Japanese Civil War: The Last Samurai, Samurai Assassin and When the Last Sword is Drawn

In the 1860's, Japan's economy took a major turn, depending more on foreign trade than ever before.  This led to a conflict between the Emperor, who, by the end of the 1860's was under the thumb of the foreigners, and the Shogun, who wanted to retain power for his military class, the samurai. This eventually lead to some skirmishes and also to all out war between the forces of the Shogun and the Emperor in 1868, where the Shogun was defeated in Edo and the Shogunate was dissolved.

This era of Japan was made into many films in Japanese theaters and television.  It is a dramatic time and the stories from this time heighten the tension and the challenge to samurai at the time.  Although it can be questioned as to the nobility of the samurai at the time, yet most films display the samurai as noble and loyal to a fault, which is seen as a great ideal to follow.  Here are some words on a few of the films on this era, two Japanese and one American.

Samurai Assassin (1965)

This film takes place in 1860 at the beginning of the tension between the Shogunate and the Emperor. It is showing dissent amidst the ranks of samurai, all trying to respond to the coming of the West in force to Japan.

The clan of Mito determines that the Elder of Il must be killed, for the sake of the strength of the Shogun, and they collect a variety of samurai, including ronin (master-less samurai) to accomplish this task, but there is a traitor in their midst.

Of course, one of the ronin samurai is Mifune, who plays Niiro Tsurichyio, son of a concubine who's father is unknown. He is trained as a samurai, but his temper gets the best of him. Of course, he is the most skilled of samurai, and somewhat of a rogue. But this is only because his ronin class left him in poverty and disgrace, not even able to obtain a wife, let alone the woman he truly wants.

The first half of the film is dull, with much explaining, political discussions, and narrative-based action. But it is all giving the necessary background for the second half, where the truth is opened up.

Although much is spoken of honor and principle, it all descends into savagery and the worst of violence. It is a good reminder to us that we can get so caught up in secondary issues that we lose sight of the important issues of honor and morality. It reminds me of a modern political thriller, where corruption rules the day, even by those who seem so noble on the surface.

By the end, it is horribly wonderful.

When the Last Sword is Drawn (2003)

This film takes place throughout the era, ending just after the defeat of the Shogunate.  It is a biography about Yoshimura Kanichiro, who was, in history, in service to the Shogun and was eventually defeated by the emperor's forces.

The film depicts him as much misunderstood because of his complete humility. He did all his strange (for a samurai) actions for the sake of duty to his family and to his lord.

I am amazed that this film won so many Japanese awards. It is unfortunate that this good story was told so poorly. Every emotional scene felt so manipulative, not because we shouldn't feel emotion, but for some reason it seems adequate to lengthen a scene and have characters repeat each other's names for emotional resonance. The final half hour of the movie could have been presented in five minutes-- Boredom is an unfortunate way to end a film. And instead of emphasizing our hero's nobility of duty despite opposition and mockery, it emphasizes dying in battle as a noble honor.

I'll give it a passable 3 out of 5, only because the heart of the film has a good depiction of a controversial figure.

The Last Samurai (2003)

The Last Samurai famously stars Tom Cruise who arrives in Japan just after the Shogunate is defeated and is asked to help dispatch some of the rebellious samurai forces that still exist. 

As an American epic, it has some eye-rolling cliches that took me out of the film. As a samurai movie, it cannot compare to the classics of that genre, but like those films, it discusses the matter of honor with some subtlety and interest.  The action was, in a sense, less realistic but more effective than most samurai films. As a movie that explores the connection between the East and West, it completely fails, but I"m not sure how much it was attempting to explore cultural connections.  But in the end, it is not a bad film, if not a great one.

What is this?  Like Avatar and Dances with Wolves this is a movie about an American teaching an indigenous tribe to fight for themselves.  Because an American has to do this, they wouldn't figure it out on their own.

Frankly, I still think Avatar is the better movie, not only because it's prettier, but because it is not a "movie about Japan" or a "movie about Indians", it is rather a movie about all subdued, oppressed cultures and so can represent all of them.  I wish it weren't necessary for an American to be the hero.  Why can't an aborigine travel abroad and become the hero for their own people.  I understand the cross-cultural element is necessary, but why always make the American the hero?

Nevertheless, I have to give The Last Samurai some kudos.  Tom Cruise played his role with tact and, at times, humility.  When he gave the honor to others, it brought tears to my eyes.  I don't care what nationality it is-- American, Japanese, or Na'vi-- when a man of pride and arrogance surrenders himself for another person or nation, it is of the greatest honor.

