Tag: #film

Posted on

The Red Cross on White: Sovereignty, Community, and Visual Memory from Piero della Francesca’s Resurrection to 28 Years Later

This article examines the red cross on white banner as a recurring visual form deeply embedded in shifting contexts of power, identity, and affect. Originating as a protective emblem in medieval maritime and military traditions closely linked to Saint George’s cross, a symbol of chivalric defence and communal solidarity, the banner moves beyond fixed symbolism to function as a dynamic boundary marker. It mediates complex relationships between self and other, sacred and secular, order and chaos. Through its reappearance in both Piero della Francesca’s Resurrection and Danny Boyle’s 28 Years Later, this study reveals how visual culture operates as lived environments, a shared space of meaning and feeling where historical experience and political authority are continually negotiated and reconfigured across time and media.

Piero della Francesca’s Resurrection (circa 1463–1465) demands attention not only for its serene, monumental depiction of Christ rising from death but also for the vivid red cross on a white banner that Christ carries. This banner transcends traditional iconography to become a liminal object central to the painting’s complex visual and symbolic architecture. It functions simultaneously as a sign of resurrection, a marker of sovereign authority, and a token of communal identity. Its formal presence is woven through the spatial and political dimensions of the work, inviting a deeper interrogation of its role as a boundary-defining membrane hovering at the threshold between life and death, sacred and civic, order and chaos.

The red cross on white has a history stretching back well before Piero’s time. In the early medieval period, maritime republics such as Genoa and Pisa adopted it as an identifying banner for their ships. Flying this emblem across the Mediterranean was not simply an act of identification but a performative claim to protection and legitimacy. These maritime powers used the banner to signal their Christian affiliation while negotiating the precarious boundaries of trade and conflict. The red cross on white became a floating jurisdiction, a visual claim conferring both divine sanction and legal protection.

By the late twelfth century, the emblem had become closely linked with Saint George, whose legendary battle with the dragon enshrined a narrative of salvation through militant intervention. The banner known as Saint George’s cross was adopted by England and the City of London and raised on ships entering the Mediterranean from around 1190 onwards. The flag signified Christian identity but also English claims to authority in contested political and commercial arenas. The story of Saint George and the dragon embodies a complex relationship between violence and protection, sacrifice and sovereignty. The banner encapsulates this tension as both a symbol of deliverance and a marker of territorial and communal defence.

In Piero’s Resurrection, this banner’s visual and symbolic weight is central. Christ holds it aloft in a posture that is both active and contemplative, standing yet seated in a way that defies simple categorization as Baxandall points out in an essay in Words for Pictures. The banner functions as a vertical axis dividing the pictorial space, its stark red cross cutting through the calm landscape and the sleeping soldiers at Christ’s feet. These soldiers lie in twisted, almost theatrical repose, evoking classical motifs where mortals fall into sleep in the divine presence. Their slumber is a suspension between life and death that mirrors the paradox of resurrection itself.

The painting’s precise use of perspective places the event within a rational, measured space, reflecting Renaissance art’s focus on order and control. Yet Christ’s figure and the banner disrupt this order. The banner remains visually flat and iconic against the scene’s depth, functioning as a sign that exists between representation and symbol. This creates a tension that casts the banner as a boundary object, both material and image, marking the intersection of divine and human realms.

The painting’s original setting further deepens its layered meanings. It was made for the Palazzo della Residenza in Sansepolcro, a place of political governance rather than religious worship. The painted columns, which recall classical motifs, reflect the civic purpose of the space. In this context, the resurrection is not simply a religious event but a metaphor for political renewal and communal identity. The banner Christ carries thus serves as a symbol of sovereignty that unites theological and civic authority, affirming the community’s claim to order and divine favour. A more fluid boundary between the sacred and the profane.

Piero’s composition evokes classical mythology, particularly the story of Zeus, whose presence causes mortals to fall into sleep, blurring the lines between waking and dreaming, presence and absence. Christ’s paradoxical posture, both standing and seated, captures this very tension. The interplay of light and shadow creates sharp contrasts on the tomb and figures, crafting a metaphysical stage where earthly and divine realms meet. The banner’s flatness stands out against the scene’s three-dimensional depth, functioning like a herald’s standard that conveys both representational and symbolic meaning.

The painting’s placement within a civic building dedicated to governance adds a rich and multifaceted layer to its meaning. The architectural framing, including painted columns and classical motifs, deliberately evokes the language of political power and institutional authority. This setting transforms the resurrection from a solely religious event into one deeply embedded within the life and identity of the community’s civic structure. By situating this sacred moment within the space where political decisions were made, the artwork suggests a profound fusion between spiritual and secular realms. Divine authority and civic governance are presented as mutually reinforcing forces, each lending legitimacy and order to the other.

