Achilles to Kame (2008) watch online HD

Achilles and the Tortoise is the last installment in a loose trilogy actor/director Takeshi Kitano has made about the figure of the artist. Whereas the first two entries, Takeshi's and Glory to the Filmmaker, could basically be described as one big self-referential absurdist joke, Achilles is a more controlled film, with a proper story and a precise set of themes, albeit decorated with cheerfully absurd humor.

Such a scenario occurs right from the beginning, in an animated prologue which explains the bizarre title: as pointed out by the philosopher Zeno, if Achilles (the fastest mortal man, according to Greek mythology) and a tortoise competed in a race, and the latter had even the slightest advantage (say three feet), logic demands that in the time required for Achilles to reach that point, the tortoise would keep moving forward, and therefore the famous warrior, paradoxically enough, would never be able to catch up with the notoriously slow animal.

In Kitano's film, Achilles would be Machisu, a young boy fascinated by art, and the tortoise is success. Despite the boy's determination and occasionally bold choices of subjects (he has a knack for painting macabre events), his lack of stylistic originality makes all galleries shun him and most of his friends abandon him. Only his wife will keep supporting him, even in his older days (at this point, Kitano himself plays the role), when they're practically broke and their own daughter is ashamed to live in the same house as them.

Kitano's passion for painting is quite well known among those familiar with his work (he personally makes all the artwork that shows up in his movies), and so Achilles and the Tortoise is a good opportunity for him to use his hobby as a tool to reflect on the elusive subject of art and its various ramifications. Naturally, he does this with his usual penchant for darkly humorous set-ups, especially in the third act, with some scenes so audacious it's doubtful even something like Six Feet Under would have featured them. And yet one does not feel repulsed by those scenes. On the contrary, it's the absurdity of the plot, paired with Kitano's quietly composed directing and minimalistic performance, that constitutes the movie's primary point of attraction. In fact, Kitano's on-screen presence is so charismatic that perhaps he would have been better off shortening the first section of the picture and granting his quirky alter ego more room. Furthermore, the straightforward "happy" ending feels completely at odds with everything else, but then again coming up with a suitably crazy epilogue might have proved too arduous a task.

Ultimately, the only thing that seriously damages a part of this strange and, in its own way, funny opus is the running time (almost two hours), with minor help from the somewhat off- beat conclusion. Nevertheless, Kitano fans are likely to find something to embrace yet again, and anyone with some kind of interest in art should take a good, close look at this original take on the matter.

This should be required viewing for everyone in the "art" world. Kitano skewers global modern art culture and also makes fun of his own work.

The story is simply of an artist from childhood to "middle age" (which seems to be around 62) as he tries to be a successful artist. He starts out as an untrained "primitive" but with a certain talent for texture and color. He is insulted at every turn while we get to see the "good" art by "masters" which are all really, really bad. Unfortunately the artist gets progressively worse as he takes advice from gallery owners on how to make his work "sellable", which it never is. Every time the work gets better, he's advised to go in a different direction. Many mildly humorous situations arise but the film isn't going for outright laughs most of the time. The scenes of the "middle aged" artist (played by Kitano) getting his supportive wife to make his art are very long, get progressively cruel (probably part of the point) and could have been cut down a little. The issue of autism isn't directly addressed but the character certainly exhibits symptoms.

This is a very good film although a little long. It may not be as good to someone who has no experience with the art world of today. Kitano created all the art in this film, good and purposely bad.

Beat Takeshi's "Dolls" is one of my favorite movies, and I really enjoyed his other films "Kikujirou no Natsu", "Zatoichi", and "Brother". However, his last two films I viewed, "Kantoku, Banzai!!" and "Takeshis'" were nothing but narcissistic garbage, so I expected nothing from this movie. To my surprise, it turned out to be a fantastic film that's not only funny, but also deep.

The story follows the life of a boy who loves art and destined to become an artist, though fail to achieve success due to lack of originality and excessive imitation.

