Flags of Our Fathers & Letters from Iwo Jima (Clint Eastwood, 2007)

Message

#51 Post by **kinjitsu** » Sat Nov 11, 2006 5:27 am

Watanabe reflects on acting for Eastwood

The Fanciful Norwegian · #52 Post by **The Fanciful Norwegian** » Thu Nov 16, 2006 4:52 am

Looks like someone had a change of heart after Flags of Our Fathers failed to set the world on fire -- Letters will be getting an Oscar-qualifying run in New York and Los Angeles (and possibly San Francisco) beginning December 20.

David Ehrenstein · #53 Post by **David Ehrenstein** » Sat Dec 02, 2006 11:16 am

Saw it last night. Incredibly impressive, extremely moving. I can't think of an American filmmaker who has so thoroughly engaged with a foreign culture and its history as Eastwood has here (don't even mention Schrader's Mishima) The tone is comparable but subtly different from Flags of Our Fathers in that the Japanese know this is more or less a suicide mission from the start. Some are True Believers, others are not. The most important characters are a distinguished officer and an ordinary conscript -- a baker by trade. There are many connections between the two films (a scene of carnage discovered in Flags is detailed fully in Letters ) so in truth it's one film with two panels (like Lang's The Tiger of Eschnapur and The Indian Tomb)

Clint was at the screening introducing himself with "I used to be an actor."

He is now one of the greatest Hollywood directors in the grand tradition -- the very Last of the Mohicans.

GringoTex · #54 Post by **GringoTex** » Thu Dec 07, 2006 12:47 pm

National Board of Review names 'Iwo Jima' best film

First prize of awards season goes to Eastwood epic

The kudos season kicked off Wednesday with a nod to Clint Eastwood and Warners as the helmer's Japanese-language "Letters From Iwo Jima" took the National Board of Review's prize for best picture. [continued... ]

John Cope · #55 Post by **John Cope** » Sat Dec 09, 2006 9:40 pm

Still haven't seen this one myself, which I'm disappointed by, but thought this was an interesting take on its fate.

I'm not sure it's entirely correct but it may be more correct than I'd like to think.

Maybe Flags should be re-released with its apparently more well regarded companion piece.

#56 Post by **Matt** » Sun Dec 10, 2006 12:12 am

John Cope wrote:Still haven't seen this one myself, which I'm disappointed by, but thought this was an interesting take on its fate:

The Guardian wrote:no one believes that Flags Of Our Fathers fell flat because the film itself is a dud.

I don't know if it's why it "fell flat," but the movie is a dud. And the biggest problem is the editing. There is no reason at all for the narrative to be out of chronology, but it is. There is no reason for certain scenes to be repeated (we gain no insight into the events in the intervening time), but they are. The editing makes the film, frankly, a confusing mess (and I had no trouble following Syriana). The film also doesn't seem quite sure if it wants to celebrate true heroism (without quite defining what that is) while condemning false heroism (hoisting a flag, apparently) or if it wants to state that there is no such thing as heroism in war. To make a crass comparison, it seems to want to be Saving Private Ryan and The Thin Red Line at the same time. Maybe I'll appreciate it more after I've seen Letters from Iwo Jima (which is headed for an arthouse distribution), but for now I'm seriously underwhelmed.

Roger_Thornhill · #57 Post by **Roger_Thornhill** » Sun Dec 10, 2006 2:44 am

Matt wrote:I don't know if it's why it "fell flat," but the movie is a dud. And the biggest problem is the editing. There is no reason at all for the narrative to be out of chronology, but it is. There is no reason for certain scenes to be repeated (we gain no insight into the events in the intervening time), but they are. The editing makes the film, frankly, a confusing mess (and I had no trouble following Syriana).

I think I mentioned this earlier that the group I saw it with was similiarly confused about it. I had an advantage in that I read the book before going into it and ended up explaining many elements of it to my friends.

Even so, I still think this a fine, but flawed film. I generally agree with you that the editing is what makes it a challenge to follow and we could probably place the blame on Haggis' script. Although, there were moments where the editing was brilliant such as when the three men ascend the faux Suribachi in Soldier's Field and each of them has a flashback to when a comrade was killed.

