REEL CRITICS:’Flags’ flies high with masterful direction

It is supposedly Gen. William Tecumseh Sherman who said, “War is hell.” That description is particularly appropriate to the battle of Iwo Jima in World War II.

Iwo Jima is a small volcanic island with black sand beaches that lies in a direct line between the Marianas and Japan, thus giving it great strategic import. Iwo Jima was considered Japanese soil and would be defended to the death by the 22,000 soldiers stationed there.

After three days of constant bombardment by the U.S. Air Force and Navy beginning on Feb. 16, 1945, 30,000 Marines were ferried ashore. The heavy bombing had reduced Iwo Jima’s topography to a lunar landscape with an overpowering smell of sulfur from the pulverized volcanic rock.

Overlooking its beaches was 546-foot-tall Mt. Suribachi. From this vantage point, the Japanese were able to sweep the beaches with cannon and machine-gun fire, causing heavy casualties.

By Feb. 23, the Marines had captured Mt. Suribachi and planted a flag. However, the Secretary of the Navy wanted the flag as a souvenir and another, larger, flag was put in its place.

A heavy piece of broken water pipe was used as a flagpole, which required the efforts of several men. Five Marines and a Navy corpsman raised the flag as Associated Press photographer Joe Rosenthal offhandedly snapped a picture.

Rosenthal never saw the picture until it was published days later. The picture became what may be the most reproduced photograph in history. That single image signified the heroic struggle of the American fighting men at a time when the nation was growing tired of war.

While the flag-raising seemed to signify victory, the battle of Iwo Jima actually raged on for another 31 days. Eventually, only 1,083 of the 22,000 Japanese defenders survived. The battle also cost 6,820 American lives with more than 20,000 wounded. Twenty-seven Medals of Honor were awarded for conduct at Iwo Jima — more than any other single battle — and more than a quarter of those awarded during all of World War II.

Only three of the six men that raised the second flag on Mt. Suribachi survived the battle for the island. The three — corpsman Doc Bradley (Ryan Phillippe) and Marines Ira Hayes (Adam Beach) and Rene Gagnon (Jesse Bradford) — were soon recognized for their publicity value and shipped stateside, where they spearheaded a huge war-bond effort.

“Flags of Our Fathers” is based on the best-selling book of the same name written by Doc Bradley’s son, James, with Ron Powers.

At 76 years old, Clint Eastwood is at the zenith of his career. This iconic actor can now be mentioned in the same breath as John Ford, John Huston, Francis Ford Coppola and Steven Spielberg, with whom Eastwood produced this film.

If Eastwood had never stepped in front of the camera, the award-winning films he has directed — including “Unforgiven,” “Mystic River” and “Million Dollar Baby” — have assured his place in film history.

Eastwood is famous for capturing complex shots in one take. This spontaneity serves “Flags of Our Fathers” well, particularly in the battle scenes. His light touch is perfect for a story that tells itself.

Although “Flags of Our Fathers” tells a story that happened more than 60 years ago, the concept of sending young men to fight thousands of miles away is certainly timely.

As the film points out, soldiers may fight for their country on a philosophical level, but they actually fight for their buddies and to stay alive.

War is indeed hell, and while “Flags or Our Fathers” is a monumental film that will be remembered come Oscar time, it depicts it that way.

‘Marie Antoinette’

Shakespeare wrote about the rich and royal and their human misery. Sofia Coppola puts it on film.

King Louis XV is a letch. His son — the future king — is as charismatic as a gnat, and Marie Antoinette has a gambling problem. They aren’t dysfunctional — they’re absurd.

“Marie Antoinette” is based on Antonia Fraser’s biography about Marie’s life and liabilities. She’s uneducated, too young, easily influenced, and overly catered to, pampered and gullible. Most of all, she’s bored.

Married at 14, it is seven years before her marriage is consummated. To occupy herself during that time, Marie indulges in shopping sprees, all-night parties and malicious gossip. When those distractions cease to amuse her, she plays card games, redecorates and has an affair.

Coppola portrays Marie as the Paris Hilton of her generation. The queen, however, did not have any input or control over her public image like the hotel heiress or a publicity agent to counteract bad press. Marie only got negative press written by her enemies, the royals living at court. Whether their reports were exaggerated or fabricated, their sour grapes perspective forms the perspective in the film. She’s made out to be stupid, unfocused and wasteful — and proud of it.

Coppola shows Marie to be not entirely to blame. The outrageously lavish lifestyle was in full swing when Marie arrived to marry Louis the XVI.

For all her wealth and friends, Marie is not content but bored. And filling her days by spending money, partying and cavorting never fills her loneliness or alleviates the pressure of being queen.

Those pressures — to make Louis consummate the marriage, to have a male child and to stay within her monthly allowance — are problems she would rather see disappear than personally take care of.

Kirsten Dunst captures Marie’s transformation with subtle body language. From the wide-eyed but scared 14-year-old virgin to the queen on the eve of imprisonment, Dunst shows off her range and acting skills.

Marie’s malaise is easy for audiences to identify with because it cuts across time and space. Coppola has an obvious fascination with characters who feel out of place and simply go through the motions while life passes them by. It’s her third venture to flesh out and capture that feeling on film.

“Marie Antoinette” lacks the creativity of Coppola’s “Lost In Translation,” and there are directing and storytelling techniques that are associated with her dad, such as the opera scenes running throughout the story line.

There is too little to learn about Marie or Versailles in the film. Historically, it falls flat. Yet, Coppola’s creative blend of the past with the future — using ‘80s pop music, for example, to show the universality of humans regardless of time or place — makes the film worth a try.