LettersFromIwoJima Tagged Articles at Cinematical

Oh look, a Clint Eastwood movie with an Oscar-friendly release date. That's new. Actually, it is relatively new, if you look over the man's directorial career. Sure, he's had a number of films come out in the fall time, but not with the same consistency we've seen since 2003, when Mystic River arrived in a few theaters on October 8 then went on to receive six Academy Award nominations the following winter.

Then in 2004, his Million Dollar Baby opened in limited release December 15 and went on to win four Oscars, including Best Picture and Best Director. Finally, in 2006, two of his films were released in the fall, Flags of Our Fathers in October and Letters from Iwo Jima in December. Both went on to receive Oscar recognition, the latter garnering major noms, such as Best Picture and Best Director.

First, let's recap: On May 21, Eugene posted about Spike Lee's continued criticism of Clint Eastwood's Flags of Our Fathers and Letters from Iwo Jima for not including African Americans. Lee was asked why Eastwood did it as he did, and I have to say, I don't blame him for responding: "If you reporters had any balls you'd ask him why. There's no way I know why he did that -- that was his vision, not mine..." Today, we got word that Eastwood has responded, with the eloquent "A guy like him should shut his face." He then went on to talk about revisionism.

So, MTV went back to Lee, who is taking, and I quote: "the Obama high road." (New political slang alert! What's next?) He continued: "I've said my statement. I have no ill will towards Mr. Eastwood. What I said to him was not a personal attack, it was an observation. So that's really the end of it."

Think what you will of Lee, but this whole thing is a little ridiculous. If you head back to Erik's 2007 post about Miracle at St. Anna, Lee discussed how he'd met a black veteran who fought at Iwo Jima and was disappointed in Eastwood's portrayal, and how this inspired him to make the film and pay tribute to African American soldiers. Now he's getting crap thrown at him about revisionist history, and all of this is stemming from people asking him to talk about it, and him saying he couldn't answer for Eastwood. Lee might say some controversial things sometimes, but he was really backed into a corner this time around.

A little bit ago I posted regarding Spike Lee's comments at Cannes, accusing Clint Eastwood of tacit racism because no black actors appeared on screen in Flags of Our Fathers or Letters from Iwo Jima. "If you reporters had any balls you'd ask him why," he told reporters. "There's no way I know why he did that -- that was his vision, not mine. But I know it was pointed out to him and that he could have changed it. It's not like he didn't know."

That post touched a nerve and elicited a barrage of comments from you folks, some of them nasty, but many interesting and thoughtful. So I figured I'd be remiss not to report Eastwood's recent response in a Guardian article to Lee's remarks.

At a Cannes press conference for his WWII drama The Miracle at St. Anna, controversy hog Spike Lee took some swipes at Hollywood darlings Clint Eastwood and the Coen Brothers. Talking about the way he treated death in his first war film, Lee said: "I always treat life and death with respect, but most people don't... Look, I love the Coen brothers; we all studied at NYU. But they treat life like a joke. Ha ha ha. A joke. It's like, 'Look how they killed that guy! Look how blood squirts out the side of his head!' I see things different than that." And he targeted Eastwood for failing to put any black soldiers on screen in Flags of Our Fathers and Letters from Iwo Jima: "If you reporters had any balls you'd ask him why. There's no way I know why he did that -- that was his vision, not mine. But I know it was pointed out to him and that he could have changed it. It's not like he didn't know."

Whoulda thunk it? Movies can cause change -- it's a nice thought in all of our cynicism, and even better with all the movie schlock out there. As you all know, Clint Eastwood released two Oscar nomination-grabbing movies about Iwo Jima and World War II -- Letters from Iwo Jima and Flags of Our Fathers. The former dealt with the Japanese perspective on the battle and the latter, the men who raised the flag, signaling the turning point in the war. It seems that these two films sparked a letter writing campaign to change the name of the island, headed by the former residents, who now live across Japan. Apparently, all those years ago, the island was named Iwo To. However, when the island was evacuated and Japanese officers came to fortify it against the US, they mixed up the name.

