Of all the American wartime photographs ever taken, the most famous and meaningful is likely Joe Rosenthal's snapshot of six men raising a flag atop the Pacific island of Iwo Jima. Not only is the picture technically impressive, with its sharp lines and determined exertion frozen in time, it also came to be the face of World War II, as the United States government's public relations machine utilized this image as the engine behind a massive fund-raising effort that ultimately helped win the war. "Flags of Our Fathers" is the story behind that iconic photograph.
"Flags" is not a typical World War II film, in that only about half the movie portrays military conflict, and does so through multiple layers of flashback. In the modern day, James Bradley, who penned the like-titled book, is discovering the past of his father, John "Doc" Bradley, one of the six soldiers who raised the flag on Iwo Jima. Doc was then one of three men yanked from combat to spearhead the fund-raising campaign. The core of the film is a complex character study of those three soldiers, the wildly different manners in which they handle their newfound fame, and the various truths behind what appears to be a straightforward image.
Though "Flags" does not reach the heights of his previous work, Eastwood crafts a film that may very well be his most important and pertinent, considering the current post-9/11 state of constant military strife. Like many war movies, this one dwells on the concept of heroism, but does so more thoroughly. "Flags" not only looks at how the soldiers deal with the heroic life-and-death struggles on the battlefield, but at how they handle being labeled heroes back home. While on tour, the three were hailed as conquering kings, regardless of what each one may or may not have actually done. This is the opposite of "Born on the Fourth of July", in which Tom Cruise's character was treated poorly upon his return from Vietnam. But this raucously positive reception was equally as difficult for these three men to handle, which makes for a fascinating examination of how various human psyches accommodate adulation and stumble along the often blurry line between hero and celebrity.
As mentioned, "Flags" is not quite as pervasively good as Eastwood's recent "Mystic River" or "Million Dollar Baby" (keep in mind that those were my second-best and best films of their respective years). This stems partially from a strong younger cast that performs admirably well, but simply has no chance to match the magnetic appeal of older actors like Kevin Bacon and Morgan Freeman. The main trio of Ryan Phillippe, Jesse Bradford, and Adam Beach, all perform admirably though, with Beach impressing most through his complex turn as one of the rare Native Americans sprinkled into the military. A deep roster of talented veteran actors like Barry Pepper and Neal McDonough makes the film easy to watch, despite how the flashback techniques employed limit much of the potentially gripping drama. Simultaneously though, because the information is gathered as James Bradley himself gathered it, the emotion slowly builds into a unexpectedly strong climactic twenty minutes. Like a deft boxer, the film jabs at the heart here and there for two hours, before delivering a fierce flurry of heavy emotional blows as the postbellum lives of these three men are revealed, elevating the power of the entire film and striking near the soul of anyone who knows a veteran.
Along with Tom Stern, his recent cinematographer of choice, Eastwood's best choice is the washed out color scheme present on the island. The technique has become fairly common in war movies, but rather than choose the green-laden palette of "Saving Private Ryan" though, Eastwood and Stern opted for a nearly black-and-white look that sets "Flags" apart. The resulting contrasts work wonderfully well with the black sands of Iwo Jima and make many of the bloody incidents all the more potent. Outside of the appearance, the occasionally gratuitous battle scenes, which do effectively differentiate this conflict from Normandy, are most noteworthy for the opening minutes before the fighting breaks out. The inter-cutting between the viewpoints of the Americans and the Japanese creates immense anticipatory and sympathetic tension. In creating perhaps the film's best moments there, Eastwood also foreshadows "Letters from Iwo Jima", his companion picture (due out December 20th) that relates the same battle from the Japanese perspective.
"Flags of Our Fathers" probably won't go down in cinematic history as one of the great war films (unless "Letters" is phenomenal). But what Eastwood has crafted is more ambitious than many "mere" war movies, and he accomplishes his goal of interestingly examining how three specific lives were altered by the simple act of raising a flag on a Pacific island. If you enjoy war films, you will enjoy "Flags". If you usually don't, the history behind the photograph is intriguing enough to engross you, although you may want to peer through your fingers during the battle scenes.
