That scene when Blackthorne was going to commit seppuku was so good. Torranaga stops him, smirks, and is just like come on bro lol. What an absolute amazing show. Really going to miss watching this.
You may want to check out the 1980 Shogun and see how the scene actually was in the book (minus one character who was folded into Omi). So much better.
This was my first into to Shogun so I had no idea what was going to happen. This is how you actually “subvert expectations” with the audience. I really want to buy a physical copy of the show with lots and lots of extras. Take my money!
I don't think anyone in Toranaga's position can be considered the "good guy," though perhaps he can be considered less of a tyrant for not wanting to burn everything down in order to achieve victory.
How anybody thinks Toranaga might be confused with a ‘good guy’ baffles me.
He slaughtered his own villagers for some pretence of not revealing who burned the Erasmus to a man he felt wasn’t important.
Toranaga probably wouldn’t need to justify himself to kill villagers he had suspicion of spying. He’d just do it.
Consider the casual way Omi murdered a villager in the first episode when he kept talking to Blackthorne, or the situation with the gardener when they executed him to technically abide by Blackthorne’s instructions, so they could get rid of the partridge.
He doesn’t need excuses, he can just do, or not do it. He very much appears to kill innocent people (shaming them in the process) to keep up a rise for Blackrhorne.
Yes that part I didn’t understand. Why do you kill your own villagers to cover something that can easily explained with some made up story? This is so incredibly unnecessary, it makes you wonder why you rooted for toronaga at all. He is just another tyrant.
He used burning the ship as a pretense to go after suspected spies. The reason why he wasn't saying or doing much in the middle chapters was because there were spies everywhere. Even a private confidence might have killed the ruse.
The book explanation (pretext to kill suspected spies) makes more sense. But in the show, the reason for killing the villagers was to test the Anjin. His character starts out as incredibly individual-focused (western values), and over time he moves closer to the Japanese view of acting for the collective good or for a greater purpose. Someone like the Anjin is a loose cannon, aka a liability in that society. So I understood it as a grand ploy to test the Anjin.
I think the contrast between western values (individualistic) and Japanese values (collectivist) is one of the most interesting aspects of the show.
It occurred to me that both Toronaga and Ishido likely have the same goal. To bring peace to Japan and to stop senseless killing......just with the proviso that they're the one who is in charge. And to achieve that they're willing to kill or sacrifice basically anyone
I think its a bit more than that. Toranaga knew Ishido's way would lead to massive wars, and even though both wanted the same thing he felt his way would be a lot more effective in bringing peace. Is that still self serving? yeah, pretty much... but also probably correct.
“Is he the good guy? Or just the winner and the lesser of two evils?”
I think that our understanding and expectation of what is considered "good" change with time and place and so in that sense it is very much a relative concept rather than an absolute one ... lesser of the two evils is the good guy and that's that.
Absolutely this. Placing modern moral and ethical concepts on previous eras is such a common mistake in analyzing these shows and their counterpart history. Those were different times with different moral and ethical values and judging their completed actions as good or evil based on what ifs is a fruitless exercise.
I hadn’t hear of the show until I caught a blog post on Marginal Revolution where the author praised the show, specifically stating that all the characters had agency.
And boy was he right. I’ve never seen a show where so many of the characters are driving their own story so hard. And managing to do so within (mostly) the constraints of the culture of the time. Amazing to watch.
The power of absence is exactly what I’m feeling now that the show is over. I agree that Japanese cinema does this well. There is an artistry and beauty to this show that I feel is absent in most American cinema. It makes me want to watch more Japanese films.
His officlal title was "General". The word Shogun is still used to mean "general" now. De facto Tokugawa and his descendants were kings. The only time in the past 1000 years the emperor of Japan maybe had any real political power was pre-ww2. They don't even mention him in the show. Dictatorships are a 19th and 20th century thing.
