(2012/10/18 5:01), aesthete8 wrote:
> What I meant was considering the social status of the 7 principal
> characters, wouldn't SHICHININ NO ROONIN have reflected that better?
From a historical point of view,the problem is not so important.
The movie is interesting and looks like a realism movie,but in fact,the
movie is not so faithful to Japanese history.
Because in Sengoku Era,samurai and farmers are not so quite different
social classes.
The farmers of Sengoku Era were half-armed people,but in this movie,
farmers are described as if they are peasants in Edo Era.
Even in Edo Era,farmers were not in such a situation,the farmers in this
movie looks like all peasants.But that is not a true image of these
days.Even in farmers of these days,some farmers are rich people,
but in this picture farmers are described as if they ara all peasants.
In Sengogu Era,farmers can be a samurai if he is employed as a warrior
by a daimyo or a feudal lord.
If the daimyo is destroyed by the other lord,the samrai employed by the
destroyed daimyo became rounin.
The well known samurai Miyamoto Musashi was not employed by a daimyo for
long days,but he is considerd as a samurai.
Even if he is employed or not,he is a samurai anyway.The word "rounin"
means a not employed samurai.So the word "samurai" includes "rounin".
In the end of the movie,a young samurai left a farmer's daughter for the
reason of difference of the social classes,but in these days such a
borderline between social classes did not exist.Such a borderline
typically appeared in in Edo Era.The movie is not a realism picture.
Mr.Kurosawa is a great artist,but he is not so concious about historical
truth.
In "Kagemusha",there appears a tenshukaku(a castle tower),but in these
days,tenshukaku did not exist.Someone asked him,"In these
days,tenshukaku did not exist.Why did you describe tenshukaku in the
movie?".He answerd,"If the tenshukau did not appear,the picture is not
beautiful." This is Mr.Kurosawa's way of making pictures.
--
Easy Fatman