You may, or may not, find this review interesting.
Rich
-----Original Message-----
From: [log in to unmask] [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Thursday, October 16, 2003 12:56 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: 7.34 Singh on Kurosawa
:,
', :. .
. , ..' : ..
. '. .. ,. ..: ..
. .: .'.. ,. . ... F I L M - P H I L O S O P H Y
' ...,... . . .:. . .
.. . : ... .'.. ..,.. ISSN 1466-4615
., . . :... . . '.. Journal : Salon : Portal
.'. , : ..... . PO Box 26161, London SW8 4WD
.:..'...,. . http://www.film-philosophy.com
. :.,.. '....
...:,. '. vol. 7 no. 34, October 2003
' :. .
,'
Aakash Singh
Kojeve's Masters and Slaves, Kurosawa's Samurai and Farmers
_Seven Samurai_
Directed by Akira Kurosawa
Japan, 1954
As Japan's most famous international classic, Akira Kurosawa's 1954 film =
_Seven Samurai_ (_Shichinin no samurai_) suffers no shortage of =
commentary or criticism. Set in 16th-century Japan, when society was =
irrevocably and swiftly changing, with the noble class near the point of =
extinction, the film (co-written by Kurosawa) portrays a small farming =
village besieged yearly by bandits, who carry off their women and =
plunder their crops. Out of desperation, the farmers recruit samurai to =
protect them, repaying them only with meals. The samurai, led by Kambei, =
who pitied the plight of the farmers, include a young disciple called =
Katsuhiro, a master swordsman named Kyuzo, Kambei's long-time friend =
Shichiroji, the clownish Heihachi, the empathetic and astute Gorobei, =
and a man who pretends to be a samurai -- although he fools no one -- =
whom we later discover to have been a farmer's son, though not from the =
village concerned (who gets dubbed Kikuchiyo). [1] The seven samurai, =
together with the farmers, manage after a long battle to overcome the =
bandits, albeit with heavy casualties.
The innumerable interwoven themes of the film have each been given some =
treatment in reviews: the samurai 'concept' in relation to Hagakure, or =
the _Book of the Samurai_; Kurosawa's treatment of nature -- farms, =
fields, flowers, and every variation of light and weather; the battle =
scenes which make this film a classic 'action drama'; the societal =
inequality and the subsequent 'humanism' of the film as a whole; the =
moral clash and tension between farmer and samurai embodied in the =
character Kikuchyo, the farmer-samurai; the musical motifs; and many =
others, even some fanciful notions, like essays on the symbolic use of =
horses in the film, or on homoerotic innuendo among the samurai.
Nevertheless, despite the nearly exhaustive commentary on these themes =
and the film's many sub-plots, I do not think that the closing scenes of =
the film have either been sufficiently explored or adequately =
understood. I refer primarily to two events: 1, the farmers' sowing, =
accompanied by drum-backed song, made possible due to the village's =
victory over the attacking bandits; and 2, the head-samurai Kambei's =
resigned final statement that it is the farmers who have won and not the =
samurai. The sowing scene has even been regarded by some critics as =
superfluous to the main theme of the film. But if this scene, along with =
the other shots in the last few seconds of the film, were taken to form =
a uniform statement, then Kambei's declaration that it is the farmers =
and not the samurai who have won could actually be clearly comprehended =
as a precise identification of what has unfolded through the drama of =
this film -- it is, in short, the briefest answer to the question: What =
is the film about?
