• Kurosawa’s Birthday Month, Day 14

    March is Akira Kurosawa month at Criterion. On the twenty-third, the great Japanese filmmaker would have been one hundred years old. For this centennial celebration, we will be posting trivia questions and other contests all month, and giving away a different prize every weekday. To see yesterday’s winner, check out the update on yesterday’s post.

    Today’s prompt:

    Do you prefer Kurosawa’s historical or contemporary films?

    Please respond by commenting below, and we’ll choose our favorite tomorrow. You must reside in the U.S. or Canada and leave a valid e-mail address to be eligible for the prize (a DVD of Stray Dog).

    UPDATE: Our winner is Scout Tafoya, who had this to say:

    His modern films are the much darker ones, as they do not allow the distance his historical epics do. For this reason I think that we can enjoy the sumptuousness of his work on Seven Samurai and Ran much easier than we can the very careful design and tension he builds on The Bad Sleep Well and High and Low, as they force us to consider that things haven’t improved in the slightest. How easily did the horrid fate of Hamlet’s characters become even worse when applied to the Japan of the 1960s. How cruel the fate of the heroes of Stray Dog and Drunken Angel. There is almost always some hope to be found in his historical pieces (pre–suicide attempt) and frequently none at all to be gleamed from the likes of The Quiet Duel or High and Low. Kurosawa, the master of tone, was at his most cunning in the present, taking shots at those who refused to take lessons from his work in the past. I believe it was this displeasure that led him to finally bring his apocalyptic worldview into the past for Ran and Kagemusha. And because I’m a sucker for happy endings, I have to go with his historical pieces, at least before the ’70s. There’s just no beating Rashomon and Seven Samurai because there is an underlying sadness; indeed, tragedy is what kick-starts their stories. The feeling of progress and happiness is hard to shake when the screen goes black.

    Congratulations, Scout!

132 comments

  • By Bryan Quilty
    March 18, 2010
    05:44 PM

    historical, all the way.
    Reply

    • Or using your Criterion.com account.

      You are logged in to your Criterion.com account as . Log out.

  • By dan kinem
    March 18, 2010
    05:46 PM

    I prefer his historical films. No one can recreate the past like Kurosawa, not to mention the films overall are just superior (still love the contemporary stuff, don't get me wrong). Look at the colors in Kagemusha and Ran, it's insanity! And all his samurai pictures are top notch.
    Reply

    • Or using your Criterion.com account.

      You are logged in to your Criterion.com account as . Log out.

  • By Manny Allbritton
    March 18, 2010
    05:47 PM

    I like his histtical films.
    Reply

    • Or using your Criterion.com account.

      You are logged in to your Criterion.com account as . Log out.

  • By johnn hardester
    March 18, 2010
    05:47 PM

    To me the historical films with their sentiment and philosophy are as relevent today as thet were in the time period in question
    Reply

    • Or using your Criterion.com account.

      You are logged in to your Criterion.com account as . Log out.

  • By Aaron Pinkston
    March 18, 2010
    05:49 PM

    In the spirit of March Madness, I'm going to go with the big upset here and take the contemporary films. High and Low is one of my all-time favorites, and I still think it's Kurosawa's best, complete work. While the historical films are a little too grandiose in scope for me, the contemporary films show Kurosawa's great vision on contemporary Japanese problems and perfected the police procedural in Stray Dog and High and Low.
    Reply

    • Or using your Criterion.com account.

      You are logged in to your Criterion.com account as . Log out.

  • By Dan Kneece
    March 18, 2010
    05:50 PM

    Kagemusha is my favorite Kurosawa film. Almost got to meet him on a trip to Japan in the early 90's. Unfortunately he was sick then and couldn't meet with us. What a master film maker he was!
    Reply

    • Or using your Criterion.com account.

      You are logged in to your Criterion.com account as . Log out.

  • By Stephanie Smith
    March 18, 2010
    05:50 PM

    Historical
    Reply

    • Or using your Criterion.com account.

      You are logged in to your Criterion.com account as . Log out.

  • By Wes
    March 18, 2010
    05:51 PM

    I like the contemporary films. He had such a great eye.
    Reply

    • Or using your Criterion.com account.

      You are logged in to your Criterion.com account as . Log out.

  • By Mark Kawakami
    March 18, 2010
    05:52 PM

    Historical, but that gets a big boost from "Seven Samurai". It's my favorite film, bar none. Remove that from the mix, it gets much closer. Kurosawa did wildly inventive camera and compositions in "High and Low", and "Stray Dog" is such a fascinating portrait of postwar Japan. Plus there's Ikiru, which aside from also being one of my favorite movies, has a haunting montage about a father remembering life with his son. Kurosawa allowed himself much more freedom in some of his contemporary films.
    Reply

    • Or using your Criterion.com account.

      You are logged in to your Criterion.com account as . Log out.

  • By Fred O.
    March 18, 2010
    05:52 PM

    I suppose that I enjoy watching Kurosawa's historical films the most - which is not to say I like his contemporary films much less at all. But each Kurosawa period film nearly always speaks to current concerns, thus providing the best of both worlds in one film.
    Reply

    • Or using your Criterion.com account.

      You are logged in to your Criterion.com account as . Log out.

  • By Gordon Miller
    March 18, 2010
    05:52 PM

    Unable to choose. I prefer the next one I watch.
    Reply

    • Or using your Criterion.com account.

      You are logged in to your Criterion.com account as . Log out.

  • By Coffin Jon
    March 18, 2010
    05:52 PM

    While Kurosawa's historical films more times than not capture a lot of the universal themes in his filmography, I prefer his modern films because they are a snapshot of Japanese society at the time he wrote and directed them - the desperation, hope, and struggle of post-war Japan.
    Reply

    • Or using your Criterion.com account.

      You are logged in to your Criterion.com account as . Log out.

  • By Mike Denbo
    March 18, 2010
    05:53 PM

    Historical. As interesting as his contemporary works are, there's just nothing quite like a good samurai movie. Just ask the Barenaked Ladies.
    Reply

    • Or using your Criterion.com account.

      You are logged in to your Criterion.com account as . Log out.

  • By Ralph Hindley
    March 18, 2010
    05:53 PM

    I really dig AK's hysterical films, but sometimes the contemporary ones are pretty funny, too.
    Reply

    • Or using your Criterion.com account.

      You are logged in to your Criterion.com account as . Log out.

  • By Ryan Breedon
    March 18, 2010
    05:53 PM

    I prefer his contemporary films. While the historical films tend to be more "fun", the characterizations are deeper and more satisfying in the contemporary films. Kurosawa's great strength as a filmmaker and storyteller is his empathy - his ability to explore the humanity of his characters. I believe that this is done better and more honestly in his contemporary films, which tend to be dramas, than in his historical genre pieces.
    Reply

    • Or using your Criterion.com account.

      You are logged in to your Criterion.com account as . Log out.

  • By Rob Sniderman
    March 18, 2010
    05:53 PM

    I'd have to say that it's a very hard argument for either side. All of Kurosawa's films are fantastic, whether a historical epic (like Ran, for example), or a modern day film with characters in situations that people can relate to today (there are aspects in all of his characters that people can relate to, though). Regarding my favorite Kurosawa film, I'd have to say High and Low. It has excitement, emotional characters that anybody can relate to, and a fantastic plot!
    Reply

    • Or using your Criterion.com account.

      You are logged in to your Criterion.com account as . Log out.

  • By Brian Miller
    March 18, 2010
    05:53 PM

    I much prefer his contemporary films. It seems like most of "Classic Japanese Cinema" deals in period and, not being Japanese and never having been to Japan, I find Kurosawa's contemporary work revealing much along the lines of film noir or 70s exploitation film of America in that you get the details of 50s or 60s Tokyo behind the masterful narrative work going on. It's an added layer of anthropological curiosity that i find riveting. Plus, I think that not having to deal in the formalism of period really let Kurosawa get closer to his Western influences and have a little more, which comes through in viewing.
    Reply

    • Or using your Criterion.com account.

      You are logged in to your Criterion.com account as . Log out.

  • By adam
    March 18, 2010
    05:54 PM

    it's hard to choose but i'd go historical
    Reply

    • Or using your Criterion.com account.

      You are logged in to your Criterion.com account as . Log out.

  • By Justin Moffitt
    March 18, 2010
    05:55 PM

    I love both, but if I had to choose one it would be historic.
    Reply

    • Or using your Criterion.com account.

      You are logged in to your Criterion.com account as . Log out.

  • By MATT
    March 18, 2010
    05:56 PM

    I love both equally, but if I had to choose I'd have to say the contemporary films. High and Low is a masterpiece all around. The way the story unfolds is unlike any other kidnapping movie/plot I've ever seen before. And the famous moment with the smoke in color is just stunning. It's a beautiful film, with a great performance by Toshiro Mifune at it's heart.
    Reply

    • Or using your Criterion.com account.

      You are logged in to your Criterion.com account as . Log out.

  • By AMIR HOTHER YISHAY
    March 18, 2010
    06:00 PM

    Although of course Kurosawa is masterful no matter what time period he's working in, I think I would have to choose contemporary. I feel like his modern films- High and Low, for example- are just so much more urgent and powerful. They aren't as... distilled, I guess you could say, as his historical films. His modern films just feel so violently alive, and so passionate too.
    Reply

    • Or using your Criterion.com account.

      You are logged in to your Criterion.com account as . Log out.

  • By Randall Ischy
    March 18, 2010
    06:01 PM

    Although his contemporary films are outstanding, I would have to say I prefer his historical films, primarily because he has such a knack for taking a seemingly antiquated story and injecting such fresh and bold ideas that the story becomes applicable to us in the contemporary world. This is why so many Kurosawa films are considered "classics", because they stand the test of time.
    Reply

    • Or using your Criterion.com account.

      You are logged in to your Criterion.com account as . Log out.

  • By Gregory Sherwood
    March 18, 2010
    06:01 PM

    I like his best ones both historical and contemporary
    Reply

    • Or using your Criterion.com account.

      You are logged in to your Criterion.com account as . Log out.

  • By Brian Moore
    March 18, 2010
    06:04 PM

    I had long thought of Kurosawa as a maker of samurai films only, and though I enjoyed them ("Yojimbo" and "Throne of Blood" are favorites), I was pleased to discover his crime stories. I loved the atmosphere and street-level view of society in "Stray Dog" -- the people sweltering on the trolley, the black marketeers, the hotel managers. I'm currently 3/4 of the way through "High and Low" and liking that as well.
    Reply

    • Or using your Criterion.com account.

      You are logged in to your Criterion.com account as . Log out.

  • By Adam
    March 18, 2010
    06:04 PM

    I like Kurosawa's historical films because they allowed Mifune to have awesome hair. EVERY time.
    Reply

    • Or using your Criterion.com account.

      You are logged in to your Criterion.com account as . Log out.

  • By Thomas
    March 18, 2010
    06:04 PM

    I'm a naysayer... in a way: His "historical" vs "Contemporary" is a non-issue to me. His films aren't admired for their historical value or contemporary documentation any more than they a so strictly Japanese. His films hit on a timeless universality. This is not to take away from their historical, contemporary or Japanese themes. His films are rich with imagery that invokes those themes; no doubt. More importantly, to me, is the evocation of truth and real emotional immediacy. Of all the Kurosawa films I've seen. it is this truth that is provoked in me that makes them eternal no matter the period portrayed.
    Reply

    • Or using your Criterion.com account.

      You are logged in to your Criterion.com account as . Log out.

  • By Alex Zechiel
    March 18, 2010
    06:05 PM

    I prefer his contemporary films for one reason: Ikiru. I love his historical films, really; all of them that I've seen have been amazing, but none have come anywhere close to affecting me in the way that Ikiru did. None of the characters in his historical films can seem as real or as heartbreaking as Watanabe did to me. But again, only a true filmmaker like Kurosawa could do such a fine job at such a wide range of subjects and time periods.
    Reply

    • Or using your Criterion.com account.

      You are logged in to your Criterion.com account as . Log out.

  • By Jordan Cronk
    March 18, 2010
    06:06 PM

    His post-"One Wonderful Sunday" period films are like a refraction of the ideas/ambitions that his contemporary heroes couldn't always see through to completion. Thus, I'd have to give the edge to his period work, as those passionate contemporary films eventually facilitated the explosion of the form with "Red Beard" in 1965. In other words, his historical work rendered this process more capably-- though eventually more abstractly as well (again, see most everything post-"Red Beard"-- as the self-imposed limitations of his contemporary work fought so stridently to overcome obstacles that could seemingly never be toppled by a single individual.
    Reply

    • Or using your Criterion.com account.

      You are logged in to your Criterion.com account as . Log out.

  • By Martin
    March 18, 2010
    06:06 PM

    It's honestly hard to pick between a contemporary or historical Kurosawa film because both deal with similar issues and emotions. Stray Dog illustrates a division between humans that blurs good and evil. It shows two men who both endured the same horrors and hardship, yet one came out wanting to help mankind, while the other only wanted to help himself. Still, the "bad guy" is sympathetic due to his journey. It begs to ask what our past says about us and how we choose our future. Seven Samurai may be a work of historical fiction, but it deals directly with issues many of us face today. Every character is dealing with emotions we can all relate to. Kambei is a respectable and enviable leader. He is level headed and an excellent samurai. Still he feels unfulfilled after exhibiting his skills and bravery. Many successful people can relate to his bittersweet ending. It's not as much a question of historical or contemporary, but the stories and the characters that inhabit his films regardless of time period. This is one of the many reasons Kurosawa was such a cinematic genius.
    Reply

    • Or using your Criterion.com account.

      You are logged in to your Criterion.com account as . Log out.

  • By Kevin
    March 18, 2010
    06:08 PM

    I honestly think it's an unfair question. As much as I love say Seven Samurai and Ran, I can think of contemporary films that are just as good, like High and Low and Stray Dog. Kurosawa's films, historical or contemporary, share a quality so high, that only Kurosawa could have done them.
    Reply

    • Or using your Criterion.com account.

      You are logged in to your Criterion.com account as . Log out.

  • By Tom House
    March 18, 2010
    06:10 PM

    That's a tough one. His historical films seem fairly accurate, and while I don't necessarily look for that in period piece films, it makes his films seem more legitimate. Ikiru is clearly a masterpiece, yet it is a modern piece. I suppose I would have to concede on the side of his historical pictures if only for the great Shakespeare adaptations.
    Reply

    • Or using your Criterion.com account.

      You are logged in to your Criterion.com account as . Log out.

  • By Birgir Smári Ársælsson
    March 18, 2010
    06:12 PM

    contemporary films if I was forced to choose, and that is unfair to Kurosawa. I just love High and Low, the urban streets of violence rather than the samurai´s of the old. I change my mind, Yojimbo is way to cool. NO! myn final answer is my first. CONTEMPORARY it is.
    Reply

    • Or using your Criterion.com account.

      You are logged in to your Criterion.com account as . Log out.

  • By Lesli Johnson
    March 18, 2010
    06:15 PM

    I'm gonna be that person and say I have no preference. I love Kurosawa, thus all of his films are magic to me. Done.
    Reply

    • Or using your Criterion.com account.

      You are logged in to your Criterion.com account as . Log out.

  • By Matt Atkinson
    March 18, 2010
    06:19 PM

    His contemporary films. Sure, I absolutely love his samurai movies, but in his contemporary films I feel like the possibilities are larger, like he can just film his movies, without having to worry about history. He's such a great filmmaker that his creativity runs rampant through all of his films, but his contemporary ones allow it to run just a little more rampant.
    Reply

    • Or using your Criterion.com account.

      You are logged in to your Criterion.com account as . Log out.

  • By Art Henderson
    March 18, 2010
    06:19 PM

    All in all, I prefer the historical films. "Seven Samurai" is one of the greatest films ever made. But, that said, "Stray Dog" and "High and Low" are two of my favorite films and are among his best.
    Reply

    • Or using your Criterion.com account.

      You are logged in to your Criterion.com account as . Log out.

  • By Dan E
    March 18, 2010
    06:20 PM

    Irony: Kurosawa's contemporary films are now more like historical documents, and his historical films have a more contemporary viewpoint. In that way, I much prefer his historical films.
    Reply

    • Or using your Criterion.com account.

      You are logged in to your Criterion.com account as . Log out.

  • By Colin Boyle
    March 18, 2010
    06:20 PM

    Kurosawa was one of the most visionary directors ever, and his touches to contemporary films are absolutely stunning. With his films set in the contemporary era, he was allowed to play with smaller scope situations. Look at one of his well-known films, Ikiru. Look at the layers of meaning in the dialogue, and the depth of the characters. Kurosawa's contemporaries are not just dramas, they are often comedies, and in the case of High and Low, tense thrillers. The take control of the viewer, playing with emotions like a puppeteer plays with his wooden creations. Kurosawa's historical epics always left me so cold and distant, while I wanted to stay in his contemporary world forever. It saddens me that his more modern films are often pushed aside in favor of Seven Samurai or Ran, because the contemporary films are the more emotionally complete.
    Reply

    • Or using your Criterion.com account.

      You are logged in to your Criterion.com account as . Log out.

  • By Chris Decker
    March 18, 2010
    06:21 PM

    I prefer Kurosawa's contemporary films. Those films give the viewer a unique look into that specific post World War II, post apocalyptic period in Japanese history as it was happening and also a look into how Kurosawa perceived that period in which he lived.
    Reply

    • Or using your Criterion.com account.

      You are logged in to your Criterion.com account as . Log out.

  • By Shriraj Mohan
    March 18, 2010
    06:22 PM

    Kurosawa's historical films use common and primal emotions in storytelling to breach the cultural barriers. His simplistic storytelling is not only an enriching entertainment, but it also offers an education in human values in every twist and turn. His contemporary films deals with more contemporary topics like environmental degradation and societal dysfunction (Akira Kurosawa's Dreams). This is but a contemporary subject explored by other directors too. For uniqueness in simplicity, I'd pick his historical pictures.
    Reply

    • Or using your Criterion.com account.

      You are logged in to your Criterion.com account as . Log out.

  • By Michael Cruz
    March 18, 2010
    06:24 PM

    Though his contemporary works are enjoyable just as much as the historical, I keep coming back to his historical works for the wonderful costumes, epic cinematography, and of course the tense samurai action!
    Reply

    • Or using your Criterion.com account.

      You are logged in to your Criterion.com account as . Log out.

  • By Mark G.
    March 18, 2010
    06:25 PM

    The historical films are my favorite. Im a big fan of the Japanese culture and samurais...therefore when I looked into movies about those subjects I discovered Kurosawas works. He is able to capture the period brilliantly and lets me escape to that time in history. He was able to make me feel as if im there with the characters.
    Reply

    • Or using your Criterion.com account.

      You are logged in to your Criterion.com account as . Log out.

