Miyamoto Musashi documentary

Thanks for posting.

Documentaries these days seem to be as much about the presenter as they are the material. This is case in point. That said, some good stuff in here. Must have cost a fortune to rights to all the film / cartoon footage.

Strange ...

I don't understand why someone would initially go to Tôkyô to go find "the samurai spirit".

I had been to Japan for years before I ever set foot in Tôkyô or at the Kôdôkan, exactly for those reasons. Tôkyô is disco, for tourists for whom at trip to Japan is staying in a fancy hotel and posing for a picture with a 10th dan holder.

If one wants to find the samurai spirit of budô one has to make the effort to go to the old Bizen or similar, away from pachinko, and salon jûdô and budô.

I am also surprised by some misinformation even regarding things that are commonly known. For example, the movie says that Musashi never lost a single duel, while it is commonly known that Musashi lost from Musô Gonnosuke Katsuyoshi.

Many other things, like supposedly that train station being the only one in Japan named after a person, is complete nonsense. For example, Ōkawa station in Kawasaki, Kanagawa is named after Ōkawa Heisaburō, Kibi no Makibi station in Kurashiki, Okayama is named after ... Kibi no Makibi; Hōkoku station in Takahashi, Okayama is named after Yamada Hōkoku, Sōun no Sato Eabara station in Ibara, Okayama is named after Hōjō Sōun, Tsurumi-Ono station in Yokohama, Kanagawa, is named after Ono Shigeyuki, Asano station in the same city is named after Asano Sōichirō, etc, etc.

I also wouldn't exactly call Niten ichi-ryû as near extinct or difficult to find. the ryû is well alive and regularly participates in enbu, and with lines continuing in both Kansai and Oita-ken (Usa city) en elsehwere, including abroad. They even have several English websites: http://www.nitenichiryu.jp/joomla/index.php?option=com_content&view=frontpage&Itemid=55

I wish that the documentary would have been made by the BBC. They do a much better job than all the cheap tacky and effect-oriented stuff that is so prevalent in American documentaries like this.

It's what I would call a "Popumentary". It's not for people who read about Musashi or live, breath and eat Budo/BuJutsu or even seriously read history period.

It takes the more entertaining aspects of his life, the "badass!" moments and if they have to portray him as 10 feet tall and able to take on Godzilla after beating Bat-Man, they are going to do it.

Dacassos is the audence vehicle of discovery.

While we would love a much better documentary, these things do light fires in the young.

Even that horrible "Ultimate Warrior" show has opend up convrsations and pointed the newly interested to better sources.

Tai-Jutsu wrote: It's what I would call a "Popumentary". It's not for people who read about Musashi or live, breath and eat Budo/BuJutsu or even seriously read history period.

 It takes the more entertaining aspects of his life, the "badass!" moments and if they have to portray him as 10 feet tall and able to take on Godzilla after beating  Bat-Man, they are going to do it.

Dacassos is the audence vehicle of discovery.

While we would love a much better documentary, these things do light fires in the young.

Even that horrible "Ultimate Warrior" show has opend up convrsations and pointed the newly interested to better sources.

I understand its objective. What I am trying to say, is that I have hard time believing that the whole 'popumentary' would suddenly fail if instead one would accurately state that "Musashi only lost a single known fight in his entire life" rather than "Musashi never lost a single fight in his entire life". Is really half of the audience going to walk out because someone hundreds of years ago once lost a single fight instead of none ?

Is Musashi less 'badass' if one says that the station shown "is one of only a few that have been named after people" instead of "is the only one in Japan named after a person" ?

Convince me.

I am not any less impressed by Yamashita even though I know he really lost his last fight despite the referee choosing to ignore Saito's throw. Doesn't matter. We know that Kimura lost 4 known judo fights in his life. We all accept that he was a legendary judoka, no need to reinvent the story and now suddenly say he never lost a single judo fight. Doesn't change a thing. The man has been dead for 20 years, en he will remain legendary irrespective of whether he lost 4 fights, 3, 2, 1 or none.

