Did we REALLY need a new movie like "Flags of our Fathers"

[clitzpah queen]

Now to begin honestly, I have YET to see this. But I just heard an NPR interview with someone associated with the movie (the Director) and I'm just banging my head against the wall thinking "Do we REALLY need a Rah, Rah, flag, patriotic movie NOW -- at a time when we are acting like the UBER Villains of the planet???

[whistle]

1. no

[sass29429]

25. To expand on an overly simplistic answer.

No, do we really need movies about anything??? NO. Movies are entertainment, and are produced by capitalists who want to make money by entertaining people who will pay money to be entertained.

That's why there isn't a plethora of educational downer movies in general release. People want to be entertained and not preached at.

It's also why we get a bunch of juvenile simplistic shoot-em ups, violent science fiction futuritis, the average movie goer is a pimply faced couple or not much older couple, who have nothing better to do for entertainment on Friday or Saturday date nights, or unfortunately have marriages or living agreements that don't provide a better option.

That's not to say that they are all mediocre, some appeal to a wider audience. And some have the ability to stimulate further exploration and education about the past. Glory, Gettysburg, Ken Burns Civil War documentary have caused millions of Americans to re-think or maybe even think for the first time about the Civil War, Slavery in America, and the reasons that hundreds of thousands of americans went to war. Saving Private Ryan, Band of Brothers, Flags of Our Fathers, Schindlers List, Das Boot, The Great Raid, among others have presented to us a picture of the Second World War that was for many of us ignored in school or dismissed as John Wayne jingoism.

How many of us had ever heard of the 54th Massachusetts or Joshua Lawrence Chamberlain? If you haven't heard of either I suggest you google both.

How many people have been introduced to reading various classics by exposure to Shakespeare in Romeo & Juliet (with DiCaprio and Danes), any of Branaghs various interpretations, Lord of the Rings leading to otherbooks in the genre, etc.

Hmm I guess maybe we do need GOOD movies

[evlbstrd]

2. I've read the book.

It's really about the experiences of the men who raised the flag at Iwo Jima, both in the Pacific war and after their return home. It's a lot less rah-rah than you think.

edit for clarity.

[MADem]

3. I believe it's about Iwo Jima, the flag raising, but I don't know for sure

If that IS the case, those guys didn't live happily ever after.

The original flagraising was less dramatic, but probably scarier:



http://www.iwojima.com/raising/raisingb.htm

[rsdsharp]

15. Why would it have been scarier?

The first flag was raised only an hour or so before the second, larger, flag was put up in it's place. Both occurred on D+5 of an invasion which saw more than a month of savage combat before the island was secured.

[MADem]

16. The first group had to TAKE Suribachi, the second raising happened

after they had secured the peak. http://www.eyewitnesstohistory.com/iwoflag.htm

At 8 a.m. on February 23, a patrol of 40 men from 3rd Platoon, E Company, 2nd Battalion, 28th Marines, led by 1LT Lieutenant Harold G. Schrier, assembled at the base of Mount Suribachi. The platoon's mission was to take the crater of Suribachi's peak and raise the U.S. flag. As a member of the first combat patrol to scale Mount Suribachi, Cpl Lindberg took his 72-pound flamethrower and started the tortuous climb up the rough terrain to the top.

As they reached the top, the patrol members took positions around the crater watching for pockets of enemy resistance as other members of the patrol looked for something on which to raise the flag. Present at the crest were six Marines of a 40-man patrol. They were 1LT Lieutenant Schrier, Sergeant Thomas, Sergeant Hansen, Private First Class Charlo, Private First Class Michels, and Corporal Charles W. Lindberg.

At approximately 10:20 a.m., the flag was hoisted on a steel pipe above the island. The sight of the small American flag flying from atop Mount Suribachi thrilled men all over the island. And for the first time during WWII, an American flag was flying above what was considered traditional Japanese territory. This symbol of victory sent a wave of strength to the battle-weary fighting men below, and struck a further mental blow against the island's defenders.

Marine Corps photographer Sergeant Lou Lowery captured this first flag raising on film just as the enemy hurled a grenade in his direction. Dodging the grenade, Lowery hurled his body over the edge of the crater and tumbled 50 feet. His camera lens was shattered, but he and his film were safe.

