Letters From Iwo Jima

'Letters should be sent to every soldier'

When I first started this blog, one of the original reviews was for the widely hyped and yet disappointing Clint Eastwood flick Flags of Our Fathers concerned with the American side of World War II and in particular the bloody battle on the small island known as Iwo Jima. It was known at the time that he had filmed a second movie as a companion piece to that film and Letters from Iwo Jima is it. Except for one difference, it's damn good.

The first film came out and flopped. It fell under its own anti-war anti-media spin self and died in a heap somewhere holding a small miniature flag that is usually reserved for drinks at a martini bar. Letters, instead of going for a very flashy experience, is much better written, better acted, and about ten times as interesting in what it portrays and in what it has to say concerning war. Eastwood is known for discussing what it means to be a hero and this film explores the acts of a hero in much more depth in a manner that is well done. At moments it seems preachy, but it is well executed. When this movie was released in a rush after the flop of Flags of Our Fathers, I was skeptical. When it got nominated for an Oscar, I was pissed because I have honestly never seen a film of Eastwood's that I felt was deserving of the amount of accolades it received. Now, I have to agree. It earned that nomination for Best Picture.

Letters From Iwo Jima was plotted out by Paul Haggis and his apprentice Iris Yamashita with Yamashita actually writing the screenplay. At one point this would have been gleefully welcomed, but after seeing two bleh movies Haggis has worked on, this became the scariest point. The good news is that Yamashita scripts a better structure and screenplay for Clint this time out than Haggis did for Flags. The movie is all in subtitles and does not demote itself to dubbing thankfully. The film is nowhere as flashy as Flags which had a lot of flashbacks and scenes that seemed out of order and jumbled requiring the audience to put the pieces together but often times being unable to do so. Letters still uses flashbacks, except it provides a better context for them such as when a soldier is reading a letter and it drifts back to his memories. Or when they are writing a leter or talking to someone about it. These contexts are essential and provide necessary information about the characters that humanize the japanese side of the war. The other great thing about the script is it goes out of its way to make itself understood by a more modern audience. Japan at the time had a fanatical alliance with the Emperor of Japan hence the popularity of kamikaze bombers and the like. The film's main character is a Japanese baker who is recently married, sent off, and told to die for his country. A man who doesn't really care about the Emperor while surrounded by those that follow blindly. Although there is some anti-government rebellion inherent in this, Yamashita and Eastwood don't emphasize it nearly as much as Flags did and it pays off. Yamashita redirects the story to focus not on questioning government, but more to how to behave ones self in the middle of a hellish battle. All the characters have to balance their senses of honor, skepticism, and humanity in the terrible battle for Iwo Jima. The best way to characterize this idea is the one presented by the Japanese blind captain, "Do what is right because it is the right thing to do." Yamashita balances each character well and by focusing on only a couple of characters and by giving the main one an epic journey over the small island of Iwo Jima, the audience becomes familiar with all of the aspects of that war, including the gruesome scenes of mass suicide by grenade. It is a beautiful and well-made script with great character arcs for actors to enjoy, which they certainly do.

When it comes to acting, the only person in the film most western audiences might recognize is Ken Watanabe whose previous credits include The Last Samurai, Memoirs of a Geisha, and Batman Begins. Watanabe plays the new general in charge of defending the island Iwo Jima from oncoming American forces, but his troops don't trust him because he supposedly went to America and might be a friend of America. Watanabe has always seemed a fairly wooden actor to me with a great smile. I'm sure he'll make a great grandad one day, but he has never grabbed and held my attention. He performs his job well and his character comes to life, but it still seems...distant somehow. He'd make a great wise man character as terrible as that is of me to say. Thankfully, he is not the only main actor in this film. In fact, he is the second most with the first being Kazunari Ninomiya as Saigo. Where the hell has this kid been? He's amazing! Every suggestion for each battle and every line he delivers is great. He goes from being the clutzy screwup soldier that everyone knows will die to a true war hero. Ninomiya's performance is not only eye-catching but it grabs the heart of the audience and forces you to care and empathize with the Japanese and their plight of their own draft. Other actors that fill out the parts include Ryo Kase as Shimizu, Tsuyoshi Ihara as Baron Nishi, and Shido Nakamura as Lieutenant Ito. All of these last three performances are done splendidly, especially Nakamura's character. His character and his journey was a very pleasant surprise that didn't end the way I thought it would and is a great credit to Nakamura and Yamashita and Eastwood. I don't know why, but Eastwood is able to bring out much better acting from these Japanese actors than from English speaking ones.

