Dir: Clint EastwoodIts easy to watch a war film about dog fighting in the first world war and ignore the implications of what I'm seeing. The farsical nature of air combat in canvas aircraft and the whole aura of jingoism surrounding the first world war (Lord Kitcheners big finger and the fat old Kaiser in his pointy helmet) make for an almost comical ninety minutes film experience. Then there are war films which don't bother to even pretend to be anything but onscreen violence for the war horny nerds, 'Apocolypse Now', and 'Black Hawk Down' for example. As often as not we're supposed to believe these films are 'anti-war', but I've never been able to see just how. Watching these types of films always gets my blood racing.
I don't know what it is about Clint Eastwood, but he seems to have the ability to actually make the sort of film that shows the violence and grand scale of warfare without turning it into a spectacle. Both films had the same sense of historical perspective, the same battle hardened camera work and the same sense of imminent danger as, for example 'Saving Private Ryan', but laid off the overly neat story line and the Ambrosian sense that this is all about Americans at war. Eastwood ignores national sentiments and cuts straight to the humanity of the men struggling to survive amidst the horror. Neither the Japanese nor the Americans are shown in any flattering national sense, but individuals are described with compassion and empathy.
A lot of people will dismiss these films simply because they are about war, and I suppose others will dismiss them because they were made now. I find these films have a lot to say about that 'nature of war' which isn't about any actual fighting, but rather the reasons why people do fight and why we all project our own reasons on to war in order to make sense of what is essentially madness.
Cinema is art and when you boil it down, art is really all about humanity. Clint Eastwood has demonstrated more humanity in these two films than in all the previous war films I have ever seen (with the possible exception of 'Das Boot').
8 comments:
There was a line in Letters, near the end where Chow says something to the effect: "We have to remember that we're fighting for our homes, yet the thought of our homes makes it hard to fight."
That line really struck a chord.
The more that you daydream of the soft life, the more complacent you become and the less likely you are to be in the here-and-now.
It's quite a paradigm. It's almost a joke how true that is.
There's a book called Gates of Fire, that's about Thermopylae. King Leonidas used tiny broken sticks with names on them as a sort of dogtags. After the battle, everyone would match up their half-sticks with their counterpart, and it was an easy way to count who was missing.
He used it as a metaphor that in battle a man is only a half man, and only becomes a full man when he returns to his wife/family. It doesn't do any good to dwell on that part of you that isn't there, yet that's the very reason you're fighting.
Such an odd concept.
..good review - which of the two did you prefer??
Excellent reviews.
I haven't seen Flags of our Fathers, but I did see Letters from Iwo Jima. I agree with the 5 star rating. I thought it was an excellent movie.
I winced when the American guards shot the surrendered Japanese prisoners, but that event was certainly not beyond the pale. The fighting in the Pacific was brutal, partly b/c of the clash between two very different cultures.
I'll have to make an effort to catch Flags.
I don't favour one over the other really. They were made as two sides of the same coin as far as I can see and they complement each other perfectly.
'Letters' has more emphasis on the battle, where as 'Flags' has a greater emphasis on the human cost.
All in all I found 'Doc' (played by Ryan Phillipe whom I really like as an actor) to be the most sympathetic character in 'Flags'. Perhaps this was merely because he seemd to more grounded than the other characters.
In 'Letters' there was no doubt that Saigo (played by Kazinaru Ninomiya) was the most sympathetic character (as he was set up to be). He seemed to be the only Japanese soldier who actually cared more about returning than dying with honour.
Incidently this fits with the war nerds analysis of Japan's military prwess in World War Two. Brecher describes the Japs as being in love with death and far more interested in dying honourably than with winning, or even surviving. Having read 'The Knights of Bushido' I have to agree with Brecher, and Eastwoods film. The Imperial Japanese Army were natural born losers just waiting to be given the chance to go out like suckers. Consequently Saigo (though Shimizu comes close) is the only Japanese character with whom I could fully empathise. His despair at never having seen his daughter touched a particularly personal cord with me.
My favorite part in Flags, was when they were at that banquet, and they pour strawberry sauce on that sugar flag raising.
He didn't say a word, but it really drove home the point that Iwo meant something completely different to civilians.
They were trying to honor them, but it almost seemed mocking.
Iwo dessert? Get real.
Agreed. Good reviews.
Now I just need to know Eastwood isn't in any of these films...
He isn't.
Did you know the Japanese landed in Malaya first, before Pearl Harbour was bombed?
"The Japanese Invasion of Malaya, or Battle of Kota Bahru, began just after midnight on 8 December 1941 before the attack on Pearl Harbor."
"The invasion began with a bombardment at around 12.30pm on 8 December while the Japanese planes from Nagumo's carriers were still flying towards Pearl Harbor. "
Japanese Invasion of Malaya
Wonder why the Americans were not on alert...
Post a Comment