If we posit that the over-arching action of the film presents the =
victory of farmers over samurai, as opposed to the prevailing =
description of the film as portraying the victory of the farmers and =
samurai over the attacking bandits, then we as viewers and interpreters =
of the film would be in a position to comprehensively and even =
systematically organize all of the innumerable interwoven themes of the =
film -- themes and sub-plots which have hitherto merely been arbitrarily =
stressed or underplayed, or even less critically simply enumerated by =
one critic or another. The virtue of this interpretation of the film is =
that it not only serves to organize and make integral the films =
sub-themes, but also helps to resolve long-standing debates occurring in =
both Japan and abroad, such as the argument over whether Kurosawa ought =
to have closed the film with a wedding between the young samurai =
Katsuhiro and the farmer-girl Shino with whom he had been having an =
affair. In his review of the film, the American film critic Roger Ebert =
asks: 'Should the hero get the girl?' If we understand the film, as =
Ebert does, to present a cooperation of farmers and samurai with the aim =
of repelling bandits, then we cannot definitively answer whether there =
should or should not have been a wedding -- either would have been =
arbitrary, or at best a resolution of one of the film's many sub-plots. =
However, by arguing that the film uses the cooperation of farmers and =
samurai to conquer bandits as a *means* to present the real end, the =
victory of farmers over samurai, it becomes clear that such a wedding =
was precluded in principle.
The reason that the central, overarching theme of the film has hitherto =
been missed by critics has to do with its esoteric source: the =
Master-Slave dialectic of the German philosopher G. W. F. Hegel's =
_Phenomenology of the Spirit_, as interpreted by Russian-born French =
philosopher Alexandre Kojeve, [2] and presented to Kurosawa by second or =
third-hand accounts, such as through the early writings of Japanese =
novelist and dramatist Yukio Mishima, who had been influenced by =
Kojeve's work. Let me dampen the initial shock the reader must =
experience at the assertion that Kurosawa's great Japanese classic is =
developed around a theme of German philosophy radicalized by an =
existentialist interpreter. First, while I do not have the space to go =
into details here, it should be kept in mind that Hegel's =
_Phenomenology_ had been introduced into Japanese philosophy quite early =
in the century, with the development of the Kyoto school. As is widely =
known, Nishitani and Nishida's works were strongly influenced by Hegel, =
and Japanese intellectuals, like Mishima, were well aware of every sort =
of interpretation and reinterpretation of Hegel's thought by the time of =
the Second World War. Second, Kojeve's interpretation of Hegel's =
_Phenomenology_ was by far the most popular and influential such =
interpretation, gaining international attention and acclaim after the =
War. Japanese thinkers were well aware of Kojeve's _Introduction to the =
Reading of Hegel_ long before Kojeve made his famous voyage to Japan in =
1959. Finally, by the time Kurosawa become aware of the Hegelian =
Master-Slave dialectic, it had already been thoroughly 'domesticated', =
not only through the popular writings of the Kyoto philosophers, but =
also in the growing *bushido* literature, reinterpretations of the =
Hagakure (literally, 'Hidden Leaves', now often referred to as _Book of =
the Samurai_) which appealed to the Master-Slave dialectic to explain =
the extinction of the cult of the warrior.
There is commentary on Kurosawa's film that points out the link with =
Hagakure. The Hagakure was composed at a time (1716) when feudal Japan =
had been at peace for nearly a century. This long peace strained the =
status of the samurai as it undermined their utility. In this context, =
bandits would have served to prolong the existence of this dying class. =
But what commentary linking _The Seven Samurai_ with Hagakure fails to =
explore is the way in which Hagakure was read in Kurosawa's time -- this =
is crucial. It is the reinterpretation of Hagakure (which took its lead =
from Kojeve's work) that characterizes Kurosawa's use of it, and allows =
us to see that the ultimate battle that Kurosawa portrays in his film is =
not one of samurai and farmers against bandits, but rather, more subtly =
and insightfully, the class of samurai (Kojevean *Masters*) against the =
class of farmers (Kojevean *Slaves*). Let's first look at Kojeve's basic =
thesis, and then see how it plays out through Kurosawa's film.
