A moving tribute to a lost culture

Rating: Null/10 (13 June 2004)

I have read many of the negative reviews of this film, and felt I needed to come to its defense.
Many have commented that The Last Samurai is not original in concept, and point particularly to similarities with Dances With Wolves. I don't know about you, but I have seen VERY few movies that were entirely original. Almost all of them build at least somewhat on earlier concepts. Personally, I am not even looking for absolute originality in a film - if I find it, great! - but it's not necessary to me. All I reasonably expect from a film is that it tell its own particular story compellingly and allows my willing suspension of disbelief.
Those who demand true originality from every film are doomed to near-constant disappointment. As for using Dances With Wolves as a benchmark, while it was an excellent film, it was far from original (remember the far superior Little Big Man, anyone?) Another point to remember is that this is an quasi-historical subject, and when looking back through history, one does not have to look very hard to find many parallels between different events, people, and cultures. Cannot different films explore the same basic idea (e.g.: alien converted to different culture) without automatically drawing derision for lack of originality? Even if the basic stories are similar, the changes in character, plot and cultural context create new perspectives. Yes, there are similarities between Dances With Wolves and the Last Samurai. It would be pretty hard to make a movie about similar historical phenomena without exhibiting those very similarities in the movie, don't you think? Another criticism often leveled at The Last Samurai is lack of historicity. Perhaps I missed something here, but I certainly didn't get the impression that this film was intended to be a historical documentary. For that sort of thing, one is better off watching The History Channel. It is absolutely true that the Samurai culture, (and bushido, it's code of ethics) embodied much that was inequitable and downright oppressive. It was a rigid feudal society with the Daimyos and their Samurai retainers on top, and craftsmen and peasants definitely on the bottom - much like feudal England in that respect. Bushido itself has many similarities to the code of Chivalry. But where feudal Japan differs
most markedly from feudal England is in the fact that artistry was both respected and expected from Daimyo and Samurai, whereas Earl and Knight were generally respected only for their ferocity in battle. Kendo, the mastery of the Japanese swords, is an art-form in and of itself - a fact that is beautifully illustrated in this film. Zwick is not attempting to give us an overview of all that was bad and good in the Way of the Samurai, he is purposely setting up Katsumoto and his Samurai as embodiments of all that was good in their culture. This is a fable, folks, not a docudrama. Zwick is showing us some of the very good things Japan lost when the last Samurai died. That is the point here. It is not intended to be a balanced view, and it is not. It shows us movingly that there was great tragedy in the loss of bushido and the men who adhered to it. Why is it, do you think, that Samurai films continue to be so popular today? Could it be that the ideals of honor, loyalty, bravery, dutifulness and artistry these long-dead men adhered to cry out to us so loudly because we see so little of these virtues in the modern world? Why should we not look to the ideals the Samurai represented as our exemplars, and reject that which was oppressive and cruel, as long as we remember that they were all men, with human vices as well as virtues, and that their culture had huge downsides as well. Yes, the film has its flaws; but as a tragically beautiful fable about the passing of a way of life that will be remembered as long as humankind lives, it has few equals.