Review #30 THE LAST SAMURAI (2003, Edward Zwick)

 

* * *

After he is captured in battle, an American soldier starts to quite dig the Samurai culture that he’s supposed to be getting busy obliterating.

Starring  Tom Cruise, Ken Watanabe, Billy Connolly, Tony Goldwyn, Timothy Spall, Hiroyuki Sanada

Written by  John Logan, Edward Zwick, Marshall Herskovitz

Produced by  Marshall Herskovitz, Edward Zwick, Tom Cruise, Paula Wagner

Duration  154 minutes

  

 

You know, you try to judge a film on its own merits. Not everything must aspire to be great art, or follow a familiar narrative path, or be blazingly original. As Robert De Niro tells a baffled John Cazale in THE DEER HUNTER, "This is this."

But when sitting down to watch THE LAST SAMURAI, I couldn’t blank out one thought that ran through my mind on repeat: "How much will it resemble DANCES WITH WOLVES?"

First, let’s talk about Tom Cruise. I like Tom Cruise. By that, I mean I like his contribution to cinema and his place in its history. I’m not interested in him personally and wouldn’t deign to focus on gossip and hearsay – he can believe in what he wants and be as eccentric on as many talk shows as he wishes. (I will say that he’s supposed to be generous and professional on set, and I've heard this first-hand: a plasterer friend of mine worked on 2017’s THE MUMMY at Shepperton Studios).

No, what I'm going on about is what Cruise represents. He is really the last of the old-school movie stars. Despite entering his 60s, he’s not fading away (his top grossing movies are 2022’s TOP GUN: MAVERICK and MISSION: IMPOSSIBLE FALLOUT from 2018) and he remains a leading man, rather than making the late-career switch to character actor or villain, as many do.

And by ‘old-school’, I mean big in the late ’80s and into the ’90s, the period when the star was still everything. Kevin Costner? TV actor now; ditto Harrison Ford, despite reaching for Indy’s fedora one last time (in what turned out to be a pretty limp and desperate move). Mel Gibson? Reputation forever tarnished it seems; I suppose the jury’s still out on Will Smith.

Bruce Willis has retired for health reasons. Arnie? Stallone? Eddie Murphy? Jim Carrey? I guess Tom Hanks is up there too, but he hasn’t starred in any ‘last’ films, so I won’t dwell on him. From the ladies, you’ve really only got Julia Roberts and Sandra Bullock; you could make cases for Meryl Streep and Nicole Kidman, too.

But despite my fondness for The Cruiser, his mega-wattage presence added an additional distraction to a critical analysis of THE LAST SAMURAI, morphing the abovementioned nagging question into "How much is it Tom Cruise trying to do DANCES WITH WOLVES?" – and even as far as ‘Did Cruise do this movie because one day he was pondering, “Hmm, if Kevin Costner can be a white saviour to America’s indigenous people, can I pull it off for the samurai in Japan?”’

OK, onto the film itself.

It’s the 1870s. Cruise enters the picture drunk, bloodshot and disillusioned. He’s a war hero, reduced to pantomiming his exploits on stage to flog Winchester rifles and working for the reliably slimy William Atherton (Walter ‘It’s true, this man has no penis’ Peck in GHOSTBUSTERS and Dick "Did ya get that?" Thornburg in DIE HARD).

He’s soon tapped up by government-types for a gig in Japan, where he’ll get the chance to pal around with Timothy Spall and Billy Connolly while training up some Japanese ‘savages’ in the art of warfare – the idea being that they’ll then be better equipped to defeat some rebels, a group of samurai who are not too keen on their new emperor. Eager for more beer money, Cruise accepts, and is soon showing villagers that you've really gotta lean in with the stock against your shoulder, and how to reload with that stick thing they used to have to poke down the muzzle.

That is, until he’s captured by Ken Watanabe’s samurais in a one-sided battle. For a while, Cruise is your regular disheartened POW, spending his days supplementing his alcoholism with sake and having even more PTSD battle-flashbacks than usual. But, in time, he starts to respect the samurai culture and gains their trust, eventually training in their ways and buddying up with Watanabe.