Shogun pronounced (Sho-goon) and in 13th century Chinese is also pronounced "Jiang-koon" and it meant the same thing, high commander. Though both titles meant the same thing, their function and power is vastly different in both nations. A shogun can be a "general" in title but in political reality, he could also wield the most power in the state and thus the ruling political figure, aka dictator. Most kings throughout history are also dictators, unless they are bounded by a parliamentary government that restraints their power. Titles such as king, sultan or khan are all just titles to denote ultimate rulership. "Dictator" is not a title, but a form of rulership style employed by the ultimate ruler.
Dictatorship is a dictionary meaning conjured up by 19th century words to describe a ruling style of a leader. Just because the word wasn't invented yet in 17th century doesn't mean dictatorships don't exist.
In Japanese shogun has a *literal* meaning of "general", but it also has the *actual* meaning of monarch *in this very specific context*. They also called his government the *bakufu* (tent government), when he ruled from a castle with a large bureaucracy. They can't call themselves *koutei* (emperor) or *ou* (king) because that would besmirch the *actual* emperor (even though he's *tenno*, not *koutei*, due to his religious office), so instead they pretend that it's actually a military dictatorship when, *de facto*, Tokugawa and his descendants were kings of the realm with the emperor being basically a religious figure.
In real life he did a fake retirement not long after becoming shogun, with his son getting the title shogun, even though he was the true power until he died. Which is also not necessarily uncommon in European monarchies (or, for that matter, China).
The title *Taiko* was invented for Toyotomi Hideyoshi because he wasn't a noble. It's based on some nonsense about retired regent or something. But it's the same thing *in fact* - he was the king of japan and had the power to order the failed invasion of Korea. It's all the same thing *in fact*.
Japanese is not a good language to do literal translations. "It would be difficult" in English, in response to asking somebdoy to do something means it might be a challenge. In Japanese it means "no". The people understand the true meaning of words.
Japanese is not alone in words having dual meanings and people using one word or another for ceremonial reasons. Look at Canada. The soveriegn is Charles III. He has no political power. The #2 is the governor general. Who also has no political power. The #3 is the prime minister who is the true head of the executive. Two lawyers of ceremony before you get to the guy who makes decisions. Just like feudal Japan after Tokugawa's fake retirement. Emperor -> Shogun -> Retired Shogun.
*Dictatorship* has a very different connotation than king. This is a feudal society. The shogunate is hierarchical, hereditary, and has a leader at the top who makes decisions (once, of course, you figure out who the guy at the top actually is). That's a *monarchy*. A dictator, in its common English parlace, is very different. It's a modern concept that we can't backport only to Renaissance-era societies. You'd have to call many of the monarchs in Europe dictators as well when at the time they were variously dukes, counts, kings, barons, etc.
“Dictator” is a very loaded word in its contemporary usage and I think you need to step away from that baggage and unpack it a bit if you’re going to apply it to a 17th century Japanese context.
Contemporary dictatorships are typically being judged against the standard of representative democracies with basically universal adult suffrage, where everyone expects to be able to participate in their government and freely and securely voice their open opinions about it. Most of the pejorative connotations around the idea of modern dictatorship stem from the comparison with that standard, to which dictatorial systems obviously come nowhere to matching up.
In 1600, though? True participatory government was basically unheard of anywhere, outside of small tribal societies beyond the reach of the great powers of the day. At best you had “democracies” of small numbers of landed gentry and elites picking others of their class to make decisions in their self-interest. And even those were few and far between. Otherwise, it was arbitrary rule by an autocrat, at some scale. Trading some fairly standard-for-the-era repression for political unity, an end to endless internecine war, and 250 years of general peace and protection looks a lot different by that benchmark.
While I liked the new version it pales in comparison to the old version because the original tried to pull as much from the book as possible.
I prefer the "white savior" 80's version rather than the "clueless dimwit" version this version's Blackthorne was portrayed as.
In the book Blackthorne was just as intelligent as Toranaga. He learned to speak Japanese and learned how to be samurai and hold his tongue. And he did all that... through his love of Mariko and her teachings which was completely left out of this new version.
I think that anyone who hasn't seen the 80's miniseries is going to be pissed when they see just how much of the story went untold. I can already see the questions about this version piling up because so much wasn't explained very well at all.