I'm disappointed that this film flopped in the US considering what an important and terrible event it is in US and Japanese history. It was the only Pacific battle where the US suffered more casualties than they inflicted. Perhaps there's just a general apathy of American youth toward their past? I live in Washington DC and am reminded of when my ex-girlfriend told me when she was driving with a co-worker past the giant Iwo Jima memorial and her co-worker remarked, "Is that from some sort of war?" Mind you, her co-worker was born and raised in DC. She replied, "Yeah I think it's from the Vietnam War." I was dumbfounded at their ignorance when she told me this. She wanted to know what that monument was for and I told her; she hadn't even heard of the Battle of Iwo Jima. She was 26 at the time. Unbelievable, is the public education system in the US that bad?

We didn't break up over that in case anyone's wondering...

David Ehrenstein · #58 Post by **David Ehrenstein** » Sun Dec 10, 2006 9:13 am

There is no reason at all for the narrative to be out of chronology, but it is. There is no reason for certain scenes to be repeated (we gain no insight into the events in the intervening time), but they are. The editing makes the film, frankly, a confusing mess (and I had no trouble following Syriana). The film also doesn't seem quite sure if it wants to celebrate true heroism (without quite defining what that is) while condemning false heroism (hoisting a flag, apparently) or if it wants to state that there is no such thing as heroism in war.

There are very good reasons for all of this. The film presents Iwo Jima as a nightmare from which its participants can never awake. Here they were in the real battle, then days later staging fake versions of it on football fields and speaking before thousands about events that they have yet to deal with. Some of them are still completely traumatized. As for "true heroism" the film is a merciless critique of the entire concept.

And by the way, I consider Flags of Our Fathers and Letters From Iwo Jimi to be one film.

#59 Post by **Matt** » Sun Dec 10, 2006 12:03 pm

David Ehrenstein wrote:There are very good reasons for all of this. The film presents Iwo Jima as a nightmare from which its participants can never awake. Here they were in the real battle, then days later staging fake versions of it on football fields and speaking before thousands about events that they have yet to deal with.

Right, and that would be more effective if we had seen these two events in any sort of proximity to one another. We see a fake version at the beginning of the film, then it's a half-hour until we are on the battlefield, and then a whole bunch of other stuff before we're back on the football field again. As Roger says, the cross-cutting (or multiple flashbacks) was effective when they were ascending the fake mountain and remembering their fallen colleagues, but at that moment I was thinking, "wait, who was that guy again?"

I'm not saying this film is incompetently made, I just think it could have been a lot more powerful had it been told in a straightforward, linear fashion. And yes, the public education system in the US is mostly that bad. I went to a good public high school, but I don't remember being taught anything about Iwo Jima or any specific battle for that matter. Of course, I took US history as an accelerated 6-week course, so we probably spent a single day on the whole war and I was too busy fantasizing about our teacher (a Marine) to pay attention.

Which reminds me of the chuckles I had to suppress at the end of this film when the narrator reminds us that we should remember the men as his father remembered them. Meanwhile, the film shows Ryan Phillippe gazing beatifically on a dozen men frolicking in the surf in their underpants. I got the message, but the subtext was killing me!

John Cope · #60 Post by **John Cope** » Mon Dec 11, 2006 8:33 pm

Another great read from The Guardian

Antoine Doinel · #61 Post by **Antoine Doinel** » Mon Dec 11, 2006 9:25 pm

Roger_Thornhill wrote:Antoine, assuming you haven't read the book, did you have any trouble figuring out who was who during the flashbacks on Iwo? The group I saw it with told me afterwards they were confused several times. I must say I might have been confused as well if I hadn't read the book a week before the film came out. Just curious, sometimes that happens to people during war movies because, well, they're all dressed the same and have really big helmets on.

Nope, I haven't read the book, but I didn't find the flashbacks to Iwo confusing, so much as a poor narrative choice. Like others have commented, I don't think the back and forth jumping was particularly effective, but I was so unimpressed by the film I'm not even sure a straight narrative would've worked either. As I mentioned before, I just found the whole thing didactic when a much subtler tone would've done wonders.

