metalluk's Full Review: Samurai 1 - Musashi Miyamoto
Plot Details: This opinion reveals minor details about the movie's plot.
The winner of the 1955 Special Achievement Academy Award (precursor of the Best Foreign Film Category) was a Japanese film directed by Hiroshi Inagaki called simply Samurai. It turned out to be the first installment of a three part trilogy and to distinguish it from its successors, it is now typically entitled: Samurai 1 or Samurai 1: Musashi Miyamoto. The relationship between the three segments is essentially like that of the recent Lord of the Rings (LOTR) trilogy. Although any segment could be enjoyed in a separate viewing, both of the first two segments leave audiences hanging a bit. Only the third segment provides full narrative closure. I find it interesting that it was the first segment of the Samurai trilogy that was recognized by the Academy while for the LOTR trilogy, it was the final segment that was showered with awards.
It is also interesting that various reviewers of these films differ enormously in how they rate the three segments against one another. One reviewer states, “The second one – speaking honestly – I absolutely hated. I felt like I wasted my time.” Another reviewer states, however, “I recommend watching [the first segment] only so you know the character relationships for the much improved part two.” Comparisons among the three segments really aren’t important because all three segments must be seen to get a sense of the overall value of the work.
Various reviewers also differ in the standing of the films of Hiroshi Inagaki in relation to his more famous “competitor”, Akira Kurosawa. One reviewer (with whom I agree) states, “The Samurai Trilogy is a very good work, very well worth watching. No, they aren’t as great as Kurosawa’s samurai masterpieces: The Seven Samurai, Yojimbo, or Sanjuro.” Another reviewer (with whose judgment I can't agree) states that in his survey of samurai films, his “second experience was The Seven Samurai. I am going to be bold and admit that I hated it. . . . I thought maybe if I didn’t like Akira Kurosawa’s films maybe I would like his competition, Hiroshi Inagaki. Yes, I was correct.”
I suppose these differences must have a lot to do with what one does or does not find appealing in the samurai code of behavior, so let me say a little something about my own views with respect to violence, honor, glory, and competition. Violence, in my view, is as close to being the core problem of the human psyche as any one issue. I deplore it and support nonviolence as a philosophy. I am not quite, however, a pacifist. I believe that violence is sometimes not only justified but required – given the world in which we live. Nevertheless, I am convinced from my observations that unnecessary reliance on violence is a far more common problem than its opposite – excessive temerity or appeasement when violent response is morally required. An idea that seems central to the samurai code is that one heaps glory on oneself through violent confrontations. That view is for me a manifestation of the worst kind of banal self-deception. While I respect those who bravely confront evil (repressive regimes, would-be conquerors, criminal assaults, etc.), whether by violent or non-violent action, I see absolutely no honor or glory in violence for its own sake.
I appreciate that it is part of human nature to want to excel, to test one’s skills against other people . . . even the desire to dominate is understandable. My admiration for sports and intellectual games stems from the fact that to me such competitions represent the appropriate venues for the natural human desire to pit oneself against others in aggressive competition. Bird against Magic! Clemens pitching to Manny. Sports and games are the ideal sublimations for aggressive instincts. By contrast, duels with swords or guns, quick-draw shootouts, games of Russian-roulette, and so forth strike me as simple insanity.
Consequently, my reaction to any samurai or martial arts film depends in large measure on whether the highly-developed fighting skills of the protagonist(s) are being employed toward some moral purpose. The Seven Samurai works for me because the defense of a village against marauding bandits is a goal I can buy into fully. Ran works in a different way. The violence is to no good purpose but all of the principal characters are figures made tragic precisely because they fight and die senselessly. Moritoh, in Gate of Hell, is initially heroic in the application of his skills and later rendered tragic by his obsessive need to possess Lady Kesa. Here in Samurai 1 Takezo poses something of a problem for me philosophically. At the beginning of the film, he dreams of glory by going off to war – a dream with which I cannot identify, a dream that, in my opinion, is inherently insane. Later, when the war is all but lost for his side, he nevertheless sprints into battle hoping, at least, to cut off the head of a captain. Obviously, he believes there is glory in killing an opponent even when there is no remaining cause at hand. In the middle part of the film, Takezo is basically in the position of a renegade – an outlaw – being ferociously hunted. He has been reduced to an animal to be hunted down. Here I can identify with his behavior as he desperately fights for his life. His violent efforts to survive are morally justified.
Finally, as the film closes, we see the now trained and educated samurai ready to embark on further training and “spiritual enlightenment” through travel, during which time he will presumably violently confront various challenges. For what purpose? There appears to be no object in his quest other than to perfect a capacity for violence. Thus, I have a problem with the fundamental premise of this film. It seems to be glorifying the worst of human nature – violent confrontations for the mere purpose of acquiring a reputation as a skilled warrior. To call this a “spiritual quest” really adds absurdity to what is already immorality.
Premise aside, the cinematic qualities of Samurai 1 are very good indeed. Toshiro Mifune, whose acting I do not always find to my liking, is highly effective as the lead character, Takezo. Here in this film (and even more so in the trilogy taken as a whole), Mifune’s character undergoes very substantial development as a character. This gives Mifune the opportunity to employ all of his characteristic butt-scratching and fly-swatting antics to depict the young and wild Takezo while later toning down his approach to depict the cool mature samurai version of the character.
Although this film is in no wise the equal of the great Kurosawa samurai films, there is one respect in which I actually prefer Inagaki’s work – the handling of the female characters. Kurosawa films are often woefully lacking in female characters of either substance or nuance. Here in Samurai 1, we have several interesting female characters, including Otsu (Kaoru Yachigusa), Akemi (Mariko Okada), and Oko (Mitsuko Mito).
The cinematography of Samurai 1 is outstanding. The color is vibrant, the natural vistas are gorgeous, the costumes are outstanding, and the battle scenes are all wonderfully choreographed. What Samurai delivers in abundance is action and Japanese culture. No doubt about it! There is romance as well, but most of it is defective one way or another – unrequited, unfulfilled, or seductive in nature. No one in this film really seems to care very much about anyone except himself or herself.
The Criterion DVD versions of this film and its successors are the preferred format. Each segment comes on a separate DVD. They are in Japanese with English subtitles. The running time for Samurai 1 is 93 minutes.
*************************************************************************************************
You might want to check out these other excellent films from Japan:
Epinions.com periodically updates pricing and product information from third-party sources, so some information may be slightly out-of-date. You should confirm all information before relying on it.
- Add to My Yahoo!: 
- Add to Google Homepage: 
© 1999-2009 Shopping.com, Inc.