Unfortunately I was not able to sit and write in a single night, too many distractions ended up stretching this over a week. So with a many lost moments of thought, I would expect certain areas to not be entirely understandable and maybe even gaps in what I

never mind(ignore)

Just fantastic, Jeremy! What a pleasure to read and see. Your integration of analysis with image leaves no doubt about the development of Sanjuro's appeal. This is the human part of the film. I, personally, would back up my admiration for Sanjuro to the very opening scenes where we see Mifune's mighty back and the mountain-shown as equivalents-letting us know that this is a guy to be reckoned with. And, I confess that I love that iconic scene's reiteration in the Indian Jones pics.

[To stray off topic briefly, I

Indeed, an excellent look at the way Mifune's character is developed in the film. There were some points that I had not really considered before, like for example how Mifune is indeed developed into something of a god-figure and then made human again in the last third of the film. (Although, to me, he does look more like an ogre after he's beaten...)

The bit about Sanjuro looking at us when he comes up with his name is also very interesting. In a way, then, are we Sanjuro? Don't we all want to?

It was also only when reading your post, Jeremy, that I realised how Sanjuro's disarming Unosuke with the throw of his knife actually seems to be directly taken from westerns. Or isn't it by shooting the main villain's gun hand that you disarm him, but still allow him the last gasp of breath during which he has the opportunity to leave the audience with something memorable to say?

I also totally agree with you that Mifune does a brilliant job in this film with his subtle acting. I really can't think of anyone else who could have pulled it off so brilliantly.

As for Homma's departure, at least Prince makes a big deal about the Fujita-Mifune encounter, and I agree with Coco that he has a point there.

The idea of Kurosawa's former leading man waving goodbye to Kurosawa's current leading man (and to us) is very interesting, especially considering the roles that they play in the movie (Homma is, after all, replaced my Sanjuro). The film also seems somewhat self-referential throughout, and Prince also makes an interesting point about Sanjuro's "set design" in the scene where he rearranges the hut to look like a fight had taken place there. In fact, Prince also suggests that the whole story is, in a sense, Sanjuro's creation (although I don't think that this is meant to be taken too literally).

Thanks to Coco also for the link! That was one review I had never read before. A funny thing, by the way, with the following:

[Kurosawa] never scolds an actor, though once, when an actor infuriated him, he turned to a horse that was standing near by and bellowed in the poor brute's ear: "Idiot!"

Isn't baka ("idiot"), if you look at the characters with which it is written, "horse-deer"? It might of course be just a coincidence...

And I think Kurosawa actually did scold an actor or two in his career...

What a wonderful read, Jeremy. It made a lot of things clear to me about why Yojimbo works so well, and also drew my attention to numerous things I've never really noticed. I think the key to the film's success is indeed the way we warm to Sanjuro, as you say the way in which he is gradually elevated as a superhuman figure, only to be brought down to a flawed, human level. According to Richie, by the way, what proves his undoing is his compassion, which I think is interesting in itself.

Much like the scratching that Sanjuro does, the way he eats rice, is a means to see Sanjuro relax, as warming up to him for the audience.

Thanks for pointing out this detail. I think you're right on target about the rice; I had never really thought about it consciously but it does bring us closer to the character. It might be interesting to compare the way and what he eats with the ceremonial fare presented to the inspector.

As another means to separate, we find that the tough guy look of the gang members is nothing but a look.

Absolutely. Looking at this again, I couldn't help noticing how many of the thugs wear ill-fitting clothes. In fact, it's almost as if their clothes are too big for them, as if they are children trying to act grown-up. Sanjuro, on the other hand, wears a rather worn and dirty robe, but looks every inch the samurai. He wears it well; it fits him.

Although he is really looking out at the field in which to get his name, it is still a acknowledgment to the audience watching. This is as formal an introduction as Sanjuro will ever give.

Great insight!

For the first time, Sanjuro literary stands in the middle of two evils, not only that, he is high above them.

This is a scene that deserves all the talking up it has received. Indeed he is superior to them (certainly in terms of intelligence, perhaps even morally, though the question of whether Sanjuro is exactly moral is of course a complex one), and his position is pivotal: everything depends on where he will throw his weight.

It is important as the audience that we are aware, that Sanjuro actions of killing, although similar to the gangster ideals, are for the better good and not to label him as a bad guy.

Agree that we are on his side. His motives, perhaps, are more open to question. Is it almost as if he is providing some service to humanity by cleaning up the streets of such scum?

So far Sanjuro has proved himself the best fighter, and the smartest person in the town, His ability to execute his plan will go on with little trouble.

Excellent point. Without Unosuke's arrival to complicate matters, the film would effectively be over in terms of conflict - his job is easy, the outcome fixed. In some ways Sanjuro is like a gambler - he assesses the field, he toys with where to put his stake (someone else's money, of course), and when he's sure he's virtually able to sit back and let the winnings come in. But he doesn't count on Unosuke, the wildcard, who changes the state of play considerably.

From that, Sanjuro is presented with some dancing prostitutes of Seibei

I really intended to get a bit deeper and explain some of the comments further, but I had a hell of time getting the right words, and never was happy with what I was saying. So I had no choice but to delete most things and sum everything up. The result is I mentioned very little on Unosuke, and it was him, that I intended to spend a great deal on.
It's rather incomplete but hopefully it has some value.

Vili Maunula wrote 3 hours ago:

The bit about Sanjuro looking at us when he comes up with his name is also very interesting. In a way, then, are we Sanjuro? Don't we all want to?

I do think at times we are placed to be Sanjuro, and to carry his ideals and attitude. You would need to maintain admiration for someone to connect, so for the audience to want to be Sanjuro due to his admirable ideals would be natural. Sanjuro shows strength to the point few are willing to do, but wish they could.

Vili Maunula wrote 4 hours ago:
It was also only when reading your post, Jeremy, that I realised how Sanjuro's disarming Unosuke with the throw of his knife actually seems to be directly taken from westerns. Or isn't it by shooting the main villain's gun hand that you disarm him, but still allow him the last gasp of breath during which he has the opportunity to leave the audience with something memorable to say?

Yeah, it would be a shame for the villain to not know he is dying. A instantly dead villain doesn't allow for him to give a retrospect to his ways. I dont know if is so much a copy to the westerns, then a simply requirement for reflection and closure.

Vili Maunula wrote 3 hours ago:
Isn't baka ("idiot"), if you look at the characters with which it is written, "horse-deer"? It might of course be just a coincidence...

It is, I never noticed that before-then again I never bother to see how baka is written.

Jon Hooper wrote 2 hours ago:
One of the stills you used happens to be my favourite shot in the whole movie - the one where Sanjuro and the restaurant owner are facing opposite directions and the distance between them is reduced so that the thing looks flat (the result of the telephoto lens?).

This one?

Since the distance between the lens and the subjects is much greater then the distances in the two subjects and surroundings. The visual spacing is lost making everything look flat.
Yes the the advantage and sometimes disadvantage of long lens. In Kurosawa's case used to some great effect.
Sometimes a forced and unnatural closeness like in the screenshot, where the two bodies look to almost share the same plane, can be a powerful effect, even if the audience doesn't even realize it what is being done. (I believe they are sitting opposite ends of a bench and you could fit another person between them, but they look like they are sitting right next to each other)

It is short, the base theme to the write up, that although most if not all that I written would not be noticed to a new viewer, or even seasoned. It still plays very important emotional effect, without the audience even knowing it. Of course it is still just my take, and doesnt really mean it is what I say it is.

That's the one, Jeremy. I love the way Kurosawa has framed that shot, the symmetry, Mifune's stance with his sword resting on his chin, the way the lens makes it look flat. Thanks for the technical info - I have read a lot about how Kurosawa used the telephoto lens (in Prince for example) but have never had how it works put so simply and so clearly. There are many great shots in Kurosawa where he achieves this effect but this is one of my favourites.

You are far too humble, Jeremy. You said and made visible your points so very well!

Jon said of your writing, Jeremy:

Your description of how here and elsewhere Sanjuro risks his life to protect others reminds us, I think, that while much has been written about how Sanjuro is an anti-hero, that he ammoral and self-serving, with perhaps only one slight lapse into compassionate action, he is still a long way from being on a level with the gang members. He may be no Gary Cooper, as Richie points out, but he still has the chinks in the armour that let the humanism shine through.

Actually, that whole mercenary/self-serving/nihilism thing gets a fair trouncing in Jeremy's post. What a relief!

