Collectivism in Kurosawa’s The Seven Samurai

→ in
Tools    





Registered User
I'm not sure what you mean by collectivism - do you men communism?



I don't think so, that's what I thought it might refer to too, with Stalin's ideas of collectivism back when he was in power. I've just quickly skimmed through the article and it seems to be used as a more general term used to describe the way that the country is meant to have been successful through a large number of people working hard together, as opposed to jobs being done individually. That's a very simplified version of it, and the articles not too long, so you should probably read it, it seems concerned with the identity of the characters and studying the film from a social standpoint.
__________________



matt72582's Avatar
Please Quote/Tag Or I'll Miss Your Responses
In Seven Samurai, I thought of the individual as the hero. Because he wasn't in a group, he could identify with everyone. He understood both sides. He even shows the peasants (ringing the town bell) how they would go running to those they presume to hate. Almost like the police. If bandits came to my town, there is no one else to call. The Seventh Samurai (Mifune) who isn't really a samurai, mostly taken in out of necessity, and because of his determination, as he seems to have no cause of his own, as many people join certain groups so they aren't alone, more than conviction. When the samurai complain about the selfishness of the villagers, he says a great line, "Who made them this way?" - understanding, as opposed to convenient intellectual laziness.

I can't remember if this was the movie, but in some classic, they show how one branch isn't so strong, but a bunch is indestructible. I'm not a fan of any forced cooperation, I think being an individual is the most important thing one can be, but if you're going to be a part of a community, or country, there needs to be some cooperation. Each of us possess some kind of skills, so it's good to share so that both parties have solutions.

The USSR were state capitalists, and there was no "revolution of the working-class" - there were positions of power. Some people think that everyone made the same money.. Those in government had all the perks. Some people also think we don't live in a democracy. I think it's just a title, the key is how people live, and most importantly, where our taxes go. Corruption is the evil, because regardless of the country, institution, it doesn't matter when the visible "leaders" aren't even in control. The hidden hand, the market, whatever...

I had a conversation with my future sister-in-law last night about Western Europe for example, since we had both been there. They live very good, they have plenty of time to do things. There is nothing worse than the "Americans are lazy" - we work harder for less than many countries. Hell, in Thailand, I didn't see poverty, and I was in the big cities, and the smaller ones. Most of the rich people were Westerners, but even the many who sold food on the street, those who tended markets, were all happy. The minute I got there, I kept hearing it referred to the "Land of Smiles" - and though I like to debunk slogans, I found everyone smiling. And it's considered a Third-World country - just a label.

I was reading an old 1962 Realist issue. It showed the Kennedy and Kruschev taking turns raping the world. It was a bit irresponsible because they are a big part of the world. I don't fear nuclear holocaust, as it doesn't benefit anyone. Even those countries who aren't allies do business with each other..

Balance is key. It doesn't have to be all or nothing. It's great to take great ideas from everywhere, to learn from everyone.



Gangster Rap is Shakespeare for the Future
I don't think so, that's what I thought it might refer to too, with Stalin's ideas of collectivism back when he was in power. I've just quickly skimmed through the article and it seems to be used as a more general term used to describe the way that the country is meant to have been successful through a large number of people working hard together, as opposed to jobs being done individually. That's a very simplified version of it, and the articles not too long, so you should probably read it, it seems concerned with the identity of the characters and studying the film from a social standpoint.
Yeah, definitely not about communism. It's talking about collectivism as in the governing of behavior for the benefit of one's community rather than just directly oneself. This isn't oppositional to capitalism, and can be fit into that economic system as well. Collectivism is atypical in cinema, but some of its finest masterpieces (ex. Playtime) propagate this concept in an ecstatic way.

As for the article, I unfortunately find it very amateurish, surprising for an NYU publication. I feel like it's constrained by its length. For such a complex and interesting topic, 5 pages won't even scratch the surface. His broad characterizations of "Western" versus "Japanese" cultures also feel inappropriate and lacking in nuance. "research studies like Youichi Ito’s have already told us that the Japanese aren’t nearly as conformist in their attitude as many stereotypes imply." You don't say? He seems to start with an answer more than a question, Japanese culture is collective and Kurosawa is individualist, which he sees as hard truths. If one sees nuance in each of these definitions and not as hard facts, then his conclusions and analyses (of which there's very light) seem unnecessary.
__________________
Mubi



matt72582's Avatar
Please Quote/Tag Or I'll Miss Your Responses
Sometimes a movie is just a movie about what it's about. I like to see things as a microcosm for myself. I also think a lot of societies were more collective, since there was feudalism, and where there wasn't, a large farming community ala Little House on the Prairie.

I agree about having an answer, and not really looking for anything. Good observation.