The Last Vertically Challenged White Samurai

Z-Ha-Dum · Post by **Z-Ha-Dum** » 2003-12-09 09:17am

I read from Frontpage Magazine that the movie is acutally Hollywood romanticizing John Walker Lindh. To quote the first two paragraphs:

A disillusioned young man ventures overseas, where he encounters a band of warriors dedicated to resisting the modernization of their country. The warriors follow a patriarchal code of martial valor and spirituality that appeals to the young man and he joins the group. But their opponents—nationalists who seek to improve their country’s infrastructure and introduce governmental reforms--pursue the warriors and eventually defeat them through the superiority of their military technology.

Sound familiar? The story of John Walker Lindh—who left the bourgeois comforts of Marin County to “find himself” among Afghanistan’s Taliban? Or perhaps a tale of some misguided soul who abandons his moderate Muslim family to join the jihadists in Iraq? Well, no, actually, it’s the plot of the latest Tom Cruise movie, The Last Samurai, a $100 million historical epic set in 19th century Japan. Colorful, filled with rousing action scenes, the movie will probably rake in buckets of money for Warner Brothers and its boyish-looking star. By the same token, though, the film feels old-fashioned and out-of-synch with the times—and worse, by romanticizing a reactionary rebellion, it sends the wrong message in our current conflicts against the forces of anti-modernism throughout the Middle East and elsewhere.

Zoink · Post by **Zoink** » 2003-12-09 12:21pm

glorification of the shogunate

NOTE: I haven't seen the film.

But, isn't it dependant on perspective? What is the point of view of the movie? If the movie is focusing on people who benefitted from the shogunate or in some way like the shogunate (they did exist), then you might not see all the suffering and negative aspects. Eg. Rashamon!

For example, you can have a movie about Custer, showing the trials and tribulations of the soldiers and their family without having to explicitidly insert a scene to say "by the way the poor indians were just defending their land". Likewise you can show it from the native-american perspective, and possibly see 'happyness' being expressed when a soldier is killed; you're seeing it from the perspective of the native-american who probably WAS happy.

Try to pander to both perspectives TOO much and you end up with the typically polically correct hollywood movie (read: Pearl Harbor)

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2003-12-09 01:02pm

I wish the trailer would've been a bit more honest about the movie. It should've opened with the tag-line "When only a white man can do the job right ..."

Peregrin Toker · Post by **Peregrin Toker** » 2003-12-09 02:51pm

Z-Ha-Dum wrote:I read from Frontpage Magazine that the movie is acutally Hollywood romanticizing John Walker Lindh. To quote the first two paragraphs:

You do know that Frontpage Magazine also has published articles defending the Patriot Act?

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2003-12-09 03:05pm

The FrontPage article is basically correct. I was too busy rooting for the real good guys to care about Tom Cruise's story.

Stravo · Post by **Stravo** » 2003-12-09 03:20pm

Z-Ha-Dum wrote:I read from Frontpage Magazine that the movie is acutally Hollywood romanticizing John Walker Lindh. To quote the first two paragraphs:

A disillusioned young man ventures overseas, where he encounters a band of warriors dedicated to resisting the modernization of their country. The warriors follow a patriarchal code of martial valor and spirituality that appeals to the young man and he joins the group. But their opponents—nationalists who seek to improve their country’s infrastructure and introduce governmental reforms--pursue the warriors and eventually defeat them through the superiority of their military technology.

Sound familiar? The story of John Walker Lindh—who left the bourgeois comforts of Marin County to “find himself” among Afghanistan’s Taliban? Or perhaps a tale of some misguided soul who abandons his moderate Muslim family to join the jihadists in Iraq? Well, no, actually, it’s the plot of the latest Tom Cruise movie, The Last Samurai, a $100 million historical epic set in 19th century Japan. Colorful, filled with rousing action scenes, the movie will probably rake in buckets of money for Warner Brothers and its boyish-looking star. By the same token, though, the film feels old-fashioned and out-of-synch with the times—and worse, by romanticizing a reactionary rebellion, it sends the wrong message in our current conflicts against the forces of anti-modernism throughout the Middle East and elsewhere.

HUGE fucking difference between this scenario and Lindh's, Lindh was a little rich boy that had all the advantages in his life and went off to find himself because daddy turned out to be gay and mommy didn't show him enough love I guess.

In the movie, Tom Cruise's character fought in the Civil War and under Custer saw some horrible attrocities that made him disillusioned.

That fucker Lindh was just a spoiled little rich boy searching for something to do.

Trytostaydead · Post by **Trytostaydead** » 2003-12-22 11:34am

I just came back from the movie..

Let me just say this: The girl in the movie was hot.. I could've enjoyed the movie just for her alone, she does need a nose job though. But I think her imperfections made her seem more.. perfect

If we forget about the actual history of it for just a second and focus on the film, I found it extremely amusing and worth my $5. The morality of the movie I don't believe was "anti-technology" and "reactionary." It was about honor and doing what they believed was in the best interest of their country. For example, the rebellious Katsumoto never raised an arm against his Emperor, and if the Emperor but sent a messanger to Katsumoto, he would've killed himself. His fight was against the quick onset of what he believed to be decadence and a move away from their historical and ancient ties (of course, I know some of you clowns will more than likely compare it with the Taliban).

