Cinematical

Maybe Gibson and Eastwood are close friends?

Reply

Given that they were a little more than one percent of the US fighting force, I'm not surprised that they aren't represented.

Reply

If there were Blacks present, then they should have put in these roles. If not, then they should not have been placed in the roles. The truth is what is important. In other films, blacks should get rightful recognition for the true role that they played in WWII. Their heroism was extraordinary. But, don't denigrate the black man by suggesting that he needs to be given recognition, where it is undeserved. There are clearly enough instances where we have been blessed by the truthful intervention of black people in providing heroic actions for our country.

Reply

I know this if off-track, but I'm not sure that Flags will be a "huge Oscar contender." The film, for all its impressive battle scenery and epic scope, feels flat. Strange that the focus of the film, the three flag-raisers, seem cardboard-flimsy even as the credits roll. Were it not for the corresponding historical fact, this telling of the story might feel pretty hollow. And that's unfortunate. I'm guessing Eastwood will be nominated for direction, and the film for cinematography, but I can't see any other major, legitimate noms.

Heroes of Iwo Jima aired last night on History (I think), and it more or less mirrored Eastwood's film. I watched for half an hour or so, and there was nothing about African-American soldiers. I'm not calling "conspiracy!", though. I can't possibly imagine the producers and directors of these two pieces physically combed through the photographs taken on Mt. Suribachi and chose to pull out every one where an African-American soldier appeared.

I hope not, at least.

Reply

Since the battle scenes were all shot in Iceland, I'm guessing this has more to do with casting extras locally than anything else. Somehow I doubt that Iceland has the biggest base of black actors in the world.

That being said, this is still a gross oversight, though not as bad as the similar situation in World Trade Center. The person who searches through the rubble with Sgt. Karnes near the end of the movie is portrayed as white, when in fact the actual person was black. The reason given for this was that since Karnes was in Iraq when they were developing the film, he was the only person they couldnt personally interview. But I think this incident and the incident in Flags of Our Fathers reflects the general attitude in Hollywood casting that the character is "white unless otherwise specifically mentioned."

Reply

Actually, there is a scen on the boats heading to Iwo Jima where, yes, we do see a small group of Black servicemen. It's brief, but it's there.

Reply

Actually, until all this fuss was raised, I never noticed that there weren't any black soldiers portrayed in the movie. It wasn't a relevant point in the film. The film was about this one group of soldiers whose destiny crossed path with this flag. If the movie was remotely about black soldiers who fought in WWII, there would be some basis for the cries of racism.

I also don't recall seeing any Hispanics, Asians (on our side), Jews or gays given their token appearance in the film.

I can guarantee that unless you were actively LOOKING and making a headcount, that you'd never notice the races of all the soldiers on the battlefield. I know I didn't.

My advice would be for everyone to spend their energy searching for racism conspiracies elsewhere, where one might actually exist.

Reply

Anyone concerned over this has clearly missed the point of the film entirely. The only conclusion one could make is that race is more important to them than anything else. That, I would contend, makes them a racist, not Eastwood.

Was the film about blacks in WWII? No, so why should it upset you? You have to go out of your way to nitpick the point. In other words, you are making a mountain out of something less than a molehill. Creating it for the sake of being a racist asshole.

I say the US gov't should just pay slave reparations so black people will no longer have an excuse and will STFU about stupid shit and quit making everything a race issue.

Reply

Enough, Enough already. Stop looking at movies for history lessons. I have heard Racesim for everything. Used to be a lot of truth to these cries but no more. Blacks have every and even more oppertunities than most other Americans including White Americans. The head of NACP said quote "It is time African American people quit playing the victim role and start taking advantages that are now offered to them today." unquote.
This is a movie not a docturmentrary. Find another way to make a living instead of causing unrest in America and living off the unrest you have created for your own profit.
Nothing has been taken away from our African American Heros. Stop looking at movies for your history lessons.

Reply

There were black Americans present in the film, in the briefing scene. Several black Americans are gathered around in a small group.

