#Hashbrowns

What is our obligation to nations that we have done harm? For decades, in the name of democracy, we have propped up dictators, for their violent opposition to communism, even overthrowing democratically elected leftist governments. What do we owe these people? Clearly we owe them our support, and an attempt to make things right. But how do we do this?

Do we oust the brutal thugs our own government installed and propped up? We have a military that dwarfs all others. We have the biggest hammer. These nails deserve hammering down. There are dissidents in these nations, some already rising up. If we ask, they will ask for more and more support for their incursions against the powerful. Which makes our obligation to refuse military force all the more teeth grating.

The Neo-Conservative Impulse, that if we have power, we should use it, is understandable. We want to make amends, using the military that supported the monsters feels apropos. But the consequences of exercising supreme force are more complicated than the superhero fantasy would inform us. We could use our unconscionably expensive military to support the Arab Spring, which would only begin to make up for our sins. But we cannot predict consequences. Rather than risking doing harm, we should do nothing. Oppression is not the same mechanism as a mugging. In using force, we are not Superman, swooping in to save the Kitty Genovese’s of the third world. Initiating force is instead responding to violence by triggering upheaval and destruction, like a natural disaster, and we can only hope that our Hurricane of Earthquakes will kill those that do evil, and few others. But others will die.

So what shall we do? Shall we wash our hands, fall into isolationism, acting only out of the sociopathy of “national interest?” Clearly no. But our action requires a light touch; Education, information, aid. Since Vietnam, thinking on military victory have included two components. The ground war, and the war for hearts and minds. This second war is the only one worth fighting. And we do not spend our resources on it well.

For anyone who doesn’t know, Takashi Miike is the hardest working man in Japanese Cinema, producing works in varying extreme styles. One of his more recent forays into theaters (which for anyone reading in Columbia, is currently playing at the Ragtag), 13 Assassins, is possibly the best L5R campaign ever committed to celluloid.

While I am avoiding spoilers, depending on your level of willful ignorance, some may follow, so be warned.

There is a foul villain, in the waining days of the Tokugawa era, there exists the sort of sadistic monster that only exist in Takashi Miike films, and a small band of committed and skillful samurai commit themselves to slaying this creep.

After the initial outlay establishing the villain is a villain for villains (in case you might feel sympathy for the guy being targeted by the titular Assassins) there is very little of Miike’s signature stylized violence, and instead we get a patient, paced, Kurosawa-esque travelling series along with quite a bit of plotting and preparation.

What this results in is a film made of overlapping films: a heist film more deserving of the title than Oceans 12 was, a slightly comedic brotherly road film on the order of Stand By Me (but with less Wil Wheaton)  followed by one of the better executions of a Chambara film in my recent experience.

I rarely think any film needs to be seen by everyone. But it does deserve some mention.

Transformers 3  cost just short of 200 million dollars. 13 Assassins cost roughly 6 million.

That money would be much better making 33 films to equal 13 Assassins. And knowing Miike, he could have those 33 finished inside of  5 years.