A matter of the Inevitable

Analyzing the concept of death and honor in Harakiri and Sword of Doom

Light and its Shadow - The pairing of both films

I believe its no coincidence that Sword of Doom and Harakiri are often discussed in relation to one another. On top of sharing the same lead actor for the primary characters, the narratives themselves begin to take on a sort of relationship to one another all on their own. They begin to represent two sides of the same coin and the expression of self-deception as its impressed upon the samurai them selves.

As Alain Silver says, the characters of Hara-Kiri "aurally and visually constitute a stylized expression of conflict, which kobayashi maintains throughout the film." This can be said of Sword of Doom as well. The only difference being Sword of Doom's lead begins to clearly represent the antagonist of the films own narrative. He is in deep contrast with the rest of the film, Both visually (as he's often shown in all black) and narratively as he slays countless innocents in line for his own goals. Harakiri's lead however believes the entire façade of the samurai code to be false, and thus it becomes his own belief to disprove it (which in turn drives his actions). The two films then, more or less, become opposites.

The shedding of Belief - how the main characters leave their self-deception

As stated prior, the two characters (and third acts for that matter) are very similar. Both final battles see the primary character taking on a physical onslaught of other samurai as they attempt to escape the manor they reside in. However Since the primary character of Sword of Doom believes himself to be the best swordsman around, he fights without care of dying. This sending him in his own downward spiral until eventually he succumbs to the mass of warriors.

The lead in HaraKiri however, states many times that he already knows he will die, and thus fights to the end only hoping to prove that he is a true warrior. It becomes a difference of fighting when you already know you will die versus fighting without care of death. The prior option being more representative of societal norms for samurai. It is stated in the Bushido code that every samurai must live each day like they will die, thus to perform their duties to the fullest. Something we see very prominently in Harakiri. With this in mind, It begins to become more limpid as to why these warriors would fight to such extremes in so many different battles.

History - A matter of preference

In the end it becomes a matter of viewer preference as to which main character is more delusional in their own self-deception. The argument of saying one person is evil against saying an entire system is evil can be a hard choice. Putting the debate into an historical context, coming off of the conflicts in WW2, it can be quite easy to see why honor would begin to mean more than anything else to nation.

What these two films become is a critique of the very systems that spawned them. Instead of potentially glamorizing this era in history like many other samurai films in the 60s, they become a criticism of the sometimes absurd codes to which people held themselves too. As stated prior however, whether or not these concepts worked successfully in the end, is a matter of preference.