  • By Peter Crock
    March 18, 2010
    06:25 PM

    As someone with a deep appreciation of history, I much prefer Kurosawa's historical films. Not to take anything away from his contemporary works, but you just get the sense that he was in his element when making period films. You have to consider Japan's own history, especially its fuedal era (12th century) involving the rise of ruling class warriors; better known as the Samurai. Kurosawa would have recognized the significance of this and inspire him to make one of the most important films in cinematic history (Seven Samurai). There is also a sense of grandeur to his historical films that you don't get with his contemporary films. The setting and sceneries of works like "Kagemusha", "Ran", "Throne of Blood" and the aforementioned "Seven Samurai" are just a few examples of how well a great director and a phenomenal cast can pull off such films.
    Reply

    • Or using your Criterion.com account.

      You are logged in to your Criterion.com account as . Log out.

  • By enea
    March 18, 2010
    06:26 PM

    I love his color historicali films. Kagemusha is like watching painting after painting. Every frame is perfect. his compositions are captivating and stunning
    Reply

    • Or using your Criterion.com account.

      You are logged in to your Criterion.com account as . Log out.

  • By Kim
    March 18, 2010
    06:26 PM

    Like most everyone else on here I admire both and have favorites in both categories: Historical (Rashomon & Seven Samurai) & Contemporary (High & Low) but I think as a whole I am most partial to his contemporary films, especially his crime dramas. I am a big fan of Film Noir and I think Kurosawa's films are equal to the best of American Noir from the 40's & 50's. Yet Kurosawa's films also offer a unique look at contemporary Japanese society at the time (and technically what was contemporary back then is history now too). In both cases whether I am watching a historical Kurosawa or contemporary Kurosawa I feel I am being taken back to a different time and place & yet the themes of these films are still very relevant today.
    Reply

    • Or using your Criterion.com account.

      You are logged in to your Criterion.com account as . Log out.

  • By Brandon
    March 18, 2010
    06:27 PM

    To me, Kurosawa's historical films offer a greater opportunity not only for visual grandeur, but for viewer interpretation and analysis of the films' events as well.
    Reply

    • Or using your Criterion.com account.

      You are logged in to your Criterion.com account as . Log out.

  • By Kellie H.
    March 18, 2010
    06:30 PM

    I pefer Kurosawa's historical films. Why? The answer is, when I first saw Seven Samurai I was actually so into my eyes wouldn't move from the screen, it was first Asian film that I fell in love with. I loved it, and then Hidden Fortress that movie sparked my love for Kurosawa again. I just think he's the only film director that made samurais and asian history so good and exicting. He was a artist, when you watch his historical films you think your actually in the fedual times. I can't forget to talk about Throne of Blood, that movie made Hamlet cool. He was a true visionary and that's why I perfer his historical movies.
    Reply

    • Or using your Criterion.com account.

      You are logged in to your Criterion.com account as . Log out.

  • By Julio Pena
    March 18, 2010
    06:35 PM

    When it comes to Kurosawa's historical versus contemporary films, I have to choose his contemporary films. Historical films, while entertaining and able to express themes and ideas that resonant in the present, still allow for detachment based on their historical setting, the visual asthetics can create a wall in connecting with the viewer. This is something I have found to be personally true not just with Kurosawa but with other directors as well. I can certainly appreciate and enjoy the film, but it doesn't resonate as much as a contemporary film. Which is why I DO prefer Kurosawa's - really most directors - contemporary films. The images presented on the screen are those which I can relate to. These are sights and sounds I can find outside, down my street, around the corner. I can say, "I've been there, I've seen it" and take in the profundity of it all.
    Reply

    • Or using your Criterion.com account.

      You are logged in to your Criterion.com account as . Log out.

  • By Seth Beatty
    March 18, 2010
    06:35 PM

    As much as I love his historical films, I would have to choose his contemporary work as my favorite. His post-war films are so insightful and poignant in their depiction of a country trying to live their lives as best they can in the wake of the horrors of war.
    Reply

    • Or using your Criterion.com account.

      You are logged in to your Criterion.com account as . Log out.

  • By Gery Brownholtz
    March 18, 2010
    06:37 PM

    I tend to prefer Kurosawa's historical films. His treatment of classic literary themes through the medium of the samurai film is something I find particularly interesting. Watching Toshiro Mifune play a version of Macbeth in Throne of Blood may be my favorite performance in a film ever and seeing him work with Kurosawa to reinterpret classic historical and literary ideas in film is magical. Also of interest is the interplay between historical and contemporary motifs in Kurosawa's work, particularly in Yojimbo. The presence of a gun in a classic samurai movie is something viewers are not used to seeing, a modern presence in a historical context. This sense of wonderment extends to the characters as well and becomes one of the central themes in the film's final acts.
    Reply

    • Or using your Criterion.com account.

      You are logged in to your Criterion.com account as . Log out.

  • By Billy
    March 18, 2010
    06:38 PM

    While I love Ikiru, High and Low, Stray Dog, and several other contemporary films, I have to go with the historical films because of Kurosawa's meticulousness. No matter how many times I see these films, I am always amazed and fascinated by the use of real arrows in the climactic scene of Throne of Blood, the perfection of the costumes in any of the historical pieces, the epic feel of dusty landscapes in Seven Samurai, the sound of horses galloping. I also love the wonderful use of fantastic elements in many of these films (Throne of Blood, Rashomon). It seems like setting a film in the historical past gives him license to play around with reality in a way that he doesn't do as much in the contemporary movies.
    Reply

    • Or using your Criterion.com account.

      You are logged in to your Criterion.com account as . Log out.

  • By Shoko Y.
    March 18, 2010
    06:38 PM

    The first encounter with Kurosawa film was when I was a second grade in elementary school.(I grew up in Japan.) My teacher made us watch couple of stories from "Dream," such as Sunshine Through The Rain, The Tunnel and Village of the Watermills. Though I had no idea what the content exactly was and what they symbolized, it left such a big impact on me both visually and emotionally, along with this opening line "I Saw a Dream Like This." (I later encountered with this line again in Soseki Natsume's book.) As I grew older, I have encountered more of his historical films and I very much appreciate them. However, I always go back to "Dream." It had open up my very first interest into Art (surrealism expecially), film, literature and both traditional and contemporary culture as well as environmental consciousness. My personal story but Kurosawa is very much part of it. I also think for the generation who are studying at school now, Kurosawa's contemporary film can be classic....of course as a gate to lead further back to his older films and other films of the time.
    Reply

    • Or using your Criterion.com account.

      You are logged in to your Criterion.com account as . Log out.

  • By Eric Himle
    March 18, 2010
    06:41 PM

    The historical films. Kurosawa's period pieces are his best material by far. The reason being is because they are not only better as a whole than his contemporary films but because the historical period films (jidai-geki) completely turned this classic japanese genre on its ear. Before Kurosawa the period film was arguably fairly stale, lacking real action or emotion. Not only this but the films were devoid of any real symbolism to modern life, which is the crux of my reasoning. Bringing modern symbolism to a period film is where Kurosawa shined. From the Seven Samurai to Red Beard to Ran, every single one of those films had beautiful or tragic messages to the people of our time. Whenever Kurosawa would try this in his contemporary (gendai geki) pieces the symbols would often be too opaque for some critics leading them to call the films "ham-fisted" in their messages. Though I don't feel this way, I can understand how some people might have a problem with contemporary subject matters dealt with in The Bad Sleep Well, Scandal, and I Live In Fear and so on. Kurosawa was so masterful at inserting this symbolism into his period films that many of his peers that directed films utilized his techniques of inserting symbolism in their own films. This inserting of allegories also prompted reaction from those directors that followed Kurosawa in the Japanese New Wave. Because of this I believe that Kurosawa's best work is his Period Pieces.
    Reply

    • Or using your Criterion.com account.

      You are logged in to your Criterion.com account as . Log out.

  • By Colin D
    March 18, 2010
    06:42 PM

    This question offers a false dichotomy. Simply put, his "historical" films are as contemporary as the rest of his films. Kurosawa's use of medieval Japan, particularly in "Rashomon," "Seven Samurai," and other films of the 50's, is first and foremost an allegorical mode of addressing contemporary society. It's no accident that "Seven Samurai" is followed by "I Live in Fear"; both films tackle the same problem of a postwar, lawless landscape in which traditional models of good and evil have broken down. While reactionaries like Yukio Mishima went back to historical periods in a nostalgic critique of modernity, Kurosawa used period settings in exactly the opposite way. By foregrounding ambiguity and unresolved ethical dilemmas, a film like "Rashomon" directly challenges a postwar culture struggling to find meaning in the wake of defeat--to label it solely "historical" misses much of the greatness of the film.
    Reply

    • Or using your Criterion.com account.

      You are logged in to your Criterion.com account as . Log out.

  • By Jared
    March 18, 2010
    06:42 PM

    I thought this was a question I could go either way on, but looking at his filmography, it really isnt even close suprisingly. I go with contemporary. Ikiru and The Bad Sleep Well are my two favorites of his, and I absolutely love Stray Dog, High & Low, Red Beard and Drunken Angel. One Wonderful Sunday, The Quiet Duel, Rhasphody in August, and No Regrets from Our Youth are also heavily underrated. This isnt to say I dont love Ran, Seven Samurai, Throne of Blood and more. It frankly just amazes me that if one was describing Kurosawa's style, I think a lot of the buzz words thrown around ("battles", "Shakesphere", "samurai", etc) would point toward his historical work. That's all well and good, but personally, I think of "procedural" &"Life and Death" just as much, if not more.
    Reply

    • Or using your Criterion.com account.

