Like any other movie-goer, my intention in watching this film was to relax, enjoy the show, and be entertained. But I got out of the theatre angry, hurt, agitated. As I drove home through Vancouver's wet and cold streets, I found myself crying. Not just in tears. I was crying aloud. Like, really loud. I arrived home embarrassed by my not-so-macho response to the movie.
And then I cried again.
My wife, Joji, noticed that I was not in a good mood. I told her that I was affected emotionally by the movie I saw.
She said, "Aaww! You're over-reacting! It's just a movie. You don't have to be so emotional about it. Be objective!"
I said, "You're right." But deep inside me, I can't help but silently argue with her: "Be objective? Is there such a thing as a naked eye? Can we really see reality without our cultural and personal, experiential lenses? Can we really step out of our own historical context as we assess the events happening before our eyes, even if it's just a movie?"
That night, I spent sometime asking myself why I "over-reacted" with what I saw.
I found myself watching the movie again in my mind through, at least, four layers of lenses. Then my emotional reaction suddenly made sense. I began to see my subjective feelings from a more 'objective' (I think?) point of view.
1. The Lens of Martial Arts. I like Japanese and Chinese sword fights, especially when the directors and the cinematographers understand the irreducible complexity of a simple move in martial arts. The use of Japanese sword (katana) was so articulated in the context of the Bushido (The Samurai Code) and the ethical standards of honor, compassion, duty, excellence, and service the Code represents. They must have trained Tom Cruise in the art of katana—at least, the fundamentals.
Of course this love of martial arts is contrary to my non-violent political conviction. This is one of those aspects in my life that is not coherent. It annoys me! I wish I'm more consistent with my views and practices about life and reality!
2. The Lens of Philosophy and Ethics. A whole article can be written about the delineation between Western philosophy and Eastern philosophy in this movie. I guess most critics will focus on that.
I have chosen to focus on the philosophical issues of PreModern and Modern values expressed in this movie. Modernism is a narrative that the universe is a huge machine, in a closed system, which is populated by rational individuals. The Western diplomats and the military experts that went to Japan with Tom Cruise's character were the 'evangelists' of the good news of Modernism. The big word in Modernism is "progress." The Samurai warriors were the representatives of the old, traditional, backward Japan—as seen from a Modernistic perspective.
This movie is a postmodern critique and evaluation of the interaction between the representatives of Modernity and the representatives of Tradition or PreModernity. I can't help but read critical questions between lines while watching the movie: Did Modernity really bring progress to humankind? Are Traditional Values really backward and counter-progressive? What happens to people when we mechanize a society? Should we reduce the person as a modern "individual-in-the-marketplace" in the name of progress? Is it really right that the pre-modern person in the traditional society—the "person-in-community"—be annihilated in the name of progress? Should we continue to erase the "poetry-of-our-humanity" and replace it with "efficiency-of-our-productivity," all in the name of progress?
We cannot go back to the Pre-Modern Era. Modernity is here to stay. In fact, the impact of computer technology brought Modernity to its advanced stage—that is, HyperModernity. This is both a blessing and a curse. As a blessing, HyperModernity is helping us solve problems in communication, transportation, medical science, and information processing. As a curse, we have the ability to kill people more efficiently and to destroy our planet more quickly. It's ironic that, in this movie, America helped Japan modernize its military capability and the Americans were paid handsomely. The same modern Japanese military attacked Pearl Harbor a century later, and the Americans paid dearly—not just with money, but also with the lives of their sons and daughters.
Perhaps it is time to re-write the "poetry-of-our-humanity" at par with the "efficiency-of-our-productivity." Perhaps we should stop sacrificing human beings before the altar of an idol called "Progress." Only then can we define human existence not so much on how we died, but rather, on how we lived.
