When Hugging a Grenade is an Acceptable Alternative. . .
I watched Letters from Iwo Jima on July 4th. Is that weird? Watching a movie where our enemy from our favorite war are the protagonists, and you actually feel sympathy for them, and can't help but root for the side you get to know and wince when the scary Americans arrive to kill everybody?
The film itself was not quite what I was expecting, but I cannot tell you what that was. There are elements of it I knew about, for example the propaganda about American soldiers among the Japanese regarding their savagery and treatment of prisoners (I have always thought that lack of trust reveals what you secretly feel yourself capable of, but that is beside the point) - and there was one scene that reinforced the propaganda, if only because American soldiers are as capable of terrible acts as anyone else. So, when one U.S. soldier shoots two Japanese prisoners who surrendered themselves, while another watches on in horror, but says nothing. . . It feels very real, if only because it is simultaneously showing two forms of cowardice (the man who would shoot unarmed men, and the one who would stand by and do nothing about it, despite his obvious feelings about).
This scene reminds me of one of the recurring phrases of the film (which is in Japanese w/ English sub-titles), which is: Do what's right, because it's right. It comes up in a letter from a Japanese soldier's mom, and later in a letter found on a dead American translated by one of the officers who had spent time in America before the war (and was an Olympic equestrian). The general of the Japanese forces, when talking to his men before the final counter-attack uses the same phrase. . . But I cannot help but wonder what that phrase means, and what does it mean to do what is right? Are these not cultural constructions? Does not the military mindset teach the opposite of this? "Do your duty."
Is the film trying to suggest some kind of universal morality, a kind of personal code all humans have access to that we discard in times of war? I am not sure.
Another aspect of the film that got me thinking was that the protagonist seems to chafe against the expectations of his culture and nation. It is clear that he loves his wife and daughter (who was born while he was away) more than he loves his country, and values them more than any sense of duty, honor or bravery. He decides early on that he is going to do what he needs to do to survive, and his duty as a soldier comes second. He is an interesting character in that he does not seem like an actual coward. That is, when he has to face the immediate possibility of death a few times, he does not act in a way that endangers others, nor does he make panicking decisions. He is just has what I would consider a reasonable amount of fear considering the situation he was in. He is certainly different from most of his fellow soldiers in that he refuses to obey the suicide order of his commander. Of course, the fact that he knows the suicide order was overruled by the general in charge of the whole operation, and the others do not, I think made it easier for him to not obey and to go along with his survival plan. If that suicidal order had been legitimate, I wonder what his choice would have been? Somehow I think he still would not have gone through with it. ..
And there is where the biggest question about this film comes from for me. As someone who does not believe in the cause and values himself and his family over his duty, would this character work as someone to be sympathetic towards if he were an American soldier acting the same way? I think it may be easier to identify with his going against the Japanese order because the Japanese order is so foreign to us (as an American audience) and historically they are our enemies - standing against the great American righteous power during World War II (or at least most of us Americans have been taught to look at it that way). I mean, in most war movies where there is a cowardly character, or a character who cares about himself and getting back home, if not a villain, he is at least a pitiable character; the kind that either dies some undignified way (are any deaths in war dignified?), or does escape by some weasel-like means we the audience despise.
Oh, there is also the matter that the most "reasonable" of the Japanese characters are the ones who spent time in America. And while they fulfill their duty without shirking (but with occasional doubt), they do so in away that rubs against the expectations of their traditions, and incorporates the American point-of-view on handling violent conflict. As the general says to one of his underlings when the topic of making an open assault on an obviously superior force (remember, Iwo Jima took place near the end of the war, after the Japanese Combined Fleet was basically destroyed). He says, "This is a real war" (emphasis mine). In other words, not a war where honorable, but ultimately futile, sacrifice matters. The goals of the conflict are what matter, not the reputation of the combatants.
I can't decide on a basic opinion of the film though. It was directed by Clint Eastwood, and is kind of a companion piece to Flags of Our Fathers, which is about Iwo Jima from the American side and that famous (and arranged) photograph of the marines raising the flag on the island. I have not seen that film yet, but it on my list. Generally, I really like Eastwood's films. They have a gentleness to them that I find hard to explain given their subjects and the kinds of films he made when he was still acting. But "A Perfect World" is a great movie, despite Kevin Costner, and Unforgiven is a masterpiece.
