The samurais who die...
...all do so by musket fire.
Just saying, was hoping to see some good swordfights but it seems the bandits sucked at swordsmanship. Still gave it a 9/10.
Well, it's natural that a bandit wouldn't have the training of a samurai warrior and would therefore suck in swordsmanship by comparison (which no doubt is why the peasants wanted to hire samurai to protect them in the first place, and why it was decided that seven samurai would be enough to fight off 40 bandits). Only guns could have given them an edge.
shareWell, maybe, but the bandits themselves are samurai, or rather ronin, just like our seven heroes (or rather, six of them). The leaders are wearing the crescent moon mon of the Date clan. Masterless samurai gone to the bad.
share[deleted]
no its not that. its the fact that in old samurai movies you never actually see the sword slashing the guy. you never see blood. they bearly touch thier enemies and you have some wierd sound effect that suppose to sound like slashing.
Yeah, so I guess I just dreamt this scene. Thank you for pointing it out!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-NNaj5YUxco share
[deleted]
Are you now our resident samurai film expert? Dude, go do yourself a favor and watch the THE HIDDEN FORTRESS (1958), where in the beginning scenes, they show a samurai on the run, being bloodied to death by a band of soldiers on horseback. Go watch YOJIMBO (1961), where Toshio Mifune finishes off slashing bad guy Tatsuya Nakadai, and while Nakadai is flat on his stomach, one can clearly see blood slowly gushing out.
Showing blood can have its practical use, but not showing it can be just as effective depending on the scenario. In SEVEN SAMURAI, dying was the only thing we needed to see. We did not need to see any bells and whistles when Kyuzo or Kikuchiyo were struck down. The fact that seeing these characters getting killed (that we the audience cared for), was a strong enough statement by itself.
[deleted]
It is funny how many times you are presented with facts, you keep evolving, but at the same time, try to maintain your original argument. At first you stated that NO old samurai movies showed blood and slashing. Then you stated only one. Then only a few, BUT somehow you hardly see any penetration or slashing, therefore, you are still correct and everything Kurosawa did was wrong! As I stated before, it is the death of the character that counts A LOT more, then seeing all the bells and whistles that somehow you are obsessed with. Since Kurosawa was a descendant of samurai, he pretty much knew what he was doing. For aesthetic choices, if he wanted to show blood and gushing, he in fact showed it in his movies. In other scenes, believe it or not, it really was not necessary.
share[deleted]
Not underestimating blood and guts. It can become a good, or even a great visual tool, but it is not always necessary. A great example is when Kyuzo is dueling that hot-headed samurai. One strike, and a slow-motion death is all we needed to see how powerful Kyuzo was, without benefit of any blood. It was a scene so beloved by James Coburn, that when casting for THE MAGNIFICENT SEVEN, he personally was vying for the Kyuzo role, and hoping to have his own duel in much the same manner, which he eventually did.
And remember yanivpro, the blood slashing began with Kurosawa! Take a look at that duel again in SANJURO - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-NNaj5YUxco
It all started there, and it was Kurosawa's way to conclude the story in a violent manner. Now, had there been blood slashing prior, guess what? That final duel would not have invoked a such a powerful image. So in essence, Kurosawa knew exactly what he was doing and since then, everyone from Leone, to Sam Peckinpah to Tarantino, have gone slashing.