otherwise no one will resist the forces in the world that go against the individual and humanity. He is not a non-threatening person without concern for the world. He believes in action, and this is demonstrated in his films (he is more of an existentialist than he would probably care to admit). His politics are indeed radical--a radicalism of the center. His views are perhaps more of a universal threat than left- or right-wing ideology. He will always be in opposition no matter what the system is. The individual will always be in a struggle to find the way. Kurosawa is far from being apolitical--he is the ultimate political animal.
Is Kurosawa's political/social/philosophical obsession a bad thing for a filmmaker? The best filmmakers have usually been obsessed people. His sense of humanity and passion for people gives him a sensitivity that most filmmakers do not have. His films have many moving moments that could not have come from someone who did not care for people as much as he does. A problem that plagues most filmmakers is a lack of compassion for and insight into people. Most filmmakers are out of touch with "real people." The quality in Kurosawa's films comes perhaps most from his believable characters who act "real" in even "unreal" situations. He does not run out of stories to tell because an unlimited number of individuals are out there. He has something to write about, as opposed to the bulk of filmmakers, who, even if intellectually enlightened, are emotionally shallow. He is as technically skilled as anyone, but with him the characters come first. His human stories have struck a chord. So Kurosawa's humanism has actually had a very positive function, playing a major role in making him the great filmmaker he is. But Kurosawa's humanism has at times interfered with his attempts to make outstanding films.
The best films are not "message films." Films that try to make a statement first and worry ...