39 replies to this topic

[Jaelle]

http://www.calendarl...e-more-channels

THE LOS ANGELES TIMES

MOVIES
Cruise's 'Samurai': a battle of opinions
Japanese love the film, but its focus on the star upsets some in the U.S.
By Lorenza Mu

[Jaelle]

[continued]

The film is part of a long tradition in which Western composers, writers and filmmakers portray Asia as exotic and inscrutable, said Fred Notehelfer, director of the UCLA Center for Japanese Studies and professor of Japanese history.

"Why are we going through this again?" asked Notehelfer, who declined an offer by the filmmakers to sit on the set as an advisor. "We have turned the tables and said we can reenter this exotic world by doing something even more exotic, which is to turn this American into a samurai."

Notehelfer said the notion of a Westerner in 19th century Japan joining the samurai "is patently absurd.... In any case, this is a wild tale, and wild tales have a dynamic of their own which cannot easily be reined in through the use of reason."

But director Zwick says movies are intended to be tales of fiction. "It is myth and the idealization of things that is the stuff of movies," said Zwick, who last week was voted best director by the National Board of Review, a group composed of film scholars, students and critics. "It is as important to celebrate what is poetic and idealized as it is to celebrate a reality. We are as inspired by myth as we are by history."

But myths can lead to stereotypes, some say.

"Basically, [the samurai rebellion] was a revolt by a die-hard bunch of conservatives and this movie makes a tragedy of it," said Toshio George Tsukahira, a consultant on the film who served in Japan for the U.S. foreign service from the 1960s to 1975. But, he added, Hollywood filmmaking should be taken with a grain of salt. "I don't see why people get morally indignant about it," said Tsukahira, noting that he enjoyed the film.

In addition to the exaltation of the samurai, Asian American groups were irritated by a casting call made by Warner Bros.' special events department seeking "Beautiful Asian women" to "mingle in character" for the premiere's after party.

"They were calling around Little Tokyo to see if they could find someone who would dress as a geisha," said Chris Komai, spokesman for the Japanese American Museum. "The thinking is pretty shallow but it's not a surprise."

In any case, Zwick admits that his interest was piqued by the theme of having two cultures meet: Western explorers hitting the shores of an insular Japan in the late 19th century. "Do I have a bias that is born of being an American filmmaker and how that resonates with other cultures? Yes," he said. "The fact that I approached this story from that angle reveals this bias. But I also think that this movie, if it succeeds or fails, honors the richness and complexity and beauty of this other culture."

__________________________________
Times staff writer Teresa Watanabe contributed to this report from Los Angeles and special correspondent Rie Sasaki contributed from Japan.

[Tarl_Cabot]

It looks so cheesy; so insulting and banal. Tom Cruise should stop making personal wishfullfillment movies and endulge himself in the privacy and comfort of his own home. :eek:

[Tarl_Cabot]

"Through it all, Tom Cruise stares soulfully past the camera, on toward a catering truck where sushi rolls and ham sandwiches dwell side by side in harmony."-Rotten tomatoes

[Tarl_Cabot]

more Rotten quotes:

"The Last Samurai" would be a better film if it put less weight on postcard-pretty pictures and more on historical issues. Here are two examples of historical vagueness in a single scene: Why does the emperor interrupt a crucial ceremony just because our hero has barged into the room? And why does the potentate then abruptly change his mind about the direction in which he's been planning to take his country? These might be plausible if the movie gave us a rationale for them. But arbitrary moments like these make "Samurai" less a heart-stirring historical study than a nostalgic fantasy, built on a foundation no firmer than Cruise's superstar persona."

[Tarl_Cabot]

Great article Jaelle.

[Triton]

Originally posted by Tarl_Cabot
"Through it all, Tom Cruise stares soulfully past the camera, on toward a catering truck where sushi rolls and ham sandwiches dwell side by side in harmony."-Rotten tomatoes

LOL

[Tarl_Cabot]

More rotten review quotes:

"THE LAST SAMURAI," despite its intelligent agenda, swollen heart and fabulously epic surface, amounts to a didactic banality: a white guy's politically correct lesson abroad."

and...

"The Last Samurai" is little more than a longer, less violent and more pretentious version of "Kill Bill". The difference, of course, is that "Kill Bill" was meant to be a goof while we are never allowed to take "The Last Samurai" in any way except Very Seriously. At one point in "Kill Bill", Lucy Liu looks at Uma Thurman and chides her by saying "Silly Caucasian girl, likes to play with samurai swords." Change the gender of that statement and it more than adequately sums up "The Last Samurai".

