Letters from Iwo Jima

by Greg Luther

Well it's a new year and as usual Clint Eastwood has a new movie that's up for the Best Picture Oscar. Similarly familiar is the film's competition: a Martin Scorcese picture that I was quite taken with, which has spawned buzz of the notoriously snubbed director finally getting his gold statue. This is where the déjà vu ends however, as Letters From Iwo Jima is a far superior film to any of Eastwood's recent efforts (regardless of how decorated any of those films were).

The film opens in modern-day Japan spotlighting an excavation on the island of Iwo Jima. We are quickly thrust back through time to the period preceding the historic battle, as we are introduced to one of the two leads: Saigo (played by Kazunari Ninomiya), a low level soldier who holds little feeling of owing a duty to his country and would like nothing more than to go home to his wife and bakery. A familiar archetype sure, but in WWII-era Imperial Japan, Saigo actually proves to be a pretty novel character. The solution to Saigo's pesky free will is regular beatings from his superiors until they see that proverbial "improvement in morale", a practice halted by the arrival of General Tadamichi Kuribayashi (the always impressive Ken Watanabe stepping in as the sole familiar face in the cast). Kuribayashi is another character similar to those we've seen before, as one of the few men familiar with an enemy that everyone else is quick to demonize, but again this seems new and different in the context here. Come to think of it, Hollywood has done so little with the Japanese perspective of World War II that many of the elements of Letters feel completely fresh, even though they'd be stale elsewhere. I suppose that sounds like a criticism, but it really isn't. By turning the Hollywood WWII picture on its ear, each aspect becomes more progressive by association. That these were the very same soldiers audiences were rooting against mere months earlier makes the experience all the more unique.

Soon the fighting begins, and I have to say there are some beautifully shot battle sequences here. The bright orange explosions stand out all the more against the washed out sepia-like hues that give the film its antiquated look. The technique is not completely dissimilar from those used in Sin City, but in the context of a more realistic film, the resulting effect is much different. The bomb blasts really jump off the screen at you, placing the viewer right in the midst of the combat. There's also a healthy dose of the shaky-cam and gore popularized by Saving Private Ryan, but like the plot elements mentioned above, Eastwood avoids rehash by changing just enough to keep things fresh. Oddly enough, the battle is decided rather early on in the film, and of course the only recourse is a modernized hari-kiri. I've spoken a lot about how much the film's focus on the Japanese side adds to the originality of the film. This is why. The concept of "honorable" suicide just seems so alien to us, and while most of us have an awareness of it, seeing suicide as the "reasonable alternative" from the protagonists we are following is a bit jarring. There are other times where the Japanese culture feels at odds with our own expectations, such as when Saigo's wife is told "Congratulations, your husband is going to war for his country". Not exactly the greeting we're accustomed to in that situation. These touches could prove to be a purely academic exercise in other hands, but Eastwood makes sure that we are always relating to the film's characters, even when they're placed in situations we could never dream of. Part of what helps accomplish this is the decision to keep the Americans faceless for much of the film. When they do show up, as in two scenes featuring American prisoners receiving considerably different treatment, we instantly connect and start to empathize with them. The film walks a fine line to keep the audience from picking a side, and by hiding the American soldiers for the most part, you simply view them as the invading army, keeping you from turning on the characters you instinctively would consider "the enemy".

The acting in the film is strong all around. If I had to pick a stand-out performance I suppose I would choose Ken Watanabe, but it's hard to tell if I'm just inclined to go with him because I recognize him and he's the main character. There's a particularly great scene towards the end showcasing Kuribayashi's time in America. The subject of the impending war comes up and you can see how torn the man is, even through his attempts to remain a pleasant party guest. This scene also gives us the best line of the film when Kuribayashi is asked whether he would follow his convictions or his country's convictions should America and Japan go to war and he simply responds, "Are they not the same?", a perfect summation of the character and the film. But like I said, it's hard to single out Watanabe and not question your reasoning just a little. I guess that speaks a lot about the overall consistency of work done in the film. As for the direction, what else can I say? I have a lot of respect for the man's past work, particularly Unforgiven, but I've found myself pretty underwhelmed by Clint Eastwood's more recent films. Mystic River seemed pretty average to me, and while I thought Million Dollar Baby was good, it certainly had its flaws. I thought there were much stronger films that year, so I was perplexed by all the award season love it received (but scratching my head at the Oscars isn't exactly new to me). With Letters From Iwo Jima however, I think I'm seeing that Clint Eastwood that everyone has been raving about for the last few years. Now I just need to get to a video store and check out that other movie he made last year.