BACK-STORY: “Flags of Our Fathers” is a war movie directed
by Clint Eastwood. It was released in
2006. It is based on the bestseller by
James Bradley and Ron Powers. The film
tells the story of the famous flag-raising on Iwo Jima and the individual
stories of the flag-raisers. It is the
rare Hollywood production that not only came in under cost ($55 million
compared to a budget of $80 million), but was filmed in almost half the time
scheduled. Seventy six year old
directors apparently don’t like to waste time or money. (This is movie making by your grumpy old grandpa.) The Iwo Jima beach scenes were filmed in Iceland. The film did well with critics, but performed
weakly at the box office. It is a
companion piece with “Letters from Iwo Jima” which Eastwood filmed the same
year. “Flags” was nominated for Academy
Awards for Sound and Sound Editing.
 |
| the Japanese POV |
SUMMARY: Iwo Jima looks like a fireworks show. Wait, it’s not Iwo – it’s Soldier’s Field in
Chicago and three of the flag-raisers are reenacting the raising. Flashbacks show us how they got there. The rest of this summary will convert the
screenplay into a linear structure. In
reality, the movie jumps around a lot.
 |
| Hayes (Beach) intervenes in a bayonetting of buddies |
 |
| that ought to do it, battle over |
The surviving three are whisked
off to the States to participate in a war bonds drive. They meet Pres. Truman who tells them they
“fought for a mountain in the Pacific, now let’s fight for a mountain of cash”.
Bradley is unenthusiastic, but
dutiful. Rene Gagnon (Jesse Bradford) is
excited about his celebrity status and hopes to profit from it. Ira Hayes (Adam Beach) is already suffering
from combat fatigue (as PTSD was called back then) and is very uncomfortable
with his new role. Through flashbacks,
the film shows incidents that justify Hayes’ mental state. He starts drinking heavily and becomes a
liability and embarrassment to the drive.
The three “heroes” are being handled by an unctuous government flack who
is using them to raise money and morale.
The contrast between the hellish war front and the garish home front is
jarring. Hayes, in particular, prefers
the dangers of combat to the racism he encounters in America. He is suffering from a classic case of
survivor’s guilt.
 |
| all's fair ... |
CLOSING: In one last flashback, the remainder of the unit that raised
the flag get some down time and are allowed to go swimming at a beach far from
the fighting. They shed their clothes
symbolic of shedding the war.
RATINGS:
Acting - B
Action - 7/10
Accuracy – A
Realism - A
Plot - A
Overall - A-
WOULD CHICKS DIG IT?
Yes. The movie is balanced between graphic war
violence and home front scenes. It is
certainly more balanced than “Saving Private Ryan”, for instance. Females are underplayed. You have Gagnon’s gold-digging girlfriend and
Black’s grieving mother.
HISTORICAL ACCURACY:
“Flags of Our Fathers” is
based on a non-fiction book by one of the flag-raisers. We can assume Bradley and Powers did their
research and since the movie takes few liberties with the book, the film is one
of the most accurate war movies ever made.
The Iwo landing by the Marines is
close to the real thing. Eastwood wisely
decided not to outdo the opening assault of “Saving Private Ryan”, hopefully
because he knew the Iwo landing was unopposed.
The movie accurately depicts how the enemy waited for the Marines to
move off the beaches before opening fire.
The POV shots from the pill boxes and from the frowning heights of Mount
Suribachi clearly show the lack of cover the Marines faced. Iceland fills in well for the bleak landscape
of Iwo. The military hardware is
authentic. Even the Japanese weapons are
appropriate. The CGI renditions of the
fleet and the Corsairs are satisfactory.
 |
| the slope of Suribachi |
The flag-raising incident could not have been
better. Even to the extent that the guy
who plays Joe Rosenthal is a dead-ringer for the photographer. This segment of the film could be shown in
American History classrooms with no caveats.
The movie includes the subplot of the Harlon Black / Hank Hansen
confusion to good effect. A little
surprisingly, only fleeting mention is made to the myth that Rosenthal staged
the photo.
The home front bond tour is well done. One possible flaw is the movie has the bond
director Gerber (John Slattery) giving an impassioned plea that if the trio
does not give their all the government will go bankrupt and the war will be
lost. He throws in the claim that the
public is tiring of the war and badly needs a morale boost. It is hard to tell if the writers believed
this nonsense or whether Gerber is supposed to be spouting bull shit. Regardless, it could fool a modern audience. In fact, the bond drive was important
financially, but hardly a tipping point.
As far as civilian morale, the public was definitely tired, but
certainly not contemplating giving up when the light at the end of the tunnel
was clear.
The attitudes and personalities of the trio are true
to life. They seem to be stereotypes,
but they reflect their portrayals in the book.
Gagnon does come off as a bit slimy, but it is not surprising that one
of the three would be selfish and blinded by celebrity. Bradley is a little saintly, but that sounds
like many medics. Hayes is the most famous
of the three so there was less chance to tamper with his life. He even had his own movie called “The
Outsider”. The movie has him turning to
alcohol because of the bond tour when in reality he was already a heavy
drinker. I also found evidence that he
did not mind participating in the drive, but did not like the speeches and
press. His mistreatment as a Native
American reflects the prejudice of the times. The seemingly unbelievable 1,300 mile trek to
inform the Blacks of their son’s role is based on fact. Sadly, his death is the way it happened.