Within this framework, the banner Christ carries assumes a dual role that is both theological and political. On the one hand, it proclaims the divine victory over death, embodying the promise of resurrection and eternal life central to Christian faith. On the other hand, it acts as a powerful symbol of communal sovereignty and social cohesion. The banner asserts the community’s claim to stability and order, signalling a collective identity forged through shared beliefs and governance. It functions as a visible marker of political legitimacy grounded not only in faith but also in the practical necessities of maintaining civic order and solidarity.

This dual significance reveals how power was conceived during the Renaissance as a complex interplay between spiritual sanction and temporal authority. The banner mediates this relationship by bridging theological concepts of salvation with the concrete realities of political life. It stands as a tangible symbol through which divine mandate and social institution converge, reinforcing the idea that civic authority is inseparable from the sacred. In doing so, the banner becomes more than an emblem; it embodies the intertwined nature of sovereignty, community, and transcendence within Renaissance culture, reminding viewers that political power is always underwritten by deeper metaphysical claims.

This emblem’s persistence resonates powerfully in Danny Boyle’s 2025 film 28 Years Later, where the red cross on white flies above a fortified English enclave set within a barren, post-apocalyptic world. While removed from its original sacred and civic contexts, the banner retains its core associations with sovereignty, protection, communal identity, and traditional Christian resurrection. In the film, it functions as a complex symbol of resurrection, exclusion, and survival, a fragile claim to authority amid the breakdown of social order and the constant threat of contagion.

In this dystopian environment, the banner continues to signify resurrection and divine sanction in the traditional sense. At the same time, it marks a clear boundary between the enclave’s survivors and the hostile, chaotic world beyond, a world devastated by viral plague and inhabited by the infected. The banner acts as a membrane that both protects those within and excludes those outside, drawing lines of inclusion and exclusion that are political, social, and existential. It defines fragile limits of safety and belonging in a reality where trust is scarce and order has collapsed.

The emotional power of the banner remains strong, recalling the protective logic embedded in its medieval Mediterranean origins and the militant saint whose legend shaped the symbol’s meaning. This connection reveals how visual signs are adapted to new contexts, expressing ongoing human struggles with survival, identity, authority, and hope. In 28 Years Later, the banner suggests a desperate effort to reclaim legitimacy, sovereignty, and the promise of renewal amidst the ruins of political and social structures.

Further complexity arises in the banner’s symbolism within this post-apocalyptic narrative. It simultaneously gestures toward the resurrection of humanity, as a hope for survival and renewal, and the grim return of the undead, virus-made zombies embodying chaos, death, and uncontrollable rage. This dual meaning complicates the banner’s message, making it a marker of both life and death, order and dissolution. It captures the paradox of a community striving to maintain control and meaning while facing overwhelming forces.

Boyle’s use of this emblem creates tension between nostalgia for a lost social order and the urgent, precarious conditions of life in the present. The banner stands not simply as a nationalist or territorial flag but as a symbol charged with the emotional weight of memory, loss, faith, and the human will to endure. Its survival across centuries and media demonstrates the capacity of visual culture to carry historical memory and political theology into new realms, adapting as a dynamic site where past and present, sacred and secular, life and death converge.

The ongoing transformation of the red cross on white reveals how visual symbols carry complex histories while responding to new political and emotional demands. Both Piero’s fresco and Boyle’s film use the banner as a visual device that shapes space, defines identity, and mobilizes affect. Its clarity and legibility allow it to function as a boundary or sphere, separating life from death, inclusion from exclusion, and order from chaos. Its persistence across time and media underlines its role not as a fixed meaning but as a contingent, evolving instrument of power.

This approach avoids reductive allegory or oversimplification. Instead, it highlights how images like the red cross on white operate as vessels for political theology, visual culture, and affective experience. As the banner travels from the frescoed walls of a Tuscan civic palace to the dystopian landscapes of contemporary cinema, it carries a history of sovereignty and community that remains both ancient and urgently relevant. Its migration and transformation teach us how visual forms negotiate power, identity, and survival across moments of historical rupture.

In addition to the other Baxandall mentioned in the text, here are the works that are behind my thinking: 

Baxandall, Michael. Painting and Experience in Fifteenth-Century Italy: A Primer in the Social History of Pictorial Style. Oxford University Press, 1972.

Freedberg, David. The Power of Images: Studies in the History and Theory of Response. University of Chicago Press, 1989.