And the Emperor at the end also stood up against the West, but he never stopped progress.. he just said they the Japanese should never forget who they are. Little does he know about a generation later the Japanese will become the most barbaric country in history, which I guess was a delicious irony if you think about it while watching that last scene in the movie.

Did I mention the girl was hot?

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2003-12-22 01:11pm

glorification of the shogunate

All right, for the last time, the movie did not glorify the Shogunate. Saigo Takamori, the man Katsumoto is based on, was in fact one of the men most responsible for putting an end to the Shogunate.

aphexmonster · Post by **aphexmonster** » 2003-12-22 02:48pm

i thought it was supposed to be the big fat greek wedding of samurai films

Zoink · Post by **Zoink** » 2003-12-22 02:48pm

Trytostaydead wrote: The girl in the movie was hot..

OK, maybe I'll go see it now

Trytostaydead · Post by **Trytostaydead** » 2003-12-22 03:01pm

Zoink wrote:
Trytostaydead wrote: The girl in the movie was hot..
OK, maybe I'll go see it now

Well, not hot as in I wanted to go up there and rip off her clothes and start making the beast with two backs right there and then. But very beautiful that she kept making me smile

Raoul Duke, Jr. · Post by **Raoul Duke, Jr.** » 2003-12-22 03:27pm

fgalkin wrote:Hey, guys with swords charging Gatling guns is phun.

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

Now keep in mind that the really stupid thing about that is that the Bushi had access to firearms. I don't recall how advanced the Tanegashima rifle was during Meiji-jidai, but they did have them as early as the Sengoku-jidai.

However, the Bushi shunned them as being "dishonorable", because with a Tanegashima, a farmer, merchant or artisan could kill a warrior. It's easy to understand, then, based on the rigid caste system in place, why the Tanegashima was spurned.

Sam Or I · Post by **Sam Or I** » 2003-12-22 04:51pm

Joe wrote:In any case, if you want to see a great historical film, go check out Master & Commander if you haven't already done so. That seems to the best film currently at the theatre. The Last Samurai is good for a matinee, but not if you haven't first seen the superior film.

You know, if you really wanted to you can nit-pick Master and Commander apart as well, and point out all the little mistakes. I mean come on how the hell did the a French Privateer get an American 44 gun Frigate!?!?! Only 3 were made, the USS Constitution, the USS United States, and the USS President. None of which fell into french hands. This nit pick is no worse than the nit-pick about the only white Samuria.
What got me about the Last Samuria was the shoddy tactics used.

HemlockGrey · Post by **HemlockGrey** » 2003-12-22 05:48pm

Shouldn't the soldiers have had repeating rifles? It seemed to me like they had to reload after every shot during the final battle.

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2003-12-22 05:57pm

HemlockGrey wrote:Shouldn't the soldiers have had repeating rifles? It seemed to me like they had to reload after every shot during the final battle.

Repeating rifles didn't see widespread service until the late 1880's and 1890's when smokeless powder entered service. Single shot bolt action is perfectly appropriate for the late 1870's.

Repeating designs where around from about 1860 onward, but they fired weak cartridges and where at best equal to carbines, so the only people who ever used them much where cavalry. On top of that most generals where convinced that repeaters only encouraged the solider to waste ammunition. The fear of troops wasting ammunition would be a hindrance to firearms designers through WW2, though to a point it had merit up till then.

HemlockGrey · Post by **HemlockGrey** » 2003-12-22 06:13pm

Hmm...though I do remember reading (I think it was a Victor Davis Hanson book) that Sherman's troops were all armed with Springfield repeating rifles...

Bob McDob · Post by **Bob McDob** » 2003-12-22 07:23pm

It seemed like a classic tragedy to me. Katsumoto in particular plays the part of the tragic hero, who realizes that the era of the samurai is past and that there is no future for them, and decides to fight for its hopeless cause because that is the only life he has ever known, and the only way he can die with dignity.

Raoul Duke, Jr. · Post by **Raoul Duke, Jr.** » 2003-12-22 07:31pm

Bob McDob wrote:It seemed like a classic tragedy to me. Katsumoto in particular plays the part of the tragic hero, who realizes that the era of the samurai is past and that there is no future for them, and decides to fight for its hopeless cause because that is the only life he has ever known, and the only way he can die with dignity.

Yamamoto Tsunetomo wrote: The Way of the Samurai is found in death. When it comes to either/or, there is only the quick choice of death. It is not particularly difficult. Be determined and advance. To say that dying without reaching one's aim is to die a dog's death is the frivolous way of sophisticates. When pressed with the choice of life or death, it is not necessary to gain one's aim.

Dying for their cause was actually not a particularly heroic act for the Samurai -- it was just standard operating procedure, and anything less was the most serious kind of disgrace.

Bob McDob · Post by **Bob McDob** » 2003-12-23 02:57am

Yeah. I actually found it kind of refreshing how the Samurai weren't fighting for some great indisputable cause - they were simply doing what they had to do, considering who they were.

Bob McDob · Post by **Bob McDob** » 2003-12-23 03:00am

BTW, I meant tragic hero in the dramatic sense, not necessarily the heroic one - Othello, for example.