“Flags of Our Fathers” is a globdiferous film of twisted storytelling and bent logics. The essential objection that I would raise against it is its negativism. From professional reviews all the way through the amateur reviews, it is generally conceded that the film adopts a cynical view of heroism.

It may be nothing more than the Director’s fiat, but it is sufficient as a theme to find resonance in a host of equally negativistic reviewers who wish to deny the sacrifices of the Marine and Navy personnel who fought the battle, and find some obscure angle from which to hold forth authoritatively and show delight in heaping their scorn and contempt upon those who sacrificed for their fellow combatants and their nation.

Thus far, not a single claim that this film reveals some kind of a TRUTH has been substantiated, and I believe I’ve challenged each and every reviewer who made that ridiculous claim.

Yet another common contradiction which appears in reviews is that it is suggested that the Marine and Navy personnel engaged in the bond drive were suffering variously from Post Traumatic Stress Disorder or Combat Fatigue, alcoholism, and all other manner of diagnosis grounded in the nature of their combat experience. What is peculiar in this regard is that many reviewers still engage in polemics supporting the film’s characterization of these men as something other than heroes.

Can you see that? They were in combat, and suffered for it by this characterization, but because the film generates such a negative view of these men, the reviewers decide to mimic the film’s negativism to deny that these men were heroes or heroic at all; but the same reviewers will claim that the men suffered as a result of their experiences in combat. This contradiction permits the reviewer to argue both ways at once.

The logical dialogue might go like this:

Did the men endure horrific combat? Yes.

Did the horrific combat induce stress and other maladies? Yes

Were the men heroes? NO.

Why weren’t the men heroes? Well, because they weren’t the original men who raised the flag.

So only the original men who raised the flag were heroes and no other men fighting on the island could be characterized as heroic? Yes.

———————————————————————–

There is another issue which comes into play in considering whether this film is respectful of the men who fought in the battle for Iwo Jima. Although it may not be apparent at first. The film and those whose reviews endorse the film, claim that the film abolishes MYTHS regarding heroes and heroism. This is a continuation of the film’s negativistic suggestibility.

I would like to indicate that the film industry itself is accountable for the popularization of certain MYTHS concerning heroes and heroism. Film like “RAMBO” and even Eastwood’s portrayal of Sgt. Tom Highway in “HEARTBREAK RIDGE” convey an image of the American military that is largely MYTHOLOGICAL, and it capitalizes on this for purposes of profit.

Afterward, “Flags of Our Fathers” is credited with destroying the MYTH of the American heroes fighting on Iwo Jima, including the American heroes who served on the bond drive.

Also, the film never does make it explicit whether the Marine and Navy personnel either WERE or WERE NOT heroes. The film creates a confusing scenario of flashbacks which confuses the chronology and the viewers perception of events. By this standard, interestingly enough, one could call into question whether the film is a great film.

The film also confuses FACT & MYTH by the shifting and some of the worst stereotyping of characters as has ever been presented in films. Several characters serve in this negative stereotyping.

(1) the businessman on the train offering post-war jobs

(2) the manager of the bond drive, who is so easily targeted for public contempt

(3) the tourists approaching Ira Hayes in the farm field to snap a photograph.

This is merely cunning film-makiing, not brilliant film making. There really isn’t that much of a distinction between obvious propaganda and “Flags of Our Fathers,” the film is so manipulative that it becomes itself, a form of the very type of propaganda effort it purports to expose and condemn.

Finally, I would like to fault the film for the simple fact that it just isn’t fun. As a purchase, I’m very disappointed with it for its broken storytelling and its flashbacks.

I find justification for comparisons between “Flags of Our Fathers” and other films. For example, it is clear that “Saving Private Ryan” was an attempt to show great respect for the “citizen soldiers” who participated in the Normandy landings on D-Day, 6 June 1944 and afterward. It showed very carefully, what the men were, and what they did.

In direct contrast, “Flags of Our Fathers” shows many characters as different from what we have historically accepted them to be. The negative stereotyping, the confusing handling of the subject of Heroes and Heroics leaves the viewer with a hollow empty feeling, a cynicism about the self-sacrifice of many American families whose sons never returned, or returned home with injury.

You see, the very nature of heroism, is that it is itself a kind of truth. It isn’t a truth merely because it is portrayed in some movie or book, or even with a medal. The men who sacrifice, whether it was Marines in Korea on Pork Chop Hill, or at the Chosin Reservoir, or in South Vietnam, or the Army personnel landing on Normandy on D-Day, or even an American Infantryman fighting at Concord Massachussets during the American Revolution. Self-sacrifice and the shedding of blood is honored in the hearts of those those who saw it as their duty to give of their life to the uttermost, and in the hearts of those who were there to witness.