3. The Lens of Political and Economic Justice. Politics is all about power. Economics is all about wealth. Wealth and power are like the two pedals of a bicycle. They are the yin and yang of the wheels of international relations. America, as depicted in this movie, made money by selling war technology to Meiji Japan. Meiji Japan, historically, became more powerful, not only in Japan, but throughout East and Southeast Asia. Eventually, however, Japan aligned itself with the enemies of America. Then in World War 2, America used its weapons of mass destruction against Japan—in Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
It seems that this has been a pattern with the United States' foreign policy. They would arm an ally as long as they can use such allies to advance their political-economic hold in a globalizing world. America gave Mao Zedong and his People's Liberation Army military equipment against the Japanese during WW2; after the war, the Chinese Communists used those arms to take control of China, Inner Mongolia, and Tibet (Han Suyin, "Eldest Son: Zhou Enlai and the Making of Modern China," pp. 178-194). America armed Iraq when Saddam Hussein can be used against the Ayatollah Khomeini of Iran; later, Hussein turned against his own people and against Kuwait ("Hidden Wars In the Middle East," Terra Documentary Video, www.hiddenwars.org). American CIA trained the Mujaheddin in Afghanistan--one of them was al-Qaeda's Osama bin Laden--to fight a guerilla war against the Soviets; later, bin Laden used the same guerilla tactics he learned from the CIA against the Americans ("In Search of AlQaeda," Frontline Documentary, www.pbs.org). America armed Ferdinand Marcos to protect its military bases in the Philippines even though they knew that those military materiel were largely used to oppress the Filipino people; when they were done with Marcos, they spirited him out to Hawaii to escape justice from the Filipino people (Heather Gray, "Opposition To American Military Occupation: The Case of the Philippines," http://www.commondreams.org/views03/1117-11.htm).
This movie also brought up the issue of one of America's most profitable exports—modern, efficient weapons. Today, this business is euphemized as "defense industry." Right now, rich and poor nations—led by the US—have already appropriated more than US$80 billion on military spending. This breaks my heart. This figure flashed through my mind during the part in the movie when the United States soldiers were massacring non-combatant women and children of the American First Nations. This was the nightmare of Tom Cruise's character, remember? Do you know that for $9 billion, we can provide for the basic nutrition for impoverished children all over the world? Do you know that for $13 billion, we can provide for safe water and sanitation for all the poor people in the world? Everyday, 20 million people die from hunger and hunger-related diseases. This is equivalent to more than 150 jumbo jet crashes daily for a year in which there are no survivors and in which half of the victims were children. If these unjust military spending and foreign policies are justified and politically supported by the majority of the American voters in the name of patriotism and consumerism, then I pray that those people might have dreams, even nightmares, of suffering children and women around the world, until they wake up to their political-economic responsibilities in the face of current global injustice!
As a Filipino who grew up in a city adjascent to Subic Naval Base (the biggest US military installation in the Pacific during the Cold War) I see America through the eyes of one who has experienced being intimidated by American military presence in our own soil. I saw them guarding their American interests at the expense of the dignity of the Filipino people. As a teenager, I did not understand why they guarded their hamburgers, beverages, toys, chocolate bars, and Levi's jeans with their M16 rifles, F14 fighter planes, tanks, and missles while we share our land to them. The painful part was that, I saw those Americans throw away, without totally consuming, their hamburgers, beverages, toys, and chocolate bars in a nearby dumping areas and guarded those garbage dumping areas from local kids with their M16 rifles! The teenager in me reacted while I was watching "The Last Samurai." Americans have been entrusted with so much; Americans, especially those who claim to love God, are expected with so much. America is not entitled to the goods and services its people are enjoying; America is merely entrusted as a steward. What America is enjoying is not a right; it's a privilege. What America have is not absolutely for the Americans; what America have is absolutely God's. And what is God's is for all the people of the world to share and enjoy. We’re all "persons-in-community"; we’re not merely "consumers-in-the-marketplace." The world is our community. Our life is inherently connected with the lives of all people around the world.
4. The Lens of Spiritual and Ministerial Journey. Tom Cruise's character at the beginning of the movie was an alcoholic, purposeless gun salesman. I wonder how many pastors and religious leaders are merely buying and selling church growth programs that would increase church attendance (churchy term for 'religious customers') as well as increase their tithes and offerings (churchy term for 'sales and revenues from religious goods and services)? In a sense, I was part of that religious marketing system. I felt meaningless and purposeless even though people around me thought I was successful.
Like Tom Cruise's character, I'm done with salesmanship as far as irrelevant, outdated religious programs are concerned. I'm in the process of growing with a community that is really burdened to bring peace—the salam/shalom that God gives—in the lives of people from different cultural backgrounds. This peace is the kind that transcends our rational analysis, guarding our personal hearts and minds. This peace is also the kind that is the result of political-economic justice. This peace is both subjective-personal and objective-political.
For me, the purpose of pastoral ministry is not to sell 'a god-belief system that can be packaged neatly in a box,' but a God-given privilege to walk with, and grow with, a community of people in their search for authentic spiritual experience with the Relational Creator who is beyond our theological categories.
"The Last Samurai" helped me cry, not just to express a 'justice-motivated anger' (otherwise known as 'righteous indignation'), but also to enjoy the serenity of God's shalom. The movie, after much reflection, served its purpose. It helped me to be relaxed. I enjoyed the show. And yes, I was entertained.