In Kojeve's interpretation of Hegel's philosophy found in his seminal =
_Introduction to the Reading of Hegel_, the concept of *desire* is key. =
Desire is what is responsible for self-consciousness in man. Desire is =
defined as lack, which is filled in by a certain activity, activity =
being a negation of a given reality: the *I* of Desire is an emptiness =
that receives a real positive content only by negating action that =
satisfies Desire in destroying, transforming, and assimilating the =
desired non-I. But animals, of course, also have desire. For desire to =
be distinctly human, it must be directed toward another desire. Because =
human consciousness requires the desire of another desire, being human =
presupposes being social, presupposes that there are others. The human =
is self-conscious, and ultimately he will be not only self-conscious, =
but also conscious of his inner freedom, of his individuality, of his =
history. This leap from the spark of self-consciousness in man, the =
advance made from animal self-sentiment, to his awareness of his =
freedom, individuality and historicity occurs because of Kojeve's =
linkage of human desire to 'recognition'. That is, when one desires the =
desire of another, one desires to be desired, or what Kojeve identifies =
as desiring to be recognized.
Kojeve's explanation of recognition occurs in the context of the famous =
fight-to-the-death, the heart of the Master-Slave dialectic that Kojeve =
is discussing. For desire to be truly human it must not only be =
orientated toward another desire, it must also win out over animal =
desire(s). That means that truly human desire would overcome the most =
basic and most significant animal desire, the desire to preserve life. =
Truly and thoroughly human desire means desire orientated toward another =
desire without concern for the preservation of life, without concern for =
one's animal desire -- in other words, desire seeking recognition even =
at the risk of life. Two men, or two desires, confront one another in =
this fight, and one of the two will establish himself as the superior, =
the other as inferior: he who is not willing to sacrifice his life in =
this struggle, giving in to the other, establishes that he is still =
bound to the natural, still essentially slavish; while the other, =
willing to sacrifice life for a non-vital end, recognition, establishes =
that he is master over himself, and master over the other. Thus, while =
the master will be recognized by the slave, the slave will not be =
recognized by the master.
Since according to Kojeve, man is only satisfied through recognition by =
one whom he recognizes, the master is not truly satisfied by the =
recognition of the slave. Nevertheless, the master forces the slave to =
work for him, and thus the master has the benefit of enjoying and =
consuming the product of the slave's work -- the master idles away his =
time in partial satisfaction; the slave toils away in service to the =
master. While the slave works, he works upon (i.e. he becomes master of) =
nature. The slave became a slave because he was subject to nature, or =
unwilling to sacrifice his life for a non-natural end. Through work, =
however, the slave overcomes nature, and overcomes his own nature as =
well: in order to work and produce a product for the consumption of the =
master, the slave must repress his natural instinct to consume the =
material. The master had overcome nature and himself by risking his life =
for a non-vital end, had become master over the slave, who had shown his =
slavishness by being tied to nature. Now the slave overcomes nature and =
his own nature through work. The master's action was destructive simply, =
while the slave's action, work, destroys in order to create -- he does =
not destroy but rather he sublimates. Progress, technological and =
historical, requires this sublimation that is work, which is to say that =
it presupposes the era of mastery and slavery. The master remains =
identical to himself, he is required to spark the historical process, =
but he doesn't get anywhere. The slave will ultimately become the =
'absolute master', satisfied by a universal recognition, rather than the =
sort of first-moment master who is doomed to remain unsatisfied.
The slave will be able to be fully satisfied at a given point in history =
-- at that point, however, he will cease to be a slave. Through work, =
the slave was able to achieve the same humanizing result that the master =
had achieved through the fight; that is, surmounting the given, natural =
conditions of existence. When the slave becomes conscious of the fact =
that he is transforming the given material of nature through work in the =
service of another, i.e. for an idea, then he becomes conscious of his =
freedom, and of autonomy. With the thought that arises from his work, =
the slave develops the notion of freedom, although being in bondage, the =
slave becomes more a slave by this realization than he was before he =
knew what freedom was.
