SEVEN SAMURAI (1954, Akira Kurosawa)

I first began to dabble into Akira Kurosawa (and classic world cinema, in general) over a year ago. Despite being the world filmmaker titan that he is, my first encounters with Kurosawa didn't go over as smoothly as expected. But perhaps my tastes are changing, or I am simply becoming more in tune with his style (probably both), but upon revisiting his perhaps most major classic, Seven Samurai, a film which initially underwhelmed me, I can now unequivocally say it is a great film and truly worthy of its mega-classic status.

I'm sure most know or could recognize its plot-line -- after-all, it's been used in remakes such as the western The Magnificent Seven (which admittedly I am not too fond of) and the adequate Pixar remake A Bug's Life. During the 1500s in Japan, a peasant village is continually robbed and brutalized by bandits. When one of the villagers hears that the bandits will return again, this time possibly taking everything, the desperate villagers seek help from seven skilled samurai, whom they can't pay with money but have to instead offer food. Seven Samurai's high popularity isn't surprising, given the fact that the story is remarkably accessible, especially for western audiences like myself. To put it simply, it's basically a Western but with samurais instead of cowboys.

Even with its nearly 3 1/2 hour running time, the film is remarkable entertainment from start to finnish, and most of the time simply flies by. Each of the samurai characters are well-drawn, interesting, and outstandingly acted, with classic Japanese actors Takashi Shimura and Toshiro Mifune being even bigger standouts. Much of the film is a build-up to the long extended battle sequences in the end, yet perhaps the most fascinating section of the film for me is watching the interaction between the samurais and the peasant villagers, where Kurosawa takes time to address the class system. We watch as the villagers amusingly cower away from the samurais, but it is also revealed some of the samurais mild (but still present prejudices), all leading to Mifune's character's powerful, impassioned speech. And yet underneath all that is a tender love-story between the youngest, most inexperienced samurai and one of the daughters of the villagers, a plot-line which could have been cheesy but is instead handled quite effectively. When the villagers and samurai finally gel, it feels real. Through all the character-development and other small details, it has been earned. So while some may say that the build-up is too long, I feel it is perfect and essential to the success of the film.

I would reckon that for about 3/4 of the movie, it is essentially FLAWLESS entertainment. Gripping story, excellent character interactions, great moments of humor, and brilliantly photographed. Kurosawa really knows how to position the camera, actors, and stage the action. Some of the epic shots are masterful, and his use of weather, landscape, and simply the geography of the village is at times incredible. That said, like with his major American influence in John Ford, I feel that pacing wasn't always his strongest suit. And, don't get me wrong -- the film is fast-paced and doesn't have any major issues at all, yet I do find some nearly inexplicable lags in the latter stretch of the film. I feel that it is in the climax of the subplot between the young samurai and the peasant girl, for while it is perfectly developed and essential to the film, it's placement right before the climactic battle strikes me as awkward, and I feel it slightly  drags the film down a tad.

That said, that seriously is my only complaint which, considering its 207 minute running time, is pretty damn impressive. And really, the final battle scene, soaked in rain, mud, and blood, damn near makes up for it. Better yet, the film showcases one of the greatest bitter-sweet endings I have seen in all of cinema. The villagers sing on in celebration from a distance after defeating the bandits, while the remaining alive samurai stand from a far and look on in grief. Even more tragically, the young samurai looks on in the distance as he watches the young girl he loves celebrate with the villagers. Nothing has to be said, their love will be no more, their fleeting romance is over. Both the samurais and villagers, despite living and fighting and dying together in the past month time, will go on their separate ways, and it will be accepted without having to say a word. Kurosawa's masterpiece shows us the power of a united people, how under harsh conditions these social barriers can be shattered, yet in the end we are given a sobering reminder of what powers these barriers still hold.  I find it to be a subtly powerful ending to a great film.

9/10

BOWLING FOR COLUMBINE (2002, Michael Moore)

Being the cliche college leftist that I am (well, really, I am too apathetic anymore to have any true political standing), I should gladly embrace Michael Moore's Bowling for Columbine. I have seen it before, but many years ago, yet I liked it then. I still like it now, but my feelings are definitely mixed. 

Moore essentially takes the horrific Columbine tragedy, but doesn't really focus on it, and instead uses it as a branching point to explore America's gun-violence problems, giving him the opportunity to rant about media-indoctrination, corporatism, and of course FEAR MONGERING. You know, his favorite stuff. And that's okay, but it does get a bit redundant during the film. I imagine there are other good documentaries which strictly cover the tragedy in Colorado that I might prefer more, because while I do enjoy the rather large scope of the film, I have to say that its focus (to me anyway) seems to wander at times.

And of course any time you see a Michael Moore film you have to deal with Moore himself. The way he imprints himself on his films gives it most of its style, for better or worse. I can see this being better on personal projects, but here he can obviously be quite of intrusive, and he a lot of times overshadows the film's content, no surprise. I suppose it comes down to what style of documentary filmmaking do you prefer or find more effective? The one where the filmmaker puts his or herself out in the spotlight with the subject; or films like Hoop Dreams and Harlan County USA where the filmmakers work quietly in the background, letting their subjects tell the story? I think both have their place, and I have to give credit to Moore, because "Bowling for Columbine" is entertaining and well-made, and the satirical approach is fun. However, you could argue that he puts entertainment in front of insights and true journalism. 


It seems that Moore always nukes himself in the final stretches of his films -- where he basically does something that is just too sensational. It's like he lacks confidence in what he is presenting, so he has to bring out the sledge-hammer to make his "point" across. Instead of just making a documentary to explore a subject, he has to provide an artificial climax. It's like the point I made about him putting entertainment in front of journalism. In Fahrenheit 9/11 you have the horrendous scene that essentially exploits a distraught, grieving mother of a fallen soldier; in Sicko you have a ridiculous scene in Cuba, where Moore laughably paints it as some paradise; and here in Bowling for Columbine you have a nasty final scene with Charleston Heston, where Moore becomes an outright bully.

In fact, Moore spends the bulk of the film hammering away at the point that it's FEAR which drives the country to be so violent, stating how in Canada they own as many guns, yet there are no gun-murders to speak of. Yet, then at the end, why go after Heston and the NRA? What's the point if we know that simply owning a lot of guns isn't the cause? Moore sees Heston as an easy target to start a fight with and he ends up essentially bullying him. The whole interview was pointless to begin with, and it ended disgracefully. Sure, Heston and the NRA can be insensitive, as rightfully pointed out by Moore throughout the film, but going after them served no other purpose other than to create some theater. Moore is just needlessly confrontational at times,  often with it going nowhere. Some of it was successful, like the amazing turn-out with the two poor guys who were wounded from the Kaymart bullets -- while some of it was pointless. I often don't feel an angst or passion within these films, but rather a childish, mean-spiritedness -- Fahrenheit 9/11 especially, but also here in this film as well. 

That said, there are some really outstanding interviews, two big highlights for me are the ones with Matt Stone (co-creator of South Park) and Marilyn Manson. There are some great sequences, and there are definitely things in the film which I could get behind. I wonder just how cosy the portrait of Canada truly is, but it wouldn;t surprise me, and the statistics of murder in the US is still appalling shocking, regardless.

So I suppose I am pretty indifferent to the film, but I wouldn't say it wasn't enjoyable, nor was it a waste of time. Moore has a talent as a filmmaker, but unfortunately his egotism and drive for needless sensationalism overshadows genuine journalism which is what is truly needed.

6/10