THE LAST SAMURAI PISSED ME OFF!!! (spoilers)

I have noted that on of the great problems with being familiar with the moviemaking process is that once you are, it makes it impossible to ignore bad technique. Sadly I am realizing that technique is not the only thing one can be ignorant of in films. I am a student at Colorado State University here in Fort Collins and I, much to my dismay, was forced to take an "Ethnicity in the Media" class last semester to fulfill the humanities section of my Journalism degree (with a concentration in editing and production.) I am frustrated now by the fact that the class seems to have turned on a switch in my brain that I was totally unaware of before, and now I can’t turn it off.

I have just returned from seeing The Last Samurai for the second time and am once again totally and completely frustrated. Why didn’t they kill Tom Cruise off in the end? I was banging my head against the steering wheel for an explanation on the the drive home and have been totally unable to figure it out. Is not Hollywood considered the nexus of liberalism in the media? On the list of places where we might be able to expect clarity of artistic vision, isn’t Hollywood, stereotypically near top?

I’m not totally naive of course; they are the people that brought us “2 Fast 2 Furious” and “[film by Jerry Bruckheimer]” but nobody expects those movies to be honest. I found the first two hours of “Samurai” to be intoxicating. By the end of the film when the Samurai formed a line to make their final attack, I knew that, despite what was about to happen to them, this was not a Greek tragedy. These men were not marching to their deaths because of something rigid or preordained but rather because it was the simplist and most honest expression of their humanity in these circumstances. The guns would tear them to shreds but I believed that there would be great dignity in what they were doing. They were fulfilling what was most important, their word. May we all deal with ourselves as ethically.

But whats this?!? These guns that fire 200 rounds a second have killed all but one person!?!? The white GUY!??! Wait a second!! I...but....I’ve just been lied to. The men that now lay slaughtered on the battlefield have been cheated of being able to convey to me their true message because someone forgot to kill Tom Cruise. Even Tom Cruise forgot to kill Tom Cruise; Why isn’t he stabbing himself!?!?

For all intents and purposes, he should be dead right? Either dead by the machine guns or his own sword.

Where is it written that the white guy has to live in order for the movie going audience to be truely happy?!? Please somebody tell me. This is the kind of hypocrisy I expect from television, but not from cinema! It’s as though Stanley and Blanche sat down and talked out their differences and the two of them and Stella lived happily ever after. PLEASE...we know Santa Claus isn’t real and neither is the Easter bunny. Though I am a young white suburban male who has grown up in principally all white neighborhoods, I don’t need the white guy in the movie to live in order find it a totally fulfilliing movie experience.

Please, where is the petition I can sign that says “I promise to go see your film if you let the characters be themselves and 200 bullets per second do what it is they are supposed to.” Who do I talk to about this! It’s too late for “Last Samurai” I suppose but we need not let any other films brush with perfection but fall short because Hollywood thinks it’s white audience is so ethnocentric they won’t stand for Tom Cruise to take a bullet in the noggin for something so simple as ethics.

Yeah, i thought that was pretty lame. I was expecting both of them to die. Not just the chinese leader guy. Kinda dissapointed me too, because the rest of the movie was pretty lame.

If he was such a "Samurai" than he should have stabbed himself with his own sword to keep his supposed "Honor." He practically went against everything that he trained for. Jeeze.

Hollywood these days... I swear.

I've not seen the movie, I doubt I ever will, but it's my understanding that Cruise's character was not meant as the title character. The movie was meant as an adaptation of the waining years of the Samurai until their end some time in the mid-to-late 1880s. That an American was set there is apparently unusual. I can only speculate, but it may be that Cruise's character's transformation was intended to be second to the concept of the noble warriors fighting till the end. Whether or not Cruise's character should have died depends on the closeness of the bond he formed with his captors. The character may have been meant to introduce us to another world more than as the central focus of the story.

Originally posted by Talentless
The character may have been meant to introduce us to another world more than as the central focus of the story.

Click to expand...

**caution spoiler info included**

I agree with Talentless... It appeared to me that both Tom Cruise and The Samurai were hit multiple times. I thought both would die and it seemed highly unlikely that Cruise would be the only one standing. It didn't bother me so much because I felt like it was more about The ways of Samurai and Japanese traditions along with their values and beliefs weither good or bad. The traitor and the young emperor were the ones that started this whole mess in the first place. The traitor having a bad childhood tried to get rid of his past by killing his own people, while the emperor an idiot making decisions he should have no business doing. The single greatest example of the Japanese and the samurai in the scene when cruise talks about how he's describes the life of the samurai is spot on. The Precision, Respect, Dedication, Devotion, Honor, Passion for everything around them and the knowledge of their ways. Through Cruise learning about the Samurai ways he will eventually come to realize these qualities that his "enemy" held so sacrid. He develops a deep respect for them and becomes compelled to fight for it. Never turn your back on your roots and never for get your roots is the whole concept of this movie.

Truth is, our modern heroes are the real consistant noble men. It wasn't until around the 16th century that the Samurai began their code of Bushido. They were glorified guards and tax collectors going back to before the 11th century. Knights would be involved in ransoms.

The unfortunate part about Cruise living is that someone had to bring the sword of the fallen samurai to the young prince. So that he may see the error of his ways. For if the stranger, hired to kill these samurai, can see where the truth lies, surely the Emperor will be able to.

If you'll note the monologue from the photographer at the end, it says no one knows what happened to the Foreigner after he presented the sword. Some say he died of his wounds. Others say he returned to the village Blah, Blah, Blah...

Yes, Hollywood can present it's story however it likes. That's what you're missing. It is a story. It did not have the makings of Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon that would allow it to have a similar ending.

Yes, 200 bullets per minute should have killed them all. But you've gotta have a good conclusion. Go back and watch "El Mariachi" to see what a weak ending can do. It'll spawn two more movies that are mediocre

Being an architect, I see the same thing with useless front doors.

AO

Originally posted by Der Alta
The unfortunate part about Cruise living is that someone had to bring the sword of the fallen samurai to the young prince. So that he may see the error of his ways. For if the stranger, hired to kill these samurai, can see where the truth lies, surely the Emperor will be able to.

If you'll note the monologue from the photographer at the end, it says no one knows what happened to the Foreigner after he presented the sword. Some say he died of his wounds. Others say he returned to the village Blah, Blah, Blah...

Yes, Hollywood can present it's story however it likes. That's what you're missing. It is a story. It did not have the makings of Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon that would allow it to have a similar ending.

Yes, 200 bullets per minute should have killed them all. But you've gotta have a good conclusion. Go back and watch "El Mariachi" to see what a weak ending can do. It'll spawn two more movies that are mediocre

Being an architect, I see the same thing with useless front doors.

AO

Click to expand...

I don't understand. You're saying that Cruise dying would've been the weaker ending? Why not have the ending be believable: Kill Cruise and then have the fat man take the sword to the emperor so he can realize the error of his ways. Wouldn't it be even more compelling to the emperor that a white guy from a distant land died for and with the Samurai because he believed so strongly in the Samurai way?

Make no mistake. The reason Cruise wasn't killed in the end had nothing to do tying up loose story ends.

Originally posted by skulljockey
I don't understand. You're saying that Cruise dying would've been the weaker ending? Why not have the ending be believable: Kill Cruise and then have the fat man take the sword to the emperor so he can realize the error of his ways. Wouldn't it be even more compelling to the emperor that a white guy from a distant land died for and with the Samurai because he believed so strongly in the Samurai way?

Make no mistake. The reason Cruise wasn't killed in the end had nothing to do tying up loose story ends.

Click to expand...

I'm with you on that. It makes no difference who brings the sword to the emperor - the emperor should be enlightened simply by receiving the sword. Though Cruise's monologue to the emperor did have a lot to do with it, and I don't think any other character could have conveyed that.

Originally posted by skulljockey
I don't understand. You're saying that Cruise dying would've been the weaker ending? Why not have the ending be believable: Kill Cruise and then have the fat man take the sword to the emperor so he can realize the error of his ways. Wouldn't it be even more compelling to the emperor that a white guy from a distant land died for and with the Samurai because he believed so strongly in the Samurai way?

Make no mistake. The reason Cruise wasn't killed in the end had nothing to do tying up loose story ends.

Click to expand...

I think I was trying to say was Cruise not dying was the weaker ending. Had it ended on the battle field.

But having a white man point out the error of the Emperors ways was much more poignant than anyone else. Perhaps the Leader (general?) of the Japanese army bringing the sword to the Emperor would have been almost as good. But having the white man/ modern man (the person you've been trying to emulate) point out that even he could see what the Emperor couldn't see was a stronger message than any other person in the film could have given.

Cruise had to be the one to deliver the message. He was the True outsider, the foreigner, the brutal soldier that could see the light. Who better to deliver this message?

