free counter with statistics Letters from Iwo Jima | Scathing Reviews for Bitchy People

letters.jpg

All Quiet on the Pacific Front

Letters from Iwo Jima / John Williams

Film Reviews | January 17, 2007 | Comments (26)


“Do not expect to return home alive.”

This line rings out in the middle of Letters from Iwo Jima as a summation of both the movie’s plot and its assaultive effect on an audience. It’s spoken by General Kuribayashi (played brilliantly by Ken Watanabe), who was charged with leading the doomed Japanese resistance against U.S. Marines at the titular island. At that point in World War II, early in 1945, with many of its forces — including all air support — tied up, Japan’s only hope at Iwo Jima was to delay the American advance. Even for a military culture steeped in unthinking self-sacrifice, it was an unusually clear case of a suicide mission.

Featuring a Japanese cast (and almost entirely in that language), Letters from Iwo Jima is most notable for the way it upends the typical American treatment of the war. Even a movie like Saving Private Ryan, for all its praised verisimilitude, was still essentially about our triumph, however sad and costly. And that is, without doubt, part of the story. But here, director Clint Eastwood bravely, and with incredible sensitivity, tells the other side.

Being of the opinion that Mystic River and Million Dollar Baby, also directed by Eastwood, were two of the most overrated movies of recent years, I approached Iwo Jima with trepidation, despite the advance raves.

It starts with a very brief current-day scene before flashing back; not nearly as egregious as the leap-in-time gimmick that opens, say, Titanic, but, in my experience, normally a bad sign. Once back in the ’40s, we meet Kuribayashi, a polished, aristocratic type who once briefly lived in America, as he lands at Iwo Jima and, despite the hot weather, immediately surveys the eight-square-mile island on foot. He knows he’s in for a struggle, but he’s yet to learn just how futile his assignment is, and he clearly thrives on challenges. He is polite, has great posture, and is ready to dig his heels in until death. Think Barack Obama with more than a dash of Patton.

The movie’s other primary character is a common soldier named Saigo (Kazunari Ninomiya), a very young baker who leaves a pregnant wife at home when called on to fight. He lacks the fevered patriotism of his fellow soldiers, and his apathy earns him a lashing or two from his superiors. He knows his side can’t win, and he’d rather return home than live up to his country’s chilling code of conduct.

The opening scenes, in which we get to know the people preparing to defend the island, drag a bit, not least because there’s no sense of ultimate drama. We know what’s coming. But when the American forces do arrive, the movie shifts into another gear. The first scene of surprise aerial bombardment is a mini-masterpiece in itself, a visually poetic series of concussive explosions that makes it perfectly clear what kind of mismatch is at hand.

Because the battle (and the movie) from there is less about open engagement than the entrenched futility of the defense effort, and because much of it takes place underground in intricate tunnels dreamed up by Kuribayashi, things become increasingly and excruciatingly claustrophobic. Shot in not-quite black and white, everything appears to be a shade of gray or brown, and the cinematography is flawless throughout. But no amount of beautiful technique can change what we’re watching, which is the rapid transformation of a volcanic island into a charnel house. It’s difficult to imagine a work of art as simultaneously easy to marvel at and as difficult to enjoy as this one.

The Axis forces had no misconceptions about their odds for survival. Instead, each man was simply counseled to try to kill at least 10 American troops before falling himself. Of the 22,000 Japanese soldiers there, barely more than a thousand survived. It didn’t help that surrender was not an option. Eastwood doesn’t recoil from the brutal (and, to Westerners, crazy) ethos of abnegation that runs through the Japanese army. One moment, deep in the tunnels, is as harrowing as anything I’ve ever seen. Given word that the area they were sworn to defend, Mount Suribachi, is all but lost, a group of troops is told they must die with honor rather than retreating to another part of the island. One by one, they begin unpinning their grenades and clutching them to their chests, the cave soon looking like a Francis Bacon canvas.