This takes the cake:

-- PETER SOBCZYNSKI

"Well made hokum. Too bad Tom Cruise plays the John Wayne part, in a physical role that had me doubting if he can fight his way out of his bed never mind take on the emperor's army almost single-handedly. Now the Duke taking on the entire Japanese military forces in Iwo Jima, that seemed more plausible than little Tom changing from a cavalry uniform to one of Mifune's spiked armor outfits and in the process mastering the art of Japanese swordplay almost overnight. It's a misty-eyed nostalgic Western dressed up as a samurai actioner. "

[Jaelle]

"a white guy's politically correct lesson abroad"

I saw that quote in the NY Times -- it's my favorite one so far.

All the reviews seem to confirm what I expected: a Tom Cruise worship movie.

[ChandlerBing]

Well, I always say **** political erectness anyway. I saw the movie, and I liked it quite a bit.

[Tarl_Cabot]

It's too bad Hollywood can't make a $140M Samurai movie that respects historical reality, ie no Cruise/white men involved and do it in the Japanese language. I can imagine how lame Crouching Tiger would have been in English, with some hottie flavor of the month playing the sword theif.

[DieAnotherDay57]

First of all I saw this movie and it was amazing. I mean wow the story is full of emotion and good historical info. Also the action and performances of the actors are truly awsome. I hope it wins lots of Academy Awards and it prob will win some. And just to let you guys know Roger Ebert liked it Larry King liked it and many more big shots, so did lots of other critics.

[Tarl_Cabot]

Lary King? He likes anything...That man has no taste whatsoever.Roger Ebert said Cruise was miscast but he "got over it"-he loved the mediocre Minority Report so go figure. ROTK will win all honors.

[MrDraco]

havent seen it yet...from these reviews makes me wanna leave it alone and see kill bill

[Tarl_Cabot]

Kill Bill was great. It's not a fair comparison but there are scenes in Kill Bill that really 'respect' The Samurai tradition without patronizing; it's a fun movie and totally off the charts in terms of action. I loved the film.I can't wait for KBV2.

[Number Six]

It's great that they compare Cruise and Wayne -- these guys have something in common. Neither one of them could ever play anything except for Tom Cruise or John Wayne, respectively. I say this lovingly in Wayne's case -- there was something about his persona that was likeable and he knew not to venture too far from the kind of flicks he was capable of carrying. He was even the star of my favorite movie, The Quiet Man, though that movie is simply John Wayne in Ireland. Sean Thornton's just a front.

Cruise, though....there's just something about him that I'm not a big fan of. I wish I could see what Cameron Crowe sees, because in the meantime, Tom's mucking up what could have been much better movies with other actors in the lead role. Cocktail is Rain Man is Risky Business is Top Gun is Vanilla Sky is Jerry Macguire is The Color of Money.... The plots change, but the Cruise character stays the same.

With a few exceptions of course. But very, very few in this case.

--Eric

[Jaelle]

I see the comparison between Wayne and Cruise but Wayne had far more substance, I think. Yes, he was just "John Wayne" in most of his films but take a look at TRUE GRIT or THE SHOOTIST or THE SEARCHERS and you'll see that he could indeed act. One of my favorites of his is THE MAN WHO SHOT LIBERTY VALANCE and I absolutely adore THE QUIET MAN! Never get tired of watching that. Whereas Cruise just adds nothing to his films. I've watched several of them and he's instantly forgettable, he makes zero impact, he has no depth, no power, no presence, no charisma. I'm not crazy about Russell Crowe but there's simply no comparison between the two -- you most definitely *remember* Crowe and I would never call Crowe boring.

BTW, LAST SAMURAI is *not* getting exceptional reviews. It's getting some decent reviews, but quite a lot of mixed reviews and not a few negatives ones. Read the decent reviews and you won't see any sort of glowing praise. I don't expect it to appear at the Oscars, tho I may be overestimating the Academy's intelligence once again. I never learn.

[Robinson]

I thought LAST SAMURAI was decent. I was intrigued more with the clash of modern world with the world of samurai than with Cruise's trials and tribulations. The political undertones really held my attention. In essence, Cruise and his fellow American officers were used to train an army to insure the construction of a railroad- constructed by a private businessman, for profit.

