280 The Sword of Doom

Discuss releases by Criterion and the films on them. Threads may contain spoilers!
Message
Author
analoguezombie

#26 Post by analoguezombie » Thu Dec 23, 2004 12:53 pm

dvdane wrote:


why Criterion would release this film is really hard to understand. It is almost if like the producer either saw the film at a festival or read about it in a book and then decided to release it. Okamoto is not any major director, Sword of Doom is not a major film, this sort of is like if Criterion would release one of the Zatoichi or Lone Wolf films, and then leave it at that.
maybe it was just part of a package of licensing rights that Criterion purchased primarily for another film. What studio produced this? I bet it went something like this:

Criterion: 'We want to release Ugetsu (substitute other Japanese film title) int he US. How much do you want for the US rights for a period of 5 years?"
Studio: 'Hmmm, Ugetsu huh? That's a very expensive property. We will let you have it for 3 years at $75,000.00 plus royalties of course.'
Criterion: '$75k for 3 years!? We really don't want to release anything we don't hold the rights to for at least 5 years. And isn't $75,000 a bit steep? can't we work on that."
Studio: 'Hmmm... Okay how's this: Ugetsu for $75k for 4 years and we'll through in rights to Sword of Doom as well?'
Criterion: 'Deal."

hahaha

User avatar
Arn777
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 6:10 am
Location: London

#27 Post by Arn777 » Thu Dec 23, 2004 1:06 pm

Except that Criterion released Sword of Doom on LD, so it's most likely part of the Janus film catalogue.

analoguezombie

#28 Post by analoguezombie » Thu Dec 23, 2004 1:43 pm

Arn777 wrote:Except that Criterion released Sword of Doom on LD, so it's most likely part of the Janus film catalogue.
laser disc what's that??? haha

Martha
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 8:53 pm
Location: all up in thurr

#29 Post by Martha » Thu Dec 23, 2004 3:32 pm

Call me a Philistine, but this is one of the few films of this sort that I really, really like. David Bordwell also thinks very highly of it, and Martin Scorsese referenced it in the opening fight scene of Gangs of New York. So, right there you have three world-class geniuses who would agree that this film is Criterion-worthy.

It's not Ozu, but it's hella good.

User avatar
Godot
Cri me a Tearion
Joined: Sat Nov 06, 2004 12:13 am
Location: Phoenix

#30 Post by Godot » Thu Dec 23, 2004 5:40 pm

I agree with Matt. I'm a bit surprised by Henrik's dismissal of the film. It's a marvelous experience, introspective, philosophical, brooding even, meditating on the dark side of violence, with a memorable ending ... and then mixed in with all this are some of the most exciting sword fights I've seen, a maniacal evocative performance by the main actor, and real thrills and goosebumps.
SpoilerShow
(His haunted fight with the spirits in the end is not only eerie, but beautifully filmed with no special effects, just actors behind screens and well-placed lights.)
I supposed it may be "minor", but I think it is a better-constructed CC entry than others dealing with the sordid and eerie, such as Honeymoon Killers or Carnival of Souls. Since I recorded it last year, I've watched it 3-4 times, and enjoyed something new each time. This last time I found the duel in the school at the end of the first third particularly interesting, the way Okamoto positions the camera and how the tension builds with the slight movements of the actors, then the snap to action.
SpoilerShow
The calm with which he argues with the judge, sure of his deadly strike, is captivating, and then the deadly swath he cuts through the phalanx of the victim's friends in the foggy woods was beautifully filmed in a minimum of shots. Again Okamoto emphasizes the calm after such deadly action.

I guess what is most gratifying for me is to see Criterion continue to release films of all varieties of style, artistic weight, and critical regard. For every Bergman/Cassavetes/Fassbinder/Schlondorff/Wadja/Truffaut release that doesn't particularly interest me (yes, I'm a philistine), there are a handful of pulpy Suzuki/Dassin/Langs and this Okamoto that have me waiting excitedly with open wallet.

User avatar
oldsheperd
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2004 5:18 pm
Location: Rio Rancho/Albuquerque

#31 Post by oldsheperd » Thu Dec 23, 2004 5:53 pm

I rented this about 3 years ago. I thought it was okay, but that was when I was in the mind set where every samurai film would be judged against Kurosawa's samurai films. I was a bit naive about Japanese film back then.

User avatar
Mr Sausage
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 9:02 pm
Location: Canada

#32 Post by Mr Sausage » Thu Dec 23, 2004 7:06 pm

I'm a bit surprised by Henrik's dismissal of the film.
From talking with Henrik earlier I understood that he really thinks highly of the movie. What he's surprised about mostly is its inclusion in the collection. Most of his post seems more harsh than he probably feels, and most of it was a refutation of its 'samurai' label. I doubt he thinks less of a film because it fits in one particular sub-genre better than another.

User avatar
dvdane
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 7:36 pm
Location: Denmark
Contact:

#33 Post by dvdane » Thu Dec 23, 2004 8:23 pm

It is not about dismissing the film at all. It is a great film, but so are many other films, and I have said it before, and I will say it again: Criterion says its about "a continuing series of important classic and contemporary films", and Sword of Doom is neither.

To me, Criterion is with the release of Sword of Doom, trying to cash in on the wave currently caused by Kitano's Zatoichi and thus the new attention towards Zatoichi and the Lone Wolf and Cub series. Suddenly samurai and chambara films are in amongst those who normally never would watch these films. And voila, a great, yet not really important in any way, chambara film finds its way to Criterion DVD. Well, we had it laying around anyway.

That is why I find the release odd.

User avatar
Jun-Dai
監督
Joined: Thu Nov 04, 2004 4:34 am
Location: London, UK
Contact:

#34 Post by Jun-Dai » Thu Dec 23, 2004 8:50 pm

Don't forget about Kill Bill, which has had far more impact in the US than Zatoichi. Also, it helps that Dark Horse has been releasing so many old Japanese samurai comics to great success.

User avatar
dvdane
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 7:36 pm
Location: Denmark
Contact:

#35 Post by dvdane » Thu Dec 23, 2004 9:04 pm

Well, I had actually forgotten all about them, but you are right. I have often wondered if Zatoichi ever would have reached the US theatrically and on DVD, if not for Kill Bill.

User avatar
Jun-Dai
監督
Joined: Thu Nov 04, 2004 4:34 am
Location: London, UK
Contact:

#36 Post by Jun-Dai » Thu Dec 23, 2004 9:24 pm

Criterion says its about "a continuing series of important classic and contemporary films", and Sword of Doom is neither.
I thought we'd gotten over this issue a long time ago--say, when they released the Musashi trilogy. After Hopscotch, Armageddon, minor David Lean films, minor this, and minor that, surely this doesn't come as much of a surprise. Criterion is simply cashing in on a trend, and simultaneously trying to present what they feel is one of the better examples of the genre (else they would have passed it off on to Home Vision and picked something else). I daresay that out of all of the chanbara films available to Criterion, this is probably the best that isn't waiting for a major restoration of some sort. That alone qualifies it.

User avatar
godardslave
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 4:44 pm
Location: Confusing and open ended = high art.

#37 Post by godardslave » Thu Dec 23, 2004 9:42 pm

Godot wrote:I agree with Matt. I'm a bit surprised by Henrik's dismissal of the film. It's a marvelous experience, introspective, philosophical.
please explain how this film is "introspective" or "philosophical"? I would love to be proved wrong, but i get the feeling your throwing in these words simply to give the thing you're trying to support more weight and depth [as people are apt to do].

User avatar
dvdane
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 7:36 pm
Location: Denmark
Contact:

#38 Post by dvdane » Thu Dec 23, 2004 9:55 pm

Jun-Dai wrote:
Criterion is simply cashing in on a trend

Do you think that's really the case? Criterion did release it on laserdisc.
Not to take the reply from Jun-Dai, but you cannot compare Criterion on laserdisc with Criterion on DVD.

