Comments on The House Next Door: Laying it on Thick: Clint Eastwood's Flags of Our ...

As a longtime Eastwood fan that thinks his last pa...

2006-10-22T17:13:00.000-04:00

As a longtime Eastwood fan that thinks his last pair of films indicated a slip in his abilities rather than the vigorous golden period some have claimed, I was surprised, very pleasantly so, at how much I loved FLAGS OF OUR FATHERS. It has its flaws, could have been subtler here and there and tighter overall—which is true of almost all his films—but succeeds so often and so well they barely registered upon me while it unfolded. The film is dense with ideas (ones I find less trite than Ed and others have), but drew out and, for the final several minutes, sustained my emotional investment, my tears, more than any film has since THE NEW WORLD.

Eastwood at his best has always constructed sly movies of ideas, with every line and action rigorously dedicated towards advancing the themes, while cunningly concealing the schema by lifting a lesson from his broad entertainments and playing out each scene in deference to its emotional heft. Consider how the various arguments about proper parenting and role models buzzing about in the first 3/4ths of A PERFECT WORLD descant to a tragic drone at the inevitable showdown, or the cruel irony of ending WHITE HUNTER, BLACK HEART’S discursions on macho codes, on doing instead of reflecting, with a shattered reading of the word “action”. In a lighter mode, BRONCO BILLY and his entourage can’t stop talking about heroism and familial obligation, till they finally wind up playing in a tent sewn from American flags.

Because of this, Eastwood often locks his characters into types; but no more than many other directors who’re allowed this reduction because of the nakedness with which they engage in argument. Are Hayes’s drunken bouts of self-loathing any more repetitive or on-the-nose, for instance, than Lord Bullingdon’s constant attacks on Barry Lyndon as a usurper, or Piero’s materialism in THE ECLIPSE? You can of course argue the execution fails to match up—I’d agree—but the method seems similar to me, and dismissed in Eastwood’s work because he’s not explicitly demanding you pay attention to his movies as intellectual exercises.

I agree that Eastwood values clarity over poetic expression (as Ed notes when unfavorably comparing the film’s structure to THE AVIATOR and BORN ON THE FOURTH OF JULY), but think the former offers strengths as well, which FLAGS OF OUR FATHERS demonstrates. The battle scenes lack the hellish intensity of SAVING PRIVATE RYAN, but their horrified precision—mostly composed of POV shots, mercifully free of the flickering shutter that RYAN made de rigueur for action scenes overnight, placing relevant action in the center of the frame while exploiting its margins only occasionally—recall THE BIG RED ONE and BEACH RED, high praise I don’t toss off lightly. Notice also the soldier (corpse?) rolled over by a tank, Strank’s shocking death from friendly fire; couple them with the hapless marine fallen overboard, the endless fleet driving past him without cease. The military needs these grunts as numbers, not individuals, and will grind them up without hesitation in service of the larger goal.

Ed: “[the film] it never makes credible why the death of Iggy (Jamie Bell), an overzealous man-boy who polishes everyone's knives before battle, would haunt John's dreams for years to come.”

This is one of my favorite aspects of FLAGS, actually. Iggy’s death is left unseen, save what one can infer from Phillippe’s flinching assessment; we are even told (unfortunately, yes, told; the voiceovers can be intrusive) that it’s unlikely Bradley revealed the truth to Iggy’s mother. So many war films take it as their mission to share with the audience the experience of battle that people often forget Fuller’s admonition that such identification is impossible unless the ushers were to fire live ammo at us from the movie screen. Eastwood remembers. Iggy’s fate is deliberately withheld from us; whatever about it scorched Bradley’s soul is a terror we will, could, never understand.

Ed: “The visually parched Iwo Jima scenes from Flags of Our Fathers, uneven and littered with sketchy CGI, offer only insult in the way they pathologically disguise the Japanese enemy from the camera.”

Since we’re following the American soldiers looking for them, it’s more like disguising the Japanese enemy from, you know, their enemy. Remember the identical complaints against THE THIN RED LINE? And their absence for most of the film makes the revelation of the mass suicides in the caves, those ominous muffled booms revealed by jittering flashlight to be the most horrific rupture of flesh and bone, more of an inexplicable tragedy.

Matt: “And if there's a new tradition of WW II movie that includes Ryan and Flags of our Fathers, how would you characterize it?”