The Slave is obliged to overcome mastery by a nondialectical overcoming =
of the Master who obstinately persists in his (human) identity to =
himself -- that is, by annulling him or putting him to death. And this =
annulling is what is manifested in and by the final fight for =
recognition, which necessarily implies the risk of life on the part of =
the freed Slave. This risk, moreover, is what completes the liberation =
which was begun by his work, by introducing in him the =
constituent-element of mastery which he lacked. Being both Master and =
Slave, he is no longer either the one or the other, but is the unique =
synthetical man, in whom the thesis of mastery and the antithesis of =
slavery are dialectically overcome -- that is, *annulled* in their =
one-sided or imperfect aspect, but *preserved* in their essential or =
truly human aspect, and therefore *sublimated* in their essence and in =
their being. We today are the product of this synthetical man. =
Kurosawa's film, then, presents a moment in the process of our =
historical development.
The Master characteristics of the samurai are presented in several =
scenes. Among these, there is one which contrasts the honor-bound =
samurai with the slavish farmers, when the samurai have captured a =
bandit, intend not to harm him since he is protected by his status as =
'prisoner of war', and yet the farmers mutilate him anyway with hoe and =
pitchfork. There are of course several other examples of the different =
moralities, if you will, of the samurai and farmers. Further, that the =
samurai have overcome the fear of death is presented in a scene early in =
the film, where Kambei is listening to the recent exploits of his old =
friend Shichiroji. Shichiroji had survived a burning castle tumbling =
down upon him in his previous battle. Kambei asks, 'Were you terrified?' =
Shichiroji replies, 'Not particularly.' Kambei then suggests, 'Maybe we =
will die this time', to which Shichiroji simply responds with a smile.
On the other hand, the 'slavish' nature of the farmer is clear from the =
crying and wailing in the opening scenes of the film. It is captured =
profoundly by such camera shots as when (about 40 minutes into the =
film), one of the farmers fails to prevent the theft of the rice they =
use to feed the samurai, and Kurosawa shows him miserably picking up the =
few dozen remaining grains, which gleam white on the dirty black =
floorboards. In the battle, too, Kurosawa captures the crux of the issue =
in one shot, when he cuts to the frozen, terrified face of a farmer in =
close-up. The camera pans back slowly to show the villager gripping the =
end of a bamboo spear upon which one of the bandits is impaled. The =
villager is so shocked by what he has done that he cannot move.
Now, it is important to underscore that the Kojeve-influenced =
reinterpretation of the bushido phenomenon, most famously provided in =
Mishima's literary works -- as well as his life: Mishima committed =
ritual suicide samurai-style (*seppuku*) in the office of the General of =
Japan's Self-Defense Force -- is not simply a textual argument. Kurosawa =
shows the Kojevean thesis *filmicly*. Let's use as examples two of the =
most celebrated shots in the film. First, recall (about 47 minutes into =
the film) when the lean, sinewy master swordsman Kyozu is introduced. =
Kyozu sunders the less-skilled samurai in half in a battle of skill, =
honor, and prestige. Kyozu did not care to engage in the sword fight, =
since he knew from the earlier bamboo test fight that he would be the =
winner. The other samurai forces him; they prepare, and attack. The =
viewer does not know for certain what has happened, what the result is, =
for about two seconds. Then the less skilled samurai topples over slowly =
away from the camera. It's a great scene, the frame is tense and =
powerful. But one thing the scene shows is that mastery culminates in =
death, that its 'negating nihilism' (as Kojeve would say) cannot bring =
about the work that sustains and ultimately satisfies civilization. Of =
course, mastery is powerful and noble and superior, but it is also, in =
the final analysis, unsatisfying and insupportable.
