★兔★

The Last Samurai - review [philosophy part]

——————————————————————————–

[philosophy] now I will look into what sort of philosophies are underlying
this film, and/or what does the film actually mean, if it has any meaning at
all.

1) a reflection and retrospection of the white men’s crimes committed
upon Indians. The scene of violent genocide is repeated many times and
apparently it obsesses Captain Algren; he found that his life was “totally of
barrenness”). But I fail to understand how the spirit of samurai has helped
him to solve the mental disorder. Does bushido gives him a sense of harmony,
peace and love?
2) Reformism vs. conservatism; modernity vs. tradition Rationalism vs.
Spiritualism.

A series of dichotomy and binary oppositions; in history the Meiji
reformation did encounter a lot of resistance from the conservative social
actors, amongst them the samurai class, who had vested interest in the old
system; the film is also about a possibility or erosion of traditional
culture in view of large-scale of westernisation; it is a defence of
traditional value, customs, cultures, conventions and philosophies. Oddly
enough, an American came forth and helped the samurai class to fight against
the government. Furthermore, to use some Weberian terminology, the society is
trying to modernise, industrialise and rationalise itself which is often at
the expense of many traditional value and beliefs of the society, especially
spiritual tradition and religion; people may find that their life has lost
meaning.

The film is in favour of the reactionary part, i.e. the conservatives, the
anti-reformists. It asks strange questions, e.g. in one occasion the Emperor
is asked whether “he is doing the good thing for the country”. Of course he
is doing the good thing for the country. Modernisation/industrialisation has
significantly raised the living standard of ordinary Japanese at the expense
of traditional landlords and samurais. The Japanese society at large is
benefited, but with some cost of an erosion of tradition. But as we can see,
Japan is VERY traditional still, always keen on preserving and promoting its
own culture, arguably doing far better than many neighbouring countries.

The film does give a false impression that the Meiji reformation was not good.

I wouldn’t go further on this point; but cultural conservatism and nostalgia
is the main philosophy of the film.

3) Orientalism: This is implicit in the film, not a value expressed by
it, but something that underlies it. If you want to know what does
Orientalism mean, watch the film. This is a quintessential commercial
blockbuster made by the Westerners, set in the Orient, by putting in all the
stereotypes, legendaries, myths, folklores, symbols and images together from
the objectified country, mixing them up and producing something entirely
superficial and symbolic, and present them to the Western audiences who are
aspirant to consume the exotic, the alien Orient and get satisfaction. The
film is not a genuine, authentic reflection of the objects that it wants to
portray but reflect; it is grossly distorted from a Western perspective;
having only some very ambiguous relations to its object (Japanese samurai).
It is worryingly that such sort of film is now the major medium to transmit
the non-West cultures to the West. There is no better single example of
cultural globalisation than this, arguably.

It is also very much globalist and cosmopolitan with a clear pretension of
“transcending culture barriers and prejudices”; it tries all the core cliché
d attempts such as “West-meets-East” and “culture shock” stuff. And these
things all come together in a quite superficial way.