this is the worsrst movie ever!!!!! - Seppuku (1964) Discussion

[–] 19 years ago

[deleted]

[–] TaxiDriver1982 19 years ago

For the same reason,i disliked Ozu,where a film seems like five hours of your time,rather than two....
I disliked Harakiri,my first Kobayashi watch.

The suicide scene was amazing,and the end was amazing where the father in law collapses...sort of like the Throne of Blood death scene,its impact.All against you...

I did not like the talky side of it,as i had experienced Rashomon and loved that,because of its WOW factor,in telling the story differentlyand made me ponder.Harakiri didn't have the same affect,i was bored to be honest.Rashomons length could have done here..90 mins.It was the perfect length for Rashomon,and that had alot of talking.

Harakiri goes on and on,trying for us to get a connection with the son in law...pity or whatever.I never felt it.Instead i only felt from this film a rebellion by teh father in law,the revenge aspecty which only came in the last part of the film.And this for me over-rided the son in law.Afterall he decided to commit seppuku,he did it...so what.

The samurai code here..i was reading..is essential to understanding...HONESTY..and doing things the right way...the particular clan did not do so..Ok Ok..But couldn't it make its point in 15 mins,rather than what seemed like an hour.And had the seppuku and quick flashback....followed by the revenge aspect.

I am severely hesitant about watching Samurai Rebellion,but will see it soon,and have a better view of Kobayashi.The one man against all aspect.is a good story,so Maybe i would like Samurai Rebellion better.

Harakiri is a masterpiece for its craftwork..alot of work was put in,in every area.Dialogue though..i liked the screenwriter much more in Rashomon,the honesty aspect on a more general human level..came across very well there.

The long scenes without a change in camera style...was like reading a book..which i don't want to do,when i watch films.It had plenty of that in the courtyard.Rashomon had people in the background looking on.it was much more confined..you looked at the witness face to face...etc

The fight scene in the grass...was amazing....I give it that:)..and the seppuku scene..as well as the ending where they all gang up.Those three are master touches,enough to warrant one viewing at least.

reply

[–] 19 years ago

[deleted]

[–] TaxiDriver1982 19 years ago

Just like in Rashomon or Harakiri which deal with hypocrisy,,humans have different views.
Rashomon took me two or three viewings to see the majestic film-making,and the TIMELESS message,that the world has indeed come to its evilest,nowadays...and who can you trust,to be honest?
Not much action besides a couple of sword fights.But in the short film length,i thought its excusable.I guess i liked the actors more,i knew them from most of Kurosawas masterpieces.

Harakiri had masterclass all over it,and a patient buildup,to cover everything in detail,but i knew sitting through it,it's not one of my favourites.That was it,some people connect with certain masterpieces.Certain people will connect with the Other masterpieces out there.It's a mad circle.

Films in the neorealism circle like..Umberto D,Bicycle Thief,Nights of Cabiria etc..i recognised for their masterclass,but i did not connect.I do not like depressing films,i'd prefer to keep only a couple in my collection in that vain.
Maybe that was my mindset watching Harakiri.

Also,Kurosawa even did bad films,to my mind.I did not like his humour/silliness in Yojimbo and Hidden Fortress..extremely westernised.Maybe other people adore those films:).
Also film noir is not a genre i like,recently i woke up to how much Casablanca is overrated..and how Citizen Kane/Third Man are not that JOYOUS,,but still they are masterpieces for their craft and the period they were made.

Lawrence of Arabia is overrated for me...it is visual,but the story doesnt interest me...Whereas i can watch 2001 A SPACE ODYSSEY or ONCE UPON A TIME IN THE WEST spellbound for the 2.5-3 hrs by their majectis cinematography and beauty....lawrence of arabia was a bit contrived

etc etc

reply

[–] TaxiDriver1982 19 years ago

P.S i just watched Samurai Rebellion,and adored it...I think its due to the more emotional,human connection.

