*** Official THE LAST SAMURAI Discussion Thread (1 Viewer)

[Phil Florian]

Edwin, you might be right. I was looking into this a teeny bit (not seriously into this T-Day weekend) and the bit I have heard about was an outdated US fleet moving into Japanese water and forcing themselves on to the Japanese, ending about 250 years of self-isolation (again, the Dutch seem to play into this at some point). This would have been an intersting point to make in the movie, though, and I don't recall that being the case. The movie posits that the Americans are brought in to deal with "tribals" because of their experience "taming the west" in their own country. This may also be true, but it makes it sound like the Japanese invited us in when it seems we forced ourselves on them. Would have been a neat tact to take.

Some more positives, I did like some of the swordplay (not from the big battles, but there was some smaller stuff that was great). They even fought in what I understand to be a bit more accurate sword fighting style from Japan (as compared to, say, "Kill Bill" though it wasn't trying to be accurate to anything but other kung-fu/karate films).

I guess what would have been helpful is one giant script overhaul to wash away all the stuff that made it predictable.

Arman, you actually make my point, to a degree. I think "Hitchcockian" is thrown around with equal abandon and if I see it attached to a movie that is definitely not, I make the same point. I think "Frantic" was the last, truly Hitcockian movie to my reckoning (knowing that I missed plenty of movies between then, but that one sticks out). I think "Last Samurai" is evocative of older Samurai movies as a genre but not near the (agreeably imperfect) Kurosawa. The same could be said of the "Spaghetti Western" tag being used for any western that comes out that is a bit quirky or off kilter. Leone was an amazing director and is oft imitated, but again, few movies are Leone-like, either. Let "Last Samurai" just stand where it does. As noted, if anything it is more a Costnerian comparison than anything. Replace Samurai with Native Americans and half the movie is finished. Haunted Civil War vet, check. Misunderstood "tribals" with tunnel visioned and somewhat suicidal Westerner, check. Language barrier overcome quickly to faciliate character growth, check. It's there. If it was Roeper, then I agree with him. An intelligent action flick and that is good enough.


Phil

 

[Arman]

.

 

[Michael Martin]

I saw the film Saturday night, and I recommend it with some reservations. I'm posting this here instead of in the review thread, since I want to discuss some specifics that are some major spoilers. And since this is the discussion thread, I assume spoiler tags aren't necessary.

Anyway...

All the technical aspects were fantastic - score, cinematography, costumes, set design, etc. Overall the acting was very good, too, though Cruise was (again) simply playing a variation on a theme of all of his characters. Ken Watanabe, though, stole every scene from Cruise by the simple fact of his tremendous screen presence. Very Chow Yun Fat-esque, in that his stature, voice and movement command respect and attention.

I have to wonder if Omura really would employ ninjas, given that a few sniper shots with a rifle would have done the job better. However, that would have robbed of us a fantastic fight scene with Cruise, Watanabe and others wielding katanas to deadly and believable effect.

Some things I really didn't like and wondered what others thought---

Katsumoto's son's death scene - VERY overdone and out of character for the samurai and the movie. I know it was an attempt to humanize the characters and get the audience involved emotionally, but it was too much of a baseball bat, and it was just out of place. I already cared about the characters, and the scene where the son has his topknot cut off was FAR more emotionally moving than the death scene. I'm talking specifically of when Katsumoto is looking at his son, not the son's last stand.

Algren's voiceovers also felt forced and odd. Might have been because they had the photographer established as the narrator, and suddenly Algren is narrating. And I have to admit that the first time we hear Algren's voice - presumably reading a journal entry - what immediately came to my mind was "Stardate 20154.8..." Don't ask me why, but there was something very William Shatner-ish about Cruise's voice for the voiceover readings.

I also felt like the ending was a bit of a cop out. Partially because I knew Zwick had directed Glory, and partially because we all KNOW that Japan DID modernize its fighting force, I figured the final battle would be more of a one-sided massacre, and that Algren would die alongside Katsumoto. Don't get me wrong - the battle was beatifully shot, wrenchingly involving, and a wonder to behold. But Algren's being the (presumably) lone survivor was too Hollywood for me, as was the coda scene with Algren presenting the sword to the emperor. Cruise was able to make that scene worthwhile, though, simply through the wordless and powerful emoting he did.

