Talk:Seven Samurai

Terrible news but shouldn't this be mentioned somewhere in the article?--Hypermagic 02:32, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

With the possible exception of the last line (which seems potentially a little too political, depending on how you look at it), this plot summary is awesome. It manages to describe all the important details of a 3 and a half hour movie without being overlong. Props to the writer-SF (unsigned)

Magnificient Seven on TMC right now, the prelogue said that this is remake of Seven Samurai which is a remake of an American Western but didn't say which one. Would love to know, thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.54.160.202 (talk) 20:04, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Seven Samurai isn't a remake of anything. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 20:53, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Is the basic story of the film the original (modern) creation of the screenplay writers, or is it based on a previously existing traditional Japanese fictional tale, or actual historical events? 87.81.230.195 (talk) 00:58, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

According to the DVD commentary, the basic idea (peasant village hiring samurai) is based on historical incident/-s in the time period (no details given, but c. 1580 or so). Six of the seven samurai are more or less based on real-life counterparts, Kikuchiyo was devised on-set because Kurosawa felt a comic figure fit Mifune better. CFLeon (talk) 08:16, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Upon re-checking the movie, although the commentary mentions the real event, no date is given. Seven Samurai takes place in C.E. 1587, and Gisaku ('Grandad') indicates the previous instance was when he was young, so probably around 1550. Also, although it's said that the six samurai are based on real people, only Kanbei's original is revealed. CFLeon (talk) 09:32, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Michael Jeck's DVD commentary states that the only error in the film is the timing of gunshots when Gorebei is killed, but would 16th Century Japan be using iron horseshoes? Also, Jeck states that the appearance of the bandits is the first use of an over the horizon shot "of an alien horde", but it was not uncommon in Westerns of the '30s and '40s; in fact is used in "The Great Train Robbery" in 1903.CFLeon (talk) 10:41, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Many have said that it is debatable whether 七人の侍 (Shichinin no Samurai) translates into "The Seven Samurai" or "Seven Samurai". It is "Seven Samurai". There is no "the". Therefore, cite/footnote 1 should not exist or should be deleted.AndrewOne (talk) 14:00, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

You are incorrect on both counts. I am stunned that no one with actual knowledge of the language has jumped on this. The footnote, though incorrect (as I'm about to explain) is relevant to the misunderstanding.

As for the incorrect translation currently standing: definite article in Japanese is implied by the "no" after "Shichinin". An indefinite Seven Samurai is in Japanese "Shichinin Samurai". The number and the noun. So then the possessive "no" adds weight to the number; it tells you it's not just any seven samurai, it's the samurai of the seven - it's the seven samurai.

But I can't be bothered creating an account and explaining intermediate Japanese grammar to Wiki-know-it-alls over and over in order to actually get the article name changed, so if anyone discovers this note and is so inclined, thanks. 110.142.235.213 (talk) 05:25, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Should not the Anime remake "Samurai 7" be mentioned and or referenced to? There is already a Wikipedia article about it.

The macrons have gone on the Toshiro Mifune article already so the editor removing them from this article is correct, this is not vandalism. JoshuSasori (talk) 02:57, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

There is a problem with this article's image. The Facebook automatically generated page from the article won't display the Seven Samurai poster (https://www.facebook.com/pages/Seven-Samurai/105564736143780?ref=profile), It's a shame as this is the only page for Seven Samurai on Facebook.

We are sorry that this is happening and it is hard to know why this is occurring. Unfortunately what happens with Facebook and its links isn't really Wikipedia's concern. MarnetteD | Talk 23:35, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Going through the page, myself and a few companions have noticed that some of the sources need to be updated as some no longer exist and others seem to be outdated (polls/recognitions from 2009-2012) which can now be updated to more recent polls.

Sometimes, these citations can be retrieved from the archives. Most actual web citations do not permanently disappear. Student7 (talk) 22:06, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

What do people think of mentioning "Jidaigeki" (a japanese period drama genre) to the page? It is often mentioned in writing and analysis of the film. There is a whole page dedicated to the genre which I could add to the page?

