The Last Samurai

[JRock]

But I think there's no saving a movie once your mind is made up that it won't be enjoyable.

Pretty true JRock.

Um...That wasn't me. (I WISH I'd wrote it though...)

[F-ZeroOne]

I haven't seen this film yet, but I was rather amused by the publicity shot thats appeared in this thread. Having had the opportunity to wear a set of samurai armour once, I couldn't help but think "The wuss! Hes not wearing the helmet!" (its heavy and nearly made me fall off the horse... )

Also, when I saw the trailer recently, theres a shot where they're walking up the steps under this huge temple/shrine [1] gate. At the back of my mind, I couldn't help thinking "now just pull the camera back and show us the roadway thats right in front of that shot... "

[1] There is a difference, I knows theres a difference, and I can never remember it...!

[GobotFool]

But I think there's no saving a movie once your mind is made up that it won't be enjoyable.

Pretty true JRock.

Um...That wasn't me. (I WISH I'd wrote it though...)

D'oh!

Not Afleck Drew.

Edited December 6, 2003 by GobotFool

[DARTHTODD]

Saw the film today and I liked it a lot. Have to say that it was a lot better than I thought it was going to be.

[madmacks]

watched it yesterday. best comedy ive seen all year.

[the white drew carey]

i would say, its worth while to see it for the samuri gear, battles, and fighting.  the story is beliveable from a very sad time in japanise history that will probably leave anyone regretting the loss of a lifestyle that had to be destroyed in the name of progress.

See, that to me sounds hilarious. By the time period of the film, the samurai were little more than a joke. There hadn't been a war in over 200 years. These guys had no real fighting experience (duels were even illegal by this point). The ones who hadn't found jobs in the beurocracy were little more than societal leeches who couldn't be productive even when they wanted to be. They're only usefulness was in putting down the occasional peasant uprising. Against a real military they'd be completely ineffective, as history proves. Sad my ass.

There is alot more to being a Samurai than just being able to fight good. It's an entire lifestyle and beleif system and culture that had lasted for hundreds of years that was "phased out" in a decade.

calling them a joke simply because there hadn't been any wars in the recent history is rather unjustified, like telling a black belt he's wasted his time by learning to fight when its unlikely he'll ever really need it.

sure they wern't a viable military option anymore, but that doesn't make it a good thing that a man whos devoted his whole life to a dicipline should be gunned down on the battle feild buy a guy with a few months of fire arm training.

I have to agree with KingNor here, Jeleinen.

Regardless of the Samurai's military viability, their destruction signaled the end of an amazing aspect of Japanese history and culture. If you want to see a joke, look at how the "modern" Japanese military tried to adopt many ways of the Samurai without ever making an attempt to understand the actual meaning of honor.

To say the Samurai are a joke is just like saying that any belief system is outmoded and useless, including religions and social morality.

Needless to say, I liked the movie. But I do have issues with how it was presented (spoiler alert):

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

In the film they present the Saumrai as attempting to defend the Emperor against the influx of Western influence. But, IIRC, part of the problem historically is that they didn't want Japan to have anything to do with modernization. Their own inability to adapt and/or accept change was also part of their downfall.

[Jolly Rogers]

If you live in So Cal, check out Miyamoto Mushashi on channel 18 Saturday nights 9PM - 10PM.

Tom Cruise-free, no Caucasians trying to play with samurai sword.

[GobotFool]

If you live in So Cal, check out Miyamoto Mushashi on channel 18 Saturday nights 9PM - 10PM.

Tom Cruise-free, no Caucasians trying to play with samurai sword.

Awwwww..... No silly caucasian girl's who like to play with samurai swords?

[Mechamaniac]

In the film they present the Saumrai as attempting to defend the Emperor against the influx of Western influence. But, IIRC, part of the problem historically is that they didn't want Japan to have anything to do with modernization. Their own inability to adapt and/or accept change was also part of their downfall.

You are essentially correct in your summation WDC.

I recommend this book to anyone who is interested in the Samurai, and especially the Meiji Restoration.

Samurai - Story of a Warrior Tradition, by Harry Cook

Tom Cruise-free, no Caucasians trying to play with samurai sword.

Is there something wrong with Caucasians trying to play with samurai swords?

