It’s odd that Gilles Fraser doesn’t mention Kurosawa’s film “Seven Samurai” on which “The Magnificent Seven” was based. I liked them both, but there was a melancholy sadness about the passing of an era about “Seven Samurai” that wasn’t, and couldn’t be duplicated in “The Magnificent Seven”. All the samurai in the film that are killed die of gunshot wounds. They have awesome fighting skills, but they aren’t really appropriate to the modern age, and so their days are numbered. The samurai leader is aware of their weakness himself, which is why he keeps such a meticulous tally of how many guns the outlaws still have since they seize some in the fighting. As Gilles says, one of the gunslingers decides to stay in the Mexican village with a beautiful Mexican peasant girl. It is a very one world kind of movie. True love will win out over differences in race, mother tongue and nationality. “Seven Samurai” takes a more realistic view of the strength of the forces that divide people, however well-intentioned they may be. I had misremembered “Seven Samurai” and thought that the samurai who falls in love with the peasant girl (remember, they are of the same race, mother tongue and nationality, only their social class is different) goes off with the two other surviving samurai at the end of the film. But watching the ending again, Kurosawa actually left the viewer hanging. The beautiful peasant girl brushes past the samurai without saying anything to him. She thinks he has already decided to leave and has no use for him. His two companions are on horseback waiting for him to join them. He walks partway in the direction of the girl, who is working in the rice paddies, singing with the other peasants. We are left wondering whether he will leave with his friends or stay and try to win her back.
Douglas Hall
4 years ago
Hi Giles. Brilliant article! How come I appreciate your writing so much more here than when I used to read it in The Guardian?
The young gunfighter who stayed in the village with the girl wasn’t really one of the “nowhere” gunfighters. If you remember, we discover at the end that he came from such a village himself. He desperately wanted to be a gunfighter like the rest, but in the end, he admitted that he was only fooling himself. He was like the villagers and knew that for him, staying as a farmer with the girl was the right thing to do.
G. Ian Goodson
4 years ago
There’s a John Wayne film where Wayne’s character (gunfighter) is idolised by a small Mexican boy who despises his peon (farmer) father. Wayne gives the boy a talk about real courage. Staying in place through good and bad harvests; never giving up etc. It’s a sort of one man version of TM7. it’s a neat speech as well. I wish I could remember which film it was.
Chris Waghorn
4 years ago
Excellent article; a film I have admired since childhood. Like Andrew Baldwin below, I am surprised by the omission of any mention of the Seven Samurai.
The late author David Gemmell used to explore this point about farmers and warriors in many of his works. I recommend them wholeheartedly.
JR Stoker
4 years ago
Never contradict the Rector during his sermon, of course. But I have to shout “No!” in the opening sentence. The best western ever made is of course “Once Upon A Time In The West”, Sergio Leone directing, Ennio Morricone musicing, and a star list much too long to attempt – but starting with Henry Fonda as the seriously sadistic baddie.
The point of this irruption though is not to argue westerns – but to congratulate Mr Fraser on his brilliantly argued analysis and explanation of the philosophy underlying “The Magnificent Seven”, at a point in our suddenly changed lives where these themes will be played out again, though hopefully not to the sounds of gunfire. “Once Upon A…” holds the same truths: the end of the individualism of the frontierman, the rise of society where none grew before, orderly governance replacing the six shooter. As our wounded semi-heroes depart in search of one final frontier to make free on, the township is running horse-bus services, sustains a Chinese laundry, and Jill is feeding the railroad workers who will make her ranch prosperous.
The Wild West is leaving and the liberal inclusive democratic American dream is arriving. With results the store keepers and ranchers cannot possibly have imagined. The message is the same as “Seven”, but maybe spelled out a little more emotionally, with some remarkably fine acting and cinematography, and the finest score of any movie.
