Persistent Dishonor in Point

Comparing the 1962 version of Harakiri to the 2011 remake

The Return

While I’ve mostly moved onto the realm of analyzing other facets of pop culture on my other website, there is one film in particular that made me bring this blog specifically out of semi-retirement. Hara-Kiri is one of the greatest samurai films put to screen. It both points out the flaws in samurai culture yet also demonstrates what it truly means to be one. The main character of Hanshiro in the original 1962 film is both compelling and a tragic presence to watch as his pseudo step son is forced to kill himself after being caught in a suicide bluff (attempting to earn money for a sick wife and child).

It’s truly one of the greatest revenge films ever put to screen which is why I was extremely excited to see the contemporary remake. After watching it however I was immensely disappointed. Not only did they cut out half of the scenes which gave the entire film its point, but they also deliberately change certain narrative elements that make the viewer beg the question - are they blatantly trying to miss the point of the original?

Death of a Samurai

For sake of ease and brevity I’ve organized the differences the remake added in a list format, and broken down why each new addition ruins the message of the original:

1) Coming Clean - Hanshiro's step Son Motome comes clean in the remake as opposed to the original. As stated in the opening, Motome's wife and son are sick and he is desperately poor and can't afford a doctor. He hears a rumor that if a samurai goes to a high ranking clan house and asks to commit Harakiri (ritual suicide) they will instead give the samurai money and a job out of sympathy. What happens in both films is that the clan is actually extremely non sympathetic and force Motome to commit suicide despite him begging to leave. In the original he simply finally goes through with it, leaving it to be a semi-twist that he's related to Hanshiro who shows up in the opening scene asking to do the same thing. The remake however has Motome coming clean that he was lying and just wants money. What happens is the clan still doesn't care and still forces him to go through with it. This actually adds to make the clan more corrupt except for the fact that the remake at the same time adds a lot of scene that try to make the clan more sympathetic. You can't make the clan more evil and more light hearted in the same breath. I'll admit this complaint is the most nitpicky, but this is why it is first. Moving on.

Motome in the 1962 version

2) A soft hearted clan leader - The remake attempts to make the clan leader sympathetic by having him feel bad about Motome's death. He even tries to end his suffering before the second in command stops him. This in conjunction with the previous point however shows that everything they're trying to do counteracts its own point. In the end the clan leader still allowed Hanshiro and Motome to die so trying to make him a sympathetic character is pointless. He still sweeps everything under the rug just like in the original. It adds nothing except to confuse its own message.

3) The Postman never rings - The remake cuts out the backstory that Hanshiro's friend committed Harakiri so that he didn't have to. When His clan fell, it was the duty of the second in command to commit ritual suicide. Hanshiro's friend does it in his place leaving the character with a sort of 'you cheated the hangman' to his backstory. This makes it more impactful in his final moments (after taking on around 30-40 samurai single handedly) that he commits Harakiri. It's a sort of 'the postman always rings twice' situation, meaning that even if you cheat death once it always gets you the second time around. The 2011 remake changes the backstory so that the friend dies of a heart attack. This cutting out any sense of owing the grim reaper a suicide for lack of a better way of putting it. It takes out any impact from the final scene and waters down the origin story so there's no sense of guilt.

Hanshiro in the 2011 version with a wooden sword

4) The Wooden Samurai - Hanshiro uses a wooden sword in the remake. While this was a really cool twist upon first seeing it in the final battle, it doesn't make any sense narrative wise. In the original when Motome died, Hanshiro sees that he sold his metal katanas in an attempt to get money (any thus he had to kill himself with wooden swords). Hanshiro exclaims that ' the thought never even crossed his mind' to sell his swords because he is always a samurai at heart. He then finally puts his metal katanas to good use when he implements his revenge plot on the clan. He's making up for the fact that he didn't sell them. In the remake when he shows up at the clan with Motome's wooden swords, it's an interesting taunt but it defeats the nuanced narrative point of making everything right by putting his metal swords to good use. Also in both versions Hanshiro holds back about 40 samurai single handedly. This is feasible with a metal sword but with a wooden sword he would be stabbed instantaneously. All of the samurai in the clan act like he's still using metal swords when in reality he would be killed within 30 seconds of starting combat. Hanshiro (in the remake) also makes no attempts to trade up for a metal sword at any point during the final fight sequence. This is an example of a remake trying to do something bigger and better than the original and it not making any sense in the narrative whatsoever.

5) A mission without a point - In the remake, Hanshiro does not commit Harakiri after the final battle like he does in the original. If you hear nothing else from my other points than hear this one. This completely defeats the ENTIRE point of the film. The message of the film is Hanshiro pointing out to this corrupt and pretentious samurai clan what it really means to be a samurai. That is why in the 1962 version he ends his final battle by committing ritual suicide. He even tells the clan leader at the start of the film that he has 'no intention of leaving this building without committing Harakiri.' If you have a remake where he shows up and attempts to kill 40 samurai with a wooden sword and then stands there and lets them kill him...then there is no final taunt to the samurai clan. He was pointed out nothing to them, and in the end basically had no goal in going there. His mission had no point. He planned about as far as ~show up with wooden sword~ and try not to die. You've missed the entire point.

The field fight in the1962 version

6) Where's the field? - They cut out the duel in the field with the samurai clan's second in command. Not only is this probably the most iconic samurai fight in recorded history, but it also if impactful because the second in command was the one who forced Motome to kill himself. It's Hanshiro dueling with the man who killed his step-son to put it more bluntly. Tweaking the fight to something different because you don't want to tackle how iconic it is is one thing...but pretty much cutting out the entire fight all together? What were they thinking?!

7) I guess the bad guys were right? - In the original, the entire point of Hanshiro not killing the 3 clansmen that assisted with his sons death, and only cutting off their top knots was essentially calling their bluff. In samurai culture, your top knot represents you honor. If it is cut off you must commit Harakiri on sight. Hanshiro cuts off their top knots and they all go into hiding pretending to be sick because he's showing the clan that they're all hypocrites by forcing his step son to kill himself. In the remake, when the clan tracks down the second in command, he does what the code says and commits Harakiri...meaning that the clan are not a bunch of hypocrites and indeed are justified in their behavior. Good addition guys.

In conclusion

You have to purposely T R Y to miss the point of the original source material this bad. It's truly bizarre when the only things you change in your remake are things that alter the message of the original for the worse. If you take out the elements that show the clan are a bunch of hypocrites and the parts that show Hanshiro is the true definition of what it means to be a samurai then what do you have? A film about a samurai clan that kills two people and believe they are justified in their decision. Good work.

Most of what I complained about them changing were nuanced elements in the narrative. Both versions paint the broad strokes of the story but if you cut out the nuance then you cut out the message that lies underneath the film. In the end I can only ever state just my opinion. perhaps watch both and determine for yourself what it truly means to be a samurai.