Well, Hollywood is at it again. Literally, they cannot control themselves. They, seemingly, are bent on desecrating every thing that Americans hold hallowed from apple pie to Jesus Christ. The latest hatchet job is on the heroic struggle to conquer Iwo Jima and plant the American flag on Mt. Suribachi. The photograph taken from atop Mt. Suribachi is not important because of the individual men or even the emotive power of the famous picture. The fact is you cannot see the faces of the men in the photograph so they have an anonymous quality, which is very important. The reason the photograph was so significant to the American public is because it showed an American flag being raised for the first time on Japanese soil. It signaled the possibility of victory in the titanic and brutal battle of the South Pacific. Additionally, the anonymity of the men from Easy Company made it possible to keep the focus on the sacrifice of all the Marines and soldiers that fought at Iwo Jima.
However, the mass media, exemplified by the N.Y. Times, is virtually falling over itself handing out accolades to Clint Eastwood and Paul Haggis for the film depiction of James Bradley’s book “Flags of Our Fathers.” The Times noted:
“Above all it [Flags of Our Fathers] is a study of the callous ways in which heroes are created for public consumption, used and discarded, all with the news media’s willing cooperation. And it is imbued with enough of a critique of American politicians and military brass to invite suspicions that Hollywood is appropriating the iconography of World War II to score contemporary political points.”
If you are not aware, the screenwriter, Haggis, willingly admits that his work was intended to be a critique of the war in Iraq and has announced a new project about an Iraq soldier who goes AWOL and gets murdered. Haggis is also on the board of the hard-Left group, Office of the Americas, along with such people as: Ed Asner, Martin Sheen, Noam Chomsky, Jackie Goldberg and Howard Zinn. I believe it is helpful to be aware of this before you see the movie.
Normally, I wouldn’t bother with posting about a movie like this; however, I am taking this at a more personal level than usual because of the memories of both my father and my father-in-law. My dad served in the U.S. during WWII as a part of a fire rescue team stationed at the air base in Reno, Nevada. He and my uncle risked their lives to save airmen flying fighters and bombers in and out of their busy base. However, my father-in-law served in some of the toughest battles in the South Pacific and lived his life with impaired hearing from artillery barrages and a jungle disease that forever affected his fingers and toenails. Both my dad and father-in-law were patriots to the last. They loved America, and, by the way, they knew what they were fighting for in WWII. Frankly, I am sick of hearing movies espouse the idea that WWII veterans only fought for their “buddies.” My father-in-law hated that idea and believed it was disrespectful and dishonoring to the men he served with and those that died next to him. He always maintained that he and all the guys around him served in the armed forces because they were fighting to save America from Fascism.
However, Hollywood and the left cannot control their desire to rewrite history and throw a dark cloud of cynicism over every heroic and honorable thing held dear by Americans. The purpose of the movie “Flags of Our Fathers” is clearly noted above by the N.Y. Times. Allow me to repeat: “Above all it [Flags of Our Fathers] is a study of the callous ways in which heroes are created for public consumption, used and discarded, all with the news media’s willing cooperation.”
Now let me show you just a few ways that Eastwood and Haggis have changed actual history in order to callously create a distorted and untrue picture of what happened on top of Mt. Suribachi:
1. Yes, there were two flags planted on the peak of Suribachi. The first one was also photographed. When planted it caused a wave of positive excitement from the men on Iwo Jima. However, it was only 54 x 28 inches and so it was decided to put a second and larger (eight foot long) flag up so all the men could see it. The first flag was not taken down and a second put up because some cynical Marine brass could have the first flag as his trophy. The movie portrays the planting of the second flag as a mocking act of military greed.
2. Both flag ceremonies were photographed; however, the first flag ceremony showed the faces of the Marines and was less dramatic, lacking the struggle to erect the flag—the second pole weighed over 100 lbs. The fact that the second picture made the soldiers more anonymous played a role in its selection as a defining image of Iwo Jima. The movie presents the whole process of selecting the second image as a purely contemptuous endeavor.
3. The second flag ceremony took place several hours later and was a deliberate act to improve the visibility of the American flag over Japanese soil to encourage Marines still heavily engaged in brutal combat. The movie presents the second ceremony as an immediate off-the-cuff and arbitrary action by insensitive Marine brass. In the movie, the average Leatherneck on Suribachi has no idea why the second flag has to be raised immediately after the first. This is pure nonsense to invent the impression that (again, as the N.Y. Times stated) our military callously creates our heroes “for public consumption.”
I could go on point-by-point to prove that the movie “Flags of Our Fathers” is pure cynical propaganda intended to dispirit the American public and desecrate the symbols of our national identity. Instead I recommend that you explore these two websites. The first has interesting information about Iwo Jima including a live broadcast from the actual Marine landing which you can listen to. The website is called Eyewitness to History: http://www.eyewitnesstohistory.com/iwoflag.htm . The second website has an interview with the actual person portrayed in the book and movie, James Bradley: http://www.history.navy.mil/faqs/faq87-3l.htm. I would plead with you to not allow an immoral entertainment industry cause you to think that the selfless and courageous actions of our greatest generation were simply cynical manifestations of greed and callous politics. Greed, cynicism, and callousness can be found in Hollywood. God bless America.
|
It sounds like Clint has jumped on the tired liberal bandwagon that heroism is a farce and a con. The shame is that we need heroes.