The direction was superb,and What a Mifune Performance!.You feel sorry for everybody concerned here,and like it when he rebels.

reply

[–] 19 years ago

[deleted]

[–] supercygnus 12 years ago

Your post is terrifying. You are entitled to your opinion but your opinion is still terrifying. And Lawrence of Arabia was true story. So your argument is that the true story is contrived.

reply

[–] slowdown 18 years ago

"The samurai code here..i was reading..is essential to understanding...HONESTY..and doing things the right way...the particular clan did not do so..Ok Ok..But couldn't it make its point in 15 mins,rather than what seemed like an hour.And had the seppuku and quick flashback....followed by the revenge aspect."

Actually, I think you've mis-understood the film. You said the clan "did not do so" but the clan DID do everything right. TO THE BOOK. (and to a fault) But they were so rigid in their compliance to the samurai code that they ignored the cruelty of what they were doing, they ignored morals. See the difference? What you described really would have been a boring movie, but Harakiri does more than a simple "they were wrong" kind of scheme. It asks "WERE they wrong?"

So to answer your question... no, it couldn't be done in 15 minutes.

---
there will be snacks.

reply

[–] sickerthanmost 17 years ago

Actually TaxiDriver, the screenwriter is the same as from Rashomon, so you like him better than himself?

By reading your post, it's obvious that you missed the main points that this movie made. Not saying you have to like it, just that you should feel comfortable that you understood it before spouting drivel.

reply

[–] mrura 15 years ago

god damn you and other idiots that carelessly include spoilers.

reply

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] mrura 15 years ago

how is the age of a movie a valid excuse for the lack of a spoiler warning? saying that is as stupid as the person who actually posted the spoiler. maybe worse, because you meant it.

and for your information, when i'm trying to decide which movie to watch, i like to look them up in IMDB to get some general information about plot, length of movie, etc. So when i do that, and i see a thread with this title about it being the worst movie ever, i feel obliged to see why someone would say that, before i potentially waste a couple hours to watch it.

although i thought the movie was fantastic, had i not read the spoiler about the haikiri at the end, i would have enjoyed it much more. instead, i just kept waiting for the inevitable. and that sucks.

reply

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] mrura 15 years ago

not surprisingly, you use poor logic as a defense, too.

reply

[–] covenant12 14 years ago

and for your information, when i'm trying to decide which movie to watch, i like to look them up in IMDB to get some general information about plot, length of movie, etc. So when i do that, and i see a thread with this title about it being the worst movie ever, i feel obliged to see why someone would say that, before i potentially waste a couple hours to watch it.

Why would you even look at the message boards? They are obviously going to be discussing aspects of the film, and more likely than not, without Spoiler Warnings or tags. The reviews/ratings/runtime etc. are above the message board area, are they not? Keep your eyes averted if you can't control yourself from reading the threads.

And if you feel obliged to read a thread titled "Worst Movie Ever" (or in this case "this is the worsrst movie ever!!!!!" which begs the question why the opinions of someone that would type in that way would ever contribute to your decision about whether or not to watch a particular film) then you can expect that there will be spoilers in the thread, either in the 1st post (where poster hopefully explains why) or in subsequent ones. Going to see WHY someone thought it was the worst movie ever is asking to have the movie spoiled.

You saw Dingleberries?

reply

[–] Callie36 15 years ago

Why would you read a discussion on a poorly moderated board before you watch a movie? Not sure what you were expecting.

reply

[–] mrura 15 years ago

i already explained why i read the post. and what does the fact that it's poorly moderated have to do with the fact the everyone who uses IMDB should understand the basic concept of a spoiler. perhaps you're right. perhaps i shouldn't have expected so much. doesn't make me any less right or any less annoyed. honestly, though, i'm over it for now, but i'm sure it'll happen soon enough again.

reply

[–] covenant12 14 years ago

Expecting thousands of users to follow a rule that isn't enforced is just naive. Expecting to read threads that are ostensibly about the merits of a film, and expecting not to get spoiled, is naive.

but i'm sure it'll happen soon enough again.

It absolutely will. If you go around reading the boards on movies that you haven't seen, it will happen again very soon.

