MovieChat Forums > The Last Samurai (2003) Discussion > What next? Glorifying the SS + the Nazis...

What next? Glorifying the SS + the Nazis?


The Samurai hated the changes because they would no longer be the elite before whom everyone else cowered. They HATED the idea of equality.

Why glorify oppressors and assassins?

reply

You know, there's no need to judge everything using modern western standards in movies.
No need for the dichotomy of more progressive=good guys vs conservative=tyrannical barbaric women-hating dumb ignorant bad guys.
In a historical setting.
And yes, they could do an action movie about a platoon of SS soldiers against overwhelming odds.
Maybe in 30 years they will.

reply

>You know, there's no need to judge everything using modern western standards in movies.
>

No, you don't know that...because recognition of tyranny is NOT a "western standard."

In an effort to condemn a "western standard", you actually demonstrated one. You also failed to employ careful reading comprehension skills. No one denies that movie-makers have the right to tell any story they wish. But the issue here was the glorification of a glory and virtue that never was.


reply

[deleted]

Not sure about the Nazi comparison, but I was commenting on this topic recently. I think it's a great film, but the protagonists are wrong. They're basically in rebellion because they can't accept that the world around them has changed. Sure, the antagonists are douchebags, but they ultimately want what's best for Japan. The samurai want to remain static as the world around them evolves. Self-importance is their only motivation, under the guise of 'honor.'

It takes the emotion away from the film to a degree, once you realize the samurai are in the wrong. Still a riveting drama, though.

reply

I thought that the issue the samurai had in the film wasn't necessarily the idea of change, but it was the rate of change and that leading into the phenomenon that the Westernization process was beginning to over-shadow their heritage which seemed doomed to be forgotten/abandoned entirely if there wasn't any intervention. I thought that they wanted a balance between keeping true to your roots while still engaging in the modern world. To stay steady rather than just completely and unquestioningly immersing themselves in what was new such as people like Omura were perpetuating. Though I could be wrong about it, that's at least how it came off to me.

reply

Sure, the antagonists are douchebags, but they ultimately want what's best for Japan.
Both sides believed they wanted what's best for Japan. But that brings up the question of precisely who "Japan" is. Who in Japan was either side really fighting for? The ordinary people? Or themselves as a ruling class? It's the latter on both counts. There may have been some on both sides who genuinely believed that their way of doing things was best for everyone, but at the end of the day it was about themselves and their interests as ruling classes. The Meiji government wanted to industrialize and model itself after the West not out of a sense of wanting a better life for the ordinary Japanese people, but out of a fear of being vulnerable to conquest by the Western imperial powers who were busily carving up Asia amongst themselves at that time. They wanted to become an imperialist state in their own right as a way of preserving (and then expanding, as they soon would do in Korea and then China) their power and interests and prevent those from being threatened by encroaching foreigners, and they knew that abolishing the old feudal samurai system and developing a new industrial capitalist system was the most efficient way to go about doing that. So for the government as well as for the samurai, it was more about wanting what's best for themselves than wanting what's best for everyone. The government may have been less wrong than the samurai were, but their sh!t wasn't stink-free either.

No disrespect intended, sir, but shove it up your ass!

reply

That is a very thin argument. With that logic, one could argue the Indians resistance to our domination was because they wouldn't accept the changing world around them. When in reality, their opposition was due to the self preservation of their ways of life. Change is good in the long run, but at the nexus, someones way of life is being *beep*

reply

I'm pretty sure and you can check on this after the fact that the Samurai in the film were not outright against change its self but rather the rate of that change as well as how that change effected their traditions. Not only this, but Katsumoto directly opposed Omura due to Omura's own personal greed and a fear that the other nations would exploit Japan its self.

Ultimately, you could make an argument that the opposition of westernization is wrong and that the Samurai were wrong as well for rebelling against the change but you could easily say the opposite is true as well. In some senses, the westernization of Japan is certainly not a good thing as it would erode their traditions. Being an American who has lived in japan, I will say with absolute certainty that the Japanese people hold their traditions in a very high regard. Their culture is a very isolated one, yet they aren't afraid of other cultures infringing on their own so long as they don't outright replace their established customs.

Trying to find a parallel with the Nazis and the SS is kind of silly considering the Nazis fought to push their beliefs on a bunch of different peoples while the samurai in the film were fighting to hold on to their beliefs in fear that the outside world would destroy them.

reply

SS and Nazis? Could you BE any more hyperbolic? Jesus H. Christ.