There are a few incidents that I can comment on. There really was a man overboard incident
where the fleet could not stop to pick him up.
Iggy’s death (which had such a long-term impact on Bradley) follows the
book, but leaves out the torture aspect (only hinting at it). The movie uses CGI to hit one of the
battleships supporting the landing. No
battleship was actually hit. Here’s
another inaccuracy – noone lights up a cigarette until the 1:17 mark! War movies have come a long way.
 |
| wow, the military loaned a lot of landing craft |
Now let me address the Spike Lee controversy. Lee criticized the movie for ignoring the
participation of African-American Marines in the Battle of Iwo Jima. This may have been a publicity stunt to
create buzz for his upcoming "Miracle at St. Anna" ( a vastly inferior war
film, by the way). Eastwood took umbrage
and there was a rather silly snit. Lee
pointed out that no blacks appear in the movie and this denigrates their role
in the battle. Eastwood countered with
the argument that his film was about the flag-raising and there were no blacks
involved in that. I come down on
Eastwood’s side on this. Lee is correct
that there were African-Americans on Iwo, but unfortunately they were relegated
to supply roles. Had Eastwood thrown in
a shot of blacks unloading ammunition, that would have been condescending and
too obviously an example of political correctness. Having blacks in the thick of the fighting
and/or involved in the flag-raising would have been a feel good mockery of
history. Of course, it doesn’t help
Eastwood’s case when he showcases some war dogs.
CRITIQUE: The structure of the film is interesting. It is a good example of the method of "in
media res". This is when a director
starts the movie in the middle or end and then uses flashbacks and flashforwards. “Flags” is very non-linear and actually
follows three threads – the battle, the bond drive, and Bradley’s quest to
research the book. This concept works well
and is not confusing. The Bradley
interviewing veterans scenes are the weakest, but necessary. One questionable decision was to reveal the
three survivors early on. From that
point on the suspense was not who would survive but how the other members of the squad would die.
There are several themes that pop up. One is the use of patriotism to manipulate
individuals and the public as a whole.
In this case the media is a willing partner of the government. We see the power of these two to create
heroes. If you think things have
changed, remember Jessica Lynch and Pat Tillman? A second is the gap between the war front and
the home front. What the soldiers face
and what the home front is going through and what the home front imagines the
soldiers are going through is a wide gap.
I might add that although I doubt it was a conscious decision by the
makers, the movie clearly contrasts the WWII home front involvement in the war
with the lack of involvement of the home front during the Iraq War. Necessity versus ignorance. By far the biggest theme is “what is
heroism?” The film strongly suggests
that the three flag-raisers who died were heroes and the three survivors were
not (which all three would have agreed with).
This “only the dead were heroes” approach is standard, but belies
reality. Bradley, for example, won the
Navy Cross for his bravery in saving wounded. He was definitely a hero!
The movie is very technically sound. Eastwood is a great director and it shows in
this movie. The cinematography is
great. He uses a variety of shots. There is some off-center, hand-helds, and
POVs. The scenes on the island are muted
in color and this contrasts with the colorful home front scenes. The sound effects are amazing. This must have been close to the way the
battle actually sounded. Eastwood’s
soundtrack is sparse, but effective (like the man himself). Some good period songs (ex. “Any Bonds
Today”) are included.
The acting is top notch. Adam Beach deserved an Academy Award
nomination for his portrayal of Hayes.
Bradford is also strong as the star-struck Gagnon. This “hero” takes a beating in the screenplay
and I felt sorry for him. He is used to
hammer home the theme that just raising a flag does not make you a hero. One good thing – Gagnon gets to make the
strongest “we’re not the real heroes” comment in the film. The rest of the cast is solid.
The action is excellent. Once the bullets start flying, it’s very
reminiscent of the “Saving Private Ryan” style and foreshadows combat in the
miniseries “The Pacific”. The violence
is graphic, but not outlandish. A
flamethrower takes out a pill box. A
severed head lands on Hayes. Horrific
sights abound.
CONCLUSION: “Flags of Our Fathers” seems to be nestled in an
appropriate position at #30. It is a
very good, but not great war film. Eastwood
took a bestselling nonfiction book about the most famous photo of WWII and did
it justice. The movie did not get a lot
of love from critics, but it is hard to imagine how the movie could have been
better in interpreting the book. In
fact, the movie is better than the book.
I liked the nonlinear structure.
It added some pizzazz. The book
was boring after they left the island.
The greatest strength of the movie and its main claim
to a potentially high spot on my eventual 100 Best War Movies list is it
accurately brings to the screen an important military event that the public
should know about. The movie may be
criticizing hero worship, but several of the protagonists were legitimate
heroes and deserve to be known. More
than sixty years after Iwo Jima, it is doubtful many Americans have heard of
Ira Hayes much less the other five men.
Hell, many are probably not that familiar with the flag raising itself.
POSTER: Excellent! Could not be better. How can you go wrong using that photo? A+
TRAILER: Well balanced. Hits the themes effectively. Only hints at the combat so it's not your typical adrenalin-fueled trailer. That's a good thing. A+