      You are logged in to your Criterion.com account as . Log out.

  • By RYAN MCGLADE
    March 18, 2010
    06:48 PM

    I believe that an equal argument can be made for either Kurosawa's contemporary or historical films. That is what makes Kurosawa such an enduring artist, is that no matter what the setting, you can fall in love with the movie. In the end, the setting doesn't matter. The same cannot be said for other famous directors, such as, for example, Stanley Kubrick, another of my favorite filmmakers. Though I love the film, as well as all his others, Kubrick's "Barry Lyndon" stands out from his other films because, as a stately historical epic, it has a sophisticated and stuffy air about it, and the characters speak in an antiquated and reserved tone. Compare this with "Seven Samurai". A historical epic, yes, but one that has excitement, characters with depth, and a message that can apply today. This is what makes Kurosawa different. So I suppose, in the end, I choose both, because I see all of Kurosawa's films on an equal plane.
    Reply

    • Or using your Criterion.com account.

      You are logged in to your Criterion.com account as . Log out.

  • By Jason W.
    March 18, 2010
    06:52 PM

    The question is an unfair and almost arbitrary one. It's like asking which Hitchcock films you prefer, his British or American ones... or, worse, the black and whites versus the color ones. Each Kurosawa film offers its own delights. I remember seeing the uncut "Seven Samurai" for the first time at Cinema Studio in NYC, cutting out of school to watch it and being blown away by its epic grandeur, brilliant battle scenes, and, yet, the complete intimacy he achieves. Years later when I saw "High and Low" and "The Bad Sleep Well," I was again amazed at the many unexpected turns he made... and, of course, the intimacy and humanity are still there, in all of his works. Kurosawa is a master filmmaker in both his historical and contemporary work. I like to see a connection between the two.
    Reply

    • Or using your Criterion.com account.

      You are logged in to your Criterion.com account as . Log out.

  • By Jeff
    March 18, 2010
    06:57 PM

    Without a doubt, historical.
    Reply

    • Or using your Criterion.com account.

      You are logged in to your Criterion.com account as . Log out.

  • By Rafiq
    March 18, 2010
    06:59 PM

    That's a very hard decision, but I'd have to say historical, because though, all of his works are masterpieces, classics like "Seven Samurai", "Roshomon", etc., just cannot be beat even by his contemporary stuff though I do love "The Quiet Duel" and other works like that.
    Reply

    • Or using your Criterion.com account.

      You are logged in to your Criterion.com account as . Log out.

  • By YiFeng You
    March 18, 2010
    07:00 PM

    Historical. There is a reason why Jesus utilized parables to make people understand his message. Now, I'm not equating Kurosawa to Jesus, but stories are what enables us as human beings to understand a message in our memories. Historicals like Seven Samurai leave footprints in our hearts and (hopefully) enable us to embrace change as the constant. The older stories also give us insight into what happens when we DO change. And that gives way to hope.
    Reply

    • Or using your Criterion.com account.

      You are logged in to your Criterion.com account as . Log out.

  • By Marc Mayo
    March 18, 2010
    07:11 PM

    I enjoy both. The themes that run through Kurosawa's historical films, run through his contemporary films as well...because they run through human history, right through to present day. They are equally relatable, prescient and humanist. In my mind, Red Beard is comfortable occupying the same space as Ikiru. Likewise with Stray Dog and Rashomon...Kurosawa's great body of work reminds us that times may change, but people are relatively unchanged.
    Reply

    • Or using your Criterion.com account.

      You are logged in to your Criterion.com account as . Log out.

  • By Kam Khaos
    March 18, 2010
    07:13 PM

    This prompt is all a matter of what one prefers in the story. NOT about the art of filmmaking. Kurosawa was ahead of the curve so when delving into the fine details of the art of his films, even his historical movies were contemporary. I happen to like the stories taking place in the historical settings of Kurosawa's classics more than the contemporary ones. Can't go wrong with either though. I've still not seen a Kurosawa film that I've found lacking. .
    Reply

    • Or using your Criterion.com account.

      You are logged in to your Criterion.com account as . Log out.

  • By Koroosh S. Floyd
    March 18, 2010
    07:20 PM

    Definitely not the easiest of questions when it comes to the body of work of Akira Kurosawa. My answer is more than likely in the majority, but I enjoy his historical films the most. I just love how Kurosawa seamlessly transports the viewer in medieval Japan, and as a western viewer love peeking into the customs, mannerisms, and struggles Kurosawa's characters present. As I said before though, he excelled in both settings.
    Reply

    • Or using your Criterion.com account.

      You are logged in to your Criterion.com account as . Log out.

  • By Bret Bynum
    March 18, 2010
    07:21 PM

    I always felt that both were just as good as the other. But I've always personally preferred his historical films. But that's just basically because of my preference. But what I love so much about his films is that in a way they're never fictional. He always tells a universal truth in his films making them sorta non fictional in a way.
    Reply

    • Or using your Criterion.com account.

      You are logged in to your Criterion.com account as . Log out.

  • By Blake Buesnel
    March 18, 2010
    07:26 PM

    I prefer Kurosawa's historical films over his contemporary stories. While he offered audiences insight into the everyman, and often, the desperate or marginalize figure in modern Japanese society, I feel Kurosawa's achievement was giving both Japaense audiences and the world audience a glimpse into the Japanese psyche, through a contemporary thinking and moving lens. He offered traditional settings, historical events and legendary folk tales as the elements of masterful, contemporary films. Through using effects to alter the voice of a normal actor into that of a demon or studying the subjective guilt of an unethical character in a most objective way in Rashmon, or using all the pomp and glitter of cinema to imbue Ran with majestic spectacle, Kurosawa took what might have been fading memories of stories of the old times and brought them vibrantly to life on the screen, all the while using a contemporary lens.
    Reply

    • Or using your Criterion.com account.

      You are logged in to your Criterion.com account as . Log out.

  • By David Filkins
    March 18, 2010
    07:29 PM

    I prefer Akira Kurosawa's contemporary films - and by that, I mean that I enjoy the contemporary message within each of his films. All of Kurosawa's works have a message contemporary to the time of their creation - regardless of when the film itself is set to take place. That being said, I find that Kurosawa's mastery of contemporary themes is best evident in his historical pieces, subtly nuanced and interwoven within historical events.
    Reply

    • Or using your Criterion.com account.

      You are logged in to your Criterion.com account as . Log out.

  • By Jessica Poundstone
    March 18, 2010
    07:34 PM

    Contemporary, for sure.
    Reply

    • Or using your Criterion.com account.

      You are logged in to your Criterion.com account as . Log out.

  • By Ben Middleton
    March 18, 2010
    07:37 PM

    I haven't seen many of Kurosawa's contemporary films but I still think that I prefer his historical ones. I find an engrossing beauty in the architecture of historical Japan and Kurosawa brings out that beauty. Whether it's the dilapidated shrine that the three witnesses sit under in Rashomon or the belyingly pristine garden hideout of Sanjuro, Kurosawa almost makes them charecters in the films. Now please give me a DVD.
    Reply

    • Or using your Criterion.com account.

      You are logged in to your Criterion.com account as . Log out.

  • By Peter Charles
    March 18, 2010
    07:37 PM

    I prefer the historical films of Kurosawa. In transposing his stories into the past, he is distancing himself from the subject matter so as to free his creative indulgences. Contemporary pieces are inevitably laden with personal bias, for both the filmmaker and viewer. We will bring to it our own views on politics, gender relations, religious views, etc. I love all of his works, but films like "High and Low" or, for that matter, Hitchcock's "Rear Window" seem to align themselves with a political viewpoint to which I am not partial. Whereas a samurai film, or for that matter a film noir, as I would not consider "Drunken Angel" to be one of his contemporary films, which may share the same values is distanced enough from the issues that the viewer is free to interpret and associate as s/he desires. Amusingly, his films are timeless enough that as time passes his contemporary films do not become dated, but rather, seem to shift and become historical pieces, themselves.
    Reply

    • Or using your Criterion.com account.

      You are logged in to your Criterion.com account as . Log out.

  • By Steven Hanna
    March 18, 2010
    07:41 PM

    Well, if a choice must be made, I suppose I would go with the historical dramas. The best of them are about contemporary society just as much as Kurosawa's films set in modern day are, and they furthermore give both actors and director a chance to demonstrate a little flash and swagger that, for me, makes things a little more fun. But maybe I'm just saying that because I can't think of a better movie, ever, than "Ran," unless it's "Seven Samurai" or "Hidden Fortress," perhaps. The guy was masterful at making films set in any time period, but if you're asking personal preference, I guess I'll take the extra frisson of a period piece. Love reading all these perspectives on the question! And thanks for celebrating one of my favorite filmmakers!
    Reply

    • Or using your Criterion.com account.

      You are logged in to your Criterion.com account as . Log out.

  • By Robert Weiss
    March 18, 2010
    07:43 PM

    I think both Kurosawa's contemporary and historical films are equally great. I lean towards his samurai films, as I'm fascinated by that period. He will always be remembered for classics like Seven Samurai, Throne of Blood, Yojimbo and Rashomon. One can not talk of the samurai film genre without the mentioning Kursosawa's importance. However, the themes explored by Kursosawa in both his contemporary and historical works are relevant to any era or culture as they deal with what it means to be human. His creativity, perfectionism and vision have left a great impact on the world of cinema. I think that is apparent in both genres.
    Reply

    • Or using your Criterion.com account.

      You are logged in to your Criterion.com account as . Log out.