Panofsky, Erwin. Renaissance and Renascences in Western Art. Harper & Row, 1960.
Posted on

Crowned in Ruin: Resonances Between Kurosawa’s Ran and Anthony Hopkins as King Lear (2018)

This post builds on a few earlier posts in the same vein, Cassian Andor and the Shakespearean Tragic: Macbeth in a Galaxy Far, Far Away and Shared Shadows: Samurai and Scottish Kings comparing recent interpretations of Shaekespeare's works. Each of those posts considered how Shakespearean motifs migrate across aesthetic and cultural regimes, illustrating the persistence of his tragic structures as they are recontextualized—from the ritualized violence and visual codes of feudal Japan to the allegorical architectures of the Star Wars universe. @DM - Thanks again for the suggestion!

Across cultures and media forms, King Lear, like MacBeth, resists containment, defying easy categorization or fixed interpretation. Its tragic scope—centred on the violent disintegration of power, family, and selfhood—possesses a universality that transcends time, place, and medium, enabling it to translate with remarkable force into radically different aesthetic and cultural settings. This is not simply a matter of thematic portability, but of profound structural and psychological resonance: the fissures in authority, the betrayal of kinship, and the unraveling of identity under existential pressures are motifs that persistently echo across civilizations and epochs. When Akira Kurosawa’s Ran is placed in dialogue with Richard Eyre’s 2018 film adaptation starring Anthony Hopkins, what emerges is not a straightforward comparative exercise but rather a meditation on how cinematic form and cultural context serve as vehicles to channel and transform the play’s eschatological despair. Both works adapt Lear not by slavishly preserving Shakespeare’s text or its Elizabethan idioms, but by distilling and preserving its structural truths: the implosion of sovereign power, the fragility and fracture of family bonds, and the ravaging of selfhood through time, betrayal, and grief. The critical question ceases to be about fidelity to text and instead focuses on how each adaptation exploits its medium—film’s visual grammar, narrative economy, and sensory impact—and responds to its own historical moment to crystallize a shared metaphysical crisis that remains powerfully relevant.

Kurosawa’s Ran is steeped in the imagery, ritual, and disciplined austerity of Noh theatre and the monumental landscapes of feudal Japan, offering a reimagining of Lear through the figure of Hidetora Ichimonji, an aging warlord whose attempt to divide his domain between his sons triggers a cascade of civil war, chaos, and existential ruin. Noh’s emphasis on stillness, subtle gestures, and the use of masks to express internal states resonates profoundly with Kurosawa’s cinematic approach to Lear. Rather than relying on dialogue to convey psychological complexity, Ran conveys the ineffable through composition and the choreography of bodies within space—faces frozen in painted expressions of torment, eyes that communicate despair through a stillness that contrasts sharply with the violent chaos surrounding them. This ritualized embodiment of suffering heightens the sense that the characters are not merely individuals but archetypes caught in the inexorable machinery of fate. The slow, deliberate pacing and the stylized blocking in Ran echo Noh’s meditative rhythms, inviting viewers into a contemplative space where tragedy is not simply witnessed but intuited at a spiritual level.

This film is a work not of language or speech but of silence and visual poetry: moments of stillness punctuated by haunting gazes exchanged across blood-soaked battlefields, the sight of fallen bodies scattered across hills painted with a surreal red, and faces contorted into stylized masks of suffering and rage. Kurosawa deliberately evacuates Shakespeare’s rich verbal tapestry, replacing it with an intense focus on composition, movement, and the symbolic use of colour and space. The succession crisis, the brutality of civil war, and the devastating natural disasters that punctuate the narrative become more than mere plot elements; they are staged as elemental forces working against human order, as if the natural world itself revolts against the arrogance and folly of man. This is Lear refracted through a cosmology governed not by Christian providence or justice but by the inexorable logic of karma and cosmic balance. The film’s sense of time is cyclical and cosmic rather than linear: history is not a progression but a repeating pattern, where violence begets more violence and human folly is met not with divine retribution but with the cold, indifferent consequences of fate. The film’s epic scale and ritualized style invite viewers to perceive the tragedy as part of a universal, cyclical human condition, where individual and political collapse mirror the vast, relentless rhythms of the cosmos.

Moreover, Kurosawa’s masterful use of sky imagery throughout Ran amplifies the film’s cosmic and metaphysical dimensions. The vastness of the sky—whether storm-darkened, brooding with portent, or piercingly clear—serves as a mutable canvas reflecting the inner turmoil and external chaos that engulf Hidetora and his world. In key sequences, the sky appears almost as a silent, omnipresent witness to human folly and suffering, its shifting colours and moods marking the rise and fall of power and sanity. Storm clouds gathering above battlefields echo the gathering doom, while moments of eerie stillness under open blue skies accentuate the loneliness and vulnerability of the fallen warlord. This sky imagery resonates with the cyclical view of history embedded in the film: the heavens do not intervene with divine justice but remain indifferent, a vast and empty space that dwarfs human struggles and amplifies their tragic futility. The sky thus becomes a symbol of the cosmic order—or disorder—that underlies the mortal world, a reminder that human agency is caught within forces far greater than itself.

