its entertainment aka fiction. its not supposed to be correct. if it was a documentary then yes it would. its liek in fast and furious people were like "oph got the tecxh is wrong" its entertainment, stop bashing they're not always right. plus its hollywood they believe they can rewrite stuff.
oh i saw it too. very good movie.
Or seeing him with a drop-dead gorgeous, 6 foot tall redhead named Nicole Kidman as his wife? (Well, ex-wife now).:D
i always thought i had an ugly nose. until people started to point out that it looks exactly like tom cruise's. now i'm not suire either way.
What were the major inaccuracies that you saw? Could you be more specific (for those of us who did not get our degrees in Japanese studies)? I'm actually curious.
I thought the movie was very spirited and entertaining, and the battle scenes were spectacular. But it could have been a much more provocative and intelligent film had it addressed the actual politics behind the conflict in greater detail. The movie really glorified the mythological image of the samurai warrior without really explaining the samurai's place in Japanese society and why they were so disenchanted with the new Imperial government....
but then again, if the movie had explained that the samurai were a useless class of land owning aristocrats in an obsolete and backward feudal system who had not fought a real war in a couple centuries, then the movie would not have been so inspiring:D
I don't know much about Japanese, but in China, if you kill someone's husband, don't expect the widow and her kid would be nice to you or forgive you.
wm
cool, I'm lookin forward to seeing it now
I will try without giving too much away. Ok. The problems are small but you can tell. However, people CAN argue the opposite.
1. The Japanese that they used seemed a little too modern.
2. The samurai would probably have killed him.
3. It seemed like his with the samurai for a little under a year. It seemed late summer/ early fall. They started teaching him before it got cold. I dont think they would teach him that fast. I am not saying they would never have taught him, because right after WWII, SOME of the martial art teacher taught US troops.
4. When the samurai cut the Japanese officer's head, he PROBABLY would not cut it completely off, because they were kinda friends earlier. It is a little shameful to let his head bounce away. This is a little iffy, but I feel that he wouldn't do that.
5. Algren would not be so welcomed into the village. He would always be an outsider. It was the countryside in 1877. I live in the countryside in Japan now and there is still a feeling of being a outsider for me.
6. This is what kinda bothered me the most was the relationship between Algren and Taka. It was not the fact she was nice to him. She was told to so she was nice. However, the loving feelings they had for each other is bull****. He killed her husband. She forgave him, but this type of JAPANESE forgiveness is not the same as the forgiveness in the movie. There is a type of forgiveness in Japanese culture that is kinda like to forgive and to put those feelings behind you (it is hard to explain), but not in the way of I forgive you, oh I am starting to like you.
The kiss when she was robing him would not happen. I don't think she would do it even if it was a Japanese guy. It is the countryside in Japan over 116 years ago. She would not have a relationship with a gaikokujin. Especially if was the guy who killed your husband. Let's say she really really liked him, she would not act upon it. I had some friends and coworkers who wanted to have a relationship or marry someone but didn't because of their parents wishes or social reasons. That part would have been a better without the kiss.
7. The way people spoke to Meiji seemed a little strange.
8. Algren wear the armor of the man he killed.
There are more but I can't remember. I am going to see again and edit this post. These 8 points can be argued both ways. I feel they are mostly not going to happen
Visually, it was pretty impressive.
Story-wise, it was a little heavy-handed with the sappiness. Also, the character's redemption just didn't have the impact it could have had, because he never made me believe he was struggling to begin with.
Overall, the action was nice, the scenery and costumes were beautiful, and the ending sucked.
Still, I'm glad I saw it in the theater, it just should have ended about 5-10 minutes before it actually did. When you see it, you'll know what I mean.
I'll see it Wednesday. At least I'm expecting it to be pretty. Ed Zwick is a visually impressive director.
my wife's father dated vivica fox in high school. My dad lived around the corner from the Jacksons when they were all kids. I went to high school with quentin jackson.Quote:
Originally posted by Bluesman
I carpool with a guy who went to school with Tom Cruise, although that is his stage name. He had a funny last name that I can not recall right now. Marple something.
In high school, he was not the guy you see on tv or in the movies. He was new and quiet and only hung around with the guys that lived near him, which is understandable. He comes from a weathly family that moved often.
He thought that Tom was about 5' 6" at the most , so he must have grown some.
Can you imagine seeing some guy that sat in your class in high school up on the movie screen as Hollywood's biggest leading man ?
I like how the samurai shot their bows, it looks so cool. The ending was done that way cuz it was hollywood, movie was pretty good. Worthy of spending 7 bucks.
