but what country are you from again, Stephanie? You write as if the idea of family members being glad about soldiers going off to fight is some weird foreign aberration. Since when? Are you implying that we oh-so-civilized Westerners all abhor violence and weep whenever our soldiers go off to fight? Not bloody likely. That reaction depends on the person, not the nationality. May I remind you of all those good Murrikin moms who ordered their sons going off to Vietnam to return "with your shield or on it"? Yeah, those inhuman slanty-eyed monsters are the ones who love war, not us!!

And atrocities? You talk as if there's something unique about the things the Japanese did during that war. But all wars include their shares of atrocities, and American soldiers are not immune - just ask the people of Vietnam whether we treated them like human beings all the time. Some of the stories from that war would make your hair stand up on end.

If Eastwood is trying to point out the idea that the Other Side might actually be composed of human beings (especially now, while we're in the midst of a war that once again seems to be fought against some species of mud-dwelling vermin, if you take the word of the fatcats sending boys to die), I think he should be encouraged, not put down for it. So your ivory-tower sensibilities were not sent into ecstasy by this film - so what? You could do better than damning the thing with faint praise, considering its possible import. Because sometimes your own personal sense of being entertained isn't really the most important thing, you know?

I believe the 27,000 figure quoted in the article was for American casualties, not deaths -- those were around 7,000, compared to 20,000 or so deaths (some apparently self-inflicted) on the Japanese side. I'm not sure what difference this makes, but the author apparently thought the large number of American losses important enough to mention.

I was going to write a really long criticism. Then I realized one

comment sums it up.

Your article is like having a reviewer whine that

Apocalypse Now sucks because it does not talk about Mai Lai.

No is is arguing that the Japanese army was not brutal and vicious and

in many countries committed horrible atrocities against civilians. It was

(for those into sadistic debate we could argue who was worse between

the Japanese, Germans and Russians).

But what does that have to do with Iwo Jima? Does that mean for those

men who fought bravely and were not involved with atrocities (clearly

Kuribayashi`s hands were clean as this was his first combat assignment)

should not be shown honor and respect as well?

"They deserve a better -- and a tougher -- movie than this one. "

Though I haven't seen the movie, I'd guess it deserves a "better" -- tougher or not-- review then this: an essay full of unrealized premises.

27,000 American soldiers weren't killed in Iwo Jima, that's wounded, that's a mistake that should never make it into an article as it shows a lack of basic fact checking.

Before the sort of sentimental equivalency Serai's letter epitomizes reared its head. Sorry, but all cultures do not rejoice and consider it glorious when its soldiers go off to war. All countries do not consider it a glorious sacrifice to die and a dishonor to come back alive. Japan in WWII did. And yes, while they were depicted with vicious racist caricatures, Japanese soldiers were by far the most vicious in WWII. Go to James Bradley's book and read the details Eastwood left out of Flags of Our Fathers.

And claiming the reviewer doesn't acknowledge American atrocities ... well this sentence:

"Eastwood knows, as we all do, there were atrocities committed on both sides, not just at Iwo Jima but throughout the war."

can show just how well s/he read the review.

Since I haven't seen the movie yet it's hard to comment, but I should say that I am looking forward to its release here in Japan. It comes at an useful time, just as right-wing politicians with no experience in war are trying to force through legal changes that will make it easier for them to once again send other people's children off to a real war when all they know are movies and posturing.

From what I've been told by WWII veterans, both soldiers and people who stayed at home, the characterization of the soldiers described by the reviewer as kids, starving and terrified of their superiors, seems pretty accurate. Older people in Kyushu told me stories about the enlisted men who would come around to their homes to beg for food -- the Army rations all went to the officers -- and you have to recall that the "win or die" ethic was something these kids were taught, not something they were born with as some kind of racial heritage. The lesson is poignant just a few days after Abe's government forced through bitterly opposed law which now requires all schools to "patriotism" part of the curriculum. It is hard not to perceive Japan as taking a turn for the worse.

"Flags of Our Fathers" was heavily advertised in Tokyo as, "How Americans Saw Iwo Jima." It will be very interesting to see how this one is presented, and what reaction it provokes. There could well be messages in the Japanese story and dialogue that will resonate far, far more deeply over here than would ever be the case for an American reviewer or audience. If Eastwood manages to bridge cultures that way, it will be very impressive.

Alas, this has to be anonymous. Criticism of these aspects of government policy can result in death threats and other unpleasantness.

... of the movie can be found here:

http://movies2.nytimes.com/2006/12/20/movies/20lett.html?8dpc

(Occasionally, Stephanie seems to just write a piece without first thinking (or bothering to actually see a movie).)

I am so impressed that Stephanie worked into her review the LIFE Magazine WWII photo of a Japanese skull that had been mailed home by a Marine to his blonde girlfriend in Middle America. I came across that edition of LIFE in college in the 1970's, and its mix of horror and sunny all-Americanness -- like David Lynch's Blue Velvet -- is something I've never forgetten. If I remember correctly, the photo's caption said the Marine Corps was trying to stop the practice of sending enemy skulls home.

It's Stephanie's inclusion of details like that Life photo -- and Johnny Cash's Ballad of Ira Hayes in re Flags of Our Fathers, and the magic of Ricky Jay in re The Prestige, etc., that makes her reviews so consistently enjoyable.