Sanjuro and the Man With No Name

The "Man With No Name" Series, a.k.a. the "Dollars" films:

Yojimbo (1961, Kurosawa)

Sanjuro (1962, Kurosawa)

A Fistful of Dollars (1964, Leone)

For a Few Dollars More (1965, Leone)

The Good, the Bad and the Ugly (1966, Leone)

Many people know that A Fistful of Dollars was a remake of Kurosawa's Yojimbo.  The plot goes pretty much scene for scene from the original, although Eastwood plays a slightly different hero than does Mifune. For a Few Dollars More may have borrowed some elements from the Japanese sequel, Sanjuro, but it is quite different.  For a Few Dollars more takes the character of the Man with No Name in a certain direction-- he has a sense of humor, but Eastwood is certainly for sale. By the time that trilogy ends, his morality is determined by the Almighty Dollar.

In Sanjuro, the character becomes more moral, taking on the cause of the underdog, even offering to sacrifice himself and proves himself wise in the arena of politics with a military twist. As per usual, the Man with No Name (who names himself "30-year Camellia" on a lark) arrives in a town split by violent factions. In this case, one faction is behind truth and justice and the other is not. As usual, our anti-hero gets involved, and his methods are... unusual. At the very least, unexpected. The "good" faction are often fighting about whether to listen to the man.

What is most unique in this film is the insertion of a female, even gentle, point of view. Recognizing Mifune as a "glinting sword" an older woman recommends that he would be better off as "a sword in a sheath." We find our anti hero questioning himself, even making errors, because of his excessive violence and self-assurance.

I love Mifune's take of this character, at one point lazy, another yelling, another deeply considering as he rubs his face.  So full of life and joy.  I am really beginning to appreciate the appearances of Tatsuya Nakadai, here as Mifune's counterpart on the corrupt side of the equation.  This is the one place where I can see a similarity between Sanjuro and For a Few Dollars More-- in the uncomfortable camaraderie of equals.  That aspect truly enriches both films, although it is minor in Sanjuro.

One of the fascinating aspects of Sanjuro, which is also played with in Harakiri, is the facade of dishonor, even betrayal, for the sake of loyalty and honor.  The nine young samurai are often discussing whether Mifune is simply unorthodox in his approach to nobility, or is actually ignoble. This aspect makes this film more true to real life, for there are many people in which the appearance of disloyalty is the same as disloyalty, as if a criticism of a nation is equal to a lack of patriotism.  "The proof is in the pudding", so to speak.

Should actually be titled
"The Bad, the Bad and the Bad"

Although out of the whole series, I find For a Few Dollars More the more entertaining ride, I find Sanjuro to be both funny and introspective, both filled with action and a call to gentleness. If Tarantino would ever get off of his revenge kick, I'd love to see him do a remake of this classic film.

For the record, I consider The Good, the Bad and the Ugly the worst of the five films. I dislike the depths of selfishness the Eastwood character goes to and the development of that character as a money-grubbing criminal.  Obviously I don't have a problem with immoral characters (see my review of Sword of Doom), but I find that the Man With No Name isn't very smart in this last film.  Sigh.  Oh well. 

The Fictional Life of a Real Samurai Master: The Samurai Trilogy

The Samurai Trilogy is a three-part story of Musashi Miyamoto, one of the greatest samurais in history, and author of The Book of Five Rings, a classic book of strategy.  The trilogy certainly presents a heroic figure, staring the John Wayne of Japan, Toshiro Mifune, but it also deals with his failures, his weaknesses and his learning process.  In a sense, it is a class of how to be a samurai, but more significantly than that, it is a number of lessons of how to live an honorable life.

In a sense, the film trilogy presents a Plutarch biography, full of moral lessons we can take home and learn from ourselves.  If this makes it feel like a novel written by William Bennett, I suppose on occasion it feels like that, but overall, it is more complex and less straightforward than a simple morality tale. Certainly a couple of the performances make it a worthwhile and entertaining watch.

Samurai I: Musashi Miyamoto (1954)

The first part of the Samurai Trilogy, and it feels very much like an introduction.  But it is a snappy introduction, one with character and growth and power.  And, frankly, a couple twists I wasn't expecting.

It is about the making of a samurai.  Even if a person has talent with a sword and in fighting, this doesn't mean that he is a samurai.  There must be discipline.  But if one has no master, how do you learn that discipline?  Where does discipline come from?

It comes from noble character of those around you.  One must have a character of gracious punishment-- not wanting to destroy you, but to build your character into strength.  And one must have a character of merciful love that coaxes you and upholds you and desires your well-being at all time. 

We see these two elements at work in this film, as well as that which destroys our discipline: weakness, betrayal and harsh punishment.  Although this is the story of one specific and fascinating character, it is also the principles of every person of strength.

Samurai II: Duel at Ichijoji Temple (1955)

The second of the Samurai Trilogy by Hiroshi Inagaki.  The powerful swordsman, Musashi Miymoto, continues on his journey to be a great samurai.

