Clint Eastwood’s long, sparse epic “Flags of our Fathers” is an Anti-War war movie. According to the director, all war is bad. Bad for both sides. Bad for everybody. Countries use it to lie to their people to raise money. Foolish campaigns are carried out where thousands of troops die in a needless massacre. Every soldier is expendable. Every lie becomes propaganda. And nothing is ever worth the sacrifice.The movie is visually arresting, with impeccable production design and period-drama precision. Everything, from the warships to the battlefield to the mainland, looks and feels authentic. The wide shots of the approaching armada at Iwo Jima are an awesome spectacle. 880 ships converging on this tiny little island is amazing to see.
The strength of the film is in the battle scenes. We are right there in the thick of it, grinding the black volcanic soil beneath out boots. The mortar shells, the machine guns, the confusion and panic. The horror and despair. “I’m no hero,” one of the characters says. “I was just trying not to get killed.” Scrambling among other 18 and 19-year olds, it seemed as if no one was in charge and nobody cared if you died.
And that’s the main problem with “Flags.” It never rises above the trenches. Oh, it gives complete honor and respect to the fighting men of our armed forces. There’s no question about that. But what were they fighting for? We’re never confronted with the larger struggle. We don’t see the global threat.
This was a world at war with Nazi Fascism and Militant Communism, the outcome of which could have dominated and oppressed the entire population of Europe and Asia, not to mention the looming takeover of the West. These enemies were truly evil, and had exterminated not only 6 million Jews, but countless masses across Europe. They blitzed London in the dead of night. They bombed us at Pearl Harbor. Good people had to fight back. And today’s freedom is the result.
But you’ll never hear that from “Flags of our Fathers.”
There’s a companion piece to this film, the upcoming “Letters from Iwo Jima,” which chronicles the horrors of war from Japan’s perspective. With its rushed release this Winter the filmmakers can say, “See audience? We’re not the good guys. They weren’t the bad guys. It’s war that’s bad! Bad! Bad! Bad!” And that’s the message, pounded home by guns, bombs, flash bulbs and trumpets. All war is bad, so you shouldn’t fight for anything. Let’s just hope the people who take over our country are really, really nice to us when we surrender.
3 comments:
Your comments about the film regarding it's (or it's companion film, Letters from Iwo Jima) lack of description of the overall goal of America or the Allied powers doesn't consider the intent of the film in my opinion. Part of the reason the film doesn't address "the grand cause" is because the films on the subject from the 1940's, 50's, 60's, 70's and to a small extent 80's, have already done it. In the respect that it stays in the trenches, Flags is not unique, but it is one of the first mainstream films that does the viewpoint of the average soldier much justice.
Looking at the shared experience of war from many many accounts of oral histories, remarks and commentary from WWII veterans, and further taking into account the described experiences of veterans of many wars, Flags is a relatively accurate depiction of many veterans experiences. Take into account the fact that by the time the battle for Iwo Jima took place, the average Marine, Sailor, and Infantry soldier had been in service for at least 6 months and that the full extent of the acts committed by Japan and Germany were not known by the American public (thus giving righteous cause for enlisting). Further, one must bare in mind that in a military hierarchy, knowledge of the plan of battle and the motives and progress of conflict in a theater of war are not generally known anyway. In many respects it is much more accurate to depict soldiers as not knowing necessarily the reason they are fighting at a particular place, and only aware of the reasons for their particular participation in a combat event in the most general terms. "We're here to beat the Japs to end the war" is a much more accurate statement than a complicated description of the general progress of a series of conflicts in a particular theater or war, or a patriotic speech. Looking at the descriptions of the war from interviewed veterans in many sources (such as several books by Stephen Ambrose, as an example), the reasons people served in WWII were as varied as their backgrounds, and not all owing to one particular ideal (we have to free the X-people from oppression). But a far more common description of combat zones from those who fought there seems to be several themes, do your job, save yourself, save those serving with you. There are others, but those are some of the most common.
What I'm getting at is to suggest that perhaps the specific reason the films choose this slant which is not a particularly idealistic one, is because it is more representative of the combat experience of those who were there. The battle of Iwo Jima was one of the most bloody and intense battles of WWII. The overall ideals of governments and their goals tend to take a back seat in those situations to the individual experiences of those who make it happen.
It is not necessarily unfair to portray wars as being for poor reasons, and that they should be avoided. Many of those who fought in all of our nations wars, those who understand the experience, have said as much. There have been many more situations in which oppression, conflict and even genocide have occurred and the United States government did not intervene. Stating that our involvement in WWII was purely due to acting against the forces of oppression in not entirely accurate, otherwise the United States would have declared war on Germany in 1938 and 39 when Germany invaded Central Europe and Poland. War is a selfish enterprise and the number of wars fought in all the annals of human history that have been fought for something other than either A) Religion or B) Resources (including territory) are extremely few and far between. War is an enterprise that has no clean conscience. In that regard, both of Mr. Eastwoods movies, when taken for what they are, are masterpieces of good film and should not make the viewer feel good.
In my opinion, there are different ways to make an "anti-war" film. There is of course the pathetic, blatant, "I want an oscar" attempt like Terrence Malick's 'The Thin Red Line'. But in the case of Flags, I didn't feel that a sense of overall purpose for the reason and direction of WWII was lacking, and in fact to not include it would deny some of the purpose behind depicting the experiences of those who served (which I think was the purpose of the movies). Both Flags and Letters attempt to walk the fine line of describing war not as a fun patriotic endeavor and not as a cowardly struggle for self-preservation and interest. Killing and hurting anyone, no matter the purpose, should never be treated as something to celebrate. And neither should the physical and psychological damage and loss of innocence of those who were made to endure it. Which, I think, is precisely the message behind the movies. War is what it is, and these movies are as honest a depiction of a real event, experienced by those who were there as I have ever seen (including Saving Private Ryan and Band of Brothers).
BTW, Hi Steve, it's Justin ;-)
Hi, Justin!
Thanks for your thorough and knowledgable commentary on my mini review of "Flags of our Fathers." What a blessing to receive such a well thought-out response to a complicated and important topic. After soaking it all in, I wanted to write a reply.
My movie ministry, “The Decoder Ring” is all about exposing the agendas behind modern movies so that the individual can discern the truth and engage the culture with knowledge and love. All movies have a voice, and it’s important to hear what is being said.
The strength of “Flags of our Fathers” hinges on the accuracy and respect director Clint Eastwood has for the soldiers, and there is no denying the effects of the harsh realities of war on the rank-and-file as they tell their stories. Each tale is important and unique, and the plight of each individual soldier cannot be minimalized, marginalized, or belittled in any way. But this is not a documentary. It is a film. And one with a very specific agenda behind it.
I know America waited on the sidelines during the beginning of World War II. I know that we didn't actively engage while atrocities were committed around the world and we didn’t declare war until after we ourselves were personally attacked at Pearl Harbor. But even if the motives behind the U.S. involvement were not altruistic, heroic, or pure, the overall goal was to stop an evil totalitarian dictatorship from taking over a large portion of the world and killing countless innocent people. Fighting this global threat was the one overarching reason for World War II, but the film never presents this to the audience.
The problem I have with "Flags" is not with embracing the complexities of war or the validity of a soldier's individual experience, but with Eastwood applying his agenda of moral equivocation to the subject of World War II. In his era as director, Eastwoord’s films almost always ruminate on the devastating effect that violence has on individuals and society as a whole. Never stepping back to discern if there could ever be a thing as morally justifiable killing (like self-defense or protecting your family or defending you country or other innocents from attack). Just that all violence, no matter what the reason, is bad.
Look, nobody in their heart of hearts, wants or likes war. It is violent and ugly and unimaginably horrific. But the strongest voice, cumulatively, from "Flags" is that of the director and his creative collaborators, who in the political spectrum of things consider all opponents to be on equal moral footing and all wars as nothing more than pointless exercises in cruelty.
I had the privilege of attending a screening of "Flags" on the Paramount lot with almost all the above-the-line creators. After the film, no opinion was stated more strongly from these talented craftsmen than that of a completely anti-war mentality, with some obvious and expected barbs being thrown at the current war and our president. Not that I'm a big supporter of him anyway, but this betrays their supposed veneer or objectivity. Their bias and agenda were clearly evident, and was embraced and cheered on by an audience of like-minded people.
The Net Result of the U.S. involvement in World War II was that the plans of evil men were thwarted, Hilter's regime was defeated, and real freedom, as messy and counter-productive as it is, was upheld. No one can be intellectually honest and deny that was a good thing.
"Flags of our Fathers" had a chance to show not only the realities of war and the plight of the soldier, but to look back at history and declare that their sacrifice was worth it. Instead, it slaps you in the face with moral equivocation, senseless violence and a purposeless war, and promotes the creators' agenda that no conflict, no matter what the reason, is ever worth the sacrifice.
And that is a message of falsehood.
-Steve
Hmmm...
I see your point regarding Eastwood and some of the choices he's made as a director, and the admission of many people who made the movie probably set your opinion in stone regarding the subject. Which, given your experience, and in your situation, might have turned me off too.
Part of what cautions me in some of the justification of your opinion, since war is what I do for a living , is that much of the moral strength of your argument revolves around the common man being aware of what was going on at the time. Which in some ways, could be construed as very revisionist, which as an aside is also a classic film error anyway. What I'm saying is that while Eastwood might have a slant, in this particular instance, I think it works.
Looking at the knowledge the average person possessed of WWII as it was happening, it would be unlikely that most folks would be aware of Japans actions as a nation in anything but the most general of terms. And if anything, much of what was driving the civilian support of the war effort was pure propaganda. Which isn't to say that the American people weren't supporting what they viewed as a good and righteous cause, but that it is important to remember that the Japanese people were also fighting for something. Governmental power, no matter the structure, is still ultimately derived from the support of it's people. Looking at the accounts of many Japanese veterans, there are many that didn't support the war they participated in, however there are just as many that still support the goals and motives of their country at the time. And since Germany continually comes up, so did an awful lot of German veterans and citizens. EVEN WHEN THEY WERE FINALLY AWARE OF THE WANTON SLAUGHTER OF MILLIONS. What I'm getting at, is that every war, no matter exists because of the existence of at least 2, not 1, rational viewpoints. Viewpoints that are substantiated by something, and apparently, worth dying for. I think the problem I see with the situation, and largely with how WWII has been classically portrayed in American culture, is that WWII is perceived to be a war free of moral conscience to us. We went to fight the cut and dried fight, the undeniable 'right' fight that everyone should have celebrated and should have been unquestionable. The problem is it was, even as we were doing it. Roosevelt and Truman both made extensive use of propaganda to keep war efforts alive during the war. Why would they have to do that if everyone had excepted that what were doing was the right thing to do and that we had the will to see it through to it's conclusion?
Well. Because war, even "good" wars, suck. ;-) There's my anti-war message for you.
To explain my bias, after talking about war and studying it for a very long time, there are several truths which seem to make sense to me. First, for most combat soldiers, war is only something to look forward to and celebrate until the experience of your first major battle. Then the reality for the combat soldier is generally accounted as different. Second, while all wars are fought by the common man and thus must be sanctioned by the common man, the motives and largely the overall goals are largely the province of those few individuals in charge, and largely, they may lose equally but have to potential to gain more from war than the common man. Third, that the sacrifices made by those who fight are many times made in the name of making a better life for their families, friends, and country and should not be forgotten. However, the pity of war is that Fourth, generally all common people who fight in wars, fight to make their world a better place for those around them, and that the tragedy and folly of war is that ultimately, one of those groups of people more than likely will fail.
I guess the more you study war, the more on some levels, you shouldn't like it. Unless you're very very sick.
I guess where I'm appealing to you is in the fact that on the level both of those movies were made (that of the experience of the common man), they did an excellent job of fairly depicting the experiences of both groups of people. Describing that in all instances, everyone there had a reason for being there, and many of them were completely different. I hate to say it, but one of the common reasons people enlisted in WWII in America, was the perception that you should do it. Which is A) not evidence of awareness of a moral compulsion to thwart the machinations of evil men in the world, and B) evidence of why many people who couldn't enlist, committed suicide. I'm not in any way saying that what I just said describes the decision making process of all of the American draft-eligible public, but it is evidence that much of the justification of the actions a country took at a particular point in history are largely justified in retrospect. It's how history is. So I would definitely say that no one can deny that the actions of the United States to stop Hitler were a good thing NOW. But what I'm also saying is that most people, even the president(!), had no clue some of the things Hitler did until they were already done! So, for example, how can anyone say that saving the Jews was in any way the reason America went to war against Hitler, when evidence of the death camps wasn't revealed until 1944? We can say now, that yes, it was a good thing they did, but it's out of context.
I'm rambling, I'm sorry.
I think your point about honoring those who made a sacrifice is incredibly important. I think that honoring war as an institution is not. Where I differ from you I guess, is that in not knowing what you know from the comments of those who made it, I walked away feeling those two exact things. That in realizing the absolute hell that some people went through, I not only came away with a more visceral understanding of possibly what both sides went through, but I came away with an increased sense of respect and gratitude that they did. No one should have to kill their fellow human beings, and I don't believe that there is ever killing without a guilty conscience. I do think, however, that there are moments when killing can be justified. It's just the issue of deciding when that is. Even someone who kills to defend their family, and would do it again, can still be haunted for the rest of their lives by the taking of another life. Like Gandalf said to Frodo: There are those who live who deserve death, and there are those who are dead who deserve life...can you give it to them? Moral judgment, unfortunately, is many times only clearly seen from afar.
Finally, in regards to their attempts to make a statement about Iraq. I don't care. I can divorce the subjects in my mind, even if Clint Eastwood can't. If this is his anti-war statement, it's a lot easier to deal with than the anti-Vietnam songs of Joni Mitchell among others. I hate protest folk!!! lol. And if you think I can talk your head off about WWII, don't even get me started about Iraq.
To sum up slightly, I think that the morality of war isn't very convenient, and the more you examine a conflict the harder it is to say who was right most of the time. I know it's cynical to say, but governments have non-moral interests, even in their most altruistic of moments, and those things many times get in the way of a clear righteous path of moral conviction for me. It all gets cloudy the more you look at it.
I'm stopping now, because this has become a conversation, not a blog reply, and I need to shut up. ;-)
Post a Comment