January 26, 2007 -- In 2006 the venerable actor-director Clint Eastwood has given us two movies for the price of two. They are complimentary movies, two sides of the same coin. The first is Flags of Our Fathers and the second is the subject of this review, “Letters From Iwo Jima.” The first movie is told from the American point of view, the second is told from the Japanese point of view. Both films focus on the same battle. Both are war movies that show the brutality and senselessness of war, rather than glory. Since “Letters From Iwo Jima” is told from the Japanese point of view, some consider it anti-American. This is utter nonsense. It isn't anti-American. It is definitely not pro-American nor is it pro-Japanese. It is neutral. More on this later.

The film is based on letters home from the top Japanese commander on Iwo Jima, a hot, lifeless hunk of volcanic rock in the ocean. This island is valuable as a military target for one reason only. It has an airfield on it, and the Americans could bomb the Japanese homeland with bombers based on Iwo Jima. The Japanese can use it to strike at the U.S. fleet. The commander, General Tadamichi Kuribayashi (Ken Watanabe of “The Last Samurai”) takes command of the island in the hope of beating back the American threat and defending Japanese territory. He soon learns from his friend, Baron Nishi (Tsuyoshi Ihara) that the Japanese military leadership has been keeping him in the dark about the true condition of the Japanese fleet. There will be no support and no reinforcements for the troops on Iwo Jima. Defense of the island is hopeless. He changes his strategy based on the new information, abandoning the beaches in favor of caves dug into the volcanic rocks of the island, connected by 18 miles of tunnels. From these hidden fortresses, he hopes to at least slow the Americans down.

Kuribayashi's ideas on defense are so unusual that he meets with resistance from his fellow soldiers, particularly, Lieutenant Ito (played by Shidou Nakamura), who considers Kuribayashi pro-American and his loyalty to Japan suspect. When Kuribayashi orders soldiers to retreat and regroup, Ito, and many others think it more honorable to commit suicide than retreat. Confusion reigns when Ito and other officers like him don't carry out, even pass along, Kuribayashi's order to retreat and regroup. Many Japanese soldiers are shown killing themselves. Very few surrender. Although this isn't covered in the film, Japanese propaganda had convinced many soldiers that they would be executed by the Americans who captured them. There were mass suicides by Japanese civilians on some islands captured by Americans.

The film depicts the chaos of war. Japanese officers are shown abusing their own men and urging them to commit suicide, despite Kuribayashi's orders. Japanese soldiers are also shown brutally murdering an American prisoner. Americans are also shown cold-bloodedly murdering Japanese prisoners. This is probably the source of the “anti-American” claims by some of the film's critics. So, both sides killed prisoners, how is that anti-American? I guess for some people portrayal of Americans has to be positive all the time. It is sort of like saying, “if you aren't with us you're against us.”

In this film, we have two Japanese officers, General Tadamichi Kuribayashi and Baron Nishi, who both understand the Americans. They have both traveled to America. Nishi even speaks English. We see no Americans who understand the Japanese, although some may speak some Japanese. As in “Million Dollar Baby” Eastwood chooses to emphasize the nobility of suicide a bit too much for my tastes, but at least it is more understandable in this case, given the Shinto religion and the warrior code. Even in traditional pro-U.S., pro-military war movies like “Flying Tigers” and “In Harm's Way” we see Americans execute suicide missions, even Kamikaze-like attacks. So suicide is not unheard of, even in pure Hollywood war films. The message of the film, curiously, is the same as “Pan's Labyrinth,” another top film of 2006. The message is the right thing, just like Spike Lee said.

The main problem I had with this film is its structure, with its slow pacing, fragmented story lines and frequent flashbacks, it doesn't flow well. The construction saps a lot of the energy out of the film. The acting, however, is excellent. Digital effects are used well in the film. The film's cinematography, with its noirish gray look and its faded colors, is suitably subdued for a movie about a lost cause. It is certainly a good film, but not really top-10 material. If it wins a best picture Oscar, it will be because Eastwood is enormously popular in Hollywood, not because it is a great film. It rates a B.

Click here for links to places to buy or rent this movie in video and/or DVD format, or to buy the soundtrack, posters, books, even used videos, games, electronics, theater tickets and lots of other stuff. I suggest you shop at least two of these places before buying anything. Prices seem to vary continuously. For more information on this film, click on this link to The Internet Movie Database. Type in the name of the movie in the search box and press enter. You will be able to find background information on the film, the actors, and links to much more information.

Copyright © 2007 Robert Roten. All rights reserved.
Reproduced with the permission of the copyright holder.

Robert Roten can be reached via e-mail at .