Movies Are Not Always Worse Than The Book!

This blog entry serves the purpose of countering the common argument that the movie is always better than the book. Yes, in many to most cases, the book far surpasses the movie, but it is not always the case. 

Over the summer, as part of my AP Literature assignment, I chose to read the book Flags of Our Fathers by James Bradley. Having seen the movie several years ago I already knew the gist of the plot. I truly enjoyed the novel. James Bradley exhibited a true talent at creating three-dimensional characters and bringing a non-fiction story to life. The novel is centered on and around the Battle of Iwo Jima and the six men who raised the symbolic flag atop Mount Suribachi. One of those men, John "Doc" Bradley is in fact James Bradley's father. Despite never being told of his father's heroism until after his death, James Bradley was able to research, uncover, document, and publish the horrific battle and the tragic story of the men who fought it. His talent as a writer also showed through his ability to create a bond between the audience and the characters. When John Bradley gave a speech at an impromptu press conference concerning his actions on Iwo Jima, I was there, in the audience. 

Having been so moved by the book, I decided that it would be worth re-watching the movie, hoping that it would not be a disappointment in comparison to the novel. It most certainly was not. 

At age 76, Clint Eastwood remains a legendarily talented filmmaker, and Flags of Our Fathers is perhaps arguably one of his best films. Through skilled directing and an even higher level of acting, nearly every scrap of emotion felt when reading the novel is retransmitted in the film. While at first, I was expecting a “gung-ho” movie full of only gore and violence. Adam Beach’s emotional performance as Ira Hayes instilled the movie with emotion and sympathy. Many movies often lose the theme(s) the original novel was based on; this was not the case with Flags of Our Fathers. James Bradley’s theme of the conflict between earned and manufactured heroism is fully retained and perhaps intensified in the motion picture.

The movie’s biggest flaw is its lack of organization. Clint Eastwood attempted to be original by dividing the movie into three sections: the military training, the actual battle, and the war bond drive that followed. Scenes from each section are intermittently played, mostly through the use of “flashbacks.” This, however, mattered little to me since I had read the novel prior. I, therefore, had no issues keeping track of the storyline as it unfolded on the screen. What bothered me more was the shortening of the story. Like it is the case with most movies, to be able to fit the entire story within the time frame of a movie, many scenes had to be discarded. The men’s military training was considerably shortened in the movie, which I believe was a mistake. In the novel, it is during the training phase that I, as the reader, learned most about each character’s personalities. By discarding this section of the novel, Eastwood lost events that would have made the movie deeper and more three-dimensional. In retrospect, I would not go as far as to say the movie was better than the novel, but it was certainly not worse either. It is, however, necessary for the audience to read the novel first to get a better understanding of the film.