So, the samurai are the good guys of this story. But who could the genuine enemy be, if it’s not the American intruder or the emperor-supporters he was training up? Only Goddamn ninjas, that's who! And it's when defending his new pals against a night-time raid that The Cruiser really ingratiate himself – and starts to get real close to Watanabe’s sister.

If you’re familiar with the plot beats of DANCES WITH WOLVES, then it might sound like my fears were well founded. But, in fact, THE LAST SAMURAI is really a kind of inverted version of the 1990 Best Picture winner. The white boy doesn’t really change or ‘save’ anyone; rather it’s them who make the profound difference to his life. The title doesn’t even refer to Cruise, but to Watanabe – like if the Costner movie had instead been called KICKING BIRD, after Graham Greene’s Sioux elder.

So, all in all, a pleasant surprise. And the film holds up, in no small part due to Mr Reliable in the lead.

Something else surprised me about the movie, only this time in a not-good way: I wasn’t too keen on the Hans Zimmer score. It’s a bit of a generic regurgitation of better themes from his THE THIN RED LINE, GLADIATOR, BLACK HAWK DOWN era, only with a few Japanese flute noises thrown in.

I’d’ve much preferred it if he’d just trotted out some of his old cues from BLACK RAIN instead, maybe with those flutes replacing the ’80s synths. Ah, well.

Three stars out of five.

 

Valid use of the word ‘last’?  See review. They probably should have put the subtitle ‘By the way, it’s not the bloke on the poster’.

What would a movie called THE FIRST SAMURAI be about?  Hopefully it would be based on the side-scrolling Amiga-era slash-em-up platformer of the same name. I like to imagine Ed Zwick hiding in his trailer and playing it non-stop on the LEGENDS OF THE FALL set when he’s supposed to be prepping a scene or whatever, doing his own ‘swish-swish’ sword noises and fantasising about making his own samurai epic one day.

Previously:  THE LAST HURRAH

Next time:  X-MEN: THE LAST STAND 

Check out my books:  Jonathanlastauthor.com

Review #29 THE LAST HURRAH (1958, John Ford)

 

* * *

The veteran mayor of a New England city embarks upon one last no-holds-barred mayoral campaign, using whatever means necessary to win once again.   

Starring  Spencer Tracy, Jeffrey Hunter, Dianne Foster, Pat O’Brien, Basil Rathbone

Written by  Frank S Nugent   

Produced by  John Ford

Duration  121 minutes   

   

 

Sick Boy: "It's certainly a phenomenon in all walks of life."

Mark Renton: "What do you mean?"

Sick Boy: "Well, at one time, you’ve got it, and then you lose it, and it’s gone forever."

Mark Renton: "So we all get old and then we can’t hack it anymore. Is that it? That’s your theory?"

Sick Boy: "Yeah."

 

That exchange is from mainline-chasing slice of Edinburgh wit TRAINSPOTTING. Now, it’s been a while since I read the book, but I’m pretty sure this dialogue was invented for the film by screenwriter John Hodge (in one of the greatest ever novel to film adaptations), just like Sick Boy’s Sean Connery fixation.

That means it would have been shortly after the film’s release in 1996 that Quentin Tarantino heard these words – and you can be certain that he did go and see TRAINSPOTTING, cinephile that he is. This would have been during the lull after the one-two punch of RESERVOIR DOGS and PULP FICTION, when QT was escaping into his Elmore Leonard back catalogue, trying to drown out his increasing anxiety that having avoided a sophomore slump, surely he wouldn't be so lucky with his third film ( ... a senior slump?)

It wasn’t until 2012 during press for DJANGO UNCHAINED that Quentin revealed that he intends to only direct 10 films, clarifying subsequently "I like the idea of leaving them wanting a bit more... I want to go out while I’m still hard."

So I’m certain that the Tennessee native would have nodded along with Sick Boy’s claims while he sat there watching the quirky little British movie everyone was talking about. But I’m equally sure that the writer-director already had a list of directors whose careers he wanted to emulate – but whose finales he wished to avoid.

