Nordling wrote:Admiration does not = g.a.y.
You're bringing modern sensibilities into these character's motivations. In this film and in a lot of films of this period, people wore their emotions on their sleeves.
I'll give you the first part, that I'm bringing modern sensibilities to the film. But I'll also mention I was making a funny on this point. Obviously he's not Dumbledore...he wouldn't have boned the farmer's daughter at the end if he didn't like the ladies. But I stand by my point about him wandering off during the battle planning so he could lay in a field of flowers. That was ridiculous, not childish.
Nordling wrote:And Kikuchiyo is the same in a lot of respects. He wears his emotions openly, much like the villagers. He is a farmer's son. He knows something the samurai do not - that the farmer is the lowest of the low, barely making an existence while the samurai think of nobly dying in combat.
I actually liked Kikuchiyo, but didn't realize it until he died. But it was what the character stood for that I liked...not the performance. In fact, I'll come back to that at the end.
Nordling wrote:The samurai are arrogant, and they cannot relate or even see people beneath their station. They are of two entirely different worlds, and Kikuchiyo is the buffer between the two. When it's over, we assume that both the samurai and the villagers have taken something from the other.
I don't entirely buy this. Yes, most of the samurai were arrogant. But Kambei accepts the farmers offer when he learns what they've sacrificed to get his help. The other samurai Kambei recruits gain a measure of this selflessness just by aligning themselves with him. Hell, one of the samurai is even found chopping wood to repay a meal. I understand both groups are from different worlds but the 7 samurai in question continually break through the stereotype to show kindness and forgiveness to the villagers. Though I do agree with statement on Kikuchiyo's role as buffer.
Nordling wrote:Not to be insulting, but you aren't understanding the context of what you are seeing. This film isn't in a vacuum. There's a lot going on than what is visibly apparent. SEVEN SAMURAI has a huge amount of subtext - subtext about class, subtext about Japan at the time.
I accept that you aren't being insulting, but I do grasp the context of the film. You'll notice in my original review, my beef is with the performances, not the story or subtext. A film can have infinite meaning, but if you don't like its presentation than it doesn't matter. Hence my point from earlier about Kikuchiyo. I really, really liked the
idea of him. I hated how everything he did was accompanied by screaming and the need to bounce around like Tigger.
You can, and probably will, tell me that the characters were acted as they should have been...many people have. I'll even accept that Kurosawa got the exact perfomances that he wanted from each of these actors. But to me, it didn't feel natural or sincere. It felt over-the-top and often hammy.
I got the context, I liked the context, but I didn't like the film. That's the problem with context/subtext...it's in the background. In this case, I didn't like the foreground. And since you need both to make a film like this, it failed for me.
Posted: Sun Jan 07, 2007 9:56 pm
