*** Official THE LAST SAMURAI Discussion Thread - Page 4

In the History channel special tonight, they asked Zwick if TLS was "History or Hollywood" and he wussed out by saying it was "Historywood".

One of the "expert" suggested that Cruise should have played a German military trainer because it was the Germans that did most the new western weapons introduction to Japan.

Hey David, you are right. I had forgotten that Algren convinced Katsumodo. Thanks for reminding me.

Obviously this is just a Hollywood film, but I grew up on this type stuff. Movies like 'The Hours' and 'The Pianist' boor me. Every year I find myself wondering where these great films everyone talks about at awards shows were and how come no one has ever heard of them. If they were so unbelievably great then why don't they sell? A perfect movie should be enjoyed by everyone. I go and rent them and think "damn I'm going back to my hollywood puke, that shit was boring!" While they may have some great point it's trying to get across, I usually find that the film says "I don't need to be a fun movie to watch to be a great movie". That just doesn't sit well with me. But that's just me I guess. When you grow up watching Aliens, Terminator and Die Hard it's hard to sit down with some movie that has a moral agenda, is 3 hours long and is kind of boring.

That's why a movie like this sits well with me. it was great entertainment. The hero wins, there is fun stuff to watch, a little romance involved, basically a hollywood puzzle. But that's all I was looking for, just to have some fun form of entertainment. I wasn't going in looking for a perfect film. I do wish there was more of the 'conversations' though and more stuff in the village. That way of life is seems so simple but nice, as opposed to Braveheart where they live in mud huts. I would have enjoyed more of the middle with just village stuff, training, etc.

One thing that does drive me nuts is when people treat you like you are stupid because you do not know about these 'elite' films. Call me ignorant, but not stupid because I choose not to see that stuff. This rant has nothing to do with anything said in this thread, but I was just on a roll so I kept going.

Actually, in almost all forms of seppuku, a skilled second swordsman known as the kaishakunin is the one who does the actual killing. There was definitely usually a good amount of ritual to it, although as we come in part-way to the scene in the movie without knowing what's happened before, much of this (or an abbreviated form, since it's a battle surrender and they're improvising) could have already taken place. Incidentally, it was considered bad form for the kaishakunin to completely sever the head, as decapitation was traditionally reserved for criminals being used as trainers and sword-testers...the Hagakure, or Way of the Samurai, actually refers to this saying "Yamamoto Kichizaemon was ordered by his father Jin'-emon to cut down a dog at the age of five, and at the age of fifteen he was made to execute a criminal. Everyone, by the time they were fourteen or fifteen, was ordered to do a beheading without fail". A "good" cut would sever the head and leave it hanging by a relatively thin strip of flesh. No style points for Katsumoto there!

The form of ritual suicide in which there is no kaishakunin to assist is known as jumonji giri, and is much more painful (and thus less common and only performed by the real bad-ass samurai one would presume) and probably what you were thinking of.

I only watched about 15 minutes of History vs. Hollywood (watching rest tonight or tomorrow) but what I saw was a bit different from other episodes. It was less a comparison and more of the kind of promotional material seen on low-rent DVD's. I appreciated the history lessons and maybe the analysis happens a bit later but if it is as it was in the first 15 minutes, it is promotional material, not educational or critical (in a good way critical, not in a criticizing way).

Anyone see it all the way through? Did it make any points worth discussing here?


Ciao,

Phil

I watched the History vs. Hollywood episode. I get the impression that they have turned it into more of a promotional show. The previous episode I watched was for Master and Commander, and I was struck by how different it seemed from the earliest episodes of the show that I had watched, which IIRC had relatively little promotional stuff in them.

I did think the episode had some interesting stuff in it, though. They made some really interesting points regarding a lack of historical accuracy, such as pointing out that samurai did use guns at that time, that they probably would have hired Germans or Prussians to train an army and not an American, and there was one guy who basically said that in reality, we would have probably been rooting for the "bad guys" because the samurai were representing an outdated and oppressive way of life. So in terms of "history vs. Hollywood", the episode firmly judged the film to be Hollywood, although they still plugged it anyway

The samurai documentary after the show was pretty interesting, too.