Contrast this scene with another famous one. Recall (about 1 hour into =
the film) when Manzo, the father of the beautiful girl Shino, comes into =
his hut with a razor in order to crop her hair so she looks like a boy, =
since the samurai, notorious rapists, are soon to arrive. The frame =
shows her from behind, her curved figure filling the center of the =
screen, as she washes her long silken hair. A lovely, feminine figure, =
curves and softness. It's a beautiful but also tense 2-3 second shot, =
and it shows in some sense the essence of the slave: feminine and soft. =
Of course, by the end of the film, Shino is not wedded to the young =
samurai, though she has had an affair with him. This shows that even the =
young samurai cannot necessarily adapt, and instead like all his kind =
must become extinct. On the other hand, the farmer-girl wouldn't marry =
him (or rather, her father wouldn't let her), on the surface because of =
the class difference between farmers and samurai, but on a deeper level =
because the young samurai, like all samurai, has become useless.
The farmers can kill, they have learned to kill in a planned, organized, =
and effective way -- but they can also sow and reap. That ability to =
create and grow is shown in the images of Shino's curves and femininity =
(i.e. the ability to give birth), while the ability to kill is shown in =
the tough, lean figure of Kyozu, the master swordsman.
Showing the farmers' rising synthetic characteristics, their =
assimilation of the Master elements of the samurai, Kurosawa closes the =
film with the farmers sowing, accompanied by music and dance -- in =
short, victory. Interestingly, those who beat the drums and sing are =
those who were recognized by the samurai as having become brave fighters =
during the battle scenes. Still earlier, they were the ones who ate =
millet and suffered hunger while they cooked and fed the samurai steamy =
white rice. The farmers are now organized, happy, hard-working, etc. In =
other words, they are behaving in such a way that you would expect them =
to fight without samurai, next time there is an invasion. Thus the =
farmers are now able to defend themselves as well as grow food and do =
other 'slavish' things.
The next shot shows Shino walk past Katsuhiro, snubbing him in fact, as =
she joins in the sowing and singing, her voice first rising above those =
of the others, and then fading into the common song. The last shot shows =
that the head-samurai Kambei has seen and understood the significance of =
the drum and song-backed sowing dances, of Shino's snubbing of the young =
samurai, and of all of the events that have unfolded in the film. The =
samurai are slowly leaving the village, but where to? To seek other =
fights and perhaps even beg for food, as is their fate with the coming =
end of the era of mastery. Thus, Kambei states in the closing line of =
the film -- just before the camera gives us a view of the noble samurai =
graves standing symbolically over the many farmer graves -- that 'it is =
the farmers who have won and not us'. It's pure Kojeve, what he called =
'the tragedy of the Master'.
This analysis of Kurosawa's film naturally raises an important question. =
Given that Kurosawa presents a philosophic notion as the over-arching =
structure of his plot, does this mean that critics are correct to say =
that he has sacrificed the development of particular characters for the =
sake of presenting general *types*, who consequently and disappointingly =
cannot be seen to be really flesh and blood persons? I would argue that =
just the opposite is true: Kurosawa's genius, his true achievement in =
the film, lies precisely in how he was able to develop his characters, =
and the character relationships, while at the same time showing the =
broader historical sweep within which all particular persons tend to get =
lost. Each time I see the film I notice more and more details that =
Kurosawa had packed into the drama, providing clues as to what motivated =
particular characters, providing what we would call, in short, their =
*personalities*, whether farmers or samurai.
Perhaps the finest example of this is the farmer-samurai Kikuchiyo. =
Kikuchiyo is a farmer's son who hates the samurai for having destroyed =
his village during his youth, but at the same time he hates the farmers =
for their weakness, pettiness, and duplicity. Kurosawa balances his =
particular personality, his overcompensation, bravado, and so on, with =
his *type*, the early or pre-mature and thus doomed synthesis of mastery =
and slavery. We can see this layering in the scene where Kikuchiyo =
cannot break in the horse -- as a farmer's son, he did not benefit from =
equestrian training. Or again in his conquest across enemy lines, when =
he managed to kill bandits and steal a gun, an achievement resulting not =
in praise by the samurai but in censure for having defied the rules and =
putting all at risk. These scenes, along with those where we come to =
learn about the farmer-samurai's parentage and the fate of his village, =
show how brilliantly Kurosawa has handled the difficult task of =
presenting a philosophic thesis (which tends to suppress personality) =
within a drama (which tends to present its story through specific =
persons). Further, Kurosawa managed this in the specific medium of film, =
replicating the layering of plot and theme by exquisite camera work =
techniques, such as deep-focus. Action develops and occurs in the fore- =
mid- and back-ground of several shots, suggesting that the story itself =
develops in several contexts simultaneously.
