Letters From Iwo Jima

The verdict: Complex, dark and harrowing, this movie will make you battle-weary, but it deserves to be seen.

The rating: 8/10

Two weeks ago, I was somewhat unimpressed by 'Flags of our Fathers', the first of a sort of twin set of Clint Eastwood directed movies about the American forces' invasion of Japan at Iwo Jima in 1944. That movie delved into the political complexities of war, and how symbolism can be worth more to the people of a nation than the often painfully inglorious realities.

Letters from Iwo Jima is the far superior companion piece to that movie, the difference being: the events are confined to the battle on Iwo Jima island, and this time, we see the events unfold from the perspective of the Japanese forces.

Clint is a veteran of the odd war movie himself and, to his credit, has recognised something fundamental to anyone looking to add to the already swollen ranks of the war movie genre: if you're going to make one of these babies, you gotta have an angle. 'Flags of our Fathers' was flawed and far from perfect, but at least it had that shot of originality to set it apart from something contemporary but derivative like, for example, 'Jarhead'.

The Letters referred to in the title were written by Japanese soldiers in 1944, and uncovered from the network of tunnels dug in preparation for the battle many years later. Many of them are quoted in the movie, and give a unique twist to proceedings.

Telling a war story from the perspective of 'the enemy' is not a new idea, indeed it was done in the 1930's, when 'All Quiet on the Western Front' gave an anti-war message from a German perspective at a time when Nazism was on the rise in der Vaterland during the inter-war period. Due to the political context though, that film had propaganda value, and this was recognised by a certain Dr. Goebbels. (ah, that lovable rogue... - Ed). Goebbels ordered the film banned in Germany, and encouraged followers of national socialism to disrupt screenings of the film wherever they found them.

More recently, 'Downfall' ('Der Untergang') told the tale of the last days of Nazism at the end of World War II from the Nazi perspective, and this story is perhaps a little closer to the siege mentality also found in 'Letters From Iwo Jima'.

Both of those movies put us in the uncomfortable position of seeing the human side of our enemies' actions, and in Iwo Jima, this message is delivered extremely well, from two differing points of view. The first perspective is of General Kuribayashi, pleayed excellently by Ken Watanabe. Kuribayashi is aware almost from day one that his mission, to hold Iwo Jima from the American forces, is essentially a suicide mission. (Let's be real for a second here folks, remember who won world war two? Ok, we're on the same page then... - Ed). His mission is made more complicated by dissent among the ranks, a lack of any real support whatsoever from mainland forces, and more than a hint of conflicting emotions at the prospect of fighting America, a country he visited before the war.

This officer's perspective is supplemented by that of Saigo, played by Kazunari Ninomiya. Saigo was drafted, leaving behind a pregnant wife, and in one of his first scenes is beaten by his superior officer when he questions the need to defend an island as apparently worthless as Iwo Jima. His point has an element of truth to it, as the Japanese forces all seem to be suffering from the effects of the Iwo water, with dysentery spreading through the ranks like a hot... well, you get the picture.

So, the forces are ordered to prepare for the American invasion, and hold out until death, a grim enough prospect in anyone's book. This situation leads the soldiers to consider all sorts of war-time craziness, such as: is it more honourable to kill yourself or surrender to the enemy? (... um, can I phone a friend? - Ed).

'Letters from Iwo Jima' borrow from the gritty and unpleasant reality of military life that 'Platoon' presented so well, and the scale of events is brilliantly evoked, with the claustrophobia of 'Das Boot' springing to mind more than once. Also, the futility of the mission, and the choice of protagonists, evokes 'Downfall' as previously mentioned.

Eastwood doesn't shy away from presenting the complex situations faced by these men, and presents many difficuly moral questions in 'Letters from Iwo Jima'. However, the sentimentality is kept to a minimum, and by choosing to follow the paths of four distinct and separate lead characters, he holds the audience's interest right to the end.

At two and a half hours, it's a little long, and there isn't much light relief on offer, but Iwo Jima is a truly excellent addition to the war movie genre. It's understated and intelligent, wise but unsentimental, and with a very powerful message about the futility of war: not the idea of countries fighting each other, but of the insane realities and choices men are presented with in war-time situations.