Bottom Line: Eastwood. War movie. Not much chance I wasn't liking this one. 8 of 10.
"Flags" is not a typical World War II film, in that only about half the movie portrays military conflict, and does so through multiple layers of flashback. In the modern day, James Bradley, who penned the like-titled book, is discovering the past of his father, John "Doc" Bradley, one of the six soldiers who raised the flag on Iwo Jima. Doc was then one of three men yanked from combat to spearhead the fund-raising campaign. The core of the film is a complex character study of those three soldiers, the wildly different manners in which they handle their newfound fame, and the various truths behind what appears to be a straightforward image.
Though "Flags" does not reach the heights of his previous work, Eastwood crafts a film that may very well be his most important and pertinent, considering the current post-9/11 state of constant military strife. Like many war movies, this one dwells on the concept of heroism, but does so more thoroughly. "Flags" not only looks at how the soldiers deal with the heroic life-and-death struggles on the battlefield, but at how they handle being labeled heroes back home. While on tour, the three were hailed as conquering kings, regardless of what each one may or may not have actually done. This is the opposite of "Born on the Fourth of July", in which Tom Cruise's character was treated poorly upon his return from Vietnam. But this raucously positive reception was equally as difficult for these three men to handle, which makes for a fascinating examination of how various human psyches accommodate adulation and stumble along the often blurry line between hero and celebrity.
As mentioned, "Flags" is not quite as pervasively good as Eastwood's recent "Mystic River" or "Million Dollar Baby" (keep in mind that those were my second-best and best films of their respective years). This stems partially from a strong younger cast that performs admirably well, but simply has no chance to match the magnetic appeal of older actors like Kevin Bacon and Morgan Freeman. The main trio of Ryan Phillippe, Jesse Bradford, and Adam Beach, all perform admirably though, with Beach impressing most through his complex turn as one of the rare Native Americans sprinkled into the military. A deep roster of talented veteran actors like Barry Pepper and Neal McDonough makes the film easy to watch, despite how the flashback techniques employed limit much of the potentially gripping drama. Simultaneously though, because the information is gathered as James Bradley himself gathered it, the emotion slowly builds into a unexpectedly strong climactic twenty minutes. Like a deft boxer, the film jabs at the heart here and there for two hours, before delivering a fierce flurry of heavy emotional blows as the postbellum lives of these three men are revealed, elevating the power of the entire film and striking near the soul of anyone who knows a veteran.
Along with Tom Stern, his recent cinematographer of choice, Eastwood's best choice is the washed out color scheme present on the island. The technique has become fairly common in war movies, but rather than choose the green-laden palette of "Saving Private Ryan" though, Eastwood and Stern opted for a nearly black-and-white look that sets "Flags" apart. The resulting contrasts work wonderfully well with the black sands of Iwo Jima and make many of the bloody incidents all the more potent. Outside of the appearance, the occasionally gratuitous battle scenes, which do effectively differentiate this conflict from Normandy, are most noteworthy for the opening minutes before the fighting breaks out. The inter-cutting between the viewpoints of the Americans and the Japanese creates immense anticipatory and sympathetic tension. In creating perhaps the film's best moments there, Eastwood also foreshadows "Letters from Iwo Jima", his companion picture (due out December 20th) that relates the same battle from the Japanese perspective.
"Flags of Our Fathers" probably won't go down in cinematic history as one of the great war films (unless "Letters" is phenomenal). But what Eastwood has crafted is more ambitious than many "mere" war movies, and he accomplishes his goal of interestingly examining how three specific lives were altered by the simple act of raising a flag on a Pacific island. If you enjoy war films, you will enjoy "Flags". If you usually don't, the history behind the photograph is intriguing enough to engross you, although you may want to peer through your fingers during the battle scenes.
Bottom Line: Eastwood. War movie. Not much chance I wasn't liking this one. 8 of 10.