"Letters from Iwo Jima" should go down as an all-time classic like "The Seven Samurai" and "Tora Tora Tora," as well as the best war films not involving Japanese, such as "Paths of Glory." It is an Oscar-worthy effort by director Clint Eastwood, far surpassing "Unforgiven" in artistry and scope. (Whether you agree with Newt Gingrich and put "Sands of Iwo Jima" near the top of your list, who knows I thought "Sands" was good but not great, with hats off to John Wayne.)
As a three-year resident of Tokyo, I know more about Japan/Japanese than most, and I can relate to the humanization of the Japanese soldiers here. "Letters" is highly evocative all the way, but what also makes it great is that it is well-edited. In 2 hours and 20 minutes, it provides little in wasted scenes and self-absorption. Although I thought it dragged a bit while watching it, I later realized virtually all the scenes had meaning. Even the masterpiece "Lawrence of Arabia" (yes, much longer, but "Letters" is also longer than average) had, arguably, a little excess. As for self-absorbed, I won't even get into "Borat."
By lack of self-absorption, I mean that while "Letters" continued to dwell on the emotional makeup of the Japanese military personnel and civilians, it did so in a steady way, showing various aspects of their character, without monotony or pomposity. It brought out certain themes and variations, highlighting differences in chemistry among Japanese. Indeed, the most striking memory from "Letters" is how the individuals (including civilians and women) were so human and so different, in contrast to the machine-like image of the Japanese military. I would not have killed that dog, either.
The film presents a chronological story of the battle, with flashbacks and flash-ins to areas other than the battlefield. It treats Japan's feeling of hopelessness in 1945 and what was left of the rationale for defending to the last man. The knowledge of the Japanese soldier that to fight on means likely death contrasts with the realistic feelings of American marines that their chances of returning home are good. The film portrays the overwhelming material superiority of the Americans, what this looked like to the Japanese (including the bombing preceding the battle), and how it was manifested in the American success as the battle progressed (and as the Japanese ran out of food). It also shows the elaborate tunnel system the Japanese defenders created after realizing a stand on the beaches was impracticable.
Ken Watanabe plays the lead character, General Kuribayashi. He has a thoughtful, independent-thinking defensive strategy, but also feels the conflicts of duty and reality. Kazunari Ninomiya is Saigo, the film's most prominent ordinary soldier, who is not a fanatical samurai type. He is a person with some fear who questions the hard-core military spirit, is concerned about his pregnant wife, and hopes to be home someday. As warranted, the hard-core military spirit was present too, in the persona of Lieutenant Ito (Shido Nakamura).
Basic to the film is how the soldiers' plights and destinies affected their feelings and in turn those of Japanese spouses and other civilians (reference the title, based on the poignant letters from the Japanese soldiers to home). Their letters are balanced by a scene in which a wounded U.S. marine is captured and later dies. "Sam" converses with Baron Nishi (Tsuyoshi Ihara), gold medal winner in equestrian competition at the 1932 Olympics, after the Baron orders his wounds treated. (A flashback had shown Baron Nishi with American officers and their wives at an elegant gathering before the war.) As Nishi relates to Sam his experiences with Americans, and after he reads a letter from Sam's mother, also poignant, found on Sam following his death, we are reminded not to generalize about atrocities on either side in a war. Some Japanese in the film had thought Americans were savages but discovered we weren't, and this was juxtaposed with the realization of some Japanese that U.S. marines at Iwo Jima were not cowards but had displayed bravery and military skill. There is a scene in which some marines have two captured Japanese POWs on their hands who are expected to hurt the marines' logistics on the mountainous terrain, making the Americans sitting ducks, and the prisoners are therefore executed by one of the soldiers. Is this an attempt at being "politically correct"? I cannot read Eastwood's mind, but one could see it partially as excess in a movie made from the Japanese perspective and partially as an emphasis on the horrors of war and what can result when survival is thought to be at stake.
The Japanese soldier was a tough foe his U.S. counterpart. "Letters" focuses on different perspectives of the willingness to fight to the death in a losing cause. The film suggests some Japanese thought fighting on would add time value to Japan's situation, while others carried on as a point of honor. "Letters" also raises the issue of whether running away in a hopeless situation but being willing to fight on in another area of the battlefield should be seen as cowardice or simply good strategy.
