First of all, both the language of the lens, the fullness of the characters, and the portrayal of human nature are impeccable, and the adaptation is quite clever.
But it's still a step down from King Lear. The most crucial point is that Lear has a lot of monologues and dialogues after going crazy. And these words are just evidence of Lear's awakening of consciousness, rising to the height of philosophical thinking. And Xiuhu in "Chaos" only reflects madness, sluggishness, confusion and fragile self-esteem.
After Lear went mad, he thought deeply. First, he discovered that his role as a king and as a father had been lost, and he could no longer find his own identity. Then he found that he never had the essence, and when the role disappeared, the essence was also emptied. So this is also the root cause of Lear's many wrong decisions. The root cause of Xiuhu's misjudgment has not been deeply explored.
Perhaps from the different handling of the departure from the father and the "third son" in the second act of "King Lear" and "Chaos", the height of the overall thought has been established. Lear's insecurity is far greater than that of Xiuhu, and Lear uses a perverted desire to control to achieve everything he arranges. However, Xiuhu's desire to control has not been as prominent as it should be, and it is more like a posture that should be under the self-confidence of patriarchy.
The abrupt, eccentric, and out-of-the-way image of Kuang Ami, the prophet, also weakened the tension.
Overall, "Ran" is more like a magnificent narrative depicting human nature, and finally Kurosawa pointed the doubt to the sky, how powerless. The tragic characters in Shakespeare's writings all have the tragic inevitability and irreconcilability caused by their character, and their handling of the background color of the character Lear is more profound.
View more about Ran reviews
