Flags of Our Fathers

(Synopsis) There were five Marines and one Navy Corpsman photographed raising the U.S. flag on Mt. Suribachi by Joe Rosenthal on February 23, 1945. "Flags of Our Fathers" is the story of three of the six surviving servicemen, John "Doc" Bradley (Ryan Phillippe), Pvt. Rene Gagnon (Jesse Bradford), and Pvt. Ira Hayes (Adam Beach), who fought in the battle to take Iwo Jima. The picture became one of the most famous images of the U.S. winning a battle during WWII. However, the battle for Iwo Jima raged on for another month with three of the marines being killed in action. The other three servicemen were taken out of battle and flown back to the states. The photo made these men heroes, and the government used these new heroes to promote the selling of war bonds on the War Bond Tour. The three men did not believe they were heroes, even though the American public did.

(My Comment) The film was based on the book written by Doc's son, James Bradley. It wasn't until his father's death that he found out that Doc was one of the Iwo Jima flag raisers. Soldiers with real combat experiences usually keep their war stories to themselves. Clint Eastwood directed the film, and he didn't pull any punches in the battle scenes, even though the battle for Iwo Jima was considered one of the bloodiest against the Japanese in the Pacific. The only problem I had with the movie was that Eastwood used too many flashbacks that jumped around and made the movie hard to follow. The movie would have been better if Eastwood had gone in chronicle order with some flashbacks. During the battle scenes, you actually see the chaos that soldiers encounter on the battlefield. Overall, I found the story to be realistic and very compelling by not glorifying war. It is a long movie, but the time passes very fast. This film will receive many Oscar nominations. Some of the movie is graphically violent and shows the dark side of war, and the effects war has on our returning soldiers. (Warner Brothers Pictures, Run time 2:12, Rated R) (8/10)

A film about war, war between cultures over clashing hegemonic drives. Made during a period of the same, so it puts the American viewer in a sort of bind. We are in between wanting the truth, as this purports to give, and at the same time be warmed by the goodnesses we share, which this gives in great dollops and if not lies, at least fabricated.

It is true that nations define themselves in large part through film and especially war films. It is true that solipsism reigns when matters of national honor are raised. This film pulls the legs from under such cheap theatrics while doing the very same thing. Its a characteristic of Eastwood that drives me crazy, how quick he is to polish ideals so they glisten next to the other guy's clichés, in this case Spielberg's "Private Ryan," which in retrospect was pretty bad storytelling.

So. Let's spank Clint for hypocrisy, for metaphorically taking the first flag. But I think much of the blame for that goes to Paul Haggis, a scourge now in full infection in Hollywood. He won't hesitate to use any device in the spine of his work, no matter how trite.

And let's wonder every time we see a war, even one like this.

But let's also give the man his due for storytelling. This is fantastic visual storytelling. Multiple narrators, multiple framing devices. Nonlinear presentation with time reversals motivated by flashbacks, memories, tales told. The business about walking 1300 miles to tell the truth, and the business about old men finally telling the truth to the son. Its what I call a folding device to underscore that we are seeing the truth, the story within the story.

The pacing is perfect, even a bit too manufactured for my taste. The most effective war film in terms of confusion and lack of theater is "Thin Red Line," I believe. The scale of the thing, both in the battles and bond events was impressive. The phrasing is tasteful, but when an episode finished, I couldn't help but be aware that I was being sold an image I was expected to wear.

Its enough to drive me to drink.

Ted's Evaluation -- 2 of 3: Has some interesting elements.

Learning that Clint Eastwood teamed up with Steven Spielberg and Paul "Crash" Haggis for this ambitious project about the epic battle for Iwo Jima in the Pacific, I didn't know what to expect. The results are not entirely positive, but the film does offer spectacle of the highest order. The first part is the strongest with grandly filmed battle scenes on the island of Iwo Jima (filmed on the volcanic wastelands of Iceland), which constitutes some very intense film-making, impressively filmed and nearly on par with the battle scenes in SAVING PRIVATE RYAN. In the second part we get to see the men who raised the famous flag on a tour at home to raise money for the necessary war bonds, although the occasional flashback takes us back to the battlefield.

I must admit, this one has elements of greatness in almost every department, but somehow these don't quite glue together as intended. The film seems to suffer from three evenly strong-handed approaches. The script by Paul Haggis eagerly wants to take us on an emotional roller-coaster in the second half, where the focus increasingly shifts to the story of Ira Hayes in the aftermath of the battle. There's obviously a strong hand of Steven Spielberg, who always wants to show us the human side of the story, which Clint obviously wants too, but he tends to do it in a different way. There seems to be a clash of wills, with these three major forces at work here. Ultimately, FLAGS OF OUR FATHERS is not about the war proceedings itself, but how the war affected the men who fought in it themselves, and how they refused to be seen as heroes.

It's hard to dislike any of Clint Eastwood's films and with this one, and the follow-up LETTERS FROM IWO JIMA, he made two films of epic proportions, that will undoubtedly compete for the Oscars. Both of the films that is, as they were released by different distributors, "Flags" is with Dreamworks and "Letters" with Warner Brothers.

We'll see, so far, so good. I wasn't blown away by this one, but certainly a film to respect. Difficult to judge this, before seeing the follow-up LETTERS FROM IWO JIMA, which shows the Japanese perspective of the story. I strongly suspect Clint saved the best for last and that "Letters" will be his ultimate showcase.

