- - -

Film Review by Daphne Laura

- - -

I read the book by James Bradley and Ron Powers, all 356 pages of it. I was totally engrossed by the detailed way it was written and absorbed every single well-researched bit of information with gusto. I was therefore naturally curious to see how Clint Eastwood would interpret the story of the six flag raisers of Iwo Jima. Sad to say, I left the theater pretty disappointed by the film.

The author of the book, the son of John “Doc” Bradley (the Navy Corpsman), devotes many pages to the lives of the six young boys who were captured for posterity in that famous photograph. First, he traces their lives from childhood in the dirt poor rural midwestern US during the Depression up to the time they are drafted into the Marine Corps. Then he goes to great lengths to describe the carnage that ensued on that tiny sulfuric island. The brutal atrocities are so graphically documented that I cringed several times while reading the book. Finally, he shifts focus and tells of how the three surviving flag raisers, still traumatized and haunted by their experience on Iwo Jima, were sent on a tour of the US selling war bonds. America needed them so they had to do their civic duty and help fill the coffers of the US Treasury Department. Yet, in some way, they are honoring the memory of their fallen comrades by uplifting the dampened morale of a populace disillusioned by the war being fought in the Pacific.

The main theme of the film seems to be something like individual heroism in the face of mass society. The film’s POV belongs to the young writer, who must piece together for himself the story of his own past. He explains that his father and friends never wanted to speak about the battle, first because it was so horrible that they wanted only to forget about it, but second because they didn’t really feel themselves to be heroes at all. They felt unworthy of the title.

“I was just a runner,” one of them tells a captive audience on Times Square. "The real heroes are those who died in battle.” But they continue to speak because the war needs to be financed. Or is it the machine of war, those merchants of arms and death, that really need more dollars? The film manages to be both heavy-handed and a bit sketchy on this point. It seems that Clint Eastwood wanted to make some political statement about the government using the young soldiers for propaganda’s sake by parading them shamelessly to generate more funds for the war.

In the film, Eastwood chooses to use the technique of splicing flashbacks in between current scenes to narrate the story. He also uses a monochromatic tone to gloss over the gory scenes. The battle of Iwo Jima is one of the bloodiest fights in the history of the US military. But if you watch “Flags of our Fathers” the battle scenes are nowhere near as heart wrenching nor as gory as, for instance, the opening scenes of “Saving Private Ryan”. During the film, my sister had to ask me several times who was who, what his ranking was and where he was located during the actual raising of the flag. So before you have even gotten a firm sense of the six main characters, the director kills them off in a staged, out of context manner.

“You can’t see their faces,” remarks the bitter mother of a fallen soldier as she looks at the famous photograph. This could just as easily be said of the Japanese soldiers, who appear only for brief instants and more as silhouettes than anything else. There were 22,000 Japanese soldiers on Iwo Jima and fewer than 1500 survived (though we never see them). Indeed, we never get much sense at all of the Japanese as human beings in this film. This fact, when combined with heavy CGFX (no matter how impressive and seamless this technology has become) leaves us with moments when the film feels like a sophisticated video game. To be honest, it’s as if Eastwood *didn’t* want to make a war film, after all, because
the main conflict in the film isn’t really with the Japanese (who never appear), but rather between the young soldiers and the American government.

Their naiveté is made clear early in the film when they realize that their buddy who falls overboard will be left to perish at sea, as well as in the various conflicts they witness between the military commanders and the battle planners etc. So we are well-prepared for the whole problem of the flag (two photos, not one, because some military brass wanted a souvenir, a trophy for his shooting lodge), the “buy bonds” road tour, their disillusionment as they try to act the part of the heroes, and all the questions they ask that are never answered.

The ensemble cast is OK but special mention must go to Adam Beach as the deeply troubled Pima Indian, Ira Hayes. He captures the angst-ridden Hayes with such painful poignancy. In my opinion, Ryan Philippe as John Bradley came across as too meek. From the book, the impression I had of Doc Bradley was of a strapping, lanky lad who was strong enough to carry wounded soldiers on his back. He was a very nurturing man who gained the respect of his comrades for saving a lot of lives on that ill-fated island.

In conclusion, I believe that if you want to understand the full extent of the damage done not only on that tiny sulfuric island but also in the deep recesses of the mind of the surviving soldiers, you are better off reading the book. Their horrific experience haunted them till their last breath, but unfortunately this film doesn't do justice to their gutting experience on the sands of Iwo Jima. The film isn't “bad enough” that we have to take issue with its failings, but it doesn't really succeed in ways that could be praised, either.

Set as favorite

Bookmark

Email This

Hits: 312

Comments (3)

...

It's been a while since I saw "Flags of our Fathers". I haven't read the book so I see why someone who has read it can be easily disappointed by the movie.

I agree that this isn't Eastwood's best work. But for me it did convey the horror of war and the soldiers' traumas. Of course there could have been more gore etc., but the constant shooting and cold-blooded presence of killing and dying demonstrated to me how terrible war is.

To be honest, its as if Eastwood *didnҒt* want to make a war film, after all, because
the main conflict in the film isnt really with the Japanese (who never appear), but rather between the young soldiers and the American government.

If I remember correctly Eastwood really didn't want to make a war movie in the sense of the word. I suppose his aim was to focus on how the surviving soldiers, who had gone through terrible experiences, were used by the government to finance the war, a war that had terrified the soldiers, had taken away their comrades and their had changed their lives forever.

Eastowood focused on the Japanese in "Letters from Iwo Jima", quasi the Japanese aspect of the war, and -in my opinion- the better movie.

So, as I said "Flags of our Fathers" might have weaknesses and it might not be as captivating as the book, but I admirer Eastwood for this whole project he realized. After all he managed to show that a war always has two, or even more, sides. He showed that it is not true to say that there are only heroes on the one side and villains on the other. He showed how human all those soldiers were, Japanese and American and that most of them had to fight because their governments wanted them to.

Thank you for your review, Daphne. It was interesting to read your point of view.

Rina H. , September 14, 2007

...

You're welcome Rina H. I agree that "Letters from Iwo Jima" which showcased the war from the Japanese perspective was more poignantly executed by Clint Eastwood. It was more character driven and added a human factor to the 'enemies'.
I do know that through "the Flags" Eastwood's main purpose was to make a sort of anti-war statement against the government so in that regards, he did succeed. He sanitized the gory war details and focused instead on the effects of the war on the surviving flag raisers. I just think he could have presented it differently, that's all.

Daphne Laura , September 15, 2007

...

I accept your point of view, of course, and everybody expects different things from a film.

But it's nice to hear that we both appreciated "Letters from Iwo Jima".

Rina H. , September 17, 2007

Write comment

Name

Email

Website

Title

Comment

smaller | bigger

Subscribe via email (Registered users only)

Add Comment Preview