WEEKLY DISCUSSION #29: Joe Rosenthal - "Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima"

Many of the photos that have been used in this series I have seen before. Some I have not. I am sure that is the

same for most of you. This week I am going to use a photograph that I am sure everyone has seen:

 

http://www.iwojima.com/raising/lflaga2.gif

 

I was a mere toddler during World War II. It was many years after that war that I first saw this photograph and

was impressed by it. It was only later that I found out that millions of Americans during WWII had been

similarly impressed. People would cut the photo out of newspapers or magazines to hang on their walls. Newspapers

were flooded with requests for copies. Anyone familiar with the book or movie "Flags of our Fathers" is aware

of the phenomena that followed the publication of this photo.

 

Yet what makes this such an inspiring photo? Some of my thoughts:

 

No person's face can be clearly seen. These are not individuals; the men represent our fighting men in general.

 

The spirit of working together to a common goal, getting the flag up.

 

The grim determination as the men in the front plant the flag pole firmly in the ground and the men in the rear

still reach upward toward it.

 

Victory, triumph! Although this was only the fifth day of a struggle for Iwo Jima that would last for another

month. Three of the six men in the photo were later killed in action on Iwo.

 

What are your thoughts?

 

.

 

 

For some history of the flag raising go here = http://www.montney.com/marine/iwo.htm

<p>This is the definition of an iconic photo.</p>

<p>I had misinterpreted the circumstances of the situation until a few years ago when I read the same account that's linked in the original post. I had always imagined that bullets were flying as the men struggled to raise the flag, an act of extreme bravery.</p>

<p>The shot was actually snapped post-battle when the commanding officer ordered that the smaller flag that originally flew in this spot be replaced with a larger one. Does this revelation make the image any less heroic? Not to me.</p>

<p>Any Marine who was on that island at the time - or anywhere in the Pacific theater - should be regarded as a hero. Each of them survived extreme danger just to get there. The War in the Pacific comprised some of the worst acts that mankind has ever unleashed upon itself, including disease, combat, and unspeakably brutal treatment of prisoners. Iwo Jima marked a turning point. This remarkable and very well-known image symbolizes a moment of hope and optimism in a grim chapter of human history.</p>

<p>Entirely agree with Dan - an iconic image AND a supreme example of news management in what most people would call a good cause.</p>

<p>This raises an interesting question for me. Another great war photographer, Don McCullin, took a photograph of a dead Vietcong soldier but slightly rearranged some elements of the picture (the soldier's wallet and the photograph of his wife) to emphasise the personal aspect of the soldier's death.<br>

Rosenthal's photograph is one which truly does deserve that much over-used term 'iconic', but for me is in no way diminished because it is the second raising of the flag rather than the first. Indeed, the larger flag improves the composition of the picture - but should composition even be a consideration in such a picture? Is content always alone sufficient?</p>

<p>Rosenthal's image might as well have been taken at Fort McHenry, since it speaks of the power and significance of the American flag. In the case of Mount Suribachi, the marines who participating in the raising of the flag were not simply using it to proclaim that they took the high ground. The act was more symbolic than literal, for the reasons James mentioned.</p>

<p>And, in this case, who cares whether "iconic" has been overused? Pick another word that denotes the importance of the image to not only the American people but also to the entire world.</p>

<p>To add to what James so astutely noted, some more reasons why it comes off as iconic:</p>

<p>The perspective . . . we are looking up and the men and flag are seen so starkly against the sky.</p>

<p>The scale . . . as seen against that sky, the difference in scale between men, flag, and the universe is great.</p>

<p>The monumentality . . . it's arranged as if it were a statue, frozen in time. Though not "posed", which seems to concern people and photographers endlessly and needlessly, its intentional and deliberate look comes not from the direction of the photographer but from the determination of the men on what they're doing. There is, however, not just as Rosenthal has said but in how the photo itself looks, deliberateness in the moment chosen and in where the shot is taken from, and the composition does have a very intentional feel to it.</p>

<p>_________________________________________</p>

<p>From my place in history, which means none of this had to be present at the time but a photo outlasts its time and takes on new meanings over time, IMO, I refuse to get completely swept away in the militarism and patriotism that it has come to represent. IMO, we fought a necessary war back then and the men fought valiantly and the country sacrificed much. The country as a whole had a right to this photo, to celebrate it, and even for administrations to use it as a symbol to muster support for what they felt had to be done to finally end the war. The horror of what happened in its wake, from the dropping of the bombs to our continued military actions to this day, can't be forgotten in favor of this iconization of the U.S. and Allied victory. Since WWII, the U.S. has pursued an often warmongering stance, and we use our symbols of military strength and dominance as propaganda to further a global agenda that, frankly, sucks. And that's putting it mildly.</p>

<p>My father was a disabled WWII vet, and he never felt comfortable feeling proud of what he did as a young and naive 18-year old, though he knew it had to be done and did it honorably. Rarely did he talk about his war experiences, preferring to continue to serve into the future by becoming an activist for disabled veterans, not only from WWII, who were better accommodated than the rest of the vets from subsequent wars. He could never rest with sympathies for icons like this photo while the rest of the country and more importantly the government's treatment of its veterans continued to deteriorate over time to the shameless place in which it exists today. In WWII, the entire country made sacrifices for a demanding and necessary war effort. Today, while our young people, men and women, are at war, we go shopping and our government plays a bigger role in what pictures get seen and in what inept and insufficient services get provided to those so badly injured in our wars and in our name.</p>

<p>IMO, there is much to celebrate in this photo but there's a dark side looming in the future of what it's showing that can't be glossed over by any romantic preoccupation with what it symbolizes. In addition to heroism . . . death and harm and horror and lost lives and lost limbs must remain part of this great "icon" if we are truly to honor what it means.</p>

<p>I just remembered that there's a statue in Arlington, Virginia based on the photo.</p>

<p>When a photo inspires someone to commission a statue representing the same scene - and a very LARGE one, at that - that's iconic in every sense of the word. :-) </p>

<p>I think that Fred is right that such photos like the one James has chosen - or one could also choose the raising of the<a href="http://default.media.ipcdigital.co.uk/11134/000001b7e/dc3e/Raising-a-flag-over-the-Reichstag.jpg"> Russian flag on the Reichtag</a> in Berlin - are icons of glory and victory, but also of all what war includes of sufferings and sacrifice. </p>

<p>It's unquestionably one of the masterworks of wartime propaganda. It's a manipulated image in the truest sense of the term. The photo's story and its effect on the lives of those involved is where the real interest resides. Guess I've never looked at it quite the same way after reading Errol Morris' "Believing is Seeing."</p>

<p>Fred, like other "baby boomers," I was exposed to WWII only through secondary sources, mostly movies. Hollywood had a penchant for emphasizing the glory of war, rather than its flip side, which you described in vivid terms. In <strong>Sands of Iwo Jima</strong>, John Wayne's portrayal of Sgt. Stryker was as a hero, whose only shortcoming was his lack of involvement in his son's life. The film didn't even hint at the less than heroic deeds of other soldiers. </p>

<p>When I was fairly young (about 10), I had access to a collection of books and magazines at my uncle's house. He too was a veteran of WWII, but fortunately his only disability was a perpetual skin problem from being out in the sun too long. I think it gave me a more balanced perspective. To this day, I still have no understanding of what the phrase "just war" means. </p>

<p>My previous post did not downplay the horrors that accompany war - any war. It just didn't mention them, because I was trying only to offer an explanation for Rosenthal's photograph achieving the sort of status it has.</p>

<p>A breath-taking photo which encapsulated the American wartime spirit of heroism and determination in the face of great suffering and sacrifice. I have no difficulties with the ideal of a 'just war' and, though no real war reaches that ideal, WWII seems to be the