Posted on 10/20/2006 7:04:56 PM PDT by 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.
Me either. I sat up in my chair. I seem to recall one line where the guy said that if the flag-raisers didn't get $16 billion with the next bond drive that the Marines and GIs would literally "run out of ammo."
Great. I'm curious, then. Did you notice any other reactions from the men? Did it seem they agreed with the general theme? (BTW, the scene at the end where they all go swimming, and temporarily get to forget the war, was incredibly touching.)
"the reason we are here today is because they went there"...
Very true. We all have our freedom and our country because good men have had to do horrible things. This same statement should be reiterated now because I feel our WOT is as important as WW2.
I don't have the numbers handy on drafees vs. volunteers in WW II, but what you say doesn't jibe with Vietnam, where 63% of those who served were volunteers.
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. We had some, no doubt, but they were the exception, not the rule. The Japanese made it a PRACTICE of raping every woman they came across, and in China, then of killing them and EATING them. There is absolutely no comparable practices in the U.S. military, ever, even in the west where most cavalary units did not practice scalping or "Sand Creek" type operations.
Since I didn't read the book---but read his follow-on, "Flyboys"---did "Flags of Our Fathers" (the book) seem to have a lot of "moral equivalence between us and the Japanese?
Yah, I agree. Moreover, we have surveys of our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan and they ABSOLUTELY understand what they are doing there and how their fight is part of the War on Terror. They know their mission.
I agree with you. And, revoke their visas/passports so they cannot get back into the USA- if they like the terrorists so damn much let them stay there.
If it's true to the theme of "Flags of Our Fathers", as you depict it, it's movie about a pregnant teen, unable to get an abortion in Nazareth, who tricks an older man into believing he's the father, so he takes her to Bethlehem where there are shepherds who will arrange for doctors from the East to perform the deed.
While I agree that we were in it to the end, our victory was tenuous at best on a number of occasions in the Pacific. Certainly after we had the Nazis on the run we knew the tide was turned. However, a careful review of the Pacific war saw several very fortunate turning points for us.
I think it greatly depends on the people involved.
Most people will talk about it, to some degree, depending on how comfortable they are with the person asking. It's the level of detail that people vary on. This is especially true in relation to the event itself. Some people never relate the full story, and relay a sanitized version of events. Others get fixated on the negative, and can't get past them.
All in all, it's hard to judge, unless you were there. When you hear your buddies talk, or catch yourself talking, you get a sense of what other veterans are saying. And, in many cases, not saying.
I agree. People enlist for abstract reasons like patriotism, but that's not why they fight. We used to call it 'lowest echelon loyalty'. That is to say, cohesive units in combat function from the grassroots up. You do thing for your team, then platoon, company, and so on, up until loftier things like branch of service, nation, etc.
In a broad sense, you may care about doing the 10th Mountain Division proud, or helping the Army reach its' objectives. In a real and focused personal sense, you hope your squad wins. It's the people around you that matter.
Thanks, your comments were insightful.... I was looking forward to this movie because as I was researching information for a documentary that I was associate producing on Peleliu, I kept coming across info on Iwo Jima and I was fascinated but never anything that touched on the segregation of the Marines. I knew the Freepers would come through....
I regret not taking the time to tour Iwo Jima. I lived in Japan for 3 years as an Army brat while my dad was stationed at Camp Zama. There were military tours to Iwo Jima he tried to force me and my sisters to go on but we always chose the "shopping" tours in Korea:-)
I much preferred Kenneth Branagh's version!
BTW, you may know that Mitsuo Fuchida, who led the attack on Pearl Harbor, became a born-again Christian and a missionary throughout Japan.
Yes. That and the "napalm girl" (which was a phoney in that she had not been "napalmed" at all). And you're right: "Patriot" had the same theme: there are no higher ideals for which we fight, just "each other."
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.