An attempt to reintegrate patriotism and respect for duty with America’s post-60s bullshit detector. I think before the '60s bullshit detectors were no less functional, mind you; the goal is pretty self-congratulatory from the boomer lot. But that's my guess as to what's going on. RYAN’S explicit recasting of APOCALYPSE NOW’S most famous line not uttered by Robert Duvall or Frederic Forrest (“Who’s in charge here?” “You are now, sir.”) signals the change better than anything.

(Well, it would have, but checking some sources to get the quote right I can’t find any evidence it exists at all. I remember it as written and will leave it in the argument, but apologies if my memory is playing tricks on me.)

Scott T: “[T]hese were men who blanched at being called "heroes," and I think the film could have honored them on their terms, rather than the conventional tribute.”

FLAGS hold no truck with any of the glitz on the bond tour; the dedication of their memorial is more military bullshit (underscored by the pointed absence of—ah, damn, forgot the character’s name who was mistakenly identified in the picture, but his family), and the survivor’s recollections are unambiguous about the sanity of leaving a battlefield when you can, despite the regret at abandoning your buddies. We’re asked to remember them not as soldiers but as young men enjoying some rare downtime by stripping off their battle gear and roughhousing in the surf. That strikes me as far from hagiography.

Simon: “Had I not known this was an Eastwood film, I never would have guessed.”

Well, there’s the slow tracks past nervous faces and the shadowed hallways swallowing up the morally compromised. Mostly, though, there’s the offhanded decency accorded the characters, the lack of which made MYSTIC RIVER and MILLION DOLLAR BABY such strange disappointments. A friend and fellow admirer once claimed the greatest moment in any Eastwood film to be how the execution in TRUE CRIME is stayed by an anonymous hand, since any of the guards and onlookers had the decency in them. Just so the opportunistic Gagnon walking past a proffered business card to console a grieving mother, or the cynical government rep on the war bond tour being clearly relieved he doesn’t have to drop the hammer on Hayes. Moments like these made the film feel like Eastwood to me. Great Eastwood, at that. (The photo-snapping tourists not so much; but they’re not so much vile as self-absorbed and caught up in the rah-rah mechanics of hero worship.)

Yeah, that last point pretty much directly contradicts how I started out. Consider that as much of an indicator of the shakiness of my (sorry, long-winded) admiration for the film as you wish.

"If Clint Eastwood's personality barely shines thr...

2006-10-21T15:20:00.000-04:00

"If Clint Eastwood's personality barely shines through it's because Haggis's cartoon politics strongarm the director's vision."

Had I not known this was an Eastwood film, I never would have guessed. His presence is missing in nearly every scene. I did however like the 'opening eye' imagery deployed when the Japs were setting up for the attack, but otherwise, one could've convince me Haggis was at the helm.

If you do see the movie, you'll see the validity in Ed's mention of Haggis' television background, from dialogue (masturbation papers hurr hurr) to character even to editing. And what's all this 'buzz' about Phillippe?

A very skippable 'war film'. I found myself checking the time - I close to never do this.

I would second the kudos for 'Band of Brothers' ov...

2006-10-21T06:22:00.000-04:00

I would second the kudos for 'Band of Brothers' over 'Saving Private Ryan.' The one thing I thought 'Saving Private Ryan' had going for it was instead of the one for all, it focused on the all for one. I thought also it was hokey to have the one German that was let go show up later. For my World War II educatainment I prefer in order: 1.'Band of Brothers,' 2.'The Thin Red Line,' (the rosey fingers of dawn.' I loved the way Nolte said that.)3. Sometimes what is on the history channel. 4.'Saving Private Ryan.'

I will probably see 'Flags of Our Fathers' but will wait until cable or DVD, and watch it along with the other movie Eastwood is doing, but will reverse the order of release dates to fool with something, myself, I guess.

I don't know how I chose to ignore the fact that W...

2006-10-19T22:29:00.000-04:00

I don't know how I chose to ignore the fact that William Broyles Jr co-wrote the screenplay. He may not have the most illustrious filmography but his work to streamline JARHEAD (aided, no doubt, by the invaluable Walter Murch) was surprising. Granted, that movie's riches are found in its superb cast and the subtle influence of Murch, but there were choices to be made with a sprawling memoir like Swofford's that couldn't have worked better, really, from a storytelling standpoint. I was bound to see the film anyways but that piques my interest for opening weekend. But I'll probably see MARIE ANTOINETTE first.

Tram, Ed and others: I've heard it said that the F...

2006-10-19T19:41:01.463-04:00

Tram, Ed and others: I've heard it said that the Fitzgeralds, Danger Barch and other people who seem caricatured are actually projections of Morgan Freeman's character, Eddie -- an elderly black man who's stung by white racism from the working class, but who is of a generation that rarely addresses such things directly (and who narrates the whole movie in flashback, which means that everything is his memory or projection rather than "fact"). However, I think this interpretation gives the film too much credit.

