Flags of Our Fathers

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

Haggis, Eastwood and Spielberg team up to tell a less known but poignant story about 6 soldiers who were the second flag-raisers of Iwo Jima and how an event that does not seem so significant is captured on photo and becomes one of the most crucial events in America during WWII. Having always admired Eastwood for tackling complex subjects, he does a wonderful job of telling an event that is not known to many. He captures the time period well on screen.

The war sequences are skillfully executed. It reminds me of the early sequences of 'Saving Private Ryan' as its shot with washed out colours and the scenes are just as visceral and hard-hitting. They are extremely effective as are the scenes where the three survivors are being paraded by officers in order to sell military bonds. The real truth is ignored, the illusion of a photo is confirmed as truth, the three soldiers are burning in the inside while obliged to parade themselves and then they are left with nothing, just memories of the war. Eastwood has also briefly but effectively tackled the racism theme. Even the label of a hero was not enough for Hayes to get a drink at a bar.

Haggis's writing is solid. War isn't glorified and the aftereffects are shown with subtlety rather than blatant preaching. The editing is tight as the movie flows at a smooth pace. It starts off with the war sequences and then follows the three surviving flag-raisers revisiting the war in flashbacks. Eastwood's soundtrack is intense and gives voice to the unspoken words. All the performances are good but it is Jesse Bradford, Adam Beach and Ryan Phillipe who stand out as the three survivors, particularly Phillipe who is restrained.

'Flags of Our Fathers' an important side of the war that almost vanished into oblivion but thanks to Eastwood and his team, many people today will know about it.

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.

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.

One of Clint's and Spiel's best. But maybe 'cause it's personal. Old faded medals and photos of from the Philippines campaign in the attic found after dad died. He never spoke much of it, just a warning before I joined the Army in 1974: "Don't." Funny they don't do War Bonds anymore. They just raise taxes and raid savings accounts if u don't pay. I guess that's more direct, and does not require the manufacture and then parade of Heroes that don't want to be named so. Like dad. Faded brown photos of brown people on an island, buddies in arms, smiling on the outside, wounded inside. Bit's of metal, faded ribbon - shrapnel tied up in a flag.

For generations we have been sons of war, and our sons will be fathers of sons of war. Will it end? Perhaps not. Will there be stories like this one told in film or whatever media is next for all generations yet to come, just as there has been for all past? It's a very sad testament to the human condition, but I'll be paying my respect the next time I am in DC with a better understanding of the statue in question.