Also, although the structural innovations section has important information on structure should editing and the film's style be mentioned too? Perhaps as separate subheadings in the section.

MariaCabrera23 (talk) 16:06, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Narrative

According to Michael Jeck's DVD commentary, Seven Samurai was among the first films to use the now-common plot element of the recruiting and gathering of heroes into a team to accomplish a specific goal, a device used in later films such as The Guns of Navarone, Sholay, the western remake The Magnificent Seven, and Pixar's animated film A Bug's Life.[9] Film critic Roger Ebert speculates in his review that the sequence introducing the leader Kambei (in which the samurai shaves off his topknot, a sign of honor among samurai, in order to pose as a monk to rescue a boy from a kidnapper) could be the origin of the practice, now common in action movies, of introducing the main hero with an undertaking unrelated to the main plot.[10]

Technical

(104, The films of Akira Kurosawa - Donald Richie) Through the creative freedom provided by the studio (x11 The Films of Akira Kurosawa - Donald Richie) Kurosawa used telephoto lenses, which were rare in 1954, and multiple cameras allows the action to fill the screen and place the audience right in the middle of it (link)? (89, Akira Kurosawa Interviews - edited by Bert Cardullo) Kurosawa quickly earned a reputation with his crew as the ‘world’s greatest editor’ because of his practice of editing late at night during the shooting. (89, Akira Kurosawa Interviews - edited by Bert Cardullo) He thus describes as practical necessity a procedure that is incomprehensible to most directors, who on major production spent at least several months with their editors assembling and cutting the film after shooting is competed.

Mjcl12005 (talk) 15:34, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Dear Wiki users, we are university film students doing some group work editing this page. In regards to the reception and legacy section, some of the claims need updating. For example, perhaps deleting the claims such as that it was the ‘highest grossing film in Japan’ (it is hard to find figures of what was the highest grossing film as it doesn't specify which context). Also, some of the rankings and reviews are out of date so I intended on updating the links.

In terms of the reference to Magnificent Seven, I would like to add a reference linking to some relevant scholarly discourse on the remake. But to retain a balanced argument, perhaps it is worth noting Kurosawa’s disappointment with the remake. In an interview he claims it ‘is not a version of seven samurai’. It might be worth specifying that the Samurai film and the Western should be compared in terms of syntactic movement, framing and form rather than contextually, due to their very different contextual and cultural agendas? (I can also supply the sources for this information). Thanks and all the best! Ml13253 (talk) 11:07, 15 February 2015 (UTC)ml13253

Let's face it. The Magnificent Seven, while having superb casting, was a puerile copy of the Seven Samurai. Not really in the same league. A knockoff. The American film might be compared to other famous American "Westerns," like Spaghetti Westerns, Shane, High Noon, etc. But the Seven Samurai is in a class by itself IMO. Student7 (talk) 22:25, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

If Magnificent Seven is discusses, then Battle Beyond the Stars needs to be referenced. It may not be highbrow cinema, but unlike The Magnificent Seven it does explicitly acknowledge Akira Kurosawa. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stub Mandrel (talk • contribs) 13:00, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Just wanted to make a quick note on why I removed the Criterion Essays and Roger Ebert's essay: reviews and essays are better used as sources in a reception section or other relevant statements. (1st point in WP:EXT) Ebert's review was already being used in the article, as well as Turan's essay. Here are the other essays for your convenience in case you want to incorporate them:

• Criterion Collection essay by Philip Kemp
• Criterion Collection essay by Peggy Chiao
• Criterion Collection essay by David Ehrenstein — Preceding unsigned comment added by Opencooper (talk • contribs) 09:14, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Shouldn't this article have a themes and analysis section as a lot has been written about the film. For instance, the french wikipedia page about this film has a large section about analysis of the film. Pineapple4321 (talk) 19:26, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

They are the same article. However, the article has been updated and has had its title changed. Should I update the first reference to make it the updated page? Pineapple4321 (talk) 23:57, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

All the "heist" films Drsruli (talk) 21:04, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

At 207 minutes, including a five-minute intermission with music, Seven Samurai was the longest film that had been released^[a] in Kurosawa's career.