Their laserdisc releases covered a huge section of world cinema. In regards to Japanese film, they had already covered Ozu, Kurosawa and Mizogushi pretty well, when they released Sword of Doom, aswell as Sonatine.

Criterion on DVD has no such interest in covering world cinema, and is also having quiet a hard time covering the major directors, having yet to take on Mizoguchi for instance.

Criterion did cash in on trends and blockbusters on laserdisc with English Patient, Shine and others, and what they are doing on DVD is exactly the same, except with the difference, that Criterion no longer covers world cinema nor block busters.

User avatar
Tribe
The Bastard Spawn of Hank Williams
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 7:59 pm
Location: Toledo, Ohio
Contact:

#39 Post by Tribe » Thu Dec 23, 2004 10:06 pm

chambara films
What's "chambara?"

John

User avatar
Mr Sausage
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 9:02 pm
Location: Canada

#40 Post by Mr Sausage » Thu Dec 23, 2004 10:41 pm

John wrote:
chambara films
What's "chambara?"

John
They are essentially swordfight films. A sub-genre of jidai-geki (period pieces); they differ from samurai films because they are not concerned with bushido or the role and values of the samurai class. Their purpose was fairly close to the purpose of Hong Kong martial arts films. The swordfighting (as parodied in Rashomon) often involves elaborate fights with combatants constantly crossing swords (something Kitano pokes fun at in Zatoichi when a character tries to coreograph a sword fight with his friends and tells them to "aim for my sword").

This is the very basics, and there are people who will know far more about this than I. I'm checking Donald Richie's book 100 Years of Japanese Film, but so far cannot find a more learned definition.

User avatar
Simon
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 6:52 pm
Location: Montreal

#41 Post by Simon » Thu Dec 23, 2004 10:59 pm

Chambara is the correct label for japanese swordplay movies in the feudal era. I don't really care about labels the way Henrik does, but I'm not sure what exactly is supposed to be the difference between a samurai film and a chambara film, is it only the presence of actual samurai characters? Since the main protagonist in Sword of Doom is not a samurai, I guess calling it a samurai film is technically wrong.

User avatar
Godot
Cri me a Tearion
Joined: Sat Nov 06, 2004 12:13 am
Location: Phoenix

#42 Post by Godot » Fri Dec 24, 2004 3:59 am

godardslave wrote:please explain how this film is "introspective" or "philosophical"?
Sure, it's a fun movie to discuss. Have you seen the film?

User avatar
dvdane
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 7:36 pm
Location: Denmark
Contact:

#43 Post by dvdane » Fri Dec 24, 2004 4:59 am

What's "chambara?"
Its the sound a katana makes from hitting the clothes to after having cut thru the flesh. Im not kidding, the name is onomatopoetic.

It also is a generic description of swordplays in jidai-geki, that is period plays from 17th century up to 1868. As the samurai was the only one allowed to carry a sword, they are the main characters.

Contra to the samurai film, the chambara centers around swordplay, it is first of all action by the sword. Realism makes little difference and everything is exaggarated. Kurosawa hated chambara and mocked it in Sanjuro in the final combat. The protagonist need not be a samurai, but is often a ronin. One can say, that caste in general means little in chambara.

Contra to chambara, the samurai film doesn't need to have swordfights at all, as is deals with the nature of the samurai, especially the conflict between giri (the duty of a samurai) and bushido (the way of the warrior), which often never are the same, often conflicting, but also discusses for instance kukenshiso (doubts about caste). Caste is everything here, thus the protagonist is either samurai or ronin (but still samurai in spirit).

