When I think "samurai movie," I think of the American western-influenced films of Kurosawa like Yojimbo and Seven Samurai. But my search for similar movies has shown that a lot of people define "samurai movie" as any movie featuring samurai. So I was happy when I finally got around to watching the first of the Samurai trilogy films that it is, in fact, very much a Japanese western, full of sweeping vistas, iconic characters, small town life, violence, and a score that you could attach to a John Ford film. Only, as with the Kurosawa films, I like this better than I like most American westerns.The movie features two friends who go to war and wind up on the run. They meet a couple of women, their fates diverge, the fiancé of one pines, and a priest intercedes. The plot is definitely Eastern, and at times feels wandering and disjointed, but it manages to just hold together.While no match for Seven Samurai, this is a very pleasant, enjoyable film that makes me want to watch the rest of the series. Once that's done, I'll have to go back to the search for more Japanese westerns.

I've finally gotten down to the first in the trilogy of films based on a story that has been touted as the Japanese's equivalent of Gone with the Wind. The Samurai Trilogy, directed by Hiroshi Inagaki, is based on the novel by Eiji Yoshikawa, which tells of the story of the famous samurai Miyamoto Musashi, and an intriguing character who has authored The Book of Five Rings.What more, the titular character is played by the legendary Toshiro Mifune, and that itself is a major treat and a draw for more contemporary audiences. Sadly to say, as with most first films in a series, this one sets out to establish the baseline character of Mushashi, or Takezo as he's better known in his early days, an orphan brought up by relatives and who possesses great strength, but is brash and ill-disciplined. Together with his best friend Honiden Matahachi (Rentaro Mikuni), who had to leave behind his fiancé Otsu (Kaoru Yachigusa), they sign up for war in the hopes of being samurai warriors at the end of battle, only to discover they're fighting on the losing end, and become fugitives.What transpires later involves their flight from the dark, a couple of seduction scenes by a mother-daughter pair of grave-diggers whose fancies for Takezo gets turned toward Honiden, therein splitting the two best friends up, and Takezo being persecuted by his village folk for deserting his best friend since he returned to the village as the sole survivor. But the shrewd monk Takuan (Kuroemon Onoe) sees a diamond in the rough in Takezo, and therefore sets him up to fall under his tutelage, while at the same time Takezo has to decide for himself how to deal with some new found love in Otsu.There's romance, there's battle scenes, there's the obligatory hero who's still unsure of his destiny. By the time the film ends, it leaves you with a lot of subplots still hanging in the air, but I'm crossing my fingers that all these will be addressed in the next two installments. It's a mid 50s film, so fight scenes aren't that polished to perfection. Instead we see Takezo's rather rough and unfanciful swordplay, in part being the gruff character that he is, knowing no finesse in the art of a duel, and also being a foil for realism, where enemies get cut down ruthlessly without wasting time. Technically one should pass over some of the shortcomings such as abrupt camera angle changes, cuts and edits, and it's indeed a pity that the film is not presented in a widescreen format, which would have been quite a spectacle given the vast landscapes that the film was shot in.Perhaps another indication of how dated this period drama is, is in the treatment of the women characters. I guess given socio-unequalness then, the women folk are seen to be terribly in need of a manly figure to be head of their household, and more than willing to be submissive, and obedient, just so to be at the side of their men. It's a far cry from today's world really, where women are far from the weaker sex they are portrayed in the film. Sure a key female character here is as conniving can be, and future installments (I've taken a look at the cast list) seem to demonstrate that there's still more to it all than meets the eye.In short, Samurai I has set the stage, transforming Takezo from nobody, to a ready warrior yet to be tested in the real world. As he sets out for some reality based education, it would prove all the more interesting as he is likely to chance upon old friends and foes, and this time, being skilled and more refined in his ways, would prove to be engaging material for the subsequent films to deal with. Already those two film titles have "Duels" in them, so they should fill for a climatic finale battle each, given the obvious lack of a crescendo this one turned out to be.

