Flags of Our Fathers & Letters from Iwo Jima (Clint Eastwood, 2007)

[Fletch F. Fletch]

Time magazine interviews Eastwood.

[John Cope]

This movie could go either way but it is very encouraging to read Scott Foundas' The Village Voice review.

This excerpt in particular pins down exactly what I hope Eastwood is really getting at here:

To an extent, Flags of Our Fathers is to the WWII movie what Eastwood's Unforgiven was to the western—a stripping-away of mythology until only a harsher, uncomfortable reality remains. But what Eastwood really does is call into question an entire way of reading history, by which the vast and incomprehensible are reduced to digestible symbols and meanings.

You can't tell me that doesn't intrigue you...

[Kirkinson]

It does intrigue me, particularly because it seems to exactly contradict what the trailer is pushing. Not that I'd be surprised to find that a trailer doesn't accurately represent the film it's promoting.

[gubbelsj]

Another positive review, this one from Manohla Dargis at the New York Times.

[flyonthewall2983]

I heard some of the score on XM today and was rather impressed. It has more of an edge to it than his two previous scores.

I caught James Bradley was on Don Imus's program on MSNBC last week, and he was asked how much it cost to make and he said he thought it was somewhere around $90 million. Is that right, and if so is it Clint's biggest budget to date?

[exte]

Sorry, but I think Eastwood was paying someone back a promise when making this film. It's not that he's not a good director, or the material is awful, but tonight's screening was just so bland and boring, and direct to the point, that I can't help it.

Is it me, or is Spielberg the only one who has commanded the WWII film? I know in this forum there are Malick fanatics who will stalk and shoot me for this, but am I not right? When he wanted to show combat, he blew us out of the park in 1998. When he wanted to tell an unimaginable story of WWII, he crafted a classic, a practical text book for schools around the world.

When Eastwood chose this story, and I guess it's not the most intense text of WWII, it comes off like flat jelly. I'll be banned for this, I know. I wasn't expecting the work of God, but something far more effective than what I got in this film. Eastwood's choices seems to be of a man who needs to tell whatever story he can these days because who knows how much time he has left. And that's not to say he's desperate, but he'll take anything that seems stacked right on paper. And yet the script must have read horrible. He accepted the first draft, right, or was that for the Letters-film follow up?

God, I don't know. I just am not feeling this film, and I know I've felt his good work before in Unforgiven, obviously, and to a great extent in Million Dollar Baby. Here, he seems to be saying, pass the whatever. (It's late, forgive me.)

[Highway 61]

I too was disappointed, a very frustrating movie. It has the makings of a masterpiece, for sure, but Eastwood loses track of the story again and again when he cuts back to the battle scenes on Iwo Jima. In my opinion, the film would have been so much more effective if it focused entirely on the events after the flag raising. Now, obviously, that wouldn't fly with most of the movie going public, but in this case, less is more. Eastwood achieved more when he was implicit rather than explicit: pouring the strawberry sauce all over the flag raising shaped dessert, for instance. He doesn't need to cut away to yet another gruesome battle scene for the audience to understand the scarring effects of war. The mockery the government and the public has made of the soldiers' sacrifice says it all. If indeed Eastwood filmed a first draft as Exte said, he made a foolish mistake. The 'Citizen Kane'-like framing device should have been expanded and most of, if not all, the combat scenes should have been cut. Here's hoping he shows more discipline in 'Letters'

[che-etienne]

I believe he wanted to film the first draft of "Letters from Iwo Jima" as soon as he read it but that the author - I forget her name - insisted it was merely for him to look over and by no means finished. So, in the end, I don't think either was filmed off of just a first draft.

I'm seeing this tonight and am pretty excited.

[Roger_Thornhill]

I have to say I liked Flags of our Fathers quite a bit, even though I agree with many of the negative reviews that Eastwood may have bit off more than he can chew with it's non-linear structure. Personally I felt the film would've been better if they dropped the framing device of Doc Bradley's son researching the events surrounding the second rasing of the flag on Mount Suribachi.

I would say the film presents an honest representation of how those particular Marines spoke with one another. Having read the book and seen the film, the film's structure is vastly different than the book but the events portrayed and characterizations of Doc Bradely, Rene Gagnon, and Ira Hayes are spot on. Bradley and Gagnon grew up in conservative communities and households where profanity would be highly frowned upon. Bradley, in particular, was also a very religious man that is not really touched upon in the film. Hayes obviously grew up on a reservation in a community that has centuries old traditions and beliefs where profanity was probably not encouraged. Besides, it's not as if the film doesn't show characters with foul mouths, as the depiction of General "Howlin' Mad" Smith dropping f-bombs on a Naval officer he's speaking with on the phone demonstrates (he's angry that the Naval bombardment was reduced from I believe 6 or 7 days to less than 3 prior to the invasion).

[Fletch F. Fletch]

Sorry, but I think Eastwood was paying someone back a promise when making this film. It's not that he's not a good director, or the material is awful, but tonight's screening was just so bland and boring, and direct to the point, that I can't help it.