Edited December 7, 2003 by Mechamaniac

[KingNor]

I recommend this book to anyone who is interested in the Samurai, and especially the Meiji Restoration.

Samurai - Story of a Warrior Tradition, by Harry Cook

Another great book is:

SECRETS OF THE SAMURAI

it has beautiful artwork too.

[CaptRico]

I thought it was a great kick'n movie!^^

[NERV]

Theres notihng wrong with caucasians playing with samurai swords(u can spell caucasian without asian), but there is something VERY wrong with Tom Cruise playing with samurai swords

[JELEINEN]

There is alot more to being a Samurai than just being able to fight good. It's an entire lifestyle and beleif system and culture that had lasted for hundreds of years that was "phased out" in a decade.

What a load of sentimental drivel. Fighting was the reason for the existance of samurai pretty much up until the Tokugawa took over. It was then that they were turned into a true social class and stuff like honor codes were created to keep them in line. People "became samurai" all the time based on their fortunes on the battlefield, at least until laws were set saying who and who wasn't a samurai. Doesn't say much for lifestyle when a lot of samurai had been farmers living on millet a few years previously. Nor does the large amount of betrayal and backstabbing that occured during the sengoku say much for beliefs.

calling them a joke simply because there hadn't been any wars in the recent history is rather unjustified, like telling a black belt he's wasted his time by learning to fight when its unlikely he'll ever really need it.

We aren't talking about some guys who just practiced marital arts. These were thousands of men who did little more than drain resources off their society. The ones who did know how to fight were useless against anyone else except peasants. There were very few jobs they were allowed to do, by law. They couldn't own land. The few who could afford it sent their kids to school to become beurocrats. Some with wealthy enough lords (a minority) lived off their stippend. The rest lived hand to mouth and not more than a few turned to crime.

sure they wern't a viable military option anymore, but that doesn't make it a good thing that a man whos devoted his whole life to a dicipline should be gunned down on the battle feild buy a guy with a few months of fire arm training.

Most of them weren't. Some had read the righting on the wall years before and gave up their status to become farmers or craftsmen. Most of the rest just cut their top-knot off when the time came and joined the modern world. It was only a few stupid ones who required gunning down.

There are few things I hate more than people who try to idealize the past. Things like chivalry or bushido are what later generations come up with to make their anscestors sound like the good guys. The truth is that the past was dirty and smelly and it was fully of shitty people who did shitty things for their own shitty, selfish reasons.

[gnollman]

The truth is that the past was dirty and smelly and it was fully of shitty people who did shitty things for their own shitty, selfish reasons.

Heh... sounds an awful lot like today, actually.....

[JsARCLIGHT]

... and let's also not forget the Samurai's notable rampant homosexuality that most historians to this day go out of their way to not talk about...

[sienfeld] ... not that there is anything wrong with that... [/sienfeld]

[Phyrox]

Where have you read about that JsARCLIGHT?

I have done what I feel is fairly significant reading on the subject (limited to the english language unfortunately), and have never come across anything to suggest homosexuality was anymore common among the samurai class than it was anyplace else or anywhere else.

Please explain your sources.

[KingNor]

... and let's also not forget the Samurai's notable rampant homosexuality that most historians to this day go out of their way to not talk about...

[sienfeld] ... not that there is anything wrong with that... [/sienfeld]

something about true love only being between two pure beings, since samurai were forbidden from touching anything dead, they're all thats pure i guess. women could handle dead stuff i think. i wonder if that means samurai were vegitarians

[KingNor]

There is alot more to being a Samurai  than just being able to fight good.  It's an entire lifestyle and beleif system and culture that had lasted for hundreds of years that was "phased out" in a decade.

What a load of sentimental drivel. Fighting was the reason for the existance of samurai pretty much up until the Tokugawa took over. It was then that they were turned into a true social class and stuff like honor codes were created to keep them in line. People "became samurai" all the time based on their fortunes on the battlefield, at least until laws were set saying who and who wasn't a samurai. Doesn't say much for lifestyle when a lot of samurai had been farmers living on millet a few years previously. Nor does the large amount of betrayal and backstabbing that occured during the sengoku say much for beliefs.

calling them a joke simply because there hadn't been any wars in the recent history is rather unjustified, like telling a black belt he's wasted his time by learning to fight when its unlikely he'll ever really need it.

