Page 4 of 5
Posted: Thu Dec 21, 2006 1:43 am
by kieslowski_67
Just hope that this is a little bit better than those super manipulative, overacting and boring Eastwood flicks like Mystic River & M$B.
Posted: Thu Dec 21, 2006 4:32 am
by Mr Sausage
kieslowski_67 wrote:Just hope that this is a little bit better than those super manipulative, overacting and boring Eastwood flicks like Mystic River & M$B.
Maybe you'd like to refresh yourself on
these rules, specifically this one:
Don't troll. Don't post provocative statements just to get a response. If you need attention that badly, walk down the middle of a busy street. You'll get lots of attention. Also, if you don't like a film (or whatever the topic under discussion is), no one really needs you to comment on that fact and disappear. If you must post your disapproval in a thread, at least back it up with some reasoning.
Posted: Thu Jan 18, 2007 9:33 pm
by Barmy
It's good to see that filming two flix back to back didn't seem to age the Clintster.
Posted: Fri Jan 19, 2007 2:11 am
by exte
Did he go under the knife, you think? Or am trying to see things that aren't there?
Posted: Fri Jan 19, 2007 2:30 am
by David Ehrenstein
I've seen him up close. I don't think he's had any real work done at all.
Posted: Sun Jan 21, 2007 5:52 pm
by filmnoir1
I saw this on Friday and then again on Saturday afternoon. My first viewing experience was interrupted by my crass friend who 30 minutes into the film wished to leave, and then made snide comments throughout the rest of the film when I would not agree to go.
This is definitely a companion piece to Eastwood's Flags of Our Fathers, but more importantly this film seeks to humanize the Japanese and depict them as men capable of emotional attachment, fear, and the ability to question the propaganda of the Emperor. In fact both films seem to me to be truly about constructing new perspectives by which to consider the events of WW II and perhaps even the events of today.
One of the strengths of the picture is the way that Eastwood creates a sense of claustrophobia and nihilism through the use of low angle shots, and tight compositions within the widescreen frame. Another technique which he utilizes is to show the boredom of the men as they wait to die or fight, which is similar to what Terence Malick does in The Thin Red Line.
This film will assuredly receive the praise it deserves from Oscar voters and who knows perhaps they will give him a best director Oscar for both films.
Posted: Mon Jan 22, 2007 6:15 am
by portnoy
I saw it this afternoon and have to believe that along with Unforgiven, this might be Clint's truest masterpiece.
More than a companion piece or a humanization of the Japanese soldiers, though, LETTERS FROM IWO JIMA is a stunning film about a group of humans trying to come to grips with their own impending mortality, as well as the end of whatever nationalistic fervor led Japan into war in the first place. Eastwood's greatest skill here is to subtly survey the binding of identities personal and national, and his extraordinarily weighty treatment of the material is completely moving.
Also: Kazunari Ninomiya as the timid conscript Saigo might be the single best performance of the year.
If I seem a bit hyperbolic tonight, it's because this movie floored me.
Posted: Tue Jan 23, 2007 10:16 pm
by Antoine Doinel
Saw it this afternoon, and as much as I wanted to love it, Letters From Iwo Jima is plagued with same problem of gooey sentimentality, cliched characters and sloppy structure that faulted Flags Of Our Fathers. I actually couldn't believe this was the same guy who made Unforgiven. Every emotional hand was so predictably forced that I felt like leaving before it was done.
Seeing as how FOOF/LFIJ were supposed to be two opposing views of the same battle/war I felt I just watched the same movie twice. There was very little insight into what Japan's homefront was at the time, except for the same sort of teary eyed longing from relatives and some mention of Japan's secret spy service that goes absolutely nowhere. The same American soliders that Eastwood "humanizes" in FOOF are turned into savages here and vice versa.
There is a great single movie somewhere in here that would allow for an interesting perspective on the soldiers, the battle and what was going on both fronts but Eastwood failed to find it in two movies.
I'm shocked this was even nominated for Best Picture, but then again, any WWII film practically guarantees you a slot.
Posted: Tue Jan 23, 2007 10:20 pm
by Barmy
^Agreed (for once).
Posted: Wed Jan 24, 2007 2:09 pm
by tavernier
^^Ditto.