Far worse that impression that Algren and Katsumoto somehow delayed or defeated the military modernization of Japan was the shot of Algren leading his horse to the village. "Hi, I'm back. Now not only is your husband dead, but every single male of age from this village was killed in a battle I fought in. Only I didn't have enough honor to kill myself afterwards. Glad to see me?" I just don't see Kata being happy at his return, or the Japanese understanding or honoring his being alive after everyone else was killed in a military defeat.

 

[Scott_Jua]

My wife and I caught a sneak preview of the movie on Sunday evening...and I have to say it's one of my all time favorites now! I was so surprised at how damned good this movie was. You guys have got to go see it when it comes out later this week.

I'm usually not a fan of movies for Tom by Tom to make Tom more popular, but this is one of his best. He may actually have gone back to acting instead of "starring" in movies with this one.

And if any of you are students or advocates of Kenjutsu, Iai, or any form of Japanese culture/Martial art you should be pleased to see it treated very well with lots of repsect and by people who seem to know what they're doing. There's a little bit of creative license with some of Tom's character and his American flare showing up...but he only twirls his bokken one time... and luckily there are NO SPARKLING blades! Thank Goodness. I also think that they dialed back some of the visuals for violence, in that they hardly show very much blood or the types and severity of wounds that a Katana can create to human bodies. I think if the audience would be shown alot of what those types of cuts can and did do, people would not buy into it and dismiss it as hokey or too exaggerated. However, anyone interested in the Samurai or their ways of life in the time period depicted in the movie should be more than pleased.

The overall story has an accuracy to it, that's heart wrenching to watch unfold, and I actually ended up caring for just about all the characters in some way or another. The effects and stunt work are pretty top notch as well. Heck Tom did a decent job at rusty american Nihongo and very few Japanese characters spoke gratuitous English.

Overall I was impressed and surprised at how good this movie was. Go see it!

 

[Janna S]

Saw it at a sneak here in Anchorage on Saturday night. It was sold out, in a medium-sized theater, which always worries me because there is no way to escape chatterers, children, chewers, etc. But the audience behaved well, except for the trunk-necked guy behind me who wanted to explain weaponry to his date . . .

I know nothing about the history, the Samurai, the weaponry, etc. I was just a movie tourist. Most of my responses relate to other film images.

I was impressed. I'm not a Cruise fan, although I think he's done good work (4th of July, Rainman, snippets in Magnolia). He stuck out here a bit, but that is arguably consistent with the theme of the film. I was distracted by his hair and his scraggly beard - he gets the lank and greasy award from me.

Ken Watanabe stole the show. The Yul Brynner comparisons are inescapable and mostly flattering, although I did expect him to say,"Etcetera, etcetera."

The enrobing scnee was brief and beautiful. Very erotic. I was glad they went no further with it.

Great costuming.

I flashed on "Last of the Mohicans" more than once - both in theme and in a shot that could have been right out of the Blue Ridge Mountains.

Once or twice it was a little too similar to "Glory" (try-to-get-the-scared-trainee-to-shoot). But both films made me think about the ghastliness of war, the potential horror when tradition and technology and honor clash. Oddly, since it relates to nothing, I found myself thinking of Jimmy Stewart picking the steak up off the floor as John Wayne and Lee Marvin glared at one another.

I will recommend it to all but my most battle-and-blood averse friends. I will see it at least once more. I will read up on the history. And I will watch for Ken Watanabe again.

 

[Patrick Sun]

I don't know how they film such chaotic battles scenes where everyone has a sword or a bayonet and is swinging away (like at a 3-0 pitch), and doesn't lose an eye or teeth or anything else. I was cringing at seeing the horses tumbling from "being shot" at by the new and improved Japanese army.

The ending sequence (of Algren presenting the sword of Katsumoto to the emperor) seemed to go on too long, and seemed to be shooting for getting Tom Cruise a Best Actor nod with all those tears flowing down his cheeks.

Katsumoto's son's final stand was something akin to a John Woo film, all that was missing was the "2-guns firing while jumping sideways for cover" shot.

 

[Steve_Tk]

I saw Cruise on Leno and he did quickly mention no horses were hurt and the mechanical horses look so real you wouldn't even know it. At first I wondered why he would say that on Leno, I guess now I know.

I loved this film.

 

[Quentin]

Good, solid entertainment. A worthy star vehicle for one of our biggest and best stars.

I enjoyed it, but this is more of a Hollywood melodrama than historical epic. Which is fine - just be prepared. If you want historical epic, go see M&C.

It got a little to "westernized" for me at certain times, and I REALLY wish it had ended after the battle, when the army bows. The rest of the movie from that point on is pure, unadulterated, Hollywood sap. Really barf-worthy.

But, the battles are great and Watanabe is great too. I don't know what that smile on my face was during the ninja scene - pleasure, ridicule, disdain, or some of each! But, I turned to my friend and said, "Hey, they fit some ninjas in there - cool!" Which about sums up the film...

 

[JonZ]

"I think "Frantic" was the last, truly Hitcockian movie to my reckoning..."

What about Bound and The Man Who Wasnt There.

I think any Samurai film will be campaired to Kurosawa,its unavoidable. I definitely thing there was some homage material in there.Katsumoto's death scene,watching the tree reminded me of "Dreams".

I have a problem with the ending, I agree the last 5 minutes are too sappy,although I loved when the Emperor offered Katsmotos sword to Omura(I think that was his name)

I though the acting was stellar all the way around.

"The overall story has an accuracy to it, that's heart wrenching to watch unfold, and I actually ended up caring for just about all the characters in some way or another."

Very true.It was heartbreaking to watch Katsumoto bow to someone who just betrayed him,and it was really sad to see the Samurai figth to the end.

I think the culture was beautifully portayed in TLS. I loved the idea of Algren recover and living with the family of the Samurai he killed.

Theres alot of greatness here and only a little bad IMHO.

 

[Kristian]

I sure hope that everyone else who saw this movie saw it with a good audience. Unfortunately, I wasn't so lucky. There was this one guy sitting behind me who simply would not shut up. He was talking before the movie started and kept talking until the credits rolled. His worst act of stupidity was yelling out "Cuts like butter!" like a madman right after Algren decapitated that one guy during his nighttime street fight. The funny thing was that this guy was complaining earlier about another idiot who was using a laser pointer on the screen during the pre-trailer ads. What a hypocrite.

Even after all this, I managed to enjoy the movie a great deal. But I definitely can't wait to watch it in peace once it comes out on DVD.

 

[Patrick Sun]

So how many enjoyed the homage to "Risky Business" when Algren is trying on his Japanese garb for the first time?

Director Zwick has always been good at establishing strong bonds between characters that make the audience sympathetic towards them and their plight.

 

[Steve_Tk]

I really am surprised at how many people are saying this is just a clone of DWW. I mean how many times have we seen the Drug Lord vs Renegade cop whos family was killed, or the Evil villain that is unbeatable at the beginning but then all a sudden hero kills him at the end, or the good vs total evil plots? Everything is a retread these days to me. I've yet to see something truly original in a long time, maybe Memento.

The only thing that would be original is to not have a lead actor, just random people, or have the hero get his ass slaughtered at the end and then all the innocent women and children die. But we all know how well that would go over.

I also get tired of hearing 'made for mass audience'. I'm not Joe Six PACK!! ok breath...

 

[Doug R]

I really enjoyed 98% of the movie but I have to disagree with some on the very ending with Algren going to live in the village. I thought it was too sappy and sort of odd. I mean nearly every male in the village is now dead except him yet Taka is happy to see him? Just weird. and kinda creepy.

 

[david stark]

Firstly I agree with the fact that Algren going back to the village at the end may not work in Reality, but then again this is fiction. I think it may be show at the end of the day both Algren and Katsumoto both got what they want out of life.

