|
|
|
» The Archives
|
:::Movie Review:::
|
» Movie Times
|
|
The Last Samurai
By Tameka Bradley Hobbs
January 2004
Going to see The Last Samurai was not on my "To Do" List. I made a slight mental
note of the ad but was not moved to pencil it into my schedule. It’s all about
the politics, my dear. My cultural politics prevent me from getting excited about
certain types of films: "Magic Negro" films (Legend of Bagger Vance, Green Mile);
"White-People-Can-Be-Black,-Too" movies (Eight Mile, Save the Last Dance, and more recently Honey);
and lastly the "White-Man’s-Burden" genre (Out of Africa, Dances with Wolves, The Missing).
|
|
From the previews, Samurai appeared to be another in the line of the "White-Man’s-Burden" film:
Caucasian men playing with swords and Mongolian spirituality, ultimately to contribute to its destruction.
|
|
As fate would have it, I am married to a ju-jitsu practitioner and martial arts fan, so I could get around
going to see the movie. Long story short, I’m glad I went. Samurai was an enjoyable film, on many different
levels. The tragic Captain Nathan Algren, played by Tom Cruise, drowns the painful memories of his bloody
campaign against Native Americans at the bottom of a bottle. He is invited to come to Japan and turn a
conglomeration of armed peasants into a trained, modern army. When Algren arrives in Japan, he finds himself
in the middle of a battle between the forces pushing for a more modern Japan and the samurai, who are rebelling
against Westernization by fighting to preserve the traditional way of life and culture. After a failed attack,
Algren is taken captive by Katsumoto, the leader of the samurai. During their time together, the two enter
into an uneasy duel of cultural exchange. Each one begins to learn from each other and Algren the Captive
becomes Algren the Student.
Algren’s character is attractive because of his sensitivity. Although he did his duty as a soldier, he
carries with him the guilt of having participated in the massacre of Native Americans on behalf of his
government. While living among the Japanese as a captive, he is touched by their culture and way of life.
This is an interesting contrast to the scientific racism that permeated white intellectual thought at that
time, which held Anglo-Saxon superiority was accepted the rule of the day.
On the whole, the film offers a revealing glimpse in to 19th century Japanese life, complete with refreshing
simplicity against the beautiful breath-taking backdrop of an awe-inspiring countryside. Algren and the audience
are introduced to the Japanese way of life and bushido, or the way of the samurai. It is a lifestyle based on
spirituality and discipline. Bushido is personified in the character of Katsumoto, played by Ken Watamata,
who did a magnificent job of portraying a well-rounded character who was both fearless warrior, playful, wise,
and grounded in his culture.
Despite my initial reservations about how the interactions between the Euro-American and the Japanese would be
depicted, the writers and directors did a credible job of portraying a relationship between equals. There was
less a spectatorship of otherness and more of a genuine look into the life and culture of Japanese folk.
In the end, my initial expectation of Samurai was turned on its head: instead of marveling at Algren’s character
and the personal demons he overcame, the movie glorified—almost romanticized—Japanese culture. In reality, there
was not much of a contest in the comparison. The idea of honor in death encapsulated in bushido is a quite different
from the "kill-now,-ask-questions-later" Western approach to conflict. The movie calls into question the tradition
of American warfare and violence. The viewer is reminded that the American military prowess that the Japanese desired
had been honed in the violent fighting against the American Indians. As this violent tradition is exported to Japan,
one cannot help but be reminded of the pattern of destruction, conquest, and genocide that made the United States of
America possible and the Global Cowboy-ism that the US continues to engage in. An unintended consequence, I’m sure,
but Michael Moore would be proud.
This is a "guy movie" with heart. There is love and hate, war and peace, self-destruction to
self-discovery, all the makings of a great movie. It was well worth the money, which is really
saying something these days. I expect to hear much more about this film come Oscar time.
***********************************
Tameka Bradley Hobbs
Doctoral Candidate
Department of History
The Florida State University
|
|
|