Posted: Wed Jan 24, 2007 2:56 pm
by toiletduck!
Antoine Doinel wrote:There is a great single movie somewhere in here that would allow for an interesting perspective on the soldiers, the battle and what was going on both fronts but Eastwood failed to find it in two movies.
This was where my thoughts went as well. This could have worked marvelously as a double bill of 80-90 minute features. I was drawn to
Flags/Letters because of the formal two films, one story aspect. But they both seemed a little bloated to me (
Flags moreso than
Letters, but not by terribly much).
-Toilet Dcuk
Posted: Wed Jan 24, 2007 7:21 pm
by Roger_Thornhill
SPOILERS below...
Antoine Doinel wrote:Saw it this afternoon, and as much as I wanted to love it, Letters From Iwo Jima is plagued with same problem of gooey sentimentality, cliched characters and sloppy structure that faulted Flags Of Our Fathers. I actually couldn't believe this was the same guy who made Unforgiven. Every emotional hand was so predictably forced that I felt like leaving before it was done.
I for one really liked
Letters and felt it was the stronger of the two. It had a much more coherent storyline and the flashbacks weren't as awkwardly placed as they were in
Flags IMO.
There are some cliched moments and characters, such as the Kempeitai character, but I felt the two main characters, Saito and Kuribayashi, were nicely drawn and wonderfully acted.
While I can't deny the sentimentality of
Letters, I can say I never felt it got too sappy and overly forced. Besides, isn't war fundamentally a sentimental exercise since it brings out extreme emotions in the participants?
Seeing as how FOOF/LFIJ were supposed to be two opposing views of the same battle/war I felt I just watched the same movie twice. There was very little insight into what Japan's homefront was at the time, except for the same sort of teary eyed longing from relatives and some mention of Japan's secret spy service that goes absolutely nowhere. The same American soliders that Eastwood "humanizes" in FOOF are turned into savages here and vice versa.
There's a good article in the latest issue of Film Comment where Kent Jones discusses the similiarities and differences between Flags and Letters. It's worth checking out (too bad you can't read it online). Jones essentially argues that the Americans' world view (or Western world view) is one of life whereas with the Japanese it's one of death. Although, I would say that there is a conflict in Letters between the Japanese who focus on death (the Bushido code fanatics) and a more rational, life affirming approach displayed by Kuribayashi. Then there's of course anit-war Saito, who's view differs from both sides in that war of course should never be engaged in. However, does Saito change his mind at the end when he tries to attack those Marines with a shovel? Does he believe that violence should be engaged in to protect the honor of your comrades? Has he embraced Kuribayashi's POV? I'm not sure.
It's possible that the similarities you felt were intentional, perhaps Eastwood's way of suggesting that despite the differences between Americans and Japanese, they're all humans and in that battle both sides suffered enormously.
The same American soliders that Eastwood "humanizes" in FOOF are turned into savages here and vice versa
I don't think either film condemns the other side as "savages," but simply argues that there were good people and monsters on both sides. Which is true, both sides committed war crimes against the other. The execution of the two Japanese POWs is hardly surprising given the circumstances. If you can't safely return the prisons to your base and you have to move forward, the prisoners are usually shot. Of course that's awful and should never be done, but that was the reality oftentimes. I'm glad Eastwood had the courage to show that, disgusting as it is. Spielberg's
Saving Private Ryan has a similar scene where they actually let the German prisoner go on his honor to walk to the Allied lines, which would never have occurred.
One thing that I particularly like about Flags and Letters, especially after thinking about Spielberg's film, is that Eastwood didn't seem to revel in the combat sequences the way SPR did. I'm not necessarily faulting Spielberg or his film, because one of the paradoxes of many anti-war films is that they inadvertantly glorify that which they condemn by creating excitement in their battle sequences, but nevertheless there has been accusations of Spielberg's film being akin to war porn. I never got that impression in either Flags or especially Letters, did anyone else?
Posted: Wed Jan 24, 2007 8:08 pm
by Antoine Doinel
Roger_Thornhill wrote:I for one really liked Letters and felt it was the stronger of the two. It had a much more coherent storyline and the flashbacks weren't as awkwardly placed as they were in Flags IMO.