We aren't talking about some guys who just practiced marital arts. These were thousands of men who did little more than drain resources off their society. The ones who did know how to fight were useless against anyone else except peasants. There were very few jobs they were allowed to do, by law. They couldn't own land. The few who could afford it sent their kids to school to become beurocrats. Some with wealthy enough lords (a minority) lived off their stippend. The rest lived hand to mouth and not more than a few turned to crime.

sure they wern't a viable military option anymore, but that doesn't make it a good thing that a man whos devoted his whole life to a dicipline should be gunned down on the battle feild buy a guy with a few months of fire arm training.

Most of them weren't. Some had read the righting on the wall years before and gave up their status to become farmers or craftsmen. Most of the rest just cut their top-knot off when the time came and joined the modern world. It was only a few stupid ones who required gunning down.

There are few things I hate more than people who try to idealize the past. Things like chivalry or bushido are what later generations come up with to make their anscestors sound like the good guys. The truth is that the past was dirty and smelly and it was fully of shitty people who did shitty things for their own shitty, selfish reasons.

You're right on every point, i'm an idiot, thank you.

[Chowser]

wow, kinda an even split going,

the wife and i watched this last week, we were going to see something she wanted, then i saw they were doing a sneak preview of this, mind you, i'm not a cruise fan, but from the previews, i thought it looked good. we both liked it. i had to do alot of historical background for her after the movie

[BlastoToys]

What about Reeve's, I'm stoned to hell style?  

i can't believe some dumbass cast him as John Constantine in the upcoming hellblazer movie.

Please, I'm trying to pretend this isn't happening. No more reminding me!!!! The best thing is when I was at the Vertigo panel at Comic Con last summer and someone mentioned it even all of the Vertigo writers and artists sort of just hung their heads and sighed and seemed upset by it.

[F-ZeroOne]

Where have you read about that JsARCLIGHT?

I have done what I feel is fairly significant reading on the subject (limited to the english language unfortunately), and have never come across anything to suggest homosexuality was anymore common among the samurai class than it was anyplace else or anywhere else.

Please explain your sources.

Actually, I've come across the same story in a couple of books on Japan I've read - though where the original sources spring from, I don't know. It does seem to be a fact that gay characters are more accepted in Japanese manga and anime than they are in the West. Whether it was more common than in any other occupations at the time I've no idea.

If it is true, its perhaps yet more evidence for Arthur C. Clarkes assertion that homosexuals should be prevented from taking military careers - if only because [/i]they're too warlike by far!

[JELEINEN]

I'm not sure exactly how common homosexuality was among samurai, but it was far from unheard of. It was always in the form of an afair, though, as they were expected to have a wife and children like all the other men in their society. The practice wasn't discouraged, nor was it something talked about.

Actually, most people would be surprised how common homosexuality has been among military groups over the ages. No one can say for sure why, but there are lots of theories: ultimate form of male bonding, not enough contact with women, gay men are more violence prone, etc.

[Mechamaniac]

I'm not sure exactly how common homosexuality was among samurai, but it was far from unheard of. It was always in the form of an afair, though, as they were expected to have a wife and children like all the other men in their society. The practice wasn't discouraged, nor was it something talked about.

Actually, most people would be surprised how common homosexuality has been among military groups over the ages. No one can say for sure why, but there are lots of theories: ultimate form of male bonding, not enough contact with women, gay men are more violence prone, etc.

You also have to take into account that homosexuality was commonplace all over the world until the Catholic church came in, and decided that it was wrong.

There are many accounts that point to no differentiation being made between homosexuals, and heterosexuals or what have you until the intervention of the church, which flowed to influence in the government etc.

Bottom line is who cares?. As long as a soldier performs his/her duty on the battlefield, what difference does it make who they're screwing?

[JsARCLIGHT]

Those who have said that homosexuality was common in the "early times" are 100% right. Almost every culture had some element of it that was "socially acceptable", most of the time in the elite military units and upper class male society.

