Talk:High and Low (1963 film)

Underclass

In High and Low (Japanese title 天国と地獄 Tengoku to jigoku Akira Kurosawa made a political statement by having the main character work as a shoe industry executive who rose from humble origins as a simple leather worker, clearly implying (to Japanese audiences) the main character's burakumin status. The story has the main character selflessly sacrifice his fortune in order to save his driver's son, showing that burakumin are as heroic as anyone else.

--- from burakumin

Gondo himself, importantly, represents a member of the burakumin class who has risen above his caste and eventually validates himself in the eyes of the audience by his virtuous act, providing the ransom for a child that is not his own.

--- (uncited portion from High and Low)

---

• It is perhaps a little dangerous to use another Wikipedia article as a reference when it does not cite its sources. It gives the appearence in the burakumin article that it is using this article as a reference now and vice versa. Yomangani 09:34, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

• • I agree, it was probably a bit hasty of me to add the information, considering the political motivations some groups in Japan might have to retroactively associate themselves with a Japanese icon. I'm looking for a source, and will replace the language if I find one. Dhimelright 22:21, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Burakumin are known as the underclass who work with dead animals. In this specific case - Gondo is a leather worker who makes shoes. In the “briefcase and color smoke pellet” scene - he talks of his days as an apprentice who also made such cases. It is clear to Japanese people that even though Gondo has a nice house AKA Heaven - it's still in the burakumin part of town near the Chinese section of Yokohama. This was a common theme in Kurasawa's films. The Kurasawa statement comes from a film class Donald Richie of UCLA gave in the late 1970s or early 1980s. Forgive me for beating people over the head with the obvious. The source is likely an interview done by Richie. - Sparky 02:09, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

The problem wasn't that we were disputing whether he was burakumin or not, it was that the statement was uncited in both this article and the burakumin article, and until we have a verifiable source we shouldn't put it back in. You've given me something to work on with regards to finding a source though, thanks. Yomangani 09:27, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

And? - Sparky (talk) 16:03, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

https://akirakurosawa.info/forums/topic/high-and-low-the-burakumin-issue

- I told you so. Sparky (talk) 09:50, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Petty. 167.61.47.143 (talk) 19:51, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

critical notability

Re: the notability of critics, there are voluminous instances of films far less notable than a great film by a great filmmaker with links to minor film blogs. This link is from a major blog site that Wikipedia has its own entry on: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blogcritics; it is written by a film critic that Wikipedia has its own entry on: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dan_Schneider_(writer), about a film released by a DVD company with its own page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criterion_Collection; and about a version of the DVD that is newly released with new features that are detailed in a review that runs some 8 pages long. This is not just a thumbs up or down review. Given these four facts, to call the review non-notable, is absurd, since Wikipedia notes the company that released the dvd, the site that posted the review, and the writer. Given that there is slim linkage, this link provides a valuable resource for filmgoers and dvd collectors. Guffinmac (talk) 13:26, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi Dan. I think what people have a problem with is you using Wikipedia to plug your own reviews. It's not helpful, in fact it's spam. (StevenEdmondson (talk) 19:12, 28 August 2008 (UTC)).

note

a few recent edits had changed some of the meaningful content of the article, please check the sources provided before rephrasing. Plifal (talk) 09:09, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

improving article quality

although this article is still waiting at GAN, i'd really like it to be at a featured article standard. the biggest concerns i have currently are:

• a lack of access to the sourcing for the film's budget (which led me to excise reference to it in the body since no other source mentions it) and audie bock's "the moralistic cinema of kurosawa"
• lack of awareness of american copyright law for the images (and maybe other fixed size px concerns)
• copyvio concerns for some of the quotations in 'themes' and 'reception' sections
• inconsistent capitalisation of sources
• are redlinks bad in featured articles? i've seen reviews where reviewers have pointed them out as requiring a fix, and other articles which have them with no issues
• the multiref source of the variety magazines (feels weird/incorrectly formatted but i don't know why)
• 'cast' section (everyone in it is credited in the title sequence, but it feels a little underdeveloped(?))
• general copyediting concerns

there are a few other things i'm aware of, perhaps where more sources are necessary to cite a claim in the article, referenced articles that need translated titles/general cleanup, but those are the main things. tagging @TechnoSquirrel69 per our conversation. any advice is welcome and appreciated!!--Plifal (talk) 10:24, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

also tagging @Eiga-Kevin2 upon recalling our conversation a few months ago. any concerns or comments would be highly appreciated :)

