Paul - Comparison Expanded

The films The Seven Samurai, The Magnificent Seven and Sholay have many similarities. Many lines can be drawn between the three both in theme and content. For instance, many of cowboys are essentially facsimiles of the earlier film’s samurai. The heroes of Sholay do not correspond to any particular characters, but the cowboy aesthetic is in full effect. While there are many such ties, there are also quite a few points of difference. One of the most obvious differences is in the dynamic between the townspeople and their protectors. Both in their interactions and their personal views of one another, each film is a product of their respective settings.

In The Seven Samurai, the interactions between the samurai and the farmers are primarily motivated by the cultural norms of feudal Japan. One of the central tenets of a samurai’s persona and lifestyle is their pride. The thought of doing a favor for a poor group of farmers was unthinkable. This is evident when the farmers first begin approaching samurai. They seem to be angered by the fact that such lowly people would even approach them. Even the most humble of the samurai in the film carry themselves with an almost aristocratic bearing. Throughout the film, the samurai occupy a separate sphere from the rest of the townspeople. They are given all of the rice and housing space while the farmers must eat millet and sleep in barns. The only one of the group who has any kind of extensive contact with the farmers is Kikuchiyo, who often regards them with complete contempt. The film often goes on to support his views. The farmers are often shown to be unintelligent, petty and easily unnerved. Take, for example, the scene in which the town attempts to lynch a captured bandit. The viewer is clearly meant to side with the disapproving samurai, whose code of honor forbids them from killing such a prisoner.

In The Magnificent Seven, the dynamic between the cowboys and the farmers are much more conventional for the time and place it was created. While the cowboys are initially greeted coldly, they eventually become a part of the town. After finding out that the farmers were starving themselves to feed their protectors, the cowboys offer to eat with them. Throughout the film, the cowboys are usually occupying the same space as the townspeople. During the final battle, the cowboys and farmers fight alongside one another as equals. In fact, when it looks like the heroes are on the ropes, it is the farmers who save the day, wielding machetes and shovels. Bernardo acts as the mouthpiece of the group when it comes to their feelings about the townspeople. When he is talking to the children, he tells them to respect their fathers for living the hard life of the farmer.

In Sholay, the two protagonists have a unique relationship with the townspeople. Sholay is unique distinct among the three films as the one where there is the least interaction between the heroes and the farmers. In fact, aside from their conversations with Thakur and the romantic subpolots, there really is no meaningful connection between the two groups. The disconnect between the villagers and the heroes here does not come from social status, but from geographic location. Throughout most of the film, Basanti chastises Veeru for his “city” mannerisms and constantly reminds him that they are in the country. This divide appears once again during Veeru’s suicide attempt. While he delivers his overwrought monologue, the onlookers talk amongst themselves about how none of them completely understand what Veeru is talking about. When it comes to the battle scenes, there is no interaction at all between the heroes and the farmers. Whereas the heroes of the other films fought side by side with the villagers, Jai and Veeru single-handedly eliminate scores of bandits while the townspeople run and hide. It seems as if they only exist to get killed and then rescued by the heroes.

As stated above, the differences between the three films’ treatment of the hero/farmer dynamic reveal much about their historical basis. Most notably, the class system was much more rigid in feudal Japan than in the old west. As portrayed in countless media, the old west was a place relative freedom and only a loosely established ethical code. For seven drifters to help some poor Mexicans in exchange for food does not seem so ludicrous. By contrast, it is rather far-fetched for seven samurai to break the strict feudal class lines and become a help some peasants. This is somewhat mitigated by the fact that even though they are helping out, they never forget that they are above the people they are protecting. Both movies’ theme of food help drive this home. As mentioned above, when the cowboys find out that the farmers have been starving themselves, they all look ashamed and invite everyone to share their food. In The Seven Samurai, the samurai only help the peasants in the most dire of circumstances. First, Katsushiro tosses a coin on the ground so the peasants can buy more rice. Afterwards, he seems ashamed of his minimal generosity. Later, the group gives up their rice only when they learn about the old woman starving to death. Sholay has an interesting take on this dynamic because the two heroes are notorious criminals. In fact, in between shootouts, Jai and Veeru are usually shown napping or getting drunk. Rather than stooping to help the village, Jai and Veeru are often looked down upon by the townspeople, most notably Basanti’s aunt.

