Jeffrey Potasky

Honors 210B: Film and Modern Japan

Guns… Why Did It Have to be Guns…

One man, strong of will, trying to defeat an evil far larger than themselves. It is a

narrative so often repeated in cinema to fulfill our desire to know that underdogs can best those

that try to suppress them. Seeing them win gives the simple pleasure of feeling the world is just.

Sometimes though, the underdogs do not win: they die. But through their death they can present

a message more powerful and complex than any victory. In Masaki Kobayashi’s Samurai

Rebellion, retired samurai Isaburo Sasahara attempts to avenge the deaths of his son and

daughter-in-law due to the tyrannical and unjust actions of his daimyo, but is gunned down

before being able to do so. Similarly, in Hara-kiri retired and down-on-his-luck samurai

Hanshiro Tsugomo fights to reveal the hypocrisy of the clan that drove his son-in-law to kill

himself, but despite cutting down many sword-wielding foes he is ultimately forced by the

presence of firearms to commit hara-kiri. The similar demises of these honorable and otherwise

unbeatable warriors could be ignored as director Kobayashi’s style, but doing so would be

robbing them of their potential deeper meanings. By analyzing the different possibilities of why

a firearm was chosen to be the demise of their respective protagonists, a greater understanding of

both films can be achieved.

In both Hara-kiri and Samurai Rebellion to progress their plots beyond their action-filled

climaxes into emotional resolution they needed the death of a protagonist to trigger

contemplation in viewers. In their respective films, Isaburo and Hanshiro both stood up for what

they believed in. For Hanshiro, this was confronting the hypocrisy of the clan who, despite

claiming to be exceptionally honorable, deny his son-in-law any dignity in his death and instead

cruelly make a mockery of him by forcing him to commit seppuku with his dull bamboo blade.

Similarly, Isaburo was also defying the injustice done to his son, which in his case was the

1
 Jeffrey Potasky
Honors 210B: Film and Modern Japan
daimyo demanding Isaburo’s son to give up his spouse. However, it is not enough that both of

these protagonists claim in their respective films to having these beliefs; to truly convince the

audience of their unwavering will they need to be tested by something that could make them

falter, such as the risk of death. Thus, by having the characters maintain their values even when

they are out matched and ultimately killed, the sincerity and magnitude of their convictions are

shown to be absolute; there is no denying they were willing to trade their lives for their beliefs,

as that is what occurred. Although their deaths do mean Isaburo and Hanshiro are not able to

complete what they set out to do, their martyrdom ultimately vindicates their causes. In each case

the message of the movie, whether it being that stereotypical honor is more hypocritical than true

or the valor of breaking the restrictions of society to fulfill your individual dream, is amplified by

the samurai’s death. If they had lived, the viewers would be less likely to consider the

implications of their crusades.

Given that for the progression of both films’ plots their respective protagonists needed to

die, the way in which these characters died needed to be reasonable in their film’s logic so as not

to undercut their martial prowess. In common among these films is the samurai protagonist being

presented as an excellent swordsman who over the course of the film kills many enemies on their

own. For example, in Samurai Rebellion Isaburo kills over a dozen other samurai with only

minor help from his dying son, a body count roughly matched by Hanshiro as well in Hara-kiri.

Given all of these extraordinary feats, if the protagonist were to suddenly die by a random

swordsman the death could feel cheap or unlikely as it would go against the abilities they have

already shown. This could then break the suspension of disbelief in viewers, making the film

appear more arbitrary and less meaningful. To avoid this, a different, more believable means

must be used, such as a firearm. Guns, unlike swords or other melee weapons, require much less

2
 Jeffrey Potasky
Honors 210B: Film and Modern Japan
finesse to be deadly and have the added benefit of having a long range. Whereas a random

swordsman seems unlikely to fell these mighty samurai, one lucky shot from a rifleman does not

seem as farfetched. In this way, the filmmakers avoid contradicting the skills of the character but

still achieve their desire for a death scene. While it is possible that the choice for using guns to

defeat each of the protagonists could be based solely upon this convenience, that does not

exclude the possibility of there being deeper meanings at work. If it was just for convenience,

there are other alternatives that could have just as easily defeated Hanshiro and Isaburo. In

Isaburo’s case, he could have just as easily died in his duel with Tatewaki Asano without

horribly derailing the power of his death, as Tatewaki was explained as being close to Isaburo in

skill. A similar situation could have been created for Hanshiro as well without completely

altering the plot of Hara-kiri. As such, looking at how firearms are presented in each of the films

may reveal the deeper meaning of why they were used.

In Hara-Kiri, one of the central themes of the movie is about what honor truly is versus

what others claim it to be, with the main character’s defeat by firearms being a clear example of

the difference. In the film, protagonist Hanshiro Tsugumo is a poverty stricken ronin and father

to a daughter, Miho, who is equally poor and married to another ronin, Motome. When Miho and

their young child, Kingo, become gravely ill, Motome becomes so desperate for money to pay

for treatment he goes to a clan supposedly renowned for their honor and martial skill, the Iyi

clan. There, he tries to evoke pity in them by bluffing hara-kiri. However, not only does his plan

backfire, but the clan makes an example out of him by forcing him to immediately follow

through with the disembowelment. Despite Hanshiro’s son-in-law ultimately showing his honor

by complying even though he had to use his dull bamboo blade, the clan acts dishonorably and

humiliate him as they return his body to his family. After this event leads to the rest of the