Me and my husband are both full-time workers. And our relaxation time is to watch a movie at the end of the day. I like "the Last Samurai." And yes it also had the same effect on me even while watching it (it made me cry).
I did a few anlysis of the movie with my husband afterwards but only came up to the point of the curses of modernism. But as I read your comment and analysis, it gave me additional enlightenment and even see it an religious angle.
I have recently been reading "the Filipino Christian" by Ed Lapiz. And this book had changed my view about my ministry. I have been exposed to a lot of American methodology of ministry and have not considered for a long time the culture of the my very own countrymen. I thank the Lord that the American missionary we are working with have tried hard enough to adapt to the Filipino culture.
--Tricia Rufin ( tricianasia at yahoo dot com ) on 5/17/2004; 3:55:19 AM
Dann,
thanks for your response and shalom.
your answers are appreciated and i would like to respond to them here... i really believe in your heart and trust completly your motives so these responses are given in love and respect, please read them that way.
you answer question #1 in an overly simplistic (though common even in america) way. why is it appropriate for me to concern myself with my govt.'s foreign policies and whether they may or may not be unjust when so many of my govt.'s domestic policies are unjust? there are hundreds of thousands of people right here in my state, thousands in my own community, needing the kind of social justice you are talking about. is it not more appropriate for me to concern myself with the poor on my own step then the ones out in the yard, street, next commuity, next state, next nation, next continent?
next you suggest i should write to my political leaders expressing my opinion. first, you believe that my political leaders care what i think, nothing could be further from the truth. my political leaders care only about what will get them reelected. they don't care about the abhorant practice of abortion or whether people in their own streets are starving let alone whether people in the rest of the world are even hungry! i have absolutely no faith in any institution of man to accomplish good except as a matter of personal gain. my own efforts to achieve social justice are more focused on how do i communicate Christ to the guy next door, down the street, in the gutter or wherever i can speak the truth so that it will be heard.
you rightly recomend, "then ask god how you can be an instrument of justice and righteousness as an american christian." my hope is that you haven't assumed we christians here haven't done that and continue to seek Him concerning this question.
by the way, i wasn't asking whether your people are capable of waste but whether you are. i know i am, and it makes it a little harder for me to judge those soldiers you were talking about.
and yes i feel i have been lumped in with those that should have nightmares about the poor of the world. that was apparently not your intent... my bad.
in Him
--miller talbot ( mtalbot at signalpeak dot net ) on 5/5/2004; 4:59:26 PM
miller:
thank you for your response. here are my quick answers to your qs:
1. i suggest that you become more aware re which of your govt's foreign policies are affecting the poor people around the world in an unjust way. then write to you political leaders about them, based on biblical justice requirement of god (e.g., amos 5:21-24). then ask god how you can be an instrument of justice and righteousness as an american christian.
2. yes. we, people from the poorer countries, are capable of "the waste associated with decadence." there are super rich who throw their garbage. and there are extremely poor people who fight their way to dig those garbages. outside manila, we have a garbage mountain where people make their living and their homes. the last time i checked, there were no armed military personnel guarding the garbage mountain.
3. i read romans 2:1. do you feel being judged as an american? why?
shalom!
dann
--Dann Pantoja ( dann at waves dot ca ) on 5/4/2004; 4:38:20 PM
Dann,
i'm new to the site and painfully conscious of my lack of personal knowledge regarding you or what you're about. that being said, i, as an american, first want to ask you what you are suggesting i should do... second, are you suggesting that you are not capable of the waste associated with decadence? third, are you familiar with Romans 2:1?
alot of what you said is true and i am not proud to be an american... i boast only in the Lord. perhaps it is a fragile ego or imaturity that makes it difficult for me to receive all that you wrote.
in Him,
--miller talbot ( mtalbot at signalpeak dot net ) on 4/27/2004; 10:35:45 AM
You're right. Scot. The number should be 20 million people dying per year, not per day. My apologies to you and to all readers. I just got back from Mindanao, Philippines and I saw some of these realities.
--Dann Pantoja ( dann at waves dot ca ) on 4/19/2004; 9:22:37 PM
very sorry, forgot you're from Canada....
--J. Immanuel Joseph ( immanuel_joseph at yahoo dot co dot uk ) on 4/11/2004; 1:46:03 PM
hi, I am from India. i used to think that most of the people ( even Christians) in the USA had this delusion that they were the noblest nation in the whole world playing the role of caretaker/big brother, etc. But after reading this article I am very happy to realize that there are "objective" people like you who know the truth and are able to accept it even though it is bitter. are you an American citizen? If so, may God bless you still more and use you as an instrument of His change in the atttitude of the people around you.
