Flags of Our Fathers
Clint Eastwood is a national treasure. At seventy-five years old, the veteran actor and director just keeps churning out incredible films. Whereas he thrilled audiences with numerous memorable character roles such as Harry Callahan the infamous man with no name in Sergio Leone's spaghetti western trilogy, Clint Eastwood is one of the quintessential tough guy actors and perhaps the stereotypical image of a cinematic gunslinger. Though he has been directing films since 1971's "Play Misty For Me," Eastwood did not get the credit he deserved as a filmmaker until 1991's stunning revenge western, "Unforgiven." He has gotten numerous accolades since "Unforgiven" for films such as "Mystic River" and picked up a second Best Director Oscar for "Million Dollar Baby." In the year 2006, Eastwood signed on with Steven Spielberg for an unprecedented project – filming both sides of the Iwo Jima conflict concurrently and releasing them within a few months of each other. With the praise and support of the Japanese people and the permission to film on the island of Iwo Jima, Eastwood continues to be nothing short than amazing as both films were nominated for Academy Awards in various categories, including Best Picture and Best Director.
I grew up on military and war films. My father retired from the Air Force after twenty nine years with the rank of Master Sergeant. He takes his military history and films that portray any conflict or branch of the service with a keen and critical eye. Despite being raised in an Air Force family, I joined the United States Army and served in the Infantry during the first Gulf War conflict. As an example of my love for military history, one of my prized possessions is a World War II vintage M1 Garand rifle, complete with a 1942 bayonet. Needless to say, there was quite fervor upon hearing the news that Eastwood was going to film two pictures detailing the historic conflict that occurred on the Japanese island of Iwo Jima and give the perspective from both sides of the conflict. The only other time that a major Hollywood production attempted something like this was the 1970 film "Tora! Tora! Tora!," and though that is a remarkable film for its period, it does not delve into any great depth due to its relatively short running time of 144 minutes. By dedicating two distinct films to the conflict, Eastwood promised perhaps the most comprehensive film of any World War II battle ever to be delivered to the big screen.
"Flags of Our Fathers" was completed and released first and featured the American perspective on the battle for Iwo Jima. The film primarily deals with the three surviving men who hoisted the flag for the infamous photograph, immortalized in Washington, D.C., as the National Marine Memorial. "Flags of Our Fathers" looks at their involvement in the actual conflict trying to take Iwo Jima and its strategic airfield and their struggles in fighting a financial war across the United States in raising war bonds to help finance the final stages of World War II. Six men raised that second flag that was captured in the photograph, but only three men survived. Not all of the men enjoyed touring the country and not being involved in the final stages of conflict in bringing Japan to its knees and the event was not without controversy. Firstly, the flag was not the initial flag raised on Suribachi. It was the second. Secondly, one of the men that died and was said to have been in the photograph was part of the first flag raising and not one of the men that appeared in the famous photo.
John "Doc" Bradley (Ryan Phillippe), Rene Gagnon (Jesse Bradford) and American Indian Ira Hayes (Adam Beach) were the three soldiers who survived the month-long conflict on the small Japanese volcanic island. They were promptly given a free pass home and thrust into an effort to raise billions and billions of dollars from the American taxpayers and corporations to fund the building of tanks, plans and ammunition. Gagnon and Bradley were more accepting of their roles as financial cows for the military, though Bradley was tormented by his memories of what happened on the island. Hayes suffered from alcoholism and felt himself to be a disgrace and desperately wanted to be back with his Marine compatriots and fighting the war and not trying to raise money. Hayes was haunted by the loss of his friend and fellow flag raiser Mike Strank (Barry Pepper) and truly did not view himself as a hero, but idolized Strank and thought of him as such. Franklin Sousley (Joseph Cross) lost his life as well before the end of the conflict. Hank Hanson (Paul Walker) was claimed to have been one of the six, but, in fact, he was not. The actual sixth man was Harlon Block (Benjamin Walker), and Block's mother could recognize her son from a shot of his posterior and knew immediately it was really her son in the photograph.
Clint Eastwood's film spends more time during the War Bond drive than it does on the volcanic beaches of Iwo Jima and slopes of Mount Suribachi. The three actors portraying Bradley, Gagnon and Hayes all do justice to their characters. Most impressive was Adam Beach as Ira "Chief" Hayes. In Beach's performance, you can see the torment and pain of a man who is lost in alcohol and cannot even remotely accept being called a hero in light of those that died and the unspeakable things he did and witnessed on Iwo Jima. Beach's speech given when his character is told he is no longer part of the War Bond drive was done perfectly. Jesse Bradford portrays Gagnon as a man who enjoyed the spotlight a bit too much and came across like a slimy used car salesman. If Gagnon was truly like this, then Bradford nailed it. Hayes and Gagnon did not get along and Ryan Phillippe is given the task of bringing peacemaker Doc Bradley to life. Bradley was asked to postpone needed surgery to complete the war bond drive and he is the most level-headed and aware of the three, though he is tormented by the combat he was a part of. I've never been much of a Ryan Phillippe fan, but in "Flags of Our Fathers," he earned some of my respect.
As the three principal actors and Eastwood bring about the trials and tribulations of dealing with ghosts of a conflict and the public eye, "Flags of Our Fathers" takes on a feel that is unlike most other war films. The film rides the fence as to taking an antiwar stance or a pro-war stance as it shows the horrible effects that war can have on men and how veterans can move from neo-celebrity status to being easily forgotten quite quickly. The fall of Ira Hayes is especially disheartening. The three men were more of a sideshow than they were a display of the humanity and effects of war. They are put on display and their story is distorted to have them appear to be larger than life. The uncomfortable and demeaning existence they are forced into is perfectly captured by Eastwood during the mock flag raising at Soldier Field. Each of the three actors bring about a different feel to a combat veteran, and with Eastwood guiding them, "Flags of Our Fathers" shows the unfortunate situation the surviving flag raisers of the historic photograph had befall them.
The film is not without its combat sequences. With Steven Spielberg serving as producer, the influence of "Saving Private Ryan" is certainly felt. The beach storming sequence is not initially as graphic or as hectic as Spielberg's landmark film, but the cinematography and aura of the event echoes that of the older film. In "Flags of Our Fathers," Eastwood does not shy away from blood and guts. They are prevalent. The combat is hectic and the viewer is placed in the center of the action. Gunshots fly in all directions, and as was the case with "Saving Private Ryan," the viewer is certainly given the notion of being placed in the center of the battle. War is hell and ever since that was first driven home by Spielberg, filmmakers have taken note and are no longer afraid to water down how violent and ugly battles truly are. No longer is John Wayne shot and he simply falls to his death. Instead, actors are blown to bits in violent and horrendous visions of death. Eastwood learned from working with Spielberg, and though I am admittedly tiring of "Saving Private Ryan" clones, "Flags of Our Fathers" is done well.