What I really liked about this film is that it explores what art really is, and pokes fun at the absurdity of some of today's so-called 'modern art'. It also depicts the suffering of an artist whose works are not 'understood' by others. It's interesting Kitano Takeshi's films are often artistic in its own way. Makes me wonder if his previous two films were too artistic for me to comprehend?

In any case, I enjoyed this film tremendously, and there were many memorable moments. Casting was done extremely well, especially in the 'college days', and all the actors gave a great performance for this wonderful movie.

After two introspective films before Achilles to Kame, Kitano is back to complete his trilogy. With Takeshis' he explored himself as an actor, Kantoku: Banzai! revealed Kitano as a troubled filmmaker and Achilles to Kame, third in line, is telling us something about Kitano as a painter. And art. Or non-art, for that matter.

The film starts of rather slow. Kitano seems to reach back to the feel-good 50s try-outs he made in Kantoku: Banzai! Soft lightning and swift switches between humor, slices of life and drama of the poor make up most of the first 30 minutes. A few scarce moments remind us we are watching a Kitano film, most of them coming from the interaction between the young kid and the village retard. Scenes that are not unlike the ones between the grandpa and little girl in Ishii's Taste of Tea.

While those first thirty minutes are quite pleasant, the humor is warm and comforting and the score is pretty spot on (staying very close to the work of former Kitano regular Hisaishi), as a Kitano flick the film is definitely missing something vital. That something is added when we jump a couple of years forward to the painter's college years. It is obvious that Kitano's style starts to flourish in a more modern Japanese environment.

This is also the time when things start to go wrong for our young painter. Up until then he has been following his heart, making the paintings he likes best. But apparently, that is not to the liking of the young art dealer who is asked to sell his work and our young painter is urged to start following art lessons. He begins learning about art, which kick-starts his everlasting journey to grasp to concept of Art (with a capitol A).

Visually this second part is much more like the films that made Kitano famous. Static camera views, harsh lighting and many shots of stark facial expressions. The structure too becomes more like his older work, reminding me a lot of Kikujiro. Where the first parts grounds the trip the main characters are about to make, the core of the film lies in the sketchy scenes that follow. Our young painter teams up with his classmates and through several (often very funny) attempts eh tries to capture the core of art, spirit and originality.

After this second part the film jumps to the current time, Kitano himself (of course) portraying the painter as someone who has lost touch with reality, still running behind this idealized image of capturing the essence of art. In this third part the film really starts to shine as Kitano himself can fool around to make the best of the scenes he's in. He is visibly enjoying himself as probably a couple of those scenes were largely improvised on set (remembering the docu I once watched on Kikujiro).

Kitano will always remain Kitano, no matter what character he plays, but since he's playing himself that's hardly a fault. Apart from that, his mannerisms and posture are gold in the comedy scenes. Still, Kitano's character starts to sink deeper and deeper to the point where the comfortable life around him is shattered to pieces, with Kitano unable to let go of his self-induced passion.

The first section of the film is obviously the weakest but important for Kitano's vision on the subject. The moment he goes to school to learn about art he loses his spirit and becomes a parody of what an artist is supposed to be. Kitano pretty much trashes artists, art dealers, self-indulged amateurs and buying customers alike as he questions and undermines the importance of art and its function in our society.

It is nice to see a director doing this so openly and directly. Even though the film revolves around Kitano as a painter, it is easy to broaden the perspective and to see this film as a comment on art and art appreciation in general. On how people approach art, want to understand art and want to profit from it. It is also good to see that Kitano can walk away from it in the end with a contented heart and a freed soul.

Achilles to Kame is a film that combines the themes and topics of his two latest outings with the style and feel of his earlier work. The comedy is typical for Kitano, the acting (with a neat little cameo for Terajima), directing, structure and pacing are all very much like his earlier films too. Even the music seems to come right out of Hisaishi's office. It's very nice to see all these things come together to create something that feels like the current Kitano, bearing his past baggage and showing multiple sides of his personality as a director, while still remaining very consistent in style and feel.

A must for Kitano fans and probably art fans alike (as all paintings were made by Kitano himself and are apparently based on existing paintings). Probably not the best place to start for people not really familiar with Kitano's earlier work as a director, but as a fan of his directorial efforts this is a pretty complete and awesome film to behold. 4.5*/5.0*

A small boy seems to have a wonderful gift for painting, and that's what he's doing all day long, painting. As his father is very rich everybody is encouraging the boy. The father bankrupts and commits suicide, followed by the mother, the boy remains alone and he continues painting, against all odds. And painting is what he'll do for all his life, against all odds, sacrificing everything, his life, his self-respect and the respect of the others, his family, everything, never getting public recognition.

A story that's tragic, while put before us with a mix of surrealism and black humor. Behind the story there are autobiographical elements. It comes in the life of director Takeshi Kitano after a long artistic career, during which he tried different ways.

I've read about it that's the third movie in a louse trilogy, dealing with the condition of the artist. I didn't watch the other movies, so I'll speak only about this one.

The title sends to the well-known paradox of Zeno: Achilles can never catch the tortoise though the distance between them gets smaller and smaller. Here in the movie it is the artist playing Achilles, while the tortoise is the never reached public recognition.

It is a movie about art and artists, about their place, their value, their meaning. A movie that is itself an exquisite artwork, a lesson of modern art. As I was watching it each image was cutting my breath.

Exquisite and disturbing, and as autobiographical suggestions are loosely implied, this movie might be, to a certain extent, a form of exorcism. A beautiful movie putting bluntly brutal questions. Is art necessary? Is it moral to be an artist? Is the artist just a mentally disturbed guy, a deviant? And, when becomes an artwork truly unique? This movie does not give simple solutions, actually it shows how complicated are the answers.

The name of Turkish writer Elif Shafak comes here in my mind, she was saying in an interview that art (in this case this movie) should not come with quick fixes, rather it should look for all nuances, making matters more complicated.

Itano Takeshi's movie reminds us two facts that unfold from the same root: timocracy. Timocracy, from Plato, is the rule of the worthy. I take this as distinct from plutocracy, which is the rule of the wealthy. In societies where self worth is overlapped with economic value, than all plutocracy is also timocracy. Since Van Gogh (Heinich), it is clear that worth in arts stems from self-sacrifice for a superior cause: art itself. But this is not just "art-for-art-sake" (Bourdieu) as if an individual resigned to poverty is able to finally pursue his true inner calling. Machisu Kuramochi (Takeshi) is always checking his last oeuvres with a merchant, the true source of recognition. Impossible to achieve such recognition, the quest resembles Achiles's towards the turtle: although it is a farce (the intrinsic worth in art) it is (because of it) impossible to achieve. Self-destruction is tried (again we must think of Van Gogh), but here Achiles achieves the turtle. It is granted to the artist some human condition. The most touching scene is Kuromochi taking the "sudary" from his daughter's face. Art as sacred and sacrilege is all articulated in few minutes on screen.

I like different films especially from Japan and this fits the category, interesting from beginning to end, a sad film in my opinion but with lots of messages for art lovers if you look that deep into the story, a bit like Rembrandts 'Nightwatching'.

Didn't quite get the ending but it didn't seem to matter. Gosh to have a wife like he had, so patient and supportive all his life but sad for the daughter who had to endure so much also all her life.

The title is a stunning one. Okay the Tortoise is the pursuit of success but what is the Achilles, the inability over time to achieve that success? Good acting throughout but cant take it as a comedy with a western mind.

"Achilles" is the last of the Kitano's trilogy about the joys and woes of a creative artist. I have watched the second, "Glory to the filmmaker" (2007) but not the first, "Takeshis" (2005). "Glory" was a little disappointing, mainly because it was unfocused, seeming to wander and meander without s clear course. "Achilles" is anything but unfocused.

