American Gangster Revisted: $46 Million and a Whole Lot of Approval

A few weeks ago, I proposed, prior to its release, that American Gangster would deliver as one of the best films of 2007 and a serious contender for the Best Picture Oscar at the March 2008 Academy Awards, based on a number of factors centering around the skill and reputation of director Ridley Scott, leading actors Denzel Washington and Russell Crowe, a supporting cast led by Cuba Gooding Jr., and writer Steven Zaillian. Following its November 2nd release, the critics’ reviews, Box Office results, and my own opinion all support the legitimacy of the film as one of the best of 2007. Determining the greatness of a given film, however, requires a sampling of public opinion, and while (as reflected by my last post, in Hollywood, profit is the bottom line) Box Office results for ticket sales ($46 million for opening weekend) indirectly reflect general success and public approval of American Gangster, examining blog reviews of the film provides a more personal and, perhaps, accurate sampling of the public response to it. Among these, the LIBERTAS and (RPGnet) [Matt’s Review] reviews of the film present interesting and very different perspectives from which they critique the new Universal Pictures masterpiece, yet their final assessment of the film’s quality was the same. The LIBERTAS entry, however, presents what I consider the more effective of the two arguments, based on clearly articulated elements of the film, while [Matt’s Review] tends to rely too much on a lengthy synopsis that contributes little to his argument.

LIBERTAS Review: American Gangster

This post is outstanding. Your critique of American Gangster is excellent, providing well-written and organized support for an absolutely sensational film. You present a fluid and evidence-based argument that flows so smoothly for the reader and makes such an effective statement that even the most ardent of the film’s detractors would have a hard time refuting the basis for your four-star rating.

In critiquing the film, you address many of the virtues while still anticipating a number of criticisms and countering them with well-stated responses. I particularly enjoyed reading your brief synopsis of the film and articulation of how the film balances the star appeal of its two lead actors, Washington and Crowe. Your synopsis was succinct and devoid of superfluous information and detail, and your analysis of how the two actors remain in character throughout the entirety of American Gangster sheds light on what might otherwise be an overlooked quality of the film, illuminating a key element of its greatness and reflecting the outstanding work of not only Washington and Crowe, but also Scott and Zaillian.

In addition, you further the effectiveness of your argument by pointing out and addressing underlying themes that director Ridley Scott embraces in his film, including the lyrics of “Across 110th Street” and thematic elements reflecting those in other films including Serpico, The French Connection, and The Godfather. American Gangster’s relationship to each respective film becomes clear through your articulation of the nature of the parallels, and through the resulting association, Scott’s film falls into elite company.

[Matt’s Review] American Gangster

Thank you for your post. In enjoyed reading it, and as a fan of both Ridley Scott and American Gangster, completely affirm your position that the film is a masterpiece and a must see for any moviegoer. I especially appreciated the way you both opened and closed your post, with punch-line comments regarding the unquestionable skill level of Scott as a director. I felt that this added some entertaining flair for the reader that considerably contributed to the overall effectiveness of the entry.

In addition, I liked how you made and supported your claim that Scott, instead of making the film distant to the viewer by simply making it set in the 70’s, effectively brings the decade to life, essentially immersing the audience in a past world that seems so real and modern for the duration of Gangster. I thought that establishing a relationship of superiority to another recent film of high acclaim set in the 1970’s (Steven Spielberg’s Munich received 5 Academy Award Nominations) to show Gangster’s incredible visual design was a very effective way to illustrate Scott’s mastery.

There were, however, a few elements of your post which I felt detracted from its overall effectiveness. Perhaps the most glaring of these was the synopsis, which I felt to be superfluous in nature and somewhat ironic as the main body of your post, considering your immediately preceding advice that the reader refrain from “Googling” Frank Lucas’ story (presumably because it would give the movie away). While your synopsis does not give away the final twist of the film, it gets slightly monotonous at times, and reveals a bit too much of the plot progression to a potential viewer, essentially stealing some of the film’s thunder. I feel that your post would be far more effective if the synopsis were shortened to some establishing notes on the main characters and early plot points that would encourage the reader’s curiosity and desire to see the film, as opposed to giving away almost everything with the exception of the ending.