I couldn't disagree more. I felt LFIJ was much stronger narratively. Haggis sloppy flashbacks and time jumping really took me out of FOOF and I thought the seams of the script really showed as the latter third of the film relied on a voiceover narrative (that seemed to come and go at leisure) to tie up the threads of the story.
Roger_Thornhill wrote:Then there's of course anit-war Saito, who's view differs from both sides in that war of course should never be engaged in. However, does Saito change his mind at the end when he tries to attack those Marines with a shovel? Does he believe that violence should be engaged in to protect the honor of your comrades? Has he embraced Kuribayashi's POV? I'm not sure.
I think it would be a huge stretch to call Saito "anti-war", he just didn't want to needlessly march forward to his death. Those are two different viewpoints entirely. I don't think he ever understood Kuribayashi's POV so much as respected him as a strong solider and clear thinker among a group of men fanatically stuck to their codebook on how wars are to be fought. At the end when he tried to "attack" the Marines, I took it that he was upset they had taken Kuribayashi's pistol (which Eastwood made a point of showing it's bloodstained handle in the Marine's belt) than any change of his feelings toward the Americans.
Roger_Thornhill wrote:It's possible that the similarities you felt were intentional, perhaps Eastwood's way of suggesting that despite the differences between Americans and Japanese, they're all humans and in that battle both sides suffered enormously.
Which begs the question, why bother making two films in the first place?
I guess I just felt the opportunity for something truly different and insightful was missed. For me the whole thing felt like just another addition to the Spielberg's long stream of produced or directed WWII pictures. I don't think Eastwood's voice showed through in either of the films. At least not the unique voice that made films like
Unforigven and
A Perfect World so fascinating.
Posted: Wed Jan 24, 2007 10:48 pm
by Roger_Thornhill
Antoine Doinel wrote:Roger_Thornhill wrote:I for one really liked Letters and felt it was the stronger of the two. It had a much more coherent storyline and the flashbacks weren't as awkwardly placed as they were in Flags IMO.
I couldn't disagree more. I felt LFIJ was much stronger narratively. Haggis sloppy flashbacks and time jumping really took me out of FOOF and I thought the seams of the script really showed as the latter third of the film relied on a voiceover narrative (that seemed to come and go at leisure) to tie up the threads of the story.
I think we're both in agreement that
Letters is the better written of the two.
Antoine Doinel wrote:I think it would be a huge stretch to call Saito "anti-war", he just didn't want to needlessly march forward to his death. Those are two different viewpoints entirely. I don't think he ever understood Kuribayashi's POV so much as respected him as a strong solider and clear thinker among a group of men fanatically stuck to their codebook on how wars are to be fought. At the end when he tried to "attack" the Marines, I took it that he was upset they had taken Kuribayashi's pistol (which Eastwood made a point of showing it's bloodstained handle in the Marine's belt) than any change of his feelings toward the Americans.
I agree, he's not jingoistic like the Bushido code fanatics or even to the more moderate degree that Kuribayashi is, since he has no desire whatsoever to die in combat. He also never once fires a shot at the Americans. There's a nice moment near the end where Kuribayashi calls him a "good soldier" and he replies that he's simply a baker. To me that at least suggests that his character could be construed as being anti-war, but, at the least, he's certainly apathetic towards it.
Antoine Doinel wrote:Roger_Thornhill wrote:It's possible that the similarities you felt were intentional, perhaps Eastwood's way of suggesting that despite the differences between Americans and Japanese, they're all humans and in that battle both sides suffered enormously.
Which begs the question, why bother making two films in the first place?
What I find interesting about Letters is that with the exception of Tora! Tora! Tora! it's really the only American film to show the Japanese POV in WWII (unless someone can think of another, I guess Michael Bay's Pearl Harbor does to some extent). There's plenty of American war films from the Germans' POV such as Cross of Iron that humanize the Germans, but it's much "harder" for Hollywood to humanize the Other. The Germans, after all, are Caucasian like the majority of Americans are. And while you dislike Letters for being too similiar to Flags, I find that actually to be rather refreshing to point out that we're all human and that war is not only a national experience, but a collective experience that all humans endure and react to in similar manners. Especially considering the depiction of the Japanese in a recent war film like Windtalkers and even in SPR, which paints the Germans as monsters.