Anyway, you don't have to favor the feudal samurai class system to like this movie. No one today advocates going back to the old system. And most movies tend to glorify or romanticize the oppressing classes. The only difference here is that this movie is romanticizing the oppressing classes of back then instead of the oppressing class of today. Would you prefer the movie celebrated the new Japan as represented by the likes of Omura? Japan's transition from samurai feudalism to modern industrial capitalism was progressive in some ways but also led to Japan's rise as an imperialist state perpetrating new forms of oppression in place of old ones. Just ask the Koreans for example, who were brutally subjugated, exploited and oppressed under the rule of the new Japanese system within a few decades after this film's setting. So neither side was all that good in terms of what their cause represented in material terms. Capitalism is certainly preferable to feudalism but it brings up its own set of problems too. As a socialist myself, I have no love for either system. But that doesn't stop me from appreciating this film for the magnificent piece of art it is. Look at it as a film and lighten up a little.

No disrespect intended, sir, but shove it up your ass!

reply

I bow to your wisdom Kawada_Shogosan!

reply

The samurai saw thst the western world and the Emporer's subjects were conspiring to sell out Japanese culture, resources, and Japan itself to there own ends and in the guise of progress. The emporer was obviously too young and dumb to see this, much like this poster.

reply

as a westerner, i most definitely can see and identify the point of what is trying to be made in this movie and it's a debate that has been around for hundreds of years in the western world. often, it comes to a handful of romantics that are fighting a losing battle to say that progressing coming on too hard and too fast is not always a good thing. sure, many things will change for the better. but much and more will be lost.

it's a point made pretty clearly in the actual movie. the ministers keep saying, "we have to be strong to compete with the west, we can't be afford to lose." that's a good point, but katsumoto is also correct (when we look through history) that you really are losing a part of yourself by buying into this idea of progress.

we could have serious debates over many of the "changes" and "progress" that have been made in probably every culture, and there are fair points to be made in each category, but you can't trivialize it by saying "these people are good and these people are bad"..... come on, that's childish. life is never that simple when you're actually living it, and these were actual choices people truly did make. the caste system in japan had its troubles, but it was a perfectly valid form of life that they made work because they had to. I would never dare say that we have it perfectly correct right now in this point in time. there are many evils we could point to in modern society, that i bet you would defend as being right and good.

there was a time when honor and reputation were paramount, that your word was like currency. that time is gone now, and we're a little less for it.

reply

It is not a debate.
It is not about progress.
It is not about honor.

It is one simple fact you either side with the good of all people or you side with the few that want the power to dominate & oppress them.

In this case the Samurai where the latter. Progress & honor had nothing to do with it.

reply

It is not a debate.
It is not about progress.
It is not about honor.

It is one simple fact you either side with the good of all people or you side with the few that want the power to dominate & oppress them.

In this case the Samurai where the latter. Progress & honor had nothing to do with it.
Uh, that was both sides, not just the samurai. Anyone who thinks the Japanese capitalists were out for the good of all people and weren't out for domination and oppression, ask a Korean.

Sig under construction

reply

"there was a time when honor and reputation were paramount, that your word was like currency. that time is gone now, and we're a little less for it."

Well said, my friend.

reply

Not really. People have a tendency to glorify the past, especially when it comes to things like honor and chivalry and things like that. People have always been dicks, just read a history book. We've had written contracts for a long time because people have never kept their word, and a "handshake agreement" is just something your grandfather imagined. They had lawyers back then for a reason.

reply

"there was a time when honor and reputation were paramount, that your word was like currency. that time is gone now, and we're a little less for it."

I disagree that we're any less for it. Honour-based societies are overrated.

reply

I thought that the Sparta comparison late in the film was much more appropos. Its an imperfect analogy, but it resonates with me.

reply

The Spartans fought to defend their homeland from a foreign invader. The samurai fought against their own people in order to reclaim their position as ruthless nobility. It's a poor analogy.

reply

Ok, I honestly just created an IMDB account so I could respond to this overt display of moral subjectivism.
First of all, why do you think you know what the Samurai thought or felt? The reasons going through their minds? You cannot know entirely what they were thinking, but even still I consider their motives irrelevant. Also, regardless of what happened historically, this movie presented their motive as cultural preservation (reversing the early stances of the emperor and samurai in the Boshin war). Not all rich people just care about money and oppression, which is something progressives need to understand.