I am deeply offended in this film. Those men gave all so that Americans would remain free, to enjoy life, to write books and make movies. I just don’t think they made the sacrifice in expectation that their own people would turn and and depict them as hypocrits and villains and phonies and liars.

***[They've actually been called all of these in various reviews of this movie on Amazon. Look at that; HYPOCRITS, VILLAINS, PHONIES, and LIARS]***

Furthermore, to present these men as “victims” of prejudices, as though the world had to be perfect before the men made their sacrifices, is also absurd. You see, that is the nature of the genuine hero. He doesn’t sacrifice only because the world is perfect and free of prejudice. The Hero sacrifices himself so that the world can become perfect.

Those who expect that the world must be perfect, before giving of themselves or performing a sacrifice, are not actually living. It was Confucius, I believe, who indicated that those who fear death, die a thousand times. –Semper Fidelis, Bruce Bain

MOVIE: Clint Eastwood has been on an extremely hot streak. He delivered a good film with Mystic River, a little overrated in my opinion, but still a strong and solid film. He then took the cake with Million Dollar Baby. Flags Of Our Fathers is a great story about courage and honor, but honestly so is every war story. The three central characters are Doc (Ryan Phillipe), Rene (Jesse Bradford), and Ira (Adam Beach). The film is told as a flashback through a series of interviews as we learn that the son of Doc is doing some research about his father. We jump back and forth to present day, back to the war, and to the characters after the war as they returned home as “heroes”. William Broyles, Jr. and Paul Haggis wrote the screenplay and did a great job of structuring it. The characters start out together, they go on this journey together, but they soon start to separate. They are brought home because it is believed that they put up the flag at Iwo Jima, but in reality it was the second flag put up, the replacement flag. So, now they are brought home as heroes and we see how they are treated and used. One aspect of the film that made it unique was it’s commentary on America’s tolerance to Native Americans. Native Americans played a huge role in WWII, and even though our protagonists were heroes Ira was still treated like trash. He is constantly called “chief” or “redskin” and in one scene he is thrown out of a bar because they don’t serve Indians. It’s a sad sight to see how Americans treated the Native Americans who fought and died for freedom. Adam Beach gives a strong performance, it’s a truly emotional film. The film is also visually striking.

You can’t help but wonder how the film would have looked without Steven Spielberg being the Executive Producer on the project. There are some striking similarities, visually speaking, to Saving Private Ryan. Eastwood also went with a very muted and gray tinted look. The film is almost black and white, and it does make it feel historical. Tom Stern’s cinematography is absolutely breathtaking and is bound for an Oscar nomination. The way light is used in some scenes adds so much depth it’s unbelievable and has to be seen. All the great stuff aside there is an aspect of the film that makes it less than spectacular. Clint Eastwood provides another simple score for the film, and while it works for some of his movies it usually doesn’t. I was not fond of the score for Mystic River, but I loved Million Dollar Baby’s score. This film needed a different sound, and Eastwood’s simple keys on the piano only works well near the end of the film. While the action sequences have no music I do think that a more experienced composer could have done wonders for the film.

The war genre has had so many entries over the history of film that I am starting to wonder is there anything left to explore? I mean, every aspect of war has been expressed through film and war movies now are starting to become repetitive. This film is about heroism and that the real heroes of Iwo Jima weren’t the ones in the photograph but the ones who died out on that island. Yes, we’ve heard that before many times, but Eastwood gives us different perspectives on it. I guess it’s hard to really analyze Flags Of Our Fathers since Letters From Iwo Jima has yet to come out. For those who did not know, Clint Eastwood made two films at once and Flags Of Our Fathers is the first of two companion pieces. Letters From Iwo Jima is the companion piece and is the same story of Iwo Jima told from the Japanese perspective, spoken in Japanese and all.

ACTING: There is no standout character here. This is another example of a great ensemble cast. The acting is great all around even though I question Eastwood’s decision to put Paul Walker in this movie. All the actors give solid performances, but it’s Adam Beach’s performance as Ira Hayes that highlights the film. He is also the only character that makes the film something original.

BOTTOM LINE: Clint Eastwood gives an emotional look at the true definition of heroes during the war. The film is visually amazing and the acting is excellent, but the film overal feels like we’ve seen it before. Hopefully Letters From Iwo Jima will add more depth to this project.