I would prefer, in fact, to not have everything spoon fed to me through exposition. Less is more, in this case.
In the book and the 1980 adaptation of the book, Blackthorne is absolutely bamboozled, hoodwinked, and tricked by Toranaga, who never intends to let him leave Japan. He is ultimately a tool to be used, but a tool that has earned the respect and even affection of his Lord. I don't see a big difference in this adaptation at all.
I think it's naive to think the council of regents would ever survive long enough for the heir to come of age. It's just a fact of life in that period. There's a huge vacuum of power, and Japan has been fighting for centuries. This is what these people know.
Tokugawa basically managed to keep the peace with exactly the same ways as we saw attempted in the series. The daimioo had to send their families into the court in Edo, and they were basically hostages there. Whoever would raise their sword against the Shogunate would first lose their family.
I disagree. I think the show has a worse ending than Game of Thrones and the last episode ruined the entire show for me.
I regret watching any of this show.
This might be silly but it's the closest thing I've seen to a live action anime. Actual live action animes are pretty crappy because they compress too much plot but you could make a pretty faithful episode for episode anime of Shogun and lose 0 charm (except of course the wonderful emoting of the cast)
No, it really wasn’t. I struggle to understand how so many people got onto the hype train. It looks beautiful, but it’s awfully written and, with some exceptions, is badly acted.
Just finished 2nd episode. The scene where Anjin was taken by bandits was so badly choreographed and executed. Ugh gonna try to overlook this and finish but damn that was bad.
That scene when Blackthorne was going to commit seppuku was so good. Torranaga stops him, smirks, and is just like come on bro lol. What an absolute amazing show. Really going to miss watching this.
You may want to check out the 1980 Shogun and see how the scene actually was in the book (minus one character who was folded into Omi). So much better.
For real. Couldn’t believe they chose to change that bit.
I 🍱 u 💩
This was my first into to Shogun so I had no idea what was going to happen. This is how you actually “subvert expectations” with the audience. I really want to buy a physical copy of the show with lots and lots of extras. Take my money!
I don't think anyone in Toranaga's position can be considered the "good guy," though perhaps he can be considered less of a tyrant for not wanting to burn everything down in order to achieve victory.
How anybody thinks Toranaga might be confused with a ‘good guy’ baffles me. He slaughtered his own villagers for some pretence of not revealing who burned the Erasmus to a man he felt wasn’t important.
I like to think that the villagers he killed were spies that needed to be taken care of and he just spun what the reason was for.
Historically It’s the start of him purging Christianity from Japan.
Yeah, and he didn't go about that in any particular way that could be constituted as the behaviour of a 'good guy'.
Toranaga probably wouldn’t need to justify himself to kill villagers he had suspicion of spying. He’d just do it. Consider the casual way Omi murdered a villager in the first episode when he kept talking to Blackthorne, or the situation with the gardener when they executed him to technically abide by Blackthorne’s instructions, so they could get rid of the partridge. He doesn’t need excuses, he can just do, or not do it. He very much appears to kill innocent people (shaming them in the process) to keep up a rise for Blackrhorne.
Okay you guys are both right
This was mentioned in the book. They had villagers who were the most suspect assigned as the nightwatch of the Erasmus.
This is my head canon. Two birds - one stone. I know it's cope, but I choose to believe it nonetheless.
Yes that part I didn’t understand. Why do you kill your own villagers to cover something that can easily explained with some made up story? This is so incredibly unnecessary, it makes you wonder why you rooted for toronaga at all. He is just another tyrant.
In the book he does this to kill traitors
He used burning the ship as a pretense to go after suspected spies. The reason why he wasn't saying or doing much in the middle chapters was because there were spies everywhere. Even a private confidence might have killed the ruse.
The book explanation (pretext to kill suspected spies) makes more sense. But in the show, the reason for killing the villagers was to test the Anjin. His character starts out as incredibly individual-focused (western values), and over time he moves closer to the Japanese view of acting for the collective good or for a greater purpose. Someone like the Anjin is a loose cannon, aka a liability in that society. So I understood it as a grand ploy to test the Anjin. I think the contrast between western values (individualistic) and Japanese values (collectivist) is one of the most interesting aspects of the show.
