Hara-kiri : Mort d'un samouraï

It's a good film. I didn't see the original and so I wasn't tainted by how they compare, or the book either. It probably made this film a little hard to understand because the chronology jumps around and there are a lot of flashbacks - but I stuck with it and it did begin to make sense. The movie is a basically a tragedy that also dissects the samurai code and provides some thought provoking material to consider. The movie is reasonably well paced and for a Japanophile the set design and costumes are very well done. I don't know if Japan was that squeaky clean and tidy 400 years ago, but it seemed well considered and accurate. The movie was a little slow but portrayed a sort of Zen tranquility, so it worked for the mood or atmosphere. You could pick apart this movie, and it may not stand up to the original but if you're a fan of Japanese cinema it's definitely worth seeing.

I thought they did a wonderful job with this movie. They didn't sell out by making it all in English with American actors. They didn't go crazy making it a bloodbath just to get the younger viewers. The movie really gives you an insight into Japan's history and what life was like for these people. The atmosphere and story telling really draws you in. The acting is great especially one scene that had me cringing. There were a lot of parts where I was like whoa I didn't see that coming. I can understand those out there loyal to the original but you at least have to give the film makers of this remake credit. They stayed true to Japanese culture, they didn't get tom cruise or Keanu reeves to star in it. They didn't write it for the newer younger audience and make all the characters smart mouth kids. Unfortunately I haven't seen the original yet and I understand how those people might not like this one. I don't know how I would feel about a seven samurai remake? I think this movie was well done. It succeeded in telling a truly gripping story without going all modern on it and ruining it. I enjoyed it.

Where does mercy fit in with the esprit de corps of a warrior class? Can there be honor without it? These are interesting questions raised in director Takashi Miike's poignant remake of the 1962 classic "Harakiri". This film may not satisfy the audience for slashing, body-count samurai movies because the emphasis is on mood and character but there are a number of things to recommend this film. "Hara-Kiri:Death of a Samurai" is beautifully photographed by Nobuyasu Kita and has laudable performances. Ebizo Ichikawa is Hanshiro a samurai with a young daughter of marriageable age. Hanshiro has adjusted to living in a time of peace. He isn't a wealthy man but seems happy and content making a living doing the odd job here and there. Ichikawa is wonderful in this role giving great weight and humanity to the character. He is a memorable samurai. Eita is Motome a young samurai who hasn't adjusted as well. He has been unable to find employment and so enters the house of a great lord asking for permission to commit harakiri in the courtyard and thus achieve an honorable death. Hikari Mitsushima is very affecting as Hanshiro's daughter, Miho. When I approached the theater showing this film I noticed someone walking away with teary eyes. I can't recall the last time that happened but after seeing "Hara-Kiri:Death of a Samurai" I understood why someone would be so moved.

Anyone with a more than passing interest in Japanese movies ought to watch Kobayashi's 1962 version of Takaiguchi's novel that this also is based on, and watch the intro by the Japanese film authority Donald Ritchie on the Criterion edition. Ritchie makes fully clear how Kobayashi here, as in other films, is talking through the historical tale about current issues he was passionate about, in this case lingering post-WWII authoritarianism in Japan and hollow bureaucracies, in his day as in the time of the early Tokugawa government; Miike doesn't seem to have anything particularly urgent to say. Look at what Ritchie points out that Kobayashi's version offers: the script by ace screenwriter Shinobu Hashimoto who wrote Akira Kurosawa's Seven Samurai; the score by bold, influential experimentalist Toru Takemitsu; the strong and unifying symbolic use of empty samurai armor throughout; the career-defining lead performance by Tatsuya Nakadai; and the elegantly austere use of black and white cinematography.

Ironically Miike's film also carries over Kobayashi's one serious flaw - - an overindulgence in sentimentality and pathos in the flashback love story.

Miike, apparently seeking 'respectability' after all his entertaining ultra-violence with this staid remake/adaptation, also overdoes everything. He makes every scene too drawn-out and talky. He further overdoes the sentimentality, to the point that in his version becomes unbearably cloying, virtually unwatchable. Once again, 3D adds nothing; black and white was just what was needed. Less was and is more.

Whenever a filmmaker goes over familiar ground, adapting a book that has been adapted (and very well) before, he exposes himself to comparisons to the book and to the previous adaptation. Don't get me wrong. Miike has plenty of skill. It is not that his 'Hara- Kiri' is a washout. It's just that Kobayashi's version is a true work of art, a film classic, in fact; and in comparison Miike's is merely a competent effort and a pointless bid for respectability that was not needed. He is a master in his own realm. Surprisingly his last film before this, the juicy, action-historical blockbuster 13 Assassins, which I thoroughly enjoyed, also was an adaptation -- of Eiichi Kudo's little known samurai film of the same name. Thanks to 'Wildgrounds' (who compare the two Hara- Kiri films) for this info. Thanks also to Ben Parker on 'CapitalNewYork' for his detailed comparison of the two films; and to the Criterion Collection, for its print of Kobayashi's 'Hara-Kiri' and Donald Ritchie's informed introduction to it.

It would've taken guts to remake one of the most acclaimed Japanese films of all time (1962's Harakiri), but then again, no one could accuse Takashi Miike of being a gutless filmmaker. I was curious to see this because some of Miike's best films are remakes or updates of stories that have already been adapted to film (like 13 Assassins and Graveyard of Honour).

This remake really follows the original perhaps a little too closely. I think it's just a few minutes shorter, and I can really only think of one scene that was in the original that wasn't in this. Visually, it replicates Masaki Kobayashi's style really well, but maybe part of me was hoping that Takashi Miike would do something a little more out-there or unexpected. Instead, he chose to be reverent to the original, but then again, it is a classic film that deserves reverence.

There's one infamous scene from the original that feels even harder to watch here, and I think the climax shakes things up a little too, to mixed effect (the final fight is fairly different). Otherwise, the story and all the characters are near-identical, and anyone familiar with the 1962 version is unlikely to find too many surprises here.

It's strange to try and review this, because it is a high-quality film... yet it's based on a high-quality classic that still holds up extremely well, so I'm not entirely sure what the rationale was behind this. For those who want to see a more modern-looking version of Harakiri in colour instead of black and white, this is very well-made and watchable, but I feel like the original is still more worthy of being watched first, for anyone unfamiliar with either film.