Clint Eastwood's FLAGS OF OUR FATHERS

[oscar jubis]

Flags of Our Fathers is the first of Clint Eastwood's diptych dealing with the Battle of Iwo Jima (the second film, one which assumes a Japanese point of view, is scheduled for a February 2007 release). Flags of Our Fathers focuses on how the government used a picture of 6 Marines raising Old Glory atop the island's Mount Suribachi to boost public morale and sell war bonds. For that purpose, the three surviving Marines who appeared in the photo were brought to the US and sent on a promotional tour. Somehow, perhaps the trailer, I expected a remake of Sands of Iwo Jima (a 1949 Marine-Corps sanctioned film starring John Wayne and featuring excellent battle sequences) or The Outsider (a good 1961 film focusing on the tragic life of Native American Pfc. Ira Hayes, one of the flag-planters), or an amalgam of those two films. War-hero worshipping is not my cup of tea, especially in the context of the current misuse of American military muscle, I thought to myself, but an avid filmgoer shouldn't miss a Clint Eastwood film. After all, he has a history of making very good films that transgress genre rules through demystification (among them Oscar winners Unforgiven and Million Dollar Baby).

Indeed, Flags of Our Fathers is above all a critique of war propaganda and a debunking of certain notions about heroism. The film's central thesis is made explicitly clear from the start, in rather odd manner: a voice which is never identified whisper-sings "I'll Walk Alone" (These are dreams I must gather...) over the credits and proceeds to opine that "we like things nice and simple, good and evil, heroes and villains". Rene Gagnon (Jesse Bradford), "Doc" Bradley (Ryan Phillippe) and Ira Hayes didn't feel like heroes and were uncomfortable being paraded as such. The flag in the iconic photo was the second one planted on the island. And neither flag was planted under "intense enemy sniperfire", as proclaimed erroneously by The New York Times. Governments stretch, distort and ignore the truth in order to sell war. Heroes are created and put on display and often ignored once they've served their purpose. Eastwood pays particular attention to how serving as a propaganda tool and returning to a racist post-war society affected Mr. Hayes. He is played here by Adam Beach and the Canadian actor delivers a breakthrough performance of controlled intensity. A nomination for an Oscar or a Golden Globe award would not surprise me.

Flags of Our Fathers has a complex structure. The film cross-cuts between the soldiers at Iwo Jima and the three flag-raisers during the war-bonds tour of the States. During the second half, the canvas widens to include Hayes' post-war life and scenes of "Doc" Bradley near death while his son James conducts interviews to learn of the war experiences Doc won't discuss (these interviews resulted in the book that gives Eastwood's film its title and most of its source material). The war scenes emphasize chaos and carnage, and any potential excitement and suspense the taking of the island could generate is effectively undermined by the time-hopping structure of the narrative. Flags of Our Fathers is thus subservient to what it has to say about war and propaganda and their effects on its participants. Many wannabe anti-war movies are like the pot calling the kettle black: war is hell, they seem to say, but also a good vehicle to thrill audiences with tales of superhuman courage and brilliant strategy. In Flags of Our Fathers, the seriousness of the critique is never compromised.

[Chris Knipp]

Not a conventional war movie--but will people see that?

William Boyles Jr. and Paul Haggis' screenplay for Clint Eastwood's Flags of Our Fathers is a complex retelling of the Iwa Jima photo story, a contrast of the actual and the promotional, the pain and irony of real war vs. public images of heroism. Ultimately, the film tells us, there may be no heroes. At least those so identified can't see themselves as such: in wartime, the exaltation to hero status is something done, we're told, to please another audience -- those who weren't there when it all happened. What did happen? Eastwood is at work on a sequel about Iwa Jima as it appeared to the other side -- the Japanese -- so he evidently plans a contrasting, relativistic picture of things that will undercut old fashioined war propaganda. Eastwood and his team strip away war movie cliché as the director's Unforgiven denuded the western of its usual assumptions. And yet Flags isn't a revolutionary looking film; in many ways it feels old fashioned and conventional, as we'd probably expect from the staunchly conservative actor-filmmaker. This is a world far from the simple polarities of the "Dirty Harry" series, but the viewpoint and structure are almost more interesting than the final film.

The boys we've seen emerging from their basic training and being sent off to the operation suffer heavy losses the minute they hit the beach and then struggle to gain a few hundred feet. They knock out hidden Japanese emplacements on the mountain that seem inexhaustible. Whatever the larger aims of the generals, these guys fight to protect their comrades.

They see and do horrible things, and then once the photo of planting the flag (which was a gesture early in the battle and not by any means a sign of victory) appears in the newspapers, the actual roles in the operation of the boys in the picture (the ones found still alive) are distorted or overlooked when they're brought back stateside to help sell US War Bonds to rebuild the diminished US war chest and simultaneously to drum up support for the Pacific campaign. The facts behind the photo are many and complex.

The Iwa Jima flag-raising photo becomes a symbol. But the three men chosen, survivors from that photo, feel no sense of heroism and ultimately go unrewarded.

The film skillfully moves back and forth between the battle; the present when the son of one of the men is researching the events and writing about them; and the time when the three were toured around the country to raise money for the war effort. As they feel exploited during the tour, in an almost Rashomon-like process, they have flashbacks to their real experiences of Iwa Jima. Even the flag-raising moment is drenched in irony. One of the three, Ira Hayes (Adam Beach), a Marine, is an Indian who was involved in heavy combat. He did not want to come on this tour: he pleaded to be allowed to stay with his unit and fight. The pressures and perceived distortions of the publicity tour magnify his inner conflicts and he begins to drink heavily. Another of the three, Rene Gagnon (Jesse Bradford), who was "just a messenger," has good looks and a positive manner that earn him many offers in real estate or with companies. All of these are forgotten when the tour is over and he winds up in a menial job for the rest of his life after an initial stint in a factory with his new wife. "Doc" Bradley, a Navy medic (Ryan Philippe), who was in the thick of the battle action, has particularly painful memories of the comrades he couldn't save, especially his buddy "Iggy" (Jamie Bell, touching and plangent as a representative of the idealistic and innocent American element of the war effort). The film is primarily based on the bestselling review of these events by "Doc's" son James Bradley. The sad story of Pima Indian Ira Hayes is well known from other sources.

