Search found 2 matches: Shinobu Hashimoto

I think the words from Shinobu Hashimoto which you mention could equally be the topic of this thread, since he may have intended for you to take his words at face value, but I don't believe him for an instant - unless he simply wants to say that he is only interested in the translation of such words to the screen from a source novel which established the themes. The story as a basis of criticism of authority is so blatant that to be oblivious while writing it would essentially require illiteracy. The occurrence of artists denying, playing down, or lying about their intentions is widespread, though. I would do it - sounds like a ton of fun!

However, it is absurd to think that people in the 1960s would be writing a critique of feudalism and the Bushido Code. That would be like Terrence Malick dropping everything to make a film decrying the practice of alchemy as a method of producing gold. That's just lazy criticism, if it exists. I would imagine that the most common interpretations would revolve around authority, hypocrisy, and the illusion of historical ideals, among other things.

To answer your question, though, I would say that every film can be interpreted in ways that are unintentional, as films don't ever say anything - once created, the viewer gives the text its voice. How many voices the film gives rise to may be only limited by the richness of the text and the imagination and idiosyncrasies of its viewers.

I just saw Harakiri for the first time. It's a true masterpiece. As I've discussed on other threads, I think a true masterpiece must be entertaining and must have something to say (or at least artfully pose questions).

I think few would argue that Harakiri appears to have something to say. [To follow under the spoiler tag are general discussions about the film that talk about theme, without discussing any specific plot points. That said, I put under the tag because I wouldn't have wanted to read it before I saw the movie] [spoiler]Reading through professional and non-professional reviews on this site and elsewhere, there is near universal consensus the film is a critique of (1) authority in general, (2) feudalism more specifically, and/or (3) the Bushida Code. It's hard to not to get that sense from the movie. The screenplay, quite honestly, seems open to no other interpretation. YET, an interview on the Criterion edition with the screenwriter, Shinobu Hashimoto, had me all turned around. He said that he only wanted to tell a story about a samurai ranting and raving with anger before he commits hara-kiri. He said that the critique of feudalism was never his intention.[/spoiler]

The question is, then, what are some other examples of films that seem to have something to say that was apparently unintentional?