While this movie is generally labelled a comedy, the first half comes off like a Dickensian tale of an orphan. Coming from a well-off family, little Machisu finds himself plunged through a series of misfortunes – the family financial disaster, suicide of father, and then mother, an existence of drudgery under an unsympathetic uncle, then the orphanage, and finally making a living at a lowly position. The tale is told, however, with little poignancy. One reason is that the misery our protagonist goes through is nowhere near an average Dickensian orphan's. He has schooling, a kindly aunt and a very reasonable employer, just to name a few blessings. But the most important factor is Machisu himself.

The taciturn child has a singular passion for painting to the extent that he at times almost seem autistic, although he is in fact not. But painting is such a consuming passion that nothing else counts. This is portrayed with remarkable consistency by the three actors from early childhood to young manhood, when he marries an insanely (just a manner of speaking) supporting girl who not only understands, but also embraces his addiction for painting. At this point, the comedy takes over, mainly generated by Machisu and his cohorts in their various imaginative attempts at creative painting. Hilarity ensues, but also some lethal consequences, literally. There is black comedy, but comedy nonetheless.

In comes Kitano, playing Machisu at middle age (and wife played by Kanako Higuchi, whose heart-wrenching performance in "Memories of tomorrow" I still remember) with a daughter in late teens. Those who are familiar with Kitano's work will appreciate how well this character fits with his best-known screen persona – the expressionless face this is full of expressions, if you know what I mean. By this time his passion has gone completely out of control, and all hell breaks loose. I shall not, of course, disclose the ending. Better than "Glory", this is not Kitano's best. Still, it has all the good old Kitano ingredients such weird humour and underplayed characters. The profusion of colour scheme (often, but not always, through the paintings themselves) reminds me of "Dolls" (2002) which he directed but did not act in.

On the title, the paradox of Achilles and the tortoise, often used as an introduction to calculus, is adopted here to depict Machisu's perpetual pursuit of the elusive art of painting.

The movie does not work in only one level; so it can be seen as a sampling of art, in this case: "painting"; from different viewpoints or dimensions. Good actors, humor Kitano style, the Japanese twisted style; however it is a mixture of 2 or 3 movies in one; changes radically from one part to another (the movie is not formally divided) and the only connection seems the art itself (that s not bad at all...) The first half has a coherent development of the script, good photography and shows us the protagonist as a school kid then as a young man. He, an almost autistic person that seems unaffected by the (good and bad) things that happen in his life. Perhaps the answer to why he continues to fail in his work. Failure to get emotionally involved in a way o another in such episodes or not take part physically or to be mentally affected by them, makes an artist that will not acquire the necessary skills (after assimilate and process its) to then translate them into his work; normally a way to say things or feelings of what a person (an artist) can not say in another way. We see a person who may have a natural talent for painting, or based on to paint and repetition developed good capabilities but do not know how to let out his own creative streak, which just ends up imitating the great painters or following great schools of painting in an evident level.

-in a second part of the movie, changes completely and we see Kitano, fulfilling the lead role and with his rough style and Yakuza pose, this main character loses all silence and dedicating autism demanding constantly to his suffered side kick wife; dragging them in a not so good life. In this part the artist is showed like an "art junkie" There s kind of humor here and the shots are more TV like ones. The movie could be better or could be at least two movies...

Another relentless study by Kitano of an artist with no talent who refuses to give up, this goes on far too long and bludgeons the viewer with its relentless picture of a helpless sycophant trying to become a success by imitating his betters or copying trends that have just gone out of style. There is a disconnect between the early passages of the artist as a boy, which are fable-like, haunting, and touching (but also droll and odd) and the segments of the artist as an adult and "old" man (when Kitano himself takes over), the latter being simply a series of conceptual put-ons. Throughout the film is hurt by its suggestion that art of limited merit has no merit at all; that a child artist wouldn't produce anything of interest. And its later scenes are increasingly brutal and macabre. Another example of Kitano's limits as an "auteur." His work is distinctive and persistent, but there is a coldness, even a cluelessness, about it that is unappealing. The Allociné critic rating of 3.0/70 is full of raves, showing Kitano's strong "auteur" status among the French. Seen in Paris in April 2010.

This is the third part of Beat Takashi Kitano's trilogy about artists (especially Takashi himself) and the creative process. The first film was Takashis and was an off beat semi-autobiographical look at director Takashi. The second film in the series is Glory to the Filmmaker. It concerns a filmmaker trying to come up with a way of completing his latest film. As of this writing I haven't seen it.

The last film in the sequence is this one, Achilles and the Tortoise.

The plot of the film has young Machisu Kuramochi meeting an artist as a child. The artist is impressed by the boys work and gives him words of encouragement. From that point on the boy does nothing but paint, through school, through marriage, through happy times and sad. Art is all. Unfortunately he never really tastes any sort of success seemingly just behind the curve of the happening artists.

To be honest I'm not sure what I think of the film. I'm not sure the story really hangs together. Essentially a three part film with three actors playing Machisu, one as a child, one as a young adult and Takashi himself playing the artist in middle age. Each part has a different feel. And the work as a whole left me feeling rather depressed.

The early part of the film is a bit awkward as Michisu is "discovered" and then moves to live with an uncle when his family is broken up by bankruptcy. It the film feels unfinished.

The second part of the film where our hero tries to sell his work, gets into art school and meets like minded people is a very funny destruction of artists and their drive for "art for arts sake".

The last part of the film, where Takashi takes over, is a darkly funny look at the extremes some people go to create.

This is a vicious destruction of "artists" and the world they exist in. Critics are savaged. Art dealers are shown for what they are. Artists and their attitudes are ridiculed. The public and its taste and ability to know what's good is roasted. It's a black comedy that leaves no one unhurt. Takashi lays waste to everyone and everything. Anyone in any sort of creative endeavor is torn apart.

This isn't to say that Takashi is against art or creating. He isn't and its clear from watching him create on screen (all of the paintings in the film are his, a fact that creates a weird sense of reality since his own paintings are being judged as poor when compared to his own paintings) that he loves to create, he's just against the attitudes of those who take their art too seriously (he doesn't hence his deconstruction of his life and work over the three films) and those who criticize or market the art. The only thing spared is the joy of creation (though this is a cautionary tale about letting that get too far out of hand).

I hope that Takashi enjoyed making the film, because I'm unsure about what to really say about it.

To be certain Takashi hits his targets with deadly and hysterical accuracy all along the way, but in the end I don't know what it all means. I was left wondering what the point was and why I bothered to stay all the way to the end. Okay, yes I know the reason I stayed, the bits carried me to the end, but when I got there I was kind of left wanting and unsatisfied. Perhaps the lack of meaning is the point, but at the same time I don't know why it took me two hours to get there.

Perhaps the films darkness and almost nihilism got to me. More than a fair number of people die both by their own hand and that of others (there is an undercurrent about suicide here). We also see the dark existence of some of the characters, for example Machisu's daughter becomes a prostitute to support her family. This is not a happy film despite the laughs. When it was over I was left in a very dark place.

What does it mean? I don't think it means anything. After seeing the film last night I sat down at the computer and tried to see if I could glean anything from what other people. Out of the six or seven pieces I read I got six or seven different interpretations. Everyone had the film speak to them in differing ways. Good "art" speaks to each of us in our own way and by that definition this would be good art, but then again so does a muddled mess.

Do I like the film? Yea, maybe, possibly. I like the bits. As a whole I'm not too sure. I don't think it all hangs together. For me its too mannered, too obviously constructed. I could pull it apart but I don't see the point. The films anti critical stance makes it a tough prospect (Though if I were to say something I'd say the first bit needs to be reworked. The middle section works and the final third needs to have an ending).

I think the film is worth trying, especially once you get to the middle section. Its almost required for anyone who has ever tried to create anything and had to put up with the slings and arrows of people "who know better". Its an interesting misfire with moments of brilliance.

Beyond that you're on your own. As for me I'm still pondering…