; war"? I suggest changing the translation in the header to simply "war". clacke 15:06, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I think you should check a couple of other dictionaries first. For all we know, the dictionary you cited may be typical Western over-simplification of Eastern languages. I'm not saying it is, but check a few others first.Cop 633 15:27, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
Touché :-) clacke 13:58, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Nelson says: RAN, RON – "riot, rebellion, war, disorder" then under other pronounciations lists "confused" and "arbitrary" and "morally corrupt", and some composite words starting with this word have meanings like chaos and such, but for the pronounciation RAN this pretty much seems to be simply about armed combat. clacke 14:09, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Then why hasn't it been changed ? It would make more sense in the context than "wretchedness". And two interpretations such as "war" and "revolt" are probably enough, they most certainly carry the meaning of the kanji as intended to be used in the film. In the Waeijiten, definitions for 乱 are: war; revolt; rebellion; insurrrection. Another argument to consider is that most of the Japanese feudal wars use the kanji "ran".--sanjuro 23:46, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
I would suggest changing the rendering to "disorder, madness." Chaos in English actually refers to not to things that have lost their order but rather complex systems that behave unpredictably. Ran, or midare as it is also pronounced, quite clearly refers to something that either once was or at the very least ought to be in order but has become disordered or disheveled. Also, incidents in Japanese history that are described with the word ran refer not to war or revolt but to the disorder and upheaval that resulted. Given the psychological nature of the film, I really don't think a direct reference to something that is obvious to the eye is needed. One look at the theater poster tells you that there will be a battle; ran refers to what came before and after the battle in the hearts of the men who participated. Spventi (talk) 22:11, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] shogun total war

im sure the introduction video to the video game 'shogan total war' feature clips from this film

http://www.totalwar.org/mongol/information.shtml

" The introduction movies now includes clips from the movie "RAN" "

[edit] Units required

He also found himself competing against television, which had reduced Japanese film audiences from a high of 1.1 billion in 1958 to under 200 million by 1975.

I presume this is movie admittances per year. Given how these numbers are stated, an unthinking reader might confuse the population of Japan with the population of China. MaxEnt (talk) 23:55, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] missing links

The first remark link " Hagopian, Kevin. New York State Writers Institute Film Notes - Ran. URL accessed March 27, 2006. " does not exist anymore.

--YoavD (talk) 04:54, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Citation needed

Why is a citation required for the statement that RAN is set in the period of the Japanese civil wars? Everything from the status of the warlord to the conflicts and costumes would suggest this historical era. It may be difficult to find a citation that confirms this because it is so basic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Icb0005 (talk • contribs) 21:57, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Japanese characters

Shouldn't this have one of those obtrusive annoying templates... aaah, here it is: Template:Contains Japanese text. I'm not sure how often this template should be used, and I don't really like the amount of space it takes up personally... do you guys think it's necessary to put on this page? TIM KLOSKE|TALK 04:23, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

That's being phased out according to a discussion at WikiProject Japan, archived here. Doctor Sunshine talk 15:24, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Given the length of this article...

...shouldn't the lead be a little longer? Again, I think we need to discuss and lay down a more specific guideline for lead length, but this one is barely over one line for each page of text, and only 2 paragraphs where at least 3 are recommended. Of course, it was never brought up throughout the GA/FA process, but that's hardly anything new. Richard001 (talk) 01:25, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Question over FA status

Are the completely unreferenced segments of the article, and the badly formatted links (To non-existant articles) recent additions since it made the front page? As I've worked hard on certain articles with the failing to even get GA status and would be frankly pissed off if this managed to make it so far in it's current incarnation. Red157 02:57, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Just look at the article history to find out. I have no idea. Wrad (talk) 03:16, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
What about the opening sentence using the words "Oscar-winning". See WP:FILM talk archive. And the MOS for films doesn't recommend using it either. Lugnuts (talk) 08:02, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
This is the way the article looked when it was promoted. It certainly does look better then... In some areas. Wrad (talk) 13:48, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, but from what I can see, the standard of film articles that reach FA status is much lower than that of music articles. In comparison, that wouldn't even make GA. Red157 20:52, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Protection

I thought the featured article was not supposed to be protected. If it does really have to be protected (I can see there has been a spate of vandalism), could the "Editing of this article by new or unregistered users..." notice at least not be displayed? It's quite ugly.--217.171.129.74 (talk) 09:10, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] In relation to Brazil (film)

I recall from both the commentaries and written materials in the Criterion edition of Brazil (which was released years before they also did an edition of Ran), that the incredible release controversy over Brazil (the studio refusing to release Gilliam's version and the fight going very public), led some critics --notably the Los Angeles Film Critics Association-- to vote Brazil their best picture over Ran, in order to get Brazil distribution (here's a source); in the Criterion DVD, at least one critic mentioned regretting making the decision on studio politics rather than pure merit. The same commentaries noted that Ran was the critics darling in other places. As such, the two films fates (at least in American release) seem a bit intertwined. --Bobak (talk) 16:39, 1 June 2008 (UTC)