The Flags Of Our Fathers Historical Accuracy

The film, The Flags of our Fathers, recreates the American perspective in the Battle of Iwo Jima. The storyline was focused on the three of the six men who raised the flag in the famous and iconic photo taken by Joe Rosenthal. To discover more about the events and if Clint Eastwood portrayed the battle in a historically accurate manner, I decided to base my research on this topic. I came to the decision to make my hypothesis, “Clint Eastwood accurately presented the experiences of the Battle of Iwo Jima.” I formed and developed questions regarding the accuracy of the film in regards to the American and Japanese perspectives of the films the director, Clint Eastwood presented. My primary questions are, “Does the film accurately represent the

experiences in the Battle of Iwo Jima”,”Why was there only the American side of the battle and was it accurately presented?” and finally, “Was the Japanese perspective in Letters from Iwo Jima accurately presented?”

“Does the film accurately represent the experiences in the Battle of Iwo Jima?” To begin with, I studied some background information on the Battle of Iwo Jima and made brief comparisons to the film, The Flags of our Fathers. I stumbled upon the information from a Wikipedia article stating that Harlon Block, a marine corps was misidentified as Hank Hansen, while realistically, John Bradley was wrongly identified as Harold Schultz. However, in real life, John, Ira, and Rene also misidentify Harlon as Hank and were told to keep it that way. (Battle of Iwo Jima, Wikipedia) Another source from Wikipedia states “Bradley's wife later said he was tormented by memories of the war, wept in his sleep for the first four years of their marriage and kept a large knife in a dresser drawer for "protection". He also had flashbacks of his best friend Iggy, Ralph Ignatowski, who was captured and tortured by Japanese soldiers.” (John Bradley, United States Navy) this statement from his wife was revealed and clearly shown in the film. In his own words, John also briefly told his son what happened with Ralph Ignatowski, “...The Japanese had pulled him underground and tortured him. His fingernails... his tongue... It was absolutely terrible. I've tried hard to forget all this.” John saw his close friend, Ralph’s, tortured remains inside a cave, the same events that happened in the film that continues to haunt him. The film did not show that the Japanese had cut his tongue, ears, had his eyes gouged out and teeth and skull smash in with several repeatedly stabbed wounds to his stomach, but his body was clearly dismembered and tortured in the film. John also earned the Navy cross as introduced in the film.

Secondly, the portrayal of Ira Hayes character and death in the movie was exceptionally accurate as in real life he was “never comfortable with his fame, and after his service in the Marine Corps, he descended into alcoholism and died of exposure to cold and alcohol poisoning after a night of drinking on January 23–24, 1955.” (Ira Hayes, Wikipedia) This is exactly what happened to Ira in the Flags of our Fathers, Ira was drowned in deep guilt and tried to avoid the fame but was urged to act as a hero in order to for patriotic Americans to buy war bonds. His death was accurate where it appeared to be caused by exposure after a night of drinking. Hayes also had drinking problems during the bond tour as showed in the film.

My second question raises the issue of why Clint Eastwood only depicted the American perspective in the film, The Flags of our Fathers and if it was presented accurately. I found out that this was because there was another film released subsequently, showing the Japanese side of the battle, titled Letters from Iwo Jima. In my opinion, this method of showing both perspectives was much clearer rather than compressing the point of views into a single film, which may be difficult to accurately present. For example, Letters from Iwo Jima was shot almost entirely in Japanese, whereas The Flags of our Father was in English. Eastwood also made the Japanese perspective more imaginable and true by filming inside the tunnel, so we can gain a point of view from the Japanese soldiers. Thus, these two films are the perfect companion films. The American perspective was accurate as Eastwood showed us what the soldiers dealt with during the war bond and after the war. Ira descending into alcoholism and avoiding fame, while John suffered flashbacks of the battle. Doc, Ira, and Rene are also sent home as part of the seventh bond tour in the film matching with what happened. According to a news article on, The Guardian and a Wikipedia source, one conflicting opinion from the director, Lee Spike argues that The Flags of our Fathers had a lack of black Marines in the film, criticizing that "there was not one black soldier in both of those films" (Spike Lee controversy, Wikipedia) While referring to historical accuracy, Clint Eastwood responds that his film was specially about the Marines who raised the flag and quoting his words he explained, “They [African-American soldiers] didn’t raise the flag. The story is Flags of Our Fathers, the famous flag-raising picture, and they didn’t do that.” The Guardian News Article may have some inaccuracies and bias due to it being in the media, however, these two sources have been established from a long time ago and have been quite reliable. The Guardian is also known as a reputable website with quality information.

