Quote of the day

My students taught me that everything was personal - history, politics, foreign relations - but this approach creates boundaries as well as connections

Syndicate content

Navigation


View 13 comments

Letters to the past: Iwo Jima and Japanese memory

Clint Eastwood's film "Letters from Iwo Jima" finds the humanity behind the brutality of war, thus honouring the past and opening hearts in the present, says Emiko Ohnuki-Tierney, author of "Kamikaze Diaries".

Clint Eastwood's film Letters from Iwo Jima begins and ends sixty years after the end of the war it depicts. At the start, a team of Japanese investigators is searching for whatever may have been left by Japanese soldiers holed up on Iwo Jima, part of a group of Pacific islands around 1,000 kilometres south of Tokyo. The team finds a large sack buried where the soldiers had made their last headquarters. The closing scene of the film shows hundreds of letters and postcards the soldiers wrote to their families and friends but were never sent spilling out of this sack.

The letters symbolise the frail thread of humanity that these soldiers, facing imminent death and trapped in a war their country soon lost, managed to hold onto. The two framing scenes highlight both war's brutal destruction of familial bonds and the attempts of those on the frontline to retain their humanity amidst its horror.

Letters from Iwo Jima is an important film for two reasons. For one thing, it is the first filmic attempt to undo the demonisation of Japanese soldiers that was propagated by the American mass media during and after the Pacific war of 1941-45. For another, in vividly depicting the brutality and the meaninglessness of war, it is a war movie with an anti-war message.

Eastwood's film chooses to portray the immense human cost of war in general by choosing the Japanese troops on Iwo Jima as an example. In a six-week battle from 16 February to 26 March 1945, these troops fought a desperate rearguard action from which 20,129 of the total of 20,933 were killed; the remainder were captured or went missing (the last two survivors emerged from a tunnel and surrendered on 1 January 1949). The cost to the United States forces was also great: of the 70,000-strong invading force, 6,821 died and almost 22,000 were wounded. The outcome of the Iwo Jima battle was decisive: Japan's loss of the island provided the Americans with a base for the carpet-bombing of Japanese cities which killed more Japanese civilians than the two atomic bombs combined.

 

Emiko Ohnuki-Tierney is William F Vilas Professor of Anthropology at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. She is the author of Kamikaze, Cherry Blossoms, and Nationalisms: The Militarization of Aesthetics in Japanese History (University of Chicago Press, 2002) and Kamikaze Diaries: Reflections of Japanese Student Soldiers (University of Chicago Press, 2006)

A journey into a lost Japan

Letters from Iwo Jima is not an easy film to watch. The viewer must endure scenes that evoke the worst of the battle - from the deafening sounds of gunshots and explosions to the sight of blood and dead bodies. Japanese soldiers had been ordered to defend this strategically crucial volcanic island with their lives. The Japanese navy had been destroyed in the battle over the Marianas, and military headquarters in Tokyo refused to send additional support. Anyone who surrendered and defected to the enemy, as two did, was shot by the Americans. In most wars, soldiers find themselves at the point of no return.

A few "lunatic patriots" among the Japanese officers killed their subordinates for what they saw as unpatriotic acts, even when they needed each and every soldier. The extreme brutality within the Japanese armed forces is well known. Some inflicted corporal punishment even on the "kamikaze pilots" on the base, rather than making sure they were in perfect shape for the death mission. Indeed, while the Nazis told their soldiers to kill the enemy, the Japanese military told their soldiers to kill themselves: "Thou shall fall like cherry petals after a brief life" (see Emiko Ohnuki‑Tierney, Kamikaze, Cherry Blossoms and Nationalisms: The Militarization of Aesthetics in Japanese History [University of Chicago Press, 2002]).

When Mount Suribachi was lost, for example, the soldiers were expected to commit suicide. Many agonised over the meaning of patriotism, which on Iwo Jima meant death for a certain lost cause. A baker, the most moving character in the film (superbly acted by Ninomiya Kazunari), asks a fellow soldier who was ready to shoot him as a coward: "Which is better - to die now or to stay alive to fight for the country?" Indeed, it is the baker, Saigo, who is most irreverent toward Japan's militarist ideology, and it is he who buried the sack of unsent letters, thereby preserving the last days of these soldiers for posterity.