As I wrote earlier, these differences are largely based on the time and place that each is set. For instance, the old west of The Magnificent Seven was a place of relative freedom and equality. The appeal of going west was to start a new life in near-complete freedom, so everyone was more or less equal. There were no aristocratic drifters comparable to the ronin of feudal Japan. Even more stratified was the strict caste system at work in rural India. This may be part of the reason why the heroes of Sholay were recast as outlaws. It would be unthinkable for an Indian noble to take pity on those of a lower caste. By making the protagonists below the farmers, it led to a realistic situation where they would be able to help out. In addition to historical reasons, the environment in which each film was released was also conducive to their content. Japanese cinema has a long history of films that are so accurate as to be impenetrable to western audiences (Kinji Fukasaku’s labyrinth Yakuza epics come to mind). If translated directly, the historically accurate attitudes of the samurai would appear cold-hearted to Americans. Such thoughtless actions would never appear in a traditional American film like The Magnificent Seven. Much like Japan has its cinematic traditions, American cinema has a history of producing films featuring populist heroes, like those seen in The Magnificent Seven. Just as that film was a product of the Hollywood system, so Sholay is a reflection of many Bollywood tropes. The Bollywood style is essentially a catalogue of Hollywood clichés amplified to ridiculous extremes with goal being entertainment over any kind of logic. In this case, the makers of Sholay have taken the Hollywood western and turned it into something more entertaining. This is why, instead of the semi-plausible plot of The Magnificent Seven, Sholay features two men mowing down armies of bandits while still having time to woo local girls and break out into song. This also accounts for why the villagers are never seen fighting back against the bandits. Sholay has taken the American film trope of the masculine hero to such an extreme that the heroes do not need any help to kill their enemies.

Video

http://www.vimeo.com/7304105

"The Role of the Elder"

Seven Samurai, Magnificent Seven, and Sholay have scenes where when the villagers reach a point of confusion with what to do about the bandits that terrorize them, they turn to the elder to guide them in what to do next. The idea of the 'elder' character works on many levels, the most important being that throughout time the elder has represented being wise, and thus seeking wisdom about anything, be it a small or large issue, the elder has the experience and knowledge to be helpful. Take for example in Kurosawa's story, as the old man listens to mass panic, he is steady and sure, having experienced his village once burned to the ground, he had seen another village survive by hiring samurai, and thus tells his people to apply the same lesson. Even further when they panic about not being able to support samurai, since they're only farmers growing small crops, he tells them to find hungry samurai, as "even bears come out of the forests, when they're hungry." Notice the anecdotal wisdom, prevalent in the 'wise elder' character-type.

In Magnificent Seven, the villagers know right away to "ask the old man". Although he makes his case a lot simpler, that although the villagers don't know how to use guns, that they must hire guns at the border, and that they will learn to fight, or die. This character is less developed, but his conviction for what the villagers must do makes his wisdom in someways more matter of fact.

Sholay is the largest departure from the previous two examples, having actually shown the backstory of the 'elder' character, and thus giving a visual que to represent the good natured bandits, Veeru and Jai, that the town will hire to help them against Gabbar. It is because we've seen how these bandits interact with Thakur when he is vulnerable in the flashback sequence, that the officer whom he is speaking to, and also who the viewer is taking the perspective of, can know that both Veeru and Jai are trustworthy.

'Bandits' - Jackson **updated for Sholay**

Bandits by Another Name

Amongst the many differences that Seven Samurai has with it’s Americanized re-envisioning, Magnificent Seven, as well as its pre-Bollywood adaptation, Sholay, there are key similarities which pertain to the plot, mainly a village under siege by bandits causing a need for a hired gun. All three movies are book ended the same, as there are Samurai, Cowboys, and bandits alike that enter a philanthropic fight, and not as many which leave to live to tell the tail. However, the changes between the stories are cultural in all aspects; be it character types, setting, story telling, etc. It is in the three movies, that the antagonist, and the hero more or less stay the same, just having different ways of being developed, being bandits by another name that all meet their ends in an ironic way.

