Clint Eastwood film about Iwo Jima: Flags of Our Fathers

Status
Not open for further replies.
My understanding about the photo is this, they took it the first time and it did not come out well so they set back up and took it again and the second was the best.

No, not exactly.

What happened is that a combat patrol went and raised a flag on Iwo Jima. There was a military photographer there and he take some pictures of the first flag raising. You can find them on the net if you do a search.

A short time later, a second patrol went up with a larger flag to replace the first flag. Joe Rosenthal and a newsreel cameraman escorted this patrol. They met the first patrol coming down and Rosenthal thought he'd missed his chance to get a picture. When the second flag was raised, Rosenthal and the newsreel camera both caputured it on film. They were standing very close to each other, so the angle of the flag raising on the newsreel is almost identical to the angle in Rosenthal's photo.

Rosenthal did not pose the Marines raising the flag or arrange to have the second flag raised. He just went up with them, took some pictures, and came down. He did take a few posed "group photo's" after the flag raising, but they were obvioulsy posed as the guys were even sitting down like in a class photo.

In short: The flag raising was real, although it was the second flag raised, and the photo was real.
 
While I am probably not the guy who should say much being one of the those who served in the Marine Corps. I'll be interested if Clint Eastwood's true colors show.:uhoh: Basicly he is very liberal.

HQ
 
.38 Special
Actually, I'm faced with your version of reality, with which I disagree.

I can't tell if you are pulling my leg or not. Lol, you got me, ok you can stop kidding now, you got me. So seriously, now you can re-read the excerpts of transcript I posted, and confirm that what the Japanese troops were doing was wrong... Please. No excuses, rationalizations, quantifications, just that they were bad.

Or on the other hand feel free to deny them.

It's just that you seem to be, well, ignoring them.
 
You win, mate. All Japanese soldiers -- heck, all non-American soldiers -- are evil monsters deserving of slow painful deaths.

May I be excused now?
 
No... You have to either affirm or deny that what the Japanese did was wrong. You are prevaricating, avoiding answering. If you really believe that they did no wrong, then I absolutely support your right to that opinion, and am willing to hear you out.
 
Actually, I don't have to do anything, especially now that I've sobered up to the point that I fully realize the foolishness of arguing about such things on the internet -- especially with people who are willing to call perfect strangers liars.

I'm excusing myself.
 
RE: which flag raising was which... read the book.

EVERY MAN at both raisings gets his due.

Both sets of photos are explained fully, as as the so called 'gung ho' photo Rosenthal shot a half an hour later. (Supposedly the reason for the second flag raising was the first one wasn't big enough to see from the navy ships, this too is covered.)

The aftermath, the rush to get the three survivors home (and even identified) is there, as are the real life experiences of Ira Hayes.

That's not Eastwood 'pandering to the left' that's in the book.

Flags of Our Fathers was a very indepth read, and in many ways the Pacific equivalent of "Citizen Soldiers" by Stephen Ambrose.

As war movies go, this isn't meant to be a shoot 'em up. The story is a thoughtful piece explaining the heroic and barbaric acts of men in war, and the troubles of those warriors in peace.

Read that last sentence again. It could apply for any soldier in any war, regardless of which side they fought for.

Maybe that's why Eastwood decided to shoot the Japanese side as well, maybe it's a piece that confronts the audience with the reality of the things men in war did back then. Eastwood has never been accused of putting on kid gloves when approaching any subject, I think it's best to see a film before completely dismissing it.

This thread isn't exceptionally gun-related, but if we can keep the rhetoric down i see no reason to close it yet.
 
Rifles that will be used in the film

I am sure they will be using the combination of rifles and shotguns and handguns that were avaliable at that period and time. I am thinking it will be a very gungie movie. :uhoh:

Hollywood has a reputation to go and help the government stir up the masses when it comes to war films and the desired effect to get more soliders or fighting men into the service.:barf:

I am not concerned with the who did the first raising of the flag it has been documented and for the desired effect that they wanted from this proud moment and to the historical monument in DC. It has done what the Gov. and others wanted to do, which is instill and keep the pride up there.:)

As far as atrocities of the Japanese it is very well documented. I am a very big fan of the Filipine Martial arts, the sword and dagger and the arnis stick (baton). I for one have not forgotten about the story or the reason we fought them. :mad:

I like the particular discipline of their country, but for the reason we fought against all of the various tyranical forms of Gov.
I am still of the opinion that we will rise to the occasion when needed to get the job done.:fire: Remember the forum is for discussion.

The forum is a gun forum. They were using many various weapons at the time and we still do. One of the reasons the Marine Corps, still uses the shotgun and the semi auto rifle and the bolt action, very wicked combination when used effectivly and all men that are appointed to use them are willing or able.

The Flame thrower was very useful on the Islands. The gernades of that era. The Flame thrower is not used in todays battles. Not good PR.
Remember the Napalm of old. Now we ruined that forest but you would not know it now.

Both the items mentioned are not used at the present not very effective but if we needed them again I would think they would be used? Also were not as we were in the first one over in Iraq, trying to kill all and any. We did that remember. Now many that fought against us are here in the states. Can we say the enemy within. :barf:
....
(Bad PR. Both sides did things that were not really proper at times but one of the channels on tv of late showed that the japanese were actually eating the prisoners and keeping them alive while doing it, on the Islands of the Phillippines. Pretty bad stuff.)
.....

Hand held firing devices that launched the heavier projectiles were very effective also. Japanese side used them, and we are now very good with them. The Cong used them very effectivly against us. :eek:
Same in the Korean war. Lobbing an item right in there with precision and over items that were in the way, (sandbags, or dirt) very effective.
Dropped them right into the (fox) fighting holes of that time and era.

HQ
 
I need to see this, too. I didn't realize there was a book, I'll look for it this weekend. My dad was there- 4th Marines.
 
Harve Curry said:
I was driving through the Gila Indian Reservation a couple of years ago. There had just been a parade/memorial celebration. Family and veterans were there and some relations and friends Ira Hays. Anyone traveling between Phoenix and Tucson should get off the interstate and go to the cemetary near Sacaton. One of the first American soldiers killed in the recent War was a girl from this reservation. It lists the American Indians from there since WWI.
I thought Hayes was a Pima Indian. Their reservation is south of Tucson, and is now called the Tohono Od'am reservation. ("Pima" was a name we anglos pinned on them.)

And I thought Laurie what's-her-name, the girl killed in the early days of Iraq, was a Navajo, not a Gila. I'm almost certain I remember reading that she was from Tuba City, which is in northern Arizona near the western end of the Navajo res.
 
Mentions they were there.

I got this as a mention they were there at the funeral of the Gila person who was killed in the Iraq battle.

Not that Ira Hayes was one. Johnny Cash had a good song as a tribute to IH.:)

HQ
 
Frankly..I think Eastwood's merits have been going downhill for some time...I hope this is a good movie, but in light of what I usually see today, I have doubts...way back when I was a teenager I thought Eastwood was the greatest thing in movies...now I watch his movies by accident on tv...other movies & actors I look for and wait for them to come on...he has done too many flops over the years & his same expressions he shows as an actor become too much all the same again and again...2nd rate actor & director...don't bring up any awards won because they mean even less today...junk awards...
 
just read a lot of reviews of this film. hard to find a kind one. looks like this movie could be a real disappointment. lots of people say eastwood blew it. disjointed story and characters no one cares about seems to be peoples beef. beach assault is a just a bad rip off of saving private ryan.

hope its not true as i like eastwood.
 
Haven't seen it yet

But will sometime in the next couple of weeks. I will go for the combat footage. I enjoy watching how Hollywood has improved their treatment of combat. It now approaches realism more closely than what was available in the past. Saving Private Ryan and Band of Brothers clearly set a new standard. As long as sappy story lines don't overly detract from the movie, I will see it.

Saw Flyboys a couple of weeks ago. Enjoyed the planes, and the dogfighting, but was disapointed by the lack of historical accuracy (Germans flew alot of other things besides DR I triplanes, and red was NOT the main color for every plane!) And about 2/3 of the way through, I was put off by a number of things. Overall, a disapointment.

I don't know why Hollywood feels it has to "improve" on history. Even the history channel strays away from the truth on occasion. Sad, but what can one do? I would love to see (and it is possible with today's CGI effects) films put together with accurate depictions of equipment and events.

As far as Iwo Jima beach invasion scenes being a "rip off of Private Ryan", How much different do you think it can be? Do you think anytime men fight in similar terrain situations that it is a "rip off" of a previous battle?
 
