(MATATABI) THE WANDERERS

Japan, 1973, 100 minutes, Colour.
Ichiro Ogura, Akiko Nomura, Tadao Futami.
Directed by Kon Ichikawa.

The Wanderers is one of many films directed by one of Japan’s greatest directors, Kon Ichikawa.

From 1955 to 1959 he made such classic films as the Oscar-nominated Harp of Burma, Fires in the Plain, Conflagration, Punishment Room. He was still directing films into 2006 at the age of ninety.

This film is about three friends in feudal Japan, they are ronin, masterless warriors. The film relates their relationship, their work, moving from castle to castle, serving the local lords. They are not high-ranking samurai but rather lower caste. They are still bound to the Bushido code.

The film recreates the period, creates an atmosphere, explores the characters – and, especially, the strong Japanese sense of duty and loyalty.

1. What was the main impression made by this film? How serious, how comic? Was it an enjoyable Japanese film?

2. What demand did the Japanese conventions make on a Western audience? In terms of photography and style, acting and formalities, the quality of the music and its tone, the colour, the location photography? What was the quality of these aspects?

3. How well were the Japanese traditions communicated? The satire on traditions? The fact that the wanderers were not Samurai? How different were they from the Samurai and their code? How similar were they? How did the satire occur in the differences presented?

4. The film is called a black comedy. Why? The nature of the long introductions at the beginning, the formality, parody of the Samurai code? The savagery of the fighting, yet its parody of the Samurai? The cowardice in running when tliere is danger? The presentation of power? The irony of family relationships? The irony of the offhandedness of so many of the deaths? What was the point of so much black humour? What points were being made for Japanese audiences? For overseas audiences?

5. How interesting and sympathetic were the three boys? With the audience having time to understand them during the long introductions? The background explanation of the Wanderers, the boys from this background, their relationships amongst themselves, leaving their families, the importance of wandering for them, gambling and its preoccupation amongst the people, wanting to eat, fighting? Did the audience get to know the boys well or were they merely focus for the theme?

6. How important was the explanation of the wanderers at the beginning? The way that it was dramatized and visualised during the film: the code and the explanation, the formalities, the eating. the dependence on the master of the house, the defence from attack, the moving on, the gambling and the power etc.? (The equivalent to American gangsters?)

7. What was the dramatic impact of the fighting? As part of the theme, defending the masters who offered food, the savagery of the fighting, the flashing of the swords, the wounding and the blood, the running away? The commentary by violence?

8. The portrayal of the bosses, their power over people, the gambling, the manoeuvres, the manipulation? The satire on these bosses and their self-important power?

9. The characterisation of Genta’s father? His work, his relationship with the whore, his betrayal of the master, the inevitability of his death, the fact that it was done by his son, the fear of the whore? The irony of his death?

10. What was the effect of this on Genta? His defence of his mother, of his brother (and the return home later?), the family loyalties, the loyalties of the code even to death? What moral comment was implied here?

11. Genta’s relationship with the girl, taking her from her home, her willingness to go, the moral issues, her going to the whore house, by contract? The fact that she would never get away because of his death?

12. The incident with the tetanus? The ironic comment of people dying unnecessarily? The horror of such deaths in the previous centuries?

13. The stupidity of the final fight and the suddenness of the death? The suddenness of the end of the film.? The emotional response of the audience and therefore the total impact of the film?

14. How serious a criticism of Japanese heritage was this? How effective was the satire? How enjoyable the adventures? How humane and interesting a film was this?