The fourth film in my
continued analysis of the Chambara Films of Akira Kurosawa is the inspirational
adventure The Hidden Fortress. A “road movie” with Samurai flair, this
1958 classic was Kurosawa’s first big hit since 1954’s Seven
Samurai. A film that is often overshadowed by other
Kurosawa hits that seem to have stuck longer in the memory of the public, The
Hidden Fortress is still the catalyst for one of the biggest pop cultural
properties in US history. This analysis will cover the historical context and
rich social analysis of this wonderful film, including being unfortunately
eclipsed by an (inter)stellar film that is a “far, far” less compelling watered-down popcorn drivel,
than the Kurosawa masterpiece.
PLOT
Two greedy peasants,
living in a region in Japan between two warring factions, stumble upon the secret
base of one of the faction’s leaders (Misa Uehara) and her general (Toshiro
Mifune) after being mistakenly imprisoned as her soldiers. Together, the
unlikely quartet travel incognito behind enemy lines, caring gold, in hopes to
reach the safety of the peasants’ homeland without being detected by the enemy.
HISTORICAL CONTEXT
Production
The
Hidden Fortress was one of the first films shot in Tohoscope. With
Kurosawa’s use of long lenses, this became an important stylistic achievement
for the director creating, shots and sequences that, yet again, have never been
seen on screen. In fact, this style became so iconic that they eventually were
assimilated as an industry standard.
On The Hidden Fortress, in addition to using the wider Tohoscope, Kurosawa developed a technique to keep focus on an object in motion while using a wide shot. During the shot when General Rokurota Makabe (Mifune) is riding his horse into the enemy’s camp, Kurosawa used two telephoto lenses and pulled the shot back with dollies. Additionally, he tunneled the viewfinder of a camera using cloth and placed it on one of the operator’s heads to black out the light. The result was as shot like no other in cinema at the time. However, this shot goes by so quickly few people outside of film school students rarely notice.
Legacy
With previous films like Rashomon (1950),
Ikiru (1952) and Thone
of Blood (1957), Kurosawa was
beginning to be known as an “art housed director”, and upon looking at the
shift away from the enthusiastic nation building of Seven Samurai (1954),
many of the critics looked upon The Hidden Fortress as simple “frivolous entertainment” (Russell 2014).
A New York Times review by Bosley Crowther in 1962 called the film “superficial”
and that it “was stooping to Hollywoodism”. The unfortunate tragic irony of the
eventual success and recognition of this film as a masterpiece, is only after its
blatant theft by George Lucas whom rather than give full creator credit to
Kurosawa for Star Wars, just cited the film as an influence; even though
it shares basic plot points, shots scenes and characters with The Hidden
Fortress. They are basically the same film. But before I get to that, first,
some groundwork.
Everything
is like Everything else
We like to repeat stories….
a lot. In 1895, Christina Stead and George Pierce Baker authors of Dramatic
Technique outlined that all of storytelling only has around 36 dramatic
situations. Psychologist Christopher Booker (2004) synthesizes this even further
down to 7 basic and repeating plots:
1. Overcoming
the Monster
2. Rags
to Riches
3. The
Quest
4. Voyage
and Return
5. Comedy
6. Tragedy
7. Rebirth
All stories, in all
cultures, are derivative and influenced by what has come before it. Stories
involving humans tend to repeat, as we constantly try to work through the same
stuff (of being human) from one generation to the next. In fact, even
stories not involving humans are still repeating the
same story beats. Thus, we cannot get around similar storytelling structures. Yet,
as we have repackaged these stories ad nauseum, seeping into every single genre
and subgenre, we often do not publicly recognize the influences (direct or
indirect) in film and TV credits.
Part
of the reason for this repetition is our Capitalist drive to maintain and open
new markets/ “revenue streams”. This is done
through an endless churning over of products that are repackaged riffs on
something that we already have, leaving us with little distinct and unique
content. George Ritzer and Michael Ryan (2003) discusses that all products
inhabit a place a long the scale of “Nothing” vs “Something”. Something: is a social form that is generally
indigenously conceived and locally controlled that is rich in distinct and Substantive content This is something
that is individually driven and not corporately controlled. Whereas Nothing
is a particular social form of globalization that is generally centrally
received and controlled by the overarching systems and devoid of any distinct nor Substantive content. With nothing, there is no independent
conceptualization- there is only control. Thus, the value of the product
decreases both in terms of price and of the product’s worth to the consumer. As consumers
in a capitalist system, we are conditioned into thinking that price
dictates individual personal value (the more expensive = the more valuable), and
we often have less social and emotional investment in something when it is a
dime a dozen, or just easily replaceable. This is of course reversed if,
through nostalgic marketing, there is a manufacturing of desire for that
product because it connects to an emotionally resonant time for the consumer
(usually childhood) or invokes a past/current relationship.
According to Ritzer and Ryan (2003) rather
than something, that is complex and unique, the mass public would rather have
large varieties of “Nothing.” This is because it gives the illusion of quality and
content, (the illusion that it is in fact ‘something’ when it is not) while making it easier for
producers to create something for the broadest and simplistic tastes.