--Plifal (talk) 12:21, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping! I'm not necessarily the best person to answer all of these questions, but here's what I can say, in order as above:

• This chapter in Kurosawa: Perceptions on Life appears to be available for in-library use at the Seattle Central Library. There may be someone in Seattle willing to scan the relevant pages and send them over. Pinging some Seattle-based Wikipedians — SounderBruce, Peaceray, Buidhe: do y'all have any more information about this?
• Are there any specific copyright questions you have? Glancing through the article, I don't see anything that should be a problem. I know there are folks in the #commons channel of the Wikimedia Discord server who probably know a lot more about this than I do. You might consider reading MOS:UPRIGHT for more information about image sizing markup.
• I would agree that these sections have far too many quotes, both from a standpoint of copyright infringement and of prose cohesion. In general, I like to use quotes when it would be impossible to paraphrase or summarize the source's ideas without losing significant meaning or detail baked into its particular phrasing. For a few examples, "the specter of miscegenation" is something I would keep, "emergence of a new urban topography ..." can be easily written different terms, and "a masterpiece" that is "full of fantastic ideas" and "great moments" is way overboard. This one might be enough for a reviewer to fail the GA nomination, so I would take a look at that as soon as possible.
• There's actually an ongoing RfC discussing capitalization. At this stage, I wouldn't worry about it too much, and it isn't the end of the world to make these kinds of formatting changes if someone asks for it at FAC.
• The relevant guideline supports intentional redlinks if the subject is plausibly notable and an article could be created at that title in the future. It's no different with FAs, in my opinion.
• I take less issue with the {{multiref}} than the fact that they're shortened footnotes with no corresponding full citations. It also seems like citation overkill for the claim they're ostensibly supporting.
• Nothing seems off about the cast on a quick glance through. Maybe consider making the column widths of the two subsections uniform.

Please let me know if there's anything else I can help with, Plifal! Always a pleasure to read through some of your work. :) —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 21:36, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

I am out of the area until early next week. I live in Port Townsend, WA, but I should be in Seattle for the 2025 Seattle International Film Festival Member Preview Night next Wednesday, & I will see if I can get a hold of it beforehand. Peaceray (talk) 21:59, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

much appreciated! theres no pressure but i would be so grateful, thank you!!--Plifal (talk) 23:00, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

this is a big help, thank you! i will begin to work on this soon. re. copyright, my major concern is for the image files that appear to not have american copyright licensing. i'm not confident in my ability to ascertain their licenses, but that's a rabbit hole i can go down if i must! thanks again--Plifal (talk) 22:59, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

GA review

This review is transcluded from Talk:High and Low (1963 film)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Plifal (talk · contribs) 06:59, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer: LastJabberwocky (talk · contribs) 20:01, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

Hi, I saw you already started a c/e-related discussion on the talk page, and I didn't know whether it would be confusing to get suggestions from two places (talk and this review). Anyway, I'm picking up your nomination! Also I do minor changes myself and we can discuss them here in case they are controversial. LastJabberwocky (talk) 20:01, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

I finished two section. I don't trust myself to continue and need to take a break (a sleeping kind of break). Get back to you soon! LastJabberwocky (talk) 20:01, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

hi! thank you kindly for picking up this review!! it's come at an awkward time though as i'm expecting to be hospitalised either today or later this week. i ask that you give me a week or two to make sure your concerns are addressed.—i'm aware of what's left that i need to do on the talk page above, so don't worry about restating those views. if your suggestions happen to conflict then we'll discuss them and come to a sensible arrangement :)

wishing the best.--Plifal (talk) 22:43, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

