eastwood's flags

most people go to the movies to be entertained. some go to the movies to learn. others go to take in high art. i went to see flags of our fathers today and got all three from clint eastwood.

as far as high art goes, making movies is the art form of our age. art is communication and film has taken virtually every other art form to the next level by communicating to two of our five senses, (when it works,) in complementary concert. (when seats vibrate and subtle odors fill the theater, the evolution of film will have continued.)

movies, (especially those made in hollywood,) are collaborations but the main artist is still the director. the directors are our mozart and bach, our picasso and renoir, our rodin, or even our bukowski. while we still appreciate the art forms of yore that linger but do not touch us on so many levels, movies are omnipotent in our day.

directors include von trier, almodovar, innaritu, spielberg, aronofsky, scorcese, coppola, (coppola,) salles, altman, godard and many others, including clint eastwood.

eastwood is a man's director. he gets out of the way and let's the story go wherever it needs to go. flags of our fathers could easily have been pearl harbor, or saving private ryan if it had wanted to be,but the real story was so much more important and eastwood told it without bias.

he could have made his film into an anti-war diatribe. (god knows it would be appropriate, all things considered.) he could have painted it in black and white, as the story of these soldiers who were actually photographed planting our flag atop the volcanic tip of iwo jima were rendered in real time, as props to shed favorable light on a war that required financing. instead he layered it in revolving shades of gray.

eastwood has made a habit of finding good books and turning them into powerful movies. the story of flags of our fathers was told by a son of a navy corpsman who helped tilt that flag into positon. he wrote the book and eastwood made the movie leaving the researching son in as an integral part of the story.

the son knows the father was one of the group of men who raised that flag and toured the country in support of war bonds as real american heroes but because as the old saying goes, 'war is hell,' the father had no interest in talking much about what he saw as he scaled that volcanic mountain and fought on iwo jima. it is left to the son to research and imagine and discover. the son plays the role of tending to the process of writing history.

eastwood shows an even hand in the movie as he neither vilifies nor glorifies any particular side or ideal. he let's the events speak for themselves and for the thoughtful viewer, there is much to consider and/or weigh in on. in this way the film is educational.

flags of our fathers flies in the face of convention in so much it is not an act of the victors writing history as they would see it. instead it is simply an honest portrayal of life in those times, of war and of men.

perhaps above all eastwood's movie is entertainment. despite the fact it tells a true story, it is good old-fashioned storytelling. the narrative switches perspectives and times often, but is cohesive. the music and cinematography and editing work together for the overall effect. eastwood did not do it on his own, but as the director, the lion's share of the credit for this fine film goes to him.

this morning i read an article that expressed a measure of frustration about the lack of black americans present on screen in the movie. the events portrayed took place 60+ years ago and before civil rights legislation so african-americans want to be sure the people of the united states know they were there fighting on our behalf despite their limited citizenship and in spite of the mountain of war movies made over the years which did nothing to aid their cause but rather propagated the myth intact and in many cases, set the cause of african-americans backwards.

at lunch i told my wife about the article and that i couldn't recall seeing any black soldiers in the movie. she corrected me and said she did see some black soldiers in the background two or three times.

ultimately, i find the complainers annoying. i understand they are struggling forward and mean no harm but as a friend of the artist, i cannot see holding eastwood accountable for the omission. i don't think he is a bigot. i guess because his movies seem to have more social conscious than most, he may be held to a higher standard?