My biggest beef- and I get more upset when I think about it, is with the ending. It shows Cruise pandering to his audience and really refusing to take any risks. I thought the swordfights were good and the battle scenes enjoyable but the ending and epilogue left me cold.

[Number Six]

I agree on your opinion of Wayne. He surrounded himself with movies that suited his personality, and he shined in them. I don't know if there is such a thing as a movie that suits Cruise's personality.

And I don't know if it as in response to me or not, but I never said anything bad about Russell Crowe, but rather I was talking about director Cameron Crowe (who is one of my favorites) and the fact that he put Cruise in two good movies (Jerry MacGuire and Vanilla Sky) that with a more competent actor (see John Cusack in Crowe's other movie Say Anything) would have been great.

--Eric

[jwheels]

Well, I'm also in the minority of those who liked it. I thought it was a decent period movie, and I rarely like period movies. And, as I've stated before in another thread, I go into a Tom Cruise movie and expect to see a Tom Cruise movie. It may glorify him, and he may play the same role in every movie, but I expect that, and enjoy his films for what they are.

[Jaelle]

Originally posted by Number Six
And I don't know if it as in response to me or not, but I never said anything bad about Russell Crowe, but rather I was talking about director Cameron Crowe (who is one of my favorites) and the fact that he put Cruise in two good movies (Jerry MacGuire and Vanilla Sky) that with a more competent actor (see John Cusack in Crowe's other movie Say Anything) would have been great.
--Eric

Hi Eric,

No, I wasn't replying to you when I mentioned Russell Crowe. I just used Crowe as an example of another actor who I'm not a fan of and compared him with Cruise to show why I think so little of Cruise.

Having finally seen LAST SAMURAI, I agree with Robinson in general. The politics was quite interesting and certainly the film looks great. It was just very hard to watch Tom Cruise throughout. I really can't bear the man.

[Number Six]

...I just hate when I say, "That's a Cameron Crowe movie," and people are like, "Oh, I loved him in Gladiator."

--Eric

[Turn]

While I have no enthusiasm for The Last Samurai, what is the venom toward Cruise about? It's not like he's Ben Affleck or Ashton Kutcher or somebody almost completely devoid of talent. Because some people aren't fans of him don't make him untalented.

It seems a lot of people who dislike Cruise point out he often plays the same role or dislikes him based on ego or looks. Nobody gives him credit for the work he puts into the projects. He's reported to put a lot of time in all the projects he's in when he could very well be the hired-hand. His work ethic reminds me of Sean Connery's in this way.

And look at the directors the guy has worked with over the years and tell me he's in for just the vanity. The last no-name director I recall him working with was the guy who did Cocktail 15 years ago. Since then its been Spielberg, Crowe, PT Anderson, etc.

True, MI2 probably took a lot from John Woo, but Cruise reminds me of Nic Cage in that he mixes up the crowd pleaser roles with other projects that are more chancy like Vanilla Sky or Magnolia. And he took a chance playing against type for Interview With the Vampire.

And Number Six, I don't buy John Cusack as necessarily a better or more competant actor. Don't get me wrong, I love Cusack's work and have been a fan since 16 Candles almost 20 years ago. But I think most people associate him with the lovelorn guy struggling his way through romantic comedies and such. He may have a slightly more varied resume, but doesn't stray that often that I'd buy him in either Vanilla Sky or Jerry Maguire. Tom Hanks was originally offered the latter role.

[Jaelle]

My venom is usually reserved for actors/actresses whom I believe to commit the cardinal sin of being crushingly, excruciatingly boring and forgettable. I'd rather watch a godawful bad actor (it's more entertaining) than someone who to *me* seems utterly vapid and plastic on screen. That to me is Tom Cruise. I've seen a lot of his films (including the horrible VANILLA SKY) and in each one it always seems to me like I'm watching the equivalent of paint dry or grass grow.

[Turn]

Originally posted by Jaelle
My venom is usually reserved for actors/actresses whom I believe to commit the cardinal sin of being crushingly, excruciatingly boring and forgettable.  I'd rather watch a godawful bad actor (it's more entertaining) than someone who to *me* seems utterly vapid and plastic on screen.  That to me is Tom Cruise.  I've seen a lot of his films (including the horrible VANILLA SKY) and in each one it always seems to me like I'm watching the equivalent of paint dry or grass grow.

