Last weekend, I finally watched his two recent films "Letters from Iwo Jima" and "Flags of Fathers" in full. Both films are based on the battle of Iwo Jima on the Pacific battlefield in the latter part of World War II. They are narrated from the perspectives of Japan and the United States. They are independent of each other and some of the scenes echo each other. Clint made these two war-themed films in an attitude of loyalty to history. He did not highlight the victory or defeat of the war. Instead, he focused on portraying the psychology of the characters in the war, and extended the lens to the people who lost their lives in the war and the war. The impact on the people, the result of the war, then seemed insignificant.
In contrast, the two parties involved in the war are not only political and military confrontations, but also the conflict between the two different cultures of the East and the West. The Japanese camp has strict hierarchies, and it is a close group dominated by the spirit of Bushido. The scene of Japanese soldiers violently killed collectively with grenades in the film is shocking. In the US military camp, there is a brotherly atmosphere; while proclaiming fighting for the country, individuals value life and friendship more seriously. Seen separately, the two films also contain different thinking about this culture. "Letters from Iwo Jima" actually reflects the conflicts between the hearts of several characters of different classes and personalities in the Japanese military camp and the cruel reality of war in many aspects; "The Flag of the Fathers" has subverted the American view of individual heroism. , Made a real analysis of the helplessness and inner struggle behind the hero's glamour.
There is a character in each of the two films that touches me.
In "Flags of Fathers", the Indian Ira Hayes has been struggling painfully after being pushed to the position of an American hero. The scenes of Iwo Jima battles are always in his mind. He is a stoic and tall image on the battlefield, and what he brings to the American people on the square of the city hall is also a glorious heroic image. But in the face of the eagerness of politicians and businessmen and the expectations of the people for heroes, he is fragile and vulnerable. . After he used alcohol to paralyze himself to escape from reality and caused a series of troubles, the night before he had to be sent back to the battlefield, this tearful man said the voice of almost all war heroes-"I can't stand others." Call me a hero. I just tried my best to prevent myself from being shot. The things I have seen and done are not at all proud." Those survivors who witnessed the war and were bloodied by it are often slapped by them after the war. The country and the people are regarded as heroes, and the glory of all this is just to conform to the needs of the times. People value their contribution to the country, but they rarely pay attention to the lasting trauma caused by war. When they are accustomed to the harsh military system and the cruel death game in the military, once they return to reality with a vision of reality, they are a group of people who will be forgotten by reality and marginalized by public opinion. As the end of the film said: "Heroes are created by people, and they are needed." Heroes also become "heroes of yesterday". This is a heavy word.
In "Letters from Iwo Jima", Xixiang is a pure and weak soldier. He was originally a baker in a small town with a virtuous wife and unborn child. When his team suffered a disastrous defeat and took turns pulling off the grenade to commit suicide collectively, the seemingly cowardly Xixiang finally betrayed Bushido’s "preferably broken jade rather than shattered", and another soldier named Shimizu, He also reflects the Japanese wandering and struggling between individual life and the emperor, life and death are only between one thought. The behavior of deserters is not tolerated by the social ethics of Japanese militarism, and the desire to survive is too strong to suffocate. Saigo and Shimizu, who betrayed Bushido, became friends in need. They merged with a large force and later captured another American soldier. The letter written to him by the mother left by the American soldier before his death touched these two little characters a lot: it turns out that Americans are not barbarians, they also have the tender side of their sons and daughters, and even the letters from mothers of the two countries to their sons are similar. They are all asking themselves the meaning of death. Is the life of an individual really so small and worthless in front of the emperor? So what about the relatives who entangle them? They finally chose to be deserters, but such a choice was pale and feeble. Shimizu found the American army and raised the white flag. He really thought that the Americans would treat the prisoners preferentially. In the eyes of the Americans, how barbarous and cruel the Japanese are. Then the ending of Shimizu can be imagined. The moment Xixiang saw Qingshui at the US military station, his eyes were filled with cold despair, despair of the future, freedom, relatives, and everything in life. The war has forced people to a point where there is nowhere to retreat.
The apostasy of small people often reflects the harshness of social ethics, and the outcome of such apostasy is often inferior to the pale and powerless of the world.
Once expressed disdain for men in peace times, because they have not experienced the baptism of war, selfishness and lack of responsibility for their loved ones and society. Today, I asked myself, how can a woman who has not experienced war know the so-called "baptism"? People are full of admiration for the self-discipline, self-improvement and perseverance of soldiers, so why haven't they added the element of fantasy? How much do people today know about war? Soldiers fought bloody battles and sacrificed their lives for the country. Do they really regard death as a return to the life and death of individuals? Their belief is rather an existing sense of responsibility. Responsibility, what a terrible responsibility! Such an ethical concept emphasizes what we should do, but ignores what we want to do. Moral and ethics try to constrain people in an orderly framework; in an autocratic system, people talk about responsibilities and ignore individual free will. The personal responsibility for the family allows a couple who have no feelings to continue to maintain an unfortunate marriage; the personal responsibility for the unit makes it possible for a person who does not like the existing job to give up the choice; the personal responsibility for the country makes a man of flesh and blood. The righteous person abandons his flesh and blood and even becomes ruthless. Individual love, freedom, and life appear so humble under the strength of responsibility. Responsibility to make it possible? Life is a social person, and at the same time, the desire side cannot be eliminated. This determines the necessity of responsibility for individual restraint. Love is different from abusive emotions, and freedom is not to do whatever you want. The idea of responsibility is to let everyone take it consciously, not to force people to do what they should and should not do. Moreover, the government does not have the final say about any kind of should and should not, it should at least represent the voice of democracy.
The fulfillment of responsibilities needs to be based on the reciprocity of both parties. Mentioned before patriotism, the country also loves me. This can't help but seem ethereal, and the non-government is a sense of ethnic identity. In history, the more we go back, the more dilute the concept of the country's territory. For example, the Tang Dynasty did not emphasize the concept of territory very much. Maintaining between people is more of a sense of identity based on culture and ethnic group. People can move around anywhere in the region. The more restrictions on freedom, the more extreme the way people break the taboo, and the lethality of the means sometimes exceeds the ultimate goal. A nation or a country that despises individual life, everyone says it is patriotic, but it is really afraid of the government. This kind of national love is widespread, and once personal interests are involved, it becomes vulnerable. It is not difficult to understand that the living heroes are just survivors of the war, the deserters who defected are just poor people influenced by the desire to survive, and the countless dead are the victims of politics. Let me ask: If a person with a sense of responsibility does not have the support of true love in his heart, how can he be responsible?
View more about Letters from Iwo Jima reviews