I think there's still a great deal of prejudice and cultural misunderstanding in the US with regards to the Pacific War and the Japanese. I was talking to a friend who's a vet of the Pacific War and he commented on how he was shocked that he actually felt sympathy for the Japanese while watching Letters, considering the animosity still within him regarding them. If Letters and Flags are able to help bridge the cultural divide between the two sides, especially for older generations, then I think the effort was more than worth it.
Posted: Wed Jan 24, 2007 10:52 pm
by Michael Kerpan
Roger_Thornhill wrote:it's really the only American film to show the Japanese POV in WWII
Well -- there is Sternberg's unique "Anatahanj" -- though perhaps that was a Japanese film directed by an American legend, rather than an American film.
Posted: Wed Jan 24, 2007 11:21 pm
by Antoine Doinel
Roger_Thornhill wrote:And while you dislike Letters for being too similiar to Flags, I find that actually to be rather refreshing to point out that we're all human and that war is not only a national experience, but a collective experience that all humans endure and react to in similar manners. Especially considering the depiction of the Japanese in a recent war film like Windtalkers and even in SPR, which paints the Germans as monsters.
I think there's still a great deal of prejudice and cultural misunderstanding in the US with regards to the Pacific War and the Japanese. I was talking to a friend who's a vet of the Pacific War and he commented on how he was shocked that he actually felt sympathy for the Japanese while watching Letters, considering the animosity still within him regarding them. If Letters and Flags are able to help bridge the cultural divide between the two sides, especially for older generations, then I think the effort was more than worth it.
Very well said. I don't think we'll agree on Eastwood's accomplishments with these films, but I certainly will agree, it is refreshing to see an attempt like LFIJ hit a mainstream audience.
Have any veterans groups or whatnot commented on these films? I would be interested to hear what their take is on it.
Posted: Thu Jan 25, 2007 12:05 am
by filmnoir1
There was an article written by Stephen Hunter for the Washington Post last weekend that addresses these very issues. He notes that there have only been 4 Hollywood films which attempt to humanize the Japanese: David Lean's Bridge on the River Kwai, Hell in the Pacific (1968), Hell to Eternity (Phil Karlson 1960), and Cornel Wilde's Beach Red.
The opening sentence of his article speaks volumes about America, our relationship to the concept of race and our history as a nation. Hunter writes "the Japanese soldier--that is, the human being under the helmet and behind the rifle--has long been AWOL from our movies."
Even if the narrative seems sentimental and disjointed, this is still an important film because it examines in a critical light the belief that all Japanese people were militaristic.
Posted: Tue Feb 13, 2007 7:08 pm
by Fletch F. Fletch
Antoine Doinel wrote:Essentially, there are three stories here: 1. A recounting of the battle of Iwo Jima 2. The story of the lives of three of the six soldiers and 3. A look at the inner machinations and politics of WWII. The most fascinating of the stories is the third, which consequently, is the least focused and expanded upon.
I'm not sure what all the griping about the aesthetics of the Iwo Jima scenes are about, are we that cynical and desensitized not to be moved by them? I found them to be quite astonishing. The second story is very good as well, but interspersed with the battle sequences the terrible choice of intermittent voiceover, is told an agonizingly disjointed fashion. It's hardly used in the first 2/3 of the movie and then used almost exclusively to hold up the last 1/3 of the film.
There is a great movie in here about the media, politics and machinery of selling and "winning" a war but Eastwood is oddly didactic here. A disappointment for sure.
I disagree about this film being a disappointment. I finally caught up with it on DVD and maybe after reading all of the reviews on here my expectations were lowered significantly but I thought that this was a very moving and masterful film. I would agree with someone that all the stuff set in the present should have probably been removed. I understand its purpose in the movie but I don't think it was necessary.
I do agree with you that the most interesting aspect of the movie is about the "machinery of selling and 'winning' a war" and that the film seems to argue that it is a necessary evil. I would also argue that, for me, another, equally fascinating aspect of the film is the nature of heroism and what makes a hero. The film constant wrestles with this notion, most prominently with Ira Hayes who would rather be back in Japan fighting alongside his comrades than going on some BS public relations tour. And in the flashbacks we see that he and Doc were truly heroic figures.