Jem · #62 Post by **Jem** » Sun Dec 17, 2006 3:11 am

David Ehrenstein wrote:He is now one of the greatest Hollywood directors in the grand tradition -- the very Last of the Mohicans.

I just wanted to see this posted again.

Antoine Doinel · #63 Post by **Antoine Doinel** » Sun Dec 17, 2006 12:55 pm

Full trailer

I have to say this looks infinitely better than Flags Of Our Fathers.

che-etienne · #64 Post by **che-etienne** » Sun Dec 17, 2006 2:27 pm

Sure does. I can't wait.

David Ehrenstein · #65 Post by **David Ehrenstein** » Sun Dec 17, 2006 3:30 pm

I continue to insist that Flags and Letters are one film

anton · #66 Post by **anton** » Sun Dec 17, 2006 4:31 pm

And I thought all the people of the worlds except the Americans couldn't speak. they never do in apple trailers. But they'll all die, I'm sure. order is restored in the world.

#67 Post by **Mr Sausage** » Sun Dec 17, 2006 4:51 pm

anton wrote:And I thought all the people of the worlds except the Americans couldn't speak. they never do in apple trailers. But they'll all die, I'm sure. order is restored in the world.

Er, what?

anton · #68 Post by **anton** » Sun Dec 17, 2006 5:03 pm

Mr_sausage wrote:Er, what?

Your standard unamerican fare appletrailered.

But back to the topic. They seriously CANNOT show such a subtitled trailer of such length in theaters, it's unheard of. People will fall asleep or go gaga climbing at the walls. What is this haggis dude smoking? 50 million domestic - tops. even if it will be raking in the Oscars.

David Ehrenstein · #69 Post by **David Ehrenstein** » Sun Dec 17, 2006 5:19 pm

I don't go to the movies to see the grosses.

soma · #70 Post by **soma** » Mon Dec 18, 2006 2:52 pm

I can't really be bothered elaborating but let's just say I found this rather disappointing. It's no Private Ryan (that's a good thing btw), but it's no masterpiece either.

I have higher hopes for Iwo Jima, but wait with baited breath.

David Ehrenstein · #71 Post by **David Ehrenstein** » Mon Dec 18, 2006 3:05 pm

A review of particular interest

Barmy · #72 Post by **Barmy** » Mon Dec 18, 2006 3:22 pm

$50 million domestic tops? I think you've got an extra zero in there.

toiletduck! · #73 Post by **toiletduck!** » Mon Dec 18, 2006 11:09 pm

I really only went to see this tonight as a precursor to Letters From Iwo Jima, which I am interested in, so there's a disclaimer for ya...

I actually didn't mind the cross-cutting or the flashbacks at all. I thought the Iwo Jima and tour thereafter section of the film worked just fine (not great, mind you, but it worked). It was the Doogie Howser/Wonder Years/where are they now reel that killed the whole thing for me. Not only was it overly sentimental (I'm sorry, but Tom McCarthy was awful), it also seemed contrary to the purpose of the film. The flashbacks worked for me because they provided constant reminders of the unit -- the three men, while their story was being told, never became the entirety of the film's focus...

...until that dreaded (and lengthy!) voiceover began. At which point Eastwood drained the life out of me. Bleh.

Still have high hopes for Letters From Iwo Jima, though.

-Toilet Dcuk

John Cope · #74 Post by **John Cope** » Tue Dec 19, 2006 1:06 am

David Thomson has a thing or two to say about the achievements of age:

He also adds this, in respect to the current double feature:

In my opinion, these two films - and they are as linked as The Godfather and The Godfather Part II - are not just the films of this year but the best thing Eastwood has ever done. I'll go further; while admiring him as a producer and a personality, I have had a modest opinion of his directing until Million Dollar Baby, a story that gathered meaning as it advanced. Eastwood has now reached a height. He has developed as an artist.

Fletch F. Fletch · #75 Post by **Fletch F. Fletch** » Wed Dec 20, 2006 2:49 pm

Andrew Sarris

A.O Scott

Kenneth Turan