Given the surpassingly grim nature of scenes like that one, Eastwood has to provide some kind of emotional investment to pull us through the wreckage, and he does this by making us care about Saigo and Kuribayashi. Thank God he does, and both actors deserve whatever praise they get. But even though the movie is based on a true story involving the retrieval of Kuribayashi’s personal letters, the emphasis on these two is, ironically, the one element that rings false. Without giving away anyone’s ultimate fate, there are times when the main characters cross paths in a way that feels too manufactured when contrasted with the merciless, nameless nature of the carnage around them. They maneuver around that carnage, in part, because Eastwood needs them to, but he’s already shown us that war doesn’t work that way. Authors and filmmakers play shepherd to their characters, a service sorely lacking for real-life soldiers. For nearly all of Letters from Iwo Jima, this truth is made plainly, painfully clear. You leave the theater feeling shell-shocked and messy, and that’s the point.

John Williams lives in Brooklyn. He’s an editor at Harper Perennial and a freelance writer. He blogs at A Special Way of Being Afraid.


Pajiba Love 01/17/07 | Notes on a Scandal



Comments

The best movie ever made about Japan during World War II is Grave of the Fireflies. Nothing beats it.

Posted by: Tim at December 25, 2006 5:29 PM

I realize WWII was huge. Both in scope and in historical significance. May there never be a sequel. My grandfather flew bombers over North Africa for the US.

But.....and I say this with trepidation, because it seems as if this is the kind of thing that might make Baby Jesus cry....I am so damn sick and tired of WWII movies. Is this about the most overdone subgenre of film EVER?

Don't mind me. I'm married to a man who watches nothing but WWII documentaries on TV. And WWII movies. It tends to wear on a person after a while.

He'll probably be seeing this by himself. It could be the best movie ever made and I'd still be hesitant, just because of the subject matter. I think Saving Private Ryan was the last one I could stomach.

Posted by: Kathy at December 25, 2006 6:00 PM

Kathy the answer is very simple. WWII was the last popular war.

Posted by: Uncle JR at December 25, 2006 10:30 PM

So, um...I'm no history buff or anything, but...who wins?

I kinda liked The Cold War...and the current one seems to be fairly marketable, if not readily adaptible to film (no disrespect, Fitty).
http://www.pajiba.com/home-of-the-brave.htm

Posted by: Double-good Yeah Uh-huh Alright at December 25, 2006 11:30 PM

WWII is marketable because it was the last war that could be defined as good versus bad. Nazis are bad! Americans (or so the American cinema has us believe...that we were the only ones fighting the war) is good!

It's good to see the perspective switched up once in a while, I'll definitley have to give this movie a try.

Posted by: Alex at December 26, 2006 3:45 AM

"ethos of abnegation"

Well said.

Posted by: Duane at December 26, 2006 9:12 AM

If you are interested in seeing a WWII movie not told from the America perspective I suggest Sam Peckinpah's "Cross of Iron." A hellish movie about the collapsing German lines against the Russians. The heores (I guess protagonist would be a better term) are a unit of German soldiers led by James Coburn.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0074695/

Posted by: Brian at December 26, 2006 10:02 AM

Grave of the Fireflies was incredible. An absolutely devastating film and probably the most effective anti-war commentary I've ever seen. I've shown it to alot of people and they all made the same mistake I did, dismissing it as garbage at first because it was anime (of which i am not a fan) but then as they sit through it...well, just watch it. You'll never forget it.

Posted by: the-ian at December 27, 2006 4:48 PM

I agree that "Grave of the Fireflies" is sad, but Japan has a bad history of victimizing themselves and not facing the responsibility of their actions. Hell, even Godzilla was an anti-war film over fears of nuclear arms.

One day, I'm going to make a Western genre flick with parables to the Rape of Nanking, or maybe a Horror film over how the Japanese turned cannibalistic in the war. I'll call it, A Melody for Sanjay. It'll sweep the Oscars, you'll ee!

Posted by: I Am Never Wrong at December 28, 2006 7:26 PM

Hmmm....Japan invade China; butchered millions, beheaded POW's or used them like lab rats in concentration camps. Where is the majesty or nobility in that ?

