Screen Scene: 'Letters from Iwo Jima'

War films tend to suffer from an aura of banal sameness. They
can all seem alike at times. And whenever one film comes along to
shake things up a bit (for example, “Saving Private
Ryan,” with its shaky cam and washed-out visuals), every
subsequent output in the genre follows in its footsteps with
near-religious fanaticism.

Thankfully, the cinematic gods were with Clint Eastwood
(“Unforgiven,” “Million Dollar Baby”) when
he directed “Letters from Iwo Jima.” This movie feels
fresh and original, and benefits greatly because of it.

Technically, this is a sequel. It’s the second part of a
very long single work that began with “Flags of Our
Fathers,” released some months ago. That movie, like this
one, also focused on the WWII battle of Iwo Jima. But while
“Flags” dealt with the American point of view,
“Letters” tells its story from the side of the Japanese
soldiers.

This very fact is what makes “Letters” so different.
Since the Japanese fought mostly inside of claustrophobic tunnels,
the film confines itself likewise. The result is that the audience
doesn’t actually see much of the battle. There are two main
characters ““ General Kuribayashi (Ken Watanabe from
“The Last Samurai”) and young soldier Saigo (pop star
Kazunari Ninomiya) ““ and, for the most part, we see only what
they see from their considerably limited vantage-points. There are
no grand panoramic views, only tiny glimpses.

But what great glimpses! A mass-suicide with grenades; nighttime
gunfights shrouded in fog; an unexpected air raid; the overwhelming
American fleet. There’s no shortage of excitingly explosive
moments. Yet it is the script’s quieter dialogue work (by
first-time writer Iris Yamashita) that gives “Letters”
its distinctive feel.

Most characters are given a monologue or two, and each has a
specific background story. Every individual is a unique creation.
The Japanese here are not a collection of like-minded automatons.
Some have no qualms with brutally murdering American prisoners.
Others are more humane, and give medical attention to captured GIs.
One soldier is decidedly against the war; another is all for it.
One general respects the Americans; another thinks they’re
savages.

Eastwood shows us the whole gamut of an army’s fractured
philosophies and idiosyncrasies. Soldiers in this movie don’t
always form lasting bonds, but may instead fear each other.
Unpopular ideals can lead to ostracism or even execution. Friends
are scarce, and those that exist may be killed in tomorrow’s
battle. It’s a harsh world, but one the director showcases
powerfully.

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *