Capital Letters
3.5/4 stars

Clint Eastwood goes above and beyond what he accomplished with Flags of Our Fathers. That was a compelling and powerful piece of work about the effect war had on America, but to see the same situation occur to another country goes to another level. Here, Eastwood takes everything the average American knows or has pre-conceived notions about in terms of World War II and turns them to show us the "enemy's" side. The acting here is very strong, especially from Ken Watanabe, who shows a fierce and yet gentle side to the character of the Japanese general who is just like any American general; he simply follows orders. This is a hard film to watch at times, especially in two specific flashback sequences when seeing how certain soldiers arrived on the island of Iwo Jima. All this is to show how the Japanese soldiers each had their own job, career, and family to worry about and take the chance that they would not ever see them again. Powerful film making aside, this is simply a great story about humans and the effects of war on all involved. This is almost certainly the best war film since Saving Private Ryan.

Let me begin with an important point: of the several films (Last Samurai, Memoirs of a Geisha) that Hollywood has recently produced concerning Japanese history and culture, this is the only one that shows ANY sensitivity to Japanese culture at all; if Japanese viewers find it untrue to any degree, I ask them to remember the Hollywood gunk that preceded it. This film at least admits that there is something about historic Japanese culture - especially the cult of 'heroic suicide' - that it does not understand - and admits also that Japanese claims against American soldiers - e.g., the casual execution of prisoners - are not without foundation. It is therefore an ethically complex and difficult film, that allows that there may be more than one perspective to any military conflict. That this was suggested by executive producer Spielberg says more about his ethos than even "Schindler's List" or "The Color Purple"; that this was made by Clint Eastwood remains a final slam to all who pretend he is just a B-movie cowboy with production clout. Despite certain flaws, this is a film Akira Kurosawa would certainly have respected - perhaps even admired.

The Japanese who defended Okinawa were betrayed by their government - they were basically left to their own devices, with no support, to fight the first major battle of WWII on Japanese soil. Since the government was already contemplating surrender, this defense was doubly betrayal, since their stand was clearly intended as a jockeying for position for a conditional surrender - which, of course, they were not told.

By lack of self-absorption, I mean that while "Letters" continued to dwell on the emotional makeup of the Japanese military personnel and civilians, it did so in a steady way, showing various aspects of their character, without monotony or pomposity. It brought out certain themes and variations, highlighting differences in chemistry among Japanese. Indeed, the most striking memory from "Letters" is how the individuals (including civilians and women) were so human and so different, in contrast to the machine-like image of the Japanese military. I would not have killed that dog, either.

The film presents a chronological story of the battle, with flashbacks and flash-ins to areas other than the battlefield. It treats Japan's feeling of hopelessness in 1945 and what was left of the rationale for defending to the last man. The knowledge of the Japanese soldier that to fight on means likely death contrasts with the realistic feelings of American marines that their chances of returning home are good. The film portrays the overwhelming material superiority of the Americans, what this looked like to the Japanese (including the bombing preceding the battle), and how it was manifested in the American success as the battle progressed (and as the Japanese ran out of food). It also shows the elaborate tunnel system the Japanese defenders created after realizing a stand on the beaches was impracticable.

Basic to the film is how the soldiers' plights — and destinies — affected their feelings and in turn those of Japanese spouses and other civilians (reference the title, based on the poignant letters from the Japanese soldiers to home). Their letters are balanced by a scene in which a wounded U.S. marine is captured and later dies. "Sam" converses with Baron Nishi (Tsuyoshi Ihara), gold medal winner in equestrian competition at the 1932 Olympics, after the Baron orders his wounds treated. (A flashback had shown Baron Nishi with American officers and their wives at an elegant gathering before the war.) As Nishi relates to Sam his experiences with Americans, and after he reads a letter from Sam's mother, also poignant, found on Sam following his death, we are reminded not to generalize about atrocities on either side in a war. Some Japanese in the film had thought Americans were savages but discovered we weren't, and this was juxtaposed with the realization of some Japanese that U.S. marines at Iwo Jima were not cowards but had displayed bravery and military skill. There is a scene in which some marines have two captured Japanese POWs on their hands who are expected to hurt the marines' logistics on the mountainous terrain, making the Americans sitting ducks, and the prisoners are therefore executed by one of the soldiers. Is this an attempt at being "politically correct"? I cannot read Eastwood's mind, but one could see it partially as excess in a movie made from the Japanese perspective and partially as an emphasis on the horrors of war and what can result when survival is thought to be at stake.

The Japanese soldier was a tough foe his U.S. counterpart. "Letters" focuses on different perspectives of the willingness to fight to the death in a losing cause. The film suggests some Japanese thought fighting on would add time value to Japan's situation, while others carried on as a point of honor. "Letters" also raises the issue of whether running away in a hopeless situation but being willing to fight on in another area of the battlefield should be seen as cowardice or simply good strategy.

I highly recommend watching both 'Flags of our Fathers' then 'Letters from Iwo Jima', these two films work perfectly together as a reminder of the true cost of war and as a testament to the people who fought and died in them.

Review by Wolfman