“Calvera”, the name of a leader of bandits who terrorizes a Mexican village, threatening to pillage and destroy what little the town’s inhabitants have, is the main antagonist of The Magnificent Seven. This is a big diversion from Seven Samurai, subtle, as it seems, because the enemy, although still a group of bandits, has a figurehead, a face and a name to associate with the enemy, Calvera, just as in Sholay, although the antagonist has many people fighting for him, he is still known as the terror, Gabbar. In Seven Samurai, the enemy takes many faces, it is a collective that fight with arrows and blades and in many ways feels like an evil that is a element of nature, an unstoppable moving force, choosing to toy with the village by waiting for nature itself to bring in better crops for the taking. This points to somewhat of a cultural twist, as American story telling and cinema often produces a ‘bad guy’ with traits that identify themselves as such. Calvera within the first five minutes of Magnificent Seven is shown as loud, boasting, and even hot tempered, and so surely a character like that of the cool cow boy, who is able to only to show tempered emotion by expression of their revolver could combat such an enemy. This is identifiable as it had been done in many American westerns, but also in some ways is another way of expressing the relationship between bandit and Samurai in Seven Samurai. However, in Sholay this relationship is somewhat eschewed, as the hired gun is literally a duo who identify as bandits, hired to defeat a bandit who has little to no morality.

Seven Samurai and Magnificent Seven are the tales of outsiders vs. outsiders, or for that matter bandits vs. bandits at a very base level, while Sholay is an embodiment of both. Although the Cow Boy and the Samurai are both heroic character types, they also live on a fringe of they’re respective societies as loners or outcasts that are capable of sometimes immoral means to moral ends. A striking difference between the three is that of code; an American cow boy has no code amongst one another other than to fight for “what’s right”, however there is a sort of element of ‘freestyle’ which is uniquely American. It is in Sholay that the hero is seen as what they really are, criminals, except they are identified as morally good because of their compassion, even if that compassion is determined by the flip of a coin. For example when Thakur describes first meeting the two criminals, he has been wounded and his fate is left in their hands, in order to decide to save the man or not, the criminals flip a coin, and the outcome is to save his life. This becomes a recurring theme for the both of them, the coin is their code, however what happens when the coin has an immoral outcome is never seen, and to the benefit of the criminals as protagonists. Seven Samurai shows that although Samurai can be uniquely different from one another in personality, there is a heavy burden that weighs heavily upon them in they’re code, especially since they are ronin, and without a master. An example would be when Kikuchiyo, the most hot-headed of the Seven Samurai, approaches the others with newly found armor, which unbeknownst to him is that of ‘hunted’ samurai, he is nearly disgraced and kicked out of the collective, because the others know what it’s like to be ‘hunted’, and he clearly, hasn’t the faintest idea. It is clear that amongst the Samurai in Seven Samurai there is a need to follow the ways of Kambei, the most elder of the group, as he above them all has an understanding equivalent and as cunning as the force of nature that is the bandit’s which they’ve been hired to defeat.

While the criminals of Sholay, the Magnificent Seven, and Seven Samurai alike go on to defeat they’re respective adversaries, protecting those who they’ve been hired to protect, it is not without consequence to their actions. In both Mag Seven and Seven Samurai there are only three remaining survivors to tell the tale, however it is kind of a tale of sadness, fitting for the character-types of the Cow Boy and the Samurai, while in Sholay, one of the criminals, who is the most cool and collected out of the two, looses his life in defending the village. In Samurai “the farmers won, not us.” While in Magnificent “Only the farmers won. We lost. We always loose.” It is as though all these stories are pointing out a systemic problem amongst character types. While the genuine bandit may pillage, and threaten momentarily, they will meet they’re end by the bandits at the edge of societies moral ground’s, the Samurai, the Cow Boy, or the criminal with a second chance who will always loose to the bandits that exist in the machine of a somewhat normal society, like a village and it's farmer sacrificing outsiders to sustain they're own way of life. This goes to show that although bandits may have different names, they are all a part of an unstoppable force of nature.

Paul

The films The Seven Samurai and The Magnificent Seven have many similarities. Both in theme and content, many lines can be drawn between the two. For instance, many of cowboys are essentially facsimiles of the earlier film’s samurai. But while there are many such ties, there are also quite a few points of difference. One of the most obvious differences is in the dynamic between the townspeople and their protectors. Both in their interactions and their cultural positions, each film is a product of their respective settings.

