"Flags of our Fathers" mini-review

self | 10/20/06 | LS

[LS]

This is not intended as a full-scale review, just some impressions from seeing the movie tonight.

First, as you likely know, it deals with the three men (a Navy corpsman and two Marines) of the six flag raisers who survived Iwo Jima. Clint Eastwood directed this pic, which traces the first flag-raising---which, of course, was thought to be "the" flag-raising---then the second, captured for all time in Joe Rosenthal's photo. The main plot line is that the nation was broke, and would have to sue for peace with the Japanese (right) if we didn't generate more money, quickly, through war bond sales. So these three men were dragooned into doing war bond tours, even to the point of re-enacting their "charge" up Suribachi and their flag-raising.

Second, Eastwood jumps back and forth between time frames---the bond tour, combat on Iwo Jima---that it's extremely difficult to follow. Despite taking time on the ship to try to set the characters of those other than the three main characters (Ira Hayes, Rene Gagnon, and John Bradley), the grittiness of war makes the men look so much alike that, well, it's hard to identify with any particular characters---at least, it was for me.

The main theme of the movie is guilt: the guilt felt by the flag-raisers for their buddies who didn't survive, guilt on Gagnon's part for "only" being a runner, guilt on Hayes's part for only firing his weapon a few times. Eastwood drives home the difficulty of bearing the label "hero," especially when one hasn't done anything particularly outstanding, except for surviving. While he does try, through the War Department representative, to grapple with the public's need for heroes---men who can symbolize what the others went through---Eastwood never quite gets there. Torn between trying to depict the carnage and mayhem of war and the importance of living icons with which to identify, Eastwood comes up a little short in each.

The final lines of the movie repeat the refrain from "Black Hawk Down," "Saving Private Ryan," and other recent war movies: Ultimately, they fought for each other, not for a cause or a country. Perhaps some did, but I find it hard to believe that so many millions of men signed up just to fight for each other.

Moreover, while the photo did capture the public's imagination, there was no doubt in anyone's mind that we would win the Pacific eventually; and in February 1945, with Nazi Germany collapsing, the Bulge pocket pushed back out, and American armies pushing into Germany, to suggest that Americans were about to "give up" if we hadn't gotten a miraculous photo is utter nonsense.

In short, I was disappointed only because I expected a lot more.

[razorback-bert]

I find it hard to believe that so many millions of men signed up just to fight for each other

They didn't, that occurs after training and first combat.

I have known three Marines, who fought across the Pacific, one was already serving, one was a pilot, who told me he joined because he was the best pilot around and we needed the best, the third enlisted to kill Japs.

Now what is this about going bankrupt, we pouring more men, ships and airplane into the theater everyday. My father was leading ferry squadrons of planes from India to Australia and was expecting to rotate to B-29s anyday.

[oprahstheantichrist]

What's with the "R" rating? Is it more for graphic death scenes, or for language?

My dad was on Iwo, and he's been gone for seventeen years now. My youngest is twelve, and I'd love for him to see it, but what's your advice?

[Enterprise]

Bump

[WesternPacific]

My father was also on Iwo Jima. I have his 5th Marine Division Spearhead book. It is the real story of what took place. If your Dad had this book it would be great to share with your kids.

[ansel12]

"With but one or two questions, I have never...NEVER...had the least bit of difficulty getting these guys to tell their story."



You are correct, vets will talk but not to just anybody. Even in my own family with a dad with a huge amount of kids and several families the most anybody else knew was that he was in the navy, but I talked to him a lot about his WWII experiences from 1939 to 1945 and his bloody service in the Pacific including serving on the USS Marble head when it became known as the Ghost ship after surviving the battle of the Java sea and disappearing after it was thought to be sank.

All over the country I've had combats vets relieved to tell me their stories, I think you have to be sincerely interested in them as an individual, you need to know some history of their unit and their battles, and it helps to be a serious type veteran yourself.