Flags of Our Fathers may fall into convention with its voiceovers and Saving Private Ryan intro and framing device (not for nothing is Spielberg a producer). It's good at capturing the look and mood of young WWII soldiers, though, and its penetration behind the slogans and myths to the ironies is telling. This isn't as great an actor's vehicle as Million Dollar Baby was, but its complex editing and brilliantly orchestrated battle sequences are an amazing accomplishment for the now 76-year-old icon. I dare you to watch it and not have a lot of your buttons pushed -- and the old triggers come in fresh and thought-provoking contexts. The danger is that many may not perceive that, and just react to the battle sequences in the traditional ways. People may see the conventional war movie the trailors led them to expect.

[Johann]

Thank you gentlemen for your reviews.
I may check this one out now.



But in other news (just to let you know), Bela Tarr's Satantango is screening Dec. 23rd in Vancouver and I plan on being there.

Tarr on the big screen- big excitement for me.

450 minutes.
The screening will begin @ 1pm sharp and run all day.

[oscar jubis]

I feel pure envy, Johann. Enjoy!

Originally posted by Chris Knipp
its complex editing and brilliantly orchestrated battle sequences are an amazing accomplishment for the now 76-year-old icon.

Amazing accomplishment for anyone who could manage and there aren't many who could or would.

The danger is that many may not perceive that, and just react to the battle sequences in the traditional ways.

Flags prevents you from doing that by virtue of its editing, by cutting up the battle scenes into smaller scenes that "kill any momentum" ( Mr. Sragow in the Baltimore Sun). Seems like he wanted exciting, pulse-raising, butt-kicking war scenes. The only "major" crit I found who clearly dislikes the film. Sragow also complained that characters get introduced and then oh no! GET SHOT.

[Chris Knipp]

Hmmmm.....

It's true that the film has done better than I'd have expected with US critics. (Remember that I'm out of the country and don't have as much access to the Web as I do normally.) But one can't assume that all critics read the film 'correctly,'' if there is such a thing, or that all audiences are as perceptive as the professional critics. Mr Sragow isn't the only one not to have been pleased, and I have to agree somewhat with the writers who've thought the screenplay makes its points a little too repetitiously and spells them out a little too explicitly, perhaps telling more than needed to be told, explaining what was already shown. But I liked this film's structure, as you did.

[oscar jubis]

What I admire most about Flags of Our Fathers has to do with unity of form and content. The narrative structure is a perfect vehicle to deliver the film's message(s) or thesis. Unlike Saving Private Ryan, in which there's a battle scene lasting over 20 minutes, the violence in Eastwood's film is constantly interrupted by scenes that provide counterpoint and commentary. They're not allowed to build momentum, to create excitement. And many seem to end on a note of revulsion. I can't get over what a feat this is. A decidedly anti-war film set during the "Good War" that debunks certain notions about heroism while being respectful to the soldiers.

I tend to agree with you that the film spells out its points a little too explicitly and I think that assuages any concerns about the film being read incorrectly or that people won't see that this is not a conventional war movie (the question you ask in your review's title).

[Chris Knipp]

I think you're quite right, and hope to re-see the film some time to appreciate that technique of interruption, which might be compared to Brecht's Alienation Effect, which of course was also designed to prevent audience identification and make the viewer think instead of experiencing some kind of soothing catharsis. Why I think this is a good but not great film has to do mostly with theway characters are developed, I guess. DUe to the constant interruptions he best characters are only the ones whose mere presence has a strong visceral effect, like Adam Beach's Ira Hayes and JAmie Bell's Iggy. But yeah, the battle scenes and their editing are great, and almost an answer to Saving PRivate Ryan, as if to say: This is how you should have done it, pal. It's impressive how many separate threads are clearly kept going in the film, but at the same time the points are maybe spelled out a bit too explicitly in voiceover, as we've agreed.

[bix171]

Interestingly, Clint Eastwood's "Flags Of Our Fathers", as intellectually complex as its companion piece, "Letters From Iwo Jima", is as much about mothers and brothers as it is about fathers. Instinctual protection of the family unit, whether a real or created unit, is the thread that binds everyone together, whether it's soldiers protecting the mothers of fallen compatriots by lying to them, or fathers denying their experiences to their children in order to save them from the trauma of seeing the unit under attack, or simply the act of fighting--and dying--alongside a brother. But just as interestingly, the protection is against not just the turbulence of war (something Eastwood displays with much more graphic violence than in "Letters" and with a heightened sense of confusion--at one point, in an outburst of friendly fire, the enemy has become themselves) but the homefront war machine that the characters--three veterans of Iwo Jima forced to prostitute themselves in order to raise funds for a war effort that has nearly bankrupt America financially and emotionally--endure almost as a frenzied counterpart to the actual battle itself. (Eastwood's effectiveness in putting this viewpoint across is one of the film's greatest triumphs.) Though there's a very pointed comment early on that the only ones who really know combat are those that have lived it, you get the very real impression that this is as close an approximation of battle as film can provide and the feeling is profound: if war does indeed create families real and forced, then the family unit is comprised of individuals whose primary concern is, again, its preservation. With sublime clarity, Eastwood shows us that the bigger picture is really comprised of the more important smaller ones.