3
 Jeffrey Potasky
Honors 210B: Film and Modern Japan
family’s death via illness, Hanshiro heads out to show the Iyi clan their hypocrisy. In Hanshiro’s

final conversation with Iyi clan’s counselor, Saito Kageyu, he proclaims their samurai honor is a

façade based upon how they treated his son. He offers to commit seppuku without any more

conflict so long as the Iyi clan made some sort of admission of wrongdoing, but the counselor

refuses. Instead, Saito retorts “If you really think that samurai honor is ultimately nothing more

than a façade then never had a chance of swaying us” (1:43:20), which, ironically, just supports

Hanshiro’s proclamation even more as Saito does indeed refuse to sway to Hanshiro’s heartfelt

appeals. Saito would rather kill Hanshiro if he refused to commit hara-kiri than confess even the

slightest bit of misconduct. After his request was denied, Hanshiro provides a different example

of Iyi’s dishonor by presenting the topknots he cut from the clan’s three best fighters. Losing

one’s topknot is a great disgrace, so instead of admitting their defeat each of the three men just

claimed illness. Their actions inadvertently support Hanshiro in his final declaration to the

assembled Iyi clan, “This house boasts of its red armor and martial valor, but it seems that even

in the great House of Iyi, samurai honor is nothing more than a façade” (1:58:00). Hanshiro then

goes on and proves this point further by fending off many of Iyi’s samurai, killing four, and

ultimately only completely losing once firearms are presented. The Iyi clan being so desperate

shows yet another example of their true dishonorable nature. Although not intended, Hanshiro’s

admirable and relatively long lasting combat with the Iyi clan revealed even their most prideful

quality, their martial prowess, was more a boast than reality. In his duels, he could not be bested,

and even when faced by overwhelming numbers in melee combat he held out far longer and

killed more men than would be expected. To avoid showing their clan’s inferiority to other clans,

the House of Iyi stooped to a dishonorable means of victory. Further, the need to use guns

exemplifies the Iyi clan’s hypocritical views of honor when compared to how they treated

4
 Jeffrey Potasky
Honors 210B: Film and Modern Japan
Hanshiro’s son-in-law for not having a real sword. They had expressed outrage at him for having

sold his swords and touted how important they are to samurais, yet to get rid of Hanshiro they

were shown to be more than willing to forgo the use of their own swords. This provides just

another piece of evidence to the viewer of the disconnect between their words and the reality of

their actions. By only being totally defeated by the presence of guns, Hanshiro’s death avoids

being a failure and instead becomes the decisive piece of evidence that he truly was honorable

and the Iyi clan was not.

While guns serve as symbol of dishonor in Hara-kiri, in Samurai Rebellion they are more

a representation of the unjust constructs Isaburo is trying to overcome. In the film, Isaburo starts

as a vassal to Lord Matsudaira and oversees the border of their territory and the stock of guns

stored there. However, over the course of the story Lord Matsudaira is increasingly shown to be

a cruel ruler by oppressing his subjects and abusing his power: first, when he forced the beautiful

Ichi to become his mistress under the pretense of needing another heir, but truly just wanting a

young lover as shown by him taking on another mistress even after getting a son from Ichi;

second, he commanded Isabura’s son, Yogoro, to take Ichi as his wife regardless of what Yogoro

wanted; finally, after Yogoro and Ichi had accepted their marriage and actually became fond of

each other, Lord Matsudaira demanded she be given back to avoid the embarrassment of his heir

being the progeny of someone else’s wife. Although the characters of the film complied with the

first two orders, the last was too tyrannical for Isaburo, Yogoro, and Ichi to allow, so the trio

attempt to defy the social system they are stuck in. Unfortunately, their rebellion is short-lived as

the young couple dies during a confrontation with the daimyo’s men. Isaburo attempts to travel

to Edo to testify to the Shogun against Lord Matsudaira, but at the border he faces his final

challenges. He is forced to kill his friend, Tatewaki Asano, who as the border guard refuses to let

5
 Jeffrey Potasky
Honors 210B: Film and Modern Japan
him pass, and then Isaburo is shot down by riflemen immediately after. Since guns were

introduced prior as the property of the daimyo, they carry the connotation of being enforcers of

his will and the system he represents. Guns serve as an analogy for the cruel, giant might of the

structure Isaburo is heading to Edo to protest. Thus, it is symbolic of oppression he felt that the

weapon that dealt the final blow to Isaburo was the very type of weapon he had watched and

guarded for the daimyo. Beyond the symbolism, even the use of guns feels unfair and unjust;

Isaburo had just defeated the primary border guard, Tatewaki, in a fair and even duel. Although

Isaburo is killed before he is able bring justice for his son and daughter-in-law, the tragedy of his

death impassions the viewer to do what he could not: break free of the societal constructs that

bind them if they are unfair and keeping them from what they desire to do. The intensity of his

support not even for his dreams, but the desires of his son’s marriage, is what makes the notion

so influential.

Both Samurai Rebellion and Hara-kiri share two key factors despite telling relatively

different plots: they include a martially-skilled samurai protagonist fighting a foe greater than

themselves; that same protagonist is ultimately defeated by a firearm. While the first similarity

can be easily attributed to the films occupying the same genre of samurai jidaigeki, there is not as

clear an explanation of why these different narratives concluded their story in such a similar

manner. As shown by the history of the Meiji Restoration, guns are an overpowering force able

to overcome even the best samurai, but in the cases of these films they serve as narrative symbols

as well. Recognition of these meanings allow us as viewers to better appreciate the themes of the

films.