Why Producers Make Sequels: The Saw Phenomenon

In most arenas of life, money talks, and the movie business is no exception. Seeing how financially profitable story lines are rarely a sure thing, even among the best of the ever-prolific assortment of unread screenplays entombed in the desks of executives, one could understand producers’ eagerness to milk the teat of a particularly successful film through the production of a considerably less entertaining series of sequels, even to the point of beating a good idea to death (see The Land Before Time). Whether or not the creators of Saw have already reached that point must remain a decision of the viewing public, but if financial figures are any indication of public opinion, it would appear that we have not seen the last of the series. With the release of the box office totals for the past week, it is plainly clear that the Saw concept, which I considered washed up and overdone with the series’ third installment, will persist as long as blood-lusting viewers continue to pay as lucratively as they did this weekend. Saw IV, released this past Friday, completely obliterated the competition, garnering an astonishing (estimated) 32.4 million dollars, according to the Movie City News, through the course of its opening weekend. Its nearest competitors: Dan in Real Life at 12 million and 30 Days of Night at 6.6 million.

Regardless of one’s opinion of the original “Jigsaw” idea of a serial killer who (as the first film so explicitly notes) fails to fit the traditional classification of murderer because he does not personally kill his victims, the popularity of the concept speaks for itself, and increasing production budgets allotted to each successive film (at 1 million, 4 million, and 10 million dollars, respectively) reflect that popularity amongst moviegoers. Many critics, however, share my distaste for the series and are not as supportive of the cinematically unexceptional films as the public. In her review, Jeanette Catsoulis of the New York Times opens with the criticism that "the Saw franchise took a novel, if distasteful, idea and basically tortured it to death." Although the novel concept presented by the first Saw did achieve unexpected levels of success, the decision to develop the story into a series has severely damaged its image in the eyes of many critics. As Catsoulis asserts, "while the clever, low budget execution of the original's Darwinian premise-kill or be killed-commands a queasy respect, its creators, James Wan and Leigh Whannel, should have rejoiced in their unexpected success and moved on."

Many critics have elaborated on Catsoulis’ general criticism of the Saw movies and described Saw IV as setting a new low, even for horror remakes and Lionsgate’s gruesome series, attacking a varying yet prolific number of weaknesses in the film. Nick Schlager of Slant Magazine critiques the lack of originality in the fourth Saw installment, calling the film "an excessively convoluted rehash of its predecessors," all of which failed to offer much to begin with. Saw II has grossed the most box office profit to this point, but the first sequel’s financial success is more a tribute to the public’s approval of its predecessor. In reading critics’ opinions, it appears that Saw IV continues the trend of increased “shock value.” Peter Sobcynski of EFILMCRITIC.com goes goes so far as to describe the time spent viewing Saw IV as "two of the more degrading and debasing hours of big-screen 'entertainment' that you are likely to endure in this lifetime." Nathan Rabin of the Onion AV Club echoes Sobcynski’s criticism, while also acknowledging the potential financial success of the film, dubbing it "a commercially savvy though ultimately empty combination of warped morality tale, mystery, gore-fest, and torture porn."

Without disrespecting the opinions of Catsoulis, Schlager, Sobcynski, Rabin, and others (including myself), it is important to note that the Saw movies were not created to impress critics; they were made to make money, and from a purely financial standpoint, the series has been a resounding success, which will continue as such until moviegoers’ visual bloodlust is satiated. Ultimately, the viewing public is responsible for what topics, stories, and visual images reach and repeatedly appear on the big screen through the money they spend on said cinematic endeavors, and as long as that public continues to endorse films that reflect the more sadistic nature of our collective psyche, producers will continue to make sequels and the like. From a producer’s standpoint, it makes no sense to fix what is not broken. Therefore, until it is financially necessary, what need is there for change and originality? None, because money talks.

This is Sparta: A Historical Analysis of Zack Snyder's Thermopylae

By the time of its release in March 2007, Zack Snyder’s epic retelling of the Spartan stand at Thermopylae had generated considerable excitement among movie-goers due, at least in part, to an extremely effective advertising campaign targeting the same younger male audience that made films like Gladiator and Troy into huge box office triumphs. Although its Box Office performance was an undisputed achievement, the film’s long term success, and subsequently whether or not it warrants association with its popular predecessors, has yet to be determined. Cinematic accomplishments and shortcomings aside, historical accuracy in 300 remains a pertinent concern when evaluating the overall effectiveness of the film. Historical accuracy (or lack thereof) translates into credibility (again, or lack thereof) with knowledgeable and more ignorant audiences alike (a fact at times forgotten by filmmakers), and provides a basis for discerning the sometimes fine line between cinematic portrayals of reality and fantasy. This credibility and distinction between reality and fantasy can elevate a historically based film from the cinematic status of temporary fad to legendary masterpiece.