While, Chuck Melson, the chief historian (someone who studies the past and writes about history) of the U.S.

Marine Corps says Eastwood's film is “historically true to events”, including “its depiction of the war-bond drive, the spectacular scenes of ships coming to Iwo Jima, and the congestion on the beach during the invasion. He said, “the film accurately represents the dangers faced by Navy medics and acknowledges that the U.S. flag was raised and photographed several times and that the image that persists today is that of the second flag-raising.” Although two flags were raised, the second flag was raised in order for it to be seen clearer, while in the film, it was replaced because the Secretary of the Navy, James Forrestal requested the flag for himself as a souvenir. This source can confirm the accuracy of Eastwood's Flags of Our Father. It is also quite reliable as it has supporting statements, evidence, and opinion from a historian with extensive knowledge of

history.

According to an interview with Clint Eastwood, he commented that “I just read a medical report on him (referring to Ralph Ignatowski) and it just said that he was obviously tormented in some way. It was quite graphic in fact and nothing I’d want to show on film. But he did disappear and everything happened the way we’ve got it. But we couldn’t show that.” This particular response can explain how he had to limit the way in which he filmed Ralph’s tragic death.

“Was the Japanese perspective in Letters from Iwo Jima accurately presented?” Private Saigo was a fictional character created by Eastwood to add more depth to the storyline, nevertheless, he was a believable character.

In the film, General Kuribayashi was shown to be a humble and strong leader as he was in real life. General Kuribayashi was believed to have died due to suicide, his body was never identified, as presented in the Japanese film. He wrote a lot of letters to his son and wife in particular, but in the film, it focused on him writing letters to his son while Saigo also wrote letters back home. This provides us with a glimpse of the fate and experiences the Japanese soldiers endured, knowing they will die on the island without seeing their loved ones. Many Japanese troops even performed ritual suicide and this was also sadly shown in Letters from Iwo Jima. Furthermore, this film also correctly demonstrated how the beach landing really happened in real life, in which they waited quietly in the underground tunnels and seized their fire until most marines landed on the beach. A blog written by an individual believed that overall the film was historically accurate and he concluded with the statement “Based on the analysis, I must say that the movie was quite successful in portraying the realities of the Battle of Iwo Jima (through the perspectives of the Japanese).” Blogs may be highly biased and opinionated, but the author comprehensively identifies the accuracies,

while breaking the film into sections for analysis bringing me to the conclusion that his review is reasonably realistic and convincing.

Omagari, a soldier who was captured after fighting on Iwo Jima for two months, provides an opposing perspective that Letter from Iwo Jima was not presented accurately. "It's bullsh*t," he says. "The real soldiers had no food or water. The actors in the movie looked too strong and pretty." He says no movie could ever do justice to his experiences. "You know, on the island, we hid among dead bodies and waited for the US soldiers to come along. ... We cut open their bellies and pulled out their guts to make it look more convincing. I lay there for hours with the flies buzzing and the smell of my dead friends. What movie could show that?" (Irish Times, 2007) Omagari proves that Clint Eastwood did not completely show the gruesome and unpleasant realities of the experience he was put through. In my opinion, I find Clint Eastwood's portrayal reasonable as creating the true events that happened could undoubtedly cause discomfort for the viewers. His opinion regarding the accuracy seems genuine and trustable as he has been through the experience he described.

Interestingly, the actor, Ken Watanabe admits that “ I was worried about the dialogue, about the accuracy on the Japanese background of the war, about everything,” But Watanabe carried out detailed research about General Tadamichi Kuribayashi, the Japanese leader he’d was acting as. He also read the general’s wartime letters, visited his hometown in Japan, and placed water on his memorial on Iwo Jima, a traditional Japanese sign of respect. (Tucson Citizen, 2007) These considering actions make the film more accurate as he made an effort to fully understand the character he is going to demonstrate and this undoubtedly increases the accuracy of the representation of his character.

In conclusion, my research proves to me that Clint Eastwood presented the perspective and experience from both sides with a few inaccuracies but they were understandable and minor. The inaccuracies that were present are minor and do not have an effect on the general message Eastwood strives to show, especially the idea of propaganda and the impact war has on war survivors. I believe these particular changes were made to make the film more suitable for the viewers, though the majority of the two films were a true representation of the events that happened in the battle. Some inaccuracies such as the reason for a flag replacement differ in order for the film to be more original and not just an exact copy of the battle. Overall, my hypothesis of whether Clint Eastwood accurately presented the experiences of the Battle of Iwo Jima is appropriate and correct.