That Kurosawa captured on film the historical fate of the samurai within =
the philosophical context of the Master-Slave dialectic, unfolding in a =
drama with specific characters motivated by their own defined interests, =
is already achievement enough. That he managed in the process to produce =
one of the finest films ever made is nothing less than awe-inspiring. I =
find it amusing that awe, however, is far from the uniform reaction of =
critics. In his biography of Yukio Mishima, Peter Wolfe links him with =
Akira Kurosawa by referring to them as the 'two great distorters' of the =
bushido tradition in Japan. [3] What Wolfe complains of as distortion, I =
would rather celebrate as reinterpretation -- or what Kojeve himself =
called a *mise a jour*, a bringing up to date.
Humboldt University
Berlin, Germany
1. See =
<http://www.umich.edu/~iinet/cjs/films/reviews/pics/sevensamurai.jpg>.
2. Kojeve, _Introduction to the Reading of Hegel: Lectures on the =
Phenomenology of Spirit_ (New York: Basic Books, 1969).
3. Peter Wolfe, _Yukio Mishima_ (New York: Continuum, 1989), p. 16.
Copyright =A9 Film-Philosophy 2003
Aakash Singh, 'Kojeve's Masters and Slaves, Kurosawa's Samurai and =
Farmers', _Film-Philosophy_, vol. 7 no. 34, October 2003 =
<http://www.film-philosophy.com/vol7-2003/n34singh>.
.. . : ... .'.. ..,..
_Film-Philosophy_ journal texts are published through the email salon =
(as well as on the website) so that they can be discussed and contested =
and continued by you members, so please send your thoughts to:
[log in to unmask]
.. . : ... .'.. ..,..
Salon Netiquette:
When hitting 'reply' please always delete the text of the message you =
are replying to -- namely, do not leave old posts underneath your reply =
(but by all means quote lines you particularly want to refer to).
Please do not use html or styled formatting when sending messages -- =
some members will not be able to read your post, and non-formatted texts =
take up less bandwidth and thus download quicker.
Styled formatting can be replaced by a simple ascii text style guide: to =
emphasise words *quote with asterisks*; film and book titles should be =
marked with underscores -- Deleuze's _Cinema_, Sokurov's _Mother and =
Son_; mark titles of articles and all quotations with 'single quotation =
marks'; and instead of tabs or indents please separate paragraphs with a =
one line gap.
When sending a message please check that the subject line reflects the =
message content, and is not just one left over from a previous thread or =
digest message.
If you have problems unsubscribing, or sending messages generally, then =
do not ask for help via the salon, but simply email the owner at:
[log in to unmask] or [log in to unmask]
Salon Commands:
To change to digest, send the message: set film-philosophy digest
to: [log in to unmask]
To leave, send the message: leave film-philosophy
to: [log in to unmask]
.. . : ... .'.. ..,..
., . . :... . . '..
.'. , : ..... .
.:..'...,. .
. :.,.. '....
...:,. '.
' :. .
,'
*
*
*
*
***
Film-Philosophy Email Discussion Salon.
After hitting 'reply' please always delete the text of the message you are replying to.
If you have any questions about salon membership then email: [log in to unmask]
***
*
*
*
*
***
Film-Philosophy Email Discussion Salon.
After hitting 'reply' please always delete the text of the message you are replying to.
If you have any questions about salon membership then email: [log in to unmask]
***
|