Michael Whittock
4 years ago
Thanks for your article Giles. Two points. I think the Anywhere/Somewhere phenomenon is actually illustrated in many westerns. I’m thinking of Clint Eastwood’s “Pale Rider” and “High Plains Drifter ” in particular. Secondly the Church of England continues to show its commitment to both Somewheres and Anywheres through its parish system. The theory is that every person in England lives in a parish which has a parish priest and a parish church to whom and to which they can turn at anytime. The system is creaking because reduced person power and reduced finances have meant that a priest can now have several parishes to look after. But the commitment remains and many priests are heroic in the way they continue their ministry, often single handed, in difficult and stressful circumstances. And their commitment is to all who need them including Anywheres who have to live somewhere in somebody’s parish. So God bless you Giles and all parish priests.
Which makes it a loss that the churches are now closed and the doors locked against those who may not need formalised religion, but would appreciate a sacramental place to pray and contemplate
Yes- parish churches are another sign of the Church’s commitment to communities and most are normally open for the very purpose you describe. Those that aren’t are often in high risk areas ( theft, vandalism ) and insurance costs are prohibitive. Some body once said that churches make God “findable”. The reference was not only to the building but also to the worship, preaching, praying and fellowship which goes on inside it
Marco Federighi
4 years ago
I remember the film, and the way Giles relates it to the anywhere/somewhere dynamics seems spot on to me. However, I don’t think that everyone falls into one or the other of the two “tribes”: most of the people I know have elements of Anywhere and of Somewhere in their personality, culture and in the way they act and react to what life throws at them. This is true of peoples as well, Jews being a case in point – Somewheres in their attachment to the land of Israel, but Anywheres in their ability to survive and thrive in different places and cultures. And their contribution to our civilisation falls into both realms – the Torah, and the individual contrbutions of so many Jewish thinkers, artists, scientists – complementary, not in opposition.
This is a really good point, and not made enough in the ‘anywheres/somewheres’ dichotomy. Is it also possible that one can be an anywhere that is nostalgic for the lost somewhere that can never be recovered? Or be a somewhere that yearns for the anywhere that will never be possible to achieve?
Yes, I think it is possible. There are historical examples – John Adams, the second President of the USA, being one, a somewhere by instinct who understood the need for anywheres in his new country. I also think that the movie, the Magnificent Seven, shows that the Somewheres sometimes need the Anywheres – in this particular case, the farmers needed the good gunmen to eliminate the bad ones. The two are complementary, I think. At certain times the ones, or the others, are needed – most often both.
It’s odd that Gilles Fraser doesn’t mention Kurosawa’s film “Seven Samurai” on which “The Magnificent Seven” was based. I liked them both, but there was a melancholy sadness about the passing of an era about “Seven Samurai” that wasn’t, and couldn’t be duplicated in “The Magnificent Seven”. All the samurai in the film that are killed die of gunshot wounds. They have awesome fighting skills, but they aren’t really appropriate to the modern age, and so their days are numbered. The samurai leader is aware of their weakness himself, which is why he keeps such a meticulous tally of how many guns the outlaws still have since they seize some in the fighting.
As Gilles says, one of the gunslingers decides to stay in the Mexican village with a beautiful Mexican peasant girl. It is a very one world kind of movie. True love will win out over differences in race, mother tongue and nationality. “Seven Samurai” takes a more realistic view of the strength of the forces that divide people, however well-intentioned they may be. I had misremembered “Seven Samurai” and thought that the samurai who falls in love with the peasant girl (remember, they are of the same race, mother tongue and nationality, only their social class is different) goes off with the two other surviving samurai at the end of the film. But watching the ending again, Kurosawa actually left the viewer hanging. The beautiful peasant girl brushes past the samurai without saying anything to him. She thinks he has already decided to leave and has no use for him. His two companions are on horseback waiting for him to join them. He walks partway in the direction of the girl, who is working in the rice paddies, singing with the other peasants. We are left wondering whether he will leave with his friends or stay and try to win her back.
Hi Giles. Brilliant article! How come I appreciate your writing so much more here than when I used to read it in The Guardian?
I’ve had exactly the same experience.
The young gunfighter who stayed in the village with the girl wasn’t really one of the “nowhere” gunfighters. If you remember, we discover at the end that he came from such a village himself. He desperately wanted to be a gunfighter like the rest, but in the end, he admitted that he was only fooling himself. He was like the villagers and knew that for him, staying as a farmer with the girl was the right thing to do.
