Historically inaccurate, lack of cultural understanding.

Rating: 2/10 (6 May 2006)

At first, I was disappointed. With what this movie was trying to do, it was just falling short. As the film drew on, I became increasingly angry with the director's stereotypical portrayal of the samurai and lack of understanding of Meiji Period Japan. The oversimplifications in the film make Pearl Harbor look like a documentary. There is no discussion of why the samurai are angry, why they rebel beyond "Japan is losing its way." The fact that, after more than 250 years of almost total isolation from the rest of the world, Japan had been forcibly opened to foreign trade in 1853 is simply ignored. The rapid influx of Western ideas, science, technology and personnel and the tension this caused is considered to be of no importance. The humiliating terms of the Ansei Treaties that Japan was forced into are mentioned in passing and out of context. The traditionalist backlash, the violence, the overthrow of the shogunate--all are condensed into a bunch of angry samurai rebelling. Why are the samurai rebelling? Is it because they were stripped of their titles of nobility? Or because they were no longer permitted to carry swords? Or because they lost their government stipends? Perhaps because Saigo Takamori wasn't allowed to invade Korea? We don't know, because the movie mentions none of these things, choosing instead to depict the restriction against ponytails while reiterating that "Japan is losing its way." The politics of Meiji Period Japan are also horribly condensed into some oily Japanese businessmen out to make a buck by coddling to the West. The Emperor's role is horribly exaggerated; his position was almost entirely ceremonial and he played virtually no part in the political process. For him to discuss a treaty with a foreign diplomat is absurd. I could go on, but I'm running out of space.