‘Flags’ only half-staff
October 18, 2006
February 1945. The U.S. Navy lands at Iwo Jima. Even as the war in Europe was coming to a close, the war in the Pacific raged on.
During the fierce battle on the island where so many American lives were lost, there came a ray of hope when five Marines and a Navy corpsman raised the American flag on Mount Suribachi. Such a simple act as planting a flag and taking a photo became something to inspire a nation and take three young men back to America to raise “war bonds.” Yet the accolade of a hero is not what they feel as guilt and despair begin to creep into the young warriors.
I’m just going to say it: I don’t like war movies. Never have. I like my heroes with super powers and spandex, not guns and war wounds. This makes me a shallow person, and I’ve come to accept that. I just find them too depressing and too repetitive: innocent men, gun fire, wounds, death, hope, repeat.
There is just never anything new; one war movie is the same as the other. This is why I found myself so excited about this film. Clint Eastwood is the director and has an innate ability to take a conventional movie – such as one about war – and make it something more that what it is. Take Eastwood’s Oscar-winning “Million Dollar Baby,” a boxing movie that became so much more than the stereotypes of “Rocky” and “Raging Bull.”
The focus isn’t on the war; it’s on the decisions made and how the war affects the men involved.
The strongest part of the movie is the acting, especially from Jesse Bradford, playing the historically hated Rene Gagnon. He leads the manipulation of the group, and of the three men, he feels less guilty about the lies.
But within his eyes you can see the truth. He doesn’t try to make excuses. He embraces his “unethical” ways. He does what any one of us would – he takes whatever path he can to get out of the hell of war. He is aided by Ryan Phillippe’s pure “Doc” Bradley, who embodies the true virtue of innocent heroism, risking everything to save his own doomed friends.
Now to the bad: the writing. Although adapted by Paul Haggis, the Oscar-winning writer of “Crash” and “Million Dollar Baby,” and based on the journal by James Bradley, the son of John ‘Doc’ Bradley, it’s surprisingly flat in tone and denies the actors much chance to flex their emotional muscles. Also, the constant back and forth motion of the action, while so successful in “Crash,” lacks punch here. Sometimes I’d rather a movie take the now less-travelled route and just play in chronological order.
Now to my biggest peeve in movies: narrators. There are those rare and wonderful moments where narration works – often because the narrator is Morgan Freeman – but in most instances it doesn’t. Narration works best when it’s filling in the insignificant, enjoyable little anecdotes or whimsical moments. But when it’s used to tell the story it only feels like the writer couldn’t think of how to express what happens through the action of the characters, so he falls back on narration as an easy way out.
I hope my negativity doesn’t dampen the movie for you too much – many of you will enjoy the movie tremendously. There is a grainy, atmospheric feel to the camera work, and the cinematography of Iwo Jima is beautiful, even when covered in bullets and bodies. And for those who love war movies, this is right up your alley.
Sadly, I don’t fall into this last group. “Flags of Our Fathers” is my least favorite Clint Eastwood movie to date. Still, his worst is vastly better than most of the other films out there.
Overall: Yet another run-of-the-mill war movie, elevated by the actors and the direction of Clint Eastwood but let down by a trite script.