With the countless number of films that have been made about World War II, one would think the genre had no more surprises to offer. However, director Clint Eastwood's new film "Flags of Our Fathers" does just that. The film, based on the novel by James Bradley, illuminates the story behind Joe Rosenthal's iconic image, "Raising the Flag on Mount Suribachi," through the eyes of the men who were immortalized in the photo.
The battle for Iwo Jima itself is told in flashbacks, where we meet soldiers John Bradley (Ryan Phillipe), Rene Gagon (Jesse Bradford), and Ira Hayes (Adam Beach), who Rosenthal captured raising the American flag. After intense fighting, only Bradley, Gagon and Hayes have survived the battle, and they are whisked back to the States after the photograph becomes a public relations sensation.
In addition to being labeled heroes, the men are forced to support a massive propaganda campaign for war bonds that uses Rosenthal's photo as its emblem. Bradley reluctantly accepts his role, while Gagon enjoys every minute in the spotlight, including a ridiculous reenactment of the flag-raising atop a papier-mach?© model of Suribachi in front of a full stadium of spectators. However, it is Ira Hayes who the events affect the most. Hayes believes the entire campaign to be a "farce" and turns to drinking to relieve his discomfort over his participation and hero label.
Eastwood's film, scripted by Paul Haggis and William Broyles Jr., is thematically on target. "Flags" seeks to peel back the layers of meaning ascribed to Rosenthal's photograph in an effort to explore the deeper truths that are tied to the image. The film asks whether or not participation in war qualifies one to be a "hero" and questions the level of purity and responsibility that our society assigns to the term.
In covering the relationship between a photo and the public's opinion of the war, the film reveals how our society relies on symbols with unambiguous meanings to shape our perception of reality. Rosenthal's image not only serves as the public's conception of heroism in battle but infuses the nation's collective sacrifice during war time with significance. In response to the deaths of some of the flag raisers, the military uses the victim's mothers as part of their PR campaign. Surprisingly, many of these mothers seem to accept the fact that their sons' deaths are being turned into a commodity. It becomes clear that images cannot tell the whole story by themselves.
Furthermore, although the efforts of the soldiers are clearly being exploited, the end goal of the fundraising is supposedly to support the soldiers and the war campaign. "Flags" provides no easy answers as to whether or not the ends justify the means while still succeeding in a damming indictment of the army's propaganda machine.
It is unfortunate that Eastwood's sincere exploration of these issues is partnered with overly flat characterization. Although each of the protagonists has a general modus operandi, the film makes it difficult to identify with them beyond that outline and none of the characters feels fully-fleshed out.
We see Gagon and Bradley react to the situations the army places them in, but what really makes them tick? Without any deeper exchanges between them and the other characters, it's a question the film can't answer. Although Hayes' troubles get the most attention, his theatrics don't always strike an emotional chord.
One of Hayes' most interesting sources of adversity is his ethnicity as a Native American. Unfortunately, scriptwriter Haggis deals with the racism Hayes experiences with the same shallowness that pervaded his previous Oscar-winner, "Crash" (2004). A few lines of dialogue and scattered epitaphs do not lead to any exploration of the issues surrounding the prejudice Hayes faces and their inclusion feels somewhat token.
The film's final act meanders as well. Eastwood seems to confuse following all of the characters chronologically to their deaths with the idea of closure. Following this, the modern-day sequences that feature Bradley writing his book are unnecessary, unmoving, and often descend into melodrama.
Eastwood also chooses to bookend the film with voice-overs that painfully spell out his thesis with unfortunate clarity. Eastwood seems to believe that audiences will not grasp the deeper themes of his picture without these CliffsNotes-esque explanations.
This is a sloppy addition to an otherwise thoughtful film. Had Eastwood excised the final act and crafted the characters with more care, he might have created a more than just a good film. As such, one can't help but be a bit disappointed. "Flags of our Fathers" certainly deserves a recommendation. However, given all its ambition, it's a shame that the film ends by running out of things to say.