You saw Dingleberries?

reply

[–] mrura 14 years ago

that doesn't make it right or invalidate my right to be angry.

plenty of times people can say why the movie was "the worst ever" without being stupid enough to give away major plot points. i'm not so naive to think it doesn't happen, but i can still hope that most people "get it" and that i can take a chance to read some posts before i watch a movie. i'm pretty sure i'm not the only one that does it.

maybe if people complain enough, a self-imposed culture of thoughtfulness will evolve. one can always hope.

MANY MANY people understand the concept of spoilers. i don't really understand your need to defend those who don't.

reply

[–] j_money77 12 years ago

Nobody ever "spoils" a movie for someone, they spoil it for themselves. Unless a person holds you down and forces you to listen to plot details/spoilers, then you only have yourself to blame.

Stop yer bitchin and actually watch a movie first before reading threads about it on a message board. It wouldn't matter if this movie was released yesterday, researching/reading about a movie before you've seen it is just plain douchey

In short,

Can't be bothered really, ur an ass!

reply

[–] wolf_rahm 19 years ago

yeah man, worst ,movie evah, w0rd

reply

[–] 19 years ago

[deleted]

[–] WaveTossed 19 years ago

Some good points. There is a saying that I've heard; some disagree with it, but I do see its relevance: "The personal is political." In many ways, in SEPPUKU, we see the personal becoming political. Kobayashi has been quoted as saying that each of his films is a depiction of individual resistance against oppressive authoritarianism.

This is certainly true in SEPPUKU. Hanshiro is an individual who ends up resisting oppression. It's on a personal basis -- his daughter, his son-in-law, his grandchild were destroyed. And yet at the same time, it is political; he strikes blows against the oppressive system that allowed the destruction of his family to happen.

The film shows the elder (Saito Kageyu) as not entirely unsympathetic. In fact, he is shocked to discover that three of his underlings have committed acts of gross dishonor -- that is, when shorn of their topknots, they pleaded "illness" rather than commit seppuku in adherence to the stern code that they lived by. He is appalled that even his own men in the Ii clan have stooped to such disgrace. And yet, he still must cover this up, to prop up a system that has been exposed as being hypocritical and empty of true honor -- and in doing so, he commits his own act of disgrace.

Also, each of the main characters has flaws. None of them are "perfect" paragons of virtue. WHich makes them all human and more compelling as human beings. Motome acted unwisely in choosing to attempt extortion on the Ii clan. He had other choices. Hanshiro himself knows and acknowledges that he could have saved his grandson, if not his daughter (who had a terminal illness) if he had done what his son-in-law had already done: sold his swords so that a doctor's services could have been obtained.

And the men of the Ii clan? If they had simply had the mercy to lend Motome a steel blade to commit seppuku (and at that point, Motome had been resigned to commiting seppuku right away), then the ensuing carnage never would have taken place.

At the point where the three Ii clansmen bring Motome's body back to his home, Hanshiro asks them, almost as an afterthought, "you lent him a blade, didn't you?" If they had, then most likely Hanshiro would have been satisfied; he did say later that his son-in-law was wrong to have tried the extortion.

But one of them (Onodaka) replies, that no, they forced him to use his own bamboo blade to commit the seppuku. And one of the others gives that little laugh, as if forcing him to use his bamboo blade was a really funny, amusing event. And these replies and that little laugh cost them, and many of their colleagues, their lives.

This film has so many layers, both personal and political.

reply

[–] 19 years ago

[deleted]

[–] WaveTossed 19 years ago

It's wonderful to have such a detailed discussion on this film. I first saw it over twenty years ago, and it gave me chills then. And it still gives me chills every time I see it now (with my DVD copy).

Yes, I did notice that the Ii clansmen had a seppuku blade available and ready. And then Onodaka (the Shindo-Munen expert) and his two colleagues discover the bamboo blades. And we can almost see the inside of their heads clicking with ideas -- which we see later, when Motome finds himself facing his own bamboo blade.

And then the scene, with that nervous little laugh. Did you notice that the guy who laughed was the same guy who was cringing in terror as Hanshiro cut his topknot off? I could almost hear Hanshiro's thoughts, "who's laughing now?"