I dread Flags of Our Fathers for these and other reasons, though as always, if I am pleasantly surprised, I'll come back here and fess up.

Not a fan of Private Ryan either (someone pointed ...

2006-10-19T04:26:00.000-04:00

Not a fan of Private Ryan either (someone pointed out Band of Brothers), nor of Million Dollar Baby (the Fitgeralds, plus I don't think Eastwood thought out the issue of euthanasia out at all). Haven't seen this one, feel obligated to, what with all the praise.

Thanks for the clarification, Scott. I haven't se...

2006-10-18T18:24:00.000-04:00

Thanks for the clarification, Scott. I haven't seen the film, as I said, but your criticism of it makes sense.

To honor those men on their own terms, though, might arguably have required not making the movie at all.

I work in television and naturally one has to make...

2006-10-18T17:36:00.000-04:00

I work in television and naturally one has to make compromises when one is attempting to carve out a niche in this business. I shook my head at the comments regarding his background (albeit agreeing with the author on his points regarding Haggis' work). On another point, after watching Band of Brothers for the fourth time last week I don't feel as if I have to see Saving Private Ryan ever again. Better acting, a more gripping story, a fearlessness at casting excellent character actors in the featured roles, and less slavish devotion to making the supporting characters stand out as "types". (I fear every WW2 film or program subsequent to its airing will fall far short).

Kate Marie: You're right. I'm sounding a little ca...

2006-10-18T17:06:00.000-04:00

Kate Marie: You're right. I'm sounding a little callous. I think that all those men who fought for our country at Iwo Jima deserve the respect that Eastwood offers them. However, I think the film goes too far in devoting its own plodding memorial to them. It softens the point a little; these were men who blanched at being called "heroes," and I think the film could have honored them on their terms, rather than the conventional tribute.

I have read Flags of Our Fathers but haven't yet s...

2006-10-18T16:25:00.000-04:00

I have read Flags of Our Fathers but haven't yet seen the movie. I'm interested, though, in Scott T.'s suggestion that there's something false or cheap about a "somber salute" to the "heroes" of Iwo Jima. Scott, do you claim that those men don't deserve a somber salute? Why not? Exploring the disparity between the brutality and -- yes, I'll say it -- the stark heroism of Iwo Jima and the schlocky publicity stunts of the (fabulously successful) war bonds tour needn't involve a *subversion* of the idea of heroism altogether.

"Doc" Bradley (who was awarded a Navy Cross for his bravery at Iwo Jima) understably felt that the real heroes of the war were the ones who never returned, but I hope the movie can present Bradley's perspective without adopting his view.

I'm curious to know, too, whether the film treats the famous photograph as a "lie" or a "myth." It troubles me to think that the famous image might be treated to a kind of puerile deconstruction that fails to recognize that its impact arose precisely from its spontaneous "artfulness." In other words, it's a magnificent symbol in the manner of a great work of art -- not a schlocky lie.

Matt, I don't buy that Spielberg attempts to subve...

2006-10-18T15:48:33.610-04:00

Matt, I don't buy that Spielberg attempts to subvert the Norman Rockwell mystique of the WWII era with Saving Private Ryan. If anything, the film feels as if it supports it, and those awful framing devices have always struck me as dead-serious, even cheesy as Ryland has stated. I think Spielberg is a visionary, but I've never considered subversion (at least not until recently) to be among his great gifts. The Terminal, a Spielberg film that garnered a hell of a lot less attention from critics and audiences, for all its flaws, I think is a lot more clever about addressing and challenging the political and social ideologies of its time. No joke.

I'm with you to a great extent, Ed-- this movie ha...

2006-10-18T14:45:00.000-04:00

I'm with you to a great extent, Ed-- this movie has been outrageously overpraised so far (a 93 Metacritic score? Juh?)-- but I did find the first half of the film gripping and provocative, the rare (only?) WWII film to call the notion of heroism into question. Save for that awful present-day framing device, the flashback structure worked beautifully for the most part, with just the right push-and-pull between "the heroes of Iwo Jima" tour and the realities on the ground.

But the film slowly started to lose me in the second half, due to the thinly defined characters, grueling redudancy, and a lot of heavy-handedness. (I'd pass on dessert, too. Those strawberries looked out-of-season to me.) Most of all, I was bothered that the film turns into what it's ostensibly criticizing, i.e. a bronzed memorial to the heroes of Iwo Jima. After being told that such a designation is more complex than it appears, we're treated with a somber salute anyway. Seems like exactly the sort of tribute these guys would have hated.

