Shogun’s Samurai (1978)

This will be a bit rambling, because I'm still trying to make up my mind about this movie. But what the heck: this is a blog and not a critical essay...
It's 1624 and the Shogun Tokugawa Hidetada has died. His elder son Iemitsu would be the logical and traditional choice as his successor, but he is ugly and has a bad stammer. The younger son Tadanaga is handsome, intelligent and quite sensibe - a better choice for a ruler, as his parents and quite a lot of the clan leaders and daimiyos think. For Yagyu Tajima, an influential and powerfull samurai and the fencing teacher of Iemitsu however, the rightful and lawful shogun can only be Iemitsu! It transpires, that the old shogun was poisened by the followers of Iemitsu, and a bitter power struggle begins. Yagyu Tajima and his children, among them the mighty swordsman Jubei (Sonny Chiba), attack and assassinate supporters of Tadanaga, but his fraction isn't scrupulous either. And in the background, the nobles of the imperial court fuel the undeclared war between the brothers in the hope that the Tokugawa shogunate will collapse and the emperor will regain his old power.
Director Kinji Fukasaku isn't interested in a classic samurai epic with a good guy fighting the evil doers. Are Iemitsu and his grey eminence Yagyu doing the right thing in killing the supporters of "usurpator" Tadanaga? Or is Tadanaga only guided by responsibility when he tries to become shogun? And are the brutal deeds both sides commit justified bei the goals they aim for? Yagyu is the most extreme player in this struggle: he sacrifices one child after the other, only concerned with making Iemitsu the new shogun. The movie never clearly takes sides in this struggle and the viewer is left alone, with whom he should sympathize. In the end you realize that there is no one to cheer for but only some people to sympathize with, because they are merciless sacrificed by the powerfull.
Kinji Fukasaku (BATTLE ROYALE) rose to fame in the 70s with BATTLES WITHOUT HONOR AND HUMANITY, a series of Yakuza movies, and that name would fit SHOGUN'S SAMURAI as well. "Kill your brother, if he is in your way, kill your parents and kill even buddha", Yagyu tells the reluctant Iemitsu.

I'm not sure if I liked the movie. Its gritty philosophy and cynicism is quite refreshing after so many tales of the noble samurai fighting for the good of some poor peasants or going into certain death, because honor and loyality demand it. Here it all boils down to power as a motive. But while that may be intellectually satisfying, the distance to the characters makes it hard to feel anything for them. The acting is quite good. Kinnosuke Nakamura is great as menacing, singleminded Yagyu and Chiba plays Jubei (a legendary samurai who was often featured in movies, books and mangas) in his typically gruff but honest fashion. Hiroyuki Sanada and "Sister Street Fighter" Etsuko Shihomi (love these flix!) - both members of Chiba's JAC-team - have smaller but not un-important parts and act them quite well. The fighting is provided by JAC and is up to the high standard of that superb stunt- and action-team

I'm not an expert for japanese history, but I somehow doubted the historical correctness of Fukasaku's movie, so I looked it up: To make it short - the names of the featured people are correct, the whole plot is fake. Even the characters of the rivaling brothers seems to be completely false. Apparently the "handsome and noble" brother Tadanaga was quite a scoundrel and after some crmes and misconducts was condemned to commit seppuku. But, who knows? History is written by the winner...
Kinji Fukasaku probably changed all the historical facts deliberately to make his points more profoundly.