• printer friendly
• mail this article
• iPod format
• digg

Photo

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.