"Iwo To" and "Iwo Jima" looks the same when written, and both mean "Sulphur Island" yet, they sound different. (I don't quite get how they're different then, so chime in if you're knowledgeable in Japanese words and script.) So, this letter writing campaign was successful, and earlier this week, the Japanese Geographical Survey Institute officially changed the name back to Iwo To -- a small victory for the island's old residents. As Mitsugu Aizawa of the institute says: "These people are now scattered nationwide and are not able to go back to Iwo To. These people said that the place was originally called Iwo To and their claim left to this revision." (The island is currently inhabited by 400 Japanese soldiers.) Unfortunately, both films have already been released on DVD, so I think it'll be a while before the name change catches on.

If you don't already have plans for Saturday, February 24, I have the best option for what to do -- provided you live near a participating AMC theater, that is. The cinema chain is offering an amazing deal to moviegoers on the eve of the Oscars: for the price of $30, you can see all five films nominated for best picture. Of course, you have to watch them in a row, from 11am to 11:30pm (or whatever time the 9:45 showing of Little Miss Sunshine lets out). In addition to the movies, though, you also get a large popcorn, a large drink -- with unlimited refills all day long -- and a "collectible pass."

Now, I can see if this is a little too much movie for most people to handle, but I can't express enough how good a deal it is. Plus, you could always leave before Sunshine (I would; I hate it), if you fear a numb butt (try to imagine 24 hours!). Considering I still need to see two of the nominees, it would be worth it for me to attend the whole marathon since at the participating megaplex in Manhattan two movies and concessions would run me about $30 anyway (unless I theater-hopped).

Hey all. Tommy here, pinch-hitting for regular box-office soothsayer Patricia, who is off battling near-sub-zero temperatures in Park City, Utah, to attend the Sundance Film Festival this week.

So here's what's happening this weekend at the box office. In the wake of the Golden Globes and in anticipation of this coming Tuesday's Academy Award nominations, a slew of Oscar contenders (most of which were released in 2006) are expanding to more theaters. These include Golden Globe Best Picture winner 'Babel,' the critically acclaimed 'The Queen,' the enthralling adult fairy tale 'Pan's Labyrinth,' Clint Eastwood's other World War II flick 'Letters From Iwo Jima,' the powerful indie 'The Last King of Scotland' and the Edward Norton period drama 'The Painted Veil.' Alas, despite their lofty aspirations and high caliber, these almost-sure-to-be-nominated flicks will get crushed -- and I mean crushed with AUTHORITY -- by this week's only new wide release 'The Hitcher.'

Despite its R-rating, 'The Hitcher' appeals to that primal desire in a large group of moviegoers to watch a beauitful scantily clad woman (in this case Sophia Bush) flee from an eerie-looking -- and clearly deranged -- dude (in this case Sean Bean) who likes to thumb rides in the rain and then end the lives of his car-pool "buddies." Prediction: 'The Hitcher' will be riding solo atop the box office come Sunday.

Prediction deadline: Saturday at noon

1. The Hitcher
2. Stomp the Yard
3. Night at the Museum
4. Dreamgirls
5. Pursuit of Happyness

POST: What's your weekend top five prediction?

POST: What do you think of these movies?

With only a week away from announcing the Oscar nominations, and with no apparent need to do so, the Academy has pared down its list of eligible foreign-language films from 61 to nine. This is the first time the Academy has shortlisted the category, but the decision to do so falls in line with a number of other changes pertaining to the category.

Those changes, which I told you about last summer, are a good thing for at least two of the nine films. Water and Black Book each would have been disqualified in previous years, but now their language issues are in full compliance with the rules. Of course, had they not made the cut, there might have been some happier countries in Asia or Australia, the two continents not represented (Antarctica may get some love from Happy Feet's animation nomination). It is too bad that Japan couldn't claim Golden Globe winner Letters From Iwo Jima and also too bad for Oz that Ten Canoes wasn't chosen.

Happy Holidays to all and to all a ... few good movies. I've been asked to step in and semi-resurrect our regular old Review Roundup feature, which works out pretty well considering I usually spend most Fridays (and some Wednesdays) poring through all my favorite critics, agreeing with some and questioning the basic sanity of others. But since the release date schedules get extra jumbly during the year-end holiday season, I figured I'd spend my first column covering, well, everything. Let's start with the ones that actually opened yesterday ...

