"Flags of our Fathers" mini-review

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.

Unusual item: When the movie ended, the exit theme was marvelously understated. During the theme and credits, there were many pictures of the real battle flashed on the screen. While they were flashing these pictures, no one in the theater moved. We all just sat there and looked at those pictures. I think it lasted several minutes, maybe five or so.

I was struck by that too.
People froze in the aisles, as if they were afraid of dishonoring the men who sacrificed so much for us.

OK, just saw the movie and I have very mixed emotions. In all honesty, my husband and I were thinking of leaving about an hour in. He looked at me and asked if I wanted to go. It was Saving Private Ryan again. We know..WAR IS HELL...boys die, they die horribly, painfully. I just couldn't watch it...it was exhausting. But then the personal stories came more prevalent, and that was interesting as I was trying to understand what Eastwood was trying to say.

In true Hollywood style, none of the representatives of Americas institution (besides the warriors) came off looking well. Disappointed in the stereotyped politician, Generals, etc.

Eastwood used alot of the same devices as Saving Private Ryan, down to the dying (aging) central character making sure he was a good Father (or husband in SPR).

As always, the most interesting character is Ira Hayes. I know they made a movie about him starring Tony Curtis, but somehow, I can't believe they could have got that right. (Is there any ethnic character Curtis HASN'T played???)

My dad wrote an article about Ira Hayes for the Saturday Evening Post. Dad considered it one of his best. I'm going to go reread it and if I think it would be interesting for everyone, I'll type it and post it later this weekend. It's long, so it will take awhile for me to type it.

All in all, it was emotionally manipulative,I was crying profusely at the end, and I'm not a crier. The acting was superb. but I'm not quite sure if I think it was good as in good for our Country at war right now. I haven't read this whole thread, I will go back now and see what others thought.

And did you know that whole part with Ira Hayes walking from AZ to TX to tell that guys parents the truth was a crock? Didn't happen. There were Congressional Hearing from which the truth was extracted. Why did he have to do that? Also, Ira Hayes just didn't retire from the military and do nothing. There were many, many attempts to help him. He was put into rehabs (whatever that meant back then). Many people intervened to help. He and the other two were actually in the movie the SANDS OF IWO JIMA, and the Paramount gave him a job .... something like Indian liaison. A pretty forward thinking dept. at the time to make sure Indians were not depicted poorly in movies. As everything in his life, he screwed it up with his alcoholism.

In those days, they didn't talk about post traumatic stress, which he DEFINITELY had. Contrary to public belief, he was NOT a problem drinker before they brought him back from the war for the Bond tour. He also was the first Indian to be in the elite Paramarines.

His is a fascinating story, so why Eastwood had to embellish it by adding something as far-fetched as that story is beyond me.

Also, the reason the first flag was taken down was because it was TOO SMALL. Not because some politician wanted it. Eastwood added that for effect. NEGATIVE effect. Pisses me off.

Also, the reason the first flag was taken down was because it was TOO SMALL. Not because some politician wanted it. Eastwood added that for effect. NEGATIVE effect. Pisses me off.

Somebody said that the victors are the ones who get to write history, in fact it is the entertainers, directors and writers who usually have a liberal spin to add.

The problem (can be traced back to bad schools) is not enough Americans can differentiate between Hollywood movies and reality.

Doctor Raoul has NOT sen the movie, but says:

"Piss on Eastwood, I've changed my mind about going to this movie."

While on the other hand, truth_seeker DID see the movie. And why anybody would make such a profane remark about Eastwood, without seeing his movie is beyond my rational comprehension.

The movie is good, not the best. My Dad was a Marine that landed and won a Purple Heart at Okinawa a few weeks later. Didn't much want to talk about combat.

I have great respect for these troops, and I believe Eastwood portrayed them in a respectful and honorable manner. That was the point of the movie.

"Another truth, most Americans will no voluntarily fight in defense of their country, hence many men fighting in WWII were draftees, not enlistees."

Many men fighting in the Civil war, in WWII, in Korea, in Vietnam were draftees.

I was drafted, and served.

A buddy of mine, also drafted, decided to be a gung-ho soldier since it could be a life-and-death issue. He died after 11 months in Vietnam. Helicopter doorgunner-he volunteered.

Another friend, about to be drafted simply volunteered for the draft. It allowed him to pick the time of entry, a little. He retired in 2003 as a Lt. General with 37 yrs. service in combat arms.

I think no less of the first for his service coming as a draftee. I think the General might agree with me, too.

I tried to enlist when I was 18 years old (1967), but turned away due to a severe knee injury. Weeks later I received a notice for a pre-induction physical for the draft, but was turned away once again when the physical I had taken for enlistment became known. Something about the military couldn't draft me if it wouldn't let me enlist. I had to undergo a major surgery to correct the problems with my knee then wait 5 years before I was finally allowed to enlist.

The draft issue is one our nation need to talk about now. I'm afraid if we wait until it is really needed it will be too late. Our military is much more reliant upon highly technological weaponry now than in WWII. It would require a good deal of time in training before draftees could be of any use in combat situations.

