"Letters" review

email this story
read comments (16)
post a comment

No disrespect to Clint Eastwood's Flags of Our Fathers, but Letters From Iwo Jima -- a sad elegiac portrait of the Japanese defenders of Iwo Jima during that horrific battle in early 1945 -- is a much better film. It's sadder, cleaner and more primal, for one thing, and the absence of all the cutting back-and-forth between the battle and the bond tour in Eastwood's earlier Iwo Jima visitation feels like a kind of blessing.

The sense of increased focus in this Japanese-language film is immediately apparent, yielding as it does a more earnest humanistic aura along with a story that feels far more tragic. The Japanese troops know from the get-go that they haven't a hope of victory against the American invaders, and so Letters quickly falls into relief as a compressed, bare-bones meditation about an eternal question that tugs at us all -- how to live bravely and honorably in the face of certain death.

As Todd McCarthy has noted in his just-up Variety review, "considered from the Japanese angle Iwo Jima resembles the Alamo -- a futile if heroic last stand against an enemy force too overwhelming to withstand, although withstand it they did, for much longer than their opponents imagined possible."

Letters delivers at least three performances that are unquestionably more affecting than the respectable but muted ones in Flags -- Ken Wanatabe's as General Tadamichi Kuribayashi, a portrayal of a combat-averse foot soldier named Saio by the unknown Kazunari Ninomiya, and Tsuyoshi Ihjara's as Baron Nishi, a kindly cultivated officer with a fondness for horses.

For the first time an American-made film is not only showing us what it was like for Japanese troops to fight U.S. forces -- it's a fascinating thing to consider guys from "our" side as faceless grunts and deliverers of doom -- but provides insight into basic Japanese values of that time, not just in a military sense but in terms of their homeland, families and indeed their eternal spirits.

Letters starts out a bit slowly and carefully, and it feels a bit choppy and abbreviated in the early stages of the battle. But once it gets going -- particularly during the second half, with the strongest portions coming during the final third -- it delivers the goods and then some. Eastwood has reason to feel very proud. And lucky, in a sense. Something deep down told him he should attempt a Japan- ese-side-of-the-battle film while shooting Flags, and it was a good instinct.

In early October I heard from from a big-name critic who'd recently seen Flags that a person he spoke to from Eastwood's camp had told him that as good as Flags was, Letters was the superior film. I've been hoping all along that this would turn out to be true. I had the heebie jeebies just before last Sunday's Letters screening began, but less than five minutes in I knew the Eastwood-camp guy was right.

Watanabe should absolutely be added to the tally of Best Actor contenders -- his Kuribayashi is cut from the same heroic, humanistic cloth that has begotten all great military leaders. The on-screen ones, I mean.

Four NBR Beefs<< previous | next >>Manhattan pics #5

Posted by Jeffrey Wells on December 7, 2006 at 2:17 PM

comment #1

dre says ...

This is great news, looking foward to this film and Watanabe's performance.

Posted by dre at December 7, 2006 2:37 PM

comment #2

Rich S. says ...

Jeffrey,

Just curious. Was the change in title warranted? Or would Red Sun, Black Sand worked just as well or better?

Posted by Rich S. at December 7, 2006 2:43 PM

comment #3

sardine says ...

Mr. Clint Dreary Eastwood. Yuck.

Posted by sardine at December 7, 2006 3:00 PM

comment #4

D.Z. says ...

"For the first time an American-made film is not only showing us what it was like for Japanese troops to fight U.S. forces --"

Wait, what about Tora! Tora! Tora! and The Thin Red Line?

Posted by D.Z. at December 7, 2006 4:30 PM

comment #5

Hopscotch says ...

the conservative writers/talking heads will have a field day with this.

"Which movie does the Academy nominate for Best Picture? The one wear the JAPS kill Americans! This is another example of liberal hollywood hating our troops"... yada yada blah blah.

I kinda enjoyed "Flags", but didn't leave feeling wowed. I hope "Letters" is good.

Posted by Hopscotch at December 7, 2006 4:36 PM

comment #6

p.Vice says ...

Combat-averse foot soldier? Cultivated officer with a fondness for horses? It's nice to know that Eastwood isn't the discriminating type -- his japanese characters are just as stereotypical as his american characters.

At least this wasn't written by Paul Haggis. That alone makes this the better movie. Although I'm not sure that should be taken as a compliment.

As he gets older Clint seems to be getting scared of taking chances, mixing it up a little, getting his hands dirty. Somebody let me know when Eastwood stops making movies that his apologists might refer to as "elegant".