No worries, I'm still slowly progressing through the article. Wish you get better! LastJabberwocky (talk) 05:42, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

ok! and i'm discharged but still recovering. so forgive me if my responses come in fits and bursts. thank you again for picking up the review, it's been sitting at GAN for nearly half a year so i feel glad someone saw it. i responded to most of your concerns. i also went through a few of your edits and made sure they matched the sources/grammar so thank you for your second eye! looking forward to working with you more!--Plifal (talk) 03:13, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

Plot

"his top aide lets the "cheap shoes" faction know about the kidnapping in return for a promotion should they take over" I watched the movie and already forgot, did the secretary told the company about the kidnapping or about the planned buyout; or both? LastJabberwocky (talk) 20:01, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

both. the kidnapping was a secret. seeing that gondo was beginning to weaken, kawanishi tells the other executives that gondo was planning a takeover of the company but is faced with the kidnapping to deal with.--Plifal (talk) 03:13, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

"he ends up breaking down emotionally before after finally facing his failure." I need to think about it. I don't feel like film gives as an explanation behind the kidnapper's breakdown; it may be realization of his failure or he didn't like the calm reaction of the rich person who had to hate the kidnapper but didn't. Or other theories. I think we should cut "before Gondo after finally facing his failure" or hide it into a note backed by a source analysing this moment. LastJabberwocky (talk) 20:01, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

i agree actually, this was added by another editor, i left it there but i think the ending is ambiguous. left "before Gondo" but cut the rest.--Plifal (talk) 03:13, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

Production

"Having appeared in the 1962 film My Daughter and I, directed by Kurosawa's former assistant Hiromichi Horikawa, the decision to cast Tsutomu Yamazaki as the kidnapper may have been at Horikawa's suggestion." I think we should rephrase it. If I understand correctly Tsutomu Yamazaki appeared in My Daughter and I not the decision [sorry for pedantism :)]. If I remove "directed by Kurosawa...", the sentence would look like this: "Having appeared in the 1962 film My Daughter and I, the decision to cast Tsutomu Yamazaki as the kidnapper may have been at Horikawa's suggestion." LastJabberwocky (talk) 20:01, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

it reads ok to me. i'm not quite sure how the proposed edit fixes what you identify as a grammatical issue.--Plifal (talk) 03:13, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

I don't how to explain it. There are four ideas in the sentence: 1) Tsutomu appeared in the film 2) The film was directed by Kurosawa's assistant 3) Tsutomu was then cast as the kidnapper 4) AND this cast was possibly at the suggestion of the assistant. It sounds clear but think we can make it smoother by separating it into two sentences. As one sentence I came up with this: Tsutomu Yamazaki, previously appearing in the 1962 film My Daughter and I directed by Kurosawa's former assistant Hiromichi Horikawa, was chosen as the kidnapper, possibly at Horikawa's suggestion.

hmm. maybe "Having appeared in the 1962 film My Daughter and I, Tsutomi Yamazaki may have been cast as the kidnapper on the recommendation of the director Hiromichi Horikawa."? but then you lose the context for who he is, and i don't feel that this is really an improvement. it seems unlikely to me that many people will read the "decision" as what appeared in the 1962 film...--Plifal (talk) 12:25, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

Another option: "he chose Tsutomu Yamazaki to play the role of the kidnapper, possibly at the suggestion of his former assistant, Hiromichi Horikawa, who directed yamazaki in the 1962 film My Daughter and I." This one feels less heavy and my favorite so far. LastJabberwocky (talk) 13:11, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

agreed, i also like this version! thank you!--Plifal (talk) 13:37, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

 Done.--Plifal (talk) 08:14, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

Kurosawa also included cameos of his previous collaborators. I think you should add a couple of examples of the previous collaborators and maybe the most notable collaboration work. LastJabberwocky (talk) 20:01, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

