letters from iwo jima

I saw the movie "Letters from Iwo Jima" today, and was struck by a couple of things. The first was the name of a Japanese soldier who was the movie's thread, it's underdog, so to speak, which was "Saigo". Saigo means 'last' in Japanese, and lo and behold, he was the one Japanese soldier who made it to the end. Hmm...

The other, which has more serious undertones I believe, is the portrayal of the two top Japanese officers. In the story, both of them had been to America, and they both seemed to express a certain fondness for the country throughout the movie. But what was the purpose of portraying them in such light? This situation brings something to mind, a useful exercise, as it were, that Chomsky has used to illustrate the absurdity or hypocrisy of a certain situation. In the night, when there was a lull in the fighting, we see the top Japanese officer drawing pictures of time he spent in America, drinking Johnny Walker whisky, writing letters to his family. During the day, we see him have occasional reminisces of his time in America, one theme being how he was surprised at the number of cars there. The other Japanese officer gives the last vile of morphine in his unit to a wounded American soldier against the objections of his men, then chats with him as best he can in his broken English, and after the American soldier dies, he reads a letter that his mother had written to him (in cursive) to his unit, translating perfectly from English to Japanese with no hesitation. I guess the Americans aren't really so bad after all...

But wait, let's try that exericse I mentioned above. What is the exercise? Basically, it's one of reversal, taking the same situation, but reversing the roles of the players. So, let's try this...let's say for instance, that a group of American soldiers was holding an island, soon to be attacked by Russians. The Americans are sure to outnumbered, obscenely so. After the fighting has begun, after so many American soldiers have died that only a handful remain, let's try and imagine the leader of those soldiers drawing pictures in his dairy of those special times he had when he was in Russia, maybe drinking some special Russian vodka that he had managed to save from his trip. Or let's imagine them taking in a wounded Russian soldier, giving him the last vile of morphine, chatting amicably with him, and after he dies, reading a letter that his mother wrote him to everyone in the unit (and don't forget that the soldiers, as they hear the letter being read to them, begin to stand up, one by one, apparently touched by its contents...). Do you really see this happening? Come on...

Or what about if in the exercise, we change the Russians to Shiite insurgents? Is that even thinkable in today's terrorist-charged political and social climate? Hold on now...

The point? Portraying such scenarios through the eyes of the "enemy" makes us look like the moral victors, because the "enemy" has a soft spot in their heart for us and what we represent, and their acceptance and expression of their pro-American sentiments makes them look like reasonable men to the audience. There's a word for this, and it's called "propaganda", pure and simple. The effect of such characterization seems to be that it's ok if the enemy comes to think of us as not so bad because it makes us look good. But are we capable of doing the same?...