As Cpl Lindberg would later remark, "Suribachi was easy to take; it was getting there that was so hard!" Of the 40-man patrol, thirty-six were killed or wounded in later fighting on Iwo Jima including Lindberg himself who would be shot through the stomach and arm a week later on 1 March, 1945. ........ http://www.eyewitnesstohistory.com/iwoflag.htm

[Hong Kong Cavalier]

4. Is the movie going to mention that that famous photo was taken twice?

And staged the second time?

[NYCGirl]

6. Yes, that's what the film is ultimately about. NT

[Hong Kong Cavalier]

11. Good.

Glad to see Eastwood is willing to talk about this.
The trailers I saw on television glossed over a lot of that and made me think it was just a rah-rah movie about Iwo Jima.

[MADem]

9. To be accurate, there were two flags raised. The first one (see pic above)

was smaller than the second one.




He took many harrowing photos of the bloody invasion, where fire rained down from the Japanese dug-in position on the steep slope of Suribachi, a 556-foot-tall volcano. In all, Rosenthal shot 65 photos on Iwo Jima; he was just one of 90 photographers there, though most were from the military.

On Feb. 23, 1945, the fifth day of the invasion, Marines raised a flag atop Suribachi, but Rosenthal wasn't there. Soon, though, it was decided to raise a second, larger flag and Rosenthal saw a chance to snap the photo he had missed. He later compared photographing the flag raising to shooting "a football play."

"Out of the corner of my eye, I had seen the men start the flag up. I swung my camera and shot the scene," Rosenthal said a decade afterward. "That is how the picture was taken, and when you take a picture like that, you don't come away saying you got a great shot. You don't know."
http://www.canada.com/topics/entertainment/story.html?id=1c02184b-47b0-417b-a455-2a76ac222f1d&k=90652

[neverforget]

14. It wasn't staged the second time. The first flag was too small so they

took that one down and put up the second flag which is the famous photo. It was also captured as a movie.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raising_the_Flag_on_Iwo_Jima

[NYCGirl]

5. It's not about what you think it is. It's about heroism, fake and real...

and how the government uses it.

http://www.variety.com/review/VE1117931805.html?categoryid=31&cs=1

Ambitiously tackling his biggest canvas to date, Clint Eastwood continues to defy and triumph over the customary expectations for a film career in "Flags of Our Fathers." A pointed exploration of heroism -- in its actual and in its trumped-up, officially useful forms -- the picture welds a powerful account of the battle of Iwo Jima, the bloodiest single engagement the United States fought in World War II, with an ironic and ultimately sad look at its aftermath for three key survivors. This domestic Paramount release looks to parlay critical acclaim and its director's ever-increasing eminence into strong B.O. returns through the autumn and probably beyond.

Conventional wisdom suggests directors slow down as they reach a certain age (Eastwood is now 76), become more cautious, recycle old ideas, fall out of step with contemporary tastes, look a bit stodgy. Eastwood has impertinently ignored these options not only by undertaking by far his most expensive and logistically daunting picture, but by creating back-to-back bookend features offering contrasting perspectives on the same topic; the Japanese-language "Letters From Iwo Jima," showing the Japanese side in intimate terms, will be released by Warner Bros. next year.

One way to think about "Flags" is as "The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance" of this generation. That 1962 John Ford Western is famous for its central maxim, "When the legend becomes fact, print the legend," and "Flags" resonantly holds the notion up to the light. It is also a film about the Greatest Generation that considers why its members are, or were, reticent to speak much about what they did in the war, to boast or consider themselves heroes.

Skillfully structured script by William Broyles Jr. and Paul Haggis throws the audience into the harrowing action of the Iwo Jima invasion as a personal memory that can never be softened or forgotten. But the brutal fighting is eventually juxtaposed with the government's use of the celebrated image of the Marines raising the flag on Mount Suribachi for propaganda and fund-raising, with scant ultimate regard for the "heroes."

[SaveElmer]

7. The Director is Clint Eastwood...

Given the darker nature of Million Dollar Baby and Unforgiven for example, I am waiting to see what the movie is really like. The Hollywood hype machine often obscures the real nature of the films it releases.

[Uroboros]

10. There are actually TWO films by Eastwood here....

From Wikipedia...