Their heart-wrenching agony is portrayed as they write letters to their families (in reply to ones that have been delivered before the battle), knowing that their loved ones may never read them. The baker poignantly pours out his own feelings: only when he is writing to his wife, and a daughter he has not seen, does he find some relief from the unbearable reality.

Although we have letters and diaries of soldiers in many countries from the past, writing diaries and letters was especially important for the Japanese, who confront their own thoughts in writing. Many soldiers left long diaries behind (see Emiko Ohnuki‑Tierney, Kamikaze Diaries: Reflections of Japanese Student Soldiers [University of Chicago Press, 2006]).

The film perceptively identifies the strategies employed by the Japanese state to mobilise women and children on the "home front", in ways both comparable to and very different from those used by other states at war. These included the Patriotic Women's Association; the use of the term hikokumin ("non‑subject"), a threatening description of anyone who did not comply with the war effort; and the sen'ninbari (a sash with 1,000 red knots made by 1,000 women and touted as "bullet-proof").

The Japanese state targeted children with patriotic propaganda, filling school textbooks with stories and songs in praise of the soldiers who were protecting their country. In one scene in the film, General Kuribayashi (played by Ken Watanabe) - who has arrived on the island to take charge of the operation, and who brings some humanity to the soldiers struggling under wretched conditions - is called to the radio to hear an "important broadcast" from military headquarters in Tokyo: children from his home prefecture are singing to thank the soldiers on Iwo Jima for valiantly protecting the homeland. The state believed that the soldiers' sacrifice for the emperor was not enough; it had to mobilise an emotional appeal by children to fortify their spirits.

The film also offers a glimpse of the way that the cosmopolitanism of pre‑war Japan lasted into the war. The curriculum of the higher schools which young men entered at 16 was demanding, requiring study of Latin and two other foreign languages. The students also read world classics in philosophy and literature: Plato and Socrates, Kant and Kierkegaard, Thomas Mann and Romain Rolland, and would form their own symphony orchestras. When the students became soldiers, they often used German, French and English in their diaries.

The cultural filter

At the same time, the film at some points plays with rather than transcends the misleading representations that so often surround the popular depiction of Japanese culture. It is known that Kuribayashi stripped off his insignias and other markings of his rank before he led the mass suicide, and that his remains were never identified. Thus, the portrayal of him as seeking seppuku (hara-kiri) both reinforces the stereotype of the Japanese soldier-warrior and succumbs to Japanese government propaganda, which cynically superimposed the samurai "aura" on the new conscripts, many of whom came from dirt-poor rural Japan.

A similarly misleading point is the representation of soldiers crying "hail to the emperor!" before committing mass suicide. At this point in the war, despair had prevailed over whatever ideology soldiers might have previously held, and the gesture had become a hollow ritual without conviction, as evident in many testimonies.

Yet overall, the film speaks to its intended audience - Japanese as much as American - with integrity. Eastwood has even referred to it as "a Japanese film", and dedicated it to the fallen soldiers on Iwo Jima. Many of the 6,500 Japanese who crowded into its two-day premiere no doubt were attracted because of the positive image of the Japanese portrayed in the film. The paradox was well expressed by Onda Taeko, writing on Yomiuri Online: "Today the person who had the power to tell us the Japanese experience during the war was Clint Eastwood, an American."

Indeed, the memory of the second world war in Japan has a chequered history. After 1945, American occupation forces prohibited any reference to the war, including the atomic bombs, literally blacking them out from school textbooks. After the round-the-clock carpet bombing of the cities, most Japanese were relieved that the war had ended, convinced that the war was wrong, and too pressed by the rigours of survival and reconstruction to spend time looking back. The widespread attitude that the war had been evil even led people to shun or scorn returning soldiers; many limbless veterans reduced to street-begging received little sympathy from passers-by. Sixty years later, a new generation of Japanese is now confronting the country's war experiences, including the atrocities Japan's military forces inflicted upon their "enemies" and other Asian citizens. The debates on what and how to include Japan's wartime record in school textbooks are passionate.

