Review: Flags of Our Fathers (2006)

FLAGS OF OUR FATHERS
(a film review by Mark R. Leeper)

CAPSULE: A film that I expected to enjoy strikes
me as 132 minutes of little more than diatribe
and violence. This is the story of how the
Marines took Iwo Jima in World War II and
specifically how the picture of planting the flag
was taken and became a classic image. We are told
repeatedly that it made heroes out of the wrong
people. Also it is the story of how the public
fell in love with the famous photograph and how
the United States government exploited that
appeal. The film is stylistically directed and
filmed, but the anger and cynicism of the script,
even if accurate, is just unpleasant. With more
restraint this could have been a much better film.
Rating: 0 (-4 to +4) or 4/10

This is the story of the men who fought on Iwo Jima in the last
part of the Pacific War. One of the most famous photographic
images of the war was the raising of the American flag on Mount
Suribachi. The United States government used that image to sell
war bonds and to stir patriotism. This film goes back and forth
showing us how terrible the fighting was and showing the story of
the three men who were elected heroes for the raising of the
flag. They were used on a Bond Tour. It also tells us what
happened to these men in later years. The film begins by saying
that history can be very wrong in the people it chooses to be
designated heroes (and its villains). It then spends the rest of
the film making that point repeatedly. We are also told that one
picture can win a war. Certainly the film demonstrates that one
visual image can have a powerful effect, even if it is a false
symbol of victory. None of this is so surprising that it needs
so much proof.

I am going to go out on a limb on this one. I have a lot of
respect for Clint Eastwood as a film director, and I know that a
lot of people are going to like FLAGS OF OUR FATHERS. I had very
high expectations, which may not have been entirely fair.
Further, my natural opinions are probably little cynical about
the military and government, though I have a great deal of
respect for the common soldier in the wars we have fought. I
agree with the politics of this film all the way. But I think
Eastwood could have used a subtitle 43 REASONS *NOT* TO BE PROUD
OF THE IWO JIMA IMAGE.

This is a long film and a large part of it is a barrage of
attacks on the poor benighted souls who venerate the famous image
of raising the flag on Mount Suribachi that was used to rally the
American people. I was not alive at that time and I never was
all that impressed by the image. In this film we learn among
other things: (1) The image we see was not from the real raising
of the flag but was merely part of a ploy to keep the original
piece of fabric. (2) The people who were supposedly in the
picture are not the same set of people identified by the press.
(3) The raising of the flag was not at the point of victory on
Iwo Jima but actually early in the battle. (4) The people who
raised the flag were less heroic and in less danger than the
people fighting down below were. (6) The United States
government exploited the popularity of the image to earn money
for the war. (7) Once the government used the people in the
picture, they were more or less discarded. And the list goes
could go on.

If our minds were not already numbed by that list of charges, it
is by the violent images of the terrifying fighting that was
going on in the taking of the island. The realistic and intense
horror of warfare was a revelation when we saw it in SAVING
PRIVATE RYAN and in BAND OF BROTHERS. But both of those films
showed the viewer the horrors in a relatively short sequence
which then ended, the point being made, and the story continued.
[Interestingly, this film and those two were all at least
produced by Steven Spielberg.] Perhaps that is not realistic,
but it allows the audience to breathe a sigh of relief when it is
over. FLAGS OF OUR FATHERS has its horrifying and intense scenes
peppered throughout the film and seems forever returning to show
us the carnage at unpleasantly close range. The gunfire also was
very loud--at least in the theater I attended. This is a darn
unpleasant film to watch.

When we are not on the battlefield we see how the government
exploited the so-called heroes and then essentially threw them
away, all the while using the famous image over and over for its
effect. I certainly hope that some of the images Eastwood uses
have some basis in fact, like the serving of ice cream molded in
the shape of the image and then doused in blood-red strawberry
syrup. If that was an invention for the film, it is an egregious
one. In any case, I thought this film was 132 minutes of mostly
diatribe relieved by only one sequence in which we are told why
the War Bond Drive that exploited the flag-raisers was
desperately needed for the war effort. The film also makes some
very valid points the maltreatment of Ira Hayes (played by Adam
Beach of WINDTALKERS) and Native Americans in general.

Director Clint Eastwood seems to go overboard in using a
stylistic color palette. The film always uses muted colors. In
the battle scenes they are muted all the way down to a near
monochrome. Only objects to be emphasized appear in fuller
color. This will usually be the flame of an explosion. Even off
the battlefield, sets are under-lit, at times giving a film noir
effect. Visually the effects strike me as manipulative and
perhaps a bit pretentious. Scenes of the armada of the American
forces look as digital as I am sure they had to be.

FLAGS OF OUR FATHERS made many valid points. I cannot fault it
on that. But it just makes too much of a muckraking case too
well for too much screen time. Less diatribe, less violence, a
more restrained color palette manipulation and this could have
been a good film. It just overdoes everything that it does. The
same case could have been made with a little more finesse and
style. Stanley Kubrick's PATHS OF GLORY, for example, is just as
cynical and is more powerful. This film makes its points in the
first five minutes and then just keeps repeating them with little
restraint. I rate FLAGS OF OUR FATHERS a very disappointing 0 on
the -4 to +4 scale or 4/10.


Mark R. Leeper
mleeper.DeleteThis@optonline.net
Copyright 2006 Mark R. Leeper