| Overall Grade: |
A+ |
|
| Story: |
A+ |
|
|
| Acting: |
A+ |
|
|
| Direction: |
A+ |
|
|
| Visuals: |
A+ |
|
|
Keep These Letters Close To Your Heart
by Eric (movies profile)
Sep 7, 2007
10
of
11 people found this review helpful
Clint Eastwood has made a two-part epic that really is one film. Together with his prior Flags of Our Fathers, Letters from Iwo Jima shows us the full effect of war on those who fight it. Even though countries can claim victory, it doesn't do very much for the men who are killed. But for the latter film, Eastwood gives us a look at "the enemy" that is both honorable and noble.
We already know that Iwo Jima is the key location for the Americans to set up attacks on Japan in the latter part of World War II. We already know that 2,000 men held off the bulk of American forces for 30 days before succumbing to larger numbers and superior technology. What we find out in the beginning of Letters is that Japan's Navy was crushed at the Marianas, that there was not going to be any backup for the limited forces that held the island. Most of the drinking water is filled with parasites, and every one of the men knew that they were going to die. To lead them in the defense comes General Tadamichi Kuribayashi (Ken Wantanabe), who had spent time in America. His soldiers watch him with a curiosity as he strolls up and down the beaches with a stick like a traveler on a long hike. Can he save them and kill the Americans? Is he going to betray them? He gains their gratitude early on when he stops the digging of beach-side trenches, something that one of the solider quickly remarks as "digging our own graves". Their strategy, digging of massive caves throughout Mount Saribachi and mobilizing their attacks through these means.
There is one other man besides Kuribayashi that we follow with any kind of intimacy. His name is Saigo (Kazunari Ninomiya), a baker who got drafted away from his pregnant wife and is constantly showing dissent with the prospects of dying on a stupid little island that for all intents and purposes would be better of in the bottom of the sea. With the last batch of troops to come in is a soldier that he suspects might be there as an informant to the Japanese government. Also with them is an Olympic Gold Medalist who brings his prized horse with him.
When the attack begins, especially if you've seen this scene from Flags' perspective, there's an eerie element of anticipation (in Flags, the feeling was more of terror). The battle begins with all guns blazing (kudos to the sound team. Oscar Gold be your prize) and chaos ensues. The Americans quickly gain ground, but at a heavy cost. The Japanese fall back to Saribachi.
From here, the war takes on a more meditative state. We find ourselves looking at soldiers as humans who have to make decisions of both honor and duty (and we see that sometimes that line is much thinner than you think). I already came into this film understanding the Japanese ideology of death before dishonor (surrender, as you might think, is very much dishonorable), so when we get to a scene were a commander tells his men to more or less fall on their own grenades, I was prepared, but the scene makes you question this mentality when Saigo refuses the order. The film tactfully doesn't take a stance one way or another on these ideas, but simply provides us with them. This is brave filmmaking at it's finest.
I could talk about other points of the film all night (and trust me when I say I'd love to), but I think the film is meant more to be discovered and lived-through than merely paraphrased. Especially when you put it together with Flags, we have a definitive look at combat, the reasons behind it, and what it leaves us with afterwards. Is there honor in dying for your country? Only if you believe there's honor in it is what I think Eastwood's saying. By looking at both sides of a conflict, it takes you outside of prejudice, you find yourself not so much rooting for one champion, but hoping that the killing would stop as quickly as possible. In that manner, this saga is the best war film ever made.
I had seen Letters From Iwo Jima almost a month ago. I was very disturbed a few weeks ago when Ken Wantanabe was passed over for Best Actor. Did no one see the truly superb performance by Japan's finest living actor? People love to talk about Wantanabe as the next Toshiro Mifune. I beg to disagree. Wantanabe is by far a unique actor who I strongly feel will be setting the standard for Japan's next generations of actors. That generation will have the next Ken Wantanabe. For the rest of the cast of Letters, I can say with much pride that they have done not only their country honorably, but the memories of all those who died on that island, whose blood is permanently fused in the soil.
For Clint Eastwood, I have loved his films for a long time, even the lesser works. But this is by far the proudest I have been of a filmmaker that has dared to challenge American audiences to ask questions they would not normally try. He has given us two films that will be instant classics as a whole (never apart). With his Malpaso team (way too many to name off), he has done a work that is not only his best, but will forever change our concept of American film.
But before I go, I must reiterate that if you see one, you must see both. Although Letters is the better of two hands-down, alone it shows just one side, askew in it's vision of things. The two films balance itself out and becomes the classic it is. For that, I cannot put it on my top ten list. Like Lord of the Rings, it stands outside of the time completely.
All in all, I cannot recommend this film enough times to enough people. Especially those who are interested in not only THE WAR, but those that are impacted BY WAR in general. In that effect, Eastwood chose the right time for this saga. Who's coming with me? |
My Public Profile 
