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.