Letters from Iwo Jima

Letters from Iwo Jima(480P)

source: Letters from Iwo Jima

source: Letters from Iwo Jima

Not having seen Flags of Our Fathers, I'll be unable to make any comparison to its companion-movie. Even on its own Letter to Iwo Jima could be seen as representing the new tendency to "humanise" what were until recently the traditional WW2 villains from an Anglosaxon point of view. History tends to be written by those on the winning side - hence, we have had decades of inhuman German war machines, cowardly Italians and unspeakably cruel Japanese. Now, over 60 years since WW2, it has become acceptable - nay, the done thing if you have a conscience, to humanise the losers and show even the winners as fallible and even individually despicable (***SPOILER:*** see the American soldier who shoots the two Japanese prisoners who've deliberately given themselves over. ***END OF SPOILER***). Letters to Iwo Jima clearly has its heart in the right place: it wants to be objective, above and beyond anything else. And it is. Japanese soldiers have mothers, adorable young pregnant wives in pretty kimonos and sons they write loving letters to. We empathise with them no less than we have with all those American soldiers in an endless string of war movies. Technically, Letters is a well-made movie. It's also genuinely moving in parts - you do end up caring for most of the main players. For my personal taste, though, it spells things out too much and too often. Still, for something produced by Mr Manipulative Spielberg and co-written by Paul "Crash" Haggis, I was impressed.

Because my late father fought on Iwo Jima, I have always been a student of the battle. I've studied the character and tactics of General Kuribayashi since elementary school and Eastwood's film and Ken Wanatabe's portrayal have embodied every notion I ever had of the general. I loved "Flags of Our Fathers" and plan to own it when it becomes available, but "Letters" is a better film. In spite of the English subtitles, "Letters" flows on screen more evenly than "Flags" and exhibits an equal dose of individual human emotions. The plight of the individual soldier in war is universal regardless of the evil or good his leaders exhibit. While some soldiers are unusually cruel, most just want to go home in one piece. This film teaches that beautifully.

At the conclusion of the film a person behind me said, "Incredible," twice. Another person followed with, "A masterpiece." I would concur. Perhaps it isn't a perfect film but it is a movie with great impact. I find that it is a testament to the skill of Clint Eastwood as a director and Iris Yamashita as screenwriter that some of the scenes that had the greatest impact were of minor things—a letter read out loud, the way someone saluted, a tear, a song... There were no clear cut heroes or villains beyond "war" itself. I'm reminded of that saying, "No one wins a war. One side simply loses more than the other." War diminishes us all. We must learn to turn our backs on such endeavors even if it means that the military/industrial death merchants take a cut in profits or that they truly learn to hammer swords into plow shares. If the film were to depict the battle in a manner that was realistically experienced by the soldiers the film would be unbearable to any viewer. One must see the battle and history as a kind of allegorical backdrop to a story about the utter inhumanity and futility of war. As a film it had to illustrate the overall societal insanity of war through a human lens, and it did this in a deeply moving way.

I wanted to write that "Letters from Iwo Jima" was the perfect bookend to "Flags of Our Fathers" only it isn't. It's MUCH better than "Flags" (even though I liked most of that too). Buster Keaton knew "The General" would be a better movie and he would get more sympathy if his character was on what we knew was the losing side and that goes for "Letters" as well. All along as we meet these interesting characters (well played and well directed) we know that in the end, despite all their efforts they are doomed to failure and most of them will die, with very little chance of survival (the Japanese casualties on Iwo were some 95%). One can't help but sympathize with the baker and other characters whose culture values death before surrender. Eastwood does a marvelous job telling his story with pictures, subtitles and occasional flashbacks. Ken Watenabe is terrific as the island commander. I don't know if a lot of people will see this film (not that many saw "Flags") but they should. It's a great war movie, told from the side of a doomed but courageous enemy.

My family went to the movies every week back in the 1940's when I was a young kid. Before each movie there was a newsreel. One newsreel which made an indelible impression on me contained footage of the battle on Iwo Jima. It showed terrifying images of U.S. soldiers using flamethrowers, aiming them in the caves the Japanese soldiers had hidden in. When a Japanese soldier ran from the cave, his hands up, his whole body engulfed in flames, the audience in our theater applauded and cheered. I was horrified and have never forgotten the awful feeling I had then. I was only nine. When I saw the same scene enacted in "Letters from Iwo Jima", I was taken back to that time so long ago and I relived the extreme sadness I felt then, but even more so. Tears flowed during the rest of the movie. I couldn't talk for an hour afterward as I was grieving so. This movie is honest and truthful, a must see for those who feel that war is the answer to anything. I used to think Clint Eastwood was a "crybaby" when I watched Rowdy Yates in the first episodes of "Rawhide". Now, I believe Clint is one of the best things to come out of "Hollywood" ever!

the entertainment aspect. While "Letters from Iwo Jima" is truly a great achievement is several ways, the script is powerful, the production is superb, all the technical departments almost perfected their jobs, there is some really good acting as well, and Eastwood's touch as a director is very visible, and its beautiful, it flaws almost flawlessly in this regard. Well, what's wrong then? It simply lacks what makes it a really interesting movie. "Letters" starts with a present day scene of excavators digging up remains of the war in Iwo Jima, and finding letters in a cave that were written by Japanese soldiers and officers during the war on Iwo Jima island, it then travels back in time to WWII and story revolves around those whom their letters were found during the dawn of the American invasion on that island. Slowly, the movie loses its grip over its audience, becoming something closer to an audio book, and survival becomes a repetitive process!!! Everyone seem to be praising the film for being told from the other side, and its true you don't see that many American film makers do that, and although the film didn't just speak Japanese, it lived and breathed Japanese, it couldn't escape the limited framework of Hollywood, this is very visible through the "good" characters, all the good, honest or lovable Japanese characters were either American sympathizers who lived in the US for a while and kept saying how a great nation the US is, or are Japanese people that do not care for the Imperial system and would not mind handing over the island to their rival Americans. On the other hand, all Japanese loyalists were mean American haters. Even the resolution of the strict Imperial soldiers was that the Americans were not as evil as they were told. But still, everyone was very fond of the fact that the movie was told completely from a Japanese point of view. However, just because Eastwood is an American film maker making a Japanese-point-of-view movie, doesn't make the film any better than what it really is, the film's ratings seem to be getting higher just because there is an American film maker behind it and I disagree, it is what it is regardless who the people behind it were. The film was also highly praised as a companion film to "Flags", and while together they form a great duo, on its own, "Letters" does not achieve greatness. Why did Eastwood and Spielberg decide to make "Letters from Iwo Jima" this calm instead of making an adrenaline-pumping film? My guess is that they did not care about the average audience and the commercial success as much as they did care for the story's integrity. Majd Selbi

The companion film to "Flags of Our Fathers" shows the battle of Iwo Jima from the Japanese point of view. Starting with the building of fortifications, hiding from relentless bombardment, and fending off an equally strong attack as American troops land on the island. "Letters from Iwo Jima" just like "Flags of Our Fathers" is a first rate war movie with a relevant message with its critical nature. "Flags" showed the selling of war and "Letters" does the same, albeit with a different mind-set. Japan was an empire governed by a monarch back then so the military mentality was quite different, but it is also important to note the similarities. Especially at the base of the social pyramid where it is quite apparent that people are people no matter where you go. Virtually all of the uber-patriotic tendencies that were rampant in Imperial Japan during WWII were also in Nazi Germany and, as both "Flags" and "Letters" demonstrate in the United States as well. People were used for the purpose of the government and were fed propaganda just the same. Maybe a different in a different form, but in the end it is all the same. Ken Wantanbe is the film's highlight as a military man torn between his sense of duty and his inner feelings. As commander of the island he sees amongst his men the fanaticism, the pacifism, the "just do our job" crowd, and many other configurations of thought in between and mixed with the others. Even strange that some men initially want to fight and are proud to serve in the military and what's shocking is that some of their wives and mothers believe the same. That paints a landscape of war as something amidst all of the stereotypes that have been made of it. Since that is where the truth usually lies, amidst all the gray matter. --- 9/10 Rated R: war violence/carnage