Remember, however, that the bamboo-blade seppuku was public knowledge. Hanshiro acknowledges this when he talks about "Chijiiwa Motome, the Bamboo Ronin" who had become an object of mockery, not only among the samurai but among the townspeople. So it's apparent that the people of that era believed that it was perfectly appropriate for the Ii clansmen to have forced a bamboo-blade seppuku, especially on a "beggar ronin" who had the effrontery to sell off his real blades (even if it was to feed his family). That little section gave me chills -- how ordinary people can accept and condone such atrocities.

And this casual acceptance of atrocities isn't something that pertains only to the feudal Japanese -- and I don't think that Kobayashi (or the author of the original novel, Takiguchi Yasuhiko) saw it that way. Casual acceptance of atrocities has happened throughout the world in all of history.

Okay, a slightly different question: I'm still trying to research how many aspects of this film actually occurred in real history? Someone did tell me that there were accounts of impoverished ronin threatening seppuku to extort money -- but I haven't yet seen any written confirmation of this, even though it seems logical that this would happen. Also, the Ii clan was a real clan in history. Were they really this heartless as they are depicted in the film? I haven't heard of any contemporary descendants of the Ii clan complain about how the Ii were depicted.

Also, I want to know: did any clan ever really enforce a bamboo-blade seppuku upon any ronin (or on anyone)? Did this sort of event actually happen in history? Or was this series of events something that came forth solely from the fevered imaginations of a novelist (Takiguchi Yasuhiko) pushed forward by a film-maker, Kobayashi Masaki? We probably won't ever know.

reply

[–] 19 years ago

[deleted]

[–] WaveTossed 19 years ago

I have a region-free copy of HUMANITY AND PAPER BALLOONS. I've seen it several times. And I remember when the townspeople talking about the ronin who hung himself because his blades were of bamboo.

Atrocities that would normally repel are frequently accepted when commited against people of certain targeted groups. In the U.S. South, it was blacks. In Afghanistan, it was (and I believe still is) the Hazara. Have you read the marvelous book THE KITE RUNNER? Here, the reader can see how certain atrocities are considered acceptable if they are done against a member of certain, despised groups. And of course during the Holocaust, it was Jews, Gypsies, homosexuals and certain other groups who were targeted and brutally tortured and murdered.

Seeing Japanese films, reading books, and studying history: at certain times in Japanese history, the ronin were a targeted group. Ronin were samurai without a place, without a lord or master to serve, unemployed. There was no place for them in the rigid class hierarchy; officially, they were really not supposed to exist. But they did. During the beginning decades of the Tokugawa Shogunate (when SEPPPUKU takes place), the ronin came from defeated clans or clans that were thought to be "enemies of the state" and therefore had been abolished. Remember how the Ii clansmen dehumanize the ronin in their discussion, describing them as "animals" and "ants" -- which is the first step toward condoning atrocities commited against them. Remember in Rwanda, where the Hutu described the Tsutsi as "cockroaches (did you see the fine film HOTEL RWANDA)?" First dehumanize, then atrocities can be aimed at people who are thus dehumanized.

In history sources, I've read about how distrusted the ronin were, not only by other samurai but by common people. Cast out of their usual roles as samurai, they frequently became outlaws or swords-for-hire. If they were law-abiding (as Hanshiro and his family were), then they were limited to very marginal means of making a living, as was shown in SEPPUKU. Back in the 17th century, the political reformer Fumazawa Banzin (who was a ronin, himself) wrote about how many ronin were quietly starving to death.

So in this background, one can see how forcing a ragged, beggar ronin to commit seppuku with his bamboo blade would be accepted and condoned by the society around him. It's chilling when you think of it, but this sort of thing still happens today all around the world.

By the way, I love this discussion. I hope it continues and maybe some others will be drawn to it.

reply

[–] 19 years ago

[deleted]

[–] WaveTossed 19 years ago

Wow, a lot of great comments.

