Hara-kiri : Mort d'un samouraï

The Japanese cinema used to be much more powerful in the past. This remake of classic masterpiece Harakiri is far worse in many ways. It toned down criticism of authority, that is the core of the original movie. The central story is overdrawn, and it does not bring much new. What is new in this presentation is almost always at a loss, spare a somewhat simpler structure. Acting is also better in the original. But what is most annoying, is that some key subtle points are missing in this version, almost as if they were not understood, or worse yet, almost if hypocrisy of the authorities is to be whitewashed. It is far less powerful rendering of the story, it lacks authenticity that Kobayashi had with his then contemporary comments. By all means, if you can, see the original first. One of the least justified and worst remakes. However, when the original is so great, this lazy if not outright stupid remake still leaves us with a somewhat shabby but not too bad a movie. It is a disappointment coming from a director that had better days, and especially from a cinematography that seems to have grown tired, and has been surpassed by South Korea but also China to an extent.

Let's get this out of the way.

Kobayashi's hard hitting "Harakiri" is a masterpiece. It's one of the great pieces of not only Japanese cinema, but also one of the best movies of the 20th century. While I'm disappointed the film was remade at all, and surprised it came from Miike, there are still good things to be found here. To my surprise, for the most part, this is a good movie and in very small quantities, there are some true moments of greatness. Even if they are very short.

A good deal of the original film's grit is lost for most of this go around. The cinematography is over-lit and the pacing falls into lulls. But survive to the end and you will be rewarded as the final irony is quite powerful. I mean, no spoilers from me, but even with the cheesy fake snow, I have to say, Ebizô Ichikawa's powerful presence won me over and he truly wins the day when the time calls for it.

I was never too crazy about all the Kurosawa remakes of the 60s and 70s. Fistful of Dollars always felt like a cheap knock-off, because it is. The Magnificent Seven was sort of a tolerable chuckle. Kurosawa's films were so human, almost populist, because of their themes, his work was ripe for remake, reboot or even plagiarism. Only Star Wars seemed to get the joke and succeed in being something different than a pure Hidden Fortress copy. Kobayashi's Harakiri seemed to escape the trend for so long because of the subject matter - even the title! But here we are. There is still something not right about this "remake," but MIike gets it right in the end, even if never needed to be done in the first place.

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.

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.

Takashi Miike's second straight tribute to the samurai genre is a well-crafted and finely honed object. It's more consistent than Miike's previous samurai film, 13 Assassins, although that also means it lacks anything as great as that film's final battle. But what sets Hara-Kiri apart is its willingness to not just offer a pastiche of these films but genuinely question their values in a way that is still challenging to the contemporary viewer.

Through a series of events told partially in flashbacks, Hara-Kiri poses the question of how relevant our values are -- whether they be highly codified values like honour or the more nebulous instincts that guide us today -- in the face of human suffering. The ronin that we see humiliated and killed in the first act is not guilty of breaking some arcane samurai bylaw but of doing something most of us would find disgraceful. But as the film goes on it argues that we should hold compassion even for people such as this, and that honour is ultimately irrelevant in the face of social suffering. In an age of recession and austerity, where so many try to cling to their ideas of what they or other people "deserve", this is an important message.

It's an easy film to appreciate and a difficult one to love -- there's a kind of coldness to this set of Miike's movies that seems out of place with the gonzo enthusiasm of his earlier work. And doubtlessly it will be too slow and cerebral for some. But its critique of not just a canonized genre but the way in which we view ethics makes it well worth seeing.