I wonder what happened to Clint. The last movie he did extolled the virtues of assisted suicide. This one is intended to extend the "Vietnam effect." His current movies seem to be very far removed from his "Dirty Harry" movies.
Oh, well.
Movies like Flags of our Fathers make it seem like we had a choice about the war, and the one we made was bad. That's what I object to. This movie should not have been made because it has nothing good to say about the sacrifices made in WW II. It's a miserable movie and does no honor to the men and women who served and serve this nation, nor honors the costs paid by so many families, nor celebrates the freedom that was preserved…Eastwood is seventy-six. What is the matter with these privileged people that they can never make a movie that ever says, thank you to America, to God, to life?
Butterworth asks a very important theological question. What, indeed, is wrong with these “privileged people” that they can never thank God or America for all the blessings that they so lavishly consume? Specifically, it is my belief that they identify with secularist European intractable and decadent criticism of the United States. However, at a deeper level, I think Paul’s words in Romans 1:21 identify the real reason: 21 For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. This wonton disregard of God manifest in ungratefulness causes moral blindness. I would add the thought that this ungratefulness often shows itself in disrespect for one’s parents or “elders.”
2 Tim 3:1 But mark this: There will be terrible times in the last days. 2 People will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boastful, proud, abusive, disobedient to their parents, ungrateful, unholy, 3 without love, unforgiving, slanderous, without self-control, brutal, not lovers of the good,
Years ago - people began to say that we shouldn't "shame" our kids if they did something wrong because it would take away their self-esteem. We even removed God from the picture because He shamed people also. Society, authority figures and “people in the know” stopped shaming, spanking and flunking our kids so that self-esteem would begin to rise. It falsely did and it rose and rose and rose. In fact we became a nation of arrogant "Self-promoting" people. So wrapped up in ourselves that if anyone did or does anything we don't like or hurts our self-esteem we will even kill or vindictively hurt them. It leads me and others to believe that what needs to be reintroduced into society are the old "Godly Shames”.
As far as heroes they must eliminated them. Why, because we have forgotten what it takes to be a true hero. The work it takes, the hardships to be something above the rest, not just have something given to us by someone. We live with instant gratification not hard work of the flesh. The falsehoods we live under can't produce real heroes anymore. Today’s heroes are overpaid “sports or Hollywood figures” – Sadly, society has to tear down the old ones to continue the fantasies of the weak and well promoted.
BTW, last Thanksgiving June and I were in Washington, DC and saw the sights and sounds. One of the things we did was a night tour of the monuments. When you take the tour they take you past the Iwa Jima monumnet. The monument was designed in such a way that when you drive by in a bus (you don't get the same effect from a car) it creates an optical illusion that makes you think that the flag is actually moving upwards! It is very well done! It is worth the trip.
Ron
Further, as I am now viewing snippets of regular tv, I am shocked at the graphic violence as now depicted on commercials for video games. It seems we are being bathed in a culture of violence.
The Church is and must be against war. The church itself cannot wage war unless and until the Lord shall issue the new commands. It cannot regard war as a righteous means of settling international disputes; these should and could be settled nations agreeing by peaceful negotiation and adjustment. But then we need a negotiating body that works to bring more speedy decisions of major players.
Where I do have a difference is in your assertion here:
“The Church is and must be against war. The church itself cannot wage war unless and until the Lord shall issue the new commands. It cannot regard war as a righteous means of settling international disputes; these should and could be settled nations agreeing by peaceful negotiation and adjustment. But then we need a negotiating body that works to bring more speedy decisions of major players.”
●Certainly there are many throughout church history who have held the position that Christians must oppose war on the face of it. I personally do not think such a position is scripturally warranted. My take on the issue is that the Bible teaches a personal ethic for Christians of love for our enemies but also teaches that God delegates the responsibility to government to provide public safety for the commonweal from the unjust actions of wrong-doers. Consequently, the police and military serve in this capacity. Clearly, diplomacy and negotiations should always be the first order of business; however, if these breakdown, the government has a moral obligation to protect and defend the commonweal. This responsibility cannot be abrogated. God, for instance, delegates to parents the responsibility of bringing their children up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord and to provide proper discipline to their children. They cannot abrogate this responsibility and say, “Let God tell me what to do if He wants it done.” No, God has already delegated the responsibility and asks of parents that they become informed, just and responsible leaders in their homes.