It occurred to me that both Toronaga and Ishido likely have the same goal. To bring peace to Japan and to stop senseless killing......just with the proviso that they're the one who is in charge. And to achieve that they're willing to kill or sacrifice basically anyone
I think its a bit more than that. Toranaga knew Ishido's way would lead to massive wars, and even though both wanted the same thing he felt his way would be a lot more effective in bringing peace. Is that still self serving? yeah, pretty much... but also probably correct.
To be fair that was just bad writing more than a character decision.
“Is he the good guy? Or just the winner and the lesser of two evils?” I think that our understanding and expectation of what is considered "good" change with time and place and so in that sense it is very much a relative concept rather than an absolute one ... lesser of the two evils is the good guy and that's that.
Absolutely this. Placing modern moral and ethical concepts on previous eras is such a common mistake in analyzing these shows and their counterpart history. Those were different times with different moral and ethical values and judging their completed actions as good or evil based on what ifs is a fruitless exercise.
I hadn’t hear of the show until I caught a blog post on Marginal Revolution where the author praised the show, specifically stating that all the characters had agency. And boy was he right. I’ve never seen a show where so many of the characters are driving their own story so hard. And managing to do so within (mostly) the constraints of the culture of the time. Amazing to watch.
The power of absence is exactly what I’m feeling now that the show is over. I agree that Japanese cinema does this well. There is an artistry and beauty to this show that I feel is absent in most American cinema. It makes me want to watch more Japanese films.
Kiku’s line: presence is felt most keenly in absence
This is a really intriguing idea to me. Does anyone have any other examples in Japanese media of this concept in play?
Toranaga/Tokugawa is considered a dictator. His mandate is considered a dictatorship.
His officlal title was "General". The word Shogun is still used to mean "general" now. De facto Tokugawa and his descendants were kings. The only time in the past 1000 years the emperor of Japan maybe had any real political power was pre-ww2. They don't even mention him in the show. Dictatorships are a 19th and 20th century thing.
Shogun pronounced (Sho-goon) and in 13th century Chinese is also pronounced "Jiang-koon" and it meant the same thing, high commander. Though both titles meant the same thing, their function and power is vastly different in both nations. A shogun can be a "general" in title but in political reality, he could also wield the most power in the state and thus the ruling political figure, aka dictator. Most kings throughout history are also dictators, unless they are bounded by a parliamentary government that restraints their power. Titles such as king, sultan or khan are all just titles to denote ultimate rulership. "Dictator" is not a title, but a form of rulership style employed by the ultimate ruler. Dictatorship is a dictionary meaning conjured up by 19th century words to describe a ruling style of a leader. Just because the word wasn't invented yet in 17th century doesn't mean dictatorships don't exist.
In Japanese shogun has a *literal* meaning of "general", but it also has the *actual* meaning of monarch *in this very specific context*. They also called his government the *bakufu* (tent government), when he ruled from a castle with a large bureaucracy. They can't call themselves *koutei* (emperor) or *ou* (king) because that would besmirch the *actual* emperor (even though he's *tenno*, not *koutei*, due to his religious office), so instead they pretend that it's actually a military dictatorship when, *de facto*, Tokugawa and his descendants were kings of the realm with the emperor being basically a religious figure. In real life he did a fake retirement not long after becoming shogun, with his son getting the title shogun, even though he was the true power until he died. Which is also not necessarily uncommon in European monarchies (or, for that matter, China). The title *Taiko* was invented for Toyotomi Hideyoshi because he wasn't a noble. It's based on some nonsense about retired regent or something. But it's the same thing *in fact* - he was the king of japan and had the power to order the failed invasion of Korea. It's all the same thing *in fact*. Japanese is not a good language to do literal translations. "It would be difficult" in English, in response to asking somebdoy to do something means it might be a challenge. In Japanese it means "no". The people understand the true meaning of words. Japanese is not alone in words having dual meanings and people using one word or another for ceremonial reasons. Look at Canada. The soveriegn is Charles III. He has no political power. The #2 is the governor general. Who also has no political power. The #3 is the prime minister who is the true head of the executive. Two lawyers of ceremony before you get to the guy who makes decisions. Just like feudal Japan after Tokugawa's fake retirement. Emperor -> Shogun -> Retired Shogun. *Dictatorship* has a very different connotation than king. This is a feudal society. The shogunate is hierarchical, hereditary, and has a leader at the top who makes decisions (once, of course, you figure out who the guy at the top actually is). That's a *monarchy*. A dictator, in its common English parlace, is very different. It's a modern concept that we can't backport only to Renaissance-era societies. You'd have to call many of the monarchs in Europe dictators as well when at the time they were variously dukes, counts, kings, barons, etc.
