Flags Of Our Fathers (Clint Eastwood, 2006)

Directed by Clint Eastwood and based on the book by James Bradley and  Ron Powers, it tells the story of the U.S. servicemen who raised the  American flag on Iwo Jima in World War two. One of the men, Jon Bradley,  was James Bradley\'s father.

The island of Iwo Jima is part of the nation of Japan, and the  fighting there in WWII marked the first time soldiers fought on actual  Japanese soil. At that point in the war, the Japanese military knew they  had no hope of winning, and intended to inflict as many casualties as  possible. The U.S. Marines fought for this island so they could use it  as a base to launch further attacks on the mainland of Japan. 6000  marines died invading the island.

Five days into the battle, the Marines captured Mount Suribachi, and a  flag was raised at the top. Soon someone from military brass requested  the flag for a souvenier, and another one was erected. Six marines  raised the second flag while being filmed, which turned into the famous  image we are all familiar with.
Americans at home saw this picture and assumed it was taken at the  end of the battle, when in actuality the battle went on for  another  month, during which 3 of the six men in the photo had died. The three  that remained were sent home to do a publicity tour across the country,  where they spoke at rallies to sell war bonds.

The film itself intersperses between scenes of the battle and the  subsequent publicity tour, along with James Bradley interviewing  veterans about his father. The non linear approach to the story keeps  the audience on it\'s toes and doesn\'t allow the film to drag or be slow.  It plays up on themes of what really is a hero, and the use of imagery  and mythology, as reality of the battle and confusion over who really  was in the picture are utilized in the story. The men on the publicity  tour consistently say the whole time that the real heroes are the ones  that died on the island. While it deals with  the fact that the flag was  raised early in the battle and that the imagery was being exploited to  sell war bonds, it also makes note that there was a good reason to sell  that imagery. War bonds were needed to help pay for the war so the U.S.  could win it. There is a scene where the brass talks about how previous  bond drives were not as succesful, and that they needed to sell this  image for the country. So as the image might have been somewhat  mythologized, there was a real need for it to be so.

One of the three soldiers was Native American, who after the war  falls into a life of drinking and despair. Viewers might take this to be  a mere stereotype, but the character is developed enough not to fall  into that simple trap. He truly mourns the loss of his friends and is  disturbed and shaken by his wartime experiences. One scene I liked is years later where he\'s working in some field. A family drives by and stops to meet him. The kids get their picture taken with him and the parents say something like "He's a real Indian!" Awful, like he's some kind of tourist spot.

One of it's few flaws is that during the non-linear telling of the  story, I got confused about who some of the characters were during the  battle, and also was unsure who the son was speaking to in several  scenes. Also one of the scenes where the battle is recreated in a  stadium looks very CGI.

I think if someone of my generation made this film, it would have been more cynical. It might have shown US soldiers in a more negative light. There's a father/son bonding scene at the end that a younger director might not have filmed.

Thankfully Clint shows both sides of the coin. His film acknowledges  American bravery and strength without pretending the world is all  sunshine and rainbows. The actual facts of the battle are illustrated,  and while it is acknowledged that the imagery was mythologized, it is  obvious that there was good need for it to be.

And kudos to Clint for making a great movie at the age of 76!

http://jemurr.wordpress.com/<br />
<br />
http://www.youtube.com/user/murmanpoet

Flags of Our Fathers is both a war film, as well as a political drama. I applaud Eastwood for his ability to weave both aspects together in a unique 'flashback' technique that characterises the whole film. It's no surprise that the battle sequences closely emulate that of Saving Private Ryan (since Spielberg's the producer).

There's enough violence and gore to disturb amateur viewers of this subject matter. The combination of the colour-drained battle scenes in Iwo Jima, and the CGI used is almost perfect. What makes Flags a stand-out is that it's thought-provoking, which is usually not associated with a war film. The end credits are innovative, with the credits rolling on the right, while WWII still photographs flashes on the left. This further triggers our understanding and curiosity for the iconic battle itself.

The cast is relatively 'light' with no big name stars. But I'm impressed with Adam Beach's fine performance. The flaw of Flags of Our Fathers lies in its inability to really move viewers. There's nobody to cry for, nor does the music stirs one's emotions. It's not the best war film around but it's a motion picture that is likely to get you in a reflective mood.

SCORE: 8/10
[www.filmnomenon.blogspot.com]
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED!

Singapore's Most Prolific Film Blogger @ www.filmnomenon.blogspot.com