This is a brilliant film, and our national treasure, Mr. Eastwood, has done an amazing job delivering one of the absolute best war films ever made. War is not just about the blood that is spilled, the men that are lost, the metal that is disintegrated and the land that is conquered. It is about the men that served in the conflict and the effects that seeing the blood, destruction and death of a battle have on a man. The time that is spent on the ashen and rocky beaches of Iwo Jima does justice to the general feel of conflict on the island from the American perspective, though the adjoining "Letters from Iwo Jima" was certainly the better film in regards to showing the conflict. The battles scenes are not necessarily easy to stomach and many will object to the considerable amount of time spent by Eastwood on the War Bond drive. By devoting precious screen time to this aspect of war, Eastwood has entered near virgin territory in a war film. I'm sure the vast majority of the American public is familiar with the photograph from Iwo Jima, but I bet most know nothing about the men and the story behind about it. Clint Eastwood felt it was time to educate us and he did an incredible job.
Letters from Iwo Jima
As Dean says, director Clint Eastwood made "Flags of Our Fathers" and "Letters from Iwo Jima" back to back in 2006 to present both the American and Japanese sides of the World War II battle of Iwo Jima. Of the two movies, I enjoyed "Letters" most. While "Flags" had some harrowing action sequences and all the good things Dean mentioned above, I thought thereafter it tended to dilute its story with too many characters and then to bog down in political rhetoric. On the other hand, I found "Letters," which also contains much the same action, a more focused, more reflective, and more affecting film.
When the movie opened theatrically, I read several criticisms from viewers who felt "Letters" was too understanding of the Japanese, giving America's enemy during the War too much credit, in essence, for being human beings like anybody else. After all, the propaganda in every war tries to persuade each party that their side is right, that God is with them, that the enemy is evil incarnate. During World War II, for instance, the Japanese and the Germans were to Americans the most loathsome, wicked people on Earth, and the Russians were our allies. Yet after the War, the Japanese and the Germans were suddenly our friends and allies, and the Russians were the new enemies. Go figure.
The book and movie that "Letters" most resembles is Erich Maria Remarque's "All Quiet on the Western Front," a story of World War I combat told from the point of view of a young German soldier. When as a child I first saw the 1930 movie version of "All Quiet" in re-release, it astounded me. I couldn't believe that the "bad" guys could be anything like us. As with "All Quiet," Eastwood's "Letters" is an eye-opener, a reminder that no matter how misguided a country's leaders may be, the common folk, the foot soldiers, are always just that--common folk--with the same hearts and minds and longings and human feelings as everyone else in the world.
Iwo Jima is one of the Volcano Islands south of Japan, a barren, rocky place with a mountain at one end, no drinking water, and hardly any vegetation. Nevertheless, by the end of the War in early 1945, it was a strategic point for both the Americans and the Japanese. The Americans wanted to seize control of the island to use as an air base for strikes against mainland Japan. The Japanese needed to maintain control of the island because they didn't want the Americans to have a convenient launching place for their airplanes and because it was a matter of national pride--Iwo Jima was the only place the Japanese had controlled before the War that the Americans had not yet seized.
It looked to be an easy victory for the American forces, as the Americans greatly outnumbered the Japanese. What the Americans didn't count on was the determination of the Japanese soldiers and the brilliant tactics of their real-life commanding officer, General Tadamichi Kuribayashi (Ken Watanabe). What should have been a one or two-day cakewalk turned into a forty-day ordeal that turned out to be the single bloodiest battle of WWII.
Make no mistake, this is Watanabe's movie all the way, with good secondary support from Kazunari Ninomiya as Saigo, a young soldier. The movie concentrates on these two men for their differences and, perhaps surprisingly, for their similarities. Kuribayashi is a distinguished officer, a much-decorated war veteran; Saigo is a lowly private who was a baker before being drafted. Yet both men long for their wives and families back home, and both men are decent fellows at heart.
General Kuribayashi does his best in what he sees as an impossible situation. His plan is to dig in, literally, and fight. No beach defenses, just underground fortifications. The General has his men excavate a series of caves in the mountain in order to defend the high ground. Kuribayashi also knows they will get no reinforcements, no support from sea or air. They are completely isolated and must fend for themselves. And defend they will do, to the last man. "Not one of you is allowed to die until you have killed ten enemy soldiers," the General tells his men. "Do not expect to return from here alive." Kuribayashi realized the hopelessness of the situation and gave his men only one directive: To fight for their country and die honorably.
The actual landing of the Americans and the struggle for the island does not begin until about halfway through the film, and then the violence becomes intense. Eastwood pulls no punches in his depiction of the savagery of war, much of the action reminding us of "Saving Private Ryan," which is no doubt in part because of co-producer Steven Spielberg's influence. I think I read somewhere that Spielberg himself offered the script to Eastwood because he had already done something so similar. Anyway, the battles are realistically severe in the extreme.
The movie does not take sides, but it does not portray the Japanese as the cruel and vicious opponent that many people insist they were. Screenwriters Iris Yamashita and Paul Haggis based the story on letters from the Japanese that reveal the soldiers as all too human. Whether you agree with Eastwood's approach or not is beside the point; the filmmakers did their best to be as accurate as possible in their depiction of the battle and the attitudes of the men who fought it. On both sides we see men acting as savages, true, but mostly we see men who would rather be home in bed.
"Letters from Iwo Jima" is a sad, lonely, melancholic film, for all its brutal action and bloodshed, with moments of sheer poetry and others of heartbreaking grief. Yet never does Eastwood sentimentalize the situation, nor does the simple, haunting soundtrack music by Kyle Eastwood and Michael Stevens ever glamorize the story.
The film's only flaw is that at 140 minutes, it's too long, rather wearing out its welcome at the two-hour mark. Also, Eastwood uses the same gimmick Mel Gibson used in his last two films, that of having his actors speak in their native tongue. So the characters in "Letters" speak Japanese, and anyone who doesn't understand it reads subtitles. I have to admit that I'm a fairly fast reader, but I had some trouble keeping up with the English subtitles that flashed quickly on and off on the screen. Thank heaven for the "Back" and "Pause" buttons on the remote.
Minor concerns aside, "Letters from Iwo Jima" is a fine example of modern filmmaking, and Watanabe deserved another Oscar nomination, which didn't come. But the Academy nominated the picture for four other Oscars--Best Picture, Best Director, Best Writing, and winning for Best Sound Editing.
