davehouses While at first for me it was a bit strange watching a Kurosawa film that didn't have Japanese actors or language (it's not a racist comment, I don't think; seeing his staging and framing without Japanese people, if you've seen a lot of his films can be a bit off- putting at first) the movie grows on you and you start to accept everything that's being chucked at you.The characters of Arseniev and Dersu are just pleasant to watch. You feel they really care for each other, as Arseniev is very accepting and understanding of the way of live that he has never confronted before in meeting Dersu. They just get along so well and love and respect each other so much and in every way, it's hard not to like watching them interact and go through situations together.You never see Dersu without Arseniev close to him in his life (either in context of their lives or physically), as the story is told from Arseniev's perspective, the years which Dersu wanders as Arseniev briefly returns to society in the middle of the film remains untold; but you do see Arseniev in the absence of Dersu (even if only for brief lapses) but you do feel the absence and wait in anxiety for Dersu to make his way back into the story.There's one bit at the beginning of the 2nd segment of the film, where Arseniev is told by one of his men that he came across a hunter, but when the hunter asked the name of the leader of his unit he was not allowed by regulations to tell him who his commander is, Arseniev then rushes into the forest and in frame there is a far off speck of a man climbing through the brush and as you hear Arseniev shout "Dersu!" hearing Dersu reply, "Captain!" as they rush to hug each other is just such a heartfelt moment. Towards the end of the film, Dersu's eyesight fails and accepts that he cannot keeping living off the woods like he has his whole life and Arseniev offers him a place in his own home, back in the city, which Dersu accepts. After a time, it becomes apparent to both of them that Dersu's soul is being broken as he tries to adapt to society and he cannot live as freely as he's used to, so he breaks the news to Arseniev that he must go back to the forest. Arseniev without saying a word, walks offscreen and goes upstairs and brings back his new rifle of the latest model and gives it to Dersu without a second thought. And the fact that Arseniev is so accepting of Dersu's choice and doesn't take offense to his leaving but accepts his decision and supports him is the heart of the movie.The movie seems to be about the end of an era and in the ever- progressing society that we live in, Arseniev discovers this life- force that walks to the beat of it's own drum even as everything progresses and becomes more civilized. Well that's how I explain the beginning of the movie and everything that follows.The cinematography and the editing are gorgeous, by the way. And, of course, the direction. The lighting CAN be a bit BIT outdated, like when they film night scenes by the campfire, but it's such a good movie anyway.

Venkatraman J This movie literally made me develop a bit of annoyance (to be polite) towards Hollywood movies. Every time I am set to watch a drama, there are few movies that come to my mind which set my expectation. But post this movie, this is the one that comes first to my mind. This has also helped me distinguish clearly between American culture and Asian culture (European here) and what to expect and what not to from Hollywood movies. Don't mean to write off Hollywood movies entirely. There are multiple masterpieces there and I continue to watch and re-watch many of them. However, very clearly, as Robert Altman once said while reviewing Rashomon, Hollywood probably portrays everything with the same causal and logical relationship but in an American setting with American characters portraying American culture, spoken language and body language. That really is the distinction which brings out, in all its glory, the Great American Arrogance (GAA).At the outset, great script, great cinematography, clinical direction, engrossing background score and performances by the actors that does justice to all the technicians' efforts.A bit of background about the movie - might not be new for Kurosawa fans. Kurosawa, after a series of failed movies from later 1960s to early 1970s, Kurosawa unsuccessfully attempted suicide. Thereafter Kurosawa set to work on a film based on a novel by a Russian explorer. Shot for more than a year under extremely harsh conditions, this movie won the Oscars in the foreign language film category apart from many other wins at various film festivals. This marked the re-entry of a master.The movie's beauty or its backbone is in the characterization. To verbally narrate this as a story to someone could be boring and futile as the impact lies in the characters and the screenplay. Extremely adorable characterization of the hunter. He would make you want to be like him or meet someone like him. He would make you think that such God-hearted souls exist only in the wilds away from the cynical and hypocrytic man-made parts of the world. In fact there is a similar line in the movie where the army men discuss that people like Dersu can be found only in the wilds. The character of the Captain is also extremely important as his thoughts and body-language impress upon the viewers Dersu's selflessness (viewers can see that the Captain literally admires him). Both these characters make the movie what it is.The movie is simply about what happens over a few days between a few Russian army men, their captain and a hunter in the Siberian forests. No real start nor finish. Nothing like a specific mission, specific event, specific incident, specific life story, etc. Yet it will totally have you in grips and you wouldn't want to get up before completely watching this movie and until you've seen what happens to the sweet characters in the movie and the relationship between them.At the risk of sounding tangential and biased / prejudiced I must compare, at a very high level, 2 Hollywood movies that quickly come to my mind with Dersu Uzala. Shawshank Redemption and Bucket List. Granted that both have a completely different theme and talk about something different. Yet there is a very striking similarly and a commonality. Both of them are about friendship between 2 adult men and mature. While I don't have much to talk about the portrayal of relationships in the 2 movies as that is purely driven by what the movies called for, I would merely compare the characterization which is what I came to realize as the GAA. While the character of Morgan Freeman in both movies is almost comparable (in terms of his personality and composure) to that of Yuri Solomin (who plays the Captain in this movie), the real difference is seen in the characterization of Jack Nicholson and Tim Robbins in Bucket List and Shawshank Redemption respectively. Both exude a bit to extreme levels of arrogance. And this difference is also seen in the characterization of support roles. This characterization, if not the comparison, is very important as that is really the highlight of this movie for which you'll fall in love with it.This movie reinforces Kurosawa's view of humanity and how he sees the world today. This is one of the movies that can have a lasting impact on one's personality (it did on mine). Fans of pure drama movies MUST watch this. 10/10.