My appreciation to you and all that did not shrink from duty when our nation called. I have a sickening sense now that most young men, regardless of ideology or party affiliation, would shrink from the draft. I hope I'm proved wrong when the time comes, and that time is coming.

I am not sure how good this movie really is. It's certainly a story worth telling as today's young people don't really know or seem to care about W.W. II.
My take on why the box office on this picture is so low is that this film is about 20 years late in being made.
The key core audience is just not there. They have either died or are too old to go to movies.
I will have to wait until this picture hits DVD to see what Eastwood has done. But from what I have read he spent way too much time on the War Bond drive and not enough on what happened on Iwo Jima.

"I have a sickening sense now that most young men, regardless of ideology or party affiliation, would shrink from the draft. I hope I'm proved wrong when the time comes, and that time is coming."

I expect they are just as good as earlier generations of Americans. The way God made them, and their parents raised them.

Ready for a good drill instructor to shape them up into good soldiers, sailors, marines, airmen, etc.

How about giving all the facts.

Here's what was said about the plot, which is in addition to some BS that we were too broke to continue WWII:

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.

To which I replied,

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

So my opinion was not based on a lack of facts as you imply.

It's because I respect those troops, that Hollywood's minimizing their efforts pisses me off. I'm sure of two things, your Dad fought for his buddies and he believed in the cause of freedom and fought for that too. This Hollywood deconstruct that it all comes down to something less that the patriot your Dad was.

If you feel that they fought only for each other, go to your Dad's grave and beg forgiveness.

Saw it this evening with family, including a granddaughter. As other posters have noted, when the movie ended, the audience almost to a person stood and watched the credits and still photos from the actual battle.

Not a sound was heard, but the simple melody from the movie's music track.

God bless our Warriors.

The movie was a huge letdown. Eastwood didn't have to make a flick laden down with jingoistic sentimentality. What he did was worse. He made one that number one didn't retell the story of how the Marines took Iwo Jima and number two he made one that was overly sentimental in a liberal feelgood way. I guess if they would have advertised it that way, I wouldn't have felt so disappointed. It's not a war flick like "The Longest Day" and others like it.

Eastwood could have shown both the entire battle and the remorse of the soldiers who took part but he chose to devote just about the entire flick to the remorse and guilt felt by the flag-raising Marines on their post-Iwo bond drive. I saw so much of the bond drive sequences that I actually fastforwarded the movie to get through them. Too bad. Eastwood had a great opportunity and blew it.

I didn't like "Flags" but you're comment about Vietnam vets is correct. I've got an older brother who is one, with a lot of battle decorations, and I've known and worked with a lot of vets who were in battle. None of them are head cases in fact most of them are saner and more productive than the non-Vietnam vets or non military vets from that era that I know.

I have not read the entire 190 plus posts - but it sounds like the film strays well away from the book.
The book was a good read but obviously written by someone far removed from both events and the military.
Since it was a paean to his father, I guess that's OK.

From what I have read here - the odd thing is that Gagnion was the only one of the survivors NOT to show remorse for having been pulled away for a bond tour. Also, the late date of the photo and tour ARE part of the book, it was the last great bond tour of the war so to some degree it was non critical.

"war in the Pacific"

You are correct. The big brass had decided that the Pacific war was less important than first defeating the Germans. If the Japanese had known what materiel and other resources the Americans (and the Brits and the Australians) were going to throw at them, maybe they would have not launched the war.

Not only did we have far more men and materiel, we had much better materiel. The Japanese weapons were far inferior by the end of the war to ours. Even the Zero, which outclassed all American fighters at the start, was outclassed and severely outnumbered by the end. Japan simply didn't have the manufacturing capability or other resources. Their troops had great esprit de corp (even WWII ex-Marine William Manchester, who still disliked Japan years later, admitted that no soldier was braver than the Japanese soldier), but that wasn't enough.

"boring"

ditto. If I had read the book or knew that Eastwood was going to make a movie about the emotions of the flagraisers, I wouldn't have purchased the dvd. I wanted to see a movie about how the Marines took Iwo Jima. I didn't see one. As it was after the umpteenth bond drive scene, I start fastforwarding to the battle scenes which became fewer and fewer as the movie dragged on. I actually ended only seeing about half the flick. How many bond drive scenes can a person stand. Deeply disappointed.

The Japanese did know that they could not compete, at least on the long-term. Yamamoto had spent some time in the USA. If he had achieved all of his objectives, he might have forced us to take a defensive posture in the Pacific, IF he could have taken the Solomons and if at Pearl he had hit the fuel reserves, the war would have taken on a different complexion. If we had not raced the Germans to get the A-bomb, we probably wouldn't have developed it. The Japanese became the victims by accident. Contrafactual history: If Hitler had not attempted the Ardennes Offensive, he might have held us at on the Rhine while he threw his reserves against the Russians. The war would have continued until we exploded the first Atomic devise. We would then have broken the Germans by dropping the two a-bombs on them.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.