Mémoires de nos pères

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

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.

Three of the six survivors who raised the flag in Iwo Jima are brought back as national heroes who double as fund raisers to help support the U.S. World War II effort's economic dilemma. Ryan Phillippe and Jesse Bradford are fine as two of the three focused troops, but it is Adam Beach as Ira Hayes (a Native American who gained notoriety and unfortunately a severe problem with alcoholism) who makes "Flags of Our Fathers" as great as it is. Director Clint Eastwood understands emotion and storytelling elements with his films as he delivers another critical success which stands tall with his other directorial ventures. Co-writer Paul Haggis (best known as the mastermind behind "Crash") continues to amaze with his uncanny screen writing skills. An understated and quietly effective winner. 5 stars out of 5.

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.

The timeline was very dicey and did not flow well. Great depiction of history but needed to flow better