In seventeenth Century Japan it is a time of relative peace and samurai who were in service to defeated warlords have fallen on hard times. One, Hanshiro, goes to the local castle asking if he me commit hara-kiri, ritual suicide, in the castle courtyard. Before granting permission he is told the story of Motome, another poor samurai from the same clan as Hanshiro, who made a similar request a year before. Several others had made similar requests but changed their minds when offered money; suspecting Motome is another 'suicide bluffer' they decide to make an example of him and force him to go ahead with his suicide; even after he begs for three ryo for his sick wife, Miho, and child… not only that he must use his wooden bladed sword. This is slow and agonising. We then learn that Hanshiro not only knew Motome but is his father in-law and now he wants revenge. In flashback we then see Hanshiro and Motome's past and how the latter became so desperate. We then return to Hanshiro's present for the inevitably tragic conclusion.I have yet to see the original film so can't say how this compares. Judging it on its own I can say I really enjoyed it even if it was far from the 'samurai action film' I'd expected. The scene where Motome is forced to disembowel himself with a wooden sword is painfully gruelling to watch as it goes on and on… even though it doesn't dwell on the wounds inflicted it is a hard watch; and rightly so. When we learn of his connection to Hanshiro that painful scene explains why he is so desperate to show how a real samurai lives and dies. The cast does a fine job; most notably Ebizô Ichikawa, Eita and Hikari Mitsushima as Hanshiro, Motome and Miho respectively. Takashi Miike's direction is impressively subtle given his reputation over-the-top violence. Overall I'd recommend this; just don't expect lots of action; this is about character.

What a lesson in filmmaking! More or less the same script, but radically different films. And insofar as viewers want a moral, these work on two different aspects of society.The original was in the tradition of Ozu: flat, stationary camera and balanced greys. It had little overt symbolism, and the acting style was concentrated in small, almost ritualistic movements of the characters.When the counselor shifted in his seat or moved his fan, it mattered. It was more tea ceremony than drama, though the story was tragic. Our hero in the original does take serious revenge and we are left thinking the house of Li is now cursed.This later film is relatively garish. Gone is the studied flatness and the thing is presented in 3D. There is a wide range of tones, with the happy times being rosy and the dark times darker than Kobayashi would dare go. There's too much portent, too much explicit showing compared to the former.Why this matters. The story is about stories. The main story is what is told to us, the inner story what is told to the assembled household. Both concern the story that each of the strutting, comfortable retinue tell themselves about who they are. That's a lot of telling and the three have to mesh so that the inner story demolishes the outer one.Miike has restructured things. The second samurai appears first here. The boss is repelled enough to intercede in the shameful forced suicide. The revenge at the end is with a bamboo sword, that appears to do little damage. In the original, the assembled swordsmen are so intimidated that guns have to be called in.Everything is more explicit. In the original, for instance, we only know that the three shamed officials will kill themselves. Their shame is increased by us not witnessing what we assume is ordered (at least in two cases). That greatly underscores the shame on the house, and we hear the counselor trying to fabricate a story that is not dishonorable, and that we know won't hold. This one ends with the master returning with no consequence.One thing that mattered to me in the new one: we learn that the two clans were allies and that the wealth of the rich clan was partly won by the effort of the disbanded clan. I have great respect for Japanese films. I thought Audition was fantastic and some of the recent stuff is fascinating. But this seems to have too much Rosemary's Baby in it for me. And little understanding of how one story can pull on another.

I have to say that Miike's jidaigeki or chanbara movies tend to be more consistently mature, well produced and of high quality narration. There are instances of the auteur director's trademark brutality or fetish popping up in one or two scenes in 13 Assassins as well as in Hara-Kiri.But in the latter's case, it's almost entirely appropriate as the camera lingers on the excruciating pain suffered by samurais committing seppuku, the suicide ritual of regaining one's honour.I watched 13 Assassins first, and had an uncomfortable premonition that Miike would shoot a movie with harakiri with its central theme, as 13 Assassins was opened with a painful harakiri scene. I felt that Miike hasn't completely purged his inner demons yet with that short but deeply affecting scene.So now we have a well-made remake, with harakiri or seppuku as the movie's central narrative vehicle. I haven't actually watched the 1962 original, but feels that Miike's version has little pay offs by the end of the story.Don't get me wrong, it is a well told, well acted piece of samurai drama with a strong message at the end of the movie - that by the time of the Edo period, honour in the samurai caste is but a farce or of superficial value. Reading Japanese feudal history, one would even assume that there was little honour to begin with when it came to the samurai caste of the past.I find that the situation that the poor samurai families had to go through during that time was presented with panache, but I can't shake the feeling of fatality and hopelessness in Harakiri. I guess such feelings is to be expected of Miike's movies. His movies are rarely uplifting, although I have to say that I was totally satisfied, elevated even, with the ending of 13 Assassins.Harakiri is bitter all the way through, with very little sweetness. It reminds me of classical novels where all the main protagonists suffer through the story and all end up dying in horrible manners.I'm going to have to watch Samurai Fiction a couple of times to wash away the sadness that still lingers after watching Harakiri.

Compared to the original 1962 Masaki Kobayashi film this movie is shallow and meaningless. But even taken on its own merits it's still pretty flawed. An extremely powerful first act gives way to a ponderous middle, where the Ryuichi Sakamoto score over-dresses dreary long-winded sequences. Then it all culminates in a last act that is exciting both visually and intellectually... but completely unearned. Miike has rarely been able to close in on a theme in his work with much accuracy (the two big exceptions that come to mind are Audition and Visitor Q, respectively being powerful explorations of misogyny in Japanese society and the collapse of the Japanese family), but when his films are crazed and breezy and fun, that's rarely a criticism worth voicing. This time the subject matter demands something more, and whatever Miike has to say about the Ruling Class or misplaced tradition or the role of the noble and ethical warrior in a time of peace comes out hopelessly convoluted. Also, the 3D sucks and gives nothing to the experience except for muddling some gorgeous images with that dark uninspired light that those stupid glasses impose on even the best shot of 3D films. So what's good about it? Well, the projected lighting issues aside, it's a beautiful looking movie. Miike always knows where to place his camera, is never afraid of silence (sabotaged repeatedly by the uninspired score) and the movie has a wonderful seasons motif. Some of the acting is wonderful to watch and when it's being a powerful act of filmmaking, it's mighty powerful. But here Miike doesn't quite have the right touch and the lack of dedication to a deeper exploration of theme makes the film seem little more than a sequence of events with hardly any cohesion.