Regarding seppuku, didn't they have the guy there to cut off the head so the one who is committing suicide doesn't dishonor himself by showing weakness or pain before he can die?

I doubt that Cruise will get nominated for an Oscar, but I'm really hoping that Ken Watanabe does. I just loved his performance. Actually, now that I think about it, his performance reminded me a lot of Graham Greene's wonderful portrayal of Kicking Bird in DWW (one of my favorite performances), another parallel.

Thanks for the info Ryan!

I recall that the jumonji giri (solo painful suicide) is to be performed with a straight face with no squeak of pain if you are really a bad ass samurai. Ouch.

Saw this last night. So far, this is the best film of 2003! More later.

I too am of the opinion that movies are to entertain and really tire of those who seek to analyze every aspect of a film in search of some type of new moral vision. While I enjoyed "The Pianist" I too thought "The Hours" was way too preachy for me. To me the latter film would have been a wonderful "Lifetime Channel Movie of the Week." All you guys out there know what I mean. To me, "The Last Samurai" did for me what very few movies have done of late, that is, keep me entertained for the entire time I was in the theater. It seems lately, when I have gone to the theater, I have either been rolling my eyes at the absurdity of the film, ala "League of Extaordinary Gentlemen" or praying for the damned thing to end, ala "Cabin Fever." Is "The Last Samurai" the best film of 2003? Perhaps not, but for me, it kept me entertained, and that is why I go spend the money to see a film in a theater....period.

And to think, they only get on opportunity to practice. Yeesh...


And for the record, I thought you typed "Jumanji Girl." Oddly enough, this has become the name of my new punk band.

Chuck, if you dislike people seeking to discuss film, why are you on a film discussion forum? Seems like a waste of your time. I think why at least I discuss so much around this film is that I had higher hopes for it. It was beautiful to look at, entertaining as all get out at times and a neat idea. Which is why it is so frustrating that it also shows hackneyed time-honored Hollywood contrivances that really stood out against the material. And Cruise will probably be nominated because this is being touted as an important film and those are the ones that get nominations, not necessarily best performances.



Phil

But what we see on the screen is not the Emperor reacting to Katsumoto but to Algren. Earlier in the film, we specifically see the Emperor react differently to Katsumoto himself at the council.

Clearly, they make Algren the bearer of the Japanese truth to the Emperor.

Not at all, I love discussing film. What I take issue with is those that have a NEED to look for some type of brainy message in every film they see. I am just making a comment and it isn't directed at anyone in particular. If a movie is entertaining, then hasn't it achieved it's goal? I can honestly say that there are some who would even look for a "message" in "Dumb and Dumber." I agree totally on the latter part of your post Phil. Imagine my dismay last year when "Chicago" won best picture. Witness the whole squabble over the release of screeners to the academy voters. A movie is "sold" to the Oscar voters and that is it in a nutshell. To tell the truth, I don't even really watch the Oscars, my wife does and I just happen to be in the house at the time. I watch a movie for myself and don't really give a rats *** what the critics say about it. If it entertains me, then fine, if it doesn't, I don't care how many oscars it gets. "Chicago" bored me to tears, and, sorry folks, Richard Gere CAN'T sing.

Isn't it tragic that a foreigner embraces Japanese culture more thoroughly than the Emperor himself, who is supposed to be the living embodiment of all that is Japanese?

Perhaps that is what made the Emperor realize his mistake...

i don't think that's the point at all. i think the point is that they learn from each other: algren finds his honor again, and the samurai learn to respect him for who he is, unwillingness to accept defeat and all. i mean, algren ends the movie unchanged in that respect, and the samurai clearly respect him.

consider that the movie opens with katsumoto having a vision of a white tiger encircled by samurai, and that the tiger continues to fight just as wild animals do when cornered, and just as the samurai revere them for doing.

katsumoto then recognizes algren as the figurative tiger from his vision and has him spared in order to know an enemy he realizes he does not (entirely) comprehend, but some aspect of whom he nonetheless recognizes. he's already part way here to understanding value in something he would otherwise have considered without it.