- The
General public has a greater demand for ‘nothing’ rather than ‘something’
in part because ‘Nothing’ tends cheaper through Mass Production
- ‘Something’
is harder to reproduce (for one it takes more time) because it is complex
and distinct
- ‘Nothing’
being devoid of distinct content is often more desired because it does not
take a stance. It is not trying to say anything with its content. It is
often not political and sold to the broadest audience possible
- Because
of its lack of appeal (in terms of interest and personal satisfaction) More
advertising dollars are put into the selling of ‘Nothing’ because
advertisers must “Manufacture desire” for that thing in the minds of
consumers. ‘Something’ usually has a built-in audience a nesh group that
already desires the product…making it less marketable.
Therefore, rather than something interesting
and distinct, a lot of our popular culture are unnecessary reconfigurations of
human struggles, overtilled for the purposes of profit. We eventual turn the
nuanced and novel into tropes. Granted, this happens because these universal
human stories are reproduced to better resonate with every subsequent
generation, and regardless of the quality of the storytelling, some stories,
made at a certain place in the socio-cultural context, do not invigorate the current
generation because they either cannot engage with the story on the surface, or
the filmmaking style does not capture their attention, regardless of thematic resonance.
Yet, this does not stop the industry from trying to construct a loyal customer
base.
Brand Loyalty is
a marketing term explaining the desire for companies to increase the positive
feelings consumers have for a brand and will continue to purchase the product(s)
regardless of the products flaws. Often, filmmaking auteurs, and even studios
develop a particular style that becomes sought after by film geeks, critics,
and the public. Production Companies like A24, and Neon, to writer/directors
like Robert Eggers, Karyn Kusama, Ari Aster, Lynne Ramsey, Jennifer Kent, their
name(s) becomes synonymous with quality. However, this is nothing new, and is a
part of the assimilationist nature of the industry, 45 years ago, the young genius
auteurs went by the names Spielberg, Coppola, Scorsese, and Lucas who “revolutionized
filmmaking” and became deified for their efforts by film school bros since. It
should be said that this assimilation into the industry, like Immigration, is a
lot easier if you are white and male, and the ability to become a part of the
system, in the way that these 70’s auteurs began, resulting in becoming the
system through the running of their own companies/studios.
In the way that
directors, producers, and companies recently have brought superheroes and comic
book characters from the fringes into the dominant monoculture of today, Lucas,
Coppola, Spielberg, and Scorsese idolized Akira Kurosawa; making sure his films
got a wider international audience (with reparatory screenings of his earlier
work) and helped the aging director develop his last films. Coppola and Lucas
helped produce Kagemusha (which led to Ran), while Spielberg and Scorsese
helped to produce and direct segments in Dreams. It is a hard reality to accept that, in
the United States, Kurosawa wouldn’t be as known and beloved as he is without
the efforts of the 70’s auteurs that idolized him. Perhaps, because I too love Kurosawa’s work,
I am just a bit salty that his influence is not as recognized as I think it
should be in the general culture, especially around Star Wars.
Star Wars and Kurosawa
As mentioned above, and by Lucas’s own admission, there is a lot of Kurosawa’s work and influence in The Star Wars franchise. The basic plot elements of A New Hope and Phantom Menace are directly lifted from The Hidden Fortress:
1. Story
following the lowliest Characters (Peasants/ Droids)
2. A
frenetic duel between old Masters
3. Imperial
and Samurai crests in Hidden Fortress are the Same
4. A
self-assured Princess of a annihilated clan must sneak past enemy lines to seek
refuge in a neighboring Fiefdom/ Star System
5. Disguising
the Princess as a Handmaid
6. The
existence and destruction of a hidden rebel base
7. A
wide ceremonial shot at the end of the film.
Additionally, the
general aesthetic of Star Wars owes everything to Kurosawa:
1. Japanese
period pieces are known as Jidaigeki often involving Samurai (Jedi)
2. A
lot of the wipe transitions in Star Wars came right out of Hidden
Fortress
3. Toshiro
Mifune was offered the role of Obi-Wan Kenobi
4. Episodes
of The Mandalorian and The Clone Wars rework the plot of Seven
Samurai
5. A
good majority of Star
Wars: Visions has a Kurosawa aesthetic
6. Clone
Wars episode “Lightsaber Lost” is an adaptation of Stray Dog
7. The Jedi after Order 66 become Ronin (Yojimbo/Sanjiro)
8. The
use of the Western Gunslinger aesthetic (itself fueled by Samurai) in Star
Wars is doubling down
As I stated in the previous section, this is a part of
the cycle of storytelling and is not necessarily the problem. What I take umbrage
with is that so many fans of Star Wars do not actively know or praise
its roots. To me, if you are a fan of Star Wars, on any level, you must
also be a fan of Kurosawa, or at the very least, acknowledge his influence.