Is it me, or is Spielberg the only one who has commanded the WWII film? I know in this forum there are Malick fanatics who will stalk and shoot me for this, but am I not right?

No. Admittedly, the Omaha Beach sequence is incredibly shot/choreographed/orchestrated but after that the film becomes incredibly anti-climatic, predictable and cliche-ridden. Malick did a much better job as did Sam Fuller with Steel Helmet and The Big Red One and also Cornel Wilde's Beach Red of which Spielberg's film owes a stylistic debt to.

The New York Times has run an article on the film's potentially dashed Oscars hopes because of its lackluster box office returns:

After Weak ‘Flags' Debut, Studio May Face Costly Oscar Battle
By DAVID M. HALBFINGER and ALLISON HOPE WEINER. Published: October 24, 2006

LOS ANGELES, Oct. 23 — Clint Eastwood's World War II movie “Flags of Our Fathersâ€

[Antoine Doinel]

In a nearly empty theater, I saw this tonight and I have to say I was greatly disappointed. While it isn't the outright disaster Dave Poland claims, it is a muddled movie.

Essentially, there are three stories here: 1. A recounting of the battle of Iwo Jima 2. The story of the lives of three of the six soldiers and 3. A look at the inner machinations and politics of WWII. The most fascinating of the stories is the third, which consequently, is the least focused and expanded upon.

I'm not sure what all the griping about the aesthetics of the Iwo Jima scenes are about, are we that cynical and desensitized not to be moved by them? I found them to be quite astonishing. The second story is very good as well, but interspersed with the battle sequences the terrible choice of intermittent voiceover, is told an agonizingly disjointed fashion. It's hardly used in the first 2/3 of the movie and then used almost exclusively to hold up the last 1/3 of the film.

There is a great movie in here about the media, politics and machinery of selling and "winning" a war but Eastwood is oddly didactic here. A disappointment for sure.

The score is astounding though. Oscar worthy stuff.

[Roger_Thornhill]

Antoine, assuming you haven't read the book, did you have any trouble figuring out who was who during the flashbacks on Iwo? The group I saw it with told me afterwards they were confused several times. I must say I might have been confused as well if I hadn't read the book a week before the film came out. Just curious, sometimes that happens to people during war movies because, well, they're all dressed the same and have really big helmets on.

[Highway 61]

I can relate to the people you saw the film with. I had a very hard time distinguishing who was who, but maybe that's because I wasn't familiar with many of the lead actors, unlike some of the supporting players who stood out to me, Robert Patrick, for instance.

[Handsome Dan]

I must echo the criticisms of the previous posters - I had a terrible time keeping track of all the characters in the Iwo scenes. The only characters I could really follow from the beginning were Bradley (because he was Ryan Phillippe), Ira (becuase he was an Indian and the movie didn't let you forget it), Hank (because he was played by my favorite actor Paul Walker) and Mike (because he was played by Barry Pepper). This becomes a problem later on when there is some controversy as to who participated in the flag-raising and who didn't, for obvious reasons. It would have been much better had begun with the first scene in the White House, where the survivors meet the greasy US gov't publicity man and some of these questions were made (somewhat) clear.

Other problems: am I the only one who noticed some tension between the movie's stated point ("why are some random dudes who *put up a flag* more heroic than those who fought and died in the struggle against Japanese imperialism?") and its implicit valorization of the same flag raising (somber music played over *both* flag scenes, as well as its reverent placement as the last photo in the credit sequence)? I also thought there was too much Eastwood manliness to be found, particularly when the guy told his old man that he was "the best father a man could ever have" (if that had been my dad and I'd said that to him, the only thing he'd die of is laughter). I think its a little specious to use the most destructive military conflict in human history as a vehicle to get in touch with your emotions.

All that said, I kind of liked FOOF, much more so than the rest of Eastwood's 21st century output, most of which I think is comically overrated. All of the Iwo scenes - both before and during the battle - I found to be very moving, particularly the bit on the ship the night before, particularly particularly the guys sitting motionless around the card table, wondering they'll still be alive in 24 hours. The battle scenes themselves, influenced by PRIVATE RYAN though they may be, were very effective and did a good job of setting an emotional tone for all that was to come. I'm not in love with this movie, but I think its easily Eastwood's best in a long while and will remember bits and pieces of it for some time, even if the whole thing didn't hang together so well.

[Andre Jurieu]

... Hank (because he was played by my favorite actor Paul Walker)...

Wow! That's a pretty courageous statement to make on this board.

[jon]

Had a funny picture of Meet the Deedles, but I got rid of it because it was too distracting. But yah, Paul Walker has the worst voice on the planet. Fast and the Furious made me want to kill myself.

[John Cope]

Actually, he was awesome in Running Scared.

[Handsome Dan]

Wow! That's a pretty courageous statement to make on this board.

Almost all of Walker's 21st century output - particularly 2 Fast 2 Furious, Joy Ride, Out of the Blue, Eight Below, and Running Scared - are exciting, cheap little genre pieces that will be remembered fondly (I bet they'll age better than Flags of Our Fathers!). I'll admit that Walker isn't the most, shall we say, dynamic actor working today, but it seems as though his presence in a film is a sure sign that I'll like it - even if he's not that interesting, he seems to land in movies that have a very satisfyingly brain-damaged sense of screwiness and fun. So maybe Paul Walker's agent is really my favorite actor.