Secondly, have you read Tolkien? You probably despise the man, but his allegories present a solid argument which makes most progressives uneasy. Why is being a peasant philosophically inferior to being samurai? As long as Noblesse Oblige is honoured (duty from ruler to serf) then the peasants live simple but comfortable lives and the samurai continue to live different lives which aren't inherently superior. There is a certain satisfaction to life as a simple farmer which most left-wingers deny. As far as I can tell, the left-wing are the most materialistic, money-centric faction in politics. A samurai lives a life of comfort but also according to an intense code, where much is expected of them. There is satisfaction to both, and I would reference a comparison between the cozy shire and lonely, grand Minas Tirith to support this.
Why not let them choose which they prefer? The grass is always greener (rulers might wish for simpler lives and poor might wish for wealth and power) and choice leads to regret. Without choice one has not forgone anything, and so there will be no regret. If we consider that in a society under Noblesse Oblige, no one class is superior to another then there is a utility gain from denying social mobility. Not that I support this myself (there is too much room for Noblesse Oblige to be ignored), but I merely present an argument.

Thirdly (the most important reason of all) this movie is about anti-imperialism. Right-wing anti-imperialism (it does exist). This movie is about preserving the Japanese way of life; preserving the bushido and the splendid isolationism of Tokugawa-era Japan. It is a rebellion against Western trends destroying Japanese culture, be it visual, olfactory, aural or spiritual. In this sense it is very appealing to romantic nationalists such as myself who lament the loss of contrast between national cultures brought about by aggressive trade and uniformity over the last two centuries. I'm British, but I despise the Empire for this very reason. The erosion of strong, unique, pure cultures such as Japan's has led to the world becoming a more similar place and one where beauty through diversity between nations has subsided. To me this movie represents the desperate but ultimately ignored struggle of those who sought to maintain the traditions of their countries in an age where imperialism, socialism and internationalism was destroying them.
See, Hitler tried to destroy other cultures. He bulldozed through hoping to force Germanic culture on all he conquered. The end is a homogenous world. Socialism seeks to homogenise the world through erasing borders and combining people. Even though the means are different, like it or not but Hitler and socialists sought ultimately the same social end (if not economic) of a homogenous world. Japan under Katsumoto in this film would only seek to keep Japan the way it was with no bearing upon the rest of the world. No Japanese Empire, no external war, just internal harmony of a country which has long-lasting stability. If Japan remained isolationist, I guarantee it would have been an even more fascinating country today, the source of much world admiration.

TL;DR version:

1:The samurai in this film did not want oppression, but merely sought to preserve their way of life for all its benefits and harms
2:That way of life was not inherently bad. As long as there is Noblesse Oblige, there can be as much satisfaction living the life of a farmer as that of a noble. The removal of choice can actually lead to greater utility.
3:This movie is (as I see it) about a form of right-wing anti-imperialism of the iaolationist variety. Not oppression, but about the sadness of the loss of such a rich and authentic Japanese way of life.

Side not: Hitler was an imperialist. This movie is resolutely anti-imperialist. So no, this does not set a precedent for glorifying Hitler's foul deeds.

reply

Excellent post. Well written.

reply

Amen

reply

Dude, you are my hero.
To tell the truth, i admire the Tokugawa feudal system more than i do capitalism and democracy. At least they were honest, instead of the bs we are being served today. The rich and privileged still get to live comfortable lives and most of them can get away with murder because of their influence, while those less privileged have to work hard and sacriffice a lot in order to live a decent, honest life. The exception is that today very few people still truly value honor and loyalty. Another difference, and a significant one is that the masses are meticulously and viciously being dumbed down to the point where they see this separation as something good and productive, when there is little difference between then and now.

reply

Even though the means are different, like it or not but Hitler and socialists sought ultimately the same social end (if not economic) of a homogenous world.


That is straight-up bullsh!t. Socialists seek a borderless world of equals, not a world forced to be culturally homogenous. And if you look at the socialist countries of the 20th century, you see that a large part of their project was anti-colonialism, anti-imperialism and national self-preservation. Almost all of the socialist countries of the 20th century were born out of anti-colonial rebellions, wanting to be independent and preserve their own cultures and not be dominated and have others impose their own way of life upon them. It's only since socialism has been overthrown and they've all gone capitalist that they've been swallowed up into the uniform Americanized corporate McCulture that now dominates the world from one corner to another, their markets flooded with the products of American capital overwhelming their way of life. When Eastern Europe was communist, their countries had thriving industries in film, literature, music. Those have now been overwhelmed as Hollywood, with its greater resources that few can compete with on the world market, has flooded in. The once-thriving Soviet film industry, which churned out more classic films than most other countries, has been replaced with the typical low-quality soulless junk we have in the West, where profit is king and quality comes second. It's capitalism that's creating a homogenized global culture, one modeled after the dominant capitalist country, the US, whereas socialism had a lot of countries with their own unique cultures, thanks to their closed non-market economies that Western capital couldn't penetrate.