I didn't really have a problem with the editing either. I thought that it was very easy to follow which time period we were in and who was whom but maybe that's because I recognized many of the actors in the cast. I had to do a double take when I saw Paul Walker in there. For what little screen time he had, I thought he was pretty good. I really thought that Barry Pepper was top notch. I've been a fan of his for some time and I thought he did a great job and wished that he had gotten more screen time.
For me, I keep going back to what Eastwood said in that
Time magazine interview: “the propaganda machine is our subject matter.â€
Posted: Tue Feb 13, 2007 8:33 pm
by Antoine Doinel
Fletch F. Fletch wrote:I would also argue that, for me, another, equally fascinating aspect of the film is the nature of heroism and what makes a hero. The film constant wrestles with this notion, most prominently with Ira Hayes who would rather be back in Japan fighting alongside his comrades than going on some BS public relations tour. And in the flashbacks we see that he and Doc were truly heroic figures.
I thought it was a fascinating aspect as well, but I really felt it was handled in such an overwrought, predictable and stereotypical way. Haggis' script doesn't leave any room subtlety and I felt the fall of Ira Hayes plodded from plot point to plot point. The idea of heroism I feel was much more strongly addressed and had much more impact with
Letters From Iwo Jima. I felt the internal battle vs. external battle was much more strongly focused in that film and just about every major character wrestled with that notion.
Fletch F. Fletch wrote:For me, I keep going back to what Eastwood said in that Time magazine interview: “the propaganda machine is our subject matter.â€
Posted: Tue Feb 13, 2007 9:15 pm
by Fletch F. Fletch
Antoine Doinel wrote:Fletch F. Fletch wrote:I would also argue that, for me, another, equally fascinating aspect of the film is the nature of heroism and what makes a hero. The film constant wrestles with this notion, most prominently with Ira Hayes who would rather be back in Japan fighting alongside his comrades than going on some BS public relations tour. And in the flashbacks we see that he and Doc were truly heroic figures.
I thought it was a fascinating aspect as well, but I really felt it was handled in such an overwrought, predictable and stereotypical way. Haggis' script doesn't leave any room subtlety and I felt the fall of Ira Hayes plodded from plot point to plot point. The idea of heroism I feel was much more strongly addressed and had much more impact with
Letters From Iwo Jima. I felt the internal battle vs. external battle was much more strongly focused in that film and just about every major character wrestled with that notion.
I haven't seen
Letters From Iwo Jima yet but it certainly sounds like the superior film of the two by all accounts. As to Haggis' script, you do have a point and I think that there is a real push-pull between his script and Eastwood's direction. While the fall of Hayes plods along script-wise, I felt that Beach's performance really sold it and even transcended the script. He was absolutely heartbreaking in the film. I guess I felt that Eastwood's direction was superior to the script with some truly memorable imagery... except for, as someone pointed out, that bit with the soldier-shaped dessert with blood red sauce poured all over it. That was a little too heavy-handed for my tastes as well.
Posted: Tue Feb 13, 2007 10:31 pm
by Anonymous
David Ehrenstein wrote: And by the way, I consider Flags of Our Fathers and Letters From Iwo Jimi to be one film.
That's very interesting, because on next Wednesday I will be attending a double feature of those two new Eastwoods in Munich, which marks the premier of "Letters from Iwo Jima" in Germany. I'm very happy to see these two films together in one evening.
Posted: Tue Feb 13, 2007 10:48 pm
by kinjitsu
Posted: Wed Feb 14, 2007 6:06 pm
by pm
Fletch F. Fletch wrote:As to Haggis' script, you do have a point and I think that there is a real push-pull between his script and Eastwood's direction. While the fall of Hayes plods along script-wise, I felt that Beach's performance really sold it and even transcended the script. He was absolutely heartbreaking in the film. I guess I felt that Eastwood's direction was superior to the script with some truly memorable imagery... except for, as someone pointed out, that bit with the soldier-shaped dessert with blood red sauce poured all over it. That was a little too heavy-handed for my tastes as well.