Posted by: Chuck at December 29, 2006 10:47 AM

I saw Mystic River; didn't like it, and I won't see Million Dollar Baby, because I've already seen a movie about a horse, and they didn't put him down at the end.

But I am interested in seeing this movie. I like WWII movies and I like Ken Watanabe.

Posted by: rebel mama at December 29, 2006 12:28 PM

Cummender Chuck said:

"Hmmm....Japan invade China; butchered millions, beheaded POW's or used them like lab rats in concentration camps. Where is the majesty or nobility in that ?".

Indeed.
But while you're casting your baleful Santorum-smeared eye of Sauron on Japan,
do not let your vast view omit the acts of the U.S. o' A...
who, after all, dumbed ze fuckin' nukes.

Posted by: HairlessMonkeyDK at January 2, 2007 12:46 PM

Sorry but only idiots consider the nuclear weapons a bad thing. The firebombing of Japanese cities (and german cities) far outranks the nuclear weapons. Also the positive effects of the firebombings are far outstripped by the positive effects of the 2 nuclear bombs (google 'Operation Olympus' if you have no clue about history to know what I am talking about). Only reason why the after effects of the nuke on survivors was so documented was because unlike the firebombing, there were actually survivors to document.

I embrace any film that tells the other side. Believe it or not most of the time it was the leaders that painted the troops in a bad light. The soldiers just follow orders.

Posted by: Spenz at January 6, 2007 3:24 AM

The story is very daring for an American director to show the Japanese side. It was very sympathetically done and from the perspective of a Japanese American, I thought it was refreshing. I'm glad that they brought the war down to an individual level for once. When I hear about any war it's really mind blowing how quickly we lump thousands of people into 1 mentality, 1 personality, 1 whatever. I guess it is easier that way.

As for Japanese atrocities like Nanking, I agree that Japanese people ought to know more about it. But I also believe everyone should know about it and all other atrocities that always happen in war. It is surprising how little people are willing to see. Sadly, the same kind of practice is true I believe of what is happening in Iraq. If you are curious, I recommend taking a peak at what war looks like in Iraq. www.thenausea.com is a biased (anti war slant) site but you can judge the pictures yourself.

Posted by: Orangewarp at January 7, 2007 2:14 AM

Oh dear...it looks like I'm going to have to see this.

Here I was leading the charge for NO MOVIES ABOUT WWII FOR FIVE YEARS. Same old situations, same old lessons, same old Greatest Generation. Not only is WWII apparently the single most important event ever in the history of mankind, it is the ONLY historical event (barring the advent of Jah-hee-sus). At least, it's the only event we're allowed to make movies about with any frequency.

Let's give it a rest, and come back to it with fresh eyes and a fresh brain. At least take time to find someone with the guts to make films about the less popular aspects: the Dieppe "raid", the slaughter of German POWs, profiteering and draft dodging, the Finnish campaign, Japanese experiments, etc.

But really, I'm not bothered if I never see another war film. The best film ever about World War II still is Bridge on the River Kwai. Once you've seen this film, you know all you need to know.

Posted by: Janis at January 10, 2007 3:41 AM

There was a film made in japan called The Emperor's Naked Army Marches On that was, I belive, about the circumstances that led to cannabalism etc. in New Guineau. Never got a chance to see it.
The losing side is going to be stuck with their atrocities, the winners can always rise above theirs. For example -
We've just seen Saddam hanged for what was the least of his crimes; but which happened to be the only one of his massacres where the evidence wouldn't implicate the US and UK. Now, there won't be another trial. Winners' justice.

Posted by: George at January 15, 2007 1:44 AM

Another great cinematic perspective of "the other side" is STALINGRAD. Having lost family members on just about every front and side during WWII, I enjoy the films that show all the grey areas in between good/evil, with good guys and bad on both sides.
I think I'd trust this film more had it been made by a Japanese diector, though...

Posted by: cinekat at January 18, 2007 10:52 AM

Hairless Monkey -

your name should be Dumbless Monkey, i wouldn't be surprised if your zip code reads somewhere in San Francisco (and you know bupkis about history) to make such an asinine comment. you're an ignorant dumbshit, so go study history and stay out of discussions where you're in over your head.

