Story Power

Blogging the Lit Life

Author: Isaac H.

King Lear and Ran, how Akira Kurosawa adapted the classic Shakespeare play into a Japanese samurai masterpiece

Ran, a 1985 Japanese film took direct inspiration from Shakespeare’s King Lear. But how similar are these two story’s, and where do they differ?

At the heart of both King Lear and Ran lies the story of an elderly ruler who, in a arrogant and idiotic attempt to secure his legacy, divides his kingdom among his three children, only to be met with betrayal and chaos. In King Lear, the eighth century king seeks to divide his realm among his three daughters, determining who gets what by their professed love for him. Similarly, the warlord Hidetora Ichimonki in Ran splits his title and throne to his three sons, expecting peace and loyalty. In both renditions, the children who received power become power-hungry and greedy, and the domain becomes engulf by bloodshed and drama.

However, the similarities between the two end when further analysed. King Lear, set in pre-Christian Britain, is a profound exploration of human nature, the inevitability of suffering, and the responsibilities allocated with power. Shakespeare’s use of motifs such as “the storm” “blindness” and “madness” along with rich imagery and poetic language help convey a theme of moral redemption amidst overwhelming despair. Ran, on the other hand, set in the feudal era of Japan, expresses a much bleaker view on life. Kurosawa utilizes sweeping landscapes and horrifying battle scenes to convey the raw scale of Hidetora’s fall from power, and display a more existential view on tragedy and despair. In Ran, the hope for redemption (present in King Lear), is overshadowed by the relentlessness of fate and time.

Overall, although these stories are similar at their roots, they diverge in cultural context, setting, and underlying messages and themes.

Tonight in Jungleland

“And the poets down here don’t write nothing at all/They just stand back and let it all be,” sings Bruce Springsteen in Jungleland.” The song, released in 1975, is an epic nine minute conclusion to Springsteen’s magnum opus, Born to Run. The song poetically expresses the struggle of youth to find happiness in depressing, often morale-crushing streets. “Jungleland” provides a glimpse into the lives of the forgotten, the poor, and the beaten-down.

The song starts by setting the scene in Harlem, where “The Rangers” (likely a group of people who roam the streets) are having a homecoming, and a mysterious “Magic Rat” drives into town in his, “slick machine.” The song centers around this night and the Magic Rat’s attempt at happiness.

The Rat finds a young girl, “drinking warm beer in the soft summer rain.” The two take a stab at love, “and disappear down Flamingo lane.” Springsteen has crafted a scene in which this young man is trying to escape the harshness of the streets, and take a shot at joy.

After a short instrumental section in the song, things take a bad turn for the Magic Rat, “Well, the Maximum Lawmen run down Flamingo/Chasing the Rat and the barefoot girl.” The streets darkness has reached the man and woman, and their dreams of happiness are waning. However, they make one last stand, “down in Jungleland.” Titling the streets of Harlem “Jungleland” emphasizes its wild and untamed nature, and implies that residents live like jungle animals.

Throughout the next verse, Springsteen continues to show the rough nature of the streets by contrasting people’s attempts at freedom with these attempts being shot down. “Man, there’s an opera out on the Turnpike/There’s a ballet being fought out in the alley/Until the local cops, Cherry-Tops, rips this holy night.” In these lines, people are collaborating to create things of beauty, like an opera or ballet, and almost succeed in creating light in a city of such darkness, but ultimately get shut down by the cops.

Also in this verse, Springsteen describes how the poor conditions of the streets leads to competition. “The hungry and the hunted/Explode into rock ‘n’ roll bands/That face off against each other out in the street.” These lines, besides being representative of Springsteen’s competition as a rising artist, also show how intense and rough conditions often lead to tension between individuals or groups (like gangs). Springsteen also uses alliteration in this lines, through words like hungry/hunted, rock/roll, and off/other/out.

Springsteen then returns to the story line of the Magic Rat and his woman. We see a glimmer of hope, “Beneath the city, two hearts beat/Soul engines running through a night so tender.” However, this doesn’t last, “In the tunnels uptown, the Rat’s own dream guns him down/As shots echo down them hallways in the night/No one watches when the ambulance pulls away/Or as the girl shuts out the bedroom light.” This verse concludes the Magic Rat’s story. He has been shot, likely due to his brave strive for happiness, and his woman turns off her bedroom light, giving up.

In the final verse, Springsteen ties everything together into one poetic conclusion. “Outside the street’s on fire in a real death waltz/Between what’s flesh and what’s fantasy/And the poets down here don’t write nothing at all/They just stand back and let it all be.” This final statement uses a clever example of a poet not being able to write, which finalizes how disrupted Springsteen feels the streets are. Springsteen’s use of the elegant word “waltz” in conjunction with death and fire portrays an unexpected idea of beauty and class juxtaposed with the struggle of those living in the streets.

“And in the quick of a knife, they reach for their moment/And try to make an honest stand/But they wind up wounded, not even dead/Tonight in Jungleland.” The end of the song reinforces the themes explored throughout this post. People, like the Magic Rat, take shots at happiness but wind up failing, which is often worse than death. Springsteen implies that at least in death, people can escape from the crushing realities of life in the streets.

Beloved and Us, did Jordan Peele take inspiration from Morrison?

