"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.

[LS]

I don't think the movie is bad, and I don't in any way "dis" Eastwood. I don't think it's fantastic direction, but what do I know about movies? I just don't like the notion that the ONLY reason people fight and die is "for each other." Sorry. George Washington held together barely over 1,000 men that eventually defeated the British, and it wasn't "for each other," it was for the IDEA of liberty.

In Vietnam, 2/3 of the soldiers VOLUNTEERED. While some did it for thrills, many did it for the IDEA of liberty.

And surveys show that our troops in Iraq fully understand the ideas for which they fight---as well as "each other."

I just think Clint fell victim to a current "theology" in Hollywood that diminishes the role of ideas in human motivation.

[LS]

Your comment made me think of something I didn't fully explain in the review, which is that aside from Ira Hayes, all the "white guys" pretty much look alike. This is the "gritty, realistic" Hollywood approach---and maybe it was like that---but from a STORY perspective, an audience perspective, it isn't nearly as effective as the less realistic John Wayne movies where the characters were one step short of charicatures, because it became easy to follow the story and to identify the people in combat.

In "Flags," honestly, I was not moved as the different "buddies" were dying off, because they had all come to look alike, and therefore you really didn't know any of them.

[Lucas McCain]

Moral equivalence was not something I peceived in the book. The primary thing I got from the book was a greater awareness of the utter savagery exhibited by the Japanese. Another book that established that point for me was "The Rape of Nanking" (I have forgotten that author's name. A woman who subsequently committed suicide). Both books made me ponder why the Japanese forces were so utterly barbaric, even compared to German forces. The only conclusion I could come to was that German culture, even in the throughs of Naziism had a vestige of Christianity, whereas Japanese culture did not.

[LS]

I think there are two levels at which people fight. Obviously, in the field---and the closer one gets to whizzing bullets---the more it is all about yourself and your buddies. However, there are reasons people join up. The Marines are an all-volunteer force. Could be wrong, but I think that was true in WW II, also. So to even BE on Iwo Jima, you had to have given some thought to why you were fighting---and it couldn't be for "buddies" you hadn't even met yet.

2/3 of those who fought in Vietnam were volunteers. While some may have craved action, most fought for an idea---liberty.

[LS]

Exactly. We could have inflated all we wanted because all prices were frozen, but it's better to have bonds that get people directly involved in the war effort.

[LS]

Good comments. When I was in the Oval Office in August, and spent time with the Pres., he was strongly taken with the role of Churchill in WW II and the ability, even necessity, of one man facing the onslaught, regardless of cost to his own reputation or "legacy."

[shield]

If you've not seen 'One Night with the King' you are missing an EXTREMELY GREAT MOVIE. The anointing in this movie is unbelievable. Support this movie...go see it, do not wait till it comes out on DVD...hollyweirdo has been blown away by how well this movie has done so far. This movie is in only 909 theaters, NO advertizing, yet last weekend there were around 1,000,000 people that went to this movie.

Inteviewers of Matt Crouch have asked him 'how could this be' he said Christians are a family and we support each other.

[dfwgator]

On Band of Brothers, they interviewed one of the real-life members of Easy Company, who pointed out that several men from his hometown actually committed suicide because they were not allowed to serve in the military.

It was a different time.

[LS]

Can't disagree with anything you wrote. The scenes of the fleet blasting the island were awesome, and Iwo and Okinawa were precisely why we dropped the a-bombs. Victor Hanson, in "Ripples of Battle," points out that if we had taken Okinawa with fairly light casualties, there might have been real opposition/hesitation about dropping the bomb.

[LS]

See my comment #81 below.

[The Right Stuff]

I agree with you wholeheartedly. I said from 9/12 that Bush missed an opportunity to unite the whole country for the duration. The "love your neighbor" stuff, and "keep participating in the economy" was lame.

[LS]

I actually didn't care for "1776." I kept saying, "Where's the beef? Why did so many people buy this?" I'd suggest, for the same topic but much better written, "Washington's Crossing," by David Hackett Fischer.

[LS]

I get your point, but trust me, the "Nativity" movie may well be THE sleeper of the year. It has that "Passion of the Christ" magic, with a less grueling story line.

[Dr. Scarpetta]

I stopped seeing R movies.

[LS]

I disagree. Look at the most recent, magisterial work on Midway done by two Japanese Navy geeks: "Shattered Sword." They conclude, rightly in my view, that even if the U.S. had lost at Midway, the war in the Pacific only would have lasted one more year---that the Japanese was so incredibly overstretched and already using up their tiny pool of resources that it was never a question of "if," only "when."

Remember, Nimitz and MacArthur operated on a mere 20% of all U.S. military resources, and that was AFTER Manhattan Project skimmed off the top.

[LS]

Good. Let me also suggest a book called "The Knights of Bushido," which deals extensively with the horror-torture of POWs in China.

[oh8eleven]

I read the book - it's a 10.
Semper Fi ...

[SaltyJoe]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitsuo_Fuchida

Thanks, I looked him up. I recall reading about a Japanese Christian, while dying of radiation poisoning from the a-bomb attack, converting other Japanese to Christianity. He explained that the suffering of innocence is what converts men's hearts. Nagasaki was Japan's largest Christian community. Much of its history is underground secrecy while remaining faithful to Christ, yet obedient to secular authority.

http://satucket.com/lectionary/Japan_martyrs.htm

[brazzaville]

Good morning.
"That is what they are trained to do."

It's the only thing that makes sense in combat. The flag may be waving in the back of your mind, but it is your comrade who risks it all to help you stay alive.

LS, have you read the stories of Gagnon and Ira Hayes? Pretty interesting and sad enough to clear my tear ducts. Decent movies have been made about both and neither painted a picture much different from what you have just painted in your review.

I'll see Flags next week.

Michael Frazier

[oh8eleven]

I expect has given respectful treatment to the story, based on the book by one of the Marines' sons
Written by John Bradley's son. Bradley wasn't USMC, he was a Navy Corpsman.
I can't think of a worse job than being a Corpsman on Iwo Jima.