The push-pull you describe is there in all the Haggis-written Eastwood films. Perhaps it's unfair to divide what's good from what's bad and and distribute them so, but the films--as plot points written on a page--are deterministic, air-tight, silly, rather cliched, but, as actual experiences, the story is efficiently but not obviously, provide space for the actors, not too obviously narrating the above points, etc. Clint's longish takes and distant camera probably does this. Maybe his insistence on going with the first take is a happy accident that helps the cause, as it doesn't allow him to pick the one the most obviously puts across the script narrative point--I'm not exactly sure. But the films he's made of late are pretty wonderful exhibits of old fashioned American classicism, which has nothing approaching the openness of an alternative cinema but certainly provides more space than your typical contemporary popular American film, and it's not thanks to the scripts he works with...
Posted: Wed Feb 21, 2007 9:22 pm
by John Cope
Posted: Fri Feb 23, 2007 4:09 pm
by Barmy
Clint's New Hat
BY WARREN KOZAK
February 23, 2007
Clint Eastwood's, "Letters From Iwo Jima," is a brilliantly made film that is up for Best Picture at the Academy Awards this Sunday. It has already won the Golden Globe for Best Picture. Nonetheless, it is a terribly misleading film.
Most people today do not realize that there were really two Holocausts of World War II. There was the one perpetrated by the Germans against the Jews. The lesser known one was committed by the Japanese against the Chinese, Filipinos, Koreans, and Vietnamese.
In this second Asian Holocaust, 17 million humans, most of them noncombatants, were slaughtered in ways not used since medieval times. These victims were exterminated by imposed starvation, slave labor, and brutal executions by Japanese soldiers. It's these Japanese soldiers that are the focus of the film.
Washed away with Mr. Eastwood's new vision is the fact that the Japanese were never attacked in this war but carried out their own war of unimaginable aggression across all of Asia. Washed clean is the fact that this was not a war committed by a small group of leaders, but a war that needed and received the unquestioning support of the entire Japanese society, which blindly followed its leaders. In Clint Eastwood's film, though, we see none of this.
Instead, we see the battle of Iwo Jima through the eyes of benign Japanese soldiers who wait in fear of the enormous American invasion force in bunkers and caves. More to the point, we hear their thoughts from the letters they wrote as last testaments with the knowledge that they would never see their families again.
Although there is great value in understanding the humanity of these Japanese soldiers, Mr. Eastwood misses the larger picture of what these men actually participated in. In an interview on National Public Radio's program "Fresh Air" with Terry Gross, Mr. Eastwood described these soldiers as conscripts not unlike the young Americans who fought against them. "They didn't want to be there," Mr. Eastwood said, "any more than the American Marines wanted to be there."
No doubt many, if not most, Japanese defenders of the tiny island were loving husbands and sons who wanted nothing more than to be back home. We can imagine that within the large Japanese army there were saints and thugs … as there are in every army, including our own.
But any other similarities between the American military in World War II and the Japanese are very limited. Americans did not come from a death culture — the idea of committing suicide for Franklin Roosevelt when all was lost seems as implausible today as it did back then. Yet, Japanese casualty rates ran between 97% in Saipan and 99.7% in Tarawa, meaning very few Japanese ever surrendered.
As I look at a photo of Mr. Eastwood taken during the filming of "Letters from Iwo Jima," in which he dons a Japanese army hat from that era, I wonder if the director understands just what that hat represents to people throughout Asia above the age of 80? I also can't help but wonder if he would have worn a Nazi hat with a swastika if his film showed us D-Day from the German perspective. If that comparison sounds harsh, it only demonstrates an extreme lack of knowledge of the war.
In any month in the first half of 1945, upwards of a quarter-of-a-million Asian men, women, and children were dying at the hands of the Japanese. Many women were gang raped by Japanese troops before they were butchered. That's really no longer war. It's genocide.
But in September of 1945, the Asian death rate drops to zero … and stays at zero. When Japan is finally forced to halt its ambitions of conquest and when its army goes home, the entire orgy of death stops. It's that simple.
The end of this slaughter comes to a halt because of the 18- and 19-year-old Americans who stormed those awful beaches. Yes, there were teenagers on both sides. But they were not the same by any means. That is the ultimate lesson — the one that, sadly, is not taught by anyone anymore, including Mr. Eastwood.