Toni Morrison, author of the famous post-abolition coming of age story Beloved, has influenced modern media in many ways. For example, Beloved received a direct movie adaptation, starring Oprah Windfrey and Danny Glover. Additionally, Morrison’s The Bluest Eye is also becoming a movie, set to release in 2025. However, Morrison’s work has influenced media in less direct ways as well. Jordan Peele’s hit horror film Us shares too many similarities to Morrison’s Beloved to be coincidental…

In Jordan Peele’s Us, some sort of poltergeist/spirit haunts the protagonist. Similar to the ghost in Beloved, this spirit represents the past of the main character, and the trauma they ensued. Furthermore, Us portrays a distinct theme of African American struggle’s in the modern day, similar to Morrison’s depiction of African American struggle post-abolition. What powerful messages Morrison’s Beloved expressed to those in the 90s has found it’s modern-day counterpart: Us.

Embracing or hating? Exit West and it’s character’s views on foreign culture

In chapter 2 of Moshin Hamid’s Exit West, Saeed, Nadia and a mysterious Japanese man explore the hypocrisy and double standard of people’s opinions on foreign culture.

The chapter starts with Saeed and Nadia meeting at a Chinese restaurant for a date. They compliment the authentic atmosphere of the restaurant and appreciate its traditional food. The two start talking about which country they’d like to visit. Saeed mentions the “beautiful old buildings” of Cuba, while Nadia suggests the gorgeous night sky of Chile. Both individuals show respect and admiration towards these nations. As the couple walks home, they pass a swath of refugees from foreign countries. Saeed and Nadia do not interact with them, and are, “careful when making turns not to run over an outstretched arm or leg.”

This moment completely contradicts the couples conversation in the Chinese restaurant. They express themselves as caring and interested in foreign culture, but when faced with it first hand (in the form of refugees), they turn their heads in dismissal. Although refugees and a Chinese restaurant (or the beauty of South American countries) are a bitter contrast, they share an integral element of foreign culture that when ignored demonstrates vivid arrogance and immaturity.

This same phenomenon is reflected later in the chapter, with a vignette of a Japanese man. The scene starts with the man at a bar. He orders an Irish Whiskey, which he drinks contently while pondering his, “mild fondness” for Ireland. As the man leaves, he observes two Filipino women appear from a strange door onto the street. “He disliked Filipinos… they had to know their place,” thinks the Japanese man. The man follows them, gripping a knife in his pocket as he walks.

This passage further encapsulates the blaring contradiction posed by “loving foreign culture” while disliking a certain group or aspect within foreign culture.

Meursault and Matthew Slaughter: Mirror Images?

Although Meursault from Albert Camus’, “The Stranger,” shares a similar grim and uncaring facade as Matthew Slaughter from the 1990 film “Trust,” how similar are they?

Throughout the film “Trust,” Matthew Slaughter establishes himself as a dangerous, explosive man who isn’t afraid to make bold decisions. Similarly, Meursault in “The Stranger,” is extremely spontaneous and and at times violent. From a surface-level examination, we can conclude these characters are similar in personality. However, diving deeper gives us clear evidence that these characters are not mirror images, but rather extraordinarily different.

Matthew Slaughter is a caring man who wants to marry his lover and live a happy life together. The same cannot be said with Meursault, who often forgets about his girlfriend, claim he doesn’t love her, and express indifference when asked about marriage. Furthermore, Matthew’s dark side was adopted from his father’s mistreatment of him as a child, while Meursault acts mysterious and uncaring because of a philosophical revelation which happened shortly after college. Another difference is why each character is dangerous. Matthew is dangerous when he gets angry and emotionally provoked. Meursault is dangerous simply because he can be. There is no real reason or justification behind Meursault’s actions, he simply does what he wants. Clearly, Meursault and Matthew posses different morals and ideals on life and the human condition, and are different in countless ways.

A Response to Benjamin’s Subjectivity and Power

Benjamin responds to Freud’s argument about subjectivity and power in multiple ways. First, she argues that the Freudian model of individuality, which uses binary oppositions to define things, creates generalizations and hierarchies which are dangerous to our society. Next, Benjamin claims that Freud’s idea of individuality, which stems from a strict father figure, is untrue. She argues that children with only maternal relationships are not susceptible to a lack of individuality. Benjamin also argues that individuality is a lonely and dangerous place to be if not in tandem with recognition. Recognition, as Benjamin defines it, is the ability to be recognized by somebody, while also recognizing someone. Keeping a firm balance between recognition and individuality is essential to help us love, understand, and appreciate others while having the mental capacity to be unique and different. 

The most impactful part of Benjamin’s response to me was her description of Freud’s argument. The mindset of binary oppositions and paternal supremacy opened my eyes to how people used to view life and gender roles in the past. This idea helped me comprehend why decisions which we now view as sexist, racist, uncaring, etc… in our history were made. Although I don’t agree with Freudian ideals, it makes sense that people would act based on these morals because they were common belief at the time. Essentially, I’m saying that many historical events and occurrences we see today as ruthless and criminal were not viewed as such during the time. For example, the interaction of a husband punishing his spouse by using physical force seems heartless to us. However, to people in the (not so distant) past, men were justified in doing such. This realization has not only made me cognizant of how moral norms affect lifestyle choices in communities, but also makes me wonder if anything we do in our modern society that we think is “fair” or “normal” will be seen as cruel or unusual in the future.

Powered by WordPress & Theme by Anders Norén