Now for directing. Well, Clint is up to his old tricks. By graying the living hell out of Iwo Jima the movie becomes about as close as you can get to black and white without actually being black and white, but then gets mixed with flashbacks to better days and events in color that offset the dreary and depressing conditions of the moment. This is all well and good and is not orginal in any way since it was done before on Flags and before that on Saving Private Ryan and Schindler's List. The real interesting moment of the film is the rocks. Yes, the rocks. Supposedly Eastwood came up with the idea for both films and what they would be after visiting Iwo Jima and seeing the kind of hellish conditions the Japanese lived in to fight their enemeies. We are talking about self dug interlocking caverns that could collapse at any second and where dysentery and other fun diseases ran rampant. All of these things are shown in the movie, even the grenade suicide scenes. The lack of daylight once the Americans attack and the feeling of being cramped into a small space from which to stand your ground and fight is accented beautifully and really gets into the mindset of the spectator. Also, I was really impressed with the fighting sequences. I mean, I know its Eastwood and Spielberg, so I shouldn't be too surprised, but there are some really well done and well timed explosion sequences from plane gunfire that brought that scenario to life more than I have ever seen. Maybe it has just been a while. Also, this time out for whatever reason, Eastwood's directing style works significantly better than his last attempt with the actors. The real problem comes in how the film is presented. The film is shown in subtitles giving it an art house feel. The problem is that the subtitles are all white which in a film that is close to black and white, a lot of the subtitles get lost in the cinematagraphy and there are literally whole phrases which I could not read. I know some people don't like subtitles, but this is the first time I have seen a film where I hated the subtitles themselves in how they are presented! The other big problem is sometimes the cinematagraphy is too simple. When a couple of character come out of a cave into a bigger cave, the camera is occassionally only showing the wall behind them which is so simple it becomes slightly boring despite the amazing performances and great action sequences. Now this is only in a couple of shots mind you, but it is still noticeable and will keep this film from garnering any cinematagraphy awards.

Conclusion:
Now for the subtitle I created earlier. I feel this movie might be the most important movie for American soldiers to see. We as a country ask a lot of the soldiers at war, especially considering the conditions. The truth is, that we enjoy criticizing and critiquing their behavior so much that we don't ever think to offer an alternative. Instead of being merely a film concerned with critiquing soldiers and their sometimes inhumane actions, it gives an alternative for soldiers to lead by example. When on a battlefield, no matter how much you hate the other side, when someone gives up or is shot, you try to help them and capture them. The difference between the portrayal of Americans by Japan and what they really are is done quite well. Why is this necessary? Because in a war like in Iraq there needs to be a humanizing of both sides for the people to understand why to act humanely. If we just assume that all Muslims are evil and not to be tolerated, then they will assume the same about Christians. The war in Iraq is not supposed to be a holy war, it is a govermental war in which as soldiers they are expected to put aside their differences of religion and prejudices and act professional. With the fun of Abu Ghraib being one of our sad public misdemeanors, there are many other small injustices going on in Iraq. Now while the Iraqis no longer have a government and we are merely fighting rebels and Al Qaeda operatives, they are still human no matter how much dehumanizing we attribute. Perhaps if we make ourselves seem more human in Iraq and Afghanistan and treat them as a people better and more fairly, then we can call ourselves honorable after this entire torid affair is done. It is sad that I am sure almost none of America and few soldiers will ever see this film simply because it does humanize the enemy and has traces of anti-government propaganda idealism, plus it has a very low box office draw. So if you get the chance, go see this remarkable film with its interesting characters and take a good look at the other side. You'll be surprised to see yourself there.

4.3 out of 5

Wannabe

Flags of Our Fathers

‘Flags of Our Fathers’ Waves Short of Expectations

Clint Eastwood is discussing his favorite topic once again, heroes, or more accurately, the real men behind the façade of the hero. In fact, one could say that Eastwood’s entire life is a character study of the heroic ideal. Flags of Our Fathers seems to be a snug fit in the same direction. So, should Eastwood expect another nomination this year at the Oscar’s? No, he shouldn’t.

