Winston Churchill said that “history is written by the victors”, which is why most movies about World War II are told from the Americans’ or Europeans’ point of view. In fact, an internet search reveals only one major American movie that even attempts to tell WWII from the Japanese point of view: Tora! Tora! Tora! (1970) in which the attack at Pearl Harbor is seen from both the American and Japanese side.
Thus, it’s ironic that a film that examines one of the pivotal battles of the war from the point of view of the so-called “enemy” was directed by an American actordirector best known for playing a particular American character: a cop who takes the law into his own hands. Even more ironic is that he got the idea to direct the film while doing Flags of our Fathers, which took a critical look at the images of heroism used by the US military to rekindle Americans’ waning support for the war.
Letters from Iwo Jima, directed by Clint Eastwood, looks at the Battle of Iwo Jima from the perspective of two characters: a lowly foot soldier named Saigo and Lieutenant-General Tadamichi Kuribayashi, commander of the garrison on the island. From its opening shot of archaeologists digging in a cave on Iwo Jima, the movie evokes a tragic tone by draining nearly all the color from the film, with the exception of occasional flashes of red during the war scenes.
Almost from the beginning the men defending the island know that there is virtually no hope of them returning home alive, and no possibility of reinforcements from the Imperial Japanese Navy, whose forces have been virtually destroyed at the Battle of Leyte Gulf. Still, their mandate is to defend the island at all costs, in order to prevent it from falling into American hands and allowing the enemy access to the mainland. By the end of the battle, 20,000 of the 22,000 Japanese soldiers defending the island were killed and only 216 were taken prisoner.
The main achievement of ‘Letters’ is to humanize the Japanese soldiers, who in past American war films (including the companion film Flags) have been portrayed as faceless crazed aggressors. The foot soldiers are depicted the way American grunts would normally be: complaining about the hard menial work they have to perform, pining for their families and loved ones.
This underlines one of the themes that runs through the film: the universality of soldiers and their experiences, whether American or Japanese. This is further showcased in a scene in which Japanese soldiers read a letter written by a dead marine to his mother, and realize that Americans are not the barbarians they are portrayed to be.
Conversely, director Clint Eastwood admirably does not shirkin portraying American atrocities towards Japanese soldiers, implicitly casting them in roles traditionally portrayed by Germans or Japanese. Thus, near the end ofthe film, two American GIs shoot a pair of surrendered Japanese soldiers rather than endure the inconvenience of keeping watch over them. Of course, he also has to provide balance by showing Japanese torturing an American soldier.
Another theme is Eastwood’s disdain for the Japanese military culture. He makes the most sympathetic characters those who reject Japanese militarism or have been heavily exposed to western values. Thus, Saigo continuously gets in trouble because he does not subscribe to the fanatical mindset of the officers. He even refuses to commit ritual suicide when ordered to do so, choosing instead to live in the hope that he would be reunited with his family. Kuribayashi, meanwhile, constantly reminisces about his stay in America. He even expresses some doubt about his duty, saying that he knows he must die for his country and his family, but that the more he thinks about them, the harder it is to do his duty.
Conversely, the officers who choose to commit suicide in the face of defeat rather than continue to fight on or make an honorable surrender are treated with near contempt, and the scenes in which they commit hara kiri by smashing grenades into their chests could almost qualify as black comedy, a mordant commentary on the futility of suicide.
The film also falters in detailing the progress of the Japanese defense. In the first act, the film holds the viewers’ interest by showing Gen. Kuribayashi’s innovative strategy of building tunnels in Mt. Suribachi rather than digging trenches on the beach. However, once the Americans land on Iwo Jima and force the Japanese to retreat to caves and tunnels in the mountain, the viewer never sees the development of the battle, only the increasing desperation of the officers. This causes the second act of the film to drag as the story loses its focus.
The film also descends into cliché in the third act, as a character believed to be a member of the feared kempetai (military police) reveals himself to be a washout who was sent to Iwo Jima because he was too soft-hearted to shoot a dog.
But the main weakness of ‘Letters’ is its failure to acknowledge that the Japanese had their own valid reasons for entering WWII, as a reaction to American imperialist moves in the region. In other words, it is alright to show the heroism of the Japanese soldier but only so long as he’s rebelling against the militarist mindset. It’s another to suggest that the Japanese reasons for being in the war may have been as legitimate as those of the Americans.
In this light, it may not have been too surprising that ‘Letters from Iwo Jima’ was met with almost universal critical acclaim in the US, netting several critics’ awards for best picture and best director. More significantly, it was rewarded with nominations for best picture and best director by the Oscar awards, trumping the Americentric ‘Flags’.
The main sentiment constantly echoed by reviewers as to why they liked the film is that humanizing the Japanese soldiers allows American viewers to see in them a reflection of themselves. But creating characters who are mere reflections of American attitudes and values only validate Churchill’s observation about how victors rewrite history, albeit in the guise of speaking for the defeated enemy.
