The American Spectator

Special Report

(Page 4 of 5)

THESE EVENTS, WHICH PLAY a central part in Bradley's book, are treated with minimal interest in Eastwood's film. What grabs Eastwood's attention is the opportunity to demonstrate to his public the hellish aspects of war. Nothing new there. The trouble with the non-controversial aspects of the movie is that the men who are its focus are not interesting people in this context. There is little or no inner human conflict that can be shown on the screen. So what you are left with is a story in which the central figures are passive victims of external forces -- the battle of Iwo Jima and a war bond drive. Pretty thin stuff when you get down to it -- in a movie that is meant to be BIG -- unless you hoke it up. Which is what Eastwood is forced to do in the second half of the movie, where the central focus becomes Ira Hayes' psychopathology during the war bond drive. Interest here is created by political stereotypes and much overacting.

But the most troublesome parts of Eastwood's film are those that distort the spirit of 1945 through a postmodern sensibility. This is done, in part, by exaggerating the meaning and importance of the 7th War Bond Drive that took place in the Spring of 1945. The movie transforms the two months during which the three surviving young flag-raisers -- John "Doc" Bradley (Ryan Phillippe); Ira Hayes (Adam Beach), a young Pima Indian; and Rene Gagnon (Jesse Bradford) -- went on tour to sell war bonds, into a vulgar, hypocritical sideshow. The representatives of the government are depicted as soulless cynics, unresponsive to the needs and feelings of the young Marines who hated the fact that they were presented as heroes. They knew that in raising the second flag they had done nothing worthy of merit, while the others, living and dead, deserved the recognition.

The bond drive is acknowledged as necessary but somehow made to seem ignoble and grubby, when, in fact, it served an extremely important economic purpose. The bond drives were undertaken during the second and first World Wars not only for the purpose of supporting the material needs of the war -- taxing the public could have achieved that. But it was even more important to prevent an inflation, during and after the war, of catastrophic proportions -- the kind that Germany suffered after the first World War. What was prevented was huge amounts of cash generated from an economy of overfull employment chasing very few available goods. The sale of the bonds took $26 billion out of the circulating economy and stored it safely in the cupboards and safe deposit boxes of millions of civilians until a later time when it could be redeemed with interest to purchase goods that were more available.

There was no sense of deception or exploitation at the time. The drives had their share of corny patriotism and tedium for those celebrities who participated in them, but there was no cynicism. Most people felt good about helping the war effort by lending money to Uncle Sam at a rate of 2.9% a year. And only a sophisticated few knew that they were saving themselves from inflation and an economic disaster in the bargain.

The movie exaggerates, too, the confusion about the identity of the low man on the right in the iconic picture. The matter was investigated and within a year the right Marine was acknowledged publicly as the correct figure in the great photo.

In Eastwood's movie this understandable confusion is transformed into a high level government conspiracy. The government is seen to be suppressing the truth in order to keep the public from finding out that a mistake was made. The powerful, soulless government lies to the public and covers up its lies, just as it does today.

BUT PERHAPS THE MOST ANACHRONISTIC aspect of the film is Eastwood's view of heroes and heroism. If he could, Eastwood would eliminate the horrors of Iwo Jima, but if we cannot eliminate war and its horrors we should eliminate heroes and heroism. And we should get rid of the celebration of heroes. Over and over this theme is repeated -- "everyone who went to Iwo was a hero"; or "the only heroes are the ones still there."

The modern, politically correct view is not only that "war is hell," but that "war is unnecessary." And if there was no hero worship war would not be encouraged. Furthermore, heroism is a form of elitism and robs people of a sense equality; no one should be morally ranked.

In 1945 there was no shame involved in getting medals and being a hero. There was also no shame in not being a hero. All that is required of any soldier is that he do his duty. All that is required of any man is that he make some contribution to the protection of his home and children.

All wars and especially all savage battles like Iwo evoke much survivor guilt and feelings that one has betrayed those who died in battle. In addition to the legitimate grief in the loss of a loved comrade, there is a sentimental reaction in those survivors who are singled out for their valor -- "I do not deserve this honor, I let my buddy down. I would gladly give up this honor in return for the life of my friend."

The fact is that there are wars, there have always been wars, there will always be wars -- small and large, between neighbors, brothers, clans, tribes, towns, cities, states, nations, religions, classes, races, in short wherever there are differences to be found between people. Those differences will, sooner or later, lead to fighting. Xenophobia and aggression seem to be hard-wired into man's nature.

The utopian notion that man can be taught to live peacefully with his fellow man inexorably drives those who are drunk with great wealth and power to believe that they can eliminate differences between men by giving everyone the same equal share.

What is hard to accept among those who value political correctness is that there are differences of degree in every living thing. In stature, intelligence, skills, in everything, even courage. They all were heroes on Iwo, those men who fought there, but some were more heroic than others. The case of the surviving flag-raisers suggests that this is so.

Neither Rene Gagnon nor Doc Bradley wanted to kill people when they joined the service. Rene joined because he wanted to be a hero, or be thought a hero by the girls, and he thought that the Marine uniform was the most heroic looking -- a girl getter. Doc Bradley specifically joined the Navy because he did not want to be on the front line as his father was in the First World War. He hoped to become a pharmacist's mate aboard ship, which was consonant with his peaceable nature and his wish to help people.

p>Bradley was surprised when he was chosen to be trained as a medical corpsman serving with the Marines. Throughout his service Bradley was admired, liked, and respected by all the men around him. He may have hated being in the battle of Iwo Jima, but his fear and hatred were set aside in the service of doing his job no matter what.

topics:
Religion, Movies, Law, Oil