The reason for adding the word "true" is that in general anti-hero war movies, the stalwart image of the hero is weakened by increasing the character characteristics of the hero, but this method makes the characters closer to ordinary people, and the sense of intimacy also varies. It's like no one in "Assembly" hates the protagonist because of his reckless and rude behavior. However, this film not only increases the characteristics of this aspect, but also makes the whole heroic deeds meaningless. The hero has not only become an ordinary person, but many behaviors have even become despicable.
There are almost three clues in the movie, one is the ongoing Iwo Jima landing, one is what the three survivors did when they returned to the United States, and the other is about the protagonist "Doctor" after the war. The son of his son searches for the story of his father and the later life of the survivor. Each of the three clues is broken, like the "facts of war" we have seen. For the sake of a bigger goal, people are always trying to cover up some things. Most people can see only a few fragments, justice, greatness, victory, glory...
In fact, it has been shown from the beginning of the movie, these warriors are just ordinary people. The young people did not deliberately show their greatness, and the process of the war was not particularly exciting or bloody. From their memories, they often saw their hostile scenes, just as the "chief" said, they fought on the battlefield. Just keep dodging bullets. Even the longest part of the war scene, when the landing was first started, the real war part was hardly more than ten minutes, and even if there were many bloody scenes, they were all still corpses. This is less about doubting heroes than about the meaning of war. The biggest issue discussed in the film is the photo. The three protagonists who came back to give speeches, although they were all involved in this incident, did not raise the flag in a war-torn battlefield, or even for the first time. stand up. The whole film is almost all about the birth and piercing of this lie.
If it were just these films, it could be said to be an anti-war film, but the film did not really express its attitude towards this war until the end. Of course, in fact, this war is a war of justice over evil that has been affirmed by history. It also makes the overall attitude of the film ambiguous. The negative typical of this is Saving Private Ryan, which also describes World War II. Although the film keeps doubting the meaning of the war, but Tom Hanks' final encouragement, the meaning of the film has been confirmed. That movie was bloodier, but also more lovable.
Director Eastwood, producer Spielberg, the film was effectively a miss for two such illustrious names. It's just that the production in all aspects has been regarded as a benchmark in Hollywood. The whole film has no flaws in the viewing effect. No amount of rewards are only rewards for the team, but not an affirmation of the meaning of the film itself.
View more about Flags of Our Fathers reviews