Camera Obscura --- 7/10

What do you get when you cross an Academy Award winning director whose movies tend to follow the lives of individuals and their consequences of the violence around them, an award winning writer that deals with racism and the map of the human spirit and a producer that has a penchant for World War II history who is a master of telling epic stories on the widescreen canvas? Well, you get Clint Eastwood, Paul Haggis and Steven Spielberg who have teamed up for the first time to bring to the screen the new WWII story of the six soldiers who raised the American flag at Iwo Jima and became media heroes in the new film Flags of our Fathers.

Based on the true (and relatively unknown) story of six regular soldiers that raised the flag atop the isle of Iwo Jima and whose picture of the effort became synonymous with an impending victory of the war, Flags of our Fathers will be one of the most talked about films of 2006.

Flags of our Fathers follows the lives of three surviving members who raised the flag in 1945 atop Mount Suribachi and how the government used these three individuals and the media in an effort to spark interest in selling war bonds to the American public.

Ryan Phillippe, Jesse Bradford and Adam Beach play John "Doc" Bradley, Rene Gagnon and Ira Hayes respectively. These three individuals were partly responsible for the second American flag raising on that graced newspapers and magazine covers all over the world.

If you caught it, I did write the 'second American flag raising'. A fact that it seemed not one of us in the packed pre-screening knew before the films closing credits. Six soldiers on the 5th day of the island's invasion planted the flag of infamy just seconds after the first flag was that was erected was taken down. As the picture made its circles in every American media outlet available, Bradley, Gagnon and Hayes were quickly sent packing back to the United States to be used in a cross country marketing campaign to drum up support for the troops spread out over Europe and Asia.

Not one of them believing they were true heroes, the three are persuaded to separate their reluctance from the necessity to boost morale with the American public and ask for funds to continue with the necessary production of tanks, grenades, guns and armor. The film then switches between their tours of sporting arenas and speaking engagements and flashbacks back to the horrors of the taking of the island in full vivid detail.

Flags of our Fathers is an important film, but unfortunately, not a stellar one. The battle scenes are very well done and show the chaotic atmosphere and pace that follows a ground war, but it's the relationship and the manipulation of public interest as used by the media that the movie hits home. In a time where America is fighting two separate wars in Afghanistan and Iraq with veterans of Vietnam still being paraded on CNN every evening news to discuss comparisons, Flags of our Fathers is important in that it shows how a single picture or event can change an entire opinion over an effort that will cost young men and women their lives.

But where Eastwood fails is in his attempt to drum up any emotional attachment to the three characters. Haggis does his Crash best to have us 'tisk' at the consistent barrage of racial epithets thrown towards Indian descent Ira Hayes, but Eastwood fails to weave this sympathy and the sympathy for those left behind on the beach into an emotional punch that will carry us to the voting polls in the awards season.

The biggest disappointment with Flags of our Fathers comes with the expectation that the three major players in the production bring to the table. Eastwood in particular has stemmed together three recent films – The Forgiven, Mystic River and Million Dollar Baby – that each dealt with a person of persons dealing with the emotional weight of violence that they were witness. The heavy handedness of Flags of our Fathers should be right up his wheelhouse. Add the brilliant writing experience and resume of Haggis and the movie should have been celluloid gold. Instead, we deal with waving veterans, moments of tenderness between the soldiers and the families of the dead they fought beside and the emotional burden of the horrors that surrounded them in combat without any tear tugging or tissue pulling on behalf of the experiencing movie watcher.

Flags of our Fathers was shot back-to-back with Letters from Iwo Jima which will shows the Japanese perspective of the battle and is scheduled for release in February 2007. While watching Flags of our Fathers, there are a few scenes that you can imagine being in the next years release and maybe that is where Eastwood and the gang lost their focus.

So why does Flags of our Fathers still get 3 ½ stars even though the comments seem so negative? Well, it is because what the film does right, it does extremely well. During the battle scenes you are transported to Iwo Jima and the chaos of the situation can be felt in how you inch towards the edge of your seats. The acting too is better than average, especially from Phillippe who might find himself along side wife Reese Witherspoon as an awards nominee come Christmas. Couple these pluses with the importance of revealing a true and important story to the mass audiences and the obvious comparisons with American war efforts at the time of print, and you have a film that will undoubtedly become one of Eastwoods most talked about films. Even if it wasn't one of his best.

In two and a half hours Clint Eastwood paints a thought provoking piece on heroism and war-propaganda. The film tells three stories: first it is the WW II battle of Iwo Jima where thousands of soldiers (Japanese and American) died 'conquering' that island. In the style of Saving Private Ryan (Spielberg is a producer of Flags) the viewer gets a astounding look at war with a lot of blood, guts and CGI. Second is the story of a son of one of the flag raisers on that island, who interviews other survivors of that battle to understand his dad a little better. This is very moving stuff, but stands a little pale in comparison to the final storyline. This is where veteran-director Eastwood really shines. Like his meditation on violence Unforgiven, Flags takes a closer look at heroism where soldiers by chance get into the spotlight of the war-propaganda-machine. Some may say that Eastwood made an anti-war film or even an anti-America film, but they're wrong. Flags is very critical on the way war is sold to the public. There's nothing honorable about killing or to be killed on the battlefield. The only thing that matters is that you protect you're friends in your platoon and that they protect you. Flags is one of the best war movies I ever saw, maybe even better than Ryan, because it's never sentimental and always honest in its portrayal of the soldiers and war in general.