 Done.--Plifal (talk) 03:13, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

The location of the final scene took inspiration from prisons in other countries, installing glass doors and wire mesh behind the windows. I couldn't access the source, do we know what countries Nogami is referencing? Otherwise, the sentence doesn't specific enough for an inspiration. OR we can turn it into something like this: "The prison set featured in the final scene contained elements uncommon to Japanese prisons, installing glass doors and wire mesh behind the windows." LastJabberwocky (talk) 20:01, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

sorry, it's only been published in japanese. the relevant line refers to "外国の刑務所", "other countries' prisons", i think it's an important aspect of the set design to comment on, especially in an important scene, but there's nothing really in the way of detail. the whole book is kind of like that, a series of anecdotes about working on set. concerning your suggestion: i feel a bit uncomfortable with that phrasing since nogami never says that they're "uncommon" in japanese prisons, just that inspiration was taken from other countries'.--Plifal (talk) 03:13, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

Fair enough! It's a nice bit of information, and since the source doesn't detail, we leave it be. LastJabberwocky (talk) 10:06, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

Maybe we should put these two sentences one after another since there are connected: required nine cameras to film. and All the cameramen at Toho were required to shoot the film simultaneously.. LastJabberwocky (talk) 20:01, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

 Done.--Plifal (talk) 03:13, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

While preparing for the train scene, the crew made numerous enquiries to Japanese National Railways; unaware of the reason for their questions one official eventually got suspicious and questioned their intentions. Do we have a resolution? What did officials suspect? For some reason the sentence sounds a little bit awkward but I don't know why. LastJabberwocky (talk) 20:01, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

i agree the sentence is a bit awkward. i've thought about how to change it, (e.g. "While preparing for the train scene, the crew made numerous enquiries to Japanese National Railways. An official, unaware they were shooting a film, had to ask them about their intentions.") but there isn't really any resolution or explanation. if you have any suggestions then please let me know. otherwise i don't mind removing it.--Plifal (talk) 03:13, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

My favorite solution is too add details; reframing the narrative then rephrasing the sentence is much easier. But here we don't have this option. I would remove the sentence. Also the source seems to be written by a fan, and we would've have to make the sentence even more awkward by prefacing it with "reportedly". LastJabberwocky (talk) 10:52, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

the source does contain reliable information (cross-referenced with other sources used since) but you're right that it's self-published. seemingly a holdover from when i first started working on this ages ago, i'll remove all citations to it. good catch! i'm pretty sure nogami says this in her book as well actually lol--Plifal (talk) 12:01, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

Themes

We should decide what theme each paragraph covers (or if you already decided please tell me). I interpret your paragraphs as: 1) general themes of conflict between rich and poor 2) contact/communication between rich and poor?; mystification of each other 3) kurosawa comments on the potential anti-capitalist message in the film 4) internationalism themes (closely related to capitalism) and general themes bothering the contemporary society (drugs, ecology problems, capital punishment debate) 5) general discussion about the rich vs poor conflict; and contemporary issues (rapid urbanization; "the old map of Tokyo was no longer useful")? 6) situation-action paradigm (I have many questions about it) LastJabberwocky (talk) 18:10, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

currently the arrangement is only loose, principally defined by the academic voice. however, i made sure that the paragraphs flow into each other relatively seemlessly; the method is something like: (1) intertextuality and morality, (2) structure and class relations + kurosawa's quote about anti-capitalism, (3) domestic change and internationalism, (4) narrative structure and domestic change in the creation of the film's environment, (5) kurosawa's formalism. the problem i'd have with formalising subsections, or even just re-arranging into paragraphs, would be that all of these themes play into each other and are analysed accordingly. as such it's impossible to separate the analysis of capitalism from that of structure, from that of modern society, from that of morality etc. and could cause wp:synth issues. looking at the thing (1982) too, i'm not so concerned that the layout breaks mos. if you have specific structural suggestions please share them though.--Plifal (talk) 03:13, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