I don't want to speak for Ed but I find SPR often ...

2006-10-18T13:36:00.000-04:00

I don't want to speak for Ed but I find SPR often inspired (that palatte you mention, the editing, Tom Hanks' using his vulnerability for an accute portrait instead of broad approximation, elevating his silly "I'm a teacher" moment) but most of all pact and rote and safe despite the horrors its heroes fight through. One major problem I find with the film is its bookend, framing structure that has Ryan remembering the whole bloody affair, not say, Ed Burns' Reiben or even Jeremey Davies' Upham. How does Ryan know all those details? Surely nobody wanted to tell him after all they went through. And the rest is how I found a lot of the "stirring" moments false, especially the infamous "Earn this..." line, which Mick LaSalle offers as a classic moment in a typically well written recent essay about the shift in patriotic films:

On one level, this is the generation of sacrifice talking to a generation of self-indulgence. Yet at the same time, it's an admonishment that's more 1990s than 1940s, for contained within it is a belief in the ever-improving, ever-growing, ever-evolving self. Also, in saying this, Miller is clearly evaluating his own self-worth, and that of his men, and making a calculation in which Ryan, at the moment, is lacking. Obviously, he is not worth the sacrifice. Miller knows it. Ryan knows it. The mission has been a waste. The only hope that Miller has is that Ryan will become worthy. He doesn't have much hope.

I'd like to buy into that, as it is intended in the film, but the note it struck for me was one of utter falseness. And it's a little cheesey.

With all that, I must admit it's been a while since I've seen SPR all the way through and I carry with me the Malick fanboy bias of 1998 that has only strengthened as I've grown up. But I suspect RYAN is a better movie than FLAGS purely because I fear anything written by the hambone hack that is Haggis.

MILLION DOLLAR BABY is one or two scenes of obvious arch television writing from a classic--the Fitzgerald family and the "I only need one glove" takedown by Morgan Freeman. Other than those scenes, which I suspect were amplified more by Haggis' screenplay than Clint's direction, it's a great example for the auteur theory with Clint doing excellent work in front of and behind the camera.

Hey, Ed--I am curious to know why you thought Savi...

2006-10-18T11:35:48.246-04:00

Hey, Ed--I am curious to know why you thought Saving Private Ryan was overrated and "masochistic." I consider that film far from perfect -- there's a lot of unnecessary expository spoon-feeding, and as is often the case with Spielberg, I could do without the framing device. But I think it's a powerful film overall, and one that employs nostalgic Americana-inflected imagery (the Norman Rockwell palette, the quotation from "Christina's World" when the Ryan matriarch collapses on her porch") in order to subvert and question it. And I think it understands the ironies of its plot -- sacrificing many anonymous men in order to save one life with immense symbolic/PR value -- and explores that irony throughout, mainly through situations and compositions rather than in dialogue. What didn't you like about it (if that's not too daunting a question)? And if there's a new tradition of WW II movie that includes Ryan and Flags of our Fathers, how would you characterize it?

Since I'm a TV aficionado (and don't think that th...

2006-10-18T10:54:00.000-04:00

Since I'm a TV aficionado (and don't think that the medium = bad), I'll happily count myself as the one critic in 10 that doesn't fit into your demographic study. Never saw EZ Streets, but when Haggis's work evokes his contributions to, yes, the sterling thirtysomething (and not Diff'rent Strokes), I'll make sure to give the man the consideration of a comparison.

Since I can't figure out how to edit my last post,...

2006-10-18T10:43:54.006-04:00

Since I can't figure out how to edit my last post, let me clear up a sentence that got hopelessly garbled as I rewrote it: "Isn't THND supposed to be a place where film and TV devotees can coexist in peace and harmony?".

Whenever Haggis's TV background is mentioned in a ...

2006-10-18T10:30:16.533-04:00

Whenever Haggis's TV background is mentioned in a movie review, nine times out of ten it's a bid to score cheap points by a critic who thinks movies = good, TV = bad, and who implicitly treats TV aficionados with the same kind of contempt that Ed just skewered Haggis for expressing toward the Fitzgerald family. Isn't supposed to be a place where THND a place where film and TV devotees can coexist in peace and harmony? If FOAF is as overblown as it sounds, it should be easy enough to torpedo without dragging Haggis's "Diff'rent Strokes" and "Facts of Life" background into the debate (while conveniently ignoring his sterling work on "thirtysomething" and "EZ Streets").