Did he subsequently beat that record? If not, how about a simpler "was the longest of Kurosawa's films as released"? —Tamfang (talk) 06:19, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Seven Samurai poster.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:27, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

The lead describes Seven Samurai as an "epic samurai action film".

The leads for Rashomon, Throne of Blood, The Hidden Fortress, Sanjuro, and Kagemusha all describe them as jidaigeki films, often adding the word "epic". (For completeness, the lead for Yojimbo describes it as a "samurai film", and for Ran (film) as a "historical action drama film".)

Should the Seven Samurai lead be changed to "epic jidaigeki film"? Masato.harada (talk) 13:50, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

Masato.harada, personally i would approve using the label here. ran and yojimbo i haven't properly looked at the literature for yet, but i can imagine that there could be differences in style that could lead people to refer to ran, at least, as something other than jidaigeki.

yoshimoto (2000) spends about 35 pages of analysis detailing the film specifically as the defining the modern jidaigeki. kobayashi (2025) and richie (1998[:1965]) also refer to it as jidaigeki (richie as a "real jidai-geki"), galbraith (2002) refers to it as a period film (i.e. the literal translation of jidaigeki). mellen (2002) even calls it the "quintessential jidai-geki. desser (1983) warns against treating jidaigeki as a genre, but he doesn't dispute that kurosawa's samurai films are jidaigeki.

even taking desser's warning into account, i don't think we should discount the fact that pretty much every piece of major scholarly literature on the subject uses the term.--Plifal (talk) 14:13, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

I would say so, it is already included on the list of films linked at Jidaigeki#Films. As Plifal mentioned as well, most film historians have labelled it an essential/defining film in the Jidaigeki genre. Ajheindel (talk) 15:42, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

Thanks. I've amended the lead to say "Japanese epic jidaigeki film".

Re Yojimbo, I'd be interested in people's opinions. If Sanjuro is jidaigeki, then probably Yojimbo should be too.

Ran is trickier and arguably should remain as a "historical action drama film", since it's based on a Shakespeare play; in which case, shouldn't Throne of Blood be the same?

I don't have the reference resources to start those discussions where they ought to take place, on the Yojimbo, Throne of Blood, and Ran talk pages. Perhaps someone else could pick them up? Masato.harada (talk) 17:36, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

Masato.harada, i'm currently planning my way around improving this article, after which i thought i would take a look at revising the page for ran more comprehensively. richie (for films prior to dodes'ka-den) and galbraith should be available on the internet archive. a quick check shows that richie calls throne of blood "a psychological jidai-geki" and refers to yojimbo and sanjuro as a kind of rejuvenated version of the genre. in my brief scan though i didn't see him assign a genre to ran, perhaps because in his own words it's more "expressionistic" (which is a statement i agree with). although discussions would better to be held on those articles' talk pages with deeper look at the sources, i think it would be safe to change yojimbo's to match, and although things can change, there is a source basis to refer to throne of blood as jidaigeki.--Plifal (talk) 03:56, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

Yojimbo and Sanjuro seem pretty clear to call jidaigeki, Throne of Blood and Ran are a bit more difficult to define. They are all included at Jidaigeki#Films already, but I think it could be debated either way, Throne of Blood and Ran certainly include common traits of other jidaigeki films. Ajheindel (talk) 06:19, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

I've amended the Yojimbo lead to jidaigeki. Masato.harada (talk) 08:40, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

Doesn't epic imply a grand scope of time and/or space? —Antonissimo (talk) 07:10, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

yes, but that would apply to this case, as well as others listed. "epic" can also mean grand in scope, i.e. ideas and perspective.--Plifal (talk) 07:41, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Kinema-Junpo-1959-February-Special-3.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:22, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

i'm currently working on a draft of this article in a sandbox to re-write the critical reception subsection and legacy section to a higher quality. the critical reception subsection was the highest quality subsection of the article before, and it's still in pretty good shape, but i wanted to voice some concerns i have going through it:

• the first paragraph is basically just fandango media review aggregator lists. i don't mind keeping the rotten tomatoes score, but i've seen prior rfc's that urge against using the critical consensus' because it's too jargonistic. i'm also not against excising mention of metacritic. the lists could probably go too, as they're not particularly high quality.
• i don't know sensacine, i would probably excise that as being wp:undue.
• wanda hale (1956) from the new york daily news is not a source i can access and therefore can't verify the content of. it could probably be excised in favour of higher quality national publications (e.g. the new york times, sight & sound etc.
• my plan was to split the critical response sub-section into additional sub-sections for contemporary and retrospective reviews (a la what i did for high and low (1963)); what's the feeling about this? where do people think these should start and end? my (somewhat arbitrary) cut-off point planned to be in the 1960s, since i have information pertaining to japanese reception among filmmakers and critics from the generation after kurosawa concerning the film in the 1970s, and it was in '75 when the film was first shown at a fuller length outside of japan.
• should we put the lists from time, bbc, sight & sound in the reception section or in the legacy section? some in one and some in the other?
• on a similar note, how should we frame critics' reactions to the film that compare it to westerns. my thought was to mention this as it came up in initial american criticism and then expand on it more as relevant in the legacy section.
• how much should we devote to the magnificent seven (1960) and the surrounding legal case compared with other remakes?
• what to do about commentators who have identified features in films like a bug's life (1998) that heavily borrow elements from this film but, as far as i can see, there are no sourcces claiming it was indeed conceived as a remake?

these are my major concerns and many of them more controversial than my prior edits, so i would like to reach some consensus on at least some of these. my plan is to take this article to good article status, and for that it would also be good to identify any glaring hqrs omissions before it can be done. i have a further backlog of sources i haven't got to yet (mostly books and academic articles) but the current list i think is a fine selection to cover the ga criteria. any thoughts about this process or any of the points raised here? best wishes all.--Plifal (talk) 12:57, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

it's been a little over a week and there haven't been any responses, i plan to go ahead and use my own judgement on some of the unresolved points and operate under WP:SILENCE until/unless any disagreements arise. since the original comment, i've cut the use of sensacine and the fandango lists as WP:UNDUE and i've been able to access the hale (1956) source to properly incorporate it in the sub-sub-section for contemporary response to the film. superlatives (masterpiece, among the greatest films...) have been placed into the retrospective opinion sub-sub-section so legacy can focus on specific cinematic and cultural developments (incl the magnificent seven legal case). any further guidance or comments on this plan would be highly appreciated! :) --Plifal (talk) 14:48, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

hi all! i would quite like to take this to good article nominations. besides a slight re-working of the plot and a check-over of the cast list i think we're basically there. just wanted to know if there were any objections to this, or any glaring errors/oversights/gaps? best wishes.--Plifal (talk) 14:58, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

Minor cast query (I don't have the film details at present): is "the samurai with a gun" (Toshio Takahara) in the town, which I don't remember. If he is the bad guy with a gun, he should be listed as "the bandit with a gun". Masato.harada (talk) 15:22, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

yes, seems likely that he's a bandit, i haven't really edited the cast/plot at all yet so will double check sourcing on that.--Plifal (talk) 15:36, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

I ran the Japanese WP article's cast through Google translate and it said "Takahara Shun'o, the ronin with the gun, watches over the village from a hill. He is approached by Kikuchiyo, pretending to be his ally, wearing the armor of a ronin who was killed while trying to escape. He is slashed and his Tanegashima (gun) is stolen." So, I think it's down to whether the character should be described as samurai, ronin or bandit. I would favour the latter. The WP JP article translates the bandits as "wild samurai". I don't speak Japanese - is there any suggestion the bandits are ronin/samurai? They probably stole or looted their armour, like the villagers. Perhaps the film's credits would help; per MOS:FILM, "the chief source of information for motion pictures is... the item itself (e.g., the title frames)". Sorry if this is all trivia, but I hadn't given much thought to the bad guys' motivation before now.😀 Masato.harada (talk) 16:24, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

personally i've used bandits throughout the whole article for consistency, so i would probably default to that phrasing—but it is true that several sources analyse/claim that the bandits either are samurai, or are at least their moral equivalent.

