It’s hard to get excited for remakes these days, but “Living” isn’t trying to replace its origins: It’s honoring them.
On paper, the premise for Oliver Hermanus’ newest film “Living” sounds like a nightmare. It finds its origins in “Ikiru,” Akira Kurosawa’s masterful 1952 film about a bureaucrat who has less than a year to live. To remake it — and in the English language no less — seems regrettably in line with the tired trend of unnecessarily reimagining movies.
Yet there is a reason no discourse could be found when “Living” first premiered at Sundance Film Festival. This film knows it can’t be as good as “Ikiru” and it isn’t trying to be. If anything, Hermanus wants to honor Kurosawa’s classic by prompting us to relive its emotions. Thus, one doesn’t expect the same level of nuance or precise craftsmanship, but affectionate filmmaking is still present.
The films center on an aging bureaucrat, known here as Mr. Williams, who suddenly realizes how little he has actually lived. This time around, Bill Nighy is in the shoes of Kurosawa’s protagonist, once played by Takashi Shimura. A performance as integral as this must excel to sell the premise. Nighy, fortunately, gets the film moving in no time. His quiet, spiritual performance hits the necessary notes to allow the film’s philosophy to flourish. It helps that Aimee Lou Wood is a lovely inspiration for finding how to make the most of life, whether it be in the simple activities or an appreciation for what she has. She proves her character as more than just delightful chemistry with the male lead and even more mature than him in some ways.
Nighy journeys through a beautiful environment. Extensive care is visible in Hermanus’ recreation of 1950s Britain. The setting is a heightened reality built to show the sudden liveliness Williams discovers. It’s ironic that this is also the film’s most apparent flaw. Although pleasantly presented, the filmmakers seem overly pleased with this aesthetic. It ends up distracting from the core narrative and the philosophy Williams encounters that already provide the right impact effortlessly. Perhaps this is where Hermanus wanted to differentiate himself from Kurosawa’s original approach — still very much in line with his intentions but unable to reach the complete potential of Hermanu.
Nonetheless, as much as the focus on setting feels like a miscalculation, it does not take away from the film’s central point. A sense of Williams’ discovery is spread across all aspects of the film. Audiences feel as though they’re along for the ride on his self-discovery and the transition of his view of a system he helps operate to a world just opened up to him.
The common ground seen here is in part because of screenwriter Kazuo Ishiguro. His appreciation for Kurosawa is evident. Ishiguro’s writing re-illustrates the themes of “Ikiru” without retracing. Not every contrast he generates is effective, though these changes provide a memorable platform for the film.
The most notable change from the original film comes in the form of Mr. Wakeling (Alex Sharp). Wakeling is a new recruit of Williams’ bureaucratic office. In “Ikiru,” Wakeling’s role was limited, but he now appears throughout the film to observe Williams’ change in attitude. He is not haphazardly thrown into his boss’ story. Rather, he coasts alongside the narrative providing commentary.
Wakeling’s presence expands the discussion of a subject “Ikiru” first sparked 60 years before. It does not merely try something different for the sake of being new, seemingly the target goal for “Living,” which it nicely accomplishes. Those hoping for the same mastery of the original would be disappointed. However, Hermanus’ film takes a step back to celebrate the impact of an already great film. The gaze the remake provides on the original narrative shows immense respect for Kurosawa’s masterpiece. This alone is deeply admirable.
Edited by Scout Hudson | shudson@themaneater.com
Copy edited by Sterling Sewell and Lauren Courtney