In another post in another thread, Vili talked about the pervasive two dimensionality of Yojimbo. Miyagawa's absolutely brilliant framing, compositional devices and use of graphic space is much more easily shown that discussed. Thanks, Jeremy.

Food

I forgot to say that I totally agree that seeing Sanjuro eating is something that really brings us closer to the character. Again, this is something that I never actually thought about before, so thanks for pointing it out!

What I have often consciously marvelled at, however, is the brilliance with which Mifune plays out those scenes. Eating, I think, is something that very few actors are able to perform well. Sometimes, I wonder if this is because after the third take you are already too accustomed to the taste of the food (or just full up)!

But Mifune does it really well. My favourite eating scene in Yojimbo is the one where he eats rice balls directly from the stew. You can see that the food is hot, and Mifune's face shows that as well, but at no point does he over-act or stress the hotness of the food. It feels very natural and realistic.

Clothes

Jon's point about the ill-fitting clothes is also really good. Maybe that's also why Unosuke wears those *shudder* stripes. The clothes actually fit him, but don't fit the town.

Sanjuro as an anti-hero

I meant to start a separate thread on this, but haven't got around to doing so. And since we all seem to agree with Sanjuro not quite being the anti-hero he is often made up to be, I guess there is no point for a separate thread.

In any case, I think that Goodwin (166) words it really well in Intertextual Cinema (which I think could have discussed Yojimbo in much more detail):

The Mifune character in [Seven Samurai, Yojimbo and Sanjuro] is an antihero in appearance and in some of his behavior, but his character proves ultimately to have strength, integrity, and a personal code of justice. The antithetical construct of such heroism is dependent on intertextual dynamics of characterization that reverse codes of idealized heroic appearance but does not ultimately negate heroic ideals.

This, I feel, is a far more accurate description of Mifune's character in Yojimbo than for example Richie's suggestions that "Mifune is just as monstrous as any of the monsters" and that "Mifune is naturally bad" (149).

I do not, however, necessarily agree with Goodwin in that "Sanjuro embarks on a campaign against corruption and injustice as an indulgence to his own whims" (167). It is true that, to borrow Jeremy's words, Sanjuro "gets giddy when everything goes to plan", but for me the film doesn't suggest that Sanjuro is dealing with the town simply because he happens to feel like doing so. I think that his actions towards the separated family and the inn keeper show that despite of acting tough, Sanjuro ultimately has specific reasons for being there.

I think Jon is right in that "he is providing some service to humanity by cleaning up the streets".

Unosuke

Both of you raise good points about Unosuke's role in the movie. As I am somewhat (pleasantly) stuck with Prince's suggestion (in the commentary) that we could see Sanjuro as a director of his own show, I would say that it is then possible to view Unosuke as a competing director trying to steal Sanjuro's production. (Leone? )

Samurai Realities V.S. Romantic Sensibilities

I think Donald Richie is often a bright guy with lots of good insight, but, occasionally, he gives me a sense of being a rather fussy old hen, and sometimes a bit of a prattler who speaks before he thinks because of the momentum and the pleasure of speaking that he gets from yabbling forth. That famous quote of his, that "The Idiot" is just the book, filmed. Well, hells bells, there's no "just" about it-it is an heroic task of translation from one medium to another even if one doesn't think the results are interesting or even very good. Silly Donald.

Vili deconstructs Richie's statement, with a preface quote from Goodwin, then:

This, I feel, is a far more accurate description of Mifune's character in Yojimbo than for example Richie's suggestions that "Mifune is just as monstrous as any of the monsters" and that "Mifune is naturally bad" (149).

This suggestion of Richie's, that Mifune is "naturally bad" in Yojimbo is ridiculous. At the very most there is a suggestion of ambiguity about his motivation...enough for a fun discussion. But, in no way is he "bad".

The antithetical construct of such heroism is dependent on intertextual dynamics of characterization that reverse codes of idealized heroic appearance but does not ultimately negate heroic ideals

cocoskyavitch wrote 8 hours ago:
You are far too humble, Jeremy.

HA-wait till you meet me in person.

Anti-Hero
I'm not sure what an anti-hero really is and why there a supposed negative to it. Because the hero has problems, he is no longer worthy of hero status but instead a non-hero-hero?