I have to say, though, that I'm beginning to think that his standard of being a samurai is pretty high.  I mean, at the beginning of the trilogy, he was an amazing swordsman-- no discipline, no master, but still.  Okay, he wasn't a good samurai then, but by the end of the first film, he's got everything he needs and will make some master proud.  But no, he's got to be better than that, he's not ready to be a real samurai yet.  So he leaves his girl and goes off to learn to be samurai.

This film begins three years later.  His girl is still waiting for him by the same bridge he left her, his faithless friend is still faithless and he still doesn't consider himself to be a good samurai.  Why?  Because he's TOO strong.  Too confident in his own skills.  What?  Really?

Nevertheless, this film has more to do with his failure as a lover.  Women throwing themselves at his feet, and he wants none of it.  As he tells his girl, "I thought much about you.  But I have to choose between my love for you and my love for my sword."  Guess which he chooses?  Wow, what an idiot.  The real question is: Will the love of a woman save him in the end.  I'm not telling.

I would write this one off, but it's Mifune.  Dang, how I love Mifune.  He was good in the first film, but in this film he's a movie star and he knows it.  He's John Wayne and Charlton Heston and Clint Eastwood rolled up into one.  I think I've got a little man-crush going on here.  It's a good thing because he's in a lot of these films in my samurai marathon.

Samurai III: The Duel at Ganryu Island (1956)

"If you wanna be old school about it - and you know I'm all about old school - then we can wait till dawn, and slice each other up at sunrise, like a couple real-life, honest-to-goodness samurais." -Kill Bill Vol 2

The Samurai Trilogy concludes, and I have to say that I held my breath right up to the end.  Given that it's a 100-minute film, that's no mean feat.

As an epic, the Samurai Trilogy is slow and drawn out.  It really didn't need to be three full-length movies... or it should have incorporated more of the book to flesh it out a bit.  

But as an essay on honor, it does quite well.  I am beginning to understand that the best of samurai movies explores honor, what it really means and how many people can proclaim honor when really they are simply ambitious and full of pride.

Since the Trilogy explores the growth of a single character, and his determination to be a samurai of the highest honor, we see a lot of exploration of this theme in different contexts.  Honor in battle, honor in enmity, honor in promise-keeping, honor with the opposite sex, honor as a samurai, honor as a peasant and even honor as a brigand.   The scope of the subject is massive, and goes much beyond the limitations given in most samurai films-- that of the life of a warrior.

At the same time, I wonder if the whole trilogy explored the concept of honor as deeply as Harakiri did, in a much shorter running time.  Harakiri also upheld the idea that honor is not only a saumrai code, but the code for a father, husband and community.   And while the trilogy explored certain unique concepts-- can honor truly thrive while one remains overwhelmingly strong?-- but Harakiri explores many of the same ideas, but in subtler and more thoughtful ways.

I appreciated the conclusion of the Trilogy, and what it seemed to be saying.  But I wonder if I wouldn't have a more thoughtful presentation of the life and character of Musashi Miyamoto if I had read the novel.  Perhaps I might read the graphic novel The Book of Five Rings, a re-telling of the life of the real Musashi Miyamoto.

Weakness and Natural Consequence: Throne of Blood

The Movie Bible: The Bible is a collection of ancient stories, all themed around humanity’s relationship with God and about how God wants us to live.   What would the Bible look like today if movies were collected around such themes?  I will discuss such movies, giving non-spoiler plots, discussing themes in the film and then drawing a conclusion.

After a miraculous victory, a general heads to his warlord’s castle, only to be waylaid by a witch who declares a dark prophecy:  At first he and his friend would both receive generous promotions.  And then he would take his lord’s place, and his friend’s son would eventually take his place.  After the first part of the prophecy came true, the general tried to forget the second, evil prophecy, but he could not.  His wife constantly reminds him of the prophecy, fanning his ambition into action.  He murders his lord and takes his place as warlord.  Eventually his ambition and selfish pride gets the best of him and all his plans sour, forcing the whole kingdom to be turned upside down in war and death.

If you are familiar with Shakespeare at all, you recognize Macbeth, one of his most famous plays.  For me, Akira Kurosawa is the king of Shakespeare adaptations.  He keeps the story, but translates them fully into feudal Japan.  One of the most problematic parts of enjoying Shakespeare is the poetry, where I feel I have to do literary analysis on every single line.  With Kurosawa’s Throne of Blood or Ran (his adaptation of King Lear),  you can appreciate the melodrama without the poetry.  It allows the actors more freedom to act without monologues and gives so much freedom for the director. There is so much to appreciate in Shakespearean plots and so much darkness to delve into.

Honestly, though, I have never appreciated Macbeth.  It is too dark, too fully immersed into the growing evil of the central character.  There is certainly a character arc—going the wrong way.  I am more and more uncomfortable as the story goes on.