Anyway, all else aside, it was a film that made me think. . .
The film itself was not quite what I was expecting, but I cannot tell you what that was. There are elements of it I knew about, for example the propaganda about American soldiers among the Japanese regarding their savagery and treatment of prisoners (I have always thought that lack of trust reveals what you secretly feel yourself capable of, but that is beside the point) - and there was one scene that reinforced the propaganda, if only because American soldiers are as capable of terrible acts as anyone else. So, when one U.S. soldier shoots two Japanese prisoners who surrendered themselves, while another watches on in horror, but says nothing. . . It feels very real, if only because it is simultaneously showing two forms of cowardice (the man who would shoot unarmed men, and the one who would stand by and do nothing about it, despite his obvious feelings about).
This scene reminds me of one of the recurring phrases of the film (which is in Japanese w/ English sub-titles), which is: Do what's right, because it's right. It comes up in a letter from a Japanese soldier's mom, and later in a letter found on a dead American translated by one of the officers who had spent time in America before the war (and was an Olympic equestrian). The general of the Japanese forces, when talking to his men before the final counter-attack uses the same phrase. . . But I cannot help but wonder what that phrase means, and what does it mean to do what is right? Are these not cultural constructions? Does not the military mindset teach the opposite of this? "Do your duty."
Is the film trying to suggest some kind of universal morality, a kind of personal code all humans have access to that we discard in times of war? I am not sure.
Another aspect of the film that got me thinking was that the protagonist seems to chafe against the expectations of his culture and nation. It is clear that he loves his wife and daughter (who was born while he was away) more than he loves his country, and values them more than any sense of duty, honor or bravery. He decides early on that he is going to do what he needs to do to survive, and his duty as a soldier comes second. He is an interesting character in that he does not seem like an actual coward. That is, when he has to face the immediate possibility of death a few times, he does not act in a way that endangers others, nor does he make panicking decisions. He is just has what I would consider a reasonable amount of fear considering the situation he was in. He is certainly different from most of his fellow soldiers in that he refuses to obey the suicide order of his commander. Of course, the fact that he knows the suicide order was overruled by the general in charge of the whole operation, and the others do not, I think made it easier for him to not obey and to go along with his survival plan. If that suicidal order had been legitimate, I wonder what his choice would have been? Somehow I think he still would not have gone through with it. ..
And there is where the biggest question about this film comes from for me. As someone who does not believe in the cause and values himself and his family over his duty, would this character work as someone to be sympathetic towards if he were an American soldier acting the same way? I think it may be easier to identify with his going against the Japanese order because the Japanese order is so foreign to us (as an American audience) and historically they are our enemies - standing against the great American righteous power during World War II (or at least most of us Americans have been taught to look at it that way). I mean, in most war movies where there is a cowardly character, or a character who cares about himself and getting back home, if not a villain, he is at least a pitiable character; the kind that either dies some undignified way (are any deaths in war dignified?), or does escape by some weasel-like means we the audience despise.
Oh, there is also the matter that the most "reasonable" of the Japanese characters are the ones who spent time in America. And while they fulfill their duty without shirking (but with occasional doubt), they do so in away that rubs against the expectations of their traditions, and incorporates the American point-of-view on handling violent conflict. As the general says to one of his underlings when the topic of making an open assault on an obviously superior force (remember, Iwo Jima took place near the end of the war, after the Japanese Combined Fleet was basically destroyed). He says, "This is a real war" (emphasis mine). In other words, not a war where honorable, but ultimately futile, sacrifice matters. The goals of the conflict are what matter, not the reputation of the combatants.
I can't decide on a basic opinion of the film though. It was directed by Clint Eastwood, and is kind of a companion piece to Flags of Our Fathers, which is about Iwo Jima from the American side and that famous (and arranged) photograph of the marines raising the flag on the island. I have not seen that film yet, but it on my list. Generally, I really like Eastwood's films. They have a gentleness to them that I find hard to explain given their subjects and the kinds of films he made when he was still acting. But "A Perfect World" is a great movie, despite Kevin Costner, and Unforgiven is a masterpiece.
Anyway, all else aside, it was a film that made me think. . .