A few Grey Areas [plot points discussed]

I just want to cut straight to the point here... I think this film is great, but I just can't help but feel that there were a few grey areas that were poorly explained or implemented without a deftness of touch...

Firstly the Chinese man who has lived in the mountains for 40 years - Dersu tells Arseniev of this mans plight and the film alludes to the fact that Dersu has crossed paths with the old man before [ for to be able to know such knowledge]. Arseniev; in honour, then approaches the old man with a gift of food & water, this gift awakes the old man out of his stupor, he seems fragile and incapable. How has this man survived in the wild for 40 years? We find out at night as Dersu and Arseniev are sitting around the camp fire and Arseniev wishes to further extend his hospitality to the old man but Dersu says not to - and that he 'is happy enough to stay there and imagine beautiful houses and beautiful gardens'.

My theory is that this old man is some kind of spiritual representation of nature. A representation that Dersu has great respect and knowledge for. When the old man is in this stasis and imagining such beauty, could this represent nature’s lust for people to accept and get along with nature? This I am unsure!

Regardless, the soldiers have camped at nature’s doorstep and have dearly offered him food, warmth and water. Such kindness shown to nature has made the old man realise that it is futile to remain within his dreams and the magical stasis that has allowed him to survive alone for so long. And so the next morning, the old man decides that he should leave and return home to the place that 40 years ago, he suffered hurt as his wife [possibly mother nature] was overturned and consumed by a brother [possibly allegorical of humanity]. Humanities consumption of nature was a theme that Kurosawa liked to explore and although this scene [and film] doesn't truly open up to it [for me the film is more about the expressions of nature and how one man can thrive within its fruits], it seems visible in the very slightly aligned subtext.


Initially at the start of this prose I was wondering the significance of this scene; it seemed abstract and unnecessary but unsurprisingly, after having written this analysis, I feel that most of the grey areas of my mind have been blown away and I only hope that Kurosawa meant for such allegorical subtlety when co-writing this scene.

Now feel free to tell me if these are merely the writings of a mad man! But what were your thoughts of this scene? I for one was initially baffled.

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Also [now as a complete side note in relevance to the above findings] could someone please explain to me the whole raft scene on the river? Initially, it is obvious that both Arseniev and Dersu were trying to save the raft; or more precisely the rope, as they shout to the scrambling soldiers "quick, throw me the pole" as the raft begins to gain momentum.

Further down the river however, Dersu loses his cool and pushes Arseniev off the raft in an attempt to save him! My misunderstanding is in why Dersu didn't follow Arseniev off the raft and swim to safety? This later causes a stir as he jumps off onto an anchored tree and the crew, most notably Arseniev begin to flounder and panic as they try to rescue him. In essence why Didn't Dersu jumps off earlier? I understand he was trying to be a hero and save the raft but I feel that this facet was shown rather poorly in either acting or direction.

My idea on the matter is that this scene was a highly problematic one to shoot and so they only planned a few takes. In the script I think Dersu was meant to push Arseniev off the raft and then continue to pick up the pole and try to fight and save the raft. however in reality and within the flow of the scene, Dersu mistakenly drops the pole as he pushes arseniev off the raft and just improvises by standing there looking wary, until he proceeds to jump off the raft. I have this notion in my head because if he hadn't dropped the pole and continued to battle the current, this would look both heroic and comedically futile - a facet in which the whole of part 1 builds up. Any thoughts?