In this way, Kurosawa’s visual and thematic choices transform Lear from a tragedy of a singular monarch into an epic meditation on the impermanence of power and the fragile intersection of human will with destiny. The Noh-inspired stillness punctuating the chaos underscores a fatalistic acceptance, as characters enact their roles within a predetermined cosmic drama. This ritualized aesthetic deepens the film’s meditation on time—not as a linear march but as a swirling continuum where past violence informs present suffering, and where Hidetora’s downfall is but one turn in an endless cycle of rise and ruin.

In stark contrast, Eyre’s 2018 King Lear thrusts the drama into a recognizably contemporary and militarized state—a Britain that is vaguely 21st century, marked by post-democratic malaise and institutional coldness. This modern setting is not simply a backdrop but an active commentary: Lear here is not a tragic monarch steeped in dynastic tradition, but an autocrat unmoored from institutional constraints or moral accountability, whose hubris precipitates a breakdown resonant with the decline of modern empires and the fragility of late-stage political order. Anthony Hopkins’s Lear is portrayed with a brutal clarity, embodying a figure more brittle than mad, more cruel than noble, a man whose decline is accelerated by a society that demands strength and punishes weakness or ambiguity without mercy. The adaptation distills Shakespeare’s sprawling text to its rawest emotional and political conflicts, tightening the narrative noose so that the tension and despair are borne primarily through the actors’ performances rather than linguistic flourish. Here, the tragedy is stripped of cosmic or metaphysical grandeur and recast as systemic and institutional: it is the failure of governance, the erosion of familial loyalty, and the collapse of genuine care within a hypermodern, bureaucratic, and alienated social order that drive the narrative. Madness in this version is psychological trauma writ large, a fragmented internal collapse in a world that has become inhospitable to vulnerability, a bleak portrait of mental disintegration framed by cold, oppressive spaces that amplify isolation.

Yet, despite these vastly different aesthetics and cultural idioms, both Ran and Eyre’s King Lear converge around a powerful, shared image: the body stripped bare and exposed—on the storm-swept heath, amid the ruins of once-powerful realms, in madness, silence, and desolation. In Ran, Hidetora’s corporeal decline is rendered as a slow, mournful journey across desolate fields ravaged by storms and bloodshed, his mind shattered by the horrors unleashed in his name. His body becomes a visual embodiment of shame, madness, and the ultimate futility of worldly power, framed through ritualized imagery and the stylized masks of classical Japanese theatre. In Eyre’s adaptation, Hopkins’s Lear similarly staggers through urban wastelands and confining, prison-like interiors, his psyche collapsing under the cumulative weight of regret, betrayal, and lost authority. Both men are undone by the very power they once wielded—victims of a violent logic of their own making. Their children—whether daughters as in Shakespeare and Eyre, or sons as in Ran—echo this collapse structurally and thematically: filial relationships degrade into transactional calculations, virtue is met with indifference or cruelty, and kindness where it surfaces is either futile or extinguished. The family becomes a site where political and emotional structures alike unravel, embodying the deep fractures within human society and identity.

Though these adaptations differ markedly in their gestures, they resonate profoundly in tone and affect. Both reject Shakespeare’s verbal poetry in favour of registers suited to their respective media and cultures: Kurosawa’s painterly frames and ritualized blocking recall the precision and symbolism of Japanese theatre, while Eyre’s claustrophobic mise-en-scène and psychological realism immerse the viewer in a contemporary world stripped to its emotional essentials. Both invite audiences not to decode or intellectualize Shakespeare’s text, but to viscerally experience what happens when the scaffolding of meaning—family, order, sovereignty—collapses into chaos. The storm that rages in both works is more than a plot device; it is a metaphysical force, a symbol of the loss of place and belonging in a world turned hostile and indifferent. This elemental turmoil conveys a profound crisis of being, where the human self is uprooted from the structures that once gave it identity and security.

Just as Kurosawa’s Throne of Blood and the Donmar Warehouse’s Macbeth illuminated each other through resonance rather than direct comparison, so too do Ran and Eyre’s King Lear engage in a shared dialogue across cultural and temporal divides. Together, they create a sensorium of decay and desolation, drawing from culturally distinct but emotionally proximate traditions. One unfolds through the epic fatalism of Japanese historical drama, where ritual and cosmic cycles shape human destiny; the other, through the claustrophobic intimacy of modern political collapse, exposing the fragility of late capitalist governance and family life. Yet despite these formal and cultural differences, both leave us with the same haunting sense: that the human heart, once severed from love, responsibility, and the ethical bonds that sustain it, cannot endure the corrosive weight of its own power.