A hero is the truest would be avoid of human flaws, no personal view points, no real self thought, no just about anything it means to be human. There is no value in perfection without knowing the trouble in which to obtain it, and the understand that perfection doesnt exist. If the hero is perfect in every regard, for what reason should we be thankful, or find them admirable, if the their efforts come at no cost.
It would be like a billionaire dropping a penny in a little orphan's cup.
Should the world now stop and be grateful for the billionaire doing something that was likely done just to rid of the worthless penny.
Like all those batman and superman comics, they only stop the bad guy, never kill them, just to be morally perfect. Yet they keep coming back and messing everyone's life up, but no the hero settles for the temporary solution.

The person that helps others, despite their own problems, and mistakes, is the one to with gratitude should be given.
Sanjuro gains nothing, suffers greatly, makes mistakes and it's debatable I suppose if he handled everything perfectly. -That's to say he could of invited everyone for tea, and talk things over, rather then chop them down. I think it stupid and naive, but it was option. Sanjuro got the problems solved, maybe wrong, but what works-works.

Vili Maunula wrote 8 hours ago:
Food

The eating of the rice balls from the stew, is something I should of used instead, rather then what I did.
If the eating scenes where not intended as a means for the audience see a relax Sanjuro and for the audience to feel relax. I would assume that his ill manners of eating directly from the stew pot, stabbing the rice ball, walking while eating wouldnt be given so much attention. Perhaps I'm putting too much Japanese formal eating customs into it, and maybe Sanjuro isnt a formal person, but its all in good manners really, and Sanjuro appears to have that.
If the audience is suppose the get the feeling of being friends, then having Sanjuro eating "improperly" would be fine, but if the audience was instead intended to stay at a distance, then I would think more public eating habits would be shown.
Stuff like this is present in Ozu films, where things are maintain very formal,as Ozu typically doesnt want the audience to feel relaxed to the characters.

cocoskyavitch wrote 4 hours ago:
I think Donald Richie is often a bright guy with lots of good insight, but, occasionally, he gives me a sense of being a rather fussy old hen, and sometimes a bit of a prattler who speaks before he thinks because of the momentum and the pleasure of speaking that he gets from yabbling forth.

Not to disrespect Richie, but I feel much the same. There is little in which I agree with him and most of what he says, I wonder it's just his ego of being a "expert". I rarely see his logic, it's often typically of those that see works with a "I could do better" opinion of themselves. While having little knowledge to what it really takes to make an effective movie, and non-stop problems and compromises that must be made. --Of course that's now just my ego showing. I do however value the thoughts of fans in this site, far higher then "expert" opinion.

Jeremy Quintanilla wrote 15 hours ago:
I'm not sure what an anti-hero really is and why there a supposed negative to it. Because the hero has problems, he is no longer worthy of hero status but instead a non-hero-hero?

The answer to the question what constitutes a "hero" and what an "anti-hero" is probably quite subjective and context-dependant. The latter concept, however, should in any case be something of an intertextual construct derived from the former.

On the very basic level, we might perhaps consider a "hero" something like a central character who displays courage, moral values accepted by the society in which he is a hero, and a sense of purpose towards the common good. A hero is also someone who we can accept and to bond with.

An "anti-hero", then, should be a central character who lacks some or all of these qualities, yet does not come across as a villain. And I don't personally see Sanjuro belonging here.

Perhaps one reason why Sanjuro has become an anti-hero is that the "spinoff character", Eastwood's man-with-no-name, became one in the later dollar films. Which actually provides an interesting intertextual twist. Yet, even Eastwood's character isn't, in my opinion, really an anti-hero yet in A Fistful of Dollars (which I watched yesterday and will write about a bit later).

Jeremy makes good points about the (in)formalism of Sanjuro's eating and the way it makes us feel at home with him.

As for Richie, I personally think that his line of reasoning is always interesting to follow, although at times it does take very odd turns. He also often seems to fail to check the facts properly (or relies too much on his memory), especially on the commentary tracks. But all in all, I'm happy that his input is around.

Yet, even Eastwood's character isn't, in my opinion, really an anti-hero yet in A Fistful of Dollars (which I watched yesterday and will write about a bit later).

I don't think Eastwood's character (which is not the same in all the films - he plays Joe, Manco & finally Blondie or The Good) is ever really the kind of anti-hero people often think he is. But as you say, an anti-hero is someone who lacks some of the accepted qualities of a hero. The fact that his character is motivated by money (at least in the later films), the fact that he is often ruthless and self-serving, these qualities mark him out from the traditional hero.

