Thursday, 19 February 2004
The Last Samurai
Let's get this over with right away: I don't particularly like Tom Cruise. I never really took a shine to him, no sir, as (someone's - his?) grandpappy might say. I find him arrogant, self-centered, and lacking common sense. Like Keanu Reeves, what he does is less accurately "acting" and more of a reflection of who he is; the difference is that Keanu admits it.
Not that any of this stops me from seeing a film with Cruise in it. Far from it, since it would be my loss for missing high-concept or big-budget movies that otherwise are enjoyable. Like The Last Samurai, for example.
I like Japanese films, especially ones that involve action and swords. One of my favorite directors, Takeshi Kitano, is Japanese. This, however, was neither Japanese nor a sword-and-action film - rather, it's a straightforward story in "exotic" settings aimed at an American audience.
Oh sure, it looked like something serious might develop at times. But for the most part, it was an exercise by the director to draw straight, clear moral lines. I admire the samurai code of honor (and the stories it, and the yakuza variant, allow). But Edward Zwick wasn't interested in moral ambiguities or a challenging storyline. Indeed, it's a foregone conclusion that these are honorable men who have only the best interest of the country at heart. Or more accurately, that the country would be best served only by following the samurai's values.
Isn't it possible to be honorable and misdirected? I'm not saying that the samurai (within the context of this film) were wrong or that Japan didn't lose a lot in is westernization, just that it's possible to draw in a larger palette than the crayons that come in the box. (Speaking of which, none of those crayons draw the real reasons behind this opening of the kimono.) The only real contrast was that between the (missing) potential and what big studios really think of the viewing public (hint: slightly smarter than morons). Perhaps it's fitting that the co-creator of "thirtysomething" directed Samurai.
I'm not going to dwell on how well Ken Watanabe played the consummate leader, or Koyuki's nuanced performance through body language. These are things that you should expect from a good film, not point to as redeeming qualities.
On the other hand, I will go out of my way to mention the sort of our "hero." Is it any more contradictory to the whole value system we've been learning for two and a half hours than to end with such an ambiguous reprieve? If there was anything that showed to me that this was a typical big studio production, it was the captain's ability to have his cake (honorable death) and eat it too (happy life). It's fine with me if he lived (even if it is Tom Cruise) - but in that case, let's not have any suggestions that he died for this noble cause, all right?
I guess I shouldn't be surprised at my reactions, having arrived wondering little more than how fast the film would trot out the obvious thesis of a noble savage in all of us (hint: try the opening minute). I don't regret seeing it on the big screen, and I certainly don't begrudge its numerous Academy Award nominations (well, except for Foreign Language Film - reaching a bit farther than usual, eh guys?). But I don't think I need to see it again - especially when I could see Kitano's Zatôichi for a third time, instead.
3 / 5 : nice concept, beautiful image - nice try, Hollywood, but not quite