While initially appearing to be a study of the eternal conflict between individual needs and the demands of tradition, HARAKIRI is actually a clear-eyed and savage indictment of human (particularly male) vanity.
To me there are two key scenes in the film. First, the enforced ritual suicide of the young samurai early in the film. This has got to be one of the most brutal, toe-curling scenes ever put on film (although there is no gore). What is particularly striking is the juxtaposition of the twisting, writhing, screaming man against the silent, immobile, formally arranged background. This has the effect of giving the environment, or tradition/society/law, increased weight and making the individual appear weaker, transient, more mutable, and thus more subject to error. In other words Kobayashi appears to pay all due deference to the culture and belief system that have created the horror we have just witnessed. He consciously uses the the techniques of classic formalist Japanese cinema (static shots, formal spatial design, exactly replicated point of view shots, etc.) to give us a sense of the weight and power of custom bearing on the individual.
The second scene comes at the end of the middle section of the film during which time we have been given a detailed examination of the relationships between the members of the small family and the increasing sense of desperation and despair that has entered the home with the deadening encroachment of poverty. When the temple officials tell the tale of the "honorable death" of the young father in this setting (they are somewhat more brightly lit - "cleaner" than their surroundings) THEY are now what appears mutable or insubstantial and their talk of fame, honor, and tradition is perceived as pompous, empty cant. In short they are shown as posturing, bullying members of some "boys club" whose membership is based on vanity and who are totally divorced from the realities of existence. These realities would include, most prominently, our duties to our family and friends, not just our personal honor (ego?). At this point in the film the young father's begging now appears an act of courage and virtue, his suicide would have been one of cowardice and vanity. The film suggests that suicide may be the easier of the choices faced by those placed in the position of this father in this culture. Death provides social approval, lasting fame, and freedom from the grind of responsibility. Continuing to be a husband and father would here only bring disgrace. This could be seen as a powerful indictment of what can occur when women are not accorded a place of respect and/or authority within a culture.
This is a passionate, clear-eyed, stringently crafted film that is marred only very slightly by occasional use of that addiction of 60's filmakers: the zoom lens, and an (admittedly exciting) action ending that somewhat distracts from the film's main themes (love the toppling of that idol though). 9.5/10.
To me there are two key scenes in the film. First, the enforced ritual suicide of the young samurai early in the film. This has got to be one of the most brutal, toe-curling scenes ever put on film (although there is no gore). What is particularly striking is the juxtaposition of the twisting, writhing, screaming man against the silent, immobile, formally arranged background. This has the effect of giving the environment, or tradition/society/law, increased weight and making the individual appear weaker, transient, more mutable, and thus more subject to error. In other words Kobayashi appears to pay all due deference to the culture and belief system that have created the horror we have just witnessed. He consciously uses the the techniques of classic formalist Japanese cinema (static shots, formal spatial design, exactly replicated point of view shots, etc.) to give us a sense of the weight and power of custom bearing on the individual.
The second scene comes at the end of the middle section of the film during which time we have been given a detailed examination of the relationships between the members of the small family and the increasing sense of desperation and despair that has entered the home with the deadening encroachment of poverty. When the temple officials tell the tale of the "honorable death" of the young father in this setting (they are somewhat more brightly lit - "cleaner" than their surroundings) THEY are now what appears mutable or insubstantial and their talk of fame, honor, and tradition is perceived as pompous, empty cant. In short they are shown as posturing, bullying members of some "boys club" whose membership is based on vanity and who are totally divorced from the realities of existence. These realities would include, most prominently, our duties to our family and friends, not just our personal honor (ego?). At this point in the film the young father's begging now appears an act of courage and virtue, his suicide would have been one of cowardice and vanity. The film suggests that suicide may be the easier of the choices faced by those placed in the position of this father in this culture. Death provides social approval, lasting fame, and freedom from the grind of responsibility. Continuing to be a husband and father would here only bring disgrace. This could be seen as a powerful indictment of what can occur when women are not accorded a place of respect and/or authority within a culture.
This is a passionate, clear-eyed, stringently crafted film that is marred only very slightly by occasional use of that addiction of 60's filmakers: the zoom lens, and an (admittedly exciting) action ending that somewhat distracts from the film's main themes (love the toppling of that idol though). 9.5/10.