HUMANITY AND PAPER BALLOONS is one of the most under-rated masterpieces of cinema. It wasn't told with a lot of "flash" or "style" or "camera angles." It was told in a straightforward manner, with the characters speaking for themselves. It also didn't have an obvious "message" i.e. "look at the suffering of the oppressed poor", as if "the oppressed poor" were some sort of homogenous group without different individuals in it. Instead, the film concentrated on telling individual stories of individual characters.

SEPPUKU did the same thing. One of the most enduring stereotypes about poverty is that the reason for people suffering poverty is that they are uneducated, without opportunities. So just give them education and that will lift up the poor from their miseries. This is not always so. There are plenty of well-educated poor -- however, they tend to be invisible. We don't see them. But their existence challenges most of the theories that social workers and academics expound.

Speaking of the time and places when and where SEPPUKU takes place, Fumazawa Banzin, a 17th century Japanese reformer (and a ronin himself during most of his life) wrote:
------------------
"Today, the worst off of these people are the ronin. There are innumerable occassions of their starving to death during the frequent famines. Even rich harvests and the consequent lowering of the price of rice would not give much relief to those who are already hard up. Every year there are cases of starvation which are unknown to the general public."
------------------
Sources of Japanese History, Vol. I, compiled by Tsunoda Ryusaku, William Theodore de Bary, Donald Keene (Columbia University Press, New York, 1958 )

Fumazawa Banzin (1619-1691): From "Development and Distribution of Wealth" (Tsunoda , DeBary, Keene, pp. 379)
------------------
One of the most chilling sentences I've seen written: "Every year, there are cases of starvation which are unknown to the general public." People starved to death -- and no one took heed. These were educated, intelligent people.

But of course, they were just ronin. "Ants pouring from the hills," "animals fighting over food" as Saito Kageyu states to Tsugumo Hanshiro (implying that Hanshiro might be one of those "ants" or "animals").

However, Hanshiro gives the warning to these well-heeled clan samurai -- it happened to him and others; and it just MIGHT happen to you. I read in a history forum where the Shogunate reduced the size of the (real life) Ii clan sometime later, after the time that SEPPUKU was placed.

Hmmm... I can just see a sequel to SEPPUKU. One of those self-satisfied Ii clan samurai finds himself cast out when his clan gets reduced in size. So he must take to the life of a ronin. Who knows, maybe he ends up making umbrellas for a living. And even has to sell his swords to feed his family.

reply

[–] esp1eleven 19 years ago

man i was gonna be mad but you eneded up giving me a good laugh. harakiri moves very slowly and deliberately. it is probably a bit longer than it should be. however, the build up, to the skillfuly sly dishonoring of the perpetrators and the final battle scene and suicide are worth every second of waiting to get there. cheers.

reply

[–] ma_tsuma 19 years ago

Yes, it is a really horrible movie because it doesn't feature Hulk Hogan.

reply

[–] elephantsinamsterdam 18 years ago

Ah, good one, OP. Like others, I was ready to smack you... uh, through the internet... OK, that doesn't make sense, but you know what I mean.

-harakiri moves very slowly and deliberately. it is probably a bit longer than it should be.-

It isn't any longer than it needs to be, though, unless you have a shifty attention span. There isn't a single scene in the film that I can think of that needs to be cut.

reply

[–] Trouter2000 17 years ago

I find it gets rather annoying; Casablanca, The Godfather, Ran ETC. all have some sort of comment saying how bad they are. You don't have to like them, but I don't think anybody can make the argument that they are poorly made films.

reply

[–] PostmortemG 17 years ago

"Yes, it is a really horrible movie because it doesn't feature Hulk Hogan."

Hahaha!

"I find it gets rather annoying; Casablanca, The Godfather, Ran ETC. all have some sort of comment saying how bad they are."

Now if any film is over-long, I'd say Ran is. Or that's how i felt the last time i saw it, years ago. It's a good movie, but i don't consider it a masterpiece like Seppuku or Samurai Rebellion. Kurosawa didn't have Kobayashi's insight, if you ask me...

"Cain and Abel will go to Heaven... if they can make it through Hell!"
-Los Hijos Del Topo

reply

[–] JellyFish19 14 years ago

It's not what I expected, but it's still good though.

reply

[–] 12 years ago

[deleted]