Unless you want to see hundreds of articles comparing these two films, do not type this into your interweb search engine. As usual, I want to give it a bit of a twist and look at the cultural angles of these two films beyond the obvious.

Or maybe not so obvious; yes, here is a Japanese and the Western remake that ensued, but what I found interesting was the approach from each filmmaker’s culture.

Kurosawa is meticulous in his approach to his film, showcasing Japanese traditional arts and crafts, even down to calligraphy, flag making, or traditional rice planting! The film underlines Japanese social strata particularly the difference between the farmers and the Samurai class. Coincidentally, we recently saw Jiro Dreams of Sushi in Film Club, and despite the many differences: 2011 documentary vs 1954 fiction, Seven Samurai reflects Japanese artistry and attention to detail, much like sushi making is.

The Magnificent Seven does not have the cultural weight to pull, so it focusses more on the ethical issues of good and bad and on character development, it is Hollywood after all. But the filmmaking compared to Kurosawa is sloppy, even careless. The film is basically pulled off by Yul Brynner, Steve McQueen and Charles Bronson’s magnetic charisma added to James Coburn to round off a magnificent cast.

Of course, the first big difference is that Samurai is almost three and a half hours long compared to the more normal two hours of The Magnificent Seven, so the cutting corners is evidently evident.

Another main difference is that the weapons used in Samurai are swords and spears with only a minor use of a couple of muskets whereas Magnificent revolves around revolvers and rifles, which changes the dynamic of the conflict and the engagement.

Overall, Seven Samurai is a work of art, a masterpiece of cinema, whereas Magnificent Seven is just another Western.