In evaluating the historical accuracy of 300, one must examine the various aspects of Spartan life presented in the film in addition to its rendition of the Thermopylae battle, beginning with the film’s portrayal of a male Spartan’s youth. According to the History Channel, babies who were considered weak were disposed of at birth, as portrayed in Snyder’s film, and much of the youth of both men and women was spent preparing them to contribute to the mighty Spartan war machine. The History Channel notes, "Spartan boys lived a quasi-military life exclusively designed to prepare them for adulthood as a warrior. Girls were drilled in physical fitness, to make them better equipped to bear healthy Spartans." While this fact does establish some credibility for the film’s opening sequences, its portrayal of Spartan youth goes a bit overboard. In the vast majority of cases, it is unlikely that the development of a Spartan youth was as dramatic or grotesquely violent as that of the 300’s Leonidas.

In addition, the film has rather significant flaws pertaining to Sparta’s governmental system as presented by the History Channel. 300 presents Leonidas as sole king, sharing joint-rule with a powerful senate in a constitutional monarchy of sorts. Sparta, in reality, was governed by two kings who “dominated” a small, twenty-eight member senate of nobles. The triumvirate governed a sharply divided society of Spartan soldier-citizens and serfs, imported from the nearby vassal state of Messenia. This government sharply contrasts with the democratic system in Snyder’s film, in which the senate, comprised of career politicians, appears to have more control over the affairs of state than Leonidas. As a result of this rather substantial inconsistency, much of the film’s concept of fighting for a democratic idea of “freedom” is misinterpreted. Although Spartan warriors, like soldiers of democratic states, understood and embraced the necessity of sacrifice for the greater good, they did not do so to preserve a utopian Spartan democracy in which all citizens, women included, were equal, as portrayed in Snyder’s film. They couldn’t–it did not exist.

Without going into a detailed discussion of 300’s portrayal of the events a Thermopylae, a few key points warrant examination of accuracy for their significance to both history and the movie, respectively. One such point that has affected reviews of the film considerably is its inhuman portrayal of the Persians throughout. As early as the 300’s second sequence (with the dramatic arrival of the grotesquely pierced and crowned-skull bearing emissary), the audience is led to perceive the Persians as a ruthless, domineering, and almost satanic force. The devilish portrayal of the Persians persists throughout the film, with its depictions of the sexually ambiguous “God-King” Xerxes, ghostly “Immortals,” and hellish supplementary forces, including oversized elephants and an overgrown humanoid creature who accompanies the “Immortals” (critic Mike Ward refers to the extras as “a few bloated Dungeons & Dragons-esque heathens”). In addition, 300’s depiction of Xerxes’ court, complete with sexual activity of a lesbian nature and additional members of the “God King’s” freakish entourage, further casts the Persians in an unrealistically abominable light that makes it difficult to take the film seriously.

Snyder’s film is also a bit unrealistic in their portrayal of the Spartans. The History Channel states that typical Spartan military apparel included a bronze breastplate and bronze leggings, neither of which was present in the film, in addition to the horsehair-lined helmet 300’s that the Spartans sport. As for the red cape and black Speedo-looking garment, those appear to be additions of Snyder’s to the Spartan military uniform. In addition, rather than comprising the bulk of a fighting force supplemented by a ragged collection of additional Greeks as depicted in Snyder’s 300, the actual Spartans formed the vanguard of a much larger Greek force of roughly 7,000. While the confederated Greek force was still exceedingly outnumbered by the Persian army of 200,000, 7300 Greek warriors is considerably more than the roughly six hundred depicted by Snyder.

In examining this collection of characteristics that define Snyder’s 300, a critical audience must inevitable come to the conclusion that the film is far more fantasy than reality, to a large extent failing to present an accurate representation of the actual Spartans, Persians, and events at Thermopylae. Perhaps fantasy was Snyder’s intention, a medium through which to convey a message, given the scathing accusations of some critics, reaming the film for its alleged political undertones. But the debate over a political message aside, 300 must be considered something of a disappointment on the grounds of its failure to maintain a level of credibility based on adherence to historical fact. In failing to accurately convey the spectacular nature of the true warriors and events at Thermopylae, 300 condemns itself to status as a temporary cinematic fad, which, like other fads, will be forgotten with time.