Brian hit the nail on the head - Sam Peckinpah's "Cross of Iron" is one of the best war films ever made. Orson Welles called it "the best anti-war film ever made".

if that is true then a close runner up would have to be Wolfgang Peterson's incomparable "Das Boot".

Posted by: boarwild at January 21, 2007 3:59 AM

Haggis gets a pass, then?

Posted by: alexis at January 29, 2007 1:24 PM

Besides "Cross of Iron" and "Das Boot", which were excellent, look into "Stalingrad" a German made film about the battle itself, which to this day i find to be the most horrific and real war film.

Also the German film about Hitler in his last days, "Downfall" which is great to see the pathetic last days of Nazi Germany.

Posted by: Tom at February 7, 2007 8:32 PM

If you want an antiwar satire, go rent "How I Won the War" directed by Richard Lester. Very funny.

Posted by: David at February 10, 2007 4:40 PM

"Hairless Monkey -

your name should be Dumbless Monkey, i wouldn't be surprised if your zip code reads somewhere in San Francisco (and you know bupkis about history) to make such an asinine comment. you're an ignorant dumbshit, so go study history and stay out of discussions where you're in over your head.

Brian hit the nail on the head - Sam Peckinpah's "Cross of Iron" is one of the best war films ever made. Orson Welles called it "the best anti-war film ever made".

if that is true then a close runner up would have to be Wolfgang Peterson's incomparable "Das Boot".
"


I rest my case.
The sbove response is so perfect that no parody could equal it.
I especially like how he knee-jerk-reflexicly
GPS-pinpoints me to SanFran.
Ya know, since I live in Denmark.

Posted by: HairlessMonkeyDK at February 28, 2007 8:32 PM

it is time to see what we havent seen,another perspective.i grew up with one opinion of war, the one given to me by american telivision,and history books.since getting older i tend to question more and more the accepted version of events as told to us by our allied brothers in arms.this film looks wonderful,and clint eastwood is an astute pupil of time.he will do this movie justice i think.grave of the fireflies i also found moving.good subject matter in a cartoon,with out the laughs.

Posted by: eric at May 24, 2007 5:19 AM

I had Departed as my choice pick for last year....till I seen this. I love any war movies(Apocalypse Now, Full Metal jacket, Platoon, Ryan, Black Hawk, including the medieval ones like Spartacus and Braveheart, so this does good in my book.

Posted by: klypz at June 12, 2007 3:00 PM

K.....we all know many Japanese were involved in brutal and horrific war crimes like the Germans, but need we forget that Americans, Russians and many many other soldiers from many different backgrounds would also part take in haneous acts in the heat of war. Need we forget American history and the blood it was built upon? War brings out the worst in everone and WWII was the worst one ever, so lets hope we don't see a trilogy anytime soon. The soldiers are the victims thrown into the war....they don't want to be there and most of the time they don't even know what they are really fighhting for....the real monsters are the ones that dress up all nice in suits and ties who make fancy speeches from thousands of miles away and who are eventually portrayed as the heroes. Stalin...Churchill...Roosevelt...they all had the same idea.

Posted by: Klypz at June 12, 2007 3:15 PM

Some comments here are just and some are just ridiculous, but everyone has their freedom of opinion. Mine is that this was a great movie, about a tragic war which should always be remembered but never ever again repeated at any costs. I also beleive EVERY iota of truth should be on display if your gonna make a nations "side" of the story. Sure we see the patriotic, the and honorable, but what about the brutal savagery and carnage which is not glorified like the rape of Nanjiing or the brutality of area 731? Lets just say that if I were Chinese in 1945, I would have had a huge grin on my face after Hiroshima and Nagasaki,,,,much like the one the Jews had after Russian and American troops pushed into Berlin. Speaking of which, lets not forget all the innocent girls and women the Russians raped driving back the nazis. How bout the Americans acts of ruthlessness in Nam. It just goes on and on. Putting it simnply.....war sucks, and no one is ever truly better for it o matter how just the cause.

Posted by: lafungu at June 12, 2007 4:15 PM