Flags of Our Fathers

‘Flags of Our Fathers’ Waves Short of Expectations

Clint Eastwood is discussing his favorite topic once again, heroes, or more accurately, the real men behind the façade of the hero. In fact, one could say that Eastwood’s entire life is a character study of the heroic ideal. Flags of Our Fathers seems to be a snug fit in the same direction. So, should Eastwood expect another nomination this year at the Oscar’s? No, he shouldn’t.

Whuh? Huh? What happened? The answer, nothing. Eastwood is a talented actor and, at times, a gifted director. However, he is also the biggest cause of the failure of his movies. Many regarded Mystic River as being way too sentimental and over the top and those thoughts apply directly to his latest feature. The problem is Eastwood’s directing style. Unlike most directors, Eastwood is known for taking entire scenes in a couple of long takes instead of doing a multitude of takes as most directors do. Although this style of directing honors his actor’s abilities and can save a lot of money and time for producers, it also assumes that an actor’s first performance is his finest. In the film, it’s possible to see how well informed and directed the actors are about their character and motivation (cliché right? But still), however film does not lend itself to this style of directing. Most theater directors that believe in this idea can never get it right and in theater the actors have one very long take to build and feel the character as opposed to film where they must hit just the right emotional stance and tone as they may have shot the day before on the first try. What really happens as in the case of Adam Beach’s character, Ira, is that the emotions either feel over the top, too sudden, or forced.

Speaking of Adam Beach, as exaggerated he is in the film, he is probably the most interesting to watch. His dilemma is shown as a major thread throughout the film and a couple of moments are so strong that it lets you down when in the next scene it is obvious that he is struggling just to get through the part. The other two main characters Rene Gagnon and John Bradley, played respectively by Jesse Bradford and Ryan Phillippe, are simply unimpressive. Bradford plays the part he always has, the snide and smug rich boy. Phillippe on the other hand is so stoic and wooden that one wonders why he is even in the film until near the end when you realize his son is narrating everything. Philippe and Bradley have one great scene each showing that they have other skills besides looking, smirking, and patting people on the back. Both of the actors fall prey to the style of little rehearsal to flesh out their characters. The surprising star of the film to me is Barry Pepper as Mike Strank. He is rarely seen and has only a few lines, but in his few lines and actions it is clear who he is and what is doing. He is a true hero who understands what’s at stake and when he dies it’s like watching a gruff old turtle curl into its shell for the last time (Oooo, yea weird analogy, I know). In the end, the cast pulls off an overall mediocre performance which is a feat for such a badly edited film.

Editing is a key feature of films and Eastwood should stay away from the crazy timeline sequences. The first 50 minutes or so are incredibly hard to put together for no reason at all besides the fact that the editor probably felt that non-linear timelines are cool. Leave that to Christopher Nolan and others. Focus on telling a good story that actually spends time on developing characters through action and not narration. The wonky editing, uneven acting styles, ridiculous amount if narration, and several obvious blue screen shots detach the audience from the movie, making Eastwood the best Brechtian director ever. At least the war scenes were an improvement. With guidance from Spielberg, Eastwood uses a similar greyed out technique except he ups the gore and violence to reveal more of what a truly terrible experience Iwo Jima truly was to everyone, Japanese and American alike.

Besides the aforementioned problems, it still leaves me wondering why this movie was panned so much more than Mystic River. The honest truth is that I believe it is a death warrant in the timing of the piece. The film is obviously anti-government war but yay soldiers and it appears directly before the elections for Congress. America is stuck in Iraq with no clear answer in sight and watching fantasy films en masse probably in attempt to find their own hero. Their sense of justice personified in some figure, in some idealic form. What Eastwood releases is a movie whose entire point is that most heroes are not heroes at all and don’t like being thought of as such. They are usually just lucky whereas the real heroes are rarely remembered or honored. There you are America! There are the heroic soldiers lying in the dirt, nameless and forgotten! Aren’t you proud of your hero seeking antics? The timing of the film might have been to try and get voters to stop the war in Iraq at the voting polls, but it feels more like a slap in the face to a general audience of Americans who already feel depressed by world events.

Conclusion:

If you get a chance watch it. Don’t break your back over it, but go, watch, and discuss because if nothing else you will want to discuss this movie and it’s heavily emphasized point. The acting has a few gems jutting out over a rough terrain and the war scenes are truly horrific and mesmerizing. Also, the interviews with the war veterans are an interesting addition, even if they do feel tacked on. Besides, Eastwood clearly shows a sympathy in the film for the Japanese which will help him when he releases his follow up film Letters from Iwo Jima from the Japanese perspective. It will be interesting to see how the two films overlap. 2.5 out of 5

Wannabe