I mostly like the structure; I have three notes that I need say before we tweak the structure/let it remain in place: 1) I puzzled by the 2nd and 5th paragraphs; I get the sense of what they mean, but not all the words I can understand (while most of the should be familiar to me). It can be my autism weirdness. i try to make suggestions later and we can pick the versions that we both like. 2) i think the third paragraph about changes in japanese society/ uncertainty will go well with the info from the fourth paragraph; starting with this sentence and until the end of the paragraph: "Similarly, Mitsuhiro Yoshimoto views this sense of bifurcated identity..." 3) while this sentence "Film scholar James Goodwin views the narrative's investigative structure" feels more connected to the social tensions than to anxiety and changes and maps. LastJabberwocky (talk) 12:11, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

(1a) re. the second paragraph, i'll write more about that below.

(1b) re. the fifth paragraph. i assume you're mostly referring to deleuze's analysis, who, if you haven't read before, is notoriously difficult to understand. he uses a lot of technical terms in a very abstract way and i encourage you to read the relevant sections in your native language if you have access to it. personally i don't think i could make the situation-action paradigm much more accessible than i already have without putting undue weight on it and going off-source.

I will give one try to come up with a simplified introduction to the paragraph to summ up the more abstract stuff for people who don't want to dive too deep. Not messing with the author's perpective but preface it with background necessary for understanding. LastJabberwocky (talk) 18:53, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

the issue is that to go too far into deleuzian philosophy would rot my brain lol (if people are interested in this they can click through and read for themselves), regardless, i've provided a bit more context for the situation-action paradigm that appears on the same page, so let's call this one  done.--Plifal (talk) 07:52, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

(2) the bifurcated identity in question relates to this specific sentence: "Gondo's heroic actions as the protagonist are questioned by his similarity to the kidnapper" which both yoshimoto and goodwin pick up on as themes (for yoshimoto it's urban anxiety, for goodwin it's social divisions and the nature of power) so i agree in principle, but where conrad's analysis is more historical, goodwin and yoshimoto are more literary.

(3) fundamentally, yes. goodwin is approaching the analysis from the perspective of social conflict, and he sees both the investigative structure and the environment of the third act as indicative of that.--Plifal (talk) 12:50, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

I wasn't direct enough :)! I meant these can be merged the point 2 and 3. I think it's works and doesn't involve SYNTH. Just themtically puting them together no further editing. ALSO I realize you dedicated the fourth paragraph to narrative structure, but most of the info talks about domestic changes themes so I would unite them. LastJabberwocky (talk) 18:53, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

The second paragraph is something like this: Stephen Prince notes, in his study of Kurosawa's filmography, a dialectical enquiry of perspective running through the film. He underscores this by focusing on the blocking of Kurosawa's characters and the use of modern technology that works to conceal identity. The narrative bifurcation that occurs between the wealthy Gondo's home and the geographical shift down the hill into the shanty town below it during the second half structures Kurosawa's framing of characters' decisions and moral perspectives.[46] When Gondo and the kidnapper meet in the film's final scene, "the existence and structure of class relations, is veiled, mystified to the sight of both an executive living at the heights of the society and a criminal who is aware of profoundly unequal standards of living ... It is the image of Gondo's house, not who he is personally, that triggers the crime". Film scholar James Goodwin views the narrative's investigative structure to be an interrogation of social divisions and the nature of power on the human spirit. He compares the third act's showdown in the unrecovered slum with the sump in Drunken Angel (1948) and the bombed out factories in The Bad Sleep Well (1960) as functional representations in the environment of the social harm of executive power. Gondo's heroic actions as the protagonist are questioned by his similarity to the kidnapper.

