A Japanese lord hires a Korean painter to depict a scene of heaven, but is disturbed by his portrayals of human suffering which he claims are nothing more than the reality he sees. Lord Horikawa (Kinnosuke Nakamura) represents the worst excesses of Heian era society, living in luxury while the common people suffer poverty and abuse at the hands of his men. He hires the famed painter Yoshihide (Tatsuya Nakadai), commissioning him to paint a scene of heaven on the temple walls to represent the glory of his reign. Yoshihide refuses, saying he can only paint things he sees. He delivers the lord paintings of death and suffering, arguing that this is the reality that the lord refuses to acknowledge. The lord finally acquiesces to him painting a large scene of hell itself, challenging the painter to make him believe in it. Meanwhile, Yoshihide’s daughter Yoshika (Yoko Naito) is being held by the lord, after Yoshihide refused her relationship with his apprentice Hiromi.
“Portrait of Hell” is a good old-fashioned morality tale based on a short story by Ryunosuke Akutagawa and directed by Shiro Toyoda. Tatsuya Nakadai stars as the painter Yoshihide and delivers a nuanced performance, a man burdened by his artistic integrity and duties to his lord and his daughter. Kinnosuke Nakamura is suitably menacing as Lord Horikawa, self-absorbed and unmoved by the suffering of his people. The story itself is straightforward, with Yoshihide’s paintings seemingly coming to life to haunt Lord Horikawa, and an emotional subplot surrounding Yoshika and Hiromi’s relationship. The sets and costumes bring to vibrant life the Heian period noble court and a dramatic string score by Yasushi Akutagawa heightens the tension as Yoshihide’s paintings begin to have an effect on his benefactor.
The film’s timeless message of the struggles of the poor against an uncaring elite and the power of art to change minds is delivered with gusto, keeping the story focussed on a small main cast. Lord Horikawa is sinister not because he is needlessly cruel, but because he seems to lack empathy or even understanding of people less fortunate than himself. His vanity and privilige blind him to the needs of the common man. The final terrifying moments when his deeds finally catch up with him, in a sequence that delivers on the promise of fantastical vengeance promised earlier, is a fitting end and one that leaves you wondering about the fate of others who fail to heed the warnings about their misanthropic behaviour.
