MovieChat Forums > The Last Samurai (2003) Discussion > Another "white savior" film.

Another "white savior" film.

posted 10 years ago by Gabe1972
45 replies | jump to latest

What is it with Hollywood thinking that in so many films, when the central story involves any group of people that aren't white and there is some type of serious event, they need a white savior? Or, not necessarily a savior, but a huge part of what's going on. It's ridiculous.

Don't get me wrong, as I did like the film, but this happens so often.

The plural of mouse is mice. The plural of goose is geese. Why is the plural of moose not meese?

[–] Mattfinbell 9 years ago

read up on William Adams

Gabe1972
How about a Japanese male. What a novel idea

How would you do it?

but a japanese male what is unique about that?

Look like Tarzan talk like Jane! HAHA

[–] FourFiveEight 8 years ago

I think it's an enormously shallow characterisation of the film, it seeks to find a reason to be offended by it rather then truely examine the story and it's characters.
Nathan Algren is just an outsider, as an outsider you can have all the other Japanese people bang the culture into him without it looking incredibly stupid. Would a Japanese man not be familiar with the ways of the Samurai? it gives you an observational window into their world.
Algren isn't a saviour so much as he is a different way of thinking but mostly he is there to learn, Dances with Wolves has a similar premise.
The "White Saviour" label implies some sort of dependence on the white man but really it's Algren who is dependent on the Japanese, before he was a broken man but they helped him find peace with himself.
In the end it's a compelling story and one which appealed to the films producers. Are we to say that from this day forward you can only have a caucasian lead in a caucasian context?
Is it really that ridiculous that such a film would be made?

[–] Deadpool1381 8 years ago

Don't even bother, Gabe1972 has no interest in listening to reason or any other point that runs counter intuitive to his biased opinion.

[–] notsocrazyroy 8 years ago

I think it's an enormously shallow characterisation of the film, it seeks to find a reason to be offended by it rather then truely examine the story and it's characters.
Nathan Algren is just an outsider, as an outsider you can have all the other Japanese people bang the culture into him without it looking incredibly stupid. Would a Japanese man not be familiar with the ways of the Samurai? it gives you an observational window into their world.
Algren isn't a saviour so much as he is a different way of thinking but mostly he is there to learn, Dances with Wolves has a similar premise.
The "White Saviour" label implies some sort of dependence on the white man but really it's Algren who is dependent on the Japanese, before he was a broken man but they helped him find peace with himself.
In the end it's a compelling story and one which appealed to the films producers. Are we to say that from this day forward you can only have a caucasian lead in a caucasian context?
Is it really that ridiculous that such a film would be made?

An excellent post FourFiveEight, I agree entirely and couldn't have put it better.

This means something, this is important.

[–] Tsavo 8 years ago

I also agree!

"From a phylogenetic perspective, we are all fish!"

[–] Fashionably_Straight 8 years ago

Yeah, so what? "Savior's" have come in many different skin colors and races of men since the beginning of time. Many were white men. Stories and films are made. Deal with it.

[–] Gabe1972 8 years ago

Uh....sure. I'm so glad you got the point. Go back to your Super Mario Bros. now.

Time wounds all heels.