Hey, we've finally had a difference of opinion. Normally, we're on the same page.

Maybe because Cruise is one of those actors I grew up with who's stayed in the public eye and made films I've just really liked is why I follow his career. I was a Mickey Rourke fan too for a while. We know how his career has turned out.

But even though I like Cruise, I refuse to see Last Samurai, and the next MI movie would have to really make up for the last one. And I was one of the few people disappointed by Minority Report. It's funny that a lot of people really hate Vanilla Sky. I really loved that film, not so much because he was in it, but the ideas it presented. Same with Magnolia.

[Jaelle]

What drives me crazy about his films, Turn, is that many of them in fact are decent films. I liked MAGNOLIA, I liked some of LAST SAMURAI, I like a lot of the features in many of his films, even MINORITY REPORT (which I agree could've been a lot better). I like RAIN MAN and A FEW GOOD MEN and even THE FIRM. Hell, I even like LEGEND (I have an easier time forgetting that I'm watching Tom Cruise in that film, for some reason). Tho I *don't* like him in INTERVIEW WITH THE VAMIRE. But it's *his* presence that makes me enjoy his films less than I would with another actor in his place.

Also, there are two things about him that have always stayed in my mind and that have made me less forgiving of his failings. One was his insistence that all the homoerotic suggestions (even the most subtle ones) in the novel INTERVIEW WITH THE VAMPIRE be dropped for the film. The other was his insistence that during the promotional period for MISSION: IMPOSSIBLE (including during the film's entire first run) that all references or comparisons to the original series be omitted. Plus, his PR people pressured networks and local stations around the US and Canada to *stop* airing all episodes of the original series that they might be running at that time. He wanted absolutely no association with the original series at all. I've always resented that.

[Tarl_Cabot]

So, you saw The Last Samurai Jaelle? How about a review?

I call that film "Queer eye for the Samurai". It just sticks.

[Jaelle]

Originally posted by Tarl_Cabot
So, you saw The Last Samurai Jaelle? How about a review?
I call that film "Queer eye for the Samurai". It just sticks.

I'd love to but it'll have to wait until after the holidays I'm afraid. By then you might not be interested anyway. I'm about to leave town for a few weeks for the holidays and have too much to do before leaving.

[Loomis]

Originally posted by Jaelle

What drives me crazy about his films, Turn, is that many of them in fact are decent films.  I liked MAGNOLIA, I liked some of LAST SAMURAI, I like a lot of the features in many of his films, even MINORITY REPORT (which I agree could've been a lot better).  I like RAIN MAN and A FEW GOOD MEN and even THE FIRM.  Hell, I even like LEGEND (I have an easier time forgetting that I'm watching Tom Cruise in that film, for some reason).  Tho I *don't* like him in INTERVIEW WITH THE VAMIRE.  But it's *his* presence that makes me enjoy his films less than I would with another actor in his place.

For me, Cruise was by far the best thing about MAGNOLIA. I'm not a fan of his per se, but I don't see why so many people seem to loathe him.

Originally posted by Jaelle

The other was his insistence that during the promotional period for MISSION: IMPOSSIBLE (including during the film's entire first run) that all references or comparisons to the original series be omitted.  Plus, his PR people pressured networks and local stations around the US and Canada to *stop* airing all episodes of the original series that they might be running at that time.  He wanted absolutely no association with the original series at all.  I've always resented that.  

I can certainly understand Cruise's POV on this one. Stressing the associations between Brian De Palma's film and the original TV series would only have sown confusion, given how dissimilar they were (and given the fact that a good guy in the TV show is a bad guy in the movie).

[Jaelle]

Originally posted by Loomis
I can certainly understand Cruise's POV on this one. Stressing the associations between Brian De Palma's film and the original TV series would only have sown confusion, given how dissimilar they were (and given the fact that a good guy in the TV show is a bad guy in the movie).

We'll have to disagree on this one. There have been changes to a lot of the films based on old TV series yet there was little concern about any confusion for the public. Pressuring networks around the country *not* to air MI episodes and refusing to acknowledge any debt or gratitude or appreciation to the original series strikes me as unbelievably arrogant. If they were going to make something entirely different and disassociate themselves from the series (pretending it never existed), then why borrow the title? They had no problem capitalizing on the series' popularity using the title but then refused to acknowledge it. I just thought that was very petty.