"Letters from Iwo Jima (formerly titled Red Sun, Black Sand) is a film directed by Clint Eastwood and scheduled for a Japanese release on December 9, 2006 and February 9, 2007 in limited release in the United States. It is a complementary film to Eastwood's Flags of Our Fathers."

"This film will tell the story of the invasion of Iwo Jima during World War II from the Japanese viewpoint, as opposed to the American viewpoint depicted in Flags of Our Fathers. Almost like a memoir of one of the Japanese soldiers, it primarily follows the story of two good friends serving in the Japanese forces. The men watch helplessly throughout various battles as their comrades are killed, many of them becoming almost suicidal."

[Redbear]

8. From my understanding its not rah,rah patriotic

It actually questions the concept of war as grand spectacle and its participants as heroes to be worshipped.

[Danascot]

12. Review and Trailers from IMDB

Trailers:

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0418689/trailers

I was hesitant to see this because I figured it would be a patriotic appeal for war. What I found was very surprising. First of all, I commend the writer and filmmaker for having a Native American as one of the main characters. Navajo codetalkers were instrumental in our success, but few movies have even mentioned them. In fact, the John Woo film focused more on Nicolas Cage's character than the always excellent Adam Beach. In Flags of Our Fathers, we see how the war has impacted the lives of three men. The most touching story was Ira Hayes, played by Beach. I think he should win an Oscar for his portrayal. He conveyed much more warmth and had much more depth than the other "leads." Even though the narrative was indeed disjointed, if you have the attention span, you can figure it out. Even though the film was two and one-half hours, it didn't feel like it. I found the story very compelling, and a refreshing antidote to a lot of the war films we see. No matter which side you fight on, war is not kind, and Eastwood depicts that well. Overall, a fine effort from all involved.

[applegrove]

13. Adam Beech is always Dreamy! A good actor too. ...As you were

[Sequoia]

17. A Detorit Newspaper review called him an "alcoholic Indian"

And why was he...because the USA turned their backs on him. I'm so sick of white america dissing the Native Americans. I sure wish they would've had the firepower back before Custer and all his ilk. The Pilgrim's children were basically very nasty towards the Indians who saved their parents, and the hate carried on and on until this day.

Anyway, back to the subject. I'm glad it's Clint Eastwood who did this movie because he's very professional and careful. It was a story that needed to be told and yes, it's unfortunate it's coming out during a war the whole world hates. I'd rather see it then that lousy D-Day Tom Hanks movie everyone raves about. The guy who wrote the book was a son of one of the flag raisers.

[Boston Critic]

19. KInd of missing the point

Eastwood and his writers can be commended for handling Ira Hayes story sensitively, but it's absurd to make it sound like they made a conscious decision to include an Indian. Hayes was one of the people immortalized in the famous photo, and his tragic story is central to what the film is about.

It would be like commending the make of a movie about the Cuban Missile Crisis for including Bobby Kennedy.

[MISSDem]

24. Ira Hayes was

American Indian.

[Boston Critic]

18. That's why I get paid to write my reviews...

...AFTER I see the movie.

Your description of "Flags of Our Fathers" -- thankfully -- has very little to do with the actual film.

[KittyWampus]

21. Do you have a review of this movie online somewheres?

:)

[Boston Critic]

22. Review coming shortly

My review ran in last Friday's Worcester (MA) Telegram and Gazette. There's a link to it at rottentomatoes.com. Unfortunately the T&G site currently has a placeholder summary rather than the actual review. I'm hoping that will be fixed today.

[Boston Critic]

27. FINALLY

online:

At a time when many men would be considering retirement, Clint Eastwood is doing the most important work of his career. Since "Unforgiven," his Oscar-winning western that laid bare the realities behind the conventions of the genre, Eastwood has been quietly critiquing his entire career. Now the man who once starred in World War II action films like "Where Eagles Dare" and "Kelly's Heroes" has directed a look at the Battle of Iwo Jima and its aftermath. It is unflinching in making us see what it really means to be a "war hero."....



http://64.166.24.148/datebook/moviereviews.cfm?titleid=13035&date=10/24/06&start_time=NOTPASSED&end_time=NOTPASSED

[Briar]

20. Where have all the black soldiers gone?

Where have all the black soldiers gone?