In Throne of Blood, there is much more to appreciate than just the character.  Right from the beginning, the male chorus with the foggy castle in the distance gives one of the ominous, horror-filled bookends ever.  Mifune, one of the greatest actors of Japanese cinema gives an over-the-top performance, as he is horrified with the circumstances and with himself.

There are many defenders of the original play and story.  “It is a classic story of fate dealing with a man and his wife who made evil decisions.  In their hearts they were ambitious and prideful, and fate led them to a nasty end.  You reap what you sow.  When you give into depravity, you must face the  consequences.”

Okay, I understand this, somewhat.  Certainly it shows the consequence of vanity, arrogance and selfish ambition.  But Mifune’s Macbeth doesn’t begin ambitious.  He was on his way to receive a great reward for a great work.  He had achieved his ambition.  And right in that time, the seed was planted which was to become his downfall.  It did not need to happen, it was not natural to him.  And, in fact, he wouldn’t have even pursued the prophecy were it not for his evil wife (who is played with amazing subtlety in Throne of Blood by Isuzu Yamada—perhaps my favorite performance in 1957).  Even with her pushing, he might not have done the murder if the lord did not come to visit his castle.   He was pushed and pushed until the evil deed had almost accomplished itself, he was just the hand that held the blade.

He was not evil, just weak.  And from this point on, he is treated as the evil criminal he certainly was, but not in his heart.  As time passed, his heart soon caught up with his deed and he became the selfish lord that the witch, the wife and fate determined him to be.  What a horrible fate! 

All the more horrible, as I know many like him.  Weak, trapped and ultimately committing crimes and so convincing himself that they are among the great evil men.  And who could deny this?  No one. 

My only question in all this is: Where is the hope of redemption?  The weak one should have an out, an opportunity for repentance, for confession, for deliverance from his own heart.   But in Kurosawa’s film, as in Shakespeare, there is no hope for redemption.  The path of weakness leads straight to hell.  There is no turning back

And ultimately, this is why I must reject this film, this story.   As the ancient text says, “I take no pleasure in the death of the wicked.  Rather, turn back, turn back!  Why then will you die?”  

Or, the more modern text says, “Are you not entertained?”  No.  No, I am not.  If life is like this, it is too horrible to contemplate, even were it true.

ER in Early Tokyo

Red Beard



One of the things I love about Akira Kurosawa is his ability to take films that are in completely different situations, and turn them into high drama.  Sure, it’s easy when you are doing a version of Macbeth (Throne of Blood) or King Lear (Ran), but this film is about a medical clinic in a poor area of Edo (which in a later era becomes Tokyo).  Could high drama be found here?  Perhaps the stakes aren’t as high as Ran or even The Seven Samurai, but this film expresses the drama of each human life, even the “small” life.  Red Beard is about the drama of compassion.

Technical—4/5—Nothing spectacular, but pretty sharp film quality for its era.  The script and direction are marvelous, if not exceptional.

Interest—5/5—Every time a story arc ends, there is another that has already started.  It is a powerful drama, filled with a number of laugh-out-loud moments, not least the out-of-context fight at the brothel.



Tension—4/5—At first, it seems pretty light, but as we follow the experiences of the new doctor, we join him as he bit by bit becomes more involved with those in the clinic.  At first, we have a bit of curiosity, then we experience the horror of death, then we appreciate the tragic story of the life of a good man, and then finally we are weeping at the tragedy of a small character.  I think I lost a bit of tension because I’d seen it just a year ago, but give me another year and I’ll be ready to see it again.

Emotional—5/5—Played me like a yo-yo, and I'd go through it all again, just for the enjoyment of the emotional manipulation.



Characters—5/5—This is the final pairing of Kurosawa and Mifune, but Mifune is as brilliant as he ever was.  He plays the title character with that perfect balance of seriousness and willingness to make fun of himself that is so well done.  The character of the girl taken from the brothel is also perfectly played.  I wish that some of the smaller roles were given more room to develop.

Theme—4/5 Compassion over honor.  Pretty basic, but well done.



Ethics—5/5—There are no deep ethical questions brought up here, we are all familiar with the stakes here.  However the rewards of a life of compassion, as dubious as they are, are clearly presented.

Personal—5/5—I hope I’m not boasting, but it is my attempt to be a man like Red Beard and to create a community of help like he did.  And I think that this, more than anything else, is what touches me about this film and makes it my favorite of Kurosawa’s films.


Mifune's doctor is an amazing character, (if one ignores his out-of-the-blue martial arts scene).  He is quiet, gruff and tough on his doctors.  Yet we love him so.  How is it that we want to identify with him so much, even though his lifestyle is so far from most of our own?  It is because, in the end, we all desire to be good.  We don't have to be as good as Mother Teresa, but we want to be seen as compassionate and caring in at least some aspect of our lives.  And Mifune invites us to identify with him.  We can, if only for a couple hours, can be the compassionate hero.