my plan is to cross-reference the cast list sources i have with the film's credits later tonight. on that actually,even though i knew it going into writing the lead, it was still surprising to see shimazaki and tsushima get top billing lol --Plifal (talk) 22:52, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

GA review

My added media with scenes from the film were reverted as supposedly making the article too crowded. I would point out the Citizen Kane article (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizen_Kane) and the Japanese Wikipedia Seven Samurai article (https://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E4%B8%83%E4%BA%BA%E3%81%AE%E4%BE%8D), both of which have extensive media with the text. The black-and-white images in Wikimedia Commons for the Seven Samurai are not as clear as might be wished, but I think a selection needs to be added to show the famous visual drama and action of the film. I will create a Gallery feature to include some of the images. The current images, apart from the poster, are static and give little sense what makes the film famous. HynobiusB (talk) 17:50, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

• HynobiusB, i prefer the current arrangement to what it was like before, but personally, to me, it's still aesthetically off and non-illustrative. i would prefer to have more outside opinions on this though. to my mind, images should only be used to reflect aspects of an article that can't only be conveyed in words. the dynamism is a good case to make, but i was actually thinking of using a fair use clip showing the final battle in the legacy section, which would better demonstrate both the use of multiple cameras and kurosawa's approach to action. the current stills can't really do that for being, well, still.--Plifal (talk) 13:55, 19 February 2026 (UTC)
• apologies, originally misspelled the username, pinging HynobiusB again to make sure they're aware.--Plifal (talk) 13:57, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

  I agree with Plifal that these images don't really contribute anything beyond what you can already read in the article, and they don't really show much in terms of how the film really feels when you watch it. I think a short clip would much better illustrate dynamism than the included stills. Ajheindel (talk) 14:04, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

  i guess i'd also consider the two articles mentioned to be over-illustrated, although ja wiki has its own rules, it's quite uncommon for plot sections to have accompanying images that aren't the film itself, right?(—in cases where the film is in the public domain, i mean)--Plifal (talk) 14:11, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

  I had never checked out the Japanese wiki version, their plot section is also much longer (at least translated). I have never really seen images used in plot sections, but most films are not public domain. I think it can be helpful to illustrate something that might be unfamiliar, and I don't think it has to be from the film directly, but the images included don't really show anything that might be confusing to the reader. The article already uses pictures several well placed stills such as the cast section, where it actually helps the reader visualize. I think maybe one well chosen still could be included in the plot section at most, but I don't see why there needs to be so many. Ajheindel (talk) 14:22, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

  I would make the case that adding visual media to articles about motion pictures, artists, etc., enhances the content and sets articles apart from AI text answers. There is apparently no consistent policy in Wikipedia about adding media. Some motion picture articles have little or no media while others have extensive additions. In most cases, images are taken from trailers that are in public domain (up to 1964), often as screenshots, or from studio publicity. The images for Seven Samurai in Wikimedia seem to be for publicity use in some cases. However, such images can show the costumes, actors, and recreated locations such as the farmers’ village that help visualize the discussions in the article. Another possibility would be to move the images to a distinct Gallery section toward the end of the article with additional Wikimedia images that are not strictly tied to plot details. HynobiusB (talk) 15:45, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

  @HynobiusB, i'm going to come down on the side of "no to a gallery section". of course only with consensus, but MOS:IMAGES asks us to think of download size, and a dedicated gallery section is questionable (five images is too much for a plot, but too little for a gallery); especially in a film article. looking at the mos, and @Ajheindel's answer though it seems like there's no issue with using a free-use image in the plot section. i agree that it'd be best limited to one though. do you have a preference?--Plifal (talk) 16:04, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

