![]() The most outstanding thing in this has to be the cinematography, which is boderline groundbreaking. Still, it all falls back to the absolutely stunning cinematography. The film is supported by good dialogue, excellent production designs, mostly good effects, good action sequences, mostly solid acting and a fine ending. Outside of that, this is a truly stunningly handsome film, but lord knows that that's not the film's only strength. Still, that's just one flaw in the cinematography. Perhaps the visual effects were unconvincing because they didn't fit into the cinematography, which is so vivid and distinctive. However, there are major points - particularly during the battle sequences - where the visual effects are offputting and actually take you out of the film. Most of the visual effects are rock solid. Of course, that's not the only faulty element in the film. The performances are otherwise excellent, - as we'll discuss later - but there are offputting moments in the acting. I also had a problem with how the performances faulted on occasion. The film suffers from some lack of development, some abrupt scene changes and inconsistent narrative usage. This is a genuinely touching, beautiful work of art, but but its flaws remain quite notable. Overall, I think there are many good elements to Flags of Our Fathers, and I learned something about WWII, but I don't think the film accomplishes all it set out to do.ĥ years ago, Clint Eastwood was 76 years old and he was still making awesome movies. Thus, I think, the film ends up reproducing the stereotypes it attempts to complicate. What is even more to the point is that Eastwood includes several scenes of intense battle sequences that display these men in the roles of traditional heroes. Even For Whom the Bell Tolls offers a similar thesis. What bothers me is that this definition of heroism isn't new, and where the film seeks to problematize heroism, it inevitably retraces ground already covered by other films. They claim that the true heroes were those who didn't survive and that they were just doing their jobs, fighting not for the country but for the man next to them. The film's thesis is that the American public thought these men were symbols of American excellence - a reason to be proud of their country - but the men were too tortured by what they saw and did to find the label fitting. On the other hand, the film attempts to problematize the concept of heroism in war. And Clint Eastwood's direction is superb, able to film battle sequences with a realism similar to Saving Private Ryan and to linger on disturbing images just long enough. On the one hand, the concentration on using these soldiers' fame for the war effort is a unique and insightful way of telling this story. The men who raised the flag over Mount Suribachi become part of the War Department's propaganda machine and are labeled heroes, much to their chagrin.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |