Posted on 12/05/2003 2:39:15 AM PST by kattracks
A disillusioned young man ventures overseas, where he encounters a band of warriors dedicated to resisting the modernization of their country. The warriors follow a patriarchal code of martial valor and spirituality that appeals to the young man and he joins the group. But their opponents—nationalists who seek to improve their country’s infrastructure and introduce governmental reforms--pursue the warriors and eventually defeat them through the superiority of their military technology.Sound familiar? The story of John Walker Lindh—who left the bourgeois comforts of Marin County to “find himself” among Afghanistan’s Taliban? Or perhaps a tale of some misguided soul who abandons his moderate Muslim family to join the jihadists in Iraq? Well, no, actually, it’s the plot of the latest Tom Cruise movie, The Last Samurai, a $100 million historical epic set in 19th century Japan. Colorful, filled with rousing action scenes, the movie will probably rake in buckets of money for Warner Brothers and its boyish-looking star. By the same token, though, the film feels old-fashioned and out-of-synch with the times—and worse, by romanticizing a reactionary rebellion, it sends the wrong message in our current conflicts against the forces of anti-modernism throughout the Middle East and elsewhere.
Now don’t get me wrong. I like Tom Cruise and have no brief against big-budget Hollywood movies, so I went to see Samurai with high hopes. And things started off well. The cinematography was stunning, and I was relieved when director Edward Zwick (of Legends of the Fall and Glory fame) introduced a back story involving an Indian massacre without shoveling on the PC. No, it wasn’t until the story shifted to Meiji-era Japan that I realized, once again, I’d spent my money on yet another Hollywood sermon on the evils of bourgeois liberalism.
Without revealing too much of the plot, the movie bases itself on a true story involving the efforts of a group of radical nationalists (represented in the film by one character, Omura, played by Masato Harada) to modernize Japan. Using the youthful Emperor Meiji as a figurehead, this clique began transforming Japan’s agrarian economy into a democratic-industrial state modeled after the West. One obstacle to modernization, however, were ultra-conservative elements among the-then decadent samurai class, whose Shogunate had dominated Japan for seven centuries. In 1877, one of these warriors, Takamori Saigo, led the so-called Satsuma Rebellion against the Meiji nationalists, only to be vanquished by a peasant army equipped with modern weapons. It’s this doomed rebellion that The Last Samurai highlights and romanticizes.
Everyone loves the samurai, of course, especially as depicted in the movies of Japanese director Akira Kurosawa. But Kurosawa was always careful to suggest the limitations of the samurai ethos, its roots in savagery and blood. And in truth, for most of their history, the samurai were feudal warlords who maintained a system characterized by militarism, class stratification and the oppression of women. Zwick obscures this point by portraying his Sagio-like samurai, a character named Katsumoto (played by Ken Watanabe), as an enlightened, poetry-loving nobleman who inexplicably reads and speaks near-perfect English. Katsumoto’s mountain stronghold—where Cruise, as the alcoholic ex-Army captain Nathan Algren joins the rebels—is portrayed as a kind of Northern California Zen-utopia. Here, Algren muses, “from the moment they wake up in the morning, the people pursue the perfection of whatever it is they do”--which for Katsumoto’s gang, seems to be archery, calligraphy, horseback riding and beating each other with sticks. Well! No wonder Captain Algren rejects the Meiji Restoration, with its boring insistence on forging a contemporary nation-state. How much more fun it is to don a cool suit of medieval armor and slaughter peasant conscript soldiers!
There are other problems with the film. To begin with, it invites us to root for samurai reactionaries who, had their rebellion succeeded, would have stalled Japan’s modernization and led to its eventual colonization by some foreign power. Moreover, it posits the greedy capitalist Omura as the film’s antagonist—although his main transgression seems to be the funding of railroads, telephones, modern armies and other trappings of democracy. Are we supposed to believe that a band of swordsman whose highest ideal of public service is ritualistic suicide are better fit to lead a nation into the modern age?
Now, you can say we’re talking about a movie here, so lighten up—but let’s face facts. In real life, the U.S. is struggling to modernize two nations, while fighting warrior bands who seek to drag those countries back to their despotic pasts. And like the 19th century samurai—and the 20th century kamikazes and Nazis--today’s Baathists, Taliban and their Islamist allies consecrate themselves to a cult of romanticized violence and death, whose mindless militarism and “spiritual purity” is perceived as an antidote to Western-style democracy. Meanwhile, they are killing U.S. soldiers and foreign aid workers—and would do the same to you and I if they get the chance again. Does Hollywood really need to endorse the mindset of these people? According to press reports, Zwick has been developing Samurai for years—and indeed, the movie seems uncomfortably pre-9-11. “Americans love Pepsi-Cola, but we love death,” a Taliban warrior once enthused—one can imagine Zwick’s Katsumoto uttering similar sentiments about his conflict with modernity. .
Movies regularly view despotisms through rose-tinted glasses, of course—from its white-washing of the Civil War Confederacy to Oliver Stone’s aborted encomium to Fidel Castro. Usually, this cinematic revision is easily brushed aside—its Hollywood, after all. But with the U.S. and its allies currently battling nihilistic killers who place suicide bombers on city buses and transform civilian airliners into missiles, perhaps its time to rethink that fantasy. Irony may not have died after 9-11, but perhaps romanticizing anti-liberal insurgents should. After all, like Zwick’s Katsumoto, Osama bin Laden recites poetry, too. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I agree. We are in the days of "whackamovie" when every movie is scrutinized under the magnifying glass of self-anointed alarmists for anything that might offend the senses of (insert offended party's name). I think a competition is afoot to see what group can initiate the most boycotts. It's become downright silly.
I have no desire to see this movie. I'm not sure why. I hear no buzz for it, and what ads I do see don't grab me. I think it's going to be a turkey.
That said.......A "disillusioned man", separated from his people, comes to live with his 'enemies', and ultimately identifies with Them. The mechanism of the movie also causes the audiance, which identifies with the hero, to identify with his new "Tribe".
Hmmmmmmmmmmm.......Sounds like DANCES WITH WOLVES to me.
I will probably see it, I enjoy pieces set in a historical backdrop.......good OR bad.
A very good point. Japanese determination to not share the fate of China was the major factor in the Meiji Restoration.
Drudge spent about 5 minutes on Sunday night talking about this movie. He said the buzz in Hollywood is that this is a fantastic film, destined to be one of the top choices, if not the top choice for best picture of the year (for what that is worth). Drudge had not seen it, he was just repeating the buzz he had heard from others who had.
I'm truly surprised at how little I've been hearing about Tom's film. It makes me think that the studios feel that a big marketing budget would be pouring money down a hole. On the other hand, it's really cheap to ask Hollywood people to say nice things when asked. Everyone wants to do favors for Tom.
I expect a modest open and a quick fade. But we'll see.
Good question! My guess:
Japan is a complex nation; an amalgamation of 3 separate cultures, and thus highly stratified and racist in outlook.
Add to this their historical enmity toward the Chinese.
Finally consider the fact that they were fighting a protracted guerrilla style war; troop moral was nonexistent.
The group that is the subject of this film might have been on the wrong side of history, and might be romanticized in this movie, and it is right to point these things out, but to suggest that you can't make a movie about such historical groups that is the least bit positive is an example of the totalitarian, intolerant, PC spirit of the age. And to drag the current terrorism problems into it is ridiculous. In fact, it reminds me, in its milder way, of the sort of psychological enforcement for the war effort practiced in Japan during WW2, mentioned in the book above.
For one small reason:
I HAVEN'T SEEN IT YET!
I'm a bit amazed at all the negative reviews of the movie on FR on this thread and others, and heavily so I might add, by people who haven't even seen it.
I thought FR was a little more open-minded than that. To me, libs are the close-minded ones.
Perhaps, finally, something comes along which educates Americans about Japan with something outside of the stupid "Banzai" joke TV show (since cancelled), "Rising Sun", mini cellphones, little robots, girls in high school uniforms, drunk salarymen throwing up on trains and bilateral trade deficits.
Believe it or not there is a rich, puzzling, complext, fascinating culture and long history behind what is reported so shallowly by Western reporters in Tokyo (or at least what is edited by their simplistic editors back home).
This movie may well " stink", but sheesh, I think I'll see it first to see if that's the case.
"'The Last Samurai' [By John Domokos] .... When you’ve just put your sword through a man’s neck, you don’t expect his beautiful wife to take you in, nurse you back to health and let you play with her kids. You wouldn’t grumble if his friends didn’t take an instant shine to you, help you out with the language and teach you how to fight. But Capt. Nathan Algren (Tom Cruise) is lucky enough to have been captured by the last of the dying breed of samurai. Algren is stuck in the old post-battle-hero drunk depression, haunted by memories of Injun-killing, when he receives the call to go and train the Japanese army in the art of modern warfare, and help them polish off their own diminishing group of rebels. But, after falling under the spell of his captors’ mysterious culture, he ends up batting for the other side. Let’s face it, with that sort of treatment, who wouldn’t succumb to Stock- holm Syndrome? So Samurai swords take on modern guns in spirited but ultimately futile resistance. Substitute kimonos for kilts or togas and Cruise for Gibson or Crowe, and you get an idea. As you would expect, there’s the oversized army whose soldiers, when going into battle, are so confident of victory, they don’t bother to check the surrounding hills. There’s a bumbling Englishman (Timothy Spall), a young ’un full of heart and samurai dreams, and the healing hands of a fair maiden (Koyuki). Director Edward Zwick, who cut his historical teeth on films such as “Glory” and “Legends of the Fall,” puts up his own valiant fight. Integrating themes such as “respect your enemy,” and “wield your sword with the same spirit as you drink your green tea, But it is the excellent portrayal of these traits by Ken Watanabe (with a good chance of an Oscar for Best Supporting Actor) and Hiroyuki Sanada that come to the rescue. --Opens in Japan Dec. 6."
Hmmmmm...decision decisions...nante okina nika no katamari desho!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.