One can watch this film and learn a lot. The philosophy woven throughout, mainly by the Priest Takuan (Kuroemon Onoe), about what it means to be a man and honor your family (community) is the hidden jewel of this film.Takezo (Toshirô Mifune) represents all the rebellious youth that only think of themselves. He cares nothing for the damage he does. To the entire village, he is a dangerous animal. But, the Priest finds that he is worthy of rehabilitation and proceeds to make him into a Samurai warrior in service to the castle.This is a slow and thoughtful film, full of swordplay for those looking for that, but it is so much more for those who take the time to discover it.Kaoru Yachigusa plays Otsu, who is abandoned by her fiancé (Rentaro Mikuni) and falls in love with Takezo. Unfortunately, his training, after she waits for him for three years, has only begun as he begins a journey across Japan to get in touch with the people.I can't wait to see the next installment of this trilogy, which is cinematically brilliant, as one would expect from a Criterion disk, and features outstanding acting from all concerned.

The strengths of this movie are a simple story with wonderful characters set to a background of beautiful scenery and costumes using skillful cinematography. Unlike today's movies with emphasis on action, special effects and fast cuts to move the story along, this movie unfolds its drama at a leisurely pace and introduces us to the title characters so we feel well acquainted with them.Samurai I sets the foundation for the story. It introduces us to Musashi, Otsu, Matahachi and his mother, and Akemi and her mother. There is also a priest named Takuan who captures a youthful Musashi in order to break his wild, free spirit. Matahachi is Musashi's friend who is set to marry Otsu, but the civil war in Japan during that time separate them and put their plans on hold. What drives the first part of the trilogy are the characters, especially the rambunctious Musashi and what he does for his friend Matahachi and his mother. Musashi is an orphan and has grown tired of his existence as a farmer in Miyamoto village. He longs to become a great warrior by joining the civil war. What impressed me was the acting of Toshiro Mifune. He portrays a young and wild Musashi in Part I and the viewer is easily drawn to believe in his portrayal. In Mifune, we can see what the young Musashi is thinking and feeling about what is happening around him. Part I ends with Musashi professing his love for Otsu, but also leaving her in order to further his warrior training.Samurai II is again driven by its characters, but this time the cinematography opens up to show us breathtaking scenery and backgrounds. The background and costumes of Japan during medieval times make for a very Zen-like and peaceful atmosphere despite the story is about fighting and developing the warrior's skills. The love story between Musashi and Otsu as well as Akemi continue. Mifune shows us Musashi getting more mature and developing as a swordsman. Musashi is torn between his love for the sword and for Otsu. We are also introduced to another important character in Part II, Kojiro Sasaki. Kojiro is an interesting character. He's seen as an actor by people who are familiar with him. He certainly has a flair for the dramatic, but is one who has ambitions to become a great swordsman in his own right. Kojiro seeks fame and fortune, but wants to do it his way. His tastes are different from the simpler Musashi, and each character is developed to portray them as very strong individuals.Samurai III shows us the final battle at last between Musashi and Kojiro and is easily the most artistic of the trilogy. Both characters have grown to appreciate each other in their skills with the sword, and with it they have used the other to better themselves in their skills. Each are different individuals with different goals, but their motivations to become the best fencer in Japan are the same. Musashi was about to duel Kojiro to the death early in Part III, but decided at the last minute that there were things in life he still wanted to do. He returns to his roots -- the soil and does some farming again. The best part of Part III is the duel scene at Ganryu Island. The final scenes with Musashi and Otsu and the climactic battle between Musashi and Kojiro are shot beautifully. One can see the painful detail it must took to capture the right light and color for those scenes.Early in his career, director Hiroshi Inagaki trained as a painter. In the Samurai Trilogy, one can appreciate his use of color and composition of the scenes, e.g. the bridge scenes in Samurai I, the opening title sequences in II or the final battle scene in III. The cinematography was wonderful in framing a shot to show the artistry of those scenes. One would have to have an understanding of color, hue and texture to get all the dramatic effects the scenes achieved.I saw the Criterion version and can accept some of the change of light and fuzziness in the film because of the age, but I do have to complain about the darkness, especially in the fight scenes of Part II. The filtering of the shots made it almost incomprehensible to see the action on the screen. I was thinking why didn't they fight in the daytime, but then it wouldn't have been as authentic I suppose. However, the quality and artistry of the finale in Part III makes up for the digression in Part II.