Posted by p.Vice at December 7, 2006 4:37 PM

comment #7

Devin Faraci says ...

Story by Haggis!

Posted by Devin Faraci at December 7, 2006 5:03 PM

comment #8

bipedalist says ...

It's an amazing film, one of the year's best, easily. I sobbed all the way through this. But I disagree that this movie is the great one while Flags isn't. For one thing, Iwo Jima has the luxury of being an organic story, while Flags had a book to wrestle with. Nonetheless, Letters is all the more moving and meaningful because it has a companion piece to give it balance and perspective. With just one or the other it's tipped in one direction. This way, you get the full impact of what he's saying about the futility of war. It's one of the elegant achievements I've ever been lucky enough to see.

Posted by bipedalist at December 7, 2006 5:32 PM

comment #9

FeydAway says ...

Hmmmm...color me concerned. You have overly-earnest Eastwood+Haggis doing a story wherein it sounds like they are going to gloss over the barbaric practices and atrocities of the Japanese army with a mondo-sized PC brush.

Any movie from a Japanese POV on Iwo Jima should portray them in such a regimented, scary, and barbaric way as to have most audiences cringing, not crying.

And, war is not futile. It is devastatingly costly, horrific, and dehumanizing. But, it is not futile - it usually has very distinct goals. Certainly, WWII did.

Posted by FeydAway at December 7, 2006 7:14 PM

comment #10

breadlymoore says ...

"regimented, scary, and barbaric way as to have most audiences cringing, not crying."

Oh, the film shows the Japanese as brutal, don't worry.

It shows it over and over and over... In fact, everything in this film is done over and over and over.

Anyone who craps on FLAGS to praise IWO is out of their minds.

Posted by breadlymoore at December 7, 2006 8:49 PM

comment #11

renorambler says ...

Clint is at his best when he does "sad" and "elegiac" in my opinion.

Posted by renorambler at December 7, 2006 9:00 PM

comment #12

The Movie Man says ...

Eastwood is a good director that has been elevated to the status of great director a little carelessly in my opinion. Million Dollar Baby is an ok, totally cliche movie (and yes the third act "surprise" is cliche, it just switches genres), directed in that earnest, humorless, extended style that the critics love. "Mystic River" is a good little murder mystery that drowns in pretentious performances (Robbins, an excellent actor, won for one his least convincing performances) and half baked plotting (such as the out of nowhere Lady Macbeth scene at the end.)

Before that Eastwood made several totally forgettable films even in most critics eyes (True Crime, Space Cowboys, Blood Work). For me Eastwood's two major achievements as director are the great Unforgiven and the lovely, even funny in places, The Bridges of Madison County. I respect and admire and enjoy the man's work, and obviously this is subjective, but I can't be the only one who sees this. Awarding an Eastwood film nowadays seems to be more out of obligation, and inevitability than any major reaction to his work.

Posted by The Movie Man at December 8, 2006 7:44 AM

comment #13

Rich S. says ...

Movie Man,

I agree to a certain degree. But I would add High Plains Drifter to the list of Eastwood's great films. It establishes and plays on many of the iconic myths that Unforgiven explodes, and therefore acts as an excellent bookend. Some might see it as pulp, but even then it is pulp of the highest degree. To see the contrast, watch the almost-identical but clearly inferior Pale Rider, which came in the same fallow period as Firefox and Heartbreak Ridge.

Eastwood is not a perfect director, to be sure. But his track record of two or three classics, five or so near classics and another half-dozen damn fine films is a fine body of work for any director, let alone one that started as a contract player in Revenge of the Creature.

Posted by Rich S. at December 8, 2006 12:36 PM

comment #14

The Movie Man says ...

Rich-I agree, and I'm quite fond of High Plains Drifter myself, and I agree that Eastwood has left behind a legacy and made an impact that anyone should hope to have achieved. It just seems lately that he's been getting a free pass because he's Eastwood and, as much ability as he has, the flaws of some of his recent work is being completely ignored.

Posted by The Movie Man at December 8, 2006 1:19 PM

comment #15

Hopscotch says ...

The "Million Dollar Baby" and "Mystic River" love fests were not that fun to have to participate them. When both movies are 3-star, solid films. Just not "Masterpieces" like Ebert called "M$B".

Critics like him because he reminds them of old school filmmakers that existed pre-1970's that many film critics saw at an impressionable age. To boot, Eastwood doesn't do heavy kinetic editing but and his movies are emotionally in the right place and don't feel forced (like say Spielberg's stuff).

Posted by Hopscotch at December 8, 2006 1:54 PM

comment #16