PCMR reckons Clint now needs to follow his Iwo Jima tag-team tale with the story of an Irish invasion of another Japanese island: 'Saipan the Movie' anyone? With its high-profile deserter, and the political implications, this story is just about right for the Hollywood treatment... now, who would play Keano then?! (Think of the children, Roy! - Ed)

Flags Of Our Fathers

The Verdict: Self-important, soporific, slow-moving stuff. A short story told long-windedly in a very disjointed and heavy-handed manner.

The Rating: 5/10

Ok, first things first, and just to get it out of the way, Clint Eastwood is a legend. I have a habit on this site of reminding you of work someone has previously done, just in case you were unfamiliar with other stuff they've worked on, but in this case, I'm going to presume you've heard of Clint Eastwood, and possibly even seen one or two of his films. (Probably a safe enough bet - Ed). In 'Flags of Our Fathers', the first of an inter-continental tag-team of tales treating the battles of Iwo Jima in WWII, Clint tells a story of war with some contemporary relevance, and possibly even some personal relevance to himself.

The story involves the use of the iconic image - also used in the movie poster - of the U.S. troops raising a stars'n'stripes on the island of Iwo Jima in 1944. The image was used to promote the war effort back home, and it was so iconic and representative of courage and effort that it galvanised the American nation, convincing the folks back home that they were winning the war. The men in the photo were made heroes by the political establishment, symbols of a victorious war effort, and a reason for you folks to buy War Bonds to further fund the military effort...


The thing is, the flag was raised five days into a 40-day battle. The guys who were plucked out of the military to promote this image of victory were the only survivors out of the group of roughly twelve men there to raise the flags (there were actually two flags raised). Ira, the indian private, did not even raise the flag, but was named as one of the heroes.

The theme here is possible one close to Clint's own experiences: people need heroes. It is a theme universal to all cultures that heroes, with their legendary tales of execptional bravery, form part of our cultural make-up. Symbols, too are important, and the idea of an image travelling round the world to signal military success has contemporary relevance. Remember the statue of Saddam being toppled? Hooray, the witch is dead! ... the symbol is powerful, and even though the reality following that moment has been less than ideal, politicians and the media used it for endless mileage.. the same situation happens in this movie.

However, the thing is, the story of Flags of our Fathers doesn't really take that long to tell. (Um, didn't you just tell it? - Ed) As with 'Million Dollar Baby', I felt this movie would have benefitted from losing roughly half an hour. Certainly, in the last twenty minutes I descended into a bit of a bored stupor. I imagine that, towards the end, when the narrator started lines with something like 'And as for Ira..', his writer was aiming for the gravitas of Richard Dreyfus in 'Stand By Me'. Unfortunately, this voice-over ended up more like Kevin from 'the Wonder Years.'

However, the battle footage, as you would expect nowadays, is jaw-droppingly good stuff. The air battles feel more like 'Star Wars' than 'Dambusters', and the infantry-led beach-storming scenes are gritty, bloody and evocative of 'The Big Red One' or of course the deservedly ubiquitous 'Private Ryan'.

However, overall I didn't particularly like this movie as a piece of entertainment. The cast were generally pretty average, with Barry Pepper possibly the only one standing out as Mike, one of the unsung heroes who died on the island without any recognition or fanfare. The rest of the cast were pretty much perfunctory, with Adam Beach as Ira in particular doing a average job with a thoroughly annoying lead character. This guy bursts into tears in about seven separate scenes, and it just became grating after a while.

The choppy, incoherent narrative takes us from present day to the battelefield and the aftermath alternatively, and was unnecessarily confusing, which is surprising, considering the omni-present Paul Haggis co-wrote the screenplay.

So, overall, it's an intelligent film but not very entertaining. It's an 'interesting' story that fans of the war movie genre will probably get something out of, but for a more rounded war-movie experience deaing with themes of racial integration in the military in a gripping and intelligent manner, 'Indigènes' is far superior, and a much more enertaining film.

Rumour has it 'Letters From Iwo Jima' is the better of Clint's Iwo Jima twin-set, but apologies Mr. Eastwood, I didn't like this one all that much.