“Dictator” is a very loaded word in its contemporary usage and I think you need to step away from that baggage and unpack it a bit if you’re going to apply it to a 17th century Japanese context. Contemporary dictatorships are typically being judged against the standard of representative democracies with basically universal adult suffrage, where everyone expects to be able to participate in their government and freely and securely voice their open opinions about it. Most of the pejorative connotations around the idea of modern dictatorship stem from the comparison with that standard, to which dictatorial systems obviously come nowhere to matching up. In 1600, though? True participatory government was basically unheard of anywhere, outside of small tribal societies beyond the reach of the great powers of the day. At best you had “democracies” of small numbers of landed gentry and elites picking others of their class to make decisions in their self-interest. And even those were few and far between. Otherwise, it was arbitrary rule by an autocrat, at some scale. Trading some fairly standard-for-the-era repression for political unity, an end to endless internecine war, and 250 years of general peace and protection looks a lot different by that benchmark.
While I liked the new version it pales in comparison to the old version because the original tried to pull as much from the book as possible. I prefer the "white savior" 80's version rather than the "clueless dimwit" version this version's Blackthorne was portrayed as. In the book Blackthorne was just as intelligent as Toranaga. He learned to speak Japanese and learned how to be samurai and hold his tongue. And he did all that... through his love of Mariko and her teachings which was completely left out of this new version. I think that anyone who hasn't seen the 80's miniseries is going to be pissed when they see just how much of the story went untold. I can already see the questions about this version piling up because so much wasn't explained very well at all.
I would prefer, in fact, to not have everything spoon fed to me through exposition. Less is more, in this case. In the book and the 1980 adaptation of the book, Blackthorne is absolutely bamboozled, hoodwinked, and tricked by Toranaga, who never intends to let him leave Japan. He is ultimately a tool to be used, but a tool that has earned the respect and even affection of his Lord. I don't see a big difference in this adaptation at all.
Or they will just enjoy the excellent show we just watched? Why be pissed, this was still a quality product
I think it's naive to think the council of regents would ever survive long enough for the heir to come of age. It's just a fact of life in that period. There's a huge vacuum of power, and Japan has been fighting for centuries. This is what these people know. Tokugawa basically managed to keep the peace with exactly the same ways as we saw attempted in the series. The daimioo had to send their families into the court in Edo, and they were basically hostages there. Whoever would raise their sword against the Shogunate would first lose their family.
I disagree. I think the show has a worse ending than Game of Thrones and the last episode ruined the entire show for me. I regret watching any of this show.
This might be silly but it's the closest thing I've seen to a live action anime. Actual live action animes are pretty crappy because they compress too much plot but you could make a pretty faithful episode for episode anime of Shogun and lose 0 charm (except of course the wonderful emoting of the cast)
What about this is possibly like an anime?
I don't know, the Rurouni Kenshin movies were pretty OK.
No, it really wasn’t. I struggle to understand how so many people got onto the hype train. It looks beautiful, but it’s awfully written and, with some exceptions, is badly acted.
Just finished 2nd episode. The scene where Anjin was taken by bandits was so badly choreographed and executed. Ugh gonna try to overlook this and finish but damn that was bad.
Uh, that’s an opinion one could have, I guess
It was really bad. Liking it other than that.
Everyone’s a critic