In fact, one of the last countries in the world that doesn't blend into this universal McCulture is North Korea, a socialist country, which places a heavy emphasis on preserving their independent Korean identity as compared with their thoroughly Americanized southern neighbors. That doesn't mean they believe in completely cutting themselves off from the world (contrary to popular myth), or that they hate the rest of the world, but that they have a closed market that isn't completely flooded with Hollywood movies and all other things American, that they don't feel they have to Americanize to be a modern society. They're one of the last countries in the world that's actually unique in the way that you're talking about (though not exactly, since they're socialist rather than feudalist).

Socialists want a world of independent equals, not a world with one culture imposed on all the rest. Hitler wanted a more extreme version of what the US has actually imposed on the world (only the US imposed its culture on top of already-existing cultures, whereas Hitler wanted to completely erase already-existing cultures to make way for his own).

If Japan remained isolationist, I guarantee it would have been an even more fascinating country today, the source of much world admiration.


If Japan remained isolationist, the West would have broken its doors down eventually and then it would have been colonized and today it would be even further from your romanticized conservative ideal than it already is. That almost happened anyway. Really they were incredibly lucky that they hadn't been taken over and colonized already, because they would have been helpless to resist if any of the Western imperialist powers decided they really wanted to take over Japan. Japan changed its course after the US forced it to open its markets to American trade, threatening military attack if they wouldn't. The disparity of power forced a realization on a section of Japan's ruling elite that Japan was doomed unless it scrapped the feudal system, industrialized and capitalized, and joined the imperialist club so it could become a strong country that the West couldn't impose its agendas on. The feudal system was outdated and holding Japan back, and it had to either modernize or perish entirely. The people who realized this were, in fact, samurai, who realized the samurai's day was done because feudalism couldn't compete with Western capitalism. Japan needed to compete to stay alive, or it would have been swallowed up entirely and become a colony.

Sig under construction

reply

#LOLL What garbage! The Samurais rebelled for the same reason that conservative states rebelled for in the US Civil War! State's Rights? Yes, of course, the state's right to oppress and enslave in societies where fascist bullies can dominate the minorities. Hitler was a conservative after all: racist, militaristic, and very very PATRIOTIC, that conservative pig. This is why all neo-nazis today vote conservative, and only conservatives support the flying of the evil pro-slavery Confederate flag on state capitol's today.

The Samurai's hated progress because it exposed "traditional values" as nothing more than an ideology of corruption. But they are gone forever now and the same fate awaits all such evil conservatives everywhere. They have only themselves to blame; they allowed themselves to be brainwashed by their controllers into believing that a simple life of an uneducated peasant farmer was somehow "dignified", of course what a great way to breed sheep, of the humankind!

Culture is simply no excuse for evil conservatism; indeed conservatives have all the same beliefs the Taliban and Islamic State have: gun-waving religious traditionalists who are hate gays and women and want to deny these and other minorities their freedom's and right's based on their fundamentalist backward religion. Conservatives are basically Taliban. Not to worry, Obama has ways of dealing with them #LOLLL

reply

by SedateProf » Sat Apr 20 2013 20:42:13 Flag ▼ | Reply |
IMDb member since September 2012
The Samurai hated the changes because they would no longer be the elite before whom everyone else cowered. They HATED the idea of equality.

Why glorify oppressors and assassins?

What are you, nuts or something?

Why the hell does it always have to be nazis? Goddamn, get over it. We and the Russians beat their asses nearly a century ago, you still persist on reviving their memory?

Why? Do you secretly want to be a nazi or something?

Seriously; the privileged rank is historical; warrior protects, farmer/hunter provides food. It's how knights came into being. It's how the warrior classes through all societal histories traditionally operated. Even the modern army subsists on taxes.

Ger real.

reply

You mentioned the role of the Russians in beating the Nazis. Ergo, YOU HATE AMERICA!!!

Janet! Donkeys!

reply

Lock me up and send me to Russia ........ comrade!

reply