  I would also disagree with a gallery section as well, those are best utilized for art museums or artists who have a portfolio of work. I think it would be out of place for a film article (can't think of any film articles with a gallery section or any that could justify it). Ajheindel (talk) 16:13, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

  The Stagecoach (1939 film) has a gallery-type feature for the Cast section. Some of the French film articles have gallery-type features where public domain images are available. If I had to choose a single image, it would be the one I originally inserted in the Plot, which shows a wide panorama of the village and a road with the samurai and villagers chasing and battling the bandits. It gives a sense of the dynamic action in the movie, which Kurosawa states was a goal, as well as the Edo period costumes and weapons. The image quality is not as good as might be hoped for but I think it conveys something of the look and feel of the film. HynobiusB (talk) 18:00, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

  HynobiusB, I feel your position (there aren't any wiki policy i know for limiting a number of illustrations) but the use of plentiful illustrations on other pages isn't a good argument to use more of them on Seven Samurai as well. Also, as far as i know, wikipedians discourage galleries as wiki commons exists and can be used to browse for pictures. A second point, I think the picture of the cast in the cast section is perfect for illustration of costumes and characters (well lit, well composed, shows all of the samurai). If you can find a hyper specific moment in the film described at length by critics, then the illustration would be more suitable. Maybe the scene where Mifune cries holding a baby whose mother has just been killed? —LastJabberwocky (Rrarr) 18:49, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

  The current article has a link at the end to the Wikimedia commons, but the photos for Seven Samurai are not explained in any way except for Toshiro Mifune’s and Kurosawa’s faces. Perhaps the descriptions could be revised with further information about each individual image. Unfortunately, images from some of best scenes (such as Mifune carrying the baby) are not posted in public domain.

  By the way, the Seven Samurai film is currently free with ads on YouTube, but this is a temporary situation, of course. However, the trailers are also on YouTube on stable sites and perhaps a link or links can be added. The Rotten Tomatoes External link at the end of the article has the original trailer and a remastered trailer for the 2024 re-release. The original trailer from 1954 should be in public domain, but I don’t know without checking if it could be added to Wikimedia. A version of the entire film used to be in Archive.org but I don’t see it there now and it may have been removed. Other Kurosawa films are still posted. HynobiusB (talk) 20:24, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

  @HynobiusB, i'm looking at featured film articles for my standard as regards the concerns you've raised. the internet archive is different since it's a registered library, but i wouldn't feel comfortable with including an external link to the full film on youtube. likely the film was removed because the partner library removed it from their shelves. taking the example of raiders of the lost ark, it seems the trailer was included as an external link there because it was hosted by youtube itself, i'm not 100% certain that using it for other channels would be seen the same way.

  trailers released in the u.s. prior to 1964 were published without a copyright license and thus forefeit the film images' copyright of the included content (which also applies to overseas films). however, the trailer used in the u.s. for seven samurai was a subtitled version of the japanese trailer, as such toho retain the rights because the film itself is still under copyright in both japan and the united states. following your selection of an image above, i've gone ahead and changed the article to reflect this, and happy to have come to some kind of consensus about it. i should forewarn you though that i plan to take this article to featured article candidacy, so in that process the image licensing may be reviewed and images asked to be removed.--Plifal (talk) 00:38, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

I rewatched the Seven Samurai (free on YouTube for now) and would suggest a number of revisions and additions to certain text in the article. Mifune’s character Kikuchiyo is the most famous role in the film and could be emphasized more for key emotional and plot details.

Cast

Villagers:

Currently reads:

Yoshio Tsuchiya as Rikichi, a hotheaded villager

[I think the term “hotheaded” misrepresents the situation. The implied dirty secret, hinted at in bits of dialogue, is that the village gave his wife to the bandits in exchange for leaving enough rice for the farmers to survive. He is angry and bitter for a reason. His call to kill the bandits drives the story. This detail is not mentioned in the Plot so could be added to his cast entry.]