In The Seven Samurai, the interactions between the samurai and the farmers are primarily motivated by the cultural norms of feudal Japan. One of the central tenets of a samurai’s persona and lifestyle is their pride. The thought of doing a favor for a poor group of farmers was unthinkable. This is evident when the farmers first begin approaching samurai. They seem to be angered by the fact that such lowly people would even approach them. Even the most humble of the samurai in the film carry themselves with an almost aristocratic bearing. Throughout the film, the samurai occupy a separate sphere from the rest of the townspeople. They are given all of the rice and housing space while the farmers must eat millet and sleep in barns. The only one of the group who has any kind of extensive contact with the farmers is Kikuchiyo, who often regards them with complete contempt. The film often goes on to support his views. The farmers are often shown to be unintelligent, petty and easily unnerved. Take, for example, the scene in which the town attempts to lynch a captured bandit. The viewer is clearly meant to side with the disapproving samurai, whose code of honor forbids them from killing such a prisoner.

In The Magnificent Seven, the dynamic between the cowboys and the farmers are much more conventional for the time and place it was created. While the cowboys are initially greeted coldly, they eventually become a part of the town. After finding out that the farmers were starving themselves to feed their protectors, the cowboys offer to eat with them. Throughout the film, the cowboys are usually occupying the same space as the townspeople. During the final battle, the cowboys and farmers fight alongside one another as equals. In fact, when it looks like the heroes are on the ropes, it is the farmers who save the day, wielding machetes and shovels. Bernardo acts as the mouthpiece of the group when it comes to their feelings about the townspeople. When he is talking to the children, he tells them to respect their fathers for living the hard life of the farmer.

As stated above, the differences between the two films’ treatment of the hero/farmer dynamic reveal much about their historical basis. Most notably, the class system was much more rigid in feudal Japan than in the old west. As portrayed in countless media, the old west was a place relative freedom and only a loosely established ethical code. For seven drifters to help some poor Mexicans in exchange for food does not seem so ludicrous. By contrast, it is rather far-fetched for seven samurai to break the strict feudal class lines and become a help some peasants. This is somewhat mitigated by the fact that even though they are helping out, they never forget that they are above the people they are protecting. Both movies’ theme of food help drive this home. As mentioned above, when the cowboys find out that the farmers have been starving themselves, they all look ashamed and invite everyone to share their food. In The Seven Samurai, the samurai only help the peasants in the most dire of circumstances. First, Katsushiro tosses a coin on the ground so the peasants can buy more rice. Afterwards, he seems ashamed of his minimal generosity. Later, the group gives up their rice only when they learn about the old woman starving to death. As I wrote earlier, there is simply no such correlation in the old west. The appeal of going west was to start a new life in near-complete freedom, so everyone was more or less equal. There were no aristocratic drifters comparable to the ronin of feudal Japan. Disregarding historical reasons, the environment in which each film was released was also conducive to their content. Japanese cinema has a long history of films that are so accurate as to be impenetrable to western audiences (Kinji Fukasaku’s labyrinth Yakuza epics come to mind). If translated directly, the historically accurate attitudes of the samurai would appear cold-hearted to Americans. Such thoughtless actions would never appear in a traditional American film like The Magnificent Seven. Much like Japan has its cinematic traditions, American cinema has a history of producing films featuring populist heroes, like those seen in The Magnificent Seven.

Samarai- Sam Dumas

Seven Samarai and Magnificent Seven tell the tale of a small village that is going to be rampaged by a number of bandits.  As a way to defend themselves three men go out in order to recruit help.  Wanting only a few, the group ends up as seven.  Seven Samarai and Magnificent Seven unfold this epic story with the characterization of the seven men, muddled with controversy, deep-rooted tradition, and a great plot. Seven Samarai was produced before Magnificent Seven.  Though they both follow the same tale of this village defense and group of seven, there are some differences with in the plot such as the merging of Katsushiro and Kicuchiyu into one main character, certain love interest which developed between the farmers daughter and Chico and Katsushiro which is left out of Seven Samarai, as well as other detail oriented differences to do with the plot and character development. Though the plot of generally the same, the visual production of each of the two films creates a starkly different viewing experience and creates a different mood, effect, and product overall. (Names looked up on Wikipedia--> Magnificent Seven)

                        Though there are many details that change up the plot and make for an alternative viewing to an altogether similar plot, what I want to focus on is less detail oriented with characters or story line, but instead to do with visual product of each film.  With only six years separating the two Samarai films, the visual production of each is vastly different. Before analyzing two specific scenes, some of the visual effects are based on a few more basic elements.  First off, color makes a huge difference, as does genre, being western in Magnificent Seven.  However, my thesis of how visual effects dramatically affect the overall result, has to do with foreground and background.