then, when katsumoto's men express their disgust with the barbarian white man's not having killed himself in his defeat, katsumoto, in a moment of (transcultural) clarity, observes that algren is not japanese, and seppuku is not his custom, the clear implication being that it is a kind of category mistake to judge him by (at least some of) their own standards.

anyway. i find it odd that this wasn't as obvious to everyone as it was to me. especially since it's all ostensibly written "on the nose".

you may think that violates some principle of historical accuracy, and maybe you're right, but it certainly doesn't miss the point of the film.

ok, i don't get this. on the one hand you fault the movie for being excessively "on the nose", and then here you lay blame for its leaving a point implicit.

ahh, the inscrutable subtleties of filmmaking 101.

so it's ok to be unconventional.....as long as you're conventionally unconventional????

i didn't understand the film in this way at all. there was nothing in algren's first pitched battle with the samurai to suggest that bagley always took the rear position in battle; more specifically, there was nothing to suggest that his doing so in that particular conflict was anything more than standard military procedure: he was a lieutenant colonel, and so far forth supposed to guide his forces from a vantage point that would best enable him to assess the course of the battle and direct his men accordingly. which, of course, is not in the thick of things.

again, i think this misunderstands bagley's character: he was not a coward. he was just an asshole. even a despicable asshole, but certainly not a chickenshit. i mean, he followed orders - that fact was made abundantly clear during the introduction of the film - which is presumably why he led the japanese soldiers into battle at the end of the film: because he was the only officer there competent to do so, or at least most competent, and his superiors had ordered him to ensure victory.

are you serious? because the only sort of individual capable of the stealth and skill required to sneak into the heavily guarded samurai village was also the type of individual who reviled the use of firearms - even the assassins who tried to eliminate algren didn't use guns.

can you imagine a bunch of those doofus japanese foot-soldiers trying to sneak into the samurai village? and then all of them shooting and missing katsumoto?

i thought you thought slapstick is grossly out of place in this sort of drama....

John, I think Seth was talking about the “Americanization” (or “Hollywoodization”) of the film. Which would deal with a violation of historical/cultural accuracy.

However, while your points about Katsumoto and his vision are correct – it is Katsumoto who serves as the cross-cultural or trans-cultural figure in the film. The wooden sword scene does not involve Katsumoto. So, most of your points don’t apply.


The point is NOT implicit. Algren condemns Custer’s stand out of hand, then later makes his own stand. The parallel is that they are both last stands, but no one and nothing ever draws a real question/point/conclusion out of it. What, in your opinion, is the implicit point of the comparison? That Algren’s stand is heroic because the Samurai are honorable, while Custer was not? That’s not implicit…that’s obvious, and it’s not much of a point.

Seth (and me too) is disappointed they didn’t try to make a stronger point. To draw some conclusion – implicit or not – about WHY that is different. What makes their way of life worth fighting for? After all, progress is inevitable, so many can (and do) argue that their fight was stupid and selfish. Sounds a lot like Custer. What did the character discover that makes his stand heroic and comparable to Thermopylae, and not Custer?


Bagley is very clear that the Americans are not to be involved in combat in this war. They are simply there to train the Japonese. He was not, in any way, a commander of the Japanese army. He was an observer.


He was an utter, soulless coward who fought for nothing. He shot innocent women and children down in cold blood and didn’t bat an eye. Is there anything MORE cowardly? Yeah, there is – ordering his men to do it for him so he could keep his hands clean. He is in Japan to observe, train, and make cash. The mere idea that he would get involved in the battle without a direct order (didn’t have it) or a big pile of cash staring him in the face, was laughable. It only happens so that Cruise can kill him. In fact, he’s only in the pre-battle discussion so that Cruise can taunt him and set up the kill.

I disagree. I think what we see on the screen is the Emperor reacting to Katsumoto's sword, signifying his sacrifice and the honor of his family. I think you'll notice the only time the Emperor really looks at Algren is when he asks him if he was there when Katsumoto died. His eyes are on the sword almost exclusively.