Whuh? Huh? What happened? The answer, nothing. Eastwood is a talented actor and, at times, a gifted director. However, he is also the biggest cause of the failure of his movies. Many regarded Mystic River as being way too sentimental and over the top and those thoughts apply directly to his latest feature. The problem is Eastwood’s directing style. Unlike most directors, Eastwood is known for taking entire scenes in a couple of long takes instead of doing a multitude of takes as most directors do. Although this style of directing honors his actor’s abilities and can save a lot of money and time for producers, it also assumes that an actor’s first performance is his finest. In the film, it’s possible to see how well informed and directed the actors are about their character and motivation (cliché right? But still), however film does not lend itself to this style of directing. Most theater directors that believe in this idea can never get it right and in theater the actors have one very long take to build and feel the character as opposed to film where they must hit just the right emotional stance and tone as they may have shot the day before on the first try. What really happens as in the case of Adam Beach’s character, Ira, is that the emotions either feel over the top, too sudden, or forced.

Speaking of Adam Beach, as exaggerated he is in the film, he is probably the most interesting to watch. His dilemma is shown as a major thread throughout the film and a couple of moments are so strong that it lets you down when in the next scene it is obvious that he is struggling just to get through the part. The other two main characters Rene Gagnon and John Bradley, played respectively by Jesse Bradford and Ryan Phillippe, are simply unimpressive. Bradford plays the part he always has, the snide and smug rich boy. Phillippe on the other hand is so stoic and wooden that one wonders why he is even in the film until near the end when you realize his son is narrating everything. Philippe and Bradley have one great scene each showing that they have other skills besides looking, smirking, and patting people on the back. Both of the actors fall prey to the style of little rehearsal to flesh out their characters. The surprising star of the film to me is Barry Pepper as Mike Strank. He is rarely seen and has only a few lines, but in his few lines and actions it is clear who he is and what is doing. He is a true hero who understands what’s at stake and when he dies it’s like watching a gruff old turtle curl into its shell for the last time (Oooo, yea weird analogy, I know). In the end, the cast pulls off an overall mediocre performance which is a feat for such a badly edited film.

Editing is a key feature of films and Eastwood should stay away from the crazy timeline sequences. The first 50 minutes or so are incredibly hard to put together for no reason at all besides the fact that the editor probably felt that non-linear timelines are cool. Leave that to Christopher Nolan and others. Focus on telling a good story that actually spends time on developing characters through action and not narration. The wonky editing, uneven acting styles, ridiculous amount if narration, and several obvious blue screen shots detach the audience from the movie, making Eastwood the best Brechtian director ever. At least the war scenes were an improvement. With guidance from Spielberg, Eastwood uses a similar greyed out technique except he ups the gore and violence to reveal more of what a truly terrible experience Iwo Jima truly was to everyone, Japanese and American alike.

Besides the aforementioned problems, it still leaves me wondering why this movie was panned so much more than Mystic River. The honest truth is that I believe it is a death warrant in the timing of the piece. The film is obviously anti-government war but yay soldiers and it appears directly before the elections for Congress. America is stuck in Iraq with no clear answer in sight and watching fantasy films en masse probably in attempt to find their own hero. Their sense of justice personified in some figure, in some idealic form. What Eastwood releases is a movie whose entire point is that most heroes are not heroes at all and don’t like being thought of as such. They are usually just lucky whereas the real heroes are rarely remembered or honored. There you are America! There are the heroic soldiers lying in the dirt, nameless and forgotten! Aren’t you proud of your hero seeking antics? The timing of the film might have been to try and get voters to stop the war in Iraq at the voting polls, but it feels more like a slap in the face to a general audience of Americans who already feel depressed by world events.

Conclusion:

If you get a chance watch it. Don’t break your back over it, but go, watch, and discuss because if nothing else you will want to discuss this movie and it’s heavily emphasized point. The acting has a few gems jutting out over a rough terrain and the war scenes are truly horrific and mesmerizing. Also, the interviews with the war veterans are an interesting addition, even if they do feel tacked on. Besides, Eastwood clearly shows a sympathy in the film for the Japanese which will help him when he releases his follow up film Letters from Iwo Jima from the Japanese perspective. It will be interesting to see how the two films overlap. 2.5 out of 5

Wannabe