[Andre Jurieu]

Out of the Blue

You mean Into the Blue right? I actually went to see it in the theatre with some friends, but we were too distracted to notice Walker.

[David Ehrenstein]

A truly terrific film. Infinitely better than Saving Private Ryan. No Tom Hanks Daddy figure to give a big heart-tugger speech. Just war as a recurring nightmare from which we can never awaken. Ryan Philippe has suddenly turned into Joel McCrea.

Incredible amount of detail about the ways bullets can hit and damage the body. The shot of Jamie Bell's head lying on the ground is indelible.

Much too much for the public to see at this moment when we're sick of BushCo's useless evil war.

[kinjitsu]

cinematical:

Some of the first images from Clint Eastwood's second Iwo Jima-related film, Letters from Iwo Jima, have hit the net. While Flags of our Fathers (in theaters now) recalls the Battle of Iwo Jima from the American perspective (ya know, the whole famous flag raising photo thing), Letters focuses on the Japanese perspective. Ken Watanabe stars in the pic, and it's currently scheduled for a February 7 release.

Looks like we'll have to wait until February 2007 for Letters, although it's still on schedule for December in Japan.

[Roger_Thornhill]

Oh I agree, despite my misgivings with the non-linear structure of Flags, this is a far better film than Saving Private Ryan. Spielberg's film may be aesthetically amazing and influential, but thematically it's rather trite. Moreover, Ryan's storyline is conventional and cliched with the typical "melting pot" squad that had already been done to death before Spielberg was even born.

Ryan's ending battle also insults the intelligence of anyone with even a remote understanding of basic tactics. If your goal is to not let a bridge fall into enemy hands under any circumstances and you cannot hope to repell an attack, you fall back and blow up the goddamn bridge. Spielberg and his screenwriter Robert Rodat choose to have an ad hoc group of infantry with no support or anti-armor weaponry take on a company of battled hardened and fanatical SS troops backed with Tiger(!) tanks. Completely ludicrous, not to mention historically inaccurate as no American troops faced SS troops or Tiger tanks that soon after D-Day.

While I'm ranting about Private Ryan, Matt Damon's character is revealed at the end as having had the flashback of what happened in the film, however, how does Damon know what happened on D-Day and the details of their journey if he wasn't there and all of them died except for Ed Burns' character? I guess Ed Burns told him everything I suppose. Just another element that bothers me about that film.

[Antoine Doinel]

Almost all of Walker's 21st century output - particularly 2 Fast 2 Furious, Joy Ride, Out of the Blue, Eight Below, and Running Scared - are exciting, cheap little genre pieces that will be remembered fondly (I bet they'll age better than Flags of Our Fathers!).

I will concur that Paul Walker has very good screen presence but none of those aforementioned films will be remembered for anything, except maybe Out Of The Blue for future generations of hand lotion users who need ninety minutes of Jessica Alba in a bikini.

[tryavna]

While I'm ranting about Private Ryan, Matt Damon's character is revealed at the end as having had the flashback of what happened in the film, however, how does Damon know what happened on D-Day and the details of their journey if he wasn't there and all of them died except for Ed Burns' character? I guess Ed Burns told him everything I suppose. Just another element that bothers me about that film.

Actually, that aspect of the movie has always bothered me ever since I first saw Ryan in the theater, and I'm glad to know I'm not the only one. It's such a typical example of how sloppy Spielberg is when he tries to do a dramatic story. He seems to think that he must make the past present to the lives of his viewers, so he always has those tacked-on endings. It works to a certain extent in Schindler's List for the obvious reason that those people at the end were the actual survivors, but it's just out of place and structurally flawed as a framing device for Ryan.

And I'm with you about the overall triteness of the storyline.

[Andre Jurieu]

While I'm ranting about Private Ryan, Matt Damon's character is revealed at the end as having had the flashback of what happened in the film, however, how does Damon know what happened on D-Day and the details of their journey if he wasn't there and all of them died except for Ed Burns' character? I guess Ed Burns told him everything I suppose. Just another element that bothers me about that film.

Actually, that aspect of the movie has always bothered me ever since I first saw Ryan in the theater, and I'm glad to know I'm not the only one. It's such a typical example of how sloppy Spielberg is when he tries to do a dramatic story. He seems to think that he must make the past present to the lives of his viewers, so he always has those tacked-on endings. It works to a certain extent in Schindler's List for the obvious reason that those people at the end were the actual survivors, but it's just out of place and structurally flawed as a framing device for Ryan.

Yeah, it's not done very well, though I will point out that Spielberg doesn't actually directly link the old man to Hank's character, since he inserts some footage in between their mimicked close-ups. Of course, I can't deny that in matching/re-creating their close-ups he isn't implying them to be the same person, before revealing to us that the old man is actually Ryan at the end.

I've always though that the film would have ended much better if the old man had turned out to be Ed Burns, thus the outcome of Ryan's life wouldn't have mattered.