Say what you will about the white savior trope, but wasn’t there a historical reason for Tom Cruise’s character to be there? Japan was accepting foreign influence and modernization at that time, from what I know of history.
Yeah I was wrong. He’s based off of Jules Brunet who was a french officer that trained the Tokugawa samurai in the use of modern weaponry of the time. He sided with the resistance against the emperor of Japan until he was evacuated by a french warship later on when the resistance was defeated. He wasnt a samurai by any means but he was a real guy
The story’s title is in reference to “The last of the Samurai”, not Tom being a Samurai, and the last one.
Kind of reminds me of Big Trouble in Little China, where the story follows a white guy, and the true heroes are in the background.
That’s the narrative shared by the studio which I begrudgingly accept. Even though the title and Tom being the face of it muddles it a lot. And I also don’t consider it a good movie.
I mean, it’s a common trope in story telling to use an outsider protagonist (from the perspective of the people in the story) to allow world building and immersion in the world/culture your story is set within.
So, the “guy with amnesia”, “orphan kid”, “dude in a foreign land”, “time traveler”, “new person in the organization”, “certain types of isekai” tropes all exist to tell a story where the reader/viewer get to learn as they go.
Fairly popular in historical fiction, fantasy, and many other genera.
It makes “Shogun”, “The Last Samurai”, “Marco Polo”, “Big Trouble in Little China”, and others like them more accessible to “Western” aka “white guy” demographics.
I don’t really see an issue with it, when done well.
Except The Last Samurai isn’t remotely historical.
Tom Cruise’s is very roughly based in a French admiral. That admiral got sent specifically to Japan to create political relations with a certain faction of Samurai to further French interests there. The French admiral was made samurai as honorary title and put into service of the household.
During the final battle (which was a castle siege, and both sides were using guns), the French admiral was released from service and sent home.
If a movie or a series were to be made of this, and if it were to be somewhat accurate, it’d be closer to a political thriller with some battles in between.
It can be a bit of both. You can tell a good story that also stays true to the historical events. Not being being able to do that shows a lack of skill and imagination.
To tell a story history is not binding. It neither a lack of skill or imagination - it’s an intended. What you have shown is a lack of understanding of the art of telling a story.
Are you telling me The Last Samurai wasn’t skillfully made or imaginative? Nah, it was no masterpiece, but I liked it just fine. Having some westerners in Japan training their military on modern weaponry as the samurai are fading from relevance passes my threshold for “remotely historical”, and it’s definitely not a requirement for me that Tom Cruise’s character needs to have an American historical analog to meet that criteria. Any historical fiction will inherently have to change things about what actually happened in that era, after all.
It was not skillfully made or imaginative. It was a very basic toybox of exotic nonsense about Samurai wrapped around a premise similar to Dances With Wolves.
I think you missed the sarcasm in the rhetorical question, but yes. It’s one of at least three or four movies I’ve seen utilizing the Dances With Wolves trope, though I’ve never seen Dances With Wolves itself, and that’s okay. It was entertaining.
Say what you will about the white savior trope, but wasn’t there a historical reason for Tom Cruise’s character to be there? Japan was accepting foreign influence and modernization at that time, from what I know of history.
Yeah I was wrong. He’s based off of Jules Brunet who was a french officer that trained the Tokugawa samurai in the use of modern weaponry of the time. He sided with the resistance against the emperor of Japan until he was evacuated by a french warship later on when the resistance was defeated. He wasnt a samurai by any means but he was a real guy
The story’s title is in reference to “The last of the Samurai”, not Tom being a Samurai, and the last one.
Kind of reminds me of Big Trouble in Little China, where the story follows a white guy, and the true heroes are in the background.
That’s the narrative shared by the studio which I begrudgingly accept. Even though the title and Tom being the face of it muddles it a lot. And I also don’t consider it a good movie.
I mean, it’s a common trope in story telling to use an outsider protagonist (from the perspective of the people in the story) to allow world building and immersion in the world/culture your story is set within.
So, the “guy with amnesia”, “orphan kid”, “dude in a foreign land”, “time traveler”, “new person in the organization”, “certain types of isekai” tropes all exist to tell a story where the reader/viewer get to learn as they go.
Fairly popular in historical fiction, fantasy, and many other genera.
It makes “Shogun”, “The Last Samurai”, “Marco Polo”, “Big Trouble in Little China”, and others like them more accessible to “Western” aka “white guy” demographics.
I don’t really see an issue with it, when done well.
It’s also not pitched as being based on a true story. I take less issue with him becoming a samurai than surviving the last real samurai, lol.
Except The Last Samurai isn’t remotely historical.
Tom Cruise’s is very roughly based in a French admiral. That admiral got sent specifically to Japan to create political relations with a certain faction of Samurai to further French interests there. The French admiral was made samurai as honorary title and put into service of the household.
During the final battle (which was a castle siege, and both sides were using guns), the French admiral was released from service and sent home.
If a movie or a series were to be made of this, and if it were to be somewhat accurate, it’d be closer to a political thriller with some battles in between.
Good thing I was expecting historical fiction then and not a documentary or even a dramatization of true events.
It can be a bit of both. You can tell a good story that also stays true to the historical events. Not being being able to do that shows a lack of skill and imagination.
To tell a story history is not binding. It neither a lack of skill or imagination - it’s an intended. What you have shown is a lack of understanding of the art of telling a story.
Are you telling me The Last Samurai wasn’t skillfully made or imaginative? Nah, it was no masterpiece, but I liked it just fine. Having some westerners in Japan training their military on modern weaponry as the samurai are fading from relevance passes my threshold for “remotely historical”, and it’s definitely not a requirement for me that Tom Cruise’s character needs to have an American historical analog to meet that criteria. Any historical fiction will inherently have to change things about what actually happened in that era, after all.
It was not skillfully made or imaginative. It was a very basic toybox of exotic nonsense about Samurai wrapped around a premise similar to Dances With Wolves.
I think you missed the sarcasm in the rhetorical question, but yes. It’s one of at least three or four movies I’ve seen utilizing the Dances With Wolves trope, though I’ve never seen Dances With Wolves itself, and that’s okay. It was entertaining.