Was he thinking of Sam Peckinpah? CONVOY had been a paycheque job, and though a successful one, it was hardly THE WILD BUNCH. But THE OSTERMAN WEEKEND was just a total mess and an embarrassing note to go out on. Or how about Billy Wilder? Did the legend who made DOUBLE INDEMNITY, THE LOST WEEKEND, SUNSET BOULEVARD, ACE IN THE HOLE, STALAG 17, SOME LIKE IT HOT and THE APARTMENT really limp to the finish line with THE FRONT PAGE, FEDORA and BUDDY BUDDY?

Or maybe, just maybe, Tarantino was thinking of John Ford.

THE LAST HURRAH was not Ford’s final credit. But it’s widely seen as the start of his career descent, having peaked with THE SEARCHERS in 1956 and with nowhere left to go from there but down. There would not be another MY DARLING CLEMANTINE or THE GRAPES OF WRATH or RIO GRANDE, with only 1962’s THE MAN WHO SHOT LIBERTY VALANCE considered on par with his past glories.

Was Ford pondering issues of being over the hill when he took the job? Because the plot would bear this out, being that it concerns a veteran in his field trying to stay relevant and keep at the top of his game.

(Ford has a producer credit on LAST HURRAH, too – the only producer credit, there aren't even any of those amorphous ‘executive-’ or ‘associate-’ or ‘co-’ ones. When a director does this, does it mean that he cares more about the project? Obviously, that’s the case if he wrote the script, but surely producing is a sign that it's more than a job for hire – otherwise, wouldn’t all that extra work be far too much hassle?)

There are distinctly CITIZEN KANE vibes early doors, with Spencer Tracy playing an elected figure introduced to much fanfare and newspaper headlines. In fact, Orson Welles was reportedly considered for the character but never got back to Ford in time. But it’s just as well, since Tracy owns the role. All I knew about him going in was that he won two Oscars in a row (a feat not repeated until Tom Hanks in the ’90s) and that he was romantically involved with Katharine Hepburn. But now I recognise him as absolutely more than just the answer to a trivia question.

Here, he essays the part of the curmudgeonly but charming mayor with gusto, and although I wouldn’t say that I was on the edge of my seat throughout all the political dealings and manoeuvrings (it’s kind of like a proto-House of Cards), not only was Tracy clearly fully committed to the cause – like Ford, he was in the twilight of his career – but his director showed that he still had a steady hand and masterful control over the material.

And this after Ford had more than 100 films under his belt (counting several early ‘lost’ efforts)! I guess they made ’em outta sterner stuff back then; nevertheless, if THE LAST HURRAH is anything to go by, QT may be wide of the mark in worrying that his prowess behind the camera will inevitably fade once his output reaches double digits. 

Bring on the 40-years-later legacy sequel to RESERVOIR DOGS in 2032, I say!

Three stars out of five.

Valid use of the word ‘last’?  Any film where the protagonist dies at the end (oh – spoiler alert, I guess) can be classed as pretty definitive.

What would a movie called THE FIRST HURRAH be about?  A much more youthful Tracy, galivanting around in an open-top car, possibly with Katharine on his arm wearing one of those Jackie O headscarves (she, not he).

Previously:  THE LAST OF THE MOHICANS

Next time:  THE LAST SAMURAI

Check out my books:  Jonathanlastauthor.com

Review #28 THE LAST OF THE MOHICANS (1992, Michael Mann)

 

* * *

In 1757, a white man brought up by the Mohican Native American tribe tracks down a British colonel’s kidnapped daughters.

Starring  Daniel Day-Lewis, Madeleine Stowe, Wes Studi, Pete Postlethwaite, Jared Harris

Written by  Michael Mann, Christopher Crowe

Produced by  Michael Mann, Hunt Lowry

Duration  112 minutes

Authenticity. That’s what’s most important in art, right?

Some people seem to think so. ‘Based on a true story’ – Ooh, did you know, it’s actually based on a true story? It is? Oh wow, drop everything and let’s fire it up!