Japan was trying to emulate (or become) America. To have an American see what the Emperor of Japan could not, made the strongest message possible.

Why didn’t they kill Tom Cruise off in the end?

Click to expand...

Can you take a step back and view it from a different angle? In the classes you'll take, you'll understand that you need to step back and not focus on one individual point. I've been forced to look at Buildings from the same perspective and it's quite tough. But once you realize why, you'll understand.

How about Why did Tom Cruise need to live after the battle? Can you answer that question?

AO

I understand your point and it's the best one made yet in this argument (I've made this thread on several other boards.)

There are two problems for me:

1. The writers are referencing events that actually occurred in Japanese history. There was a movement toward modernization but the Japanese were doing it because they didn't want to be colonized by the French and the English and...well White people right? Anyway around the dates that the film takes place, modernization was put on hold and not by the emperor but by one of the elder women in his family.

As such the writers rewrote aspects of the history to fit their needs. They set it up so that it was most sensible that a white person be the model for the "living God" of another country. They could've written it any way they wanted to but this is the route they chose. As such, just because the only way to truely tie up the "emperor" subplot was to keep Tom Cruise alive doesn't matter because they could've written it so that that wasn't the case.

They also could have used the fat white guy to bring the sword to the emperor. What if Tom Cruise had written a note to deliver to the emperor by the fat dudes hand. There were other ways to complete that sub-plot (which wasn't the most important one in the film.)

It wasn't even entirely neccessary for the emperor to change his mind to have a complete film. There are a million other ways they could have written the ending.

2. Be that as it may, I can see the logic of bringing Tom Cruise before the emperor. But if that is the plan, than don't make it seem as though he has won the bullet lottery to do so. Leave a couple other people without fatal wounds on the field. It just seemed like such nonsense that EVERYONE died except him.

As for perspective, I am willing to entertain other possibilities here. I am not totally fixated on this one, but at the moment, it seems the most reasonable one.

Originally posted by skulljockey
I understand your point and it's the best one made yet in this argument (I've made this thread on several other boards.)

There are two problems for me:

1. The writers are referencing events that actually occurred in Japanese history. There was a movement toward modernization but the Japanese were doing it because they didn't want to be colonized by the French and the English and...well White people right? Anyway around the dates that the film takes place, modernization was put on hold and not by the emperor but by one of the elder women in his family.

As such the writers rewrote aspects of the history to fit their needs. They set it up so that it was most sensible that a white person be the model for the "living God" of another country. They could've written it any way they wanted to but this is the route they chose. As such, just because the only way to truely tie up the "emperor" subplot was to keep Tom Cruise alive doesn't matter because they could've written it so that that wasn't the case.

Click to expand...

The writers rewrote history? Artistic license in story telling. The fish was this big! You know as well as I do, that historic facts hold very little worth in the movies. "Titanic" and "Pearl Harbor" showed us that. Sure, they could have written it to end on the battle field, but then what point would Tom Cruise have even being there? They certainly could have written him out of the movie entirely. After all, this movie was about the fall of the Samurai. Or was it about the effects the samurai code had on everybody involved?

They also could have used the fat white guy to bring the sword to the emperor. What if Tom Cruise had written a note to deliver to the emperor by the fat dudes hand. There were other ways to complete that sub-plot (which wasn't the most important one in the film.)

Click to expand...

Nope, the fat guy did not have the stage presence, nor the emotional backing to deliver that message. His role in the film was simply as an observer.

It wasn't even entirely neccessary for the emperor to change his mind to have a complete film. There are a million other ways they could have written the ending.

Click to expand...

Very true, but some of the facts from that era showed someone changed their mind. The Samurai had to sacrifice their life to give emotional impact to the moment (Cruise presenting the Sword), thus making the Emperor change his mind, and Japan's path.

2. Be that as it may, I can see the logic of bringing Tom Cruise before the emperor. But if that is the plan, than don't make it seem as though he has won the bullet lottery to do so. Leave a couple other people without fatal wounds on the field. It just seemed like such nonsense that EVERYONE died except him.

Click to expand...

Excellent point. I'll agree on this one. It did bother me, that the Cruise and the Samurai were the only survivors, yet they were at the front of the pack.

Yes, there are facts that this movie is loosely based on. No, they didn't follow all of them. Considering it's a story there is an advantage to taking artistic liberties. Since you're in film school, you've got an excellent thought process already. When you make it famous I want a credit on a film

AO

Done.

