Seven Samurai: More Comments on Responses, and Other Thoughts

1.  A couple of people raised questions about Manzo and the armor.  Again, Manzo is the epitome of all the worst stereotypes of peasants.  But what is so brilliant about the movie is that Kikuchiyo then takes these stereotypes and contextualizes them, which brings Kambei to tears.

Back to the armor: the peasants would not have engaged in battle with samurai.  Rather, they might "sweep" a field of battle after the battle is over, "recycle" whatever they find, and kill any wounded samurai (or otherwise helpless samurai) who are left.  The samurai in the film are upset enough about the "stealing" (it's transgressive for peasants to have such things); but they then get even more upset at the thought of peasants killing samurai.  On the other hand, I don't think that this concern would extend to the ronin who constitute the bandit group.

2.  The "good" samurai.  A part of me can get a bit cynical about this.  The good samurai are, in a sense, too good to be true.  They are almost an abstraction; in effect, a reification of samurai ideology.  These samurai are necessary because Kurosawa is, among other things, producing an epic about Japan, and in particular, its wartime and postwar history.  The good samurai are, in essence, a wish-fulfillment fantasy.  If only our rulers/warriors would behave like this.  In reality, they've more often acted like the bandits.  But if this is a moment of "hope" in Japanese history, then Kurosawa is expressing the hope that a democratic, united, peace-loving, equitable Japan is possible.  So many aspects of society are present in the film, including social welfare, politics, economics, class, and power.

3.  Values.  (Prompted by Hale's comments.)
In general, the good samurai are good because they are unselfish.  They are not attached to things, they don't cling.  They are usually acting "in the zone."  There is a purity to their action, epitomized by Kyuzo, who is still flawed (cf. his comment about wanting to kill the villagers), but is mostly pure.  He's human, after all, even if Katsushiro doesn't think so.  I am writing this with the Bhagavad Gita in mind, of course.  And now I'm getting even more excited: could we say that the samurai are performing their dharma with, perhaps, karmayoga (the yoga of action).

Another cultural value: mujou.  I can't emphasize this enough.  Several comments describe this without using the term.  But if, like Allison, you're talking about the journey more than the destination, then you're talking about mujou.  Mujou states that the world is fundamentally one of transience and mutability.  Things/people come into existence and leave existence.  Everything is always in flux.  Clinging to things is senseless--Manzo is the best example of this.  So, mujou.

As for Kambei (and as you might tell I'm still reading Hale's post), you may recall that I mentioned Cincinnatus in class.  Here's something from Wikipedia:

When his son, Caeso Quinctius, was convicted and condemned to death, Cincinnatus was forced to live in humble circumstances, working on his own small farm, until an invasion caused him to be called to serve Rome as dictator, an office which he resigned two weeks later, after completing his task of defeating the rivaling tribes of the Aequians, Sabines, and Volscians.

His immediate resignation of his absolute authority with the end of the crisis has often been cited as an example of outstanding leadership, service to the greater good, civic virtue, lack of personal ambition and modesty. As a result, he has inspired a number of organizations and other entities, many of which are named in his honor.

Although Kambei doesn't literally resign, in a sense he represents what an idealized military leader should do.  Rather than seeking power, such leaders should "fade away," as Douglas MacArthur said.

And maybe a last thought about individuals.  Perhaps I can once again cite Cincinnatus' example.  His reputation as a hero is in large measure due to the fact that he did not seek individual power, but rather faded away once his task was completed.  So, in my interpretation, both the individual and the group are both valorized.  

4.  I want to call attention to Andrew's discussion of "necessary."  He makes some interesting and thought-provoking points.  It would be necessary (ha!), however, to consider exactly what Richie means by unnecessary.  My thought is that he means this figuratively, not literally.  

5.  Conor's response makes a point that will come up again in "Harp of Burma" (two weeks from now).  All of the samurai (good and bandit) are destitute (except for Katsushiro, the spoiled but earnest rich kid), but the bandits are faced with defections.  It's almost as if they can't keep unified except through fear because they have no positive values or beliefs.  In this sense, the bandits can be related to the wartime Japanese millitary. which was united ultimately by a feudal kind of loyalty (to the Emperor), while the "good" samurai are united by social and ethical values.  

6.  Did anyone wonder about the muskets?  They're mentioned in passing in our readings, but not in any detail.  

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tanegashima_(Japanese_matchlock)

7.  Had the samurai lost as of the end of the film?

8.  Sam mentions Prince's comment about Kurosawa not repeating camera set-ups.  That's a yes and no.  In general, I am deeply impressed at how Kurosawa doesn't feel the need to conform to classic concepts of "continuity editing."  Yet we must also note that there were three static camera positions in the village.  However, he used camera angles and editing to make everything seem very vivid and not staged.

9.  The class thing is tricky.  Prince may be exaggerating class fluidity just a bit.  It would have been unlikely for a farmer to become a samurai of Kambei's stature (or of Katsushiro's lineage).  What happened most often is that peasants were recruited to become spear-bearers--essentially, the infantry.  Because the definition of what actually constituted a "samurai" was somewhat porous, the spear-bearers could be considered samurai in some sense.

Anyway, when you are thinking about the porousness of class barriers, it's essential to remember that there was a lot of downward mobility as well.  There was nothing to say that any of the samurai could not have decided to symbolically "renounce" their samurai status and become farmers.  In other words, it would not have been impossible for Shino and Katsushiro to be together (as I think I already wrote in my previous post).