I do have a major objection to Clint Eastwood’s new film Letters from Iwo Jima, but my first reaction is one of praise. After months of thrown-together, derivative, meretricious films, it is a delight to see a movie that actually has confidence in itself, that is willing to stand or fall on the story it has to tell.
Generally, I haven’t been a Clint fan. His early films were either hilariously bad or else just so damn bad they weren’t even hilarious. I confess that In the Line of Fire, featuring terrific performances by both Eastwood and John Malkovich, was an absolutely first-rate thriller, but I steered clear of “dark” films like Unforgiven, Mystic River, and Million-Dollar Baby, figuring I didn’t need a lot of “heavy” irony and tragic revelations. But Letters from Iwo Jima, frankly, is a revelation. I find it amazing that the director of a film as moronic and crass as Heartbreak Ridge could create a film as gentle and humane as Letters.
My complaint is this: Letters from Iwo Jima pictures Japanese soldiers as most Japanese would probably like to imagine them—good-natured individuals thrown into a living hell by forces beyond their control, a living hell with no way out. Letters from Iwo Jima does for the Japanese what Das Boot did for the Germans—lets them see themselves as victims. Hey, no Jews were killed in the making of this picture!
But the cruelty of the Japanese army, while it never reached the heights of the Germans, was horrifying enough. In the December 1937 “rape of Nanking,” for example, Japanese soldiers murdered between 100,000 and 300,000 Chinese during a six-week spree that also saw the rape of thousands of women. In China, in Taiwan, in Korea, and in the Philippines, the period of Japanese rule remains a bitter memory.
Like the German army, the Japanese army was the brutal, barbaric instrument of a brutal, barbaric regime. Respect for the terrible sufferings of the individual Japanese soldiers should not be allowed to obscure that fact.
Wednesday, January 31, 2007
In like Clint: Letters from Iwo Jima is Excellent! With one, yeah, pretty major caveat
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
1. FWIW, you can't have seen too many Eastwood pitures, if you regard them as bad or hilarious. Even the ones with the Orang Utan, while not Oscar matrial, were in good fun, warmhearted and entertaining (maybe today even more so). Years before the next generation's Action heroes, Arnold Schwarzenegger and Sly Stallone, chose to turn their image upside down by turning to comedy, Eastwood paved the way with this bold move.
2. While 'In the Line of Fire' was a good movie and Eastwood shone, it was no Eastwood Picture, but directed by Wolfgang Petersen. ;)
3. Wolfgang Petersen focused on the events and the men on that submarine in 'Das Boot', based on Lothar-Guenther Buchheims bestselling memoirs. There didn't die any Jews because there were none aboard and so there were none in the picture. Why would there have been? That's like expecting to see the Eiffel Tower in every movie set in Paris... yes, it's there, and yes, it's quite big, but no, you can't actually see it from every window in Paris. So why cram it in, just to make sure every dimwit in the theater actually notices that the movie is set there? Do we need to see a depiction of the My Lai massacre in every war pic about Viet Nam? No we don't. Tell a specific story and stick to it. Leave out anything that doesn't help the storytelling. That's good filmmaking 101.
There is no nation that ever went to war that hasn't commited atrocities. The U.S. are no exception, neither are the British, the Japanese, Chinese or Germans. In the end we're all human, with every flaw that comes with that term. And while we may choose to focus on the bad sides of men, we can also choose to see the opposite, especially when telling a specific story.
His early films were either hilariously bad or else just so damn bad they weren’t even hilarious."
That's a ridiculous comment and blatantly untrue. Look, if you're not familiar with Eastwood's work it's best you don't pass judgements like that lest you come off sounding like a cretin (and anybody who says he can't be bothered with his recent masterpieces because they look too 'dark' isn't doing much for his credibility).
Play Misty for Me (Eastwood's first directorial outing), Breezy, High Plains Drifter, The Outlaw Josey Wales, Bronco Billy, Bird, White Hunter, Black Heart are all good-excellent movies which apart from anything else showcase Eastwood's remarkable versatility in different genres.
I also think your complaint about Letters is equally off the mark. I fail to see what the Nanking rape has to do with the story of a group of men on Iwo Jima. And correct me if I'm wrong but did Letters not also show the brutal side of the Japanese army? Perhaps you missed the scenes where an American pleading for mercy was bayonetted to death, or Japanese officers beating their men, or ordering them to make suicidal charges towards the enemy, or to blow themselves up rather than be taken prisoner ...
The difference between the Japanese and the US army was that the former encouraged its men to behave as brutally as possible and the country itself was in the grip of an extremist military from the early 1930's through to the end of the war. Whilst American soldiers were certainly trained to hate and kill the Japanese in combat, any excessive behaviour - such as the shooting and torture of prisoners - would have gotten a US Marine arrested, thrown in the nearest stockade and court martialed. That's not to say that some US soldiers didn't also commit atrocities but such behaviour was not tolerated by their commanders. In the Japanese military such behaviour was not only tolerated but actively encouraged.