Algren never became a true samurai (or he would have killed himself), but Katsumoto was and he kept his honour and through his death did win. Algren silenced his inner demons and could then return to where he was at peace and live the life he wanted to.

 

[IanHo]

Yes, there are strong parallels to DWW but I think most people's objections has more to with the fact modern audiences still needs a white character to emote and relate for them when confronting a different culture. Last Samurai was enjoyable but would have worked better if it focused on one character (Watanabe) like Braveheart since the themes are very similar. Watanabe is like William Wallace. The Emperor is similar to Robert the Bruce. And the Japanese bureaucrat/Americans are like Edward Longshanks (the bad guys).

 

[Max Leung]

I'm wondering if some of the negative reviews (Seth's especially) can be attributed to a misunderstanding of Japanese culture in those times. Charges were made to "sappiness" and "blatant string-pulling", yet I found virtually every scene to be nicely restrained (the enrobing and armor scene in particular - restrained but capturing the moment perfectly). It's very Japanese in that sense (although Cruise does shed more tears at the end than expected! Oops). The wooden sword and stick fight in the mud scene sums up Japanese attitudes very succintly - earn respect by not giving up.

Of course, I did see the film with a Japanese friend in attendance, and according to her it is dead-on with regard to historical behavior, except at the end of the battle:

Typically everyone dies, including the women and children. Village burned to the ground, and the women fight to the death or kill themselves and their children.

(I am using spoilers because the movie just came out)

Historically, the Japanese did enact foreign restrictions after their initial openness, around 1877 or 1878 I think. Nice how the ending suggests a reason why...

 

[david stark]

Yes, there are strong parallels to DWW but I think most people's objections has more to with the fact modern audiences still needs a white character to emote and relate for them when confronting a different culture.

A large part of the film was Algrin'e journey of change and acceptance of this different culture. Without this it would have been a totally different film and by having him in the film it helps us (western audience) understand the cultural differences as it is explained to Algrin during the film.

If what people want is a film with no western influence go and have a look at some Japanese films (or other countries around the world). All films made by Hollywood will be heavily aimed at the US audience, if you want something different then go and look somewhere else.

Sorry about that rant now over.

 

[JustinCleveland]

A large part of the film was Algrin'e journey of change and acceptance of this different culture.

Perfectly stated, David. Those detractors who complain about what wasn't there, didn't apprecaite the story that was presented, and were looking for something else entirely.

Saw the film this afternoon, and was entirely blown away. The score was marvelous, Cruise was spot on, though his narration was suspect. I agree that the changing of the narrative position was sudden, but it all happened when Cruise handed off his journals, so it worked for me. Ken Watanabe was outstanding. This is the first film I've ever seen him in, and he was great as a powerful-yet-humble leader. The sequence involving the Kabuki plays and the subsequent Ninja attack ran the gamut of emotions for his character. Where some have commented that the final battle was a bit over done, I was glad to see it done so well. Rather than the aformetioned "guns kill people," it became obvious that civil war had occured before in Japan, though not for some time. The point I got was that times had changed, but that change is not always good, nor is it always bad. But change, is.

 

[Seth Paxton]

The wooden sword and stick fight in the mud scene sums up Japanese attitudes very succintly - earn respect by not giving up.

Too bad that the Jap. attitude does not respect that behavior. That's a very AMERICAN value. The Japanese value was HONOR above all (and still remains the value of the old guard). In the film they do not come to respect him for not giving up, they either don't understand his behavior or see it as DISHONORABLE, which they should and would. That's a big problem with the scene, it exists as a very Americanized moment. Had Cruise shown that he could take defeat with HONOR, then he would have gained their respect. That's the whole freaking point in the culture conflict.



Kurosawa told us about the lessons his characters were learning by their actions and reactions, not by saying it outright (on the nose dialog). And even when he brought in darkly black villains he still avoided pounding the evil over our head with cheap confrontation dialog. We knew who felt what without being over-the-top. Leone is another good comparison for the genre. Consider the utter lack of dialog with which Good, Bad, Ugly is able to open up with and establish its characters with. It's all done in action/reaction, no need to explain the characters directly with dialog.