●In regard to a “negotiating body that works to bring more speedy decisions of major players:” that negotiating body would have to have the military might to enforce the negotiated agreements. For example, if the U.S. and China negotiated a settlement to the arms race with a negotiating body, and if China reneged on the agreement after the U.S. disarmed, who would enforce the settlement? Obviously, it would have to be the negotiating power (i.e. U.N. or whatever). Can you really imagine China, North Korea or Iran abiding by agreements negotiated by a so-called “negotiating power?” How great would that negotiating power have to be to force China, Iran or North Korea to abide by their agreements? Please name one power in the world that could cause China, Iran or North Korea to live by their agreements.
Off topic for this post, but on my blog I've posted a copy of an exchange off of Philosophy Forum that spins off the theodicy we discussed concerning the will of God. The original poster was attempting to argue that the countless suffering of animals as part of the evolutionary process disproved the existence of an omnibenevolent God.
Foolish atheist; We Thomists, of course, know that suffering of animals in evolution, or nature generally, is ordered to a good which is inferior to that of the natural order or to evolution, through which, arguably, a rational being in the image of God was produced.
Where is the emoticon for "Throw back head and laugh with triumphantly"?
Here's the link.
I think that qualifies under the "Theology for Dummies" category.
ron
I would remind you that ethical principles are born of doctrinal concepts which are the controls (government) of our lives. It is my view that In the best government, laws should be equally born of true Christian doctrine. Can you imagine any other doctrine from which they should be derived?
Never mind that at present this is unworkable in its most pure sense and that it is vitally important that in our present form of government, there are some vital ways that church and state must remain separate. But we know too well, our BEST laws are formed consciously that uphold Christian ideals.
“Above all it [Flags of Our Fathers] is a study of the callous ways in which heroes are created for public consumption, used and discarded, all with the news media’s willing cooperation. And it is imbued with enough of a critique of American politicians and military brass to invite suspicions that Hollywood is appropriating the iconography of World War II to score contemporary political points.”
I read this last sentence as a critique of the movie. The reviewer is charging that the movie itself is suspect because it is 'appropriating the iconography of WW II to score contemporary political points.'
What do you think?
ron
Stealth: I, again, find myself in nearly unanimous agreement with you. What’s happening here? Okay, there was one thing—not really a deep disagreement, just a qualification. You wrote:
I would remind you that ethical principles are born of doctrinal concepts which are the controls (government) of our lives. It is my view that In the best government, laws should be equally born of true Christian doctrine. Can you imagine any other doctrine from which they should be derived?
While I do believe governments are to develop their laws based upon the revealed will of God, some governments and peoples have—quite literally—not heard either the Old or New Testament teachings. Here is where the natural law comes in. God still holds men and governments responsible to discern His just requirements for mankind from the principles of the natural law which are discerned from nature and our consciences.
ron
If you read the book Blackhawk Down you may be aware that Sgt. First Class Randall Shughart and Master Sgt. Gary Gordon were awarded the Medal of Honor posthumously for their actions in Mogadishu in 1993. They willingly dropped into a “hot zone” to defend a downed Blackhawk helicopter against hundreds of attacking Somali militiamen. However, if you have not read the book, you may not know of them at all.
The question to consider is why is there seemingly a blackout of information about the heroic actions of our men and women in uniform? During WWII and Korea the American public heard live (or nearly live) broadcasts of major battles. They heard of the horrendous casualties, difficulties and suffering. However, they also heard about the heroic activities of our troops and, also, their victories. Consequently, the American public was able to view the specter of war with a sense of context in regard to the loss of their loved ones. On the other hand, can you imagine what would happen if the public was only allowed to read, see and hear about the losses, the deaths and the defeats? Hmm…I wonder what would happen?
(By the way, there is a way to get national news on an issue if you want to - you can go to Yahoo.com and sign up for news alerts on the topic of your choice - mine is hazardous materials - so I get a daily run down on spills, court dealings, etc on the issue. I am involved in that issue because we have two train tanker car loads (totalling 180 tons) of chlorine about 1 mile from our house every day - and I am worried about national security and someone deciding to do something evil with them or the train companies and the regulatory agencies do nothing about the safety concerns we all have.)
I took this patriotic resolve past a magnetic "support our soldiers" ad on the back of my car, and I'm involved with an internet group called Books for Soldiers ( http://www.booksforsoldiers.com ). In fact the drama team at my church recently took this on as their missions project for the year. This organization started out via a soldier who served in the first Gulf War, a veracious reader. He came back and started this organization to deliver books to serving soldiers. Everyday citizens such as you and I can see the needs of soldiers in Afghanistan and Iraq, and fullfil those needs. Needs vary from hygienic products to snacks to CDs and DVDs to items to keep them warm as the cold months approach. Letters of encouragement, pictures from home, simple things are also appreciated.
I am sickened how our soldiers were treated coming home from Viet Nam. I'll be damned if our soldiers in Afghanistan and Iraq will be treated the same way.
And now our soldiers from WWII are getting the shaft as well? When will the media and idiots making movies get a life, and leave our vets and our soldiers alone??????? Sheesh. Don't our soldiers have enough to deal with?