But this entire article is asinine. It's plain racist to judge a film on the skin color of its characters.

My grandfather fought alongside the marines in Iwo Jima, I don't think his sacrifice is any less because he was white. It shouldn't matter, and it doesn't. I know Hollywood loves to show an out of place black soldier being picked on by a couple of white ones, but that's not the case in this film. Hell, I didn't see one black guy in Saving Private Ryan. Race does play a part in this film, if minor: Ira Hayes was occasionally stereotyped because of his race - this whole article is just an immature jab at a film about patriotism and heroic sacrifice. In today’s world, anything about American patriotism is sure to spark debate, which is ridiculous, ignorant, and childish.

The reason this film wasn’t centered around black soldiers was because the people who rose the flag were not African American. Five of them were white, while the sixth was a Pima Indian.

This is a non-issue. If you want to see real racism, go watch the "Black Entertainment Channel".

Reply

While I do understand the point that people are trying to make about race not being an issue, I can't help but think those people are quite likely white. You don't have to see your race and you never do because you are not considered a race. White is the "base" from which everyone else is different.

This film is about the five white guys and the Pima Indian who raised the flag. I would not put a black guy in for one of the white soldiers (or really, they'd probably do it for the Indian), but I just find it personally annoying that there is one scene, apparently, where you briefly glimpse some black folks.

I don't expect there to be black people in like, The Last Samurai or a film about Vikings, but a historical film should pay more attention to details like that. I'm not getting my facts from historical films, i just feel that any movie that claims to be completely historically accurate should do so.

I do not feel like I'm "playing the victim", as I don't really care for war movies and won't be seeing this one, but the point is that just because a war movie doesn't center around black heroism in whatever war doesn't mean they shouldn't be seen in the movie at all.

Reply

Did I miss some interview or press release claiming that this movie was intended to be a representative historical document of the entire battle?

And the reason why you don't start sticking token scenes in just to appease certain groups is perfectly represented within this thread. The original article made the erroneous claim that there were NO black people anywhere in the movie. The author of the article and numerous people within this thread said "For a problem with such an easy fix (throw in an extra or two)," and when it turns out that there were indeed black people represented in the movie, then the cry becomes that it wasn't enough of a presence. There's no winning this battle.

(actually, now that I go back through the thread, looking for all the "just show an extra or two" quotes I read earlier, they all seem to have been edited out... hmmmm... curious)

And lastly, it's a sad truth that movies aren't created purely for the truth or accuracy or even just for the ART. They are made to make money. And for the most part, that money is going to be made off of white audiences. So it never surprises me when a movie about a black event or issue has a strong white presence. Until Matthew Broderick's character in "Glory" was added, I can guarantee you that that movie never had a chance of being made. Simple economics.

While all these things unfortunately do exist and do take place on some movies, THIS movie has no business being in this argument. To my knowledge, Clint Eastwood and Steven Spielberg have never displayed ANY racist tendencies, so I'd tend to side with just about any other reason for the 'whitewashing' besides something deliberately racist.

Reply

First of all they are not soldiers,they are Marines big difference! While there were black soldiers unfortunatly there were no black Marines. The only black serviceman at Iwo would have been sailers on the ships.Whoever started this non-issue should study some history and shut-up.We have plenty of real problems we don't need to make them up.

Reply

I agree, this is enough on the race thing. I am an amatuer historian, retired military and someone who is in awe of all of the soldiers, sailor, marines and airmen of WWII. They all fought at Iwo Jima and most other battles. It doesn't matter who you were, they all fought, were wounded or died the same way. The military was segregated at the time and you would not have seen too much intermingling of blacks and whites. What people should be more concerned with is that on the road to intergration, it was the military that set the ground work for intergraation and equality. Whatch the movie for patriotism. This was an unequal battle in intensity and we should be proud of all who were there.

