Talk:Letters from Iwo Jima

Language
As far as I can tell from the trailer, the film is entirely in Japanese. The article should mention that, and in that context the sentence "Warner Bros. Japan has released a Japanese trailer" is confusing - it's just the same film, but with Japanese titles and without the English captions. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 13:51, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

ALMOST entirely in Japanese: there's a flashback scene set in Fort Bliss, Texas, that's done in English. --Calton | Talk 08:23, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, there's also some scenes with American soldiers talking and another scene of which I don't want to spoil. --Mobius One | Talk 17:54, 12 March 2007(UTC)

Japanese Reception
Does anyone know anything about what kind of response this movie has generated in Japan? aubrey 08:06, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I think it is important to note whether the escavation of letters portion of the movie is based on factual events.

I agree. I know it's recieved lots of acclaim from this side of the Pacific, but I was wondering what sort of reception it got in Japan... anyone? HiS oWn 09:08, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I live in Singapore, and Singaporean media have reported excellent responses from the Japanese, including, if I remember correctly, descendants of some of the combatants on Iwo Jima... (Someone tell me how to put a timestamp?) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Endlesswaltz (talk • contribs) 17:47, 4 March 2007


 * Just add four tildas ("~") to the end of your comment. UnfriendlyFire 19:59, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

日本国内 テレビ・新聞・雑誌をはじめとして本作に関する反響は大きく、公開後最初の国内映画興行成績でトップを飾った. 公開直前から栗林忠道の人となりや硫黄島の戦いを紹介したドキュメンタリーや関連ドラマがTV各局で放送され、関連本も数多く出版される等『硫黄島ブーム』と云うべき現象が起こった. それまでのアメリカ映画では、日本を描いた作品や日本人の設定でありながらも、肝心の俳優には中国系や東南アジア系、日系アメリカ人等が起用されたり、日本語に妙な訛りや文法の間違いが目立ち、逆に英語を流暢に話すといった不自然さが目立つことが多かったが、本作品ではステレオタイプな日本の描写（文化や宗教観等）や違和感のあるシーンが少なく、「昭和史」で知られる半藤一利も、「細部に間違いはあるが、日本についてよく調べている」（朝日新聞2006年12月13日）と高く評価をしており、日本に対して多大なる敬意を払って本作を作り上げたことがうかがえる. (Above is from Japanese wiki. Following is my rough translation.) Due to big reception through TV, magazines and newspapers, this movie topped the chart in Japan. Before the release of the movie, documentaries and dramas related to Iwo-jima and general Tadamichi Kuriyabashi had been aired. Books on same subjects were also published, creating what's called "Iwo-jima boom" in Japan. Until the release of the movie, American movies about Japan had actors from China, South Eastern Asia, or Japanese-American actors were hired. This resulted in awkward Japanese grammar, or English sentence directly translated and spoken in Japanese which made little sense. However, this movie had very little awkward or stereo typed Japanese scenes. Asahi Newspaper commended on 12/13/2006, "a few details are incorrect, but over all very thoroughly researched about Japan." This movie is seen as having been made with ample consideration for Japanese audiences. Hans-Vonluck 18:02, 15 December 2010 (UTC)Hans Von Luck

Whats this movie about
From the spoiler section in the article I get the impression that this film is more about the flag raising and the lives of the soldiers afterwards. I don't know the movie so a simple question: Is this a film about the battle or is this a film about the five soldiers raising the flag and their lives afterwards? 82.119.7.224 20:46, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

This movie is not about the flag raising. That was "Flags of Our Fathers". This movie is "Letters From Iwo Jima" which tells of the battle from the Japanese side. The flag raising has nothing to do with this movie and isn't even mentioned. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.130.28.89 (talk • contribs).

Synopsis needs work.
While its good to see that someone finally provided a detailed synopsis of the film, it needs alot of editing. The last part in particular feels less like an encyclopedia article and more like a review of the film. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.154.163.243 (talk • contribs).

I tried to clean it up as best I could, there were numerous errors in spelling and grammar. The worst was the fact that the original writer seemed to call everyone "the" and their name. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.51.203.98 (talk • contribs).

It's very detailed but I cringed a few times reading it due to its poor writing. Needs work for sure. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.195.27.127 (talk • contribs).