Yet, so many fans of Star Wars speak about their love of it without also
mentioning or even knowing Kurosawa. A person who can love Star Wars and
not know who Akira Kurosawa is, should not exist. Meaning, if you love Star
Wars get to know, and at least appreciate Kurosawa’s work; because without
it, Star Wars would just be a Campbell-esque “Heroes Journey” of another
two-dimensional boring white dude.[1]
SOCIAL ANALYSIS
A lot of the social analysis that is
encompassed in The Hidden Fortress is not in the forefront of Kurosawa’s
storytelling. He instead strings together minimal statements of class and
gender politics that are rarely given either its due or meaningful analysis; instead
opting for is characters’ personality to reflect the social stereotypes that
exist.
Class
Dynamics
The
economy of war is stratification. As private companies are glad handed billions
of dollars by the Department of Defense, making their CEO’s Billionaires in
their own right, a key strategy during times of aggression, to end conflict is
the use of economic sanctions against an opponent. Economic sanctions can range
from trade tariffs on goods to a complete embargo.
The idea behind the use
of economic sanctions is typically twofold: the restrictions will either
motivate the leaders of a country to halt aggressive actions and violence to
maintain the health and safety of their own people, which the sanctions put in jeopardy;
or motivate the people to rise up and overthrow their government because the
economic conditions have unraveled. Yet,
the main reason to use economic sanctions, a common tactic of the US liberal
left to convince themselves they are not Warhawks, and therefore morally superior
to the uber violent “run and gun” position taken by many of those on the right,
is also a major criticism of the practice. The economic punishment of an entire
country for the actions of the elected officials is both misplaced passive aggressions,
and a violation of their Human Rights (Pape 1997).
The notion that economic
sanctions that strip away human livelihood, rights and the ability to survive
as being less aggressive than the use of munitions is a farce. The end result
is the same; the difference is that economic sanctions are a more indirect and
emotionless action that is perceived as more humanitarian because we only
define and think about violence in a militaristic way. Economic Sanctions while
still a form of Hard power of an authority to express domination, also has
symbolic elements, in the Bordieuan sense, because of its use of non-physical
violence to establish power differences between groups (Bourdieu 1998). Thus, in
the US, we use economic sanctions which have potentially a longer lasting impact
than direct violence, to act as a motivator for those effected by it (often under
dictatorial rule) to institute a political coup (which usually begets physical
violence) while presenting ourselves as benevolent.
Additionally, the sustained
use of economic sanctions increases the flow of refugees from the impacted
country. As many flee the oppression and potential violence by their own country’s
authorities, there are those that also flee because of the economic depression
brought on by the extended economic restrictions. Yet, because of xenophobia and
a threat of terrorism many countries have had a long history
of immigration restrictions from countries under conflict, even when it is
their economic and social pressure that manifested the refugee crisis to begin with.
In The Hidden Fortress,
the two Peasant characters are from a region between two warring Daimyos,
which has resulted in their overall economic position. Unfortunately, rather than point to the
social and political root of their problem, depicting the peasants as refugees of
the crisis, Kurosawa instead individualizes the issue, depicting the peasants as
conniving cowards, that will do anything in the name of wealth. While the peasant’s
arc in the story eventually quells this greed, it does not go far enough to
show the overall macro level problems of which their greed is a symptom.
CONCLUSION
Kurosawa’s The Hidden
Fortress is a masterpiece with a long reaching influence that has been
invisibly woven into Pop Culture through its homage in the films of the 1970’s.
Regardless of recognition by current consumers or not, Kurosawa’s work (specially
this film) has left an indelible impact on many of the things people love today.
Yet, even though this film is absent a lot of direct social commentary, the questions
about the collateral damage against civilians, and the value of economic
sanctions are quite
prescient for our current context.
REFERENCES
Booker, Christopher 2004. The Seven Basic Plots:
Why We Tell Stories. New York: Continuum
Bourdieu, Pierre 1998. Masculine Domination. Stanford:
Standford University Press
Pape, Robert A. 1997. “Why Economic Sanctions Do Not
Work.” In International Security Vol 22 Num 2 pp 90-136
Ritzer,
George and Michael Ryan 2003. “The Globalization of Nothing.” In Social
Thought and Research, Vol. 25, No. 1/2, pp. 51-81
Russell, Catherine 2014. “Three Good Men and a
Princess.” In The Current New York: The Criterion Collection. Retrieved
on March 5, 2022. Retrieved at https://www.criterion.com/current/posts/3101-the-hidden-fortress-three-good-men-and-a-princess
[1] Fuck
Luke Skywalker! In the original trilogy he is just a cypher for the white male
audience, to make them feel like they too can be the hero and save the Galaxy.
He is a paper-thin character, a shallow shrill, that through legends became
a white dude power fantasy of an unstoppable badass that fanboys could emulate
and drool over. The only compelling depiction of Luke Skywalker is in The
Last Jedi showing the dangers and ramifications of this earlier depiction
and a nuanced understanding of balance. Yet, these fucking white male fanboys
could not take a alteration and progression of a character away from the image
of the heroic badass they have in their heads (that is likely a member of their
Reference group) thus they rejected The Last Jedi and demanded that Luke’s
legacy be corrected. They were then kowtowed to by Dave Feloni and Jon Favereau
to make their (wet) dreams come true.
