Re Last Samurai

[j.izbicki at att.net]

Mark Schilling comments “At what point in the film does Algren truly acquire 
samurai status?”
Historically, in Japan an Algren couldn’t acquire full samurai status because 
one had to be born into it.  Peasants and merchants who were wealthy could 
purchase or might otherwise be promoted to certain samurai privileges.  A non-
samurai male might be adopted into a family to secure the succession of a 
family that had no sons.  But from the very late 16th century on, class 
status was hereditary and movement into the upper reaches of the samurai 
ruling class would’ve been theoretically impossible even for other Japanese 
(although there are always exceptions to prove the rule) never mind for a 
foreigner.  The dialog Mark points out indicate Zwick grasped that (thanks to 
Mark?).  But that’s not the point; nor is Zwick’s intention. Kudos for his 
efforts and no doubt Mark Schilling’s input was responsible in part for the 
best aspects of the film.  However, it’s not just a matter of historical 
inaccuracies. What’s left out and the cultural/historical climate in which a 
film is viewed have as much impact as inaccuracies.  In the case of Last 
Samurai, the omission of the realities of samurai rule comprises one of the 
most serious inaccuracies—not to mention avoidance of the decidedly 
unromantic hand-to-mouth existence of many of the lower- and even middle-
ranking samurai in the last 250 years of their existence as a class.  These 
omissions specifically feed the ideal image of the samurai promoted by the 
film. Stereotypes of the samurai are already a part of American culture and 
Last Samurai is more likely to reinforce rather than reeducate them, however 
earnest the intentions. The very casting of Tom Cruise in the starring role, 
certainly the poster ads for the film, and Algren’s developing admiration and 
adaptation of samurai ways (or what the film presents as such) link the 
Algren character with the title.  Schilling’s discussion of who the last 
samurai is supposed to be offers the kind of considerations I hope the film 
will provoke from viewers, but without deliberate discussion I’m not 
convinced the audience would apply the title to ‘Katsumoto.’ 

John Dougill’s comment is well taken: “Glorification of the samurai's 
fighting spirit at this point in time seems to suit both the Bush regime 
(military hegemony) and Koizumi's brand of LDP (military expansionism and 
reclaiming of national pride).”
 I assume Zwick was into production on the film long before the Bush 
administration invaded Iraq and he most likely would be appalled to see such 
an association.  However, any cultural product takes on a life of its own 
once it’s on the market and becomes available to political uses and to 
interpretation according to the immediate context.  That’s both the glory and 
the curse of the cultural artifact.

Request for information:  The kanji only for ‘samurai’ is in background of 
the title frame in the movie as distributed in the U.S.   Is that the case in 
Japan and/or is the Japanese subtitle for the English title translated 
literally as the “LAST Samurai.”?