It's pointlessly detailed, in my opinion. --Calton | Talk 10:52, 27 January 2007 (UTC)


 * AGREE - synopsis needs a major trim. It is too detailed and violates wikipedia policy as such. RoyBatty42 00:09, 8 February 2007 (UTC)


 * STRONG AGREE - The plot summary is ridiculously and overly long. Some anonymous editor keeps removing the too long plot summary tag. ResurgamII 19:58, 19 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Disagree completely. I have extensively rewritten it and cleaned it up (it was poorly written and inaccurate in many places), but as a film version of a real event I think a detailed summary is completely justified. This is a fictionalised version of events, but it is not really fiction. -- Necrothesp 16:20, 20 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't see the difference between fictionalized and fiction. It's historical fiction and as such, subject to creative license. Nobody can say for sure what really happened to Kuribayashi and so they told a story about what might've happened to him. That aside, it's still a movie and overly long summaries are both a readability and copyright issue. I tried to do some clean-up of my own, but everytime I come back, the plot just gets longer and longer. UnfriendlyFire 05:52, 23 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I have to say that "readability" is merely your POV. The difference between fictionalised and fiction is that this is based on real events and therefore comparing reality and the fictionalised version is of interest. It is more than historical fiction since it is based firmly around real events. -- Necrothesp 21:32, 23 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Ok, you're right that a well-written plot summary is readable, but I still can't see that since it's based on the Battle of Iwo Jima, it justifies this summary. I'm not the only editor who thinks it's too long. The tag that was placed clearly states why long summaries shouldn't be in articles. Please see the article on 300 (film). That movie is a fictionalized version of real events, but the plot is written so that it doesn't go into excessive detail, which leaves the article to discuss other important aspects such as critical reception and controversies. Perhaps this point is what I meant by "readability": if one section is overly long, then it would detract from other sections of the articles as well as raise issues with article size. UnfriendlyFire 00:35, 24 March 2007 (UTC)


 * No, 300 is a fantasy version of real events. It is not intended to reflect reality in any way. It's based on a comic book, which is itself only loosely based on real events. The same cannot be said of Letters from Iwo Jima. However, the simple fact is that I disagree with you and cannot see any reason, other than some sort of strange dogma, as to why plot summaries should not be fully detailed. Re issues about article size, this is nowhere near as long as many articles we have, so that's a bit of a non-argument. Re saying the length of the plot summary would detract from other sections of the article: so, you're saying that the plot is less important than other aspects of the film such as critical reception and controversies? Sorry, but I don't understand that point of view. I, as an historian, am far more interested in how the plot compares with reality than whether somebody thinks it's anti- or pro-Japanese or what the critics thought of it. You may not be, but that's just your POV, not everybody's. And our articles are designed to cover everybody's interests. -- Necrothesp 02:28, 25 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, I guess my example about 300 was moot then since it was a fantasized version of real events instead of fictionalized. To be honest, stuff like long plot summaries is the least of Wikipedia's legal worries. This article will probably be left with the thousands of other articles that need cleanup. As to my strange dogma, I was referring to WP:NOT. While it does say to write about real-world and historical context, this article basically rehashes what happened from start to finish. So if there's anything to get out of this discussion, no matter how much relevence this article has to historical and real life events, it is a plot summary. Period. UnfriendlyFire 03:50, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
 * "Wikipedia articles on works of fiction should contain real-world context and sourced analysis, offering detail on a work's achievements, impact or historical significance, not solely a summary of that work's plot. A plot summary may be appropriate as an aspect of a larger topic." (Italics mine) I really don't see anything there that says a detailed plot summary can't be provided as long as that's not all the article is. It isn't. -- Necrothesp 15:38, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Regardless of wether it is more a history lesson than a revision of the battle, it should still be molded to fit Wikiproject Film's requirements. MwNNrules (talk) 02:27, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Seppuku vs. suicide
In this entry, mention is made of Japanese soldiers commiting seppuku by detonating grenades against their bodies. However, the wiki entry on seppuku makes it very clear that a ritual blade is used. So would the soldiers indeed be committing "seppuku" with explosives? --72.202.150.92 00:19, 11 February 2007 (UTC)


 * No! Seppuku is an elaborate ritual, and grenades figure nowhere in it. Cop 633 00:22, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Pity?
This film is to show the people the other side of the war, from the Japanese side. And they do it by showing their fear and how their chance of survival was thin. I would say it shows some pity for the Japanese, but what about the hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of Chinese, Korean, and others that they have brutally murdered, torchered, abused, etc. with no pity at all? Isn't this film letting them off on little or no fine at all? The victims of mass massacres of Japan on the Asian countries need to be remembered just as the victims of the Holocaust are. This film seems like one that might bring out some big debates and anger the countries that have been broken during the forced Japanese rule. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.131.193.34 (talk • contribs).