  • By Douglas Soper
    March 18, 2010
    07:43 PM

    Wow! What a tough question. I love them both. For every historical film, I can also find a contemporary film as it's equal. If I had to choose a type of Kurosawa style/genre/whatever, I would be his Shakespeare movies. "Seven Samurai" may be my favorite of his films, "Throne of Blood" and the Hamlet-esque "Bad Sleep Well" are his most watchable. Add "Ran" to the mix and I say Kurosawa's Shakespeare flicks are the cream of the crop.
    Reply

    • Or using your Criterion.com account.

      You are logged in to your Criterion.com account as . Log out.

  • By Woody
    March 18, 2010
    07:48 PM

    That is a really tough question and one to which I gave much thought. In the end, I would have to say his historical films simply because they are able to so artfully convey universal truths about the human condition which are applicable to any age. While watching Seven Samurai or Throne of Blood, one can't help but see the inherent humanity in the characters. When we look at them, we see ourselves. This is also true of his contemporary films, however, I feel that in the historical films Kurosawa dealt more with character archetypes which is why those films are so easily translatable into other genres and time periods. Universality is key.
    Reply

    • Or using your Criterion.com account.

      You are logged in to your Criterion.com account as . Log out.

  • By Joey Saade
    March 18, 2010
    07:55 PM

    Historical, although I love his contemporary films as well, nothing beats masterpieces like Seven Samurai, Ran, and Rashomon. Bergman and Kurosawa are, and probably always will be, my favorite directors. R.I.P.
    Reply

    • Or using your Criterion.com account.

      You are logged in to your Criterion.com account as . Log out.

  • By fILMABOUTLOVe
    March 18, 2010
    08:01 PM

    To me it's pretty much apples(historical) and oranges(contemporary). I just think that "High And Low" is the most complete crime genre film ever projected. So I guess I'm a contemporary orange juice man.
    Reply

    • Or using your Criterion.com account.

      You are logged in to your Criterion.com account as . Log out.

  • By Alexander Bucsis
    March 18, 2010
    08:02 PM

    I prefer his historical films. It is truly amazing what he is able to say about our present condition even while using the past as his setting. It speaks to the timeless transcending humanism of his pictures.
    Reply

    • Or using your Criterion.com account.

      You are logged in to your Criterion.com account as . Log out.

  • By Jaysin
    March 18, 2010
    08:07 PM

    Definitely he historical pieces. As much as I love Ikiru and The Bad Sleep Well, as well as the countless other contemporary films, it's his period piece films that draw me into this state of wonder and mystery. Rereading his autobiography for the celebration month, I am understanding more about his films from his own life. It's no wonder he was such a master of story-telling.
    Reply

    • Or using your Criterion.com account.

      You are logged in to your Criterion.com account as . Log out.

  • By James Chow
    March 18, 2010
    08:08 PM

    I like his historical films better as he gets a chance to flex is artistic and visionary side. Ran, for example, gives him a chance to use beautiful sets and costumes and recreate the world of Feudal Japan.
    Reply

    • Or using your Criterion.com account.

      You are logged in to your Criterion.com account as . Log out.

  • By Couirey Eckmayer
    March 18, 2010
    08:15 PM

    Kurosawa's historical films are so lavish in detail, spectacle, and scope, they redefine the word "epic."
    Reply

    • Or using your Criterion.com account.

      You are logged in to your Criterion.com account as . Log out.

  • By Danny Crocker
    March 18, 2010
    08:20 PM

    I have to say, what separates his films for me is not so much the period of the setting, but the fancifulness of the setting. Works like High & Low, Red Beard and The Lower Depths may have a time period, but it seems to me they are set very much in a realistic, if exaggerated, world. While other works - Seven Samurai, The Bad Sleep Well, and Ikiru are set in a more emotional, cerebral, and psychological realm, Then there are films, such as Throne of Blood, Rashomon, and much of Dreams which are not so much set in the mind of the protagonist, but in some way are set in the imagination of the audience more purely and distinctly from any preconception or background knowledge. These represent my favorite Kurosawa setting - the ones which seek to make a unique impression on the viewer, and which could not be easily duplicated. I most prefer the films that step outside of history and the present - as all of his films do to a degree - and seek to connect with the imagination and emotion of each viewer.
    Reply

    • Or using your Criterion.com account.

      You are logged in to your Criterion.com account as . Log out.

  • By Andy Johnson
    March 18, 2010
    08:30 PM

    I realize that the popular answer may be his historical films, but since this is opinion, I will say contemporary. I suppose this is in large part due to my love of Kurosawa's Ikiru. The film is dated now, but holds a message relateable by any standards of living in any time. Ikiru may well have been placed in a historical setting and carry much the same effect, but not for the time it was released in. Films he crafted in his pre- and most post-war years were sometimes contemporary, highlighting Japanese nationalism and the state of the people there in his country. Now, though, they are somewhat historical. Sure not in a manner like Kagemusha or Seven Samurai, but the settings are none-the-less presently of a historical nature. Anthropology teaches that one of the most important aspects of an artefact or a piece of art, in this case film, is the context in which it was created. A contemporary film released in the 1950s ment alot to Japanese film goers in the 1950s. To us now in the twenty first century, it may or may not mean as much. Kurosawa's films, natuarally, how a lot of meaning to anyone with the capability to comprehened them no matter what chonological setting they view them in. Historical films majorly start out in the latter way. They still often make a major statement about the time in which they are made, like Sanshiro Sugata, made in the midst of the Second World War. Analyzed in an anthropological manner it can say just as much about Japan in 1943 as anything contemporary released that year, but not in as much a basic and fundamental way. I guess the jist of what I desire to say is Kurosawa's contemporary films are greater in significance anthropologically. Also, in my opinion, more fun to view, than some (though of course not all) of his historical works.
    Reply

    • Or using your Criterion.com account.

      You are logged in to your Criterion.com account as . Log out.

  • By Kevin Thomas Roy
    March 18, 2010
    08:34 PM

    Nobody makes a MF'ing samurai movie like Kurosawa who inadvertently created the Western. Such staples as the burning glare and the quick draw were first introduced through his lens. I do not deny his post Suppuku films, they are great in their own regard, but my vote is for his historical films that crafted future cinema.
    Reply

    • Or using your Criterion.com account.

      You are logged in to your Criterion.com account as . Log out.

  • By Henry Biedenkapp
    March 18, 2010
    08:35 PM

    This is a tough question, no doubt. My first instinct is to say that I prefer his historical films because when I first started watching Kurosawa's films, I started with the historical / Shakespeare ones. There is also a sense of the "exotic" with the historical films and a feel that you're learning history and culture by watching these great films. His contemporary films are just as amazing - Dreams, Madadyo, This Quiet Duel. Even the non-directed ones - The Sea Is Watching, Runaway Train, etc.They all tell great stories and Kurosawa is just a master at it. He is probably the most consistent high quality filmaker out there considering the size of his oeuvre.
    Reply

    • Or using your Criterion.com account.

      You are logged in to your Criterion.com account as . Log out.

  • By JJ
    March 18, 2010
    08:36 PM

    I cannot decide whether his films are historical or contemporary. That is to say, Kurosawa's films have become a part of our history and culture. I have yet to see a film as unsettling and as satisfying as "Rashomon."
    Reply

    • Or using your Criterion.com account.

      You are logged in to your Criterion.com account as . Log out.

  • By Lucas
    March 18, 2010
    08:39 PM

    No doubt, Historical. Though, Drunken Angel is still one of my favorites.
    Reply

    • Or using your Criterion.com account.

      You are logged in to your Criterion.com account as . Log out.

  • By marcus
    March 18, 2010
    08:52 PM

    samurai movies rule! especially kurosawas!!!
    Reply

    • Or using your Criterion.com account.

      You are logged in to your Criterion.com account as . Log out.

  • By Henry
    March 18, 2010
    09:02 PM

    Historical, but I also love Ikuru.
    Reply

    • Or using your Criterion.com account.

      You are logged in to your Criterion.com account as . Log out.

  • By Peter Panacci
    March 18, 2010
    09:20 PM

    It seems that all contemporary films of Kurosawa are highly regarded for their incredible depiction of post-World War II Japanese society, however I also find them stunning examples of cinematic excellence in their craft and execution. Beyond the social commentary and moral issues brought forth, Kurosawa has an uncanny ability to portray modern Japanese society in a vibrant, engaging and haunting way which most films fail to achieve. The historic pieces are without a doubt incredible, however the period often diverts too much attention due to costumes, scenery and authenticity. Somehow the scenes are more fluid and dynamic in films like High and Low and Stray Dog, the grittiness is real, the panic or anxiety is real, whereas in all historical films, it is more romanticized. Even though I would say films like Seven Samurai break the romantic idealization of feudal Japan and Samurai society almost violently, they still retain an element of the surreal, a distance which Kurosawa overcomes in his contemporary films. I guess I'm simply saying the involvement and interaction with the films changes depending on the genre. I become more entrenched and morally invested in his contemporary films, instead of the romantic detachment I find represented by his larger than life characters in films like Ran and Yojimbo.
    Reply

    • Or using your Criterion.com account.

      You are logged in to your Criterion.com account as . Log out.

  • By jason
    March 18, 2010
    09:24 PM

    Although I love the taut class-drama of High and Low, Stray Dog and The Bad Sleep Well, it is in Kurosawa's period pieces that we get to see a definitive style at play. People are right to site the Seven Samurai for it's majestic direction, and they can just as easily refer to Rashomon. Through his Yojimbo films he mixed the more tense feeling of modern films with classical art and stage direction. To end not only his grand period of historical films, but the 'golden age' of all samurai movies, with RAN he set flames to the very castle he'd created.
    Reply

    • Or using your Criterion.com account.

      You are logged in to your Criterion.com account as . Log out.

  • By Aron McMullen
    March 18, 2010
    09:28 PM

    I grew up in a small town in northeast Ohio during the 70's and 80's and never had cable TV while living with my parents, so I was only ever able to watch televised movies on the network broadcasts or local channels. I became quite a fan of Clint Eastwood movies, especially the spaghetti westerns and most notably, For a Fistful of Dollars. When I was able to move out on my own I did finally start to get cable television and shortly thereafter I stumbled upon something I had never seen before: a foreign film. At first I was intrigued, so I kept watching (and reading, as it was of course subtitled) and that intrigue became fascination and then awe. I watched and watched thrilled at the experience to witness something of such cultural significance and when it ended I knew that I had been oblivious to an entire facet of life that had now been exposed to me. The name of the film was RAN, and I was hooked. I began searching for more films by the same director assuming that his other films would be similar to the one I had just seen. Well, after some amount of research I discovered this director, Akira Kurosawa, was responsible for inspiring such films as Star Wars and, hey, can you even believe it, a movie I liked called A Fistful of Dollars? Hmm, really? So after a little more research I learned about The Hidden Fortress and it's influence on one George Lucas, found a copy, and watched it. WOW. Then came Yojimbo - to this day I think I'd call it my favorite film - an historical story with contemporary style. At this point I would say I was rabid for 'new' experiences in film and I began to branch out into other foreign language features and discovered Bergman, Fellini, Bresson, et al, yet is is always the historical pictures of Kurosawa that have a special place for me as they opened the door to what would become the greatest discovery of a world outside of my own without ever leaving my small town in northeast Ohio. I will add that without the Criterion Collection I may not have ever seen 75% of the wonderful foreign films I have had the luxury to enjoy since my eyes were opened by Akira Kurosawa and his fantastic historical epic. Thank you Mr. Kurosawa, and thank you Criterion!
    Reply

    • Or using your Criterion.com account.

      You are logged in to your Criterion.com account as . Log out.

  • By Mark Hendrix
    March 18, 2010
    09:33 PM

    Geez, what a question! You might as well ask me which kid I like better (if I had kids). Heck, as Ikiru is my favorite of his films, I'll go with contemporary, but that's a really unfair question. I like both darn it.
    Reply

    • Or using your Criterion.com account.

      You are logged in to your Criterion.com account as . Log out.

  • By Taylor
    March 18, 2010
    09:39 PM

    Historical films. Kurosawa's jidaigekis are important to me because of the concept of the "nobility of failure" that they so beautifully and pensively articulate. I don't think this is a concept the west really understood before him, but now, whenever such understated truth makes it into a Western film of any ilk, we at least partly have Kurosawa (and perhaps most notably his "Seven Samurai") to thank. Even better, he managed to bring out such themes in his adaptations of classic Western literature ("Throne of Blood" and "Ran"). These films, part adaptation - part period drama, have helped me understand the source material better than ever before. All of Kurosawa's work is great, but his historical films are cinematic treasures.
    Reply

    • Or using your Criterion.com account.

      You are logged in to your Criterion.com account as . Log out.

  • By Philip Pangrac
    March 18, 2010
    09:44 PM

    My knee-jerk reaction is to say his historical films, because most of his famous/essential titles belong in that category. Also, for sheer entertainment his samurai epics are more exciting than High and Low or Stray Dog. Or Ikiru, but that's to be expected :) After stopping to reflect for a moment I'd still say I prefer his historical films, but for another reason. Like science-fiction and fantasy, period pieces take us outside our modern world, allowing the storyteller to broaden the world of their tale and undermining expectations of what's realistic or not (no matter how faithful to the time period the director chooses to be). Samurai films, cowboy movies, Arthurian legends or what-have-you are meant to take place on Earth, but in radically different worlds than we live in, ones populated by larger-than-life figures in epic stories back when men were Men and nature was wild yada yada. I'm not saying Seven Samurai or Yojimbo are akin to mythical tales of demigods like Hercules, but when we sit down to watch movies like this we're more willing (if not eager) to go along with the escapism of the film, to be transported somewhere else. And isn't that why we watch movies?
    Reply

    • Or using your Criterion.com account.

      You are logged in to your Criterion.com account as . Log out.

  • By J.K. LeBel
    March 18, 2010
    09:58 PM

    While Kurosawa's contemporary films are great, I tend to prefer his period pieces. Of his top 5 films, Ikiru is the only film set in the 1900s. Kurosawa always managed to masterfully recreate the past in Japan, and apply any genre to it. Whether it be an engaging action film with Western influences like Yojimbo, or a Shakespearean adaptation that was distinctly his own (Ran and Throne of Blood), Kurosawa's depiction of Japan's past was only rivaled by Kenji Mizoguchi. In some ways it is difficult to describe, but Kurosawa always managed to create a past that seemed tangible, as well as alluring. The way he captured the scenery in his historical films is just too beautiful to look at, and I never got that same feeling in much of his films set in the 20th century.
    Reply

    • Or using your Criterion.com account.

      You are logged in to your Criterion.com account as . Log out.

  • By Justin T
    March 18, 2010
    10:09 PM

    I prefer his historic films, because they are laced with elements of historic protectiveness, combined with contemporary issues and themes. Films such as Seven Samurai show us both a world and ideology that once was, but it also shows us the world that still is. The superpowers of the world, in this case the Samurai, begin as relative neutral figures who are forced to enter into conflicts that are not entirely their own, in order to prevent the bullying of others. Made not long after World War II, I'm sure these parallels were not lost on Kurosawa. What makes this unique to the historical films, however, is that in a contemporary film, the theme is less subtle, and, arguably, fall towards a less receptive audience. Especially during an era of rebuilding, these themes are able to be shrouded in an element of national intrigue and pride, somewhat exclusive to Japan - the samurai, rather than a more painful, and concerning time and era, such as the then-modern military/war torn world, that had just suffered a devastating blow on the world stage. Therefore, the moral of the film is able to be broadcast both nationally and internationally, whereas if it was set in a then-contemporary setting, one or more of these audiences would be isolated There are few in cinema's history who can so brilliantly parallel the modern with the historic, and I think this is what makes Kurosawa one of the best. He uses the setting and era of the film which best serves his purpose, and whether it be his historic or contemporary films, Kurosawa will always be synonymous with brilliant international cinema.
    Reply

    • Or using your Criterion.com account.

      You are logged in to your Criterion.com account as . Log out.

  • By Andrew Strauss
    March 18, 2010
    10:32 PM

    I prefer Kurosawa's contemporary films such as Ikiru, High and Low and Drunken Angel. With his contemporary films he took crime novels or works by Tolstoy and was able to turn a work that originally was not Japanese into a film that is completely Japanese. These films also made Western audiences open up to Japanese films, because they were easier for Western audiences to connect to than the contemporary works of Ozu. His historical epics were full of action and great characters, as well as great philosophical ideas. They are both great but I prefer contemporary.
    Reply

    • Or using your Criterion.com account.

      You are logged in to your Criterion.com account as . Log out.

  • By Calvin Vankeersbilck
    March 18, 2010
    10:32 PM

    Contemporary. The characters of his contemporary films are usually more relatable, and the films meet my personal aesthetics more. Being a fan of the era, it's always fun to watch the beautiful cinematography of japan during Kurosawas lifetime. In films like High and Low, Kurosawa creates a beautiful Noir film, with hints of the young mod era as well, this is the best of both worlds in my opinion.
    Reply

    • Or using your Criterion.com account.

      You are logged in to your Criterion.com account as . Log out.

  • By Nick Singer
    March 18, 2010
    10:45 PM

    Historical, definitely. Yojimbo and Ran. Definitely my favorites. Though Ikiru and High and Low are both wonderful as well. But I think the historical films are my favorites. Thanks for considering me!
    Reply

    • Or using your Criterion.com account.

      You are logged in to your Criterion.com account as . Log out.

  • By Ryan
    March 18, 2010
    11:10 PM

    I personally prefer Kurosawa's contemporary films. My introduction to his work was Madadayo, I felt it was a charming movie and I empathized with the characters, and I have been a fan since. I love all of his works now, but Madadayo and Drunken Angel are two of my favorites (I am a fan of yakuza films).
    Reply

    • Or using your Criterion.com account.

      You are logged in to your Criterion.com account as . Log out.

  • By Tom
    March 18, 2010
    11:41 PM

    Historical
    Reply

    • Or using your Criterion.com account.

      You are logged in to your Criterion.com account as . Log out.

  • By Charlie
    March 18, 2010
    11:44 PM

    The modern Japan always felt more alive and unruly through Kurosawa's lense than any other Japanese director.
    Reply

    • Or using your Criterion.com account.

      You are logged in to your Criterion.com account as . Log out.

  • By CHARLES DECKERT
    March 18, 2010
    11:51 PM

    I feel both are equally substantial, but I can't help but feel that his styles best fit the contemporary ones whilst his essence, his heart and soul, are better felt in period films like Ran and Seven Samurai. Or, more simply put, they are better expressed in these ways. Take High and Low for instance, his use of just about everything, even the music, made the film a unique experience for the genre it was pitted in (crime drama benefitted by certain stylistic choices, such as the lack of music in scenes where most other directors would be lashing out some perhaps distracting theme or fanfare, or his method of shooting, where we focus on the crime commited and the pursuit of the criminal where other directors would probably have tried to follow the shoe baron's family and their ills throughout, with no perspective on the investigation or the criminal's pursuit) and for Kurosawa's time as a director (having only started right in World War II) it, like many of his other contemporary films, depict a Japan under deep Western (for the most part, American) influence, where capitalist goals reign supreme over the society and its culture. Now in a period piece like Seven Samurai, the styles Kurosawa took from Western films like that of John Ford took a backseat to something deeper and much more Japanese. It is in my opinion that Kurosawa did these films as a way of melding his styles and ideas into something more personal and emotional, as something more than just stories influenced by the West but stories from the West turned on their head to be fitting for Eastern ideas and sentiments. Perhaps he did these historical films as a means of expressing his deeper feelings for a Japan that preceeded the American dominated 20th century. A Japan that was its own nation, its own essence and its own being. So to put it succicntly, he used contemporary films for the most part to give his take on Western ideas stylistically whilst he utilized historical pieces as a means of expressing integral feelings on his own nation, even with the aide of Western influence. I am not saying this IS what he felt or thought, this is just my idea on the why and how of the films.
    Reply

    • Or using your Criterion.com account.

      You are logged in to your Criterion.com account as . Log out.

  • By Bill Melidoneas
    March 18, 2010
    11:57 PM

    It's an embarrassment of riches to be honest. The greatest filmmaker of all time has no weakness in his excellence in directing contemporary or period films. Surely Kurosawa is probably best remembered for Seven Samurai, Rashomon and his Shakesepeare adaptations Throne of Blood and Ran but can anyone argue that Stray Dog, The Bad Sleep Well, or High and Low are any less excellent. I prefer his contemporary films because I connect to some of the very pertinent ideas he expresses or sentiments he spreads in his contemporary films.
    Reply

    • Or using your Criterion.com account.

      You are logged in to your Criterion.com account as . Log out.

  • By Mark Gowdy
    March 19, 2010
    12:05 AM

    I think the answer to the question depends on the time of day I'm considering it. Ask me at 10pm and the answer is 'historical'. Ask me at 10:15pm and it may well be 'contemporary'. Ask me at 10:30pm and it's probably going to be both.
    Reply

    • Or using your Criterion.com account.

      You are logged in to your Criterion.com account as . Log out.

  • By Neil Lumbard
    March 19, 2010
    12:18 AM

    I prefer, to the best of my knowledge, his contemporary films. I still have a wide variety of Kurosawa classics to explore for the first time: including the famed Stray Dog. I will say though that the reason for this preference is because of The Bad Sleep Well, which is a vastly under-appreciated gem that Criterion rightly decided deserved a proper treatment. I remember watching it on VHS for the first time so many years ago. It blew me away. The imagery was breathtaking, as it is with every Kurosawa film, but the thing that impressed me the most was how engaging and universal the themes of the film were within the setting and atmosphere of the story (and they are in Kurosawa films no matter the time period in which they exist on celluloid bliss).
    Reply

    • Or using your Criterion.com account.

      You are logged in to your Criterion.com account as . Log out.

  • By Dan Sessoms
    March 19, 2010
    12:32 AM

    Being a westerner, I have an equal appreciation for both. His historical films are fascinating in there difference to the history I have grown up knowing and they are also intelligent escapist films, not only to present day audiences but when they were released. His contemporary work is a time capsule to the world as it was in Japan when they were made and afforded him the ability to comment on the social and political situations at the time. The historical gives us the opportunity to witness and live in a time outside of ourselves while the contemporary lets us reflect on the moment we are currently living. Both give me great pleasure.
    Reply

    • Or using your Criterion.com account.

      You are logged in to your Criterion.com account as . Log out.

  • By John Forse
    March 19, 2010
    12:55 AM

    I prefer his contemporary films. They often mirror plays based in history so it's the best of both worlds. They also retain a certain grittiness for the modern viewer as there is an absence of historical costumes which have the unfortunate tendency of establishing a clean separation from our daily reality.
    Reply

    • Or using your Criterion.com account.

      You are logged in to your Criterion.com account as . Log out.

  • By Justin Morgan
    March 19, 2010
    01:33 AM

    I am almost indifferent to Kurosawa's historical films compared to his contemporary films, but I would have to admit I lean just slightly in the notion of historical because my favorites are Seven Samurai and Ran, both of which would follow the first white rabbit. I feel Kurosawa is a master craftsman at bringing audiences believable performances full of emotions, but I feel like I fall much deeper into the realms I have not personally visited before. He brings me to a place that I would in no other form be able to go to and he brings me there so vibrantly that I cannot help but feel like a piece to the puzzle.
    Reply

    • Or using your Criterion.com account.

      You are logged in to your Criterion.com account as . Log out.

  • By Heath Smith
    March 19, 2010
    01:47 AM

    While I admire his contemporary films, I grew up watching his historical films. They make you feel like you were in feudal Japan. Every little thing in the shot was "real", you could almost feel part of the movie. Much like how Wolfgang Petersen's "Das Boot" made you feel like you were in the submarine, claustrophobic and smelling sweat. Also, I saw his historical films first, so when I first saw the contemporary films- they almost just didn't feel like a Kurosawa film. I liken it to your favorite James Bond is usually the one you saw first. Funny story, I started watching his films in high school in the late '80s. I remember Swatch had a Kurosawa watch that I wanted so badly. Never found it. Someday.
    Reply

    • Or using your Criterion.com account.

      You are logged in to your Criterion.com account as . Log out.

  • By Tom Helberg
    March 19, 2010
    01:48 AM

    Contemporary. His historical films are wonderful, but seeing his take on the "present" is exhilarating.
    Reply

    • Or using your Criterion.com account.

      You are logged in to your Criterion.com account as . Log out.

  • By Patrick
    March 19, 2010
    03:03 AM

    I prefer Kurosawa's contemporary film work. Like "Stray Dog." It sure would be cool to win a copy of that on DVD.
    Reply

    • Or using your Criterion.com account.

      You are logged in to your Criterion.com account as . Log out.

  • By Joshua Pitney
    March 19, 2010
    03:04 AM

    While all of Kurosawa's films are engaging, his historical films have made the biggest impact on the course of cinema. Without "Seven Samurai" there would be no "Magnificent Seven", without "Yojimbo" we would be without the Leone's dollars trilogy, and without "Hidden Fortress" there would be no "Star Wars". If he had not made these films there would be a gap in cinema. Directors after him would not have had the inspiration to create monumental works and he would have never been able to create works like “Ran” or “Dreams”.
    Reply

    • Or using your Criterion.com account.

      You are logged in to your Criterion.com account as . Log out.

  • By Tomas Roges
    March 19, 2010
    03:04 AM

    It's hard to say actually. I thought that this one would easily be a quick answer. Stylistically I would say that his historical films are much more pleasurable to watch just because of the visuals and ingenuity alone. But as far as the stories go, and the significance of these stories, you could say that his entire body of work done with respect for contemporary culture. A good example of this could be seen by juxtaposing, let's say Rashomon and Stray Dog. One essentially takes place a hundred years prior to the other but they're both made only a year apart. And they both ultimately deal with the complexities of the human condition set in two different time periods but both could easily be swapped to take place in opposite periods and still maintain the same themes and significance. So it is somewhat silly to say whether anyone could prefer his historical films over the contemporary films because they are all essentially contemporary.
    Reply

    • Or using your Criterion.com account.

      You are logged in to your Criterion.com account as . Log out.

  • By Luke Kenny
    March 19, 2010
    05:11 AM

    Kurosawa was an artistic anomaly. his talent for giving the contemporary its own historical resonance and his penchant for bringing his own contemporary mind to history can never be equalled or imitated. Period. Let alone preferred. By the way, I unfortunately live outside the US and Canada, all the way in Mumbai City in India. So while I won't qualify for the contest, I can still pay obeisance to Mr Kurosawa who is one of our fathers, who art in cinema heaven. :)
    Reply

    • Or using your Criterion.com account.

      You are logged in to your Criterion.com account as . Log out.

  • By Morgan Decker
    March 19, 2010
    10:16 AM

    I would have to go for the historical. Samurai all the way.
    Reply

    • Or using your Criterion.com account.

      You are logged in to your Criterion.com account as . Log out.

  • By Brian E. Lindstrand
    March 19, 2010
    10:16 AM

    I guess I'm biased towards his historical films, because SEVEN SAMURAI and RASHOMON were the first Kurosawa films I ever saw. Its only in the last few years that I have seen a lot of his contemporary films. Having said that, there hasn't been one of his films that I haven't liked. Still, I have to give the edge to the historicals. SEVEN SAMURAI is one of my favorite movies, regardless of genre.
    Reply

    • Or using your Criterion.com account.

      You are logged in to your Criterion.com account as . Log out.

  • By Kevin Longrie
    March 19, 2010
    11:18 AM

    Historical. They're what made me fall in love with the guy. Even though I think he's a master at depicting modern japan, I first and most deepest fell in love with his period pieces.
    Reply

    • Or using your Criterion.com account.

      You are logged in to your Criterion.com account as . Log out.

  • By Christopher R
    March 19, 2010
    11:54 AM

    I feel that Kurosawa's historical works have an elegance to their visual style and plots. His contemporary works are more gritty (epecially the earlier ones) and character driven. I prefer his contemporary works like Stray Dog, Scandal, and No Regrets for Our Youth.
    Reply

    • Or using your Criterion.com account.

      You are logged in to your Criterion.com account as . Log out.