The deep wounds of the war have spurred enduring peace movements of several kinds: among women and organised labour, by the members of Kyujo-no-kai (The Association for Article 9), which strives to prevent the re‑militarisation of Japan, and a group of top scientists at Sogokenkyu University who hold a series of peace symposiums. Clint Eastwood has given this mosaic of groups much‑needed moral support at a time when elements in Japan's government are seeking ways to increase the country's military power.

On the western side of the Pacific, Japanese soldiers have for six decades remained the utmost "other," the epitome of "the inscrutable Oriental", even after the veterans of Iwo Jima on both sides pledged reconciliation and resolved never to repeat the brutality of a terrible war. In laying aside this image and courageously portraying Japanese soldiers as human beings, Clint Eastwood deserves great credit. That the film has been enormously successful in the US, receiving sixteen awards so far (including an Oscar nomination), is truly remarkable, perhaps a sign of the times when more than half of Americans oppose the Iraq war. Its deepest message, however, is sent by those letters: the universality of the bonds of love, family and humanity itself.

Average rating
(4 votes)

Trackback URL for this post:

http://www.opendemocracy.net/trackback/4381
further links
read on

Emiko Ohnuki-Tierney, Kamikaze Diaries: Reflections of Japanese Student Soldiers (University of Chicago Press, 2006) US, UK

 
Copyright © Emiko Ohnuki-Tierney, . Published by openDemocracy Ltd. You may download and print extracts from this article for your own personal and non-commercial use only. If you teach at a university we ask that your department make a donation. Contact us if you wish to discuss republication. Some articles on this site are published under different terms.

d.phillipson said:



Tue, 2007-03-06 14:49
deBeer's comments seem just: Western ideas of the Japanese military were in the 1940s compounded of traditional stereotypes (e.g. that Japanese culture was imitative rather than original, that most Japanese needed glasses and thus must be poor aviators) and straight reporting of Japanese secret action (e.g. assassination of politics) or overt action (Rape of Nanking etc.) Correspondingly, Japanese wartime propaganda pictured American soldiers as totally brutal. What was later interesting was that the Japanese stereotype of Americans was erased and replaced by direct contact, viz. US occupation forces in Japan and the US role in reorganizing Japanese politics. By contrast, the US stereotype of Japan was replaced in time -- but by second-hand contact through the mass media, not really by first-hand contact between Japanese and American people. Where such contact did occur, however, the result was similar, see such books as Russell Braddon's End of a Hate (Australian) and James Clavell's Shogun (British.) However meritorious, Eastwood's Iwo Jima film is one more item in an established new Western genre, to which Emiko Ohnuki‑Tierney does not refer.
login or register to post comments | email this comment

jga105.net said:



Wed, 2007-03-07 02:48
I am a veteran of WWII. Why did't the soldiers on Iwo surrender as did the soldiers of other armies when placed in an untenable position? The actions of the Japanese military was as atrocious as anything perpetrated by the Nazi's.
login or register to post comments | email this comment

jjet said:



Wed, 2007-03-07 14:41
"... the first filmic attempt to undo the demonisation of Japanese soldiers that was propagated by the American mass media..."

Crapola.

While the individual Japanese soldier was probably like any other guy-just trying to get by, his brutal superiors, his training and blind devotion to the Emporer and to bushido turned him into a mass-murderer.

As a commercial pilot, I've flown into Japan many, many times. I've always found the people to be exceedingly polite and outwardly friendly. However, I never forgot that I am a gajiin, which is the Japanese equivalent of "nigger"- the use of which is also contemptible and vile.

If all the non-Japanese world is subhuman and gajiin, then routine barbarity towards these untermenschen (witness a certain similarity to Adolph and the Boys?) becomes commendable.