There’s a John Wayne film where Wayne’s character (gunfighter) is idolised by a small Mexican boy who despises his peon (farmer) father. Wayne gives the boy a talk about real courage. Staying in place through good and bad harvests; never giving up etc. It’s a sort of one man version of TM7. it’s a neat speech as well. I wish I could remember which film it was.
Excellent article; a film I have admired since childhood. Like Andrew Baldwin below, I am surprised by the omission of any mention of the Seven Samurai.
The late author David Gemmell used to explore this point about farmers and warriors in many of his works. I recommend them wholeheartedly.
Never contradict the Rector during his sermon, of course. But I have to shout “No!” in the opening sentence. The best western ever made is of course “Once Upon A Time In The West”, Sergio Leone directing, Ennio Morricone musicing, and a star list much too long to attempt – but starting with Henry Fonda as the seriously sadistic baddie.
The point of this irruption though is not to argue westerns – but to congratulate Mr Fraser on his brilliantly argued analysis and explanation of the philosophy underlying “The Magnificent Seven”, at a point in our suddenly changed lives where these themes will be played out again, though hopefully not to the sounds of gunfire. “Once Upon A…” holds the same truths: the end of the individualism of the frontierman, the rise of society where none grew before, orderly governance replacing the six shooter. As our wounded semi-heroes depart in search of one final frontier to make free on, the township is running horse-bus services, sustains a Chinese laundry, and Jill is feeding the railroad workers who will make her ranch prosperous.
The Wild West is leaving and the liberal inclusive democratic American dream is arriving. With results the store keepers and ranchers cannot possibly have imagined. The message is the same as “Seven”, but maybe spelled out a little more emotionally, with some remarkably fine acting and cinematography, and the finest score of any movie.
Thanks for your article Giles.
Two points.
I think the Anywhere/Somewhere phenomenon is actually illustrated in many westerns. I’m thinking of Clint Eastwood’s “Pale Rider” and “High Plains Drifter ” in particular.
Secondly the Church of England continues to show its commitment to both Somewheres and Anywheres through its parish system. The theory is that every person in England lives in a parish which has a parish priest and a parish church to whom and to which they can turn at anytime. The system is creaking because reduced person power and reduced finances have meant that a priest can now have several parishes to look after. But the commitment remains and many priests are heroic in the way they continue their ministry, often single handed, in difficult and stressful circumstances. And their commitment is to all who need them including Anywheres who have to live somewhere in somebody’s parish.
So God bless you Giles and all parish priests.
Which makes it a loss that the churches are now closed and the doors locked against those who may not need formalised religion, but would appreciate a sacramental place to pray and contemplate
Yes- parish churches are another sign of the Church’s commitment to communities and most are normally open for the very purpose you describe. Those that aren’t are often in high risk areas ( theft, vandalism ) and insurance costs are prohibitive.
Some body once said that churches make God “findable”. The reference was not only to the building but also to the worship, preaching, praying and fellowship which goes on inside it
I remember the film, and the way Giles relates it to the anywhere/somewhere dynamics seems spot on to me. However, I don’t think that everyone falls into one or the other of the two “tribes”: most of the people I know have elements of Anywhere and of Somewhere in their personality, culture and in the way they act and react to what life throws at them. This is true of peoples as well, Jews being a case in point – Somewheres in their attachment to the land of Israel, but Anywheres in their ability to survive and thrive in different places and cultures. And their contribution to our civilisation falls into both realms – the Torah, and the individual contrbutions of so many Jewish thinkers, artists, scientists – complementary, not in opposition.
This is a really good point, and not made enough in the ‘anywheres/somewheres’ dichotomy. Is it also possible that one can be an anywhere that is nostalgic for the lost somewhere that can never be recovered? Or be a somewhere that yearns for the anywhere that will never be possible to achieve?
Yes, I think it is possible. There are historical examples – John Adams, the second President of the USA, being one, a somewhere by instinct who understood the need for anywheres in his new country. I also think that the movie, the Magnificent Seven, shows that the Somewheres sometimes need the Anywheres – in this particular case, the farmers needed the good gunmen to eliminate the bad ones. The two are complementary, I think. At certain times the ones, or the others, are needed – most often both.