The thord paragrap: To historian David Conrad, the film's foregrounding of Japan's economic growth (such as the proliferation of personal luxuries, cars, air conditioning) reflects its growing internationalism.[49] This is observed through elements such as the Old West cowboy outfits Jun and Shinichi are seen playing in, and the nightclub seen towards the end of the film.[50] In particular, Conrad draws attention to the narrative's drug-related criminal theme and waste management as aspects that receive attention during the police investigation as indicative of the concerns of contemporary society.[51] He comments that despite the usual association of Kurosawa's films with a humanistic sentiment, the film ends by condoning capital punishment as an acceptable outcome of the justice system.[52] In addition he describes "the specter of miscegenation" that is evoked in the nightclub scene, which highlights the contemporary social restriction on interracial dating while subtly placing foreign influence under suspicion by linking it to criminality. Mitsuhiro Yoshimoto views this sense of bifurcated identity to present the film as an embodiment of urban anxiety during Japan's post-World War II recovery. New train lines were being built, the urban poor were being expelled from the cities, and the "emergence of a new urban topography meant that the old map of Tokyo was no longer useful."[55] The spatial reorganisation occurring in Yokohama is thus an interpretative act in the investigation which forms part of the characters' subjectivity.[56] He concludes that it does not fully reflect a renewed sense of nationhood, however, and considers its class commentary "reactionary". LastJabberwocky (talk) 18:53, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

i changed the placement from the first to second paragraph following my re-write of the latter, since it seemed to make more sense to talk about intertextuality and lead into discussions of social division. this way, too, the first paragraph acts somewhat as an introduction for the rest of the section, so i'm going to say this is also  done pending your approval.--Plifal (talk) 07:52, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

The first paragraph can be improved by deciding whether the comparison to Divine Comedy is effective. Currently the comparison is used to point out the conflict of extremities (rich vs poor) and Galbraith uses to contrast a physical manifestation of the conflict in the juxtaposition between the hill house (heaven) and kidnapper's house (hell). However, both of them aren't directly related to Divine Comedy; I think they more general about "The Most Lovely Place on Earth vs The Most Terrible One" and doesn't justify bringing in Dante in particular. LastJabberwocky (talk) 18:10, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

We can either 1) add more particular details to justify the comparison by tying the two narrative together; comparing thematically similar motifs, etc. The "Richie 1970" source writes:

• "Heaven is a measured place of muffled crisis where things as they are are insisted upon; hell is a chaos, wildly exciting, quite dangerous."
• "Mifune moves through this world like Dante himself, oblivious even when confronted with the evil that has wrecked his life"
• "the head detective, his brow furrowed, worries, invisible but watching over him, Virgil-like."

2) Or remove "In this comparison, Mifune's Gondo takes on the role of Dante himself, with the head detectives fulfilling the role of the angels, demigods, and Virgil." LastJabberwocky (talk) 18:10, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

personally i was surprised and thought it was notable that two authors both came up with the divine comedy comparison. i'll think about this more and get back to you.--Plifal (talk) 03:13, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

I think it can be notable, but I would add more details listed above. My thinking is: the comparison is made to showcase themes of High and Low through talking about themes of Divine Comedy. But we doesn't mention the themes of divine comedy outside of heaven/hell, and the sentence about "angels, demigods, and Virgil" can be effective for those who read divine comedy and can compare the two works, but i didn't and puzzled who is vigil and why he's in high and low :). LastJabberwocky (talk) 11:09, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

i understand you. i wrote a prospective paragraph below, but i think following your query it can be ammended to something closer to " ... representing the angels, demigods, and Virgil. To Richie the moral characterisation of the film is ethically unambiguous, Kurosawa aligns Gondo with the representatives of heaven. 'Heaven' and 'hell' are contrasted as such until Gondo and Takeuchi are forced to reconcile with the fact that they had caused each other pain." which makes the relation of the importance of the 'divine' theme between both works more explicit.--Plifal (talk) 11:54, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