***MAJOR SPOILAGE IN THIS POST***

Jumping in late on this one, but I only recently saw this flick ...

My beef with this film comes much earlier than skulljockey's. The Cruise character's journey into the culture of the Samurai society ultimately had less impact for me because the film failed to truly convince me that:

a) The modernization and westernization of Japan was nessessarily an evil thing that the audience should not want --only that it was headed by an evil person. The fact that this distinction exists makes the alternative --the Samurai way of life-- less urgent and compelling.

If the film was to succeed, it should have shown you something in the way of a negative impact when the Japan adopts western ways. This conflict is supposedly for the soul of an entire nation, but as near as I can tell, all the writers and director could come up with was "guns are bad, m'kay?" (why?), "civil wars are bad, m'kay?" (no ****), which is just plain lazy.

b) The Cruise character some how found redemption for his past crimes in the ways of the Samurai. You see this fellow haunted by memories of his transgressions against Native Americans. Somehow, you're supposed to believe that by choosing the side of the Samurai, he is, in fact redeeming himself by championing a native American culture subsititute in a mirror conflict a world away. I find it perposterous. If he really wanted to redeem his ass, he should get on a boat, ride to a reservation and beg the forgiveness of the Native Americans he helped subdue.

So in the end when he and the Ken Watanabe character gets gunned down, the impact of this event is marginal. I didn't really care much for the Cruise character. I only somewhat cared about Watanabe, but only because he is smart and likable, not because I deeply believed in his cause.

Other problems include insufficient development of the young emperor. You know he is weak and spineless, but you don't know why, consequently, you don't really give a hoot for him. He just comes across like a chump without a pair. When he is finally able to screw up enough courage to make a decision at the end, my reaction becomes "about damn time" rather than "you go, boy."

I think the film had its moments and the action scenes were well and exciting, but it ultimately fails because it can't convince me the main protagonists are really worth rooting for.


///M-Spec

Basically it boils down to this:
$100,000,000 to make a film starring Tom Cruise, Don't kill the main star/heart throb or the box office will suffer.
Tom Hanks made this point in Turner and Hooch.

Think about all the big budget movies that you can and think about all the instances in which you were surprised that the main character survived, and felt ripped off emotionally because the movie wasn't really leading up to it. Happy endings=money.

Originally posted by Tom M
Happy endings=money.

Click to expand...

Braveheart. $202 million in world wide earnings. Gibson dies (messily) at the end.

The Perfect Storm $325.8 million. Everyone is lost at sea. Very sad ending. Big hit.

American Beauty. $348 million. Spacey gets (also very messily) capped at the end.

Saving Private Ryan. $480 million. $200 million in US domestic earnings alone. Most of the main characters die by the end, including the film's hero, Tom Hanks.

Terminator 2. $514.8 million. Title character and hero 'terminated' at the end.

Titanic. $1.835 billion. Biggest film in history. To no surprise, almost everyone, including one of the main characters, die by the not-very-happy ending.

Not all films where the main character(s) die at the end end up tanking at the box office. Hollywood's resistance to killing off its main characters is plain, simple stupidity.

If the script calls for the main character(s) to die, kill them.


///M-Spec

Crappy ending aside, I really enjoyed the movie.

Almost like a Japanese version of Dances With Wolves.

agreed.

Originally posted by tabs
Crappy ending aside, I really enjoyed the movie.

Almost like a Japanese version of Dances With Wolves.

Click to expand...

It tries to meld elements from Dances with Wolves and Braveheart together. The major difference between Cruise and Costner's stories is one tries to fight the advance of the 'white man and his guns' Mel Gibson style and gets splattered, while Costner ends his tale in a much more dignified way-- his character leaves his newfound tribe in what we know is a vain attempt to keep whites from spreading across America. The Japanese emperor character is even a rip-off Robert the Bruce from Braveheart (the one who can lead them to victory, but lacks the courage to) except nowhere as interesting or worthy of empathy.

We all know how both stories go, except that Costner's screenplay (adapted quite well from the book) is honest and true to history, while Cruise tries to pull a dumb fast one on the audience by implying that Japan resists modernization --a crock of hooey, because anyone with a passing familiarity of asian history knows exactly what the emperor does with his new guns.. he goes and picks fights with Russia, China, Britian... and ultimately the US.

The more I think about this film, the less I like it. Blah... thumbs down 👎


///M-Spec