Clint Eastwood directed Flags of Our Fathers and Letters From Iwo Jima, both released in 2006 as complementary war films about the Battle of Iwo Jima. I saw Letters in the theater a month after its general release and Flags just last night on DVD. I now have my own quick reviews of each film (Flags of Our Fathers and Letters From Iwo Jima).
Since each review focuses only on that film, I thought I'd post this thread to share my additional thoughts on these films when considering them side by side. If you have seen both films, I'd be interested to hear your thoughts. If you've haven't seen both films, check them out, because they're very good.
I really like the idea of separate but complementary films about different sides of the same war. After seeing Flags of Our Fathers, I could finally see how both films overlap in scenery, even though they don't share the same living characters on screen. The camera shots of American battleships approaching Iwo Jima are neat to see from each side. "Flags" shows the Americans as they're riding along while "Letters" provides a distant view from the caves where the Japanese are hiding out. Another notable crossover is a group of Japanese soldiers who commit suicide. "Letters" shows them performing the act while "Flags" shows their corpses as the Americans stumble onto them.
In addition, each film tells a different kind of story. When you think of war films, you think of the despair during the battles themselves. "Letters" focuses on that, and that's good because such a story is more dramatic when it involves the side who ultimately loses the war (though you could argue that everyone loses in any war). "Flags," on the other hand, talks about the victory of war, or rather the perception of it. If both films were about how soldiers on each side suffered, there's no point in watching both films because they would be about the same thing. Fortunately, if you watch one of these films, you have a reason to watch the other one. Best of all, the story for one country can apply to the other. In other words, all people are the same.
The only thing I want to comment on is which movie I liked better. Obviously, since I've given each film a 10/10, I like them both. Yet, I thought Letters From Iwo Jima had a much stronger emotional impact. Again, it's because the horrors of war are more vividly portrayed by the side who has more casualties. Plus, I like a war movie that presents the other side. It's the same reason I enjoyed K-19: The Widowmaker, a drama with Harrison Ford and Liam Neeson as Soviets on a nuclear submarine.
So do you have any thoughts on Flags of Our Fathers and Letters From Iwo Jima? It doesn't matter if you've seen one, both, or neither. Comments are welcome from anyone. :-)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
Good reviews Anthony. I liked both films though not with a whole lot of enthusiasm. Here's my "Letters" review:
http://www.wthr.com/Global/story.asp?S=5962850&nav=menu188_6_1
Between the two films I liked it better than "Flags." My primary criticism of both is that I didn't really get a very strong emotional experience from either. I thought it was interesting intellectually and certainly well filmed but it just didn't hit me. I gave Letters a B+ and would've given "Flags" probably a B. Basically I'm glad that I saw them, I can recommend them but I don't have much need to buy them or watch them again.
A 10/10 seems a bit high in my view.
Thanks for the kind words, David. :-)
The 10/10 I gave Flags of Our Fathers is more like a 9.7 but I had to round it up. Letters From Iwo Jima, on the other hand, would be more like a 10.8 but has to get a 10 because that's the maximum.
In your review of "Letters," you seemed to be looking for the antagonist, separating each character into a "good" category and a "bad" category. For me, I came into the movie with an assumption that every person is human regardless of friend or foe, and from there, I really felt war was totally senseless. That was probably why it had such an emotional punch for me.
Of course, I haven't watched too many war movies, so it's possible that I'm not one of those people who've watched so many other war movies that I would compare "Flags" and "Letters" to a standard held by war classics. Out of curiosity, David, would you say you've seen many other war movies before these two? For example, did you see Saving Private Ryan, and would you say that's better than these two?
In the end, it's all a matter of the individual. Even I have seen films that others have loved but I felt just OK. For example, plenty of people I knew loved North Country, the film with Charlize Theron dealing with sexual harassment, but for me, it was just a good story with just some little emotion, so I gave it a 7/10.
"Letters" certainly qualifies as a "war movie." I'm not sure "Flags" does, though. I think to be a war movie a film has to focus on the experience of war. Flags is mostly about its after effects whereas Letters actually takes place primarily during the war.
What does a 10/10 mean to you? Are you going to buy the film? Would you see it in theatres multiple times? Are you going to watch it multiple times once you won it?
Because for me if I give a film an A then it means I'm going to buy it on DVD. I picked up "Iron Man" yesterday. Had to have it the day it came out. It's that good.