Or compare it with Fonda's very evil character in "Once Upon a Time in the West". The guy is as black as they come, but most of that is told simply by the look on his face when he guns down a family. No dwelling, no telling, no discussion at all. It is the absence of these things that makes the moment more powerful, the fact that we don't need our hand held for us to understand the signifcance of the moment.


The film also jumps around with the "last stand" theme. Its arrogant and stupid when Custer does it, Cruise beats this into our head. Yet later it becomes great when ancient Greeks did it and worthy of repeating with the samurai. Clearly the point was never that last stands are bad, but rather the motivation for it. Too bad the film never discussed it from that angle (except that Custer was arrogant which was wrong only because it is what got him into the position, that being in the position was the "wrong" part), Cruise never comes to understand the difference, or if he knew it all along he never bothers to explain the different applications as he chides others for celebrating last stands.


Let's not even go into the idea that we have both Cruise inner-monolog as he writes, AND Spall's film ending inner-monolog. That clearly violates the very basic principles of classical narrative...fine if a film is breaking such conventions but utter crap if the film is hanging every scene off of them up to that point. Its a fuck up, period.


I also felt that Zimmer's score was often more intrusive and pushy than it was helpful, but I could never tell if it was the score or the fact that some of the scenes were written so poorly that they pulled me out of the moment and made me more aware of these other factors.


Finally, a more minor gripe. Did Cruise REALLY need to throw!!! his sword into Goldwyn? It played silly and ruined an otherwise good confrontation. Of course in that regard the film screwed itself because it already established that Goldwyn always kept himself FAR from the battlefield (remember when we get the pretentiously told point rammed down our throat just before Cruise is captured at the beginning). In fact when he said "I'll see you on the battlefield" I said to myself "Oh no you won't". What a surprise that the script contradicts itself so poorly.

In fact when Goldwyn asked for his horse many people laughed. It seemed clear that their reaction was to laugh at the character for running away, but it turns out that they laughed too soon. He suddenly shifted from coward to defiant in the blink of an eye, just as he shifted from incompetent to knowledgable puppet with no power for the last battle.


When you consider this tirade, you have to appreciate my goodwill and understanding that as an action-entertainer the film is pleasant enough since I did give it a 7 of 10 after all. I figured that it was wrong for me to judge it as an Oscar piece when it was so clearly not. As an "Oscar contender" the film was awful, especially in comparison to the similarly storied DWW, similarly period placed Unforgiven, or the similarly historic epic Master and Commander.

 

[Quentin]

Well thought out and perfectly addressed post, Seth. I agree with all your points.

I particularly laughed in the audience when Goldwyn goes into battle. PLEASE! As you said, that character would have gone the opposite direction.

I'm also glad you bring up the Custer point. Why this didn't pay off thematically, I'll never know.

One point you didn't mention, but I will: The scene where the widow prepares Cruise for battle in her dead husband's armor. What a great idea for a scene!! It is moving and poignant. And, it shows us (without on the nose dialogue!) the bridge being formed between cultures. The difficult restraint is palpable...AND THEN THEY KISS!!! Are you freaking kidding me? The moment could not have been more Americanized. Ruined the whole thing for me. Culturally, and dramatically, the moment is SO much more powerful and accurate if they never kiss.

But, ultimately, that scene and the movie in general suffer from Zwick-itis. You can take the director out of TV, but you can't take the TV out of the director. All of his films suffer from on the nose dialogue, moments of pounding the theme/point into our heads, and spoon fed entertainment. I'm not saying it sucks - it's just never top quality. Always a little too simplistic.

The film also suffers from a severe case of short hand. DWW had a whole hour more to visually convey much of the cultural beauty and nuances as Costner comes to love the Sioux. Cruise has to make the transition quite quickly in this film, and certain shortcuts are utilized to do so.

What'd you think of the ninjas? Couldn't they have come up with a better, less cheesy way to get Cruise fighting by Katsumoto's side? Or, did they just figure - "Hey, ninjas are cool!"