I think also that the young Emperor showed deference to Katsumoto, especially since he specifically asked Katsumoto what he should do. If Katsumoto had come right out and said "get rid of the western-influenced members of the council", I believe he would have done it immediately. However, Katsumoto, ever being the teacher, tries to get the Emperor to make the right decision on his own. In my opinion, due to the resigned look on his face, it at this point that Katsumoto realizes that he is going to have to make the ultimate sacrifice to teach the Emperor his last lesson.

John, you make some great points. Thinking about it in retrospect, I can see that the start of the film has most everyone with a very isolationist attitude with the exception of Algren. Katsumoto respects only the old ways and rejects all modern conventions. Omura completely rejects the old ways and works to modernize the entire country.

Algren starts the film already somewhat multicultural. This is apparent because of his journal, which shows he had uncommon understanding and respect for the Native Americans, despite having killed a great many of them. However, he doesn't understand taking a losing stance on something. He doesn't reject orders to kill uninvolved natives back in the States. He doesn't agree with sending his raw recruits into battle, yet he's there nonetheless.

Now, as time goes on, he is exposed to their culture. He never fully embraces the concept of suicide, as he initially tries to prevent Katsumoto from starting it, but he eventually understands and helps him. I think he really starts to understand what Katsumoto is trying to do, which is why he says things like, "What could be more necessary" and "Together, we will make the emperor hear you". When the movie started, he thinks Custer is a fool who allows his pride to kill his troops. I think at the end, he thinks differently about last stands and embraces the concept. His use of the Greek example was proof to this point, which he uses as inspiration at the end.

On a more interesting note is the effect he has on Katsumoto and his movement. Initially disgusted both by his refusal to honrably kill himself and also by his refusal to accept defeat during the non-lethal stick fight, they eventually open up to him and start to even break with their own traditions. I don't think the Katsumoto at the start of the film wouldn't have hesitated to take his own life at the chateau prison, but the one at the end was persuaded to escape by Algren. Also note that they forged the sword to say something to the effect of, "Blending of the Old and the New".

At the end of the film, you have a Japan that blends both the new and the old (based on the Emperor's speech) as well as Algren's new attitude. He hasn't entirely rejected the new, as he didn't kill himself on the battlefield, but he has clearly embraced the old traditions. He even offers to kill himself if the Emperor thought him an enemy.

Interesting stuff, which I hadn't thought about before John's post.


Also, I recall that Omura's offer to Algren was to lead his new army to crush the uprising. I would assume that Bagley would have the new command Omura was offering. During the battle, he doesn't ride in with the initial troops. However, on seeing two of his waves destroyed, and Algren advancing on their position he gets his pride hurt somewhat ("He actually thinks he's going to win") and joins the final charge to keep them from the rear lines. I don't doubt for a second that it was put this way to give the audience some revenge satisfaction, but the movie puts this in with some support for his action.

my point is simply about the point of the film in general, namely that it involves not only algren changing in response to his exposure to the samurai, but also the samurai changing in response to their contact with algren.

and i made that observation in response to seth's claim that the point of the cross-cultural component of the film is one-way: that it is algren who is uniquely malleable in this regard, and that the samurai act as a kind of fixed point on algren's cultural/moral horizon to which he journeys throughout the movie.

thus, katsumoto's absence from the bokken-scene is itself irrelevant - while the (that particular) samurai might at that time fail either or both to comprehend and respect algren's dogged persistence, his failure to do so is simply the first step on the (that particular) samurai's journey toward his ultimate respect for that characteristic of algren.

but you're drawing a real question out of it. right?

in my opinion, "the point" of portraying algren as having an apparently morally absolute opinion of custer's last stand, only to engage in a subsequent last stand himself, is to get the viewer to question the nature of algren's apparent change, as well, perhaps, of the nature of last stands in themselves. for example, was custer actually arrogant? or did algren simply think so because custer made a decision the then-morally-myopic algren rejected simply for being different from his own? meaning algren (originally) considered custer arrogant because custer made the decision he did rather than the other way around.

whatever you make of it, though, i think that's precisely the point - that you have to make something of it.

great questions. what do you think the answer is?

fair enough. which means, presumably, that bagley was simply following orders in not fighting. which means he wasn't being a coward.

see, that's what i call despicable or odious or reprehensible, NOT (necessarily) cowardly, where by that i mean something like "afraid to fight". i mean, it's obviously possible that a totally evil person could also be afraid in the face of personal danger, but it's also totally possible that he be evil and willing to fight. i think bagley was an uncowardly, despicable asshole.

the flashbacks showed him shooting women and children.

i think it's clear that bagley either had orders to conclude the battle expeditiously (i would imagine that omura would make his agreement to the arms contract contingent upon the successful extirpation of the samurai rebels), and/or that omura simply wouldn't pay him unless the samurai were defeated.

that's the way i understood and continue to understand the film.

great post, alex. i particularly like this insight, which i hadn't previously considered.