If you are truly interested in people, people will tell you anything, especially the most dear things, that no one else in their life is suited to hear or even to listen to.

[ansel12]

You keep writing, I'll keep reading, it sounds like you've put some thought into those times.

[SaltyJoe]

There are 2 versions of "Henry V" that are very well known.

One stars Lord Lawrence Olivier.
http://us.imdb.com/title/tt0036910/

The other stars Kenneth Branagh.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0097499/

"Flags of our Fathers" is like "Henry V" with Olivier.

"Saving Private Ryan" is like "Henry V" with Branagh.

I don't hold it against Clint Eastwood. Unless Spielberg is doing bit parts in an Austin Power's movie, I'll bet Steve sucks as an actor. "Flags of our Fathers" was like a Hallmark Card special with an "R" rating for graphic combat violence and vomit from heavy drinking. The movie is not entertaining ("Windtalkers" has better entertainment value), but "Flags" holds historical documentary value.

Adam Beach, playing Ira Hayes, should get an Oscar.

Clint should get a job with the Hallmark Channel. He can make you feel sympathy for anyone, and that's why I can't condemn the movie. Thus, don't look for a flag to be waved in your face--literally.

The timing of the movie may do more to improve our friendship with Japan considering the bellicose Pacific neighbor just next door to them. In fact, Iwo Jima, Peleliu, and Okinawa are attrition battles heavily studied by North Korean forces as their defenses mimic defense in defilade with extreme fortification and massive tunnel networking.

I witnessed the friendship ceremonies between the US Marines and our Japanese allies in Okinawa, and I'm glad that WW2 is over. Perhaps this movie says it humanly the way the Holy Spirit says it Divinely by choosing a conscripted German Hitler Youth to be the Pope. Time heals all wounds and life moves on. This movie serves no politics and would damage a politician if it's used as rhetoric (since Clint seemed to purposely make it like that).

If what I've written has you wanting to wait until the movie is on DVD, then be assured that the movie does best when played on a large screen.

[Dajjal]

Just saw it. You've nailed it on all counts.

The final lines of the movie repeat the refrain from "Black Hawk Down," "Saving Private Ryan," and other recent war movies: Ultimately, they fought for each other, not for a cause or a country.

Mel Gibson's "The Patriot" deserves inclusion.

From the film: "One picture can win or lose a war."

Until I saw this film, I had not realized that the cause of the American failure in Vietnam was the photo of the South Vietnamese police chief shooting a Viet Cong in the head.

[DCPatriot]

Sounds like another disappointing effort to deconstruct the patriotism of WWII.

I don't believe Eastwood would direct a movie with such a message.

If it's a war story from a differnt perspective so what? It's entertainment.

I've read that there were no rehearsals for any armed conflicts in order to make it more real. You got bruised or scratched and nobody yelled "Cut!".

[PhatHead]

That is a Hollywood deconstruct. Piss on Eastwood, I've changed my mind about going to this movie.

FWIW, Eastwood is an Army vet himself (not combat) and has been a Republican, as well. I think (within the framework of Hollywood..) he is a decent guy.

The bias most seen in Hollywood, among the artists, as opposed to propagandists (and I think Eastwood is among the former) is a bias towards the personal. Sometimes, as in war movies especially, they tend to overlook the extent to which individuals can be motivated by patriotism, duty and even history itself. They get too caught up in the personal. It's not necessarily inaccurate - after all, there can be no denying that men fight for their comrades- but it is distorted to pretend there is no other motivation. I have not seen this movie (yet) but I know the Hollywood meme.

Anyway, that is my defense of Eastwood, who I expect has given respectful treatment to the story, based on the book by one of the Marines' sons, as well as to history and to America. I look forward to seeing the film.

[VOA]

I think the axiom of ex-military never wanting to talk about war experiences
is a bunch of drivel. Just an opinion.

I think there's been a bit of a society shift on this, or else a change
in some of the military personnel.

