Saturday, June 02, 2007

Letters From Iwo Jima


Clint Eastwood’s FLAGS OF OUR FATHERS, a film about the lives of the men who raised the flag on Iwo Jima, lived on the island and crawled whenever it shifted its focus from the fighting there. In LETTERS FROM IWO JIMA, Eastwood’s companion piece, the director wisely restricts the action to Iwo Jima itself, with limited flashbacks to other locales. By choosing to dedicate his efforts to making a classically structured war film, Eastwood not only bested his previous effort.  He made a classic war film.

LETTERS FROM IWO JIMA tells the story of the Battle of Iwo Jima from the perspective of the Japanese. This brilliant choice provides the opportunity to get into the minds of a group that, frankly, I’d never much considered. Who were these fanatical defenders of a lost cause? What made them tick? LETTERS gives us two proxies, General Kuribayashi and Private Saigo, to give us different perspectives on the experience, and the conceit could have killed the movie had Eastwood chosen the wrong performers. Fortunately, he chose Ken Watanabe and Kazunari Ninomiya, and both of them do extraordinarily well.

Watanabe, who first drew international attention as the only good thing about the ghastly THE LAST SAMURAI, infuses General Kuribayashi with the wisdom, courage, brilliance, and leadership ability of an absolutely first class general officer. Watanabe bears comparison to Mifune with his commanding screen presence and instant likeability, and he even manages to bring dignity to a painfully awkward scene that’s meant to illustrate the transnational brotherhood of officers, but really illustrates the screenwriter’s lack of faith in his audience’s ability to infer that lesson from other material present in the story.

Ninomiya could best be described as the Japanese Nick Cannon. He looks a bit like Cannon, he moves like Cannon, and he carries the same easy likeability as Cannon. As the hapless Private Saigo, he’s nearly the opposite of General Kuribayashi, and his character has his own window on the confusion, violence, and fear of the battle. While Kuribayashi is honor-bound in the face of defeat, Saigo seriously considers desertion. While Kuribayashi is a fearsome warrior and noble leader, Saigo can’t hit a thing and complains like a, well, like a soldier. We may want to be like Kuribayashi, but we’re probably more like Saigo, and Saigo’s performance both humanizes his condition and makes us identify with him.

This film has more going for it than just its performances, however fine those performances may be. Eastwood’s command of filmmaking ensures that we never lose sight of who is doing what to whom and where, a mightily difficult task in the world of war films. Like SAVING PRIVATE RYAN, to which this film has been compared, LETTERS makes us feel the immediacy, the randomness, the virtual inescapability of death in combat. Unlike RYAN, it also has a compelling story with believable characters and situations that help us understand what it was like to fight on Iwo Jima, regardless of uniform.

I plan to fly to Iwo Jima this week, and I was unhappy with FLAGS OF OUR FATHERS because it didn’t give me enough insight into the battle that raged there over the course of February and March, 1945. LETTERS FROM IWO JIMA did that for me, and it did it while giving me characters and situations both foreign and familiar. This movie makes Iwo Jima come alive, and I can’t recommend it highly enough.

2 comments:

Anonymous said...

>>I was unhappy with FLAGS OF OUR FATHERS because it didn’t give me enough insight into the battle that raged there over the course of February and March, 1945.

Yeah, but that wasn't the point was it. Flags was about the three survivors who raised the stars & stripes at Iwo Jima & their feelings of alienation & distress at being called heroes. Flags so clearly wasn't about the strategy of the actual battle that it strikes me as mildly perverse to come away even complaining about such a thing. You have to look at the movie Eastwood actually made & not the one you wanted to see! Do that & Flags plays much better. In fact seen back to back with Letters I think it's remarkable just how cohesive the two movies are - one about the battlefield, one about the postwar.

Unknown said...

You're right about criticizing the movie I saw instead of the movie I wanted to see. The problem is, the movie I saw failed to entertain me. It felt like a grind, while LETTERS did not.