 * Since, as far as I know, no Koreans or Chinese soldiers were at the Battle of Iwo Jima, I'm not sure how you expect a movie about the Battle of Iwo Jima to deal with the concerns you raise. If you have some information about this film's reception in China, Korea or elsewhere, that may be relevant, if added in compliance with Wiki standards. Otherwise, you're using this as a forum for discussing outside issues, which might be better dealt with in other Wiki articles. You may want to take a look at the Anti-Japanese sentiment article, since that seems to be what you're trying to express here. 218.166.202.143 19:19, 22 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Besides, I wouldn't say the film shows pity for all Japanese. It shows they were human beings in a desperate situation: some showing empathy (Saigo, and the commander of Iwo Jima), others being merciless and cruel (several low-ranking officers). Same with the Marines: some are shown as killers, some as respectful of the enemy. Japanese and American war crimes are outside the scope of this film; it just shows a desperate battle to the last man, and it does it well. 201.235.249.18 (talk) 13:50, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm a Korean. Imperial Japan took over Korea since 1905 until 1945. You can guess that I'm not particularly sympathetic to Japanese. But I'll have to agree with second person. This movie wasn't about pity for Japanese. It was about average human beings caught in war, Japanese or otherwise. Japanese did unspeakable things to Chinese and Koreans (like human bio/chemical experiment), not to mention to Western prisoners as in Bataan Death March. However, that does not mean that there weren't average Japanese with ordinary fears and concerns. I think this movie was about that. 108.2.227.132 (talk) 16:32, 15 December 2010 (UTC)daehanminguk manse!

Japanese Military Conduct
The issue of the conduct of the Japanese military in WWII must be considered. This film gives an accurate description of the horrors of war, but on balance, it completely neglects the frequent atrocities committed by the Japanese against their fellow Asians and Americans. This issue must be discussed even in the context of the film, which wished to portray the battle from the Japanese point of view. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jaimersalazar (talk • contribs).


 * I'm not sure if you saw the film, but there were a few instances where the movie addressed the points that you raised. Saigo witnessed his fellow soldiers beating and bayonetting a captured American. As well, his pacifist character is juxtaposed with fanatical soldiers who would blow themselves up rather than survive and return home to their families. While it would be bad to sugar-coat or neglect Japanese atrocities, I think the movie addressed both sides of the Japanese soldier. UnfriendlyFire 00:53, 28 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Rather than downplay Japanese war attrocities, my belief is that this movie presents a somewhat distorted view of the Kenpentai. Though I am yet to gather evidence on this matter, my understanding of the situation leads me to believe members of the Kempentai did not possess enough authority to use firearms in residential areas, let alone put dogs down. It should also be noted Japanese citizens were not required to raise the Hinomaru at night.
 * The scene where Saigo comments on how the Kenpentai often went to his bakery and confiscated his goods and eventually his machinery is also highly suspicious: despite the fact the government did order the requisition of iron materials for the war effort (one prime exemple of this policy is the Hachiko statue), I find it hard to believe the police would interfere if it meant jeopardizing the citizens' ability to make a living. -- Ishikawa Minoru 21:16, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the film portrayal appears to be grossly inaccurate, yet the Wiki article maintains "based on actual people and events." I don't believe there is any evidence that groups of Japanese soldiers on Iwo were either deserting or talking among themselves about disobeying orders, challenging their officers, or discussing the futility of war, yet the film depicts this theme at length. Is there even one single piece of evidence of this, from a real letter from Iwo (or a survivor)? Secondly, the scene in which the captured American marine is given some of "the last" morphine and medical treatment by the Japanese is beyond credulity. I do not believe that that happened. There is no evidence of that kind of humane treatment among front-line Japanese combat troops, ever. This article needs a "Historical Accuracy" section and I'm surprised that more critics have not already created a whole laundry list of factual inaccuracies in the film, just as with other war or history-related films. I don't believe the Japanese general was walking around the beach and all over. He would have had some kind of command vehicle, as long as it was possible, with numerous aides in attendance. Why doesn't the film show the huge American flag on Mount Suribachi after it is taken by the Americans? Surely many of the Japanese saw it, too, and there are repeated scenes of them looking toward Suribachi.Starhistory22 (talk) 10:19, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

This long run-on sentence needs to be replaced...
"and renowned nationalist and Prefectural Governor of Tokyo, Shintaro Ishihara—whose efforts and influence played a significant role in allowing the film's crew to shoot in Iwo Jima—who criticized director Clint Eastwood's portrayal of American army men in "Letters from Iwo Jima" at a party held on March 2, 2007 and openly stated he believed I Go to Die for You (俺は、君のためにこそ死ににいく, I Go to Die for You?)—a film for which he wrote the screenplay and acted as executive director—was far superior to the Hollywood blockbuster.[13]"