As a samurai is a warrior, he is basically a fish on dry land in peace time, and as Japan was at peace from 1603, the function of the samurai changed, but his spirit remained the same. It is this conflict, which the samurai film explores. The samurai themselves were perhaps more torn than any film ever has shown. It is estimated that there was about 2 million samurai in 1603, but only 40.000 in 1650. Many lost their jobs and thus their title and became ronin, seeking employment as bodyguards, farmers or merchants, and as yakuza or bandits. But the majority simply was killed out of boredom, many by seppuku, but most thru duels. In fact, duels became such a problem that they were forbidden. Instead, Samurais recieved the priviledge of kirisutogomen, which basically gave them the right to kill anyone of a lower rank if they felt insulted by them.

The samurai film thus more or less directly is a critic of the regime. Chambara is indifferent to social / political context.

Both are jidai-geki, and as such, there are greyzone between the two genres.
Last edited by dvdane on Fri Dec 24, 2004 5:18 am, edited 3 times in total.

User avatar
godardslave
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 4:44 pm
Location: Confusing and open ended = high art.

#44 Post by godardslave » Fri Dec 24, 2004 5:02 am

Godot wrote:
godardslave wrote:please explain how this film is "introspective" or "philosophical"?
Sure, it's a fun movie to discuss. Have you seen the film?
no, sorry i havent, but i am interested in things both introspective and philosophical, so those 2 words caught my attention.

User avatar
Gregory
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 4:07 pm

#45 Post by Gregory » Fri Dec 24, 2004 5:17 pm

Several posts have claimed that the main character, Ryunosuke, is not a samurai. I have not seen the film, but every description I've read says he is. Contrary to what dvdane wrote, my understanding was that a ronin did not lose his status as a samurai when he became a ronin, he was just a samurai that no longer served a lord.

User avatar
godardslave
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 4:44 pm
Location: Confusing and open ended = high art.

#46 Post by godardslave » Fri Dec 24, 2004 5:31 pm

it would appear you are correct:

http://www.americanronin.com/Definition.htm

The Definition of “American Ronin”:
The Japanese word “ronin” (pronounced rō-nēn) refers to a roving, mercenary samurai who serves no master or warlord. This is very close to the origins of the English word “freelance,” which originally referred to a knight who served no king -- literally, a knight whose “lance” was available for hire.

User avatar
dvdane
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 7:36 pm
Location: Denmark
Contact:

#47 Post by dvdane » Fri Dec 24, 2004 9:25 pm

Contrary to what dvdane wrote, my understanding was that a ronin did not lose his status as a samurai when he became a ronin, he was just a samurai that no longer served a lord.
It is true, that the ronin technically is a samurai no longer serving a daimyo. But it is not as simple as that.

Samurai is technically just a term describing someone who is paid to serve, but there was a caste within the samurai. Not all samurai where for instance allowed to carry shoto (long/short). Simply footsoldiers, spearmen and light spear cavalry were also samurai, but just low and recieved very little pay and respect. Some of them were not even allowed to wear armor. The general samurai, as we know him, was an officer and some had a status of nobility, especially if he held an admistrative post. Some samurai even had their own houses and as such their own insignia. Of the "real" samurai, the lowest is the ba-samurai, horseman, who was allowed to wear bodyarmor, facemask and wear shoto. Above him was four higher ranks, where the two highest were administrative positions at the shogunate.

For a samurai to belong to a house was important and of great honor. It usually meant that the house had been samurai for generations, and thus each house had its own style of combat. To be recognized for ones swordmanship was a huge honor. The greatest swordsmen were allowed to test the daimyos swords, to train his samurai and the best of them all, became keishakunin.

So for a samurai no longer to be employed by a daimyo meant loss of the rank he held, the status, his income, his house and so on. Unless the samurai had put away enough money to get himself a house and live decently, the samurai had to seek other employment, which in many cases meant to work beneath class, and those belonging to shinokosho considered those who did below them, which meant next to hinin and chori (outcasts).

Thus many ronin became bandits, yakuza, bodyguards, some became farmers or merchants, and some sought permission from a daimyo to perform seppuku.

In discussing the samurai, the ronin however is as interesting a character as the samurai, as the ronin is relieved of all social responsibilities and, most importantly, of giri, the duty. Giri is very important. To demonstrate it, let me tell a giri tale:

A samurai was attacked by four thieves and fled the scene. When his son discovered what had happend, he asked his father about what had happend, fearing his father was a coward. I did not flee because I was afraid my son, I fled because if I had entered combat, I may had injured myself or even died, and I had not permission to die.

Giri takes away any free will. A daimyo owns his samurai and can order him to do anything. If the daimyo wants his daughter as mistress, he will give her to him, if the daimyo orders the samurai to take his own life, the samurai will do so. That is giri.

Of course giri allowed for abuse, and in those cases the samurai could either go to the provicial lord and complain, or if of a certain rank, complain to a magistrate at the shogunate. Finally he could perform one of the 8 forms of seppuku, and commit suicide to protest against the actions of his master. If doing so, the provincial lord would investigate and the daimyo would thus be punished.

It is easy to see the burden of giri. A ronin was free of it and could act on free will. The best depiction of the freedom of a ronin is in Shichinin no Samurai, where the old ronin shaves his head, removing his hairnot.

It is very wrong to consider ronin as freelance. That is not how the system worked. A ronin could not just walk up to another daimyo and seek employment. It was very rare that a daimyo hired a ronin. First of all, it was peacetime and a daimyo was not allowed to increase his military strenght, ie number of samurai, and in most cases couldn't affort to anyway. All daimyo, except those close to the Shogun, were under strict supervision and even something as ordinary as fixing the gate required permission. So no daimyo could or would just hire a ronin.

However some did, and the only way I know of is out of the sense of giri. Many ronin would ask a daimyo for temporary service, so that they could perform seppuku and die a samurai. Some daimyo were so impressed by these actions, that they employed them. Then again, many ronin used it as a trick to get employment. However such cases were very rare, as if you asked to perform seppuku, you were allowed to.

So there is one hell of a difference between the two. I hope I made it somewhat clearer.

User avatar
Tribe
The Bastard Spawn of Hank Williams
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 7:59 pm
Location: Toledo, Ohio
Contact:

#48 Post by Tribe » Fri Dec 24, 2004 9:45 pm

Thus many ronin became bandits, yakuza, bodyguards, some became farmers or merchants, and some sought permission from a daimyo to perform seppuku.
Nice summary. Can you elaborate more on that aspect of the above comment regarding the relationship between ronin and yakuza. Yakuza did not arise exclusively from the ronin element, did it?

John

User avatar
dvdane
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 7:36 pm
Location: Denmark
Contact:

#49 Post by dvdane » Fri Dec 24, 2004 10:22 pm

Yakuza did not arise exclusively from the ronin element, did it?
Not at all. The yakuza arose from gamblers. If a ronin turned gambler, then yes, but only so far.

The yakuza didn't exist until 1750s or so, and consisted mainly of the bakuto, who were professional gamblers, but later added pickpockets and pimps, and began controlling the entertainment industry.

The bakuto were originally hired by the Shogunate to gamble with first construction workers, later those who wanted to, in order to return their wages to the magistrates.

One of the most genial ways of getting your land build for "free", while rebuilding Japan, construction workers would be offered huge sums of money, so alot was build fast. At the same time, the "goverment" would hire the bakuto to make the workers gamble and lose their income. This again made the workers work harder, in order to compensate for the losses, and the wheel turned. The bakuto naturelly got percentages, but at some point they decided to keep it all for themselves, thus the yakuza was born.

The name yakuza comes from the game their played, hana fuda (cards of flowers), which is a somewhat similar to baccarat. You recieve three cards and the object is to get as high a number as possible. The number is reset at 20 (20 equals zero). As such, one of the worst hands you can get is 8, 9 and 3 (ya, ku, za). It is useless, just as those gamblers were useless to society.

cbernard

#50 Post by cbernard » Wed Dec 29, 2004 10:24 am

Why is it that whenever dvdane posts something about his knowledge, it's very helpful, and when he posts something about his opinions, it's hard to understand and often doesn't make sense?

Post Reply