Just as the academic film was destined not to be a global hit like the blockbuster "Saving Private Ryan," the Battle of Iwo Jima wasn't as well known as the D-Day, but it was no less tragic.
When the US military climbed the first mountain on Iwo Jima, they raised a national flag. Because an official wanted to keep that national flag, another group of soldiers raised the national flag for the second time. The difference is this. The second flag-raising was permanently fixed on film.
So the second wave of flag-bearers became American heroes, chicken soup for the souls of those who had begun to doubt and tire of this war (World War II). They were able to return to China early, they attracted much attention, and they wanted to raise military funds for the next war, but their hearts were struggling with contradictions... It is
not so much that war creates heroes, it is more that war needs heroes too much . It needs heroes to inspire people, heroes to set the example that officials need, heroes to raise money for the military, and heroes to shine to keep the war going.
But who is the real hero? How do people who survived the war explain the halo of heroes on their heads when facing their dead comrades?
I really like the last sentence of the movie, "Heroes are only what we create and what we need." The soldiers who were hailed as heroes in the movie lived a not wonderful life after the war, and some people were even downcast Down and out, Of Course, when "we" don't need heroes, such as in times of peace, why do "we" give flowers and applause to "heroes"?
I am reminded of Xu Liang, the "hero" in my country's 1980S self-defense counter-attack station. After the flowers and applause, there were a lot of rumors about him being a pseudo-hero, such as he was actually a deserter, his injuries were shot by himself, etc. Last year, I also saw an interview with him in "A Date with Luyu". Like the "hero" in this film, his post-heroic era was not satisfactory.
Clint Eastwood expresses his doubts about heroism in a very academic way, which also makes the real point of the movie not to explode, not to star, not to planes and warships, but to deeper themes, of course This does not prevent Oscar-winning Clint Eastwood from deepening the theme while also perfectly recreating the details of the war.
The film spreads the plot with two lines of memory and narration, and cross-shows the trauma of the war to the "heroes". Not a single second of the 150-minute film will make people feel bored, but will only fall into contemplation at the end of the film and will have to say desire for something.
Many critics gave the film high marks, but almost all of them concluded that the film would not win the main Oscars. It's true that this very academic film is about a subject that the academics don't like, but I think for Clint Eastwood, 76, to express himself freely is actually more than that Zun and the row of golden statuettes on the cupboard in his house are much more important.
This is the best war movie I've seen since I saw Black Hawk Down 5 years ago, they're not as mainstream as Pearl Harbor or Saving Private Ryan, but they're perhaps the most real wars of.
View more about Flags of Our Fathers reviews