American Gangster: 3 Reasons Why It's A 2007 Best Picture Nominee

To a large extent, 2007 has been a year of unmet expectations in cinema, as one anticipated release after another has fizzled into box-office disappointment. Thankfully, however, critics and movie-goers alike can look ahead to an anticipated film which will not disappoint upon release; a cinematic savior whose November 2nd arrival spells redemption for Hollywood’s collective 2007 releases. Universal Pictures’ American Gangster will not only live up to expectations, but in a year of sub-par cinema, the film’s excellence will place it near the top, if not the valedictorian of the class of 2007 come March’s Academy Awards. Three primary factors guarantee the presence of American Gangster among 2007’s elite come March: a provocative storyline written by one of the most successful screenwriters in cinema (Steven Zaillian), the quality of the film’s two lead actors (Academy Award winners Denzel Washington and Russell Crowe), and the film’s status as the artistic vision of the most dynamic and effective directors of the last three decades (Ridley Scott).

American Gangster possesses an intriguing storyline whose provocative nature appears to be unrivaled in films released earlier this year. The storyline is loaded with explosive subject matter, including the concepts of casualties in the Vietnam War, indirect disrespect of deceased military personnel, the heroine trade in the United States, and racial tensions within crime, all of which will provoke response and interest among the American movie-viewing public. In addition, movie-goers can be assured of the effective and well-written script of the movie simply by examining the previous work of its author, Steven Zaillian. Given the quality of Zaillian’s previous films, critics and filmgoer’s have little reason to expect anything less than the best in American Gangster. In addition to his upcoming film, Zaillian has written a number of noteworthy screenplays, including All The King’s Men (2006), The Interpreter (2005), Gangs of New York (2002), Hannibal (2001), A Civil Action (1998), Mission: Impossible (1996), Clear and Present Danger (1994), Schindler’s List (1993), and Searching for Bobby Fischer (1993), among others.

The quality of the actors drawn to roles in American Gangster tells future viewers two additional things about the upcoming film: first, that they can bank on the superb, Oscar-worthy quality of the acting, and second, in support of the previous paragraph, that the storyline is provocative, effective, and appealing. The presence of Denzel Washington and Russell Crowe, two of the most talented and effective actors of the modern era in film, together as co-stars in American Gangster promises to provide an elite performance, the level of which can be anticipated by examining their previous performances. Both actors have previously contributed to the success of a dream list of movies, and both have an impressive resume of both project and personal awards to show for it. Washington’s list consists of an astounding 46 films, including two Academy Award winning performances in Glory (1990 - Best Actor in a Supporting Role) and Training Day (2002 – Best Actor in a Leading Role). Washington has also received Academy Award nominations for Cry Freedom (1987 – Best Actor in a Supporting Role), Malcolm X (1992 – Best Actor in a Leading Role), and The Hurricane (1999 – Best Actor in a Leading Role). Crowe’s resume is no less impressive, with lead roles in award-winning movies including L.A. Confidential (1997), The Insider (1999), A Beautiful Mind (2001), and Cinderella Man (2005), and Gladiator (2000). For his Academy Award winning “Best Actor in a Leading Role” performance in Gladiator, critics could not seem to praise Crowe enough, with Newsweek proclaiming his character “a genuine larger-than-life hero” and Jonathan Forman of the New York Post stating “Russell Crowe is simply magnificent!”

If the two lead actors alone didn’t provide enough reason to have faith in the pending quality of American Gangster, the supporting cast should be, led by Academy Award winner Cuba Gooding Jr. Gooding Jr. has been superb in both lead and supporting roles in a number of films, including his performances in Jerry Maguire (1996 – Best Actor in a Supporting Role), A Few Good Men (1992), Men of Honor (2000), Pearl Harbor (2001), and Radio (2003), and will only serve to further complement the performances of Washington and Crowe.

Finally, as if the aforementioned characteristics of American Gangster did not foretell an Oscar-worthy production, its direction by Academy Award winner Ridley Scott puts it over the top and into the class of frontrunners for Best Picture of 2007. Like his lead actors in American Gangster, Scott’s own level of success is almost unparalleled, with films under his direction including a number of popular favorites and Academy Award winners including Alien (1979), Blade Runner (1982), Thelma and Louise (1991 – Best Director nomination), G.I Jane (1997), Gladiator (2000 – Best Director nomination), Black Hawk Down (2001 – Best Director nomination), Hannibal (2001), and Kingdom of Heaven (2005).

For these reasons (and I’m sure many others we don’t know about yet), American Gangster promises to be one of the best films of 2007, an almost automatic Best Picture nominee. In a year of relative disappointment and lack of quality among films, the Universal Pictures production lets critics and viewers alike look forward to a can’t – miss masterpiece. American Gangster promises to be a riveting cinematic experience whose success will be measured in both its box office achievements in November and its Academy Award popularity in March.

Brett Favre: A Light in the Darkness

What makes a good sports film? Rudy, Rocky, and Coach Carter, among others, prove that there can be any number of successful variations within the genre, and America’s rich sports heritage is filled with great stories worthy of cinematic production. Recently, however, those stories have been rarer than normal, leaving filmmakers with little reason to bring sports to the big-screen. Scandals and criminal acts on and off arena of play, a number of which have come to light in the past year, have cast a shroud over professional sports and dominated the headlines of news organizations and tabloids alike, leaving little room for good stories with big-screen appeal. As commissioners and officials struggle with the daunting task of reestablishing their sport’s credibility, fans are forced to question their support for their favorite athletes, teams, and games. In the midst of this confusion, however, one player has risen above numerous challenges on the field and in life to achieve the pinnacle of success and provide fans of all sports and teams with a feel-good story worthy of cinematic production in what has been otherwise a bleak 2007: Brett Favre. Favre’s story of success in the face of adversity, culminating (pending his eventual retirement) with his record-breaking 2007 season, provides officials and fans alike with refreshing proof that while talent and intelligence can make thugs and cheats into winners, only character can make good players into legends.

Favre’s climb to the pinnacle of professional football has not been a completely linear one: an incredible number of obstacles both on and off the field have threatened at separate times to throw him off course. Beginning with the start of his professional career, Favre had challenges in front of him. He spent his rookie season with the Atlanta Falcons fourth on the quarterback depth chart. In the little playing time he actually received, Favre threw five passes, none of which were completed, and two of which were intercepted. Before the 1992 season, he was traded to the Green Bay Packers in exchange for their first round draft pick. Packer fans were outraged, and the stakes couldn’t have been higher when the young Favre entered his first game for the Green and Gold after starting quarterback Don Majkowski went down with an injury. Favre responded by producing his first career win.

Toward the end of his career, Favre’s interception number began to climb while his team, competitive for years behind his arm, began to fall. Analysts and fans alike began to call for his retirement after a dismal 2005 season in which the Packers compiled a mere 4 wins. Still, like the protagonists of legendary stories, Favre persevered once again in the face of criticism, overcoming his age to resume his Hall of Fame form in 2007.

In addition to his struggles on field, Favre has had an uncanny string of bad luck off it. In summer 1995, coming off his first MVP season, Favre shocked the sports world by announcing his battle with addiction to pain-killers. He overcame the adversity, however, and beat the addiction, winning his second MVP in as many years and leading the Packers to their first Super Bowl victory since 1967. Later in his career, Favre was forced to grapple with the deaths of his father, his wife’s stepfather, and his wife’s brother, all of whom were very close to him. Yet despite every one of those tragedies, Favre has started every game, including a memorable one against the Oakland Raiders only days after his father died. After the game, and emotional Favre was asked why he chose to play. His response: it’s what his dad would have wanted.

Favre and his family have also had to cope with his wife Deanna’s battle with cancer. Although she emerged victorious from the fight, that period of time was exceedingly difficult for Favre and his two daughters, especially while his wife underwent chemotherapy. Still, Favre played quarterback every Sunday for the Packers, with only one noticeable difference: his bald head, normally covered with thick brown hair, was shaved in honor of his wife.

Throughout his career, Favre has overcome innumerable obstacles to achieve dominance on the field of play, compiling a lengthy resume of accolades including 8 Pro-Bowl appearances, 1 NFL Offensive Player of the Year Award, 2 NFC Offensive Player of the Year Awards, an NFL-record 3 MVP’s, and the NFL record for quarterback wins, consecutive starts, and touchdown passes. His story deserves commemoration equal to some of our nation’s greatest, those we have enshrined on a roll of film.

