Letters From Iwo Jima (1 Viewer)

[Gabriel>P]

I was sort of dissapointed with this. It was good, but it felt like it dragged, the coloring did little but annoy me, and it felt cliched.

It was good, but best picture of the year? Not hardly.

 

[Kirk Tsai]

Saw this last afternoon. I enjoyed it more than Flags of Our Fathers. The personalities here are worth following. I disagree with previous posters on the music and cinematography though. Eastwood movies typically have one note scores, but this one might have been even more so than usual. The monochrome choice I thought made the film less visually interesting than it could be.

I would have liked to know what happened to Siago after the war. Still, pretty solid.

 

[Gabriel>P]

What was really tough about the score is that I loved the song. But by the half way point I was rolling my eyes.

The film has some amazing moments and scenes. But as a whole, it feels almost disjointed.

 

[Mathew_M]

Sounds like you didn't get into the film Gabriel. That's too bad. Overall I thought it was exceptional. I can accept some of the revisionist elements because the film was about much more than war but how it effects our convictions as humans. The cinematography fit the plot and tone of the film as it is bookended by the modern day.

 

[Rudi]

Thats an interesting statement. Why do you consider it revisionist? Because the japanese are depicted as humans? I saw nothing that goes against what I have read about the conflict.

 

[Tino]

While I enjoyed the film tremendously, it is somewhat revisionist. Don't know what you have been reading, but as has been noted, the Japanese were notoriously brutal, inhumane, treacherous and more during that battle. Little of that was shown during the film, which Mr. Eastwood chose not to focus on, and that's fine. But I hope that people don't come away from this film thinking that the way the Japanese portrayed in this film is how they really were during the battle of Iwo Jima. Some probably were but evidence clearly shows that most were not.

While this review, which I referenced earlier, has some inaccuracies, it does contain some interesting facts about tha Japanese of that time.

http://www.tonymedley.com/2006/Lette...o_Jima.htm#top

 

[Gabriel>P]

I really enjoyed the characters, and I was into it until the battle. At first I couldn't wait to see it, and then when it hit it felt less interesting then the lead up. I really liked the Olympic medalist character, and his arc touched me.

As to the cinematography. While leaving the film my younger brother (who must see every war film) talked about the color of the film and how he didn't like it. He mentioned Saving Private Ryan, which got me thinking. I saw that film again tonight, and I noticed what he was getting at.

That film has a overall hue to it, but everything has color of it's own. The characters, the buildings, the weapons, etc. It is almost as if the air itself was what was heavy and not everything. This film felt like one blade view.

 

[Adam_S]

re: SPR and LfIJ different looks...
That's the difference between a Digital Intermediate and photograpic and photochemical manipulation. A lot was done in Saving Private Ryan to achieve a unique look both permanently on the negative and in the color timing laboratory. The digitalness and overall fakeness gave Iwo Jima a sheen that constantly distanced me from the film. I found it not quite repulsive, but close--interesting is the right word, what you say when you eat something for the first time that doesn't really taste good but you can kind of understand how it 'might' taste good, possibly, to some people.

A really great DI doesn't tip it's hat towards being a DI, it's a tool in the cinematographer's kit, rather than the end game to achieve the vast totality of the look. I'm curious to watch it again on my tv. I'm going to turn the color setting all the way down to watch it in black and white, I wonder if it'll effect my feelings about the movie, maybe I'll be better able to get into it.

 

[Holadem]

I was more bothered by the look of Flags than this one, which may only mean that I got used to it by this screening. But yeah, the smoothness of the picture was very distracting in this post-SPR war film. That was certainly a factor in distancing me from the film (Flags).

--
H

 

[Robert Crawford]

Maybe, it's me, but the look of a film has zero effect on my enjoyment level or connection to a film.

 

[Gabriel>P]

Adam S, I couldn't put it better.


I find that hard when film is a visual medium. If I don't necessarily want to look at one, I find it hard to watch.

Also the landing on the beach was ugly. The boats, tanks, and soliders looked about 6 years behind current CGI. It was off putting really. The camera hold still while we watch video game creations from my old N64 attack the beach.

 

[Robert Crawford]

That's you, not everyone is the same. Perhaps, it's because I give the filmmaker more latitude as to how they film their movie in a cinematography sense. As far as the CGI, if I pan every movie that had questionable CGI then the list would be very long.

 

[Colin Jacobson]

The problem with following the "bad" soldiers is that they'd die off too easily. They'd get killed or kill themselves ala the scene where the soldiers are ordered to off themselves rather than regroup elsewhere.

Plus, I don't think Eastwood intended to tell a perfectly balanced, accurate story of the battle. It's more of a subjective film that intends to show nuance in its characters. Really, haven't we seen more than enough of "evil" Japanese soldiers in other flicks?

That said, I don't see it as a white-washing. It conveys the atrocities and makes sure we understand the cultural side of things. I see the flick as a tragedy, since the Japanese wasted their lives so willingly...

 

[Tino]

It does?? I respectfully disagree. I saw virtually nothing of the atrocities that were reported on that island.

But I don't want to keep harping on the same subject. Do I think it is revisionist?

Yes

Did I still enjoy the film tremendously?

Yes

I respect Eastwoods decision to focus on the characters he did and tell the story he wanted. He did so extremely well.

But I don't believe for a minute that it accurately represents the Japanese or their mentality during that siege.

 

[Robert Crawford]

Based on your last sentence in your post, I guess you and I watched a different film or better yet with a different perspective while watching it.



Crawdaddy

 

[Ron68]

I saw this today and thought it was excellent, much better than Flags. Siago was my favourite character in the movie. I thought Eastwood's point with the movie was to show that the Japanese were just as human as the Americans. Both sides were shown commiting acts of cruelty. What I really liked were the scenes showing the Soldiers' lives in Japan.

 

[Tino]

The latter.

 

[Darko]

It may not accurately represent the Japanese as a whole, but it may accurately represent some individual soldiers.

From that point of view, I wouldn't necessarily call it revisionist, just showing a part of the war that we are not that familiar with.

 

[Tino]

I agree. I'm sure there were a few Japanese soldiers like the ones portrayed.

 

[Robert Crawford]

You just don't know when to stop, do you?




Crawdaddy