In the town I grew up in it wasn't until the time of the first Gulf War
that it was widely revealed that an old fellow at my church (retired
postman) was a survivor of four combat jumps in Europe.
And that a fellow that ran a downtown mens clothing store had
been a very young B-17 pilot.

At least for those two guys, AFAIK, they were mum about their WWII
service until almost 50 years after the fact.

[Petronski]

I don't believe Eastwood would direct a movie with such a message.

I have no problem believing it. I have no reason to believe otherwise.

If it's a war story from a different perspective so what? It's entertainment.

Cinema is our cultural history. Imagine the damage JFK is going to do. Just think of how many people understand Vietnam as Full Metal Jacket and Platoon and Apocalypse Now.

I've read that there were no rehearsals for any armed conflicts in order to make it more real. You got bruised or scratched and nobody yelled "Cut!".

Great directorial tactic, good filmmaking. But the script and the director's theme is the most important guidestar.

[PhatHead]

I just saw the movie and I was looking online for reviews and came across this.... BTW, it was OK... but then again, I didn't like Saving Private Ryan...

...

Nearly 900 African-Americans fought on the Japanese island but not one appears in Clint Eastwood's Oscar-tipped film

Well, I share some of your disapproval. I had some real problems with Ryan, but I thought, overall, it was respectful. Sometimes you have to guard against over-analyzing. How did most people feel after seeing the Spielberg film? Anti-American? I don't think so. I dislike the "only fighting for my buddies" meme, going back to The Big Red One, circa 1981. But I also loved that movie.

Hollywood tries to portray individual emotions, the human drama. When they try to portray history, they tend to be one-dimensional. The great artists portray events through the individuals who act them out. I have not seen this movie yet, and cannot say whether it succeeds, but I think Eastwood is a real American, so I still want to see it. I'll be the first to post a correction if the movie stinks.

As far as the no-Blacks criticism, the armed forces were still segregated then. If the movie follows a particular unit (which I think it does) you would expect to see only one race, no?

[Petronski]

But the script and the director's theme is the most important guidestar.

Ach!

That should read:

But the script--with the director's theme--is the most important guidestar.

[PhatHead]

Thanks for your review - okay mostly thanks because you confirm my biases regarding Clint Eastwood, and I look forward to seeing the movie. I also appreciate your dad's commentary, which matches the "only fighting for my buddies" theme. I have heard that from combat vets, too. Not to trivialize combat, but don't we hear the same sort of thing from professional athletes, too? They are playing for their team-mates, not for the Super Bowl, etc? It is human (male) nature.

I think the axiom of ex-military never wanting to talk about war experiences is a bunch of drivel. Just an opinion.

There is some truth to it, but it is exaggerated. My uncle served two years in Marine recon in Vietnam and really never talks about it. But I served with a lot of guys, and have met many more who are glad to share their stories. Even my uncle's reticence has more to do, I think, with the fact that most people would not "get it" than with personal trauma preventing him from speaking.

[Petronski]

As far as the no-Blacks criticism, the armed forces were still segregated then. If the movie follows a particular unit (which I think it does) you would expect to see only one race, no?

Yes. Precisely.

A segregated Marine unit storming Iwo Jima would be a ludicrous rewriting of history.

[PhatHead]

Cinema is our cultural history. Imagine the damage JFK is going to do. Just think of how many people understand Vietnam as Full Metal Jacket and Platoon and Apocalypse Now.

No problem with a lot of what you say (though I haven't yet seen the Eastwood movie, so don't know where it fits.) But I would pull Apocalypse Now from your list of damaging movies, only because I think it is so clearly an abstract, a surreal picture. No serious person could view it as history, or think it was intended that way. It is a true artistic achievement, but not a political message, IMHO, although I certainly understand that the dimwitted might construe it that way...but you can't blame the moviemaker for the people who don't understand the message.