Cichorei Kano wrote:

Tai-Jutsu wrote: It's what I would call a "Popumentary". It's not for people who read about Musashi or live, breath and eat Budo/BuJutsu or even seriously read history period.

 It takes the more entertaining aspects of his life, the "badass!" moments and if they have to portray him as 10 feet tall and able to take on Godzilla after beating  Bat-Man, they are going to do it.

Dacassos is the audence vehicle of discovery.

While we would love a much better documentary, these things do light fires in the young.

Even that horrible "Ultimate Warrior" show has opend up convrsations and pointed the newly interested to better sources.

I understand its objective. What I am trying to say, is that I have hard time believing that the whole 'popumentary' would suddenly fail if instead one would accurately state that "Musashi only lost a single known fight in his entire life" rather than "Musashi never lost a single fight in his entire life". Is really half of the audience going to walk out because someone hundreds of years ago once lost a single fight instead of none ?

I am not going to watch the whole problem again, as insightful as some of it was, but didn't the problem allude to the fights being to the death? or did I just misinterpret it? Therefore saying he lost one fight may diminish the way in which we regard this man, who clearly was exceptional.

Cichorei Kano wrote:

Tai-Jutsu wrote: It's what I would call a "Popumentary". It's not for people who read about Musashi or live, breath and eat Budo/BuJutsu or even seriously read history period.

 It takes the more entertaining aspects of his life, the "badass!" moments and if they have to portray him as 10 feet tall and able to take on Godzilla after beating  Bat-Man, they are going to do it.

Dacassos is the audence vehicle of discovery.

While we would love a much better documentary, these things do light fires in the young.

Even that horrible "Ultimate Warrior" show has opend up convrsations and pointed the newly interested to better sources.

I understand its objective. What I am trying to say, is that I have hard time believing that the whole 'popumentary' would suddenly fail if instead one would accurately state that "Musashi only lost a single known fight in his entire life" rather than "Musashi never lost a single fight in his entire life". Is really half of the audience going to walk out because someone hundreds of years ago once lost a single fight instead of none ? I agree. I prefer the truth as it is known.

Is Musashi less 'badass' if one says that the station shown "is one of only a few that have been named after people" instead of "is the only one in Japan named after a person" ? Of coarse not.

Convince me.

I am not any less impressed by Yamashita even though I know he really lost his last fight despite the referee choosing to ignore Saito's throw. Doesn't matter. We know that Kimura lost 4 known judo fights in his life. We all accept that he was a legendary judoka, no need to reinvent the story and now suddenly say he never lost a single judo fight. Doesn't change a thing. The man has been dead for 20 years, en he will remain legendary irrespective of whether he lost 4 fights, 3, 2, 1 or none.

I don't need to convince you CK, not everything is a University Peer Review. 

Well you and I being martial artist and intelectuals in a way, we want the real story. The average person? They seem to need Supermen. 

I'm not saying that's good but at least it does get some people into history and then they look deeper.

The show Rome was great for that.(Best TV show ever, IMO.) It was not historically accurate in a lot of ways as to people and events but it did give people a feel for those people and the enviroment and the like were well reserched and pretty damn acccurate for as far as we can tell. My Lady hated all my history intrest but she fell in love with James Purfoy as Antony and Ray Stevensen as Pullo as well as the story they were telling. (She even freaked when Caesar was killed. And apparently I remind her of Vorenus when I am pissed off or I have no time for BS. That helped us with our relationship when I realised how right she was.) and then she became more interested when I would tell her that they melded the real Attia with Antony's wife, Fulvia. Or facts about the real Caesar, Octavian, Aggripa and Cleopatra.

Now she knows a lot more than the average American about the Roman's of those times and a broader interest in history was born.

Hey I too get irked when documnetaries lie or omit and I hate crap like "Sparticus: Blood and Sand" and the "300" as they depect people who really fought in close order, in armour and with failry simple, direct styles like a Kung Fu Melee and don't even try to get any history right. To me how they really fought is more interesting than fancy Shaw Brothers type stuff. For me I'd still rather read Caesar's Commentaries and Gates of Fire and Paul Carthages's and Adrian Goldworth's work.

The fact that Leonidas was between 58 and 60 at Thermopolae is more impressive than Gerry Butler's Pecs! 

But conversations with people who like that stuff allowed me to point them to some good history and change the misconceptions those shows give.
(Reminds me I have a lot of books out on loan!)

History Channel has been going downhill for a while now. Even Histroy International was changed for more BS about Pawn shops and people with blue colour jobs and less histroy. It is sad for sure but I always reached for books anyways.

Tai-Jutsu wrote:I don't need to convince you CK, not everything is a University Peer Review. 

Well you and I being martial artist and intelectuals in a way, we want the real story. The average person? They seem to need Supermen. 

I'm not saying that's good but at least it does get some people into history and then they look deeper.

The show Rome was great for that.(Best TV show ever, IMO.) It was not historically accurate in a lot of ways as to people and events but it did give people a feel for those people and the enviroment and the like were well reserched and pretty damn acccurate for as far as we can tell. My Lady hated all my history intrest but she fell in love with James Purfoy as Antony and Ray Stevensen as Pullo as well as the story they were telling. (She even freaked when Caesar was killed. And apparently I remind her of Vorenus when I am pissed off or I have no time for BS. That helped us with our relationship when I realised how right she was.) and then she became more interested when I would tell her that they melded the real Attia with Antony's wife, Fulvia. Or facts about the real Caesar, Octavian, Aggripa and Cleopatra.

Now she knows a lot more than the average American about the Roman's of those times and a broader interest in history was born.

Hey I too get irked when documnetaries lie or omit and I hate crap like "Sparticus: Blood and Sand" and the "300" as they depect people who really fought in close order, in armour and with failry simple, direct styles like a Kung Fu Melee and don't even try to get any history right. To me how they really fought is more interesting than fancy Shaw Brothers type stuff. For me I'd still rather read Caesar's Commentaries and Gates of Fire and Paul Carthages's and Adrian Goldworth's work.

The fact that Leonidas was between 58 and 60 at Thermopolae is more impressive than Gerry Butler's Pecs! 

But conversations with people who like that stuff allowed me to point them to some good history and change the misconceptions those shows give.
(Reminds me I have a lot of books out on loan!)

History Channel has been going downhill for a while now. Even Histroy International was changed for more BS about Pawn shops and people with blue colour jobs and less histroy. It is sad for sure but I always reached for books anyways.

Thank you for sharing your views. You are writing about things shown on TV and how these can increase the interest of people watching in some subjects. Of course. The Bruce Lee movies were a crucial factor in me developing an interest in Japanese martial arts even though Bruce Lee wasn't Japanese and didn't practice Japanese, but Chinese martial arts. So, I do not need convincing of the role of importance of film, TV or books. However, when it's about shows, OK, shows are fiction. But, documentaries are not fiction. I'd like to believe that documentaries strive for accuracy. When I read a popular book about budô my expectations are different than when I read a reference text about budô. In the 1970s James Clavell's Shôgun was a very popular book and so was the TV show with Richard Chamberlain in the early 1980s. There were some gross inaccuracies in it. I would have preferred for it to be different, but hey, it was never intended as documentary. On the other hand, things like Budô, the art of killing, are, and that one in particular isn't bad at all either.

I love Budo:The Art of Killing. It inspired the Hell out of me at 14 and I love watching it with my sons. Great Judo scenes and they get to see real Karate on film.

Shogun was great but it was comical when they described "He was versed in the arts of Judo and Karate.."

Clavel was no Bernard Cornwell.