An antagonist and protagonist doesn't necessarily mean that one person is good and the other is evil. A film doesn't even necessarily need a strong antagonist. It does need to have a strong protagonist, though, that you care about emotionally. I didn't get that emotional charge out of either "Flags" or "Letters." They're intellectually interesting, they're well shot, but ultimately I didn't care. It was good to see them, they're not bad, so they're B's.
Regarding war movies in general I'd say I've seen the biggies. Saving Private Ryan is much better than both of these. IMDB lists war movies here: http://www.imdb.com/chart/war
Apocalypse Now is better. Braveheart is better. Full Metal Jacket is a flawed film in general but I'd say it's better. The Deer Hunter is better. I haven't seen all of Platoon.
For me, a 10/10 just simply means a film that has a strong emotional impact and an impressive cinematic presentation. It has nothing to do with whether I would buy the DVD because I'm not a DVD collector.
But I do agree that "Flags" could arguably be a non-war drama because, like I said in my review, the present day story is the post-war stuff and the war itself appears as flashbacks.
What 10/10 seems to suggest is a perfect film. It's the equivalent of when I give an A+. And that really seems high for both Flags and Letters. It means that they're both some of the greatest films of the year.
I'd argue that you'd need a more concrete definition of a 10/10 than "a strong emotional impact and an impressive cinematic presentation."
"What 10/10 seems to suggest is a perfect film .. It means that they're both some of the greatest films of the year."
Which they most certainly are. There were many things that impressed me about Flags of Our Fathers. The way the story fosters a better understanding of the myths surrounding the famous photo, for example.
Or the way Eastwood's film ranks as one of the least explicitly violent war movies of recent times. Those looking for Private Ryan-style gorefests will come away disappointed, not just at the lack of blood but at the way the combat footage is utilized as part of an impressionistic structure, jumping back & forth in time in a manner designed to evoke the disorientation & alienation felt by the survivors. I thought it was clever that the filmmakers used the structure of the film to both convey the sense of these men being caught in a permanent nightmare & to get around the difficulties inherent in adapting a non-fiction with so many characters & locations.
After a third viewing I was even more impressed by Flags. I can't think of another WW2 movie that places so much emphasis on the selling of war & the way the public & the government make use of that, whilst honoring the courage of those boys who died at Iwo Jima. Aside from anything else it is beautifully crafted on a modest budget (some $55 million) but looks as if it cost two or three times that. The photographs during the end credits are incredibly moving as well. It's thoughtful, heartfelt & a damn fine film & I think as the years go by its reputation as such will only increase.
Where Flags is intellectual, Letters I found more emotional if also more conventionally told (that's not a criticism btw, just an observation). Boasting uniformly fine performances from a mostly unknown Japanese cast, it's a story that makes clear from the outset that none of the characters has a chance in hell. Letters isn't even an Alamo-type story about a heroic last defence. It's more an elegiac remembrance for all those who died - a point made deeply affecting through a modern day framing device - & yet there is great depth here.The condemnation of Japanese militarism is quietly devastating. One scene depicting a group of soldiers determined to die 'with honor' shakes you to the core.
As with Flags, Letters pulses with Eastwood's trademark air of rueful melancholy. Not just because there's no possibility of victory for the protagonists but because the films emphasis on the characters & their personal histories means the battle of Iwo Jima is little more than glimpsed 'on the sidelines' so to speak. This is a movie about the living dead. Those who know they've left their real lives behind & can only communicate through letters to those they loved while they wait for a sure & certain death.
I also found it interesting how both films share/express the same theme of what it is that each society demands of its troops. In Flags it's the elevation into myth of an utterly insignificant event by an ideology that needs to create heroes as a way of dealing with the reality of war, & in Letters it's an ideology that requires an 'honorable death' for its soldiers & won't even permit them the mercy of surrender. This is why I consider both films inseparable. Different stories they may have but thematically & stylistically they share the same DNA & it's when one sees both that the breadth & depth of Eastwood's achievement becomes clear.
These are absolutely two of the best American movies of 2006 & that Eastwood made the second movie about an alien culture, in a language he didn't speak, & after coming off work on a major production like Flags, is staggering.
Then it sounds like the 10/10 is justified for you. :-)
Wow. Very nice post, Anonymous (whoever you are, because I definitely didn't write it). A lot of what you say is why I love both films and, hence, gave them the highest marks.
I think the big factor in one's rating of Eastwood's Iwo Jima films is whether you expect a war movie to follow convention or tell a story in a whole new way.
Post a Comment