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

[ChuckSolo]

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.

 

[Phil Florian]

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.

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

 

[Todd Terwilliger]

It took Katsumoto's death to open the Emperor's eyes, not Algren. He already knew he was being manipulated, he just didn't have the fortitude to act, until he realized Katsumoto's sacrifice for his way of life.

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.

 

[ChuckSolo]

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.

 

[Max Leung]

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

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...

 

[John Doran]

And then I thought "why didn't they just send in a SNIPER since they are so hip to guns anyway".

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....

 

[Quentin]

he was not a coward. he was just an asshole. even a despicable asshole, but certainly not a chickenshit.

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.

 

[Brent Bridgeman]

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.

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.

 

[Alex Spindler]

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.

 

[John Doran]

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 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.

 

[John Doran]

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".

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

 

[Quentin]

great questions. what do you think the answer is?

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.

 

[John Doran]

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...

 

[david stark]

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.

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

 

[Arman]

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...

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.

 

[Vickie_M]

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.

 

[John Doran]

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.

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.

 

[Todd Terwilliger]

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'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.

 

[Vickie_M]

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

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.

 

[Max Leung]

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.