The sentences starting with Richie writes that the ambiguity.. and until the end of the paragraph sound unfocused. There are for sure ways to improve it either with my suggestions or maybe you come up with something. They have opposing opinions about the depiction of the hell (poor district). We can clash them. Richie says "there is no doubt that Kurosawa is surely on the side of the angels. In this film there is not the slightest sympathy for the villain nor for the world that is his." While Galbraith concludes that hell "is, in part at least, seductive". LastJabberwocky (talk) 18:10, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

this probably comes from me trying to summarise his academic language. likewise with above i'll think about this more.--Plifal (talk) 03:13, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

ok had a think, and this is a change i came up with for the first paragraph:

"In his analysis of intertextuality, scholar and acquaintance of Kurosawa Donald Richie notes the oppositional extremity of High and Low's Japanese title, Tengoku to Jigoku—which translates to 'heaven and hell'—and underlines that by comparing Yokohama to Dante Alighieri's Divine Comedy. In this comparison, Mifune's Gondo takes on the role of Dante himself, with the head detectives fulfilling the role of the angels, demigods, and Virgil. Richie writes that the ambiguity of the film's ending is not one of character, and that as such it depicts a clear ethical distinction. He concludes in his moral analysis of the film that good and evil are made to coincide and made equal in their shared identity, that in realising themselves both Gondo and Takeuchi are offending the other. Stuart Galbraith IV also compares High and Low to the Divine Comedy, noting also that while Gondo's house looks down on the people below, Kurosawa conducts a 'hell' in Yokohama "that is, in part at least, seductive." He further proposes that Gondo's nouveau riche background and moral compass match Kurosawa and Mifune's own."

to

"In his analysis of intertextuality, scholar and acquaintance of Kurosawa Donald Richie notes the oppositional extremity of High and Low's Japanese title, Tengoku to Jigoku—which translates to 'heaven and hell'—and underlines that by comparing Yokohama to Dante Alighieri's Divine Comedy. In this comparison, Mifune's Gondo takes on the role of Dante himself, initially unaware of the evil confronting him, with the accompanying police representing the angels, demigods, and Virgil. To Richie, the moral characterisation of the film is ethically unambiguous, with Kurosawa "surely on the side of the angels", while Gondo and Takeuchi are forced to reconcile with the fact that they had caused each other pain. representing the angels, demigods, and Virgil. To Richie the moral characterisation of the film is ethically unambiguous, Kurosawa aligns Gondo with the representatives of heaven. 'Heaven' and 'hell' are contrasted as such until Gondo and Takeuchi are forced to reconcile with the fact that they had caused each other pain. Stuart Galbraith IV also invokes Dante in the depiction of the film's environment, noting that while Gondo's 'heavenly' house looks down on the people below, contrasts this with a 'hell' in Yokohama "that is, in part at least, seductive." He further proposes that Gondo's nouveau riche background and moral compass match Kurosawa and Mifune's own. "

what i will note about this change though is that i'm purposefully trying to minimise quotes, and the new construction also causes a potential issue in page attribution. i don't think we should remove reference to richie's moral analysis, but it doesn't really fit anywhere else. if you have any suggestions please let me know.--Plifal (talk) 10:10, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

 Done, implemented this revised version.--Plifal (talk) 07:52, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

"He praises the film's structure and blocking" is closer to reception. LastJabberwocky (talk) 18:10, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

 Done removed.--Plifal (talk) 03:13, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

"He underscores this by focusing on the blocking of Kurosawa's characters and the use of modern technology that works to conceal identity." We probably need to give examples for both, because I don't really know how the two opposites communicate with each other through blocking, and the only example for technology that comes to my mind is the use of telephone. The examples can be hidden into a note. LastJabberwocky (talk) 18:10, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

 Done restructured the paragraph.--Plifal (talk) 07:52, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

WIP

Release

WIP

Copyright

You were right copyvios picked up 43% similarity with this source (it doesn't open for me). Mostly in themes section and phrases that can be easily rephrased like: "At this point in his career", "had originally wanted to use", "to gain control of the". BUT before you start paraphrasing, I think we need to tweak the "themes" first; when we change the themes, maybe the copyright infringement will be minor enough that we won't have to touch other things. LastJabberwocky (talk) 18:10, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

 Done, removed the quote.

---