Vili and all-would there be a cultural difference in the concept of "hero"-that is: the Greek-devolved western hero v.s. an Asian, specifically Japanese-devolved type? Is there a word in Japanese for "hero" ? Can anyone point out where and when in the literature the concept of "hero" emerges, and what the hero's qualities are?

I ask, because the drawing of the Greek type is fairly clear, and we can easily trace it back to origins. In the western concept, the hero is beneath the gods. Flawed, by his half-breed nature as part mortal and part immortal. We also know the most common cause for a hero's downfall is hubris.

(Interestingly, hubris is often given to criminals as a cause for failure in modern western film. We all know the bad guy who is so pleased with himself that he starts some long diatribe about why he is going to kill the good guy, then, 'cuz he is yakking away too much, the good guy escapes and the bad guy is brought to justice or killed. I think of this as the Batman-tv series plotline solution).

Any insight?

You raise an interesting point, Coco.

According to Jim Breen's WWWJDIC, the most straightforward Japanese word for "hero" is ?? (romanized as eiyuu). Curiously enough, however, the Japanese Wikipedia entry for "hero" uses the word ???? (romanized as hiiroo), which is an English loan word from "hero". As I don't know what the overall state of the Japanese Wikipedia is (that is, how well it is generally written), I don't want to speculate what this means.

As for what the actual qualities of a hero are, or when and where the concept originated, I cannot answer, and I doubt anyone really can. While the word is of Greek origin, and the Western concept of heroism has certainly been greatly influence by Greek stories, I would suppose that there were many heroes in literature before the Greeks. Take for example the Epic of Gilgamesh, whose main character certainly qualifies as a hero. Ancient Mesopotamia in general was quite good at producing epic hero stories, and I don't see why such stories shouldn't have existed earlier as well.

Vili,
I'm thinking about the idea of the hero, it's place in the two cultures we are thinking about, and trying to get a handle on the cultural assumptions that formed the stew of the the time frame within which Kurosawa was creating. Yojimbo is often seen in the west as introducing an "anti-hero". The effect Yojimbo had on "spaghetti westerns" and the reverberations into American revisionist westerns have something to do with the western reading of what Kurosawa has presented in his film.

I am trying to understand some of the things I will call "Received Knowledge"-some of the cultural assumptions-that might have been part of the unspoken river in which Kurosawa was swimming.

We have this whole western civilization thing-I mean, if you take a western civ class, they will trace European roots back to Mesopotamia...(whether or not you think that's a good idea) and you probably will read Gilgamesh and then, they will likely touch base on Egypt, but then jump to Greece as the important, brilliant foundation of our mythologies, philosophy, legal systems, etc. and then some atttention will be paid to the Bible's moral instruction. This is my take on long-held western education's attitudes toward our foundation mythologies.

In general, you need to take a non-western or comparative or global course to investigate other traditions such as native American, Indian, Chinese, African, etc. Some universities require a knowledge of non-western cultures as a condition of graduation-an acknowledgement of the collapse of American hegemony, no doubt, framed though, in a positivist view of muticulturalism as a "good thing".

(Allan Bloom's The Closing of the American Mind rues the changing fact of communal education in the West today-once the shared canon of books is exploded, and classics-those with roots in ancient Greece and Rome replaced, we lose a shared sense of values-and the door is opened to relativism. )

Anyway, my point is that our attitudes about what constitues the "west" and "east" are now less about our historically respected founding mythologies-since those have lost flavour and favour in the western academic mind, and certainly in the hearts of schoolboys and girls across the lands-and we are in the midst of a great revisionist view of the world and our places in it! There can be no Heinrich Schliemann dreaming that the Trojan War was real, since kids don't even know anything about the Trojan War today unless they see the movie with Brad Pitt! (Or, they might watch 300 to have those old romantic notions of Spartans revived.) The Iliad and the Odyssey are no longer standard reading. The western canon has collapsed, but it was not yet on life-support in Kurosawa's youth.

So, going back to the time of Kurosawa's youth, upbringing, and maturity, and examining the worldviews of the west and east of that past might be instructive in understanding how Yojimbo relates to other heroes in the Japanese mythology. I think, though, that Jon began that investigation in another post.