"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.

[backtothestreets]

You are correct about Viet Nam. Also, approximately seventy percent of those that died in Viet Nam were volunteers. Two-thirds of the men serving during WWII were drafted.

Viet Nam veterans were also the best educated force we had in combat also. Seventy-nine percent had a high school diploma or better. I recall those times and how quickly a guy quitting high school or being expelled could expect to receive a draft notice. It took only a couple weeks, sometimes a month for the pre-induction physical notice to arrive. In retrospect I'm now viewing the military draft as having been a large consideration for young men to complete high school, and that element didn't require the government spending of an additional dime for education and student retention.

I am keenly aware both the Democratic and Republican platforms oppose the draft, as do the lesser political parties. It is a stance the political parties and the nation may one day come to regret.

[SteveH]

I have not read this book---I read his follow-on, "Flyboys," (no relation to the WW I airplane movie out now). It was disappointing: he seems to raise a moral equivalence between us and the Japanese. Yes, Bradley deals with their atrocities, but goes out of his way to cite our atrocities, too.

Hmm... perhaps that would explain why it seems to be a favorite on the SF<->Tokyo flights I've been on recently...

[brazzaville]

Good afternoon.
"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"

Japanese or American, if you cite them correctly, they were obviously wrong.

You are correct that Japan couldn't win once we were involved.

I think it's ironic that one of the reasons they attacked us was because they feared that we were a threat to their goal of gaining control of the resources of the Pacific through conquest and, sure enough we put the damn-damn on those plans after they attacked us. It's too bad so many people had to die to show them the error of their ways.

Michael Frazier

[RebekahT]

You can check out www.kidsinmind.com for all the information on why it is rated R.

[RebekahT]

I am planning on seeing this movie soon. I went to another one last night (waiting for a certain friend to be able to go with us to see "Flags") and there was a preview for some documentary/movie about the Dixie Chicks called "Shutup and Sing." Anyway, the lead singer talks about the controversy surrounding her statement that she is ashamed GWB is also from Texas and she mentions the "right wing group FREE REPUBLIC!!" My boyfriend and I laughed out loud...and took it as a compliment :)

[condi2008]

Flags of Our Fathers, the book, is outstanding. This from a 47 year-old mom, albeit history buff. I've read it twice, and I'm ready to go around again.

[Guenevere]

bttt

[condi2008]

...I thought the war bond drive portion could degenerate into a soap opera...

That's what I'm expecting, too.

After seeing it I thought they could have spent more time on Iwo and less on the bond drive. I understand you can't do 2.5 hours in just the din of battle. That would have lost most the viewers.

After reading the book, I think one could easily fill 2.5 hrs. with the flag-raisers' stories leading up to the war; the battle itself (not just D-Day + flag-raising); & then 15 minutes or so of aftermath...

[backtothestreets]

Winston Churchill was blessed with the gift of foresight. He seemed to perceive the future well before others could grasp the present. He served mankind well, not just the Brits. Had FDR his vision the Cold War, Korean War, Viet Nam War and the Communist conquest of China and Eastern European countries might never have occurred.

If ever you have an opportunity to speak with President Bush again, wish him well for me. I am often a critic of his, but not because I want him to fail. Quite the opposite. I want him to succeed because our nation will succeed with him. If possible, suggest he listen to religious scholars that have studied all religions objectively for an overview of how Islam regards the role of government. He has done well to depart from his comparison of Islam to Fascism and grasp its totalitarian nature among extremists, but must still come to terms it is not among extremists alone, but the nature of the religion itself.

The book "A Patriot's History of the United States" on your about page intrigues me. I'll have to read it. I'd like to read how it depicts the internment of American citizens of Japanese decent during WWII. That chapter of our history has been painted with a very broad brush as being a darkest moment, and in some aspects rightfully so. Nonetheless I believe it was both necessary and prudent in those times as Japanese secret societies, most notably the Black Dragons were quite active within the states, represented a major domestic threat, could not be differentiated among the Japanese-American population by sight only, and required a stopgap approach of address so the war could be fought abroad, not at home and abroad. It's shameful the internment camps have been compared to the concentration and extermination camps of the Axis Powers. The only common thread they shared was confinement.

[Petronski]

I have asked you, repeatedly, not to post to me.

[Tarnsman]

Undoubtedly the best book on the American Revolution that has been written.

Read the "The Glorious Cause" and then tell me what is the better book. Written by English history professor at Oxford, "The Glorious Cause" made me fall in love with my country all over again and made me give prayers of thanks to the wise men that founded our nation. A great read.

[LS]

I think it would be fascinating to find out, of those who volunteered in WW II, how many did so in the 6 months after Pearl Harbor.

[LS]

They are not "obviously wrong," and since you haven't read them, you are clueless. They are obviously right in that Japan could not even replace the pilots lost at Midway, and couldn't repair the ships they lost at Coral Sea in time to be effective. There is a difference between forcing the last surrender and having your enemy be unable to win. Napoleon could not win after reaching Moscow. Forcing his surrender took quite a while.

[LS]

We treat internment as necessary and, while ultimately unconstitutional, an act that would have been taken by any prudent president.

I disagree with you about Islam. If nothing else, what a "religion" purports to say in its "holy books," and how the vast majority of people interpret those books, is two different things. Catholicism purports to say birth control (except the "natural" method) is wrong, yet large numbers---if not the majority---of Catholics practice it. Vast numbers, perhaps the majority, of Christians have no idea what is in the Bible, but are self-definec Christians anyway.

If the Koran says "x" and 95% of Muslims say, "well, it really doesn't mean 'x' and I don't live my life like it does," then for all practical purposes it doesn't say "x." I strongly disagree with those who say Muslim societies can't be peaceful and/or democratic. That's the same crap that people said about the "totalitarian" Germans and the Shinto-ist/bushido Japanese.

[LS]

For the whole Revolution, yes. For just the Trenton-Princton/1776 period, "Washington's Crossing" is better.

[Coronal]

Thank you, gentlemen. RIP.

[brazzaville]

Good evening.
"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"

The quotation marks mean that I'm quoting you.

History proves that they, and you, are wrong. Yes, the final outcome was inevitable but the war did drag on for three more years after the the Japanese expansion ended at Midway and they never stopped us anywhere again. Whatever the strategic situation, the war did not end in a year and our people still fought and died in places like Iwo. They would have probably fought and died in Japan had Truman not dropped the bomb, and he still had to do it twice to end the war.

Give it a rest, LS.

Michael Frazier

[Tennessean4Bush]

You may be right. I will have to read some more on that. I had always read that it was not a forgone conclusion early on that we would win.

[backtothestreets]

Believe me, if you once had pests and found a way to control them, and at some later date pests infested me, I'd seek your advice for controlling the pests.

I respect your view of Islam, but I must pose questions. Can we succeed where predominately Muslim democracies have not? Can we trust Islam to restrain itself? The two Islamic nations with forms of democracy your post brought to mind were Turkey and Egypt. In both the government has taken extraordinary steps to control the schools that train the imams so they are less inclined to adopt some Islamic teachings. If these two predominately Muslim countries have seen it necessary to take such steps to preserve their government and societies, should we not at least stop and ponder why?

[beebuster2000]

i hated it. they couldnt just show iwo and the honor of the marines. they had to degrade the whole thing with a dark understory about phony pictures, all about the bond drive, etc.

sorry i saw it.

its just another example of whats gone wrong in the usa. we cant honor our acomplishments and feel good about what we do. hollywood and msm have to undermine everything, even our history