I'm not sure what this is saying because it - being what looks like 5 hyphenated sentence fragments - is a little hard to read. It would probably be easier to read as a few smaller sentences, or something with commas instead. I'd change it but I don't know what it's supposed to say. --70.128.116.44

Actual letters?
Were there any actual letters that were found for real on Iwo Jima, or is that part just fictional? I think that's rather relevant to the article. --Ojan 12:50, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes there were. Vic Voegelin of Gardiner, NY found some letter during the battle.  After hearing about the movie he decided to find the owner or a relative of him.  The full story can be found here Red1530 (talk) 02:03, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

In an online Washington Post chat (here: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2007/02/08/DI2007020801640_pf.html), the screenwriter may be referring to the story above, or maybe another incident, as she says "Regarding the letters, that was fictionalized; however, within this last week I discovered that a World War II veteran has discovered a sack of letters on the island and has been sitting on it for 62 year and because of the movie has decided to have them translated and is looking for the families." -- note the plural families. Regardless, she didn't know about this until after the film was released. IvyGold (talk) 17:23, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Critical reception and References
In reading through the section on critical reception, it seems there is a lot of work to be done to bring this up to Wikipedia standards. Only about half of the awards won and commendations given have proper citations.

I'm not altogether sure that some of these references are appropriate sources for encyclopedic purposes. The section that discusses the critical reception is especially troubling. The entire part wherein historical nomenclature and facts were called into question by Japanese moviegoers references a blog with several unsupported entries (Reference #12). No independent references are given.

The part regarding Shintaro Ishihara's opinion of the film vs. his own is first a reference to a personal point of view, given in the context of promoting his own film, not relevant to the concept of critical reception. Further, the sentences pertaining to that are fairly lifted verbatim from the referenced page, a decided no-no, which is essentially a promotion for Ishihara's film. Wildhartlivie 12:58, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

The sentence attached to footnote 11 is not quite accurate. Barber's review of the film (for the Independent) describes the "good" characters as lacking depth, but states only one of them as having visited America. 206.219.3.31 (talk) 05:26, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Horse name
FYI someone just changed the name of a horse from Jupiter to Uranus. Google results don't seem to help on this one. I'll leave it to those who watch the page to determine if correct. Proofreader77 (talk) 04:05, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Although the mention of the horse no longer appears in the article, I thought I would clear this up. Uranus was the name of the horse that the Baron rode in the 1932 Olympics. Jupiter was the name of the horse on Iwo Jima. I just finished watching the movie. Thomas R. Fasulo (talk) 05:09, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Priority
As of 14/10/2010 the page says, "The film was originally entitled Red Sun, Black Sand. The film was the first American film to show a war issue completely from the view of an enemy which was fighting Americans.[5] (This is not correct, for example, see All Quiet on the Western Front (1930))." Sic.

I don't remember any Americans in All Quiet on the Western Front, but the film or book runs from from just after the start till close to the end of the First World War, and the U.S. did join in in April 1917 (I read here). Although the hero gets home leave only once, so how long was it?

Are there any alternatives to name? The film Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World (2003), which I haven't seen in full, has British forces fighting the French, but its source material (a series of popular books, and Britain's real-history war against Napoleon) has Brits versus the U.S.

If the criterion is not U.S. on screen, but presumably out there somewhere on the opposite side, that film is a better candidate. There is also the "Pirates of the Caribbean" series, which is certainly mostly shown from the pirates' side.

-- Robert Carnegie rja.carnegie@excite.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.83.173.135 (talk) 11:12, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Evened our "war crimes"
In the plot, "They also witness a captured Marine being bayoneted to death." links to to the Japanese War Crimes article, but "One of the Marines, because he does not want to continue guarding them, summarily executes Shimizu and the other POW." doesn't link to the Allied War Crimes article, United States in Asia section. That seemed strange to me, so I have put in the link.61.214.238.202 (talk) 02:12, 4 February 2011 (UTC)DK

Japanese-American film?
What does that mean? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.36.99.235 (talk) 22:04, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Accuracy
I don't believe there is any single incident from the entire war of Japanese soldiers administering first aid to an American they had just shot. That is too far-fetched to be passed over in a film about a real battle like this.Starhistory22 (talk) 10:10, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

"Red Sun, Black Sand(film)" listed at Redirects for discussion
The redirect [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Red_Sun,_Black_Sand(film)&redirect=no Red Sun, Black Sand(film)] has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at  until a consensus is reached. Utopes (talk / cont) 05:18, 4 February 2024 (UTC)