> What I saw in Whittaker's sword work was a man who had
decided he ought to
> practise this, but had no instruction. As I recall, his combat
handgun work
> was rather well done. So the weak sword style seemed a flaw that
was
> consistently in character.
Just keep in mind the character he plays is INSANE, probably
schizophrenic, and is not a "modern Samurai" except in his insanity.
Interesting take on the character.
Insane? I certainly didn't see him as any more insane than anybody else
engaged in that line of work. (That is to say, a soldier for a mob family.)
Which, being a line of work with ancient and honourable feudal antecedents,
would scarcely seem to indicate insanity within the context of bushido -
ancient or modern.
What's your reasoning on this? By what measure is the Whittaker character
insane that would not find, say, the average highly-dedicated hanshi of the
Edo period equally schizophrenic?
Myself, I found admirable the clear-sighted honesty with which he
recognised the growing outcome of the whole little war, and the courage and
integrity with which he faced his own end.
Note that I do not say I find his profession admirable - only the qualities
I specified. I don't choose to be put in the position of defending the
profession of hit-men, but I am always interested in people in the modern
world who are trying to live out the ancient codes. I thought, and think,
that "Ghost Dog" presented that idea far better than most attempts made at
that theme. In a cinematic climate of special effects, gimmicky ninja, bad
swordplay presented as essential martial art, and a very imperfect grasp of
the difference between personal glory and personal honour, "Ghost Dog" stood
out with well-drawn characters who remained true to themselves (for better
or worse) throughout.
So I am most interested in your reasoning on the question of the
character's insanity.
Gereg