African-Americans written out of Pacific war in Clint Eastwood's new film, veterans say

Dan Glaister in Los Angeles

On February 19 1945 Thomas McPhatter found himself on a landing craft heading toward the beach on Iwo Jima.

"There were bodies bobbing up all around, all these dead men," said the former US marine, now 83 and living in San Diego. "Then we were crawling on our bellies and moving up the beach. I jumped in a foxhole and there was a young white marine holding his family pictures. He had been hit by shrapnel, he was bleeding from the ears, nose and mouth. It frightened me. The only thing I could do was lie there and repeat the Lord's prayer, over and over and over."

Sadly, Sgt McPhatter's experience is not mirrored in Flags of Our Fathers, Clint Eastwood's big-budget, Oscar-tipped film of the battle for the Japanese island that opened on Friday in the US. While the film's battle scenes show scores of young soldiers in combat, none of them are African-American. Yet almost 900 African-American troops took part in the battle of Iwo Jima, including Sgt McPhatter.

...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,,1928008,00.html

[MISSDem]

23. I read an interview with Clint Eastwood and

I didn't get the idea that it is a rah rah patriotic movie at all.

[olshak]

26. A different view...

There's nothing wrong with a realistic portrayal of one of the bloodiest battles in American history, in a war where our freedom and way of life depended on victory. From my perspective, it reminds us that the sacrifice of lives in defense of freedom is more noble than the sacrifice of lives to promote politics and the sacrifice of liberties to quench one man's craving for power.

[carincross]

28. Go see the movie before saying it's rah! rah!

"Flags of our Fathers" is not a patriotic movie in the traditional sense. While you see men fighting in one of the iconic battles in American History (more Congressional Medals of Honor were awarded in this battle than any other in US History), the movie is a study of much more than battles.

First of all it is a examination of patriotism and heroism. While men join armies to fight for their country, when they go into battle they fight for their buddies.

Secondly, it is a study of media exploitation. The iconic photo is a phony in the sense that it shows the second flag raising of that day. Some of the men in the photo were mis-identified. The photo was used by the Pentagon to raise funds. The US was bankrupt. (It is to Eastwood's credit that he presents this as a morally ambiguous situation. The US really needed money!)

Thirdly, it shows what happens to those who fight in the war. The three "survivors" are all seriously affected by the war. Ira Hayes is obviously a victim of PTSD and drinks to forget - both what he saw and his inability to reconcile his "hero" status while he remembers what he had to do while on Iwo.

Finally, Clint Eastwood is well aware that this film only gives one side of the story. So he has directed a second movie, "Letters from Iwo Jima," which shows the battle of Iwo Jima from the Japanese point of view. It stars Ken Watanabe and is entirely in Japanese. It will be released early next year.

I suspect that "Flags" may be one of the great anti-war movies. Go see it and then decide!

[calico1]

29. I have not seen the movie yet but

read in an article that author James Bradley was very emotional when he read the script. Bradley sold the rights to the story but Eastwood has supposedly stuck pretty true to the book. The book was a very moving story about the participants in the flag raising. The first flag raising was the one the soldiers all cheered about. The flag was small so it was decided to replace it with a bigger one. And that second flag raising barely got any attention. It is the picture that was so perfect and became instantly popular. FDR wanted the flag raisers (of the second flag) brought home. Only 3 of them survived Iwo Jima. None of them ever felt comfortable with the attention or with being called heroes. Especially Ira Hayes. John Bradley never liked to talk about it at all. Rene Gagnon ended up as a janitor. Of the 3, Bradley was the only one that had a pretty normal life afterward. If it is true that Eastwood stuck to the book and its meaning then I don't expect to see a pro war, rah, rah, rah story. Judging from Eastwood's work in the past, I expect it to be good.

[cali]

30. Just a minor correction here

but Bradley co-authored the book with Ron Powers, and the last thing Powers is is a rah-rah kind of guy. He's a thoughtful writer of a liberal persuasion.

[calico1]

32. Yes, that is correct. Bradley had the story,

Powers the writing ability. :hi:

[cali]

31. At least you combine your ignorance with honesty

but I'm not sure how much better that makes it. It's clear you know jackshit about either the book or the movie. spouting off in ignorance only makes one look foolish.