Letters From Iwo Jima: Review By moviegeek

Flags of Our Fathers, the preceding picture in Clint Eastwood's Iwo Jima chronicle, took this historic battle from the American viewpoint. Four months later, he finished his vision with Letters From Iwo Jima, the same battle, through Japanese eyes and tongue.

Two main characters are focused on during the course of this film. The first is a poor baker, Saigo, whose placement in the war came distressingly to his pregnant wife. He made her a promise to return to her, and we see how personal the battle has become to him. The second character is General Kuribayashi (Ken Watanabe) who has been placed in command of the regiment. Instead of overseeing his platoon of men harshly and violently, he treats them more humanely, much to the dislike of his co-ranked superiors.

The film is called LETTERS from Iwo Jima, so naturally there are systematic pauses in the storyline to hear narrated messages from the soldiers and commanders to their loved ones at home. One thing this film does tremendously, and notably better than 'Flags', is to create an emotional core. Critics who denoted this picture did so on the grounds that it spends too much time sympathizing with the Japanese than sticking to history. History is one-sided, and Eastwood offers a very touching and real story, emphasized with shocking violence and gruesome war carnage.

Anyone interested in viewing this film should know that it is all subtitled. I happen to love subtitles in films rather than miserable English dubbing. The language enhances the movie rather than hindering it. It is also shot in a very de-saturated, tan lighting. The cinematography makes the film come alive, whilst still being murky and dark.

Eastwood is one magnificent director. But here, with these two films, he offers something that seems to have disappeared in film today: perspective. There is a difference between taking a perspective and denoting another (like doc*mentaries) and what Eastwood has done with these two pictures. He has shown that both sides of a hostile story resonate deeper than good and bad. Each side, at its core, is human. Each human full of life, love, and passions. Eastwood never for a second favors one side. He puts each on a level that is common to everyone living today.

War is ugly and gruesome. It hurts and damages. But in the midst of this, with fine-tuning and a perfect eye for emotion, Eastwood has made a truly remarkable and beautiful film. When watching these two pictures, the viewer isn't asked to pick a side. There is a universal oneness to these two different films. Which is better? Neither. I encourage you to watch both of these tremendous achievements.