I am probably nitpicking your point, since I guess only the dimwitted really have their view of history influenced by any movie. I just think Apocalypse Now is a great movie, and Copolla a great American artist, and I contrast it to JFK, for example, because it does not set itself up as a "documentary," and contrast it with Full Metal Jacket, because it does not set up a perverse alternate reality where the US military is the enemy. It's about the fragility of human nature in inhuman circumstances. It isn't really about Vietnam at all. But there I go getting all artsy-fartsy...

[PhatHead]

A segregated Marine unit storming Iwo Jima would be a ludicrous rewriting of history.

Am I missing something, or is that a typo? The Marines were segregated in WWII.

[TeleStraightShooter]

Credible, considering the similarities in geology {Think volcanic sands, not water temperature}

[ansel12]

Combat on Iwo Jima Black Marines were also present and accounted for at the largest all-Marine amphibious operation in the Pacific-Iwo Jima. Besides the Stewards' Branch personnel who served in all combat operations that the ammunition and depot companies took part in, the black Marines that landed on the small volcanic island were all members of the 8th Field Depot. As part of that unit they were cited with the rest of the support troops of the V Amphibious Corps in the Navy Unit Commendation awarded for their part in the furious month-long battle for Iwo Jima. All four of the black Marine companies at Iwo were assigned to the V Corps shore party and two, the 8th Ammunition and 36th Depot, landed on D-Day, DEPOT AND AMMUNITION COMPANIES clinging volcanic sand and the almost constant enemy shellfire made life on the beaches a living hell, but the black Marines stuck to their jobs of unloading landing craft and amphibious vehicles. Amazingly, no one was hit for the first few days but then a steady attrition started. On 22 February, a white officer, Second Lieutenant Francis J. DeLapp, and Corporal Gilman D. Brooks of the ammunition company were wounded. Three days later, PFC Sylvester J. Cobb from the same company was also wounded and Corporal Hubert E. Daverney and Private James M. Wilkins of the 34th Depot died of wounds received on the fire-swept beaches. Three other men from the 34th Company were hit on 25 February, Sergeant William L. Bowman, PFC Raymond Glenn, and Private James Hawthorne, Sr, as was a black Marine replacement, PFC William T. Bowen. The 34th Company's last casualty in February, PFC Henry L. Terry, was wounded the next day. The 33d and 34th Depot Companies had landed on 24 February after the men had served in ships' platoons getting supplies started on the way to the, beach. In early March the ammunition company suffered several more casualties. On the 2d, Private William L. Jackson was wounded and evacuated and PFC Melvin L. Thomas died of wounds. On 8 March, Private "J" "B" Saunders was wounded. As the fighting moved to the northern tip of the island the likelihood of further casualties in the black companies seemed remote. But the beleaguered Japanese had a painful surprise left for the Americans. Early on 26 March, 10 days after Iwo Jima was officially delcared secure, a well-armed column of 200-300 Japanese, including many officers and senior NCOs, slipped past the Marine infantrymen who had them holed up near the northernmost airfield and launched a full-scale attack on the Army and Marine troops camped near the western beaches. The units struck included elements of the Corps Shore Party, the 5th Pioneer Battalion, Army Air Forces squadrons, and an Army antiaircraft artillery battalion. The action was wild and furious in the dark; it was hard to tell friend from foe since many Japanese were armed with American weapons.<22> The black Marines were in the thick of the fighting and took part in the mop-up of the enemy remnants at daylight. Two members of the 36th Marine Depot Company, Privates James M. Whitlock and James Davis, both received Bronze Star Medals for "heroic achievement in connection with operations against the enemy."<23> There was a cost too for the black Marines. PFC Harold Smith of the 8th Ammunition Company died of wounds received in the fighting; Corporals Richard M. Bowen and Warren J. McDaughtery were wounded but survived. The 36th Depot Company lost Private Vardell Donaldson who succumbed to his wounds, but PFC Charles Davis and Private Miles Worth recovered from their injuries.