I haven't given it any thought! The film failed to motivate me to consider it. Just like it failed to have anything to say about it.

well, that's fair. i admit that the film didn't motivate me enough to give it any extensive thought, either - i only brought the whole thing up because i found it odd that the film's not saying anything about it either way would be considered a liability by someone who was levelling so much criticism against the movie for saying too much...

I wasn't too sure about this, I'm not sure if another viewing would clear it up, but I felt there are two possibilities for the reason behind algren making his doomed last stand.

In both cases early in the film he states the Custer's last stand was pointless and was done by Custer for Custer's personal glory.

At the end I thought he could have:

1) changed his mind and seen that Custer was actually fighting for his Country and not his glory and he finally understood him.

or

2) he still thought Custer was a glory seeker, but this last stand was ok because he was fighting for something bigger than himself, for him for the woman he had come to love and the village he was now at peace in, for the samurai's they were fighting for thier country

Some great discussions here and as usual, I have nothing to add but praise (since I absolutely or pretty much agree with their thoughts) Chuck, Max, john and Alex's excellent posts.

I liked this movie more than I thought I would, but agree with many of Seth's complaints.

One of the things that bothered me most was very trivial, but I couldn't get it out of my head. Here you had an epic battle going on, historical to the core, and there you had Timothy Spall's character, up on a bluff, with a camera, and he wasn't taking pictures. He was watching. I realize he wasn't a professional photographer, so that gives the character an out, but it still bothered me.

It was a beautiful-looking film, though I kept thinking "Man, I really want to visit New Zealand some day!" throughout, and I hope Ken Watanabe and Ngila Dickson get Oscar noms.

This is a very interesting discussion. Thanks to everybody.

i don't think cameras at that time were capable of taking pictures of moving subjects, vickie; if you'll recall the picture the movie actually showed spall taking when algren re-entered the city with katsumoto, he exposed the film and left it exposed for a few seconds in order to allow the light to affect the photographic-plate. camera technology was so rudimentary at that point in history, and the photo-sensitive chemicals used so insensitive, that the light needed to be in contact with those chemicals for what is by today's standards a really long time for it to have any effect.

pictures of the battle would be an unintelligible blur if taken with a camera like that.

I'll have to concede the Emperor's eyes since I can't remember where they were focused. However, Katsumoto held the same sword for the Emperor during the earlier council meeting and he was not as effected as when Algren brought. Again, I would buy this more if the Emperor would have seen Katsumoto's death. I think it is significant symbolically that they present two scenes of the sword presentation and Algren's succeeded while Katsumoto's did not.

Right, I do realize that, but the bodies on the battlefield weren't moving. The soldiers on the far bluff weren't moving. The battlefield itself was a historical ("historical") monument. I just imagined historians and photographers in the audience, groaning and wanting to slap the guy upside the head for not taking any more pictures.

I said it was silly.

Vickie, I don't recall any kind of landscape pictures from that period (1877), probably because the depth-of-field would have been so low and the needed exposure time so high that it may have been impossible. I believe those cameras are simply pinhole cameras too, no way to adjust aperture on those things. I think focus is also impossible to adjust. The subject has to be at a precise distance in front of it...although I have no idea what the hyperfocal* distance would be on that kind of camera.

Still, I was expecting him to be taking pictures though. The editing could have been better!

I don't think it was a silly question, if that was what you meant.

*hyperfocal distance is the point of focus where everything 1/3rd in front and everything behind the focus point stays in focus, I think. Impossible to do at the time I think if there is no aperture adjustment.