Suggested rewording:

Yoshio Tsuchiya as Rikichi, an angry and bitter villager who urges the farmers to kill the bandits (who took his wife) rather than submit as in the past

Plot

Most of the Plot outline seems accurate. However, I think Paragraphs 4 and 5 could be revised with more detail about Mifune’s actions and certain events that bear on the emotional and thematic elements in the story. The four samurai who die are all killed by muskets, a detail that matters, so saying Gorobei was simply “slain” needs to be revised.

Currently reads:

Par. 4 While the village is in mourning, the bandits arrive and burn the village's outlying houses, including Gisaku's mill. Gisaku's family tries to save him when he refuses to abandon it, but all perish except a baby rescued by Kikuchiyo. The village is besieged; many are killed while the defenders thwart the attacks. The bandits possess three matchlock muskets. Kyūzō captures one; an envious Kikuchiyo abandons his squad to bring back another. However, Kikuchiyo's absence allows a handful of bandits to infiltrate his post and kill several farmers, and Gorobei is slain defending his position. That night, Kambei predicts that the bandits will make one final assault.

Suggest rewording:

While the village is in mourning, the bandits arrive and burn the village's outlying houses, including Gisaku's mill. Gisaku's family tries to save him when he refuses to abandon it, but all perish except a baby rescued by Kikuchiyo from the dying mother’s arms. Holding the crying infant, Kikuchiyo breaks down in sobs and tells Kambei that this is what happened to him, made an orphan in the same way. The village is besieged; many are killed while the defenders thwart the attacks. The bandits possess three matchlock muskets. Kyūzō captures one, alone at night. The next day, an envious Kikuchiyo abandons his squad to bring back another, but is reprimanded on his return with the gun by Kambei for leaving his post and seeking personal glory. Kikuchiyo's absence has allowed a handful of bandits to infiltrate his post and kill several farmers. With bamboo spears massed on the forest road leading to the village, the defenders allow in one or two bandits on horseback to be picked off by samurai and farmers, although a number of villagers are also struck down by arrows and spears, including Yohei. Soon after, Gorobei is shot dead by the remaining musket while defending his position. That night, Kambei predicts that the bandits will make one final assault in the morning. Facing the crucial battle, the defending farmers are allowed to visit their families one at a time. At their posts, they share previously hidden sake and delicacies, not knowing if they will die the next day.

Par. 5 first three sentences:

I think some details need to added about Manzo and the famous rainstorm during the main battle.

Currently reads:

Meanwhile, Katsushirō and Shino's relationship is discovered by Manzō, who beats her when he finds out that his daughter's virginity has been taken. Kambei and the villagers intervene and attempt to persuade him that the couple should be forgiven. The next morning, the defenders allow the remaining bandits to enter the village and ambush them.

Suggested rewording:

Leaving his post to find his daughter in the village, Manzo discovers Katsushirō and Shino emerging together from a hut. He realizes that his daughter’s virginity has been taken and angrily beats her in public. Kambei and the villagers intervene and attempt to persuade him that the couple should be forgiven. The next morning, the defenders allow all the remaining bandits to enter the village and ambush them while a heavy rain falls, bringing mud and sloppy footing for people and horses.

====== HynobiusB (talk) 19:35, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

• HynobiusB, hi, thanks for your suggestions! i just want to go through these one by one.

  broadly speaking, per MOS:PLOT, the summary (which is around 690 words currently) should not be longer than 700 words. this means that i had to cut focus on kikuchiyo when i was originally redrafting the summary, the suggested rewordings are far too long. regardless of whether mifune's role is the most famous, we should not provide an unbalanced account of the film.

  your reading of rikichi is valid, but it's a reading, i think the cast section is probably the weakest currently. "hotheaded" both skirts too close to the line of WP:ANALYSIS and doesn't fully accurately represent the character, but it does accurately reflect his temperament. i disagree that his character should be tied solely to his one invocation of violence at the start of the film.

there is currently an ongoing peer review for this article wherein Zzz plant brought up a potential issue regarding the section of the plot relating to manzo. i recommend conferring with other editors there where more people will see your suggested edits and a broader consensus can form on the topic.--Plifal (talk) 14:57, 24 February 2026 (UTC)