And for those who asked for sources:

Watanabe, Tsuneo - The love of the Samurai: A thousand years of Japanese homosexuality, which says: The people of the West are not aware that there once existed in Japan a cultural tradition of homosexuality comparable to that of ancient Greece. During a period of time in which the traditional civilization of Japan reached its perfection, the homosexual love was considered a passion more noble and more gracious than heterosexuality. Over time, this tradition of homosexuality would quickly become discouraged, and eventually it was kept so hidden as it was thought to have disapeared altogether.

also check:

Leupp, Gary P. Male Colors: The Construction of Homosexuality in Tokugawa

[Beware of Blast]

You also have to take into account that homosexuality was commonplace all over the world until the Catholic church came in, and decided that it was wrong.

There are many accounts that point to no differentiation being made between homosexuals, and heterosexuals or what have you until the intervention of the church, which flowed to influence in the government etc.

Bottom line is who cares?.  As long as a soldier performs his/her duty on the battlefield, what difference does it make who they're screwing?

Of course, it doesn't matter who they're screwing as long as they get the job done. But at the same time, there's always a worry that their numbers might get out of control because this will contradict what MOST religiously-influenced governments the world over (who are also funding the army) are trying to do... which is to raise a nation of outstanding individuals that ought to have proper sex with a proper partner, in full accordance to the order of nature.

Then we get those properly raised innocent school boys and girls entering their national service years who will definately go...

[KingNor]

Samurai would have wives so they could raise children, but samurai tended to LOVE other samurai, no nesisarily their wives.

the thing i read didn't mention the level to witch sex was involved in their "love"

[bsu legato]

Feh...I stopped reading this thread about 1/2 a page ago. It's a shame that such an intelligent film is the subect of this largely stupid thread.

To those who are capable of discussion of film, without all of the self-congragulatory wanking: It's too bad there wasn't someplace grown-up we could discuss it ourselves

To those incapable of anything beyond the "tom cruz is t3h sux0rz" : don't worry, Jerry Bruckheimer will have some pretty, 'splodey, shootey movies to entertain you next summer. Until then, maybe you could play with your keys to entertain yourselves.

[JsARCLIGHT]

OOOOOOOOHHH!!

KEYS!

Aaaaaaah haah haah haah haaaaaaa!

Meee likey bouncieeeee!

[Uxi]

What a bunch of asshatery going on here.

Modern 20th century homosexuality has no real analogue in past versions. Even in the ancient Greek, most would still take a wife and procreate. Even if they were having FUN doing it with another male. But most of the greek stuff wasn't man-man. It was man-boy that is most famous (aka NAMBLA-style). In Ancient Rome, for example, it was practiced in anecdotes in the legions and certain decadent Emperors, but most scholarly sources of the period would seem to indicate it was considered scandalous, if not outright discouraged (much less persecuted).

To blame its supression on any religion since is equally ludicrous as claiming comparable antecedents to modern Western forms. Even without disregarding that Catholic (in particular) influence over government was STRONGEST in the centuries before modern homosexuality became tolerated.

And most of us in the military DO NOT WANT IT. Emotion can't be regulated, but behavior certainly can (and IS) while one is under oath/contract/enlistment/commission.

[KingNor]

asshatery

!!! see, i knew i wasnt' the onlyone who used this word, i said it the otherday and everyone looked at me like i was a mutant.

"... what's asshatery... "

[Mr March]

Feh...I stopped reading this thread about 1/2 a page ago. It's a shame that such an intelligent film is the subect of this largely stupid thread.

To those who are capable of discussion of film, without all of the self-congragulatory wanking: It's too bad there wasn't someplace grown-up we could discuss it ourselves

To those incapable of anything beyond the "tom cruz is t3h sux0rz" : don't worry, Jerry Bruckheimer will have some pretty, 'splodey, shootey movies to entertain you next summer. Until then, maybe you could play with your keys to entertain yourselves.

If it helps, I'm a fan of Tom Cruise's acting. Have been ever since his role in A Few Good Men dramatically (pun intended) changed my opinion of him. I'm very much looking forward to The Last Samurai and can't wait to see it.

Edited December 8, 2003 by Mr March

[EXO]

It seems like the majority of people in this thread enjoyed the movie. The thread went downhill when there was no crap to talk about so all the "asshating" was focused on OT stuff.

[Mechamaniac]

Right, so to get back on topic.

I saw the movie tonight, and it was AWESOME!. I thought Cruise was very good in this role, though the scene was definitely stolen by Ken Watanabe any time he was on the screen.

Overall, it was pretty historically accurate as far as the Meiji Restoration was concerned. They took a bit of poetic license portraying the young Emporer Meiji, but I guess that had to happen. Aside from the debate about the decline of the Samurai, and where they were in that decline at the point of this movie, I enjoyed Zwick's portrayal of the mixing of ancient and modern Japan. The images of the streets of Tokyo lined with black english carriages, the high council members all in western attire, smoking cigars, and swigging whiskey. I found it very enjoyable. Yes, it had it's inaccuracies, but overall, it was very good.

All in all, it's about time that someone started making movies about the history of Japan. It really hasn't been done since Akira Kurosawa, and I for one think it is long overdue.

Edited December 8, 2003 by Mechamaniac

[mikeszekely]

Okay, I saw it yesterday. And even though Japanese history was part of my major, I had to read up on a few things before replying.

Okay, first... like many of you, I was leary of the whole Tom Cruise becomes a Samurai bit. I was afraid the movie would be cheesy and historically innaccurate.

However, the film turned out to be a masterpiece. It captures the conflicting feelings Japan had during the Meiji restoration, that desire to modernize and grow with the desire to retain the nation's sense of self... What's more, while Katsumoto was not a historical figure, he is in fact based on Takamori Saigo, and Katsumoto's rebellion is the Satsuma rebellion right down to the year (1877).

The inaccuracies actually come from the depiction of the samurai themselves, but this is something that even Kurosawa is guitly of. The fact is, the world wants to keep that romatic image of the nobel Japanese samurai. No one really wants to watch a film about men who spent more time drinking and gambling than training because they'd largely had nothing to do for the last two centuries.

Love him or hate him, Cruise played his role convincingly, and served as a vehicle for the average American who doesn't know the difference between Japanese and Chinese to relate to the film. But the spotlight should really go to Ken Watanabe for his performace as Katsumoto.

"The Last Samurai" is a film that could have easily gone the way of cheesy Hollywood schlock, but I'm happy to tell you that it is actually one of those rare masterpiece films that will be talked about years later, ala "The Godfather" or "Schindler's List."

[Mechamaniac]

Okay, I saw it yesterday. And even though Japanese history was part of my major, I had to read up on a few things before replying.

Okay, first... like many of you, I was leary of the whole Tom Cruise becomes a Samurai bit. I was afraid the movie would be cheesy and historically innaccurate.

However, the film turned out to be a masterpiece. It captures the conflicting feelings Japan had during the Meiji restoration, that desire to modernize and grow with the desire to retain the nation's sense of self... What's more, while Katsumoto was not a historical figure, he is in fact based on Takamori Saigo, and Katsumoto's rebellion is the Satsuma rebellion right down to the year (1877).

The inaccuracies actually come from the depiction of the samurai themselves, but this is something that even Kurosawa is guitly of. The fact is, the world wants to keep that romatic image of the nobel Japanese samurai. No one really wants to watch a film about men who spent more time drinking and gambling than training because they'd largely had nothing to do for the last two centuries.

Love him or hate him, Cruise played his role convincingly, and served as a vehicle for the average American who doesn't know the difference between Japanese and Chinese to relate to the film. But the spotlight should really go to Ken Watanabe for his performace as Katsumoto.

"The Last Samurai" is a film that could have easily gone the way of cheesy Hollywood schlock, but I'm happy to tell you that it is actually one of those rare masterpiece films that will be talked about years later, ala "The Godfather" or "Schindler's List."

I agree.

However, there is one major beef that I have with the film.

SPOILERS AHEAD!!!

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

Algren really should have died at the end. Considering that the rest of Katsumoto's army was practically mowed down to the last man, the fact that Algren lived was sort of a disapppointment to me. He spent the whole movie wishing for death, and at the end he got to live happily ever after with the wife and kids of the man he killed at the beginning. It just felt like they wanted to wrap it all up in one happy package. I sort of agree, I mean, the last two really blockbuster hollywood historical epics both ended with the hero dying at the end, and this one would have been too cliche if it had ended similarly.

I will be buying this one on DVD the day it is available.