The Idiot

Akira Kurosawa's 1951 adaption of the Dostoevsky novel. It's a stunning film; every Kurosawa I watch seems to be better, his world extends. Also, for whatever reason I hold his modern films as highly as his generally more appreciated historical work.
Kurosawa uses deep framings and sharp depth photography. He packs characters into busy, tight, often low framings. Kurosawa moves between these with some quite shocking 180', and other non-continuity cuts. Each composition strikes us, one could also give a 'humanist' reading here; seeing things from both angles. The large compostions also mean that much of the 'action' takes place off-centre of the frames. There are often multiple characters in the busy mis-en-scene, Kurosawa's non-main characters who look on, who add something. It also allows wonderful possibilities for low-key acting. Also note that much of the SRS is enhanced continuity; those dynamic frames with heads tight on the onlookers (often back turned, even if their emotional is central) in the frame.
Kurosawa uses close-ups here more than usual. Often to start a scene then moving out, but also frequently after establishings, or just within scenes. He cuts in for emphasis, or generally for an affect. A wondeful rythm cutting between these extends time in scenes a quarter, 3 quarters, at the end (romantic), and the end of part one, to create Kurosawa's time.
So Kurosawa moves between these shots of high emotion, but rarely to never overdoes it; with crosscutting to the bar, to the crowd, suddenly restraining to a medium shot after a series of closes, breaks what could have been too much. This slow-fast rythm is that of the whole film. We have some long, incredibly complex scenes (in fact they're really multiple scenes in one location), then very quick flurries, with chaarcters almost hurrying to finish off what they're saying, get to the next point. These can even be scenes where in the classical narrative they would have major importancce; but Kurosawa is about the affect here.
These montages, the very beginning, the end of part one being the clearest examples, are fast cuts of expressive imagery that are simply stunning. There is movement in them, darkness, matchings on action across locations, time is compressed.
The acting deserves mention; Mori, the lead, has a wonderful clearness, directness without courseness, gentleness to his performance. His soft voice courses through his body. The real surprise is Setsuko Hara playing such a complicated, and dark, character. Almost Lady MacBeth like (i.e. Throne of Blood), her non-realist costume and intensity, a different acting style from the other performers, creates the aura required.
As far as the narrative, the non-suspense, as mentioned interest in affect before narrative, is also clear as the ending is given away at the start. This intrusion of narration doesn't yield a morality play, but there is a kind of fatefulness. The metronymic way that others' pettiness comes out, the impossible choice they give the 'Idiot', how they play with him. Is Kurosawa moralistic? Yes. Is he, ultimately, completely right? Yes.