--J. Immanuel Joseph ( immanuel_joseph at yahoo dot co dot uk ) on 4/11/2004; 1:44:16 PM
This one is a keeper. Good unpacking. Good writing. Well done.
I for one intend to cut you some statistical slack. Assuming a 747 carries about 400 passengers, that means 150 of the same will total 60 thousand per day. If we multiply that by 30 days, that means 1.8 million per month and hence about 21.6 million plus per year. You just need to adjust your unit of time.
Your real, point, however, is well made. As a Canadian I have ambivalent feelings towards the entity that is the U.S. of A. I am grateful for the upside of their influence in the world - it cannot be ignored or downplayed - but I am also aware of its downside. Your experience as someone who has seen the underside of American occupation is profound.
However, the most profound point is the interface between pre-modernity and post-modernity. The Japanese experience is one that indeed came back to bite the hand of its 'benefactor' and gives us all cause to think more clearly about the relationship between gospel and culture.
Thank you for exposing your soul and in doing so shedding much light.
--Robb Powell ( newchurch at canada dot com ) on 3/30/2004; 6:44:59 PM
Let's jump ahead to the next, next-wave-
Did Emergent values really bring progress to humankind? Were Modern Values really backward and counter-progressive?
--Ben Williams ( qxzlool at yahoo dot com ) on 3/29/2004; 11:21:58 AM
Sorry about the double post. I thought my first post was lost.
Ant
--Anthony Smith ( arsmith7 at hotmail dot com ) on 3/19/2004; 11:09:01 AM
I really appreciate this review. I have been waiting for someone within the faith to say something like this.
One of the things that caught me in this film is how it so perfectly captures the kind of evangelism necessary in our culture today. Tom wasn't simply captured by a list of abstract concepts like the Honor codes of the Samurai...but was captured by how these codes were acted and narrated out in the life of the Samurai community. Tom's character is captured by the narrative and life of the Samurai.
The Samurai don't engage in rationalistic apologetics...handing out tracts...etc...which may work in some contexts, but is captured by the Samurai's faithfulness and discipline to their craft of being those that "serve".
This movie is definitely a talking point for how evangelism should be done in our current culture.
Thanks for the review.
Ant
--Anthony Smith ( arsmith7 at hotmail dot com ) on 3/19/2004; 11:08:05 AM
I really enjoyed this review. I have been waiting to see if anyone saw how analogous this movie was to the gospel story.
One of the things about this movie that I saw was the way Cruise's character was drawn into the narrative and practices of the Samurai. They didn't argue with him...they didn't engage in rationalistic apologetics...they didn't have a 5 minuted evangelistic drill with the Romans Road..etc. Tom's character was captured by the narrative and daily practices of that Samurai village. The Samurai gave him a story that drew him beyond himself..beyond self-aggrandizement...beyond his guilt for past collusions with injustice.
What I saw in this movie was an excellent example of embodiedment evangelism. I really do believe church leaders could gain alot of insight by watching this movie. It is an excellent talking poing about evangelism in our postmodern society.
Peace,
Ant
--Anthony Smith ( arsmith7 at hotmail dot com ) on 3/19/2004; 11:05:22 AM
I really enjoyed this review. I have been waiting to see if anyone saw how analogous this movie was to the gospel story.
One of the things about this movie that I saw was the way Cruise's character was drawn into the narrative and practices of the Samurai. They didn't argue with him...they didn't engage in rationalistic apologetics...they didn't have a 5 minuted evangelistic drill with the Romans Road..etc. Tom's character was captured by the narrative and daily practices of that Samurai village. The Samurai gave him a story that drew him beyond himself..beyond self-aggrandizement...beyond his guilt for past collusions with injustice.
What I saw in this movie was an excellent example of embodiedment evangelism. I really do believe church leaders could gain alot of insight by watching this movie. It is an excellent talking poing about evangelism in our postmodern society.
Peace,
Ant
--Anthony Smith ( arsmith7 at hotmail dot com ) on 3/19/2004; 11:02:55 AM
This essay claims that 20 million people die from hunger every day. That's horrible - something must be done! Why, that's 7.3 billion people per year. With a world population of only 6.3 billion, we are going to be extinct by the end of the year! Hmmm.
Nothing ruins a good point faster than throwing in some pseudo-scientific junk statistics. It destroys the credibility of the author while simultaneously irritating the less credulous readers.
--Scot ( mathis909 at earthlink dot net ) on 3/17/2004; 6:10:34 PM
Print-friendly version of this pageMail this article