The idea that something you are about to watch or read really happened is definitely fetishised in some quarters, and was memorably parodied by the Coen brothers in their movie FARGO (and then to lesser effect in the spin-off TV series, which had to flog the joke to death by reiterating it at the start of every single episode.)

It’s a phenomenon that reminds me of those people who won’t read novels. You know the type: they smugly inform you that they only read ‘for information’. Their time is much too precious to be wasted on childish made-up stories that interrupt their ceaseless and noble quest for knowledge.

I’m also reminded of this exchange early on in Alexander Payne’s SIDEWAYS between Paul Giamatti's wannabe novelist and Shaun Duke, playing the future father-in-law of Thomas Hayden Church’s character:

 

Duke: "What is the subject of your book? Non-fiction?"

Giamatti: "Uh, no. It's a novel, fiction. Although there is quite a bit from my own life... so I suppose that technically some of it is non-fiction."

Duke: "Good, I like non-fiction. There is so much to know about this world. I think you read something somebody just invented: waste of time."

Giamatti: "That's an … interesting perspective."

 

What has all this got to do what THE LAST OF THE MOHICANS? Michael Mann, that’s what. Now, there’s a man(n) who loves him some authenticity and is not afraid to put in the necessary preparation.

"Gosh, Mike, how ya gonna make sure people get that sweet, sweet authenticity from your next flick?"

"I’ll tell ya how, buddy. I’m gonna stay overnight at Folsom Prison for THE JERICHO MILE. I’m gonna bring in the SAS fellah who wrote Bravo Two Zero to give Bob De Niro and Val Kilmer urban combat training so they look shit-hot in HEAT. For my MIAMI VICE movie, I’m gonna take A-lister Colin Farrell along on mocked-up FBI drug busts deep inside out-of-bounds Dominican gang slums.

"And for MOHICANS, the granddaddy of them all? Well sir, this time I’ve got your man DD-L on board and let me tell ya, that cat’s as bonkers about prep as yours truly. So I’m gonna have him live out in the actual woods: tracking and skinning animals, building canoes, fighting people with tomahawks, and running about while firing and reloading one of those old flintlock guns. And he’s gonna stay in character day and night, with that gun never leaving his Goddamn side."

Yes, finally the ultimate meticulous director met the quintessential method actor. So here’s the crucial question: did all that preparation and authenticity help towards making a great movie?

Well … I guess. It’s all kind of wasted on me, to be honest. Because MOHICANS just isn’t really my kind of thing.

Historical battle-type stuff doesn't do it for me. BRAVEHEART, GLADIATOR, 300, GLORY... I'm OK from about World War One onwards, but if you turn the clock back too far, all the elaborate costumes and wigs and ‘Yes my Lord, privy permit me to allow thy liege’ stuff starts to grate on me. Blokes swinging swords about on horseback doesn't raise my pulse; I sat through the LORD OF THE RINGS films one time only and have never seen an episode of Game of Thrones.

MOHICANS is clearly a four-star film. It's tense, dramatic and competently acted by a talented and good-looking cast. Mann's trusty cinematographer Dante Spinotti makes you feel the glow of the candles and smell the leaves on the trees. Trevor Jones's score is one for the ages, although he clearly recycled it a year later for CLIFFHANGER (now that's my kind of movie). The battles are well-staged and make you feel like you're really there.

But because I can't shake my two-star attitude, I'm going to have to meet this film in the middle. Sorry, Michael and Daniel – all the preparation in the world can't move someone who would rather be watching Stallone inauthentically climb up a mountain in a T-shirt.

Three stars out of five.

 

Valid use of the word ‘last’? Since there was no sequel, nor one on the horizon, let’s just go for ‘yes’. 

What would a movie called THE FIRST OF THE MOHICANS be about?  According to Britannica, "When first contacted by the Dutch, the Mohican were at war with the Mohawk, and in 1664 they were forced to move from Schodack, near Albany, to what is now Stockbridge, Mass." There ya go – there’s your plot. You’re welcome.

Previously:  THE LAST STAND

Next time:  THE LAST HURRAH

Check out my books:  Jonathanlastauthor.com