The Good Shepherd

Pro: "It's not a tub-thumping anti-CIA screed, but at the same time it's not a gung-ho patriotic extravaganza about the moral certainty of our side." -- Stephen Hunter, Washington Post

Con: "This is featherweight entertainment, sans visual elation and moral consequence-like Munich for Beginners." -- Ed Gonzalez, Slant Magazine

Pro: "The bottom line is that The Good Shepherd is engaging cinema. The length is a drawback, but not a big one since the movie earns the majority of its 165-minute running time." -- James Berardinelli, ReelViews.net

Con: "De Niro's vision seems unfocused and ill-executed. It seems as though he had a thousand good ideas about what a spy film should be that didn't quite coalesce into a singular product, but he crammed 'em all in there regardless and tossed the editing shears into the garbage." -- Phil Villareal, Arizona Daily Star

BONUS: "A truncated American tragedy, noticeably half-finished and undercooked, but often tantalizing for the promise that clearly lay buried in the material, like unbroken codes." -- Ryan Stewart, Cinematical

Night at the Museum

Pro: "Trying to get kids to go to a museum over their holiday vacations might be a little easier after seeing Night at the Museum, a family-friendly comedy that tries to entertain while educating - and often succeeds, at least with the former." -- Mack Bates, Milwaukee Journal Sentinel

Con: "A volley of contented cackles greeted the final third of Night at the Museum, a pea-brained fantasy-comedy with a riot of kid-pleasing special effects." -- Jan Stuart, Newsday Magazine

Pro: "What do you know, not only is this a delightful popcorn movie, Ben Stiller is actually really good in it." -- Kevin LaForest, Montreal Film Journal

Con: "The possibilities for building an intriguing and original story around this concept -- the Museum of freakin' Natural History comes alive every night! -- are endless, and they chose this. That is downright criminal." -- MaryAnn Johanson, The Flick Filosopher

BONUS: "Lots of pure imagination, with an extra helping of the most fun you might have at the theater all year." -- Erik Davis, Cinematical

We Are Marshall

Pro: "Warm and big-hearted, We Are Marshall succeeds as a tribute because it respects its subjects. It succeeds as a movie because it doesn't confuse respect with lifelessness." -- Jessica Reaves, Chicago Tribune

Con: "Director McG, known for the whiz-bang acrobatics of his Charlie's Angels movies, applies a warm, shiny veneer to everything here which prevents any emotion from getting through." -- Christy Lemire, San Francisco Gate

Pro: "The film is injected with a refreshing energy whenever McConaughey is on-screen, balancing some of the inherent sadness of the story." -- Kevin Crust, Los Angeles Times

Con: "No matter how earnest the intentions are, however, the harsh truth is that We Are Marshall is shockingly empty, one-dimensionally written, and finally unconvincing." -- Dustin Putnam, TheMovieBoy.com

BONUS: "A film that walks a tightrope with tricky subject matter, and somehow makes it to the other side." -- Ryan Stewart, Cinematical

Now let's skip back over the past week or so and see how the other holiday break also-rans fared with the critics...

I was flabbergasted when, a couple of weeks ago, Clint Eastwood's Letters from Iwo Jima made a last-minute arrival on the scene with its Oscar ticket already stamped. You may remember that precisely the same thing happened with the 2004 Eastwood & Haggis Inc. production, Million Dollar Baby. Does Haggis have dirt on the Academy? It's become a legitimate question. Even before many critics with access to advance screenings had seen Iwo Jima, The National Board of Review, Golden Globes, AFI and others had declared it to be among the best of the year. This, despite having (rightfully) ignored Flags of our Fathers, released back in October. The reviews, as they've rolled in, have been positive across the board -- until now. Salon's Stephanie Zacharek has posted a review that lays into Eastwood for "rewriting history" and even attacks the National Board of Review as "hobbits" who expect us to follow their "scroll from Middle-Earth" that decrees the film to be an artistic success.

Zacharek's main charge is that Eastwood has chosen to noticeably dial down the documented viciousness of the Japanese soldiers, lest it conflict with the film's overarching idea -- that their soldiers, like ours, were just frightened kids. "Eastwood can't bring himself to deal with any genuine complexity," she writes. Zacharek also has a big problem with Eastwood showing the Japanese soldiers clutching pictures of loved ones, as if having family makes one moral. "In 50 years are we going to be seeing movies like 'Lynddie England: Misunderstood Mommy?'" Ouch. I guess I have to actually see this film now, to decide for myself.