Historically accurrate?
Is it?
Eh, the combat isn't realistic. But I guess it's historically accurate. not much to go by though.
sharethe combat was infact accurate seeing how much of it was actual battle footage you can tell when the film has a more grainy appearance
shareI was talking about the scenes that weren't actual battle footage, those seemed pretty cheesy.
share[deleted]
[deleted]
"during this time in film history all war films had to get a seal of approval from the government's war time propaghanda agency so the non-combat scenes are made to relect socail untiy and equaltiy and make the marines appear as a family like unit with a harmony of different social backgrounds. Also notice how the Japanese only attack American soldiers when the Americans either have their back turned or are out numbered. Clearly a propoghanda film."
Wrong. They had to do it that way to meet the requirements of the Hayes Code, which was not a government body. The Code meant filmmakers couldn't show heros committing cold-blooded murder without being punished at the end.
The movie isn't propaganda, it's an action movie with a fictionalized historical backdrop.
Evil is When Good Men Do Nothing...But Also When Evil Men Do Somethingshare
Hollywood doesnt know how to make a film HISTORICALLY ACCURATE.They have to make the film exciting,In Sands.Stryker carried the flag,In Flags.Gagnon carried it. John Bradley said in an interview That an officer it brought up then gave it to Sgt. Strank.In 1915 a film crew went into Mexico with Pancho Villa.They filmed a battle between his forces and the Mexican army.When they got back to Hollywood they added a lot of scenes and shots done on the back lot just to make it exciting.It's all called Dramatic licence.
shareA lot of the movie is inaccurate but the whole story about Iwo Jima was inaccurate for years after the war, the movie itself is close to the the story that existed in 1949. If you want to know the real story read the book Flags of our Fathers or watch the movie, the book is better.
shareI thought that, for the time, it was reasonably accurate.
It was far better than films made during the actual war.
<SPOILER AHEAD>
One thing I noted was how Stryker died in the film. In films made during the war, when his character died, it was always in a glorious action where he went out leading a successful attack, or likewise taking scores of the enemy with him. In this film, he's shot by a sniper and dies without a word, while taking a break with his men.