I have a friend who looks at movies this same way. He was a Japanese studies major as well, so I'm sure I'll hear some of these same points from him.Quote:
Originally posted by Mr. Horse
I will try without giving too much away. Ok. The problems are small but you can tell. However, people CAN argue the opposite.
1. The Japanese that they used seemed a little too modern.
2. The samurai would probably have killed him.
3. It seemed like his with the samurai for a little under a year. It seemed late summer/ early fall. They started teaching him before it got cold. I dont think they would teach him that fast. I am not saying they would never have taught him, because right after WWII, SOME of the martial art teacher taught US troops.
4. When the samurai cut the Japanese officer's head, he PROBABLY would not cut it completely off, because they were kinda friends earlier. It is a little shameful to let his head bounce away. This is a little iffy, but I feel that he wouldn't do that.
5. Algren would not be so welcomed into the village. He would always be an outsider. It was the countryside in 1877. I live in the countryside in Japan now and there is still a feeling of being a outsider for me.
6. This is what kinda bothered me the most was the relationship between Algren and Taka. It was not the fact she was nice to him. She was told to so she was nice. However, the loving feelings they had for each other is bull****. He killed her husband. She forgave him, but this type of JAPANESE forgiveness is not the same as the forgiveness in the movie. There is a type of forgiveness in Japanese culture that is kinda like to forgive and to put those feelings behind you (it is hard to explain), but not in the way of I forgive you, oh I am starting to like you.
The kiss when she was robing him would not happen. I don't think she would do it even if it was a Japanese guy. It is the countryside in Japan over 116 years ago. She would not have a relationship with a gaikokujin. Especially if was the guy who killed your husband. Let's say she really really liked him, she would not act upon it. I had some friends and coworkers who wanted to have a relationship or marry someone but didn't because of their parents wishes or social reasons. That part would have been a better without the kiss.
7. The way people spoke to Meiji seemed a little strange.
8. Algren wear the armor of the man he killed.
There are more but I can't remember. I am going to see again and edit this post. These 8 points can be argued both ways. I feel they are mostly not going to happen
But it's a movie. Its primary purpose is to entertain as many people as possible. To be entertaining to you, it would likely be less entertaining to a larger number of people.
Particularly with points like "the samurai would probably have killed him." That'd be a tough sell in Hollywood. "It's about this Civil War hero who goes to Japan to teach their military. But in the first engagement of the movie, he's captured and killed. I see Tom Cruise in the role myself."
Stories are often about extraordinary circumstances. The guys and gals that experienced something different. That made a difference. Not about how things normally go down.
The fact that he experienced this profound change in such a short time, was spared where he would normally not have been spared, was welcomed where he would normally not have been welcomed, was loved where he would not normally have been loved, etc. is part of the point. It's what makes it intense and engaging.
Stories have pretty much always been more engaging than documentaries to most people. Precisely because they don't simply account for the way things are.
Stuart B.
FTR, it is possible to make a compelling, entertaining movie out of real history rather than made-up history. It is probably not possible to make a movie like that with Tom Cruise or big-moneybags hollywood producers involved, however.
I haven't seen The Last Samurai, but I did finally catch Gangs of New York on DVD last night, and they share the traits of being based loosely on historical events with imaginary characters inserted to make for an easier to follow, more commercially viable story. It's far from the best thing Scorsese's ever done, but GoNY was pretty decent, and seemed very honest in its protrayal of actual history and the behavior of the characters within that milieu. As far as I understand the criticisms of The Last Samurai, it utterly fails on that count.
Yes. Absolutely it's possible. But it's a different story at that point. I can see making a story about the same character going to Japan, experiencing the cultural clashes, confronting his own alcoholism (is that right?), and then being killed when his forces are overrun by the samurai. And that would be very compelling. It would also be a different story.Quote:
FTR, it is possible to make a compelling, entertaining movie out of real history rather than made-up history. It is probably not possible to make a movie like that with Tom Cruise or big-moneybags hollywood producers involved, however.
But rereading the original post, I think I was unfair anyway. Mr. Horse flat out says that, from an entertainment standpoint, it was pretty good. But from a factual standpoint, it falls flat. And that's a perfectly valid (and accurate) observation.
So my apologies Mr. Horse. Cool?
Stuart B.
Yeah we are cool Apoweyn.
I saw it again, and I BASICALLY stick with my post. I would change it a little, but I am lazy so..... (laugh).
One point I didn't think of at the time. The armor probably would not have fit him. In the 1800's the average height of a Japanese male was a little under 5 feet (150cm). If you seen any old pictures of Japanese with westerners, you would notice the size difference. Also, if you have ever viewed Japanese armor in a museum, you would see how small it was. This was probably do to their diets (mainly rice and a little bit of fish), because Japanese are much taller now.