            In Seven Samarai, as I described in class, because of the way the scenes are shot, there is a peculiar separation (or lack there of) of the characters in the foreground versus the background.  In many of the scenes, the background action is so intensified that it is as if two scenes are happening within the frame of one.  I found this altogether distracting and as a result, as taking away from the content.  Specifically, in Seven Samarai, when Kambei, the chosen leader, goes into the hut to retrieve the screaming girl, the focus is so far back that in the midst of Kambei’s waiting at the door, so much is happening the background.  Instead doing several different angles of the same scene, the camera is a wider lens.  As a result, much of what is happening in the background competes with the foreground activity (in this case Kambei at the door before he rushes in to retrieve the girl). In the particular scene, the other villagers reactions (specifically scared, heavy emotion, fright and panic), are so visible that a clown/mime like scene shines through.  By this I mean that the background reactions are seemingly sped up, while the foreground is in normal motion.  This creates as artificially produced product and cheapening of acting and set.  The level of validity and seriousness is ruined in my mind due to the jamming in of too much in terms of content.

            In contrast to these cheapening elements due to space and visual crowdedness, Magnificent Seven is much different.  For example (for which I could use each scene in this movie) in chapter seven when Vin is sitting at the table in town, and the little girls are walking through, the camera is moving along showing everyone that is there and at many points the camera, though it is focused on two of the characters (in this case Vin), the background action is present but distant.  As with the mountains in the background, the people were visible but blended nicely in the background.  In this particular scene, as Vin is at the table in the foreground, the background is there but has a fading out quality.  The background colors are darker and the camera angles create a narrowing effect as the distance increases.  This allows for an emphasis on the main foreground of the action.  Not just in this chapter, but in all the chapters, color, fading, and an almost blurriness creates for a more visually effortless viewing.  

Sam Dumas (Poem Mash)

Baa, baa, black sheep,

Went up the hill

To fetch a pail of water.

Jack and Jill

Went up the hill

had a great fall

Humpty Dumpty sat on a wall.


Humpty Dumpty had a great fall.

Mary went, 
Mary went, Mary went

Went up the hill

Mary had a little lamb

the lamb was sure to go.

Cold and Raw (Channeling Iceberg)

Cold and raw

Because it bit my finger so.

Cut them in July,

Then they will die.

You do the Hokey-Pokey

A diller, a dollar, a ten o'clock scholar!

Five for silver,

Six for gold,

Pat-a-cake

Cold and Raw

I used children's rhymes in constructing a sort of pseudo Iceberg Slim rhyme. I've got a record of Slim's where he uses rhyme schemes in his "reflections" (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K3RIXh9p6AQ), which I won't get into, but essentially I took the lines from the children's rhymes out of context while channeling what I remember from what some of Slim's recordings had sounded like. Using "pat-a-cake" for example, to say something to the effect of counting money( "pat" as in pat your pockets, "cake" as in Money). The sources of the children's rhymes are below and in order of the lines delivered.

1)Cold...North Wind Doth Blow

2)Cut Thistles in May

3) Fish story

4)Hokey Pokey

5) A Diller A Dollar

6) One for Sorrow

7)Pat-a-Cake

8) #1 repeated

Dr. Fell

I do not like thee, Doctor Fell,
The reason why, I cannot tell.
I took up a poker
And threw it at his head.
I took him by the left leg
And threw him down the stairs.
And here comes a chopper
to chop off your head!
I skipped over water, I danced over sea,
And all the birds in the air couldn't catch me.

I wanted to see how dark of a poem I could make out of some nursery rhymes, and I think this will do. The story is that the narrator doesn't like Dr. Fell, so he kills him and leaves the country to avoid being caught.