Akira Kurosawa is known for his artistic brilliance in film-making. His movies are like education; there is no end to learning. His cinematic intelligence can be studied in every frame, every dialogue, every movement, every background, and even in the minutest detail. His use of props and positioning of characters are two of the major story-tellers that send out strong undercurrent conversations, if you could figure that out. These two traits are a few from his multiple dignified ways that he uses to display the emotions of his characters. Pick up any of his works, and you can find glimpses of these two. However, one film that has a precise and detailed treatment, marking some remarkable moments is ‘Scandal’ (many might not consider it in the league of ‘Rashomon’ and ‘Seven Samurai’).
Scandal is about a scandal that a picture of a painter and a famous singer creates, portraying them as a couple by a tabloid magazine. It follows a series of incidents where the protagonist tries to file a case against the magazine, and in the meanwhile appears a lawyer at his doorstep, offering his support in suing the magazine. The lawyer has a mysterious character and is inexplicable in his behavior as well. He is poor, has a dying daughter, and is fighting a case against someone who is ready to pay him for losing the case. What follows next are complex situations, innocence breaking the shield of guilt, money overtaking sincerity. Having said that, the most fascinating part of the film is his grandiose portrayal without making it look obvious. You can see and experience the beauty of certain scenes, once you get it.
Let’s study few scenes from the film.
Types of people:
A painter, painting on a mountain top, has three men standing around him, admiring, analyzing, and criticizing his painting. Their conducts display four types of people involved in a conversation: the leader, his backup, his criticizer, and the yes-man. The painter sitting comfortably and painting with the three men behind him signifies his superiority. As he paints a red mountain and puts forth his view, one of the men agrees with him and backs it up with his version to the other two. One of them, standing in the middle, says nothing but agrees with him. However, the third man disagrees to the concept of the mountain being red, and criticizes the painting, to which also the middle man agrees, nodding his head and without saying a word. Isn’t it a beautiful way of defining personalities?