  • By Scout Tafoya
    March 19, 2010
    12:02 PM

    His modern films are the much darker ones as they do not allow the distance his historical epics do. For this reason I think that we can enjoy the sumptuousness of his work on Seven Samurai and Ran much easier than we can the very careful design and tension he builds on The Bad Sleep Well and High and Low, as they force us to consider that things haven't improved in the slightest. How easily did the horrid fate of Hamlet's characters become even worse when applied to the Japan of the 1960s. How cruel the fate of the heroes of Stray Dog and Drunken Angel. There is almost always some hope to be found in his historical pieces (pre-suicide attempt) and frequently none at all to be gleamed from the likes of The Quiet Duel or High and Low. Kurosawa, the master of tone, was at his most cunning in the present, taking shots at those who refused to take lessons from his work in the past. I believe it was this displeasure that led him to finally bring his apocalyptic worldview into the past for Ran and Kagemusha. And because I'm a sucker for happy endings, I have to go with his historical pieces, at least before the 70s. There's just no beating Rashomon and Seven Samurai because there is an underlying sadness, indeed tragedy is what kickstarts their stories, the feeling of progress and happiness is hard to shake when the screen goes black.
    Reply

    • Or using your Criterion.com account.

      You are logged in to your Criterion.com account as . Log out.

  • By Scout Tafoya
    March 19, 2010
    12:03 PM

    His modern films are the much darker ones as they do not allow the distance his historical epics do. For this reason I think that we can enjoy the sumptuousness of his work on Seven Samurai and Ran much easier than we can the very careful design and tension he builds on The Bad Sleep Well and High and Low, as they force us to consider that things haven't improved in the slightest. How easily did the horrid fate of Hamlet's characters become even worse when applied to the Japan of the 1960s. How cruel the fate of the heroes of Stray Dog and Drunken Angel. There is almost always some hope to be found in his historical pieces (pre-suicide attempt) and frequently none at all to be gleamed from the likes of The Quiet Duel or High and Low. Kurosawa, the master of tone, was at his most cunning in the present, taking shots at those who refused to take lessons from his work in the past. I believe it was this displeasure that led him to finally bring his apocalyptic worldview into the past for Ran and Kagemusha. And because I'm a sucker for happy endings, I have to go with his historical pieces, at least before the 70s. There's just no beating Rashomon and Seven Samurai because there is an underlying sadness, indeed tragedy is what kickstarts their stories, the feeling of progress and happiness is hard to shake when the screen goes black.
    Reply

    • Or using your Criterion.com account.

      You are logged in to your Criterion.com account as . Log out.

  • By Faizal Hirji
    March 19, 2010
    01:45 PM

    i Ran to see Kagemusha, and watched Seven Samurai atleast seven times. then i had Dreams of Stray Dogs high and low.
    Reply

    • Or using your Criterion.com account.

      You are logged in to your Criterion.com account as . Log out.

  • By Bryce Duncan
    March 19, 2010
    02:47 PM

    Aren't all of his films pretty much both?
    Reply

    • Or using your Criterion.com account.

      You are logged in to your Criterion.com account as . Log out.

  • By nathan
    March 19, 2010
    02:57 PM

    historical, since those are the first films i saw of his. I absolutely love the samurai (modern version). essentially he makes history fun, and relavent to today ('50s--present).
    Reply

    • Or using your Criterion.com account.

      You are logged in to your Criterion.com account as . Log out.

  • By Dylan Chestnutt
    March 19, 2010
    03:18 PM

    I cannot say that I prefer one over the other. As all people do, Kurosawa went through many phases in his life and I would even go so far as to say that when he directed each of his films he was a different person. Kurosawa's films all bear his mark and yet every time one sees his films you are meeting a new Akira, even when you see the same film of his again. In other words, his films age. And yet, they decieve time. Very few directors can make their audience aware that they are creating the depth in time, that occurs like an illusion in the cinema. That they are controlling you across space. You are subject to his films. Swallowed by the light, as the voice of Toshiro Mifune echos in your skull. To me, when Kurosawa dominates your world during those moments spent in the cinema it does not matter whether it is one of his contemporary films or not. When it comes to his films he controls time, and everything is created again. It is happening NOW in your mind, in your body and in the cinema. History does not exist except how it is portrayed in the film. As I watch Kurosawa I begin to feel as if I am a part of an eternal dialogue with the light.
    Reply

    • Or using your Criterion.com account.

      You are logged in to your Criterion.com account as . Log out.

  • By Robert Smith
    March 19, 2010
    03:22 PM

    For me it would have to be contemporary all the way. Ikiru and High and Low are my two all time favorites from Kurosawa. To say they are vastly superior to his Samurai epics is no disrespect to the historic films by any means, it's merely a praise to just how amazing his contemporary films have been.
    Reply

    • Or using your Criterion.com account.

      You are logged in to your Criterion.com account as . Log out.

  • By David Hollingsworth
    March 19, 2010
    03:42 PM

    I prefer both. His historical films gave new light to the original tellings, and as well new depth to very familiar characters. His contemporary films shed old and new meanings to the horrors/joys/hypocrisies of modren Japan.
    Reply

    • Or using your Criterion.com account.

      You are logged in to your Criterion.com account as . Log out.

  • By Henry Dykstal
    March 19, 2010
    03:45 PM

    I prefer Kurosawa's historical films. It seems to me that Kurosawa was never comfortable in the present, and sought the past as an escape. As for the quality of both periods, his historical films are some of the greatest films ever made, and his contemporary ones are lacking. While Ikiru is magnificent, High and Low is lacking, and the others aren't much to right home about.
    Reply

    • Or using your Criterion.com account.

      You are logged in to your Criterion.com account as . Log out.

  • By David Lee
    March 19, 2010
    03:55 PM

    BOTH.
    Reply

    • Or using your Criterion.com account.

      You are logged in to your Criterion.com account as . Log out.

  • By luke
    March 19, 2010
    04:14 PM

    Jidai me
    Reply

    • Or using your Criterion.com account.

      You are logged in to your Criterion.com account as . Log out.

  • By Meesund
    March 19, 2010
    05:12 PM

    Historical, just to enjoy how the great master creates past in film.
    Reply

    • Or using your Criterion.com account.

      You are logged in to your Criterion.com account as . Log out.

  • By Yarb Goud
    March 19, 2010
    05:16 PM

    Gedai geki are the films I prefer from AK. Although his contemporary and historical films are both rooted in similar themes and aesthetic beauty, I enjoy the subtle irony in the modern relevance of his Edo era movies, even when it’s set hundreds of years ago. Yet it makes sense in a way, the problems of humans today are the same problems we have always struggled against, just in different a context. Kurosawa saw and captured this truth with a flare still unmatched. That’s what makes an AK film so unique, not only are his films seamlessly well composed, but his commentary is timeless. And for this reason people will still be watching Kurosawa’s 1600s samurai films in the distant future.
    Reply

    • Or using your Criterion.com account.

      You are logged in to your Criterion.com account as . Log out.

  • By Narukami
    March 19, 2010
    06:38 PM

    Far and away I enjoy his "historical" films more, though his contemporary films are excellent, in particular Dreams and the sections that dealt with the Fox Wedding and the WWII officer confronting his platoon of dead soldiers -- what an image. Once agin proving Kurosawa's confidence in his images by letting them speak for themselves.
    Reply

    • Or using your Criterion.com account.

      You are logged in to your Criterion.com account as . Log out.

  • By John Ferrigno
    March 19, 2010
    06:45 PM

    I prefer his historical films. Ironically enough, it has been so long since he made his contemporary films, they are now almost like period pieces themselves. However, the attention to detail in the film making of his historical films is amazing.
    Reply

    • Or using your Criterion.com account.

      You are logged in to your Criterion.com account as . Log out.

Or using your Criterion.com account.

You are logged in to your Criterion.com account as . Log out.

Categories

RSS

Archive

Month
Year
 
  • All
  • January
  • February
  • March
  • April
  • May
  • June
  • July
  • August
  • September
  • October
  • November
  • December
  • 2012
  • 2011
  • 2010
  • 2009
  • 2008
  • 2007
  • 2006
  • 2005
  • 2004
  • 2003
  • 2002
  • 2001
  • 2000
  • 1999
  • 1998
  • 1997
  • 1996
  • 1995
  • 1994
  • 1993
  • 1992
  • 1991
  • 1990
  • 1989
  • 1988
  • 1987
  • 1986
  • 1985
  • 1984
Go

Recent Comments

  • “SubUrbia! SubUrbia! SubUrbia! SubUrbia! SubUrbia! SubUrbia! SubUrbia! SubSubUrbia! SubUrbia!Urbia! SubUrbia! SubUrbia! SubUrbia! SubUrbia! SubUrbia! SubUrbia! SubUrbia! SubUrbia! SubUrbia! SubUrbia . . .”

    Viny on Slacker Twenty Years Later,
    about 12 hours ago.

  • “I love this movie. I just feel thoroughly charmed after watching it.”

    Brooke Randell on M. Hulot’s Holiday,
    about 14 hours ago.

  • “I don't think I'll buy it then. How about renting it? ”

    film dispatch on Three Reasons: Amarcord,
    about 15 hours ago.

  • “Criterion: You gave Solaris a great new version and upgraded to BluRay. Any plans to do that with this one any time soon? Please?”

    StephenM on Andrei Rublev,
    about 21 hours ago.

  • “Can someone now please tell me where I can find an audio version of that beautiful music in the intro?”

    Mitch on Three Reasons: People on Sunday,
    1 day ago.

Newsletter

SIGN UP to receive info on new releases, Top 10 lists, contests, giveaways, and special offers