Clint Eastwood directed "Unforgiven," and it won an Oscar as the Best Picture, perhaps on passage-of-time sympathy, for many think it was not Oscar material. (I have not seen "Flags of Our Fathers," so cannot comment on it.) Letters from Iwo Jima is Oscar material, and I hope it wins Best Picture.
As a three-year resident of Tokyo, I know more about Japan/Japanese than most, and I can relate to the humanization of the Japanese soldiers here. "Letters" is highly evocative all the way, but what also makes it great is that it is well-edited. In 2 hours and 20 minutes, it provides little in wasted scenes and self-absorption. Although I thought it dragged a bit while watching it, I later realized virtually all the scenes had meaning. Even the masterpiece "Lawrence of Arabia" (yes, much longer, but "Letters" is also longer than average) had, arguably, a little excess. As for self-absorbed, I won't even get into "Borat."
By lack of self-absorption, I mean that while "Letters" continued to dwell on the emotional makeup of the Japanese military personnel and civilians, it did so in a steady way, showing various aspects of their character, without monotony or pomposity. It brought out certain themes and variations, highlighting differences in chemistry among Japanese. Indeed, the most striking memory from "Letters" is how the individuals (including civilians and women) were so human and so different, in contrast to the machine-like image of the Japanese military. I would not have killed that dog, either.
The film presents a chronological story of the battle, with flashbacks and flash-ins to areas other than the battlefield. It treats Japan's feeling of hopelessness in 1945 and what was left of the rationale for defending to the last man. The knowledge of the Japanese soldier that to fight on means likely death contrasts with the realistic feelings of American marines that their chances of returning home are good. The film portrays the overwhelming material superiority of the Americans, what this looked like to the Japanese (including the bombing preceding the battle), and how it was manifested in the American success as the battle progressed (and as the Japanese ran out of food). It also shows the elaborate tunnel system the Japanese defenders created after realizing a stand on the beaches was impracticable.
Ken Watanabe plays the lead character, General Kuribayashi. He has a thoughtful, independent-thinking defensive strategy, but also feels the conflicts of duty and reality. Kazunari Ninomiya is Saigo, the film's most prominent ordinary soldier, who is not a fanatical samurai type. He is a person with some fear who questions the hard-core military spirit, is concerned about his pregnant wife, and hopes to be home someday. As warranted, the hard-core military spirit was present too, in the persona of Lieutenant Ito (Shido Nakamura).
Basic to the film is how the soldiers' plights and destinies affected their feelings and in turn those of Japanese spouses and other civilians (reference the title, based on the poignant letters from the Japanese soldiers to home). Their letters are balanced by a scene in which a wounded U.S. marine is captured and later dies. "Sam" converses with Baron Nishi (Tsuyoshi Ihara), gold medal winner in equestrian competition at the 1932 Olympics, after the Baron orders his wounds treated. (A flashback had shown Baron Nishi with American officers and their wives at an elegant gathering before the war.) As Nishi relates to Sam his experiences with Americans, and after he reads a letter from Sam's mother, also poignant, found on Sam following his death, we are reminded not to generalize about atrocities on either side in a war. Some Japanese in the film had thought Americans were savages but discovered we weren't, and this was juxtaposed with the realization of some Japanese that U.S. marines at Iwo Jima were not cowards but had displayed bravery and military skill. There is a scene in which some marines have two captured Japanese POWs on their hands who are expected to hurt the marines' logistics on the mountainous terrain, making the Americans sitting ducks, and the prisoners are therefore executed by one of the soldiers. Is this an attempt at being "politically correct"? I cannot read Eastwood's mind, but one could see it partially as excess in a movie made from the Japanese perspective and partially as an emphasis on the horrors of war and what can result when survival is thought to be at stake.
The Japanese soldier was a tough foe his U.S. counterpart. "Letters" focuses on different perspectives of the willingness to fight to the death in a losing cause. The film suggests some Japanese thought fighting on would add time value to Japan's situation, while others carried on as a point of honor. "Letters" also raises the issue of whether running away in a hopeless situation but being willing to fight on in another area of the battlefield should be seen as cowardice or simply good strategy.
Clint Eastwood directed "Unforgiven," and it won an Oscar as the Best Picture, perhaps on passage-of-time sympathy, for many think it was not Oscar material. (I have not seen "Flags of Our Fathers," so cannot comment on it.) Letters from Iwo Jima is Oscar material, and I hope it wins Best Picture.