Posted on 10/22/2006 5:00:54 PM PDT by RaceBannon
Tonight's History Channel two-hour documentary on the photo and Iwo Jima generally, as well as the aftermath, was excellent. Narrated by Gene Hackman. More shows about Iwo on right now and in the next hour on History Channel, but I'm going to watch the replay of FNC's/Oliver North's "War Stories" coming up in 30 minutes or so. Fascinating, amazing stuff.
Darn, I wish I had seen this thread before 8pm... I would've pinged my FoxFan list to it.
Saw Ollie's War Stories: "Iwo Jima Flag Raisers" tonight... fantastic!
So you two saw the movie, and highly recommend it?
BTW if you go see it you will recognize two of the cast members from Saving Private Ryan and my favorite, Band of Brothers.
I know what guy you're referring to, and think he was actually shown on the Military Channel's Iwo Jima show. You're referencing the guy who still looks like he's in his mid-50's or early '60's with relatively dark, thick hair? I didn't see him interviewed or referenced on the History Channel's show, "The Flag Raisers of Iwo Jima." But I agree with you and thought he seemed like a wannabee (whatever show it was that showed his interview).
http://www.americanthinker.com/articles.php?article_id=5967
Eastwood Stumbles with Flags
October 22nd, 2006
General George Patton once said that the best strategy ever devised can be quickly rendered useless by the application of lousy tactics, while a flawed strategy can be rescued by practicing sound tactical principals. In the case of moviemaking, the technological marvel of computer generated images (CGI) and the performers are the tactical tools used to accomplish the strategic objective of bringing a movie�s story and action to the screen. Unfortunately, the amazing CGI effects and the strength of the cast can�t entirely lift Clint Eastwood�s Flags of Our Fathers out of the realm of mediocrity.
The movie revolves around remembrances of the survivors of the six men who raised the US flag on Mount Suribachi during the Battle of Iwo Jima in February of 1945. We see that informal interviews are being conducted about the battle and its aftermath, but don�t fully understand the connections until the end of the movie, when it�s finally revealed that the son of the Navy Corpsman accompanying the Marines, John �Doc� Bradley, has actually been visiting each of the surviving members of his father�s unit.
Right off the bat, viewers endure a clumsy and historically inaccurate attempt to weave in a comparison to the Vietnam War. During the first interview, Dave Severance, played by Harve Presnell (who portrayed Gen. George C. Marshall in Saving Private Ryan), says that from the moment the photo was published of a Vietnamese officer shooting a VC in the head, that the war was lost, and that �we just pretended otherwise� until our withdrawal from Southeast Asia. Likewise, he says, the Joe Rosenthal picture of the flag-raising on Mount Suribachi won the war for the US.
This is simply propagandizing to a new generation of Americans without providing context or any modicum of historical accuracy. That the shooter was the town�s sheriff, who was understandably enraged that the VC he executed was part of a unit that had kidnapped and brutally murdered the sheriff�s family is never mentioned.
It is odd then, that a movie ostensibly concerned with debunking myths and legends concerning the flag-raising on Iwo Jima would perpetuate a favorite myth of the 60s-era anti-war left without an iota of skepticism. But it�s maybe not so strange, when one of the screen writers turns out to be William Broyles, Jr., who also wrote the screenplay for Jarhead, another horribly inaccurate war movie that focused on the selfish needs of a lone, dysfunctional Marine.
At any rate, Joe Rosenthal�s famous picture on Iwo did not win WW II any more than one photo of a VC execution caused the US to lose the war in Vietnam. And for Eastwood and Broyles to draw such a flawed comparison, or to push the courage and determination of our service men and women to the fringe, is enough reason to avoid the movie altogether.
After the initial interview, the film is a confusing jumble of vignettes that leaves the audience busy trying to decipher a triple flashback format. But the real problem is that Eastwood can�t figure out if he wants a rehash of Saving Private Ryan, or if he wants a remake of The Outsider, which examined the psyche and post-war troubles of Ira Hayes in a far more straightforward and sober manner.
The most inane segments of the movie occur when the �non-heroes� return to the States to pump up war-weary Americans to buy War Bonds one more time or else, it is intimated, the entire war effort will collapse before final victory is achieved. The looming financial disaster of a wartime US, barely scraping by, is horribly overplayed in the film.
One might chalk it up to the exaggerations in the pep talk by the men�s handler prior to their appearances at the bond rallies. Yet, this notion is reinforced when they meet President Harry Truman, played by veteran character actor David Patrick Kelly. This is not one of his best outings. As Truman, he comes across as Ken Lay redux, the polite, firm, and somewhat greasy CEO-type, announcing that the country�s fate hangs in the balance if �you boys� don�t get Americans to pony up $14 billion dollars.
This is ludicrous on its face. The Manhattan Project had been going gangbusters and the US would detonate the world�s first A-bomb in a couple of months, all accomplished with the expenditure of many billions of dollars. Germany would surrender in a few short weeks, and troops, ships, tanks, and planes would start to converge on the Western Pacific as required. War manufacturing was at its peak, and showed no signs of letting up any time soon. And most of all, Harry Truman, who had assumed responsibility from FDR for carrying out the policy of unconditional surrender, who would later decide to drop two A-bombs on Japan to ensure victory, is now reduced in the movie to a nervous money-grubber, hatching some Rube Goldberg scheme to grab one last buck from tired American investors.
Anyone buying any of this dreck? Apparently, Clint Eastwood thinks you will.
The Corpsman�s son narration finally makes some sense of this mess, and it never hurts to remind Americans about the sacrifices of our service men and women both past and present. At this, Flags does very well, even if it saves this important message until the end.
Hollywood has, at least for the moment, seemingly lost its Germany/Hitler fixation and finally realized that we also fought a war in the Pacific. It was a fight against a far more brutal and inhumane enemy, who carried the Warrior Code to fanatical extremes. In this sense, The Great Raid and Flags of Our Fathers provide a necessary reality check by depicting the horror of battle in the Pacific against an enemy not unlike the jihadists of today.
Nevertheless, Flags simply has too much post-modern baggage to effectively and consistently convey what�s at stake when the US goes to war against an extremist and suicidal foe. For my tastes, I�ll stick with The Great Raid. Better yet, Eastwood might even consider a movie about the battles for Fallujah, Najaf, Kandahar, or� never mind. That�s probably in the too hard to do category.
Douglas Hanson is the national security correspondent of American Thinker.
Douglas Hanson
it was definitely not the movie I would have made, even trying to copy Bradley's book and all, Clint did make a bad move in some parts
Re Bradley Jr.
http://furl.net/item.jsp?id=5941900
SEMPER-FI Bump
I have a "terrible work schedule" too and also write checks for bills but I'm sure I'll find time.
Hope you get to see the film. Perhaps I shall also be able to fit it in.
I posed my question about America's fiscal health in the winter and spring of 1945 to Ben Stein, an economist in his own right and son of Herbert Stein, a member of Nixon's Council of Economic Advisors. Here is Ben Stein's reply:
This is total and utter fantasy. The US had unlimited power to borrow, and was far stronger in 1945 than in 1940 economically and in every other way. Sales of savings bonds to private citizens was always a trivial part of the financing of the war effort in any event. The federal reserve and large financial intermediaries bought most bonds and the Fed's ability to do so was limitless.
Best, Ben
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.