Witness the Bataan Death March, the repeated bayoneting of civilians and captured soldiers to toughen up the new Japanese soldiers, the casual beheadings of captured fliers (especially fliers) and soldiers, the strafing of Allied pilots who had bailed out and were hanging helpless in the parachutes (verified by WWII P-38 pilot friends of mine), the murders of countless Filipinos and Chinese for minor infractions and to pacify and cow entire villages and cities, the routine beatings POW's endured by sadistic guards for infractions like not bowing down low enough to the guard, forced labor camps, no food or medicine for POW's.....ad nauseam.

It was not called the "Rape" of Nanking for nothing, you know.

While America and the world rightly is horrified by incidents like the My Lai murders, are we now supposed to just ignore and thus condone government-sponsored murder, rape, theft, and arson? I refuse to "un-demonize" the brutal, sociopathic Japanese soldier (of any rank).

Little Boy and Fat Man. Wish we'd had them on December 8, 1941.

J W Ritter

USAF (Retired)

login or register to post comments | email this comment

sooke said:



Thu, 2007-03-08 09:37
"The actions of the Japanese military was as atrocious as anything perpetrated by the Nazi's."

Sometimes worse.

One third of American POWs died in Japanese camps,

versus 4% in German camps.

login or register to post comments | email this comment

KidB said:



Mon, 2007-03-12 22:35
It is ironic that all of the above posters have unwittingly perpetrated the same kind of anti-Japanese demonization that the west populatized in ww2. Otherwise liberal folk are guilty of ridiculous distortions and falsehoods.

Japan has issued over 20 official apologies for its wartime conduct to its Asian neighbors since the early 70's. It's present-day textbooks do not glorify imperialsm(the much-reviled "right-wing" texbooks are used in less than 20 of over 10,000 middle schools). Japan's imperialism before Hirohito was modelled directly, deliberately, and overtly on Imperialist practices by Britain, Germany, France, and Russia - the Japanese Navy even used the same ranks and uniforms as Britain's. The Japanese word gaijin does not mean "nigger" or anything like it.

Japan learned Imperialism from the West. The West was at it long before Japan, and that includes starving tens of millions throughout Asia and Africa, and enforcing rule through torture murder. 13 million dead by famine in India alone, thanks to British rule. This was how any "world-class" country behaved until the end of ww2. Singling out Japan is not only distorted - it is self serving to the west, whose own atrocities are never called out as such.

There are millions buried in Yasukuni, including 14 or so war criminals. This is a reason for international outcry?? Are there no war criminal in Arlington? An entire mountainside in Georgia, USA bears the likeness of 3 confederate generals who fought to preserve slavery...no one seems to make an international case about it. Interesting.

Chinese leaders have killed more Chinese that Japan has. Has the Chinese government every apologized to its own people for the atrocities of Mao? WHy is there no outcry over Chinese and Soviet imperialism, which gave us the state of North Korea? Why must we always go after Japan, Japan, and again Japan?

China, of course, is the up-and-coming economic tiger. This connection is not coincidental.

login or register to post comments | email this comment

ssmith_1 said:



Tue, 2007-03-20 20:31
Incomplete history, clearly tainted by a modern view. We can wish and select out our interpretation of history all we want, but solid study will reflect a far broader understanding of the Japanese culture leading up to WWII and playing itself out in events like Iwo Jima in Feb-March of 1945.
login or register to post comments | email this comment

george_maurice said:



Wed, 2007-03-21 14:44
Please, KidB, stop being such an apologist. My mother lived in the Philippines during WWII and it was pure livng hell. The wanton atrocities commited by the Japanese were unconscionable. My half-brother's father was a guerilla and was captured by the Japanese. He and a few others were marched into the middle of the village where they had to dig their own graves and were buried alive in front of everyone, including my mother.
login or register to post comments | email this comment

wskelton said:



Thu, 2007-04-12 00:39
I lost two uncles in the European theater and one in the Pacific theater. My wife's uncle died serving in the Japanese army in China. My comment is that one must admire and honor soldiers who die for the nation regardless of the side they fought on. I can only wonder would I have the courage to do the same?
login or register to post comments | email this comment

Arakano said:



Tue, 2007-05-15 10:10
This discussion is really strange. In my opinion, the point is not which nation has the most horrible history. And I don't believe anyone questions the atrocities the japanese military commited in WWII. But either one condemns all war crimes and massacres, or one becomes a hypocrite. Just because Nazi Germany was responsible for the Holocaust does not mean the bombing of Dresden and Hamburg wereacceptable, because many thousands of children and other innocents died, while the most guilty persons had the safest bunkers. And all European nations practising imperialism in their past can not serve to condone japanese imperialism. And no, the atomic bombs used against Japan were not justified by the japanese war crimes. Either condemn everyone, or forgive everyone.
login or register to post comments | email this comment

manxious63 said:



Wed, 2007-08-15 06:04
I have become more and more disgusted with all war movies. As with Eastwood's latest two hollywood always portrays war to be the most palatable to the current generation. In "Letters" Clint directed a movie with a message least likely to offend a japanese audience but dilutes the whole philosophy of why the japanese fought the way they did.

I also get disgusted when people too young to have experienced what americans went through during WWII try to tell veterans who actually faced the japanese in combat that they had a distorted attitude regarding those trying to kill them.

This movie portrays any japanese soldier wanting to die for his country as a villain and the hero is a passivist trying to stay alive. I really don't think that is a fair portrail of the soldiers on Iwo Jima.

To understand the japanese soldier you should start with thier bruital training, show the fire bombing of tokyo, starvation of the troops, and the clear doom overcoming their country and then you might understand why they were all heroically or at the end of a knife ready to die for thier country. This would be better than trying to white wash it. Their only hope was to make the war so terrible for americans that the american public would demand an end. The casulties at Iwo Jima came close to doing that.

The one thing which seems missing in the U.S. history of the war is the true behavior by american troops. I imagine if you are thrown onto a beach with the enemy mercilessly turning your friends into hamburger in front of your eyes you are in no mood to be nice. I imagine it is easy to be judgemental when you haven't been there, but I am still curious as to what really went on.

I wish someone would make a movie that simply told the truth about the brutality of war without having to give some nice moral feel good message.

login or register to post comments | email this comment

Anonymous said:



Thu, 2007-08-23 05:07
An Ad Hominem Tu Quoque: it is wrong to say someone cannot criticize you because they too have committed the same or similar actions. So it is not a "condemn everyone or forgive everyone" black or white situation. Japan did these things,fair enough. Did they apologies and pay reparations?, sure. Could they have done more heck yes: those "comfort women" are still waiting for japan to fork them some reparations, and there are plenty of other groups japan hasn't even apologies to, and it would be nice if japan had laws like Germany were anyone denying what happened (during the war) goes to prison. But all this is besides the point, the point is how was this movie. The movie is a movie it is not a war documentary and with its Hollywood crew did you expect accuracy to be place above movie plot dynamics? Scenes like helping the American solider definitely broke believability, but it made for a dramatic moment and scene. In this sense it was a very heart wrenching and good movie, not truly accurate, but definitely an improvement on other war propaganda movies of the previous decades.
login or register to post comments | email this comment

FatBoy said:



Sat, 2007-10-20 04:47
"it would be nice if japan had laws like Germany were anyone denying what happened (during the war) goes to prison" Wow. Lets make certain thoughts illegal. How very American of you. The U.S. constitution protects free speech... It probably didn't mention "free thought" b/c the founding fathers probably believed all hope was lost if people wanted to start outlawing thoughts. George Orwell had a good novel about how that would end up... All opinions are equal in this country whether you fought in a war or not. So don't feed me this I am superior to you b/c my I fought or my grandfather/uncle whatever fought wherever. Everybody in the world was either there or had a relative that was. Studying the period I don't really separate any of those nations morally. Each fought and indoctrinated its citizens & soldiers to fight for what it thought was right. Trying to make moral arguments out of WWII is pointless. Bataan Death March vs. Vaporizing 20 to 30 thousand men, women and children in Hiroshima & Nagasaki. Which is worse? Pointless argument.
login or register to post comments | email this comment