I'm glad to see your comment about Japanese atrocities. I'm a history major who has studied this extensively. But when I watch films I am primarily a cinephile. 99.9% of the time I believe historical films should do what they have to to tell a story, but this I couldn't stomach.
The Japanese were cultlike in their use of atrocities and extremism in battle and warfare. They may not have killed as many people as the Germans,but you can bet their victims suffered every bit as much and in ways horrible to imagine. And this is how they overtook so much of Asia. As cults do, in their desire to win they surrendered their individuality for the greater cause of superiority, as many others in history have. It is a sophisticated and dark concept, but utterly true. Anything else shows a simplistic, idealized understanding of what warfare in the Pacific was like. We're talking about an extremist attitude and character of a soldier here that colored almost every engagement they participated in from kamikaze naval battles to land occupations. In terms of blind fervor for a cause and utter lack of human decency for those they were victimizing these were the SS and Gestapo of the Pacific, not just the average German soldier as is seen in Das Boot.
In the Philippines they would bayonet babies, and the siege (or Rape of) Manila saw women being raped 100s of times a day, mutilated and maimed. How about the whole mentality of suicide above all?
In many wars while reading soldier's accounts you usually see a certain amount of understanding or even empathy for the opposite side. Allied soldiers were often in awestruck horror at the work of the Japanese army. It is this form of fundamentalist style extremism that characterized much of the Japanese fighting style ESPECIALLY on Iwo Jima.
Atrocities in Nanking, Korea, Philippines, to POWs have EVERYTHING to do with Iwo Jima. This was part of their strategic training, was accepted and encouraged and was terribly present everywhere they went, famously in Iwo Jima as well. This extremism and plain lack of conscience should have been more prevalent in the film in the coloring and character of the Japanese army.
I agree with you that Letters was exceptionally well made, and I agree with your observations, esp. the flaw. I didn't look at it that way at first, I just felt guilty and confused. I thought I prefer Flags of Our Fathers and its ambiguity. I was felt so guilty and such anger that I wrote a piece in my blog (I don't know if you read Chinese, but if you do, it's the link below). And then I realised it's exactly because it so successfully manuipulated my emotions, to root for the Japanese soldiers, in such a subtle way, that I felt guilty and angry. As I said in my blog, I think it is a very well made point Eastwood had made, but it was also made in extremely bad taste.
live
http://live_n_let_live.mysinablog.com/index.php?op=ViewArticle&articleId=444502
Policies and strategies were devised by the top military personnels. The Japanese did performed unforgivable atroctities during the war. However, we shouldn't discredit the movie just like that. I believe the troops stationed in iwo jima are mostly poorly trained, fresh conscripts forced to join in the military forces to defend their country blindly as a last resort. While the brutal Japanese soldiers committed the atroctities ... there were also some who didn't wish to be involved in the war and wanted to go home to their families. My grandmother had formerly been arrested by the Japanese soldiers and was questioned for a couple of days. In the end the officer believed that she was not part of the resistance and offered her a bag of rice so bring home and cook for the entire family. We cannot go around stereotyping humans. Every race, there are people who are ethical and good, and there are also some who are utterly cruel and inhuman.
I think letters is seriously the best movie for 2006. It depicted the brutal Japanese and the more humane ones as well. This is really Clint's best movie to date. What a thought invoking movie. 10 Stars!
Letters from Iwo Jima was an excellent movie. Though to point out that the Japanese are real people too... often doesnt go down well with the American public and I believe that Clint has braved the anger that some might feel. American soldiers were in many ways no different if you want to a comparision of brutality look at what US soldiers did in Vietnam and yet the Americans make many heart felt movies about the "Nice guys, just trying to get home". Not the soldiers that killed and raped all those defenseless people in Mai Lan.
I belive that the movie allows more common people would be able to sympathise with average well with the average soldier, who like you or me has no interest in doing anything more than defend their country and upholding moral values.
Good on Clint Eastwood.
For those of you who have followed Philippine Films in Festivals, Thanks. For those of you who are certain that there is more that the Philippines can offer, Thanks for the belief.
The Philippines has long been a basket case, still to discover its potential. Poverty and slum, sex, violence, gambling trade has almost been a trademark of Philippine films abroad. Panoramanila Pictures wants to change all that. It wants to make a proper representation of the Philippines by presenting a love story – PLONING – with enchanting sites, sounds and a culture that is entirely unique . A love story told thru the experiences of the people living in the exotic islands of Cuyo, Palawan just south of the Philippines.
Teaser trailers of PLONING will be released on the Internet on March 22 and 23. The official trailer of the film will have its Internet release on March 25, 2008.
The Film will have an International roadshow in Singapore, Dubai, London and New York City.
Post a Comment