The Last Samurai
I'll be honest, I was expecting The Last Samurai to be bad. I mean, really bad. And I was pleasantly surprised. I tend to love films in general, but even accounting for that, this is a good one.
Spoilers follow. Some day I'll start being more consistent about whether I include spoilers, whether I warn about them, and how much I say before the 'Read More'.
I'm a big fan of feudal Japan, at least that which I consider to be feudal Japan. I'd be the first to admit that most of what I know is from very specific research, and/or from sources that range from mildly dubious to openly fictionalised. So I have a somewhat romanticised view of the period, much as I once had of chivalric europe.
The film seems to be more genuine in that respect than I expected, although less than I would have liked. It doesn't make much of a fuss about being based on actual events (Katsumo is based on Saigo Takamori, and the featured rebellion was real enough), perhaps because of a few liberties it takes (both sides used modern weapons, and the Tom Cruise character is entirely fictional). Would I rather it had no Americans in it? No, I think the culture clash gave an excellent way into understanding the Japanese characters, and was necessary for the film to have the impact it does. Do I wish the Samurai had guns? No; while I thought it was a little odd that the ones in the films considered them dishonourable, the fact that they were still using bows and swords gave the cultural distinction a little extra edge, as did various other differences that were presumably hammed up a little.
So, ignoring or allowing a little poetic license (and you should grant it whole-heartedly to a film that didn't really trade on being a decent account of what had happened) you've got a nice illustration of the difference between a pair of diverse cultures, one of which is under threat as the other takes over its homeland. It's surprisingly well written and acted; while I normally don't like Tom Cruise, I have to accept that he's one of the main strengths of this film, alongside Ken Watanabe and some other bits of good acting. It's got some good action, quite a lot of emotional value, a token romantic subplot (or RSP, as those who've known me to review or write prior to this blog will know them; so often did we discuss them) and a nice balance of essential elements.
Probably the best thing about it is that all of these packages are delivered (to Hollywood of all places) without an unseemly cultural bias. The Samurai depicted aren't the ones that would actually have been around at the time (a little research describes the featured lifestyle and tactics to have been abandoned long before then), I'm sure, but the depiction seemed fair on them, and certainly was consist within itself. The differences between this culture (allowing for argument's sake that it is a culture, if not the culture) and the Americans are well used, and allow for a lot of good drama and character-building. An hour or so in I was concerned that they were going to keep on likening the traditionalist samurai rebels to the defeated Native Americans, but sooner or later the character that mattered came to understand the difference, namely that the samurai weren't tribal savages (as some of the American characters perceived Native Americans) but the military apparatus of the previous culture, whose [very good] social standing had been all but removed by the Meiji restoration.
And I've done more research into this in the last hour than I ever had before, so it's been good from that point of view as well.
Anyway, enough of me going on. I bought it on one recommendation, and watched it still expecting a film that would be fun but a bit hollow and a little artificial. Well clearly it's artificial, but not enough to harm it, and while it's good to watch, it's far from simple fun, being a relatively deep and engaging kind of a film. Watch it already.
Spoilers follow. Some day I'll start being more consistent about whether I include spoilers, whether I warn about them, and how much I say before the 'Read More'.
I'm a big fan of feudal Japan, at least that which I consider to be feudal Japan. I'd be the first to admit that most of what I know is from very specific research, and/or from sources that range from mildly dubious to openly fictionalised. So I have a somewhat romanticised view of the period, much as I once had of chivalric europe.
The film seems to be more genuine in that respect than I expected, although less than I would have liked. It doesn't make much of a fuss about being based on actual events (Katsumo is based on Saigo Takamori, and the featured rebellion was real enough), perhaps because of a few liberties it takes (both sides used modern weapons, and the Tom Cruise character is entirely fictional). Would I rather it had no Americans in it? No, I think the culture clash gave an excellent way into understanding the Japanese characters, and was necessary for the film to have the impact it does. Do I wish the Samurai had guns? No; while I thought it was a little odd that the ones in the films considered them dishonourable, the fact that they were still using bows and swords gave the cultural distinction a little extra edge, as did various other differences that were presumably hammed up a little.
So, ignoring or allowing a little poetic license (and you should grant it whole-heartedly to a film that didn't really trade on being a decent account of what had happened) you've got a nice illustration of the difference between a pair of diverse cultures, one of which is under threat as the other takes over its homeland. It's surprisingly well written and acted; while I normally don't like Tom Cruise, I have to accept that he's one of the main strengths of this film, alongside Ken Watanabe and some other bits of good acting. It's got some good action, quite a lot of emotional value, a token romantic subplot (or RSP, as those who've known me to review or write prior to this blog will know them; so often did we discuss them) and a nice balance of essential elements.
Probably the best thing about it is that all of these packages are delivered (to Hollywood of all places) without an unseemly cultural bias. The Samurai depicted aren't the ones that would actually have been around at the time (a little research describes the featured lifestyle and tactics to have been abandoned long before then), I'm sure, but the depiction seemed fair on them, and certainly was consist within itself. The differences between this culture (allowing for argument's sake that it is a culture, if not the culture) and the Americans are well used, and allow for a lot of good drama and character-building. An hour or so in I was concerned that they were going to keep on likening the traditionalist samurai rebels to the defeated Native Americans, but sooner or later the character that mattered came to understand the difference, namely that the samurai weren't tribal savages (as some of the American characters perceived Native Americans) but the military apparatus of the previous culture, whose [very good] social standing had been all but removed by the Meiji restoration.
And I've done more research into this in the last hour than I ever had before, so it's been good from that point of view as well.
Anyway, enough of me going on. I bought it on one recommendation, and watched it still expecting a film that would be fun but a bit hollow and a little artificial. Well clearly it's artificial, but not enough to harm it, and while it's good to watch, it's far from simple fun, being a relatively deep and engaging kind of a film. Watch it already.
Comments