In this uncertain time of cheaters and criminals in professional sports, America needed someone to make it remember all that was, and hopefully still is, good about professional sports. On September 30, 2007, with touchdown pass 421, an unlikely hero assumed that role, and America remembered. With his immortality secured by his marks in the record books, Favre stands as beacon in the darkness, the last of a bygone era in the NFL and professional sports, reminding Americans of what was, and what hopefully will be again.

3:10 to Yuma: The Beginnings of a Genre's Resurrection?

Long bereft of the stars who once embodied the American hero, the Western film genre has, in recent decades, failed to live up to the memory of its glory days as the toast of Hollywood. In fact, excluding Dances With Wolves, the modern Western genre has failed to live up to much of anything at all, instead existing as a cinematic dinosaur whose storied past has since given rise to new, more technologically captivating thriller genres, i.e. science fiction. Today’s filmmakers have shied away from westerns, most likely because of their perceived lack of popularity and consumer-value. Director James Mangold (Walk the Line, Kate and Leopold) breaks the mold, however, with his visually stunning 3:10 to Yuma. Boasting a pair of star performers in Russell Crowe (Gladiator, A Beautiful Mind, Cinderella Man) and Christian Bale (American Psycho, Batman Begins, The Prestige), 3:10 to Yuma, anticipated as the savior that might resurrect the Western genre (albeit as a remake), has produced mixed reviews. Critics and movie-goers alike are generally pleased with the dazzling special effects of Mangold’s film, but remain undecided on their opinions of the performances of the lead actors, as well as the film’s somewhat convenient ending. Despite what I considered a weak ending, I thought the film was, on the whole, an interesting addition to an otherwise dead genre, whose captivating visual effects and thought-provoking character portrayals make it an entertaining and attractive contribution to modern cinema.

Response to Big Boy's "3:10 to Yuma" Blog Posting

For the most part, I share your evaluation of 3:10 to Yuma. I was thoroughly displeased with and share your disdain for the film’s convenient ending, which is, as far as I can discern, largely the product of the “father-son” element of the film, which you point out was one of Mangold’s additions to the original plot. I feel that the new elements which you point out (the “father-son” complication and the chase through the railway construction zone) do little, if anything, to develop the storyline, instead (in the first case) diluting Christian Bale’s performance and (regarding both) complicating the audience’s ability to understand and appreciate the storyline. The “father-son” element for me did nothing to foster empathy for or interest in Bale’s Dan Evans, instead detaching me from the storyline and forcing me to grapple with a somewhat unrealistic transformation in his character (his goal-change from earning 200 dollars to earning his son’s respect after the boy’s unexpected fusion with the rest of the party) from realist to romantic hero, and his questionable status as the protagonist. I disagree with you, however, in your assessment of Russell Crowe’s Ben Wade. I found Crowe’s Wade to be a deliberately designed, thought-provoking character (until his surprising and apparently out of character change of heart at the end) who’s contradictory and juxtaposed personalities as cold-blooded leader of a ruthless gang and reflective artist provide depth and dissonance to a collection of more shallow and one-sided (albeit well-performed) personalities (i.e. your acclaimed Charlie Prince).

Response to Telecommuniculturey Blog Posting - "Newton's Cradle: 3:10 to Yuma, Reviewed"

Your post presents an interesting evaluation of 3:10 to Yuma. While I share your appreciation for the excellent acting in the film, I was disappointed to see that you did not really address the ending and it’s rather (in my opinion) convenient nature. I had a hard time swallowing Wade’s rather out-of-character change of heart after hearing Dan’s heart-wrenching life story, and as a result felt cheated by the movie’s abrupt closure. In addition, I found Dan’s goal change to be slightly out-of-character, although not as much so as Wade’s. Despite the disappointments which life has dealt him (many of which you articulate in your post), I felt that either the script or Bale’s acting set Dan up as a calculated, methodical man throughout the entire movie. While his desire to be the tragic (and his son’s) hero puts a romantic, almost “feel-good” closure on an otherwise dark plotline, I saw the transformation as abrupt, uncharacteristic, and rather unbelievable, dampening an otherwise brilliant performance. Outside of these end-of-film details, however, I generally agree with your assessment of 3:10 to Yuma as as an overall entertaining piece with memorable acting but underdeveloped characters.

