
Stick a sword in him, he's done. Katsumoto doing his best to keep the peasants in their place.
I'm teaching some elementary school teachers in a special winter program put on by my college. As a kind of break, we went out for lunch and an afternoon movie. I had been wanting to see The Last Samurai for a while so I was happy to go with them to check it out.
Here is a brief synopsis from Yahoo Movies:
Set in the late 1870s, this epic film depicts the beginnings of the modernization of Japan, as the island nation evolved past a feudal society, as symbolized by the eradication of the samurai way of life. We see all this happen from the point of view of an alcoholic Civil War veteran turned Winchester guns spokesman, Captain Woodrow Algren (Cruise), who arrives in Japan to train the troops of the emperor, Meiji, as part of a break away from the long-held tradition of relying on employed samurai warriors to protect territories, as the emperor's new army prepares to wipe out the remaining samurai warriors. When Algren is injured in combat and captured by the samurai, he learns about their warrior honor code from their leader, Katsumoto, which forces him to decide which side of the conflict he actually wants to be on.
What do I think?
The violence was good (in one scene, Tom Cruise uses his sword to hack through a rifle and split a man's head open in one swing) but I had a slight discomfort watching many parts of the film. It wasn't enough to prevent me from enjoying the movie but enough to make me want to post about it here.
To get an idea about my problem with the film, check out this quote from a review by Roger Ebert:
"The Last Samurai" breaks with the convention that the Western hero is always superior to the local culture he immerses in. It has been compared to "Lawrence of Arabia" and "Dances With Wolves," films in which Westerners learn to respect Arabs and Indians, but this film goes a step further, clearly believing that Katsumoto's traditional society is superior to the modernism being unloaded by the Americans. Katsumoto is the teacher and Algren is the student, and the film wonderfully re-creates the patterns and textures of the Japanese past; its production design, sets and costumes are astonishing.
No, I don't have a problem with the sets and costumes. They rocked.
I do have a problem with the kind of romantic notions that a lot of folks in the States have with East Asia. The problem is pretty well stated in another review of the movie by Ty Burr of the Boston Globe:
Why do our movies look to other cultures for what we feel we lack? As Goldwyn's colonel sneers in one scene, ''What is it about your own people that you hate so much?'' That's an interesting question, but Nathan (Tom Cruise's character) never comes up with an answer, and neither does the movie.
I'll ask it again. Why do some Americans keep assuming that we are missing something and that someone else has it?
Yeah, there were (and are) many problems in western culture. But that hardly means that non-western cultures are somehow superior.
The simple fact is that Katsumoto (the Samurai rebel) was wrong. Japan needed to modernize and the samurai who fought against that were xenophobic reactionaries. To make matters worse, Saigo Takamori (who Katsumoto was based on) advocated attacking Korea in 1873 and left the Meiji government after other leaders refused to back his plan.
So we have this war-mongering, feudalistic reactionary who finally goes into open rebellion after his rice stipend is cut off by the government and I'm supposed to have sympathy for the guy? I think not.
"Yes, but what of the beautiful traditional Japanese culture that was corrupted by Western culture and Western imperialism? Wasn't that lost cause worth fighting for?"
As a southerner, I know all about lost causes. My ancestors fought bravely for their own set of archaic values and got the tar smacked out of them just like Saigo's Samurai. And you know what? Both had it coming.
The Samurai were fighting to maintain their privileged position in Japanese society. Under the new Meiji government (of which Saigo was initially a member), Japan was being reorganized to make it competitive with western nations. Part of that modernization included changing from a feudal to a central-state system. For all that jazz we hear about the loyalty of the Japanese, when the samurai found that their privileged position was challenged, they revolted.
I just hope that the soldier who wounded Saigo came from the lowest burakumin village in the country.
(UPDATE: Once again, the comments section is at least as interesting as my post, so go check it out.)
UPDATE 2: Check out this report from National Geographic. Good Stuff.
Recent Comments