Koundinya Winner, Best Foreign Language Film, 1976.Kurosawa's best film in color. It is one of the most beautiful movies ever made. Kurosawa takes you to the colorful and picturesque forests of Siberia; a treat to sore eyes.Dersu, a hunter in the forest, is a true son of the forest. He converses with all the life forms and treats them as fellow men with respect and fear. The soldiers ridicule his old-fashioned behavior but the captain sees him more than his customs- as a professional hunter and a guide. Dersu leads the troop into the Siberian forests, leaves them spellbound with his perfect aiming of the gun and his ever-alert ears that would sense even the faintest of the sounds. Dersu saves the life of the captain when they get lost and are caught in a fierce storm and the design of the cave-like-structure that saved captain's life further increases the admiration the captain has towards Dersu.Years later, the captain leads another troop on an exploration into the forest and the soldiers happen to meet Dersu. Dersu becomes a senile, crotchety codger and his sharp eyesight diminishes. He is persuaded by the captain to rest at his place in the town but he feels he doesn't fit among the fast-moving and weird world where people pay for water. He is later found dead after being killed by a thief who stole the gun gifted by the captain and the captain performs the obsequies in respect for their friendship.

ShannonTriumphant Yes, it sounds corny, but "Dersu Uzala" is (to me) really a love story as well as one of friendship; I cannot think of a more complete, platonic love between two friends. Just think of the scene in which Dersu and the "Capitan" spy one another through the dense woods, reunited after years, and rush towards one another, shouting each other's names. It was a giddy moment, and tearful.As much as these two very different men bond, they remain different. Though Arseniev is changed dramatically by Dersu's influence (as are his men, to some extent), Dersu remains pretty much the same. He is organic, part of his wild environment, as much as the trees, rivers or animals. His inner thoughts, though partly understood by Arseniev, remain largely a mystery to the sensitive Captain. In some ways, I think the latter likes this better than knowing all about Dersu, as if he ever could.Much has been made of the stunning scenery and Kurosawa's "lingering" way of filming it, which was so perfect. There were also very intense scenes, in which the two men were pitted against the very active forces of nature, such as a snowstorm and a raging river, not to mention the mysterious and symbolic tiger that stalks them. Add to all that the humor that bubbles up regularly, from both men, usually in surprise at the odd way the other does things, and you have a very dynamic film, despite its apparent tranquility. One of my favorite scenes is the Christmas encampment, in which the men have decorated a tree with various things like tin cans, forks and even chunks of ice. It signifies the turning point, especially for Dersu. At first it is comical, but this is also when he becomes obsessed with the tiger's "ghost".I can't imagine anyone finding the pace of this film "slow"; it is just right. Any faster and we would have "The Edge" instead (which makes me wonder if some of that was inspired by "Dersu Uzala"). Not that the latter film was bad--I actually like it quiet a bit--but it is no "Dersu Uzala"; few films ARE.-SPOILER- I agree with the person who wrote that Dersu's death seems appropriate; for, once his sight was almost gone, how could he live in his natural environment? And he could not handle modern, city life. It was the only way out for him, though quite sad. To me, it symbolized the death of the old hunter-gatherer culture across the world, and the "triumph" of industrialization. Even Arseniev, despite his respect for Dersu, makes no attempt to change his modern lifestyle to go live in the wild. He is content to be part of the 20th Century.The fact that the two men bond so deeply WITHOUT becoming like one another or trying to imitate each other to any great extent, is what makes this a love story, I think, and a tragic one. They know that they can never live in one another's worlds for long, try as they may.Some have compared Dersu Uzala to Yoda, but I think the old man would laugh at this. Unlike Yoda, he did not seem to see himself as particularly special, which was part of his charm. He reminds me more of Jeremiah Johnson or later, Lt. Dunbar, or better yet, Kicking Bird in "Dances with Wolves". He craves simplicity and merely living off the land, not wisdom, nor even enlightenment, as Westerners see it. Perhaps that's because he already has it.