Fighting For Iwo: Clint Eastwood's Contribution to the War Film Genre

Beginning as early as 1946 (The Best Years of Our Lives) and continuing to the present day,

Hollywood has exhibited considerable fascination with World War II. A number of American
filmmakers have produced legitimate works dealing with the conflict, including (to name only
a few) Fred Zinnemann, Michael Bay, Jerry Bruckheimer, John Woo, Terrence Malick, Steven Spielberg, and now Clint Eastwood. Where Eastwood’s work stands out is in his hybridization of stunning battle sequences and intriguing storyline with complex human emotion and
acceptable historical accuracy. His effort to relay the history of the Battle for Iwo Jima
from both sides of the conflict is remarkably effective in leading the audience to an
understanding about the unfortunate nature of war for everyone involved; as such, the paired
films deserve acclaim as masterful contributions to historically-based film and the war film
genre.

In Flags of Our Fathers, Eastwood portrays Iwo Jima and its aftermath from the
perspective of three unfortunate servicemen (two Marines and one Navy Corpsman), who, after
having survived vicious combat on Iwo, are forced into a War-Bond campaign presenting them as heroes, in an effort to exploit the flag-raising (which, to at least two of the three, was neither completely genuine or significant) as a marketable event for revenue generation. Eastwood’s film effectively illustrates both the intensity of battle in the Pacific Theater and the difficult emotions the three survivors of the flag-raising were forced to wrestle with upon returning home and for the rest of their lives. After watching the film, thoughtful viewers are inclined to question the ethics of wartime fund raising in addition to the truth behind patriotic promotions.

Eastwood’s more acclaimed corresponding film on the Japanese, Letters from Iwo Jima, is equally effective, but for different reasons. Unlike Flags of Our Fathers, this second film focuses entirely on the battle for Iwo Jima, as recounted by a series of letters written by Japanese soldiers and officers. Ken Watanabe delivers a stunning performance as General Tadamichi Kuribayashi, and Eastwood masterfully uses screen shots, conversations, and events to lead the audience to a human understanding of the Japanese soldiers, traditionally depicted in film as a savage and ruthless enemy (Windtalkers, The Thin Red Line). Letters From Iwo Jima allows viewers to relate to the Japanese and see the “enemy” from his point of view, producing an epiphany about the nature of war as a tragic misunderstanding with dire consequences for all involved, rather than simply for the good guys. Film critics almost universally recognize the brilliance of the film, as evident in its accolades: four Academy Award nominations and one Golden Globe award (Best Picture Foreign Language).

Unlike Letters From Iwo Jima, Flags of Our Fathers sharply divides film critics; very few, if any, are ambivalent in their critiques of the movie - most either love it or hate it.
Those critics who dislike the film attack a number of issues, but two in particular;
1) cliché, unimaginative screenwriting, and 2) negative portrayal of the Japanese. In
response to those attacks, 1) The Flags of Our Fathers screenplay was written by Paul
Haggis, who’s other works include Academy Award winning movies Million Dollar Baby and Crash. The success of his methods speaks for itself. 2) The film is told from the American perspective – as such, the Japanese should be presented as the enemy, however inhuman that presentation may be. Other films, including the highly acclaimed (and rightfully so) Saving Private Ryan and Letters From Iwo Jima, are also guilty of borderline inhuman presentation of the enemy( in Letters, the Americans), for the sake of understanding: only through such presentation will the audience be able to empathize with the emotions and fears of the protagonists.

The prestige of those critics who hail the movie’s excellence strongly indicates Flags of Our Fathers’ right, however controversial, or recognition as a masterpiece deserving of status equal to the greatest World War II films. Among the supporters of the film are Robert Roeper of “At the Movies with Ebert and Roeper”, Manohla Dargis of the New York Times, and Peter Travers of Rolling Stone, all of whom rave about Eastwood’s mastery in directing what Travers calls a “film of awesome power and blistering provocation”.

Together, Eastwood’s two films about the fight for Iwo Jima deserve the utmost recognition as outstanding additions to the war-film genre, and as films which all Americans who value their country’s history should see. In telling the story of one of the greatest battles in our nation’s history (and its consequences), Eastwood leads audiences to an understanding about the nature of war that all too often gets lost in our violence-obsessed entertainment culture. In the words of the New York Times’ Dargis, “Mr. Eastwood insists, with a moral certitude that is all too rare in our movies, that we extract an unspeakable cost when we ask men to kill other men.”