As far as Iwo Jima beach invasion scenes being a "rip off of Private Ryan

if that is directed at me you are off base as i was just paraphrasing what was in the reviews i have read.

but, why cant it be different? that is like saying how much different can war movies be from each other. or any movies with similiar subjects. i think it falls on how the directors treats it.

personally i won't know until i catch it on hbo as woudn't spend a penny to see a movie in a theater.
 
Frankly..I think Eastwood's merits have been going downhill for some time... ...don't bring up any awards won because they mean even less today...junk awards...

I'll strongly disagree with that. Unforgiven deserved every award it got. There isn't anything I DON'T like about that movie.

Gregg
 
Unforgiven and Million Dollar Baby

I'll strongly disagree with that. Unforgiven deserved every award it got. There isn't anything I DON'T like about that movie.
I'll add I really liked the movie Million Dollar Baby also.:)

Saw both of those in the Theater, not many I go to see though.:scrutiny:

I believe that Iwo was the Highest casualties in the island hopping. Lost Sgt Striker (John Wayne).:(

HQ:D
 
Honestly, SCREW TELLING BOTH SIDES.


I agree totally.

Why should we bother with historical integrity? Who cares if we believe stories that have been wrapped in myth and created out of whole cloth? Why should we bother understanding the other side - I mean, the most it could do is help us understand them and their motivations and lead to less conflict in the future.

Why on Earth would we want to know the truth?


With all that said, it's nice to see a film coming out about WWII that is going to really explore the other side as more than evil villian. We've allowed ourselves to forget how absolutely horrific WWII was, and we've also willingly forgotten our own atrocities during the war in favor of finger wagging at the Germans (generally forgetting the Japanese atrocities - and almost always forgetting the atrocities commited by our Russian allies).

Movies are not history - but anyone who claims to be interested in history or even in the truth must welcome any kind of opening of dialouge about the war so that we can really examine what happened - we need to get beyond the false, kitschy idea that WWII was "the good war".
 
With all that said, it's nice to see a film coming out about WWII that is going to really explore the other side as more than evil villian. We've allowed ourselves to forget how absolutely horrific WWII was, and we've also willingly forgotten our own atrocities during the war in favor of finger wagging at the Germans (generally forgetting the Japanese atrocities - and almost always forgetting the atrocities commited by our Russian allies).

When the British bomb a German city, and then the Germans bomb British cities, and then the British bomb German cities, that's what the war was. You can call it atrocious, to be sure, but it's not distinguished for how horrible it was. When the Germans go in to Russia and rape and murder, and then the Russians repay the favour, again you could call it atrocious, or you could call it 'war'. In most cases what the allies did to the axis was simply giving back what the axis gave to them.

What the Germans and Japanese have going for them is that they went above and beyond that,the heinous crimes they committed are too numerous to mention, and absolutely widespread and accepted. The worst serial killers, the most horrible horror movies, no trial transcript or movie plot comes CLOSE to the things the Japanese and Germans did, on a daily basis. THEY REALLY WERE THAT BAD.
 
Originally posted by Lucky
I was thinking Iwo Jima was the easy landing, then the hard fight the rest of the way?

IIRC, we lost 2000 marines on day one in the initial landing. Compare that to the total lost thus far in Iraq.

One day.

We have no appreciation today of the sacrifices this country made back then.
 
Aguila Blanca
Originally Posted by Harve Curry
I was driving through the Gila Indian Reservation a couple of years ago. There had just been a parade/memorial celebration. Family and veterans were there and some relations and friends Ira Hays. Anyone traveling between Phoenix and Tucson should get off the interstate and go to the cemetary near Sacaton. One of the first American soldiers killed in the recent War was a girl from this reservation. It lists the American Indians from there since WWI.
_______________________________________________________________
I thought Hayes was a Pima Indian. Their reservation is south of Tucson, and is now called the Tohono Od'am reservation. ("Pima" was a name we anglos pinned on them.)

And I thought Laurie what's-her-name, the girl killed in the early days of Iraq, was a Navajo, not a Gila. I'm almost certain I remember reading that she was from Tuba City, which is in northern Arizona near the western end of the Navajo res.
______________________________________________________________
The reservation is still called the Gila because the Gila River flows through it. Papago, Pima, Tohono O'odham, I'm not sure how they differ. There is a Memorial with American Indian's names who served on it .
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top