Reply

The movie was a total diaster!! I saw it when it dropped on Friday, October 20th in NC and was very dissappointed. Not only did it not represent the Afican-Americans, it did not represent 60% of our population!! It was too long, too bloody and very over-rated. I believe it was a political move to draw more support for the IRAQ WAR!! What a waste!

Reply

No offense Darr but what the fuck are you smoking?

It's a movie by Clint Eastwood and his Hollywood buddies trying to convince people that people in the military fight and die for each other, and not for their country - it's the same bullshit message that they tacked onto the end of Blackhawk Down. Do they fight and die for each other? Sure! But they sure as fuck aren't abandoning they're country in the process. It's the standard way Liberals try to tear down the concept of Nationalism while trying to appear Patriotic at the same time. It's getting pretty fucking old by now.

Secondly - what the fuck is it with the Liberals in Hollywood anyway? They make a movie called "Flyboys" and put a non-existent black pilot in the story, then turn around and take all the black people off of Iwo Jima! I suppose if it's important enough they leave it completely to whitey.

Isn't it interesting too that Hollywood can't put out any war movies that even approach the appearance of patriotism outside of WWII? I guess if it's the white Democrat out saving the world it's all fine and dandy.

Who here wants to guess what the odds are of Hollywood making a truly patriotic war movie of a black man fighting in Iraq?

NOT A FUCKING SNOWBALLS CHANCE IN MOTHERFUCKING HELL.

...despite the fact that there are THOUSANDS of them over there right now fighting to keep Hollywood safe for the white liberal democrat.

Fucking Stupid-Ass Liberals.

Reply

I find the WTC movie a particularly egregious example of "whitewashing" history. Remove those elements which might not be palatable to a white audience for a better marketshare. Almost all of the movies about the civil rights movement focus on the noble, white people involved and how they suffered for their efforts. (Mississippi Burning and A Long Walk, for instance) And don't get me wrong. There certainly were whites in the movement but how does a story about the oppression in the South get to be about folks who didn't get oppressed? A movie about a black regiment in the Civil War ends up being about Matthew Broderick? Mel Gibson's "The Patriot" has a plantation with really happy slaves?

This sort of thing happens all the time and only rarely does a concientious non-minority person, like the writer of the column, raise it. And then, of course, the chorus of "Get over it." begins.

Let's try on the reverse of this action where a black director makes an allegedly historical film about an event where participants could still be living, which involved mostly white folks, and in which has not a single white person is a central character. The criticism would be savage.

Directors have the right to tell the story they want to tell. But let's not pretend that it's a real re-telling of history when you conciously leave the people involved in the event out.

Reply

Actually I'm looking forward much more to Eastwood's sister project 'Letters from Iwo Jima'.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0498380/

You MIGHT just happen to see a truly insipirational and patriotic movie in that one. Of course it's never difficult for liberals to view our enemies as patriotic. But us? Naaawwww... never.

Reply

This whole article is about nothing!
First of all Marines are not soldiers, their Marines.
Soldiers serve in the Army; Marines serve in the Marine Corps. The simple fact of the matter fact is that the armed services were segregated during WWII and as a matter of fact blacks were not allowed in the Marine Corps until the 50's (Korean War). White washing history? How about looking at the facts and take off those "ethnic blinders" you have on.
The whole world does not revolve around your ethnicity. 900 blacks took part in IWO? So what! Who are the men who died there? What does it matter? Is the value of blood ethnic? Is the color of blood red or not?

STOP FRIGGIN COMPLAINING AND JOIN THE SERVICE IF YOU WANT TO COMPLAIN ABOUT BLACK PATRIOTISM!

Bunch of CANT DO RIGHTS!

black-SGT
USMC

Reply

An article about discrimination in the movies that itself discriminates against the United States Marine Corps. In this context, 'Marines' is a proper noun and should be capitalized. Marines also are most defnitely not soldiers. Call any Marine that, and you will most likely hear about it. You would think that after almost 231 years it would have caught on by now....

- Just keeping an eye out for my brethren (to include male and female genders, of course)

Semper Fi

Reply