Letters From Iwo Jima

I'll begin by saying I haven't viewed "Flags of Our Fathers." I hesitate to watch movies these days which are based on the maneuverings of any war machine. My hesitance arises from a dislike of uneducated opinions expressed through propaganda. Be that as it may, I decided to give this one a try while buttressing myself against what I expected to be the overly sympathizing, tear-jerk intentions of the movie.

First, the defense of Iwo Jima during WWII lasted over a month, where the desolate island was expected to last only a week, give or take. I think the movie missed on this point. The scenes flowed well overall, but failed to adequately portray the the struggles experienced by the Japanese soldiers as individuals and as a cohesive force. Of course, I realize that the brevity of the film medium dictates that the grandest moments be chosen to convey an idea. However, to humanize any plight requires an understanding of that plight as well as a relation to it. The plot moved so quickly that the audience had to be hand-fed facts such as the soldiers lacking food and water. We were deprived of seeing the labor required to construct the labyrinthine mazes of the island. The lack of reinforcements was realized before the soldiers' immense undertaking was shown-- and that realization more or less occurred through conversation. Because of this, relating to the hardships of the Japanese soldiers was nigh impossible.

This segways into another point. The relative success of the Japanese in defending what was believed to be an indefensible hold arose due to the strategies of the General Kuribayashi, as portrayed-- no, well-portrayed-- by Watanabe. Yet, it was difficult to determine upon whom the story focused from Act to Act. We have a baker-turn-soldier who plays a pacifist in most respects, yet nonetheless is our hero. I believe that to be an intentional use of irony, as the character's cowardice allows him to survive and gives rise to the story as told. I also believe that character to be an intentional parallel to the "wise" general who is juxtaposed to the baker. However, these contrivances lack focus, and the dual stories are not inter-weaved to an extent which allows us, as the audience, to choose a ready hero. I found myself pulling for the tortured General because I simply had to choose someone for whom to cheer. But I didn't really know why he was struggling internally.

Finally, the greatest injustice is served by ignoring the role of culture in this story. Perhaps this was excluded to make the baker's character more tear-invoking or to humanize the General, but it also made the movie less reliable and believable. The Emperor of Japan was a divine embodiment of sovereignty. The drive to war meant a religiously dictated course of action. As well, U.S. soldiers were portrayed as vicious torturers and murderers in Japanese propaganda. Otherworldly repercussions and worldly fear are fantastic motivators for action. Alas, there was no real conflict except among the Japanese soldiers, and so what action there was seemed deflating. We missed the background story altogether. All we see is the soldiers starving, but we don't see the underlying reasons for the choice to starve rather than surrender. Therefore, the ultimate failing arises from "Americanizing" and modernizing the main Japanese characters. I would love to see the same story told by a Japanese survivor. At least then the penultimate realization of the Japanese soldiers that the U.S. soldiers were pawns like themselves might have carried some weight.

In the end, my rating depends on how one categorizes the film. As an action film, I rate it 1/10. As a drama, I give it a 3/10. It wasn't about battles. It wasn't about cultural understanding. The characters were superficial rather than insightful. I think it may have been about boredom as an unbearable burden. As a character-driven, philosophical rant on the abstract and unidentifiable, hmmm, a 6/10. Save this one for a rainy day of chicken pox.