Clint Eastwood is a national treasure. At seventy-five years old, the veteran actor and director just keeps churning out incredible films. Whereas he thrilled audiences with numerous memorable character roles such as Harry Callahan the infamous man with no name in Sergio Leone's spaghetti western trilogy, Clint Eastwood is one of the quintessential tough guy actors and perhaps the stereotypical image of a cinematic gunslinger. Though he has been directing films since 1971's "Play Misty For Me," Eastwood did not get the credit he deserved as a filmmaker until 1991's stunning revenge western, "Unforgiven." He has gotten numerous accolades since "Unforgiven" for films such as "Mystic River" and picked up a second Best Director Oscar for "Million Dollar Baby." In the year 2006, Eastwood signed on with Steven Spielberg for an unprecedented project – filming both sides of the Iwo Jima conflict concurrently and releasing them within a few months of each other. With the praise and support of the Japanese people and the permission to film on the island of Iwo Jima, Eastwood continues to be nothing short than amazing as both films were nominated for Academy Awards in various categories, including Best Picture and Best Director.
I grew up on military and war films. My father retired from the Air Force after twenty nine years with the rank of Master Sergeant. He takes his military history and films that portray any conflict or branch of the service with a keen and critical eye. Despite being raised in an Air Force family, I joined the United States Army and served in the Infantry during the first Gulf War conflict. As an example of my love for military history, one of my prized possessions is a World War II vintage M1 Garand rifle, complete with a 1942 bayonet. Needless to say, there was quite fervor upon hearing the news that Eastwood was going to film two pictures detailing the historic conflict that occurred on the Japanese island of Iwo Jima and give the perspective from both sides of the conflict. The only other time that a major Hollywood production attempted something like this was the 1970 film "Tora! Tora! Tora!," and though that is a remarkable film for its period, it does not delve into any great depth due to its relatively short running time of 144 minutes. By dedicating two distinct films to the conflict, Eastwood promised perhaps the most comprehensive film of any World War II battle ever to be delivered to the big screen.
"Flags of Our Fathers" was completed and released first and featured the American perspective on the battle for Iwo Jima. The film primarily deals with the three surviving men who hoisted the flag for the infamous photograph, immortalized in Washington, D.C., as the National Marine Memorial. "Flags of Our Fathers" looks at their involvement in the actual conflict trying to take Iwo Jima and its strategic airfield and their struggles in fighting a financial war across the United States in raising war bonds to help finance the final stages of World War II. Six men raised that second flag that was captured in the photograph, but only three men survived. Not all of the men enjoyed touring the country and not being involved in the final stages of conflict in bringing Japan to its knees and the event was not without controversy. Firstly, the flag was not the initial flag raised on Suribachi. It was the second. Secondly, one of the men that died and was said to have been in the photograph was part of the first flag raising and not one of the men that appeared in the famous photo.
John "Doc" Bradley (Ryan Phillippe), Rene Gagnon (Jesse Bradford) and American Indian Ira Hayes (Adam Beach) were the three soldiers who survived the month-long conflict on the small Japanese volcanic island. They were promptly given a free pass home and thrust into an effort to raise billions and billions of dollars from the American taxpayers and corporations to fund the building of tanks, plans and ammunition. Gagnon and Bradley were more accepting of their roles as financial cows for the military, though Bradley was tormented by his memories of what happened on the island. Hayes suffered from alcoholism and felt himself to be a disgrace and desperately wanted to be back with his Marine compatriots and fighting the war and not trying to raise money. Hayes was haunted by the loss of his friend and fellow flag raiser Mike Strank (Barry Pepper) and truly did not view himself as a hero, but idolized Strank and thought of him as such. Franklin Sousley (Joseph Cross) lost his life as well before the end of the conflict. Hank Hanson (Paul Walker) was claimed to have been one of the six, but, in fact, he was not. The actual sixth man was Harlon Block (Benjamin Walker), and Block's mother could recognize her son from a shot of his posterior and knew immediately it was really her son in the photograph.
Clint Eastwood's film spends more time during the War Bond drive than it does on the volcanic beaches of Iwo Jima and slopes of Mount Suribachi. The three actors portraying Bradley, Gagnon and Hayes all do justice to their characters. Most impressive was Adam Beach as Ira "Chief" Hayes. In Beach's performance, you can see the torment and pain of a man who is lost in alcohol and cannot even remotely accept being called a hero in light of those that died and the unspeakable things he did and witnessed on Iwo Jima. Beach's speech given when his character is told he is no longer part of the War Bond drive was done perfectly. Jesse Bradford portrays Gagnon as a man who enjoyed the spotlight a bit too much and came across like a slimy used car salesman. If Gagnon was truly like this, then Bradford nailed it. Hayes and Gagnon did not get along and Ryan Phillippe is given the task of bringing peacemaker Doc Bradley to life. Bradley was asked to postpone needed surgery to complete the war bond drive and he is the most level-headed and aware of the three, though he is tormented by the combat he was a part of. I've never been much of a Ryan Phillippe fan, but in "Flags of Our Fathers," he earned some of my respect.
As the three principal actors and Eastwood bring about the trials and tribulations of dealing with ghosts of a conflict and the public eye, "Flags of Our Fathers" takes on a feel that is unlike most other war films. The film rides the fence as to taking an antiwar stance or a pro-war stance as it shows the horrible effects that war can have on men and how veterans can move from neo-celebrity status to being easily forgotten quite quickly. The fall of Ira Hayes is especially disheartening. The three men were more of a sideshow than they were a display of the humanity and effects of war. They are put on display and their story is distorted to have them appear to be larger than life. The uncomfortable and demeaning existence they are forced into is perfectly captured by Eastwood during the mock flag raising at Soldier Field. Each of the three actors bring about a different feel to a combat veteran, and with Eastwood guiding them, "Flags of Our Fathers" shows the unfortunate situation the surviving flag raisers of the historic photograph had befall them.
The film is not without its combat sequences. With Steven Spielberg serving as producer, the influence of "Saving Private Ryan" is certainly felt. The beach storming sequence is not initially as graphic or as hectic as Spielberg's landmark film, but the cinematography and aura of the event echoes that of the older film. In "Flags of Our Fathers," Eastwood does not shy away from blood and guts. They are prevalent. The combat is hectic and the viewer is placed in the center of the action. Gunshots fly in all directions, and as was the case with "Saving Private Ryan," the viewer is certainly given the notion of being placed in the center of the battle. War is hell and ever since that was first driven home by Spielberg, filmmakers have taken note and are no longer afraid to water down how violent and ugly battles truly are. No longer is John Wayne shot and he simply falls to his death. Instead, actors are blown to bits in violent and horrendous visions of death. Eastwood learned from working with Spielberg, and though I am admittedly tiring of "Saving Private Ryan" clones, "Flags of Our Fathers" is done well.
This is a brilliant film, and our national treasure, Mr. Eastwood, has done an amazing job delivering one of the absolute best war films ever made. War is not just about the blood that is spilled, the men that are lost, the metal that is disintegrated and the land that is conquered. It is about the men that served in the conflict and the effects that seeing the blood, destruction and death of a battle have on a man. The time that is spent on the ashen and rocky beaches of Iwo Jima does justice to the general feel of conflict on the island from the American perspective, though the adjoining "Letters from Iwo Jima" was certainly the better film in regards to showing the conflict. The battles scenes are not necessarily easy to stomach and many will object to the considerable amount of time spent by Eastwood on the War Bond drive. By devoting precious screen time to this aspect of war, Eastwood has entered near virgin territory in a war film. I'm sure the vast majority of the American public is familiar with the photograph from Iwo Jima, but I bet most know nothing about the men and the story behind about it. Clint Eastwood felt it was time to educate us and he did an incredible job.
Letters from Iwo Jima
As Dean says, director Clint Eastwood made "Flags of Our Fathers" and "Letters from Iwo Jima" back to back in 2006 to present both the American and Japanese sides of the World War II battle of Iwo Jima. Of the two movies, I enjoyed "Letters" most. While "Flags" had some harrowing action sequences and all the good things Dean mentioned above, I thought thereafter it tended to dilute its story with too many characters and then to bog down in political rhetoric. On the other hand, I found "Letters," which also contains much the same action, a more focused, more reflective, and more affecting film.
When the movie opened theatrically, I read several criticisms from viewers who felt "Letters" was too understanding of the Japanese, giving America's enemy during the War too much credit, in essence, for being human beings like anybody else. After all, the propaganda in every war tries to persuade each party that their side is right, that God is with them, that the enemy is evil incarnate. During World War II, for instance, the Japanese and the Germans were to Americans the most loathsome, wicked people on Earth, and the Russians were our allies. Yet after the War, the Japanese and the Germans were suddenly our friends and allies, and the Russians were the new enemies. Go figure.
The book and movie that "Letters" most resembles is Erich Maria Remarque's "All Quiet on the Western Front," a story of World War I combat told from the point of view of a young German soldier. When as a child I first saw the 1930 movie version of "All Quiet" in re-release, it astounded me. I couldn't believe that the "bad" guys could be anything like us. As with "All Quiet," Eastwood's "Letters" is an eye-opener, a reminder that no matter how misguided a country's leaders may be, the common folk, the foot soldiers, are always just that--common folk--with the same hearts and minds and longings and human feelings as everyone else in the world.
Iwo Jima is one of the Volcano Islands south of Japan, a barren, rocky place with a mountain at one end, no drinking water, and hardly any vegetation. Nevertheless, by the end of the War in early 1945, it was a strategic point for both the Americans and the Japanese. The Americans wanted to seize control of the island to use as an air base for strikes against mainland Japan. The Japanese needed to maintain control of the island because they didn't want the Americans to have a convenient launching place for their airplanes and because it was a matter of national pride--Iwo Jima was the only place the Japanese had controlled before the War that the Americans had not yet seized.
It looked to be an easy victory for the American forces, as the Americans greatly outnumbered the Japanese. What the Americans didn't count on was the determination of the Japanese soldiers and the brilliant tactics of their real-life commanding officer, General Tadamichi Kuribayashi (Ken Watanabe). What should have been a one or two-day cakewalk turned into a forty-day ordeal that turned out to be the single bloodiest battle of WWII.
Make no mistake, this is Watanabe's movie all the way, with good secondary support from Kazunari Ninomiya as Saigo, a young soldier. The movie concentrates on these two men for their differences and, perhaps surprisingly, for their similarities. Kuribayashi is a distinguished officer, a much-decorated war veteran; Saigo is a lowly private who was a baker before being drafted. Yet both men long for their wives and families back home, and both men are decent fellows at heart.
General Kuribayashi does his best in what he sees as an impossible situation. His plan is to dig in, literally, and fight. No beach defenses, just underground fortifications. The General has his men excavate a series of caves in the mountain in order to defend the high ground. Kuribayashi also knows they will get no reinforcements, no support from sea or air. They are completely isolated and must fend for themselves. And defend they will do, to the last man. "Not one of you is allowed to die until you have killed ten enemy soldiers," the General tells his men. "Do not expect to return from here alive." Kuribayashi realized the hopelessness of the situation and gave his men only one directive: To fight for their country and die honorably.
The actual landing of the Americans and the struggle for the island does not begin until about halfway through the film, and then the violence becomes intense. Eastwood pulls no punches in his depiction of the savagery of war, much of the action reminding us of "Saving Private Ryan," which is no doubt in part because of co-producer Steven Spielberg's influence. I think I read somewhere that Spielberg himself offered the script to Eastwood because he had already done something so similar. Anyway, the battles are realistically severe in the extreme.
The movie does not take sides, but it does not portray the Japanese as the cruel and vicious opponent that many people insist they were. Screenwriters Iris Yamashita and Paul Haggis based the story on letters from the Japanese that reveal the soldiers as all too human. Whether you agree with Eastwood's approach or not is beside the point; the filmmakers did their best to be as accurate as possible in their depiction of the battle and the attitudes of the men who fought it. On both sides we see men acting as savages, true, but mostly we see men who would rather be home in bed.
"Letters from Iwo Jima" is a sad, lonely, melancholic film, for all its brutal action and bloodshed, with moments of sheer poetry and others of heartbreaking grief. Yet never does Eastwood sentimentalize the situation, nor does the simple, haunting soundtrack music by Kyle Eastwood and Michael Stevens ever glamorize the story.
The film's only flaw is that at 140 minutes, it's too long, rather wearing out its welcome at the two-hour mark. Also, Eastwood uses the same gimmick Mel Gibson used in his last two films, that of having his actors speak in their native tongue. So the characters in "Letters" speak Japanese, and anyone who doesn't understand it reads subtitles. I have to admit that I'm a fairly fast reader, but I had some trouble keeping up with the English subtitles that flashed quickly on and off on the screen. Thank heaven for the "Back" and "Pause" buttons on the remote.
Minor concerns aside, "Letters from Iwo Jima" is a fine example of modern filmmaking, and Watanabe deserved another Oscar nomination, which didn't come. But the Academy nominated the picture for four other Oscars--Best Picture, Best Director, Best Writing, and winning for Best Sound Editing.
Flags of Our Fathers
Clint Eastwood is a national treasure. At seventy-five years old, the veteran actor and director just keeps churning out incredible films. Whereas he thrilled audiences with numerous memorable character roles such as Harry Callahan the infamous man with no name in Sergio Leone's spaghetti western trilogy, Clint Eastwood is one of the quintessential tough guy actors and perhaps the stereotypical image of a cinematic gunslinger. Though he has been directing films since 1971's "Play Misty For Me," Eastwood did not get the credit he deserved as a filmmaker until 1991's stunning revenge western, "Unforgiven." He has gotten numerous accolades since "Unforgiven" for films such as "Mystic River" and picked up a second Best Director Oscar for "Million Dollar Baby." In the year 2006, Eastwood signed on with Steven Spielberg for an unprecedented project – filming both sides of the Iwo Jima conflict concurrently and releasing them within a few months of each other. With the praise and support of the Japanese people and the permission to film on the island of Iwo Jima, Eastwood continues to be nothing short than amazing as both films were nominated for Academy Awards in various categories, including Best Picture and Best Director.
I grew up on military and war films. My father retired from the Air Force after twenty nine years with the rank of Master Sergeant. He takes his military history and films that portray any conflict or branch of the service with a keen and critical eye. Despite being raised in an Air Force family, I joined the United States Army and served in the Infantry during the first Gulf War conflict. As an example of my love for military history, one of my prized possessions is a World War II vintage M1 Garand rifle, complete with a 1942 bayonet. Needless to say, there was quite fervor upon hearing the news that Eastwood was going to film two pictures detailing the historic conflict that occurred on the Japanese island of Iwo Jima and give the perspective from both sides of the conflict. The only other time that a major Hollywood production attempted something like this was the 1970 film "Tora! Tora! Tora!," and though that is a remarkable film for its period, it does not delve into any great depth due to its relatively short running time of 144 minutes. By dedicating two distinct films to the conflict, Eastwood promised perhaps the most comprehensive film of any World War II battle ever to be delivered to the big screen.
"Flags of Our Fathers" was completed and released first and featured the American perspective on the battle for Iwo Jima. The film primarily deals with the three surviving men who hoisted the flag for the infamous photograph, immortalized in Washington, D.C., as the National Marine Memorial. "Flags of Our Fathers" looks at their involvement in the actual conflict trying to take Iwo Jima and its strategic airfield and their struggles in fighting a financial war across the United States in raising war bonds to help finance the final stages of World War II. Six men raised that second flag that was captured in the photograph, but only three men survived. Not all of the men enjoyed touring the country and not being involved in the final stages of conflict in bringing Japan to its knees and the event was not without controversy. Firstly, the flag was not the initial flag raised on Suribachi. It was the second. Secondly, one of the men that died and was said to have been in the photograph was part of the first flag raising and not one of the men that appeared in the famous photo.
John "Doc" Bradley (Ryan Phillippe), Rene Gagnon (Jesse Bradford) and American Indian Ira Hayes (Adam Beach) were the three soldiers who survived the month-long conflict on the small Japanese volcanic island. They were promptly given a free pass home and thrust into an effort to raise billions and billions of dollars from the American taxpayers and corporations to fund the building of tanks, plans and ammunition. Gagnon and Bradley were more accepting of their roles as financial cows for the military, though Bradley was tormented by his memories of what happened on the island. Hayes suffered from alcoholism and felt himself to be a disgrace and desperately wanted to be back with his Marine compatriots and fighting the war and not trying to raise money. Hayes was haunted by the loss of his friend and fellow flag raiser Mike Strank (Barry Pepper) and truly did not view himself as a hero, but idolized Strank and thought of him as such. Franklin Sousley (Joseph Cross) lost his life as well before the end of the conflict. Hank Hanson (Paul Walker) was claimed to have been one of the six, but, in fact, he was not. The actual sixth man was Harlon Block (Benjamin Walker), and Block's mother could recognize her son from a shot of his posterior and knew immediately it was really her son in the photograph.
Clint Eastwood's film spends more time during the War Bond drive than it does on the volcanic beaches of Iwo Jima and slopes of Mount Suribachi. The three actors portraying Bradley, Gagnon and Hayes all do justice to their characters. Most impressive was Adam Beach as Ira "Chief" Hayes. In Beach's performance, you can see the torment and pain of a man who is lost in alcohol and cannot even remotely accept being called a hero in light of those that died and the unspeakable things he did and witnessed on Iwo Jima. Beach's speech given when his character is told he is no longer part of the War Bond drive was done perfectly. Jesse Bradford portrays Gagnon as a man who enjoyed the spotlight a bit too much and came across like a slimy used car salesman. If Gagnon was truly like this, then Bradford nailed it. Hayes and Gagnon did not get along and Ryan Phillippe is given the task of bringing peacemaker Doc Bradley to life. Bradley was asked to postpone needed surgery to complete the war bond drive and he is the most level-headed and aware of the three, though he is tormented by the combat he was a part of. I've never been much of a Ryan Phillippe fan, but in "Flags of Our Fathers," he earned some of my respect.
As the three principal actors and Eastwood bring about the trials and tribulations of dealing with ghosts of a conflict and the public eye, "Flags of Our Fathers" takes on a feel that is unlike most other war films. The film rides the fence as to taking an antiwar stance or a pro-war stance as it shows the horrible effects that war can have on men and how veterans can move from neo-celebrity status to being easily forgotten quite quickly. The fall of Ira Hayes is especially disheartening. The three men were more of a sideshow than they were a display of the humanity and effects of war. They are put on display and their story is distorted to have them appear to be larger than life. The uncomfortable and demeaning existence they are forced into is perfectly captured by Eastwood during the mock flag raising at Soldier Field. Each of the three actors bring about a different feel to a combat veteran, and with Eastwood guiding them, "Flags of Our Fathers" shows the unfortunate situation the surviving flag raisers of the historic photograph had befall them.
The film is not without its combat sequences. With Steven Spielberg serving as producer, the influence of "Saving Private Ryan" is certainly felt. The beach storming sequence is not initially as graphic or as hectic as Spielberg's landmark film, but the cinematography and aura of the event echoes that of the older film. In "Flags of Our Fathers," Eastwood does not shy away from blood and guts. They are prevalent. The combat is hectic and the viewer is placed in the center of the action. Gunshots fly in all directions, and as was the case with "Saving Private Ryan," the viewer is certainly given the notion of being placed in the center of the battle. War is hell and ever since that was first driven home by Spielberg, filmmakers have taken note and are no longer afraid to water down how violent and ugly battles truly are. No longer is John Wayne shot and he simply falls to his death. Instead, actors are blown to bits in violent and horrendous visions of death. Eastwood learned from working with Spielberg, and though I am admittedly tiring of "Saving Private Ryan" clones, "Flags of Our Fathers" is done well.
This is a brilliant film, and our national treasure, Mr. Eastwood, has done an amazing job delivering one of the absolute best war films ever made. War is not just about the blood that is spilled, the men that are lost, the metal that is disintegrated and the land that is conquered. It is about the men that served in the conflict and the effects that seeing the blood, destruction and death of a battle have on a man. The time that is spent on the ashen and rocky beaches of Iwo Jima does justice to the general feel of conflict on the island from the American perspective, though the adjoining "Letters from Iwo Jima" was certainly the better film in regards to showing the conflict. The battles scenes are not necessarily easy to stomach and many will object to the considerable amount of time spent by Eastwood on the War Bond drive. By devoting precious screen time to this aspect of war, Eastwood has entered near virgin territory in a war film. I'm sure the vast majority of the American public is familiar with the photograph from Iwo Jima, but I bet most know nothing about the men and the story behind about it. Clint Eastwood felt it was time to educate us and he did an incredible job.
Letters from Iwo Jima
As Dean says, director Clint Eastwood made "Flags of Our Fathers" and "Letters from Iwo Jima" back to back in 2006 to present both the American and Japanese sides of the World War II battle of Iwo Jima. Of the two movies, I enjoyed "Letters" most. While "Flags" had some harrowing action sequences and all the good things Dean mentioned above, I thought thereafter it tended to dilute its story with too many characters and then to bog down in political rhetoric. On the other hand, I found "Letters," which also contains much the same action, a more focused, more reflective, and more affecting film.
When the movie opened theatrically, I read several criticisms from viewers who felt "Letters" was too understanding of the Japanese, giving America's enemy during the War too much credit, in essence, for being human beings like anybody else. After all, the propaganda in every war tries to persuade each party that their side is right, that God is with them, that the enemy is evil incarnate. During World War II, for instance, the Japanese and the Germans were to Americans the most loathsome, wicked people on Earth, and the Russians were our allies. Yet after the War, the Japanese and the Germans were suddenly our friends and allies, and the Russians were the new enemies. Go figure.
The book and movie that "Letters" most resembles is Erich Maria Remarque's "All Quiet on the Western Front," a story of World War I combat told from the point of view of a young German soldier. When as a child I first saw the 1930 movie version of "All Quiet" in re-release, it astounded me. I couldn't believe that the "bad" guys could be anything like us. As with "All Quiet," Eastwood's "Letters" is an eye-opener, a reminder that no matter how misguided a country's leaders may be, the common folk, the foot soldiers, are always just that--common folk--with the same hearts and minds and longings and human feelings as everyone else in the world.
Iwo Jima is one of the Volcano Islands south of Japan, a barren, rocky place with a mountain at one end, no drinking water, and hardly any vegetation. Nevertheless, by the end of the War in early 1945, it was a strategic point for both the Americans and the Japanese. The Americans wanted to seize control of the island to use as an air base for strikes against mainland Japan. The Japanese needed to maintain control of the island because they didn't want the Americans to have a convenient launching place for their airplanes and because it was a matter of national pride--Iwo Jima was the only place the Japanese had controlled before the War that the Americans had not yet seized.
It looked to be an easy victory for the American forces, as the Americans greatly outnumbered the Japanese. What the Americans didn't count on was the determination of the Japanese soldiers and the brilliant tactics of their real-life commanding officer, General Tadamichi Kuribayashi (Ken Watanabe). What should have been a one or two-day cakewalk turned into a forty-day ordeal that turned out to be the single bloodiest battle of WWII.
Make no mistake, this is Watanabe's movie all the way, with good secondary support from Kazunari Ninomiya as Saigo, a young soldier. The movie concentrates on these two men for their differences and, perhaps surprisingly, for their similarities. Kuribayashi is a distinguished officer, a much-decorated war veteran; Saigo is a lowly private who was a baker before being drafted. Yet both men long for their wives and families back home, and both men are decent fellows at heart.
General Kuribayashi does his best in what he sees as an impossible situation. His plan is to dig in, literally, and fight. No beach defenses, just underground fortifications. The General has his men excavate a series of caves in the mountain in order to defend the high ground. Kuribayashi also knows they will get no reinforcements, no support from sea or air. They are completely isolated and must fend for themselves. And defend they will do, to the last man. "Not one of you is allowed to die until you have killed ten enemy soldiers," the General tells his men. "Do not expect to return from here alive." Kuribayashi realized the hopelessness of the situation and gave his men only one directive: To fight for their country and die honorably.
The actual landing of the Americans and the struggle for the island does not begin until about halfway through the film, and then the violence becomes intense. Eastwood pulls no punches in his depiction of the savagery of war, much of the action reminding us of "Saving Private Ryan," which is no doubt in part because of co-producer Steven Spielberg's influence. I think I read somewhere that Spielberg himself offered the script to Eastwood because he had already done something so similar. Anyway, the battles are realistically severe in the extreme.
The movie does not take sides, but it does not portray the Japanese as the cruel and vicious opponent that many people insist they were. Screenwriters Iris Yamashita and Paul Haggis based the story on letters from the Japanese that reveal the soldiers as all too human. Whether you agree with Eastwood's approach or not is beside the point; the filmmakers did their best to be as accurate as possible in their depiction of the battle and the attitudes of the men who fought it. On both sides we see men acting as savages, true, but mostly we see men who would rather be home in bed.
"Letters from Iwo Jima" is a sad, lonely, melancholic film, for all its brutal action and bloodshed, with moments of sheer poetry and others of heartbreaking grief. Yet never does Eastwood sentimentalize the situation, nor does the simple, haunting soundtrack music by Kyle Eastwood and Michael Stevens ever glamorize the story.
The film's only flaw is that at 140 minutes, it's too long, rather wearing out its welcome at the two-hour mark. Also, Eastwood uses the same gimmick Mel Gibson used in his last two films, that of having his actors speak in their native tongue. So the characters in "Letters" speak Japanese, and anyone who doesn't understand it reads subtitles. I have to admit that I'm a fairly fast reader, but I had some trouble keeping up with the English subtitles that flashed quickly on and off on the screen. Thank heaven for the "Back" and "Pause" buttons on the remote.
Minor concerns aside, "Letters from Iwo Jima" is a fine example of modern filmmaking, and Watanabe deserved another Oscar nomination, which didn't come. But the Academy nominated the picture for four other Oscars--Best Picture, Best Director, Best Writing, and winning for Best Sound Editing.
Clint Eastwood is a national treasure. At seventy-five years old, the veteran actor and director just keeps churning out incredible films. Whereas he thrilled audiences with numerous memorable character roles such as Harry Callahan the infamous man with no name in Sergio Leone's spaghetti western trilogy, Clint Eastwood is one of the quintessential tough guy actors and perhaps the stereotypical image of a cinematic gunslinger. Though he has been directing films since 1971's "Play Misty For Me," Eastwood did not get the credit he deserved as a filmmaker until 1991's stunning revenge western, "Unforgiven." He has gotten numerous accolades since "Unforgiven" for films such as "Mystic River" and picked up a second Best Director Oscar for "Million Dollar Baby." In the year 2006, Eastwood signed on with Steven Spielberg for an unprecedented project – filming both sides of the Iwo Jima conflict concurrently and releasing them within a few months of each other. With the praise and support of the Japanese people and the permission to film on the island of Iwo Jima, Eastwood continues to be nothing short than amazing as both films were nominated for Academy Awards in various categories, including Best Picture and Best Director.
I grew up on military and war films. My father retired from the Air Force after twenty nine years with the rank of Master Sergeant. He takes his military history and films that portray any conflict or branch of the service with a keen and critical eye. Despite being raised in an Air Force family, I joined the United States Army and served in the Infantry during the first Gulf War conflict. As an example of my love for military history, one of my prized possessions is a World War II vintage M1 Garand rifle, complete with a 1942 bayonet. Needless to say, there was quite fervor upon hearing the news that Eastwood was going to film two pictures detailing the historic conflict that occurred on the Japanese island of Iwo Jima and give the perspective from both sides of the conflict. The only other time that a major Hollywood production attempted something like this was the 1970 film "Tora! Tora! Tora!," and though that is a remarkable film for its period, it does not delve into any great depth due to its relatively short running time of 144 minutes. By dedicating two distinct films to the conflict, Eastwood promised perhaps the most comprehensive film of any World War II battle ever to be delivered to the big screen.
"Flags of Our Fathers" was completed and released first and featured the American perspective on the battle for Iwo Jima. The film primarily deals with the three surviving men who hoisted the flag for the infamous photograph, immortalized in Washington, D.C., as the National Marine Memorial. "Flags of Our Fathers" looks at their involvement in the actual conflict trying to take Iwo Jima and its strategic airfield and their struggles in fighting a financial war across the United States in raising war bonds to help finance the final stages of World War II. Six men raised that second flag that was captured in the photograph, but only three men survived. Not all of the men enjoyed touring the country and not being involved in the final stages of conflict in bringing Japan to its knees and the event was not without controversy. Firstly, the flag was not the initial flag raised on Suribachi. It was the second. Secondly, one of the men that died and was said to have been in the photograph was part of the first flag raising and not one of the men that appeared in the famous photo.
John "Doc" Bradley (Ryan Phillippe), Rene Gagnon (Jesse Bradford) and American Indian Ira Hayes (Adam Beach) were the three soldiers who survived the month-long conflict on the small Japanese volcanic island. They were promptly given a free pass home and thrust into an effort to raise billions and billions of dollars from the American taxpayers and corporations to fund the building of tanks, plans and ammunition. Gagnon and Bradley were more accepting of their roles as financial cows for the military, though Bradley was tormented by his memories of what happened on the island. Hayes suffered from alcoholism and felt himself to be a disgrace and desperately wanted to be back with his Marine compatriots and fighting the war and not trying to raise money. Hayes was haunted by the loss of his friend and fellow flag raiser Mike Strank (Barry Pepper) and truly did not view himself as a hero, but idolized Strank and thought of him as such. Franklin Sousley (Joseph Cross) lost his life as well before the end of the conflict. Hank Hanson (Paul Walker) was claimed to have been one of the six, but, in fact, he was not. The actual sixth man was Harlon Block (Benjamin Walker), and Block's mother could recognize her son from a shot of his posterior and knew immediately it was really her son in the photograph.
Clint Eastwood's film spends more time during the War Bond drive than it does on the volcanic beaches of Iwo Jima and slopes of Mount Suribachi. The three actors portraying Bradley, Gagnon and Hayes all do justice to their characters. Most impressive was Adam Beach as Ira "Chief" Hayes. In Beach's performance, you can see the torment and pain of a man who is lost in alcohol and cannot even remotely accept being called a hero in light of those that died and the unspeakable things he did and witnessed on Iwo Jima. Beach's speech given when his character is told he is no longer part of the War Bond drive was done perfectly. Jesse Bradford portrays Gagnon as a man who enjoyed the spotlight a bit too much and came across like a slimy used car salesman. If Gagnon was truly like this, then Bradford nailed it. Hayes and Gagnon did not get along and Ryan Phillippe is given the task of bringing peacemaker Doc Bradley to life. Bradley was asked to postpone needed surgery to complete the war bond drive and he is the most level-headed and aware of the three, though he is tormented by the combat he was a part of. I've never been much of a Ryan Phillippe fan, but in "Flags of Our Fathers," he earned some of my respect.
As the three principal actors and Eastwood bring about the trials and tribulations of dealing with ghosts of a conflict and the public eye, "Flags of Our Fathers" takes on a feel that is unlike most other war films. The film rides the fence as to taking an antiwar stance or a pro-war stance as it shows the horrible effects that war can have on men and how veterans can move from neo-celebrity status to being easily forgotten quite quickly. The fall of Ira Hayes is especially disheartening. The three men were more of a sideshow than they were a display of the humanity and effects of war. They are put on display and their story is distorted to have them appear to be larger than life. The uncomfortable and demeaning existence they are forced into is perfectly captured by Eastwood during the mock flag raising at Soldier Field. Each of the three actors bring about a different feel to a combat veteran, and with Eastwood guiding them, "Flags of Our Fathers" shows the unfortunate situation the surviving flag raisers of the historic photograph had befall them.
The film is not without its combat sequences. With Steven Spielberg serving as producer, the influence of "Saving Private Ryan" is certainly felt. The beach storming sequence is not initially as graphic or as hectic as Spielberg's landmark film, but the cinematography and aura of the event echoes that of the older film. In "Flags of Our Fathers," Eastwood does not shy away from blood and guts. They are prevalent. The combat is hectic and the viewer is placed in the center of the action. Gunshots fly in all directions, and as was the case with "Saving Private Ryan," the viewer is certainly given the notion of being placed in the center of the battle. War is hell and ever since that was first driven home by Spielberg, filmmakers have taken note and are no longer afraid to water down how violent and ugly battles truly are. No longer is John Wayne shot and he simply falls to his death. Instead, actors are blown to bits in violent and horrendous visions of death. Eastwood learned from working with Spielberg, and though I am admittedly tiring of "Saving Private Ryan" clones, "Flags of Our Fathers" is done well.
This is a brilliant film, and our national treasure, Mr. Eastwood, has done an amazing job delivering one of the absolute best war films ever made. War is not just about the blood that is spilled, the men that are lost, the metal that is disintegrated and the land that is conquered. It is about the men that served in the conflict and the effects that seeing the blood, destruction and death of a battle have on a man. The time that is spent on the ashen and rocky beaches of Iwo Jima does justice to the general feel of conflict on the island from the American perspective, though the adjoining "Letters from Iwo Jima" was certainly the better film in regards to showing the conflict. The battles scenes are not necessarily easy to stomach and many will object to the considerable amount of time spent by Eastwood on the War Bond drive. By devoting precious screen time to this aspect of war, Eastwood has entered near virgin territory in a war film. I'm sure the vast majority of the American public is familiar with the photograph from Iwo Jima, but I bet most know nothing about the men and the story behind about it. Clint Eastwood felt it was time to educate us and he did an incredible job.
Letters from Iwo Jima
As Dean says, director Clint Eastwood made "Flags of Our Fathers" and "Letters from Iwo Jima" back to back in 2006 to present both the American and Japanese sides of the World War II battle of Iwo Jima. Of the two movies, I enjoyed "Letters" most. While "Flags" had some harrowing action sequences and all the good things Dean mentioned above, I thought thereafter it tended to dilute its story with too many characters and then to bog down in political rhetoric. On the other hand, I found "Letters," which also contains much the same action, a more focused, more reflective, and more affecting film.
When the movie opened theatrically, I read several criticisms from viewers who felt "Letters" was too understanding of the Japanese, giving America's enemy during the War too much credit, in essence, for being human beings like anybody else. After all, the propaganda in every war tries to persuade each party that their side is right, that God is with them, that the enemy is evil incarnate. During World War II, for instance, the Japanese and the Germans were to Americans the most loathsome, wicked people on Earth, and the Russians were our allies. Yet after the War, the Japanese and the Germans were suddenly our friends and allies, and the Russians were the new enemies. Go figure.
The book and movie that "Letters" most resembles is Erich Maria Remarque's "All Quiet on the Western Front," a story of World War I combat told from the point of view of a young German soldier. When as a child I first saw the 1930 movie version of "All Quiet" in re-release, it astounded me. I couldn't believe that the "bad" guys could be anything like us. As with "All Quiet," Eastwood's "Letters" is an eye-opener, a reminder that no matter how misguided a country's leaders may be, the common folk, the foot soldiers, are always just that--common folk--with the same hearts and minds and longings and human feelings as everyone else in the world.
Iwo Jima is one of the Volcano Islands south of Japan, a barren, rocky place with a mountain at one end, no drinking water, and hardly any vegetation. Nevertheless, by the end of the War in early 1945, it was a strategic point for both the Americans and the Japanese. The Americans wanted to seize control of the island to use as an air base for strikes against mainland Japan. The Japanese needed to maintain control of the island because they didn't want the Americans to have a convenient launching place for their airplanes and because it was a matter of national pride--Iwo Jima was the only place the Japanese had controlled before the War that the Americans had not yet seized.
It looked to be an easy victory for the American forces, as the Americans greatly outnumbered the Japanese. What the Americans didn't count on was the determination of the Japanese soldiers and the brilliant tactics of their real-life commanding officer, General Tadamichi Kuribayashi (Ken Watanabe). What should have been a one or two-day cakewalk turned into a forty-day ordeal that turned out to be the single bloodiest battle of WWII.
Make no mistake, this is Watanabe's movie all the way, with good secondary support from Kazunari Ninomiya as Saigo, a young soldier. The movie concentrates on these two men for their differences and, perhaps surprisingly, for their similarities. Kuribayashi is a distinguished officer, a much-decorated war veteran; Saigo is a lowly private who was a baker before being drafted. Yet both men long for their wives and families back home, and both men are decent fellows at heart.
General Kuribayashi does his best in what he sees as an impossible situation. His plan is to dig in, literally, and fight. No beach defenses, just underground fortifications. The General has his men excavate a series of caves in the mountain in order to defend the high ground. Kuribayashi also knows they will get no reinforcements, no support from sea or air. They are completely isolated and must fend for themselves. And defend they will do, to the last man. "Not one of you is allowed to die until you have killed ten enemy soldiers," the General tells his men. "Do not expect to return from here alive." Kuribayashi realized the hopelessness of the situation and gave his men only one directive: To fight for their country and die honorably.
The actual landing of the Americans and the struggle for the island does not begin until about halfway through the film, and then the violence becomes intense. Eastwood pulls no punches in his depiction of the savagery of war, much of the action reminding us of "Saving Private Ryan," which is no doubt in part because of co-producer Steven Spielberg's influence. I think I read somewhere that Spielberg himself offered the script to Eastwood because he had already done something so similar. Anyway, the battles are realistically severe in the extreme.
The movie does not take sides, but it does not portray the Japanese as the cruel and vicious opponent that many people insist they were. Screenwriters Iris Yamashita and Paul Haggis based the story on letters from the Japanese that reveal the soldiers as all too human. Whether you agree with Eastwood's approach or not is beside the point; the filmmakers did their best to be as accurate as possible in their depiction of the battle and the attitudes of the men who fought it. On both sides we see men acting as savages, true, but mostly we see men who would rather be home in bed.
"Letters from Iwo Jima" is a sad, lonely, melancholic film, for all its brutal action and bloodshed, with moments of sheer poetry and others of heartbreaking grief. Yet never does Eastwood sentimentalize the situation, nor does the simple, haunting soundtrack music by Kyle Eastwood and Michael Stevens ever glamorize the story.
The film's only flaw is that at 140 minutes, it's too long, rather wearing out its welcome at the two-hour mark. Also, Eastwood uses the same gimmick Mel Gibson used in his last two films, that of having his actors speak in their native tongue. So the characters in "Letters" speak Japanese, and anyone who doesn't understand it reads subtitles. I have to admit that I'm a fairly fast reader, but I had some trouble keeping up with the English subtitles that flashed quickly on and off on the screen. Thank heaven for the "Back" and "Pause" buttons on the remote.
Minor concerns aside, "Letters from Iwo Jima" is a fine example of modern filmmaking, and Watanabe deserved another Oscar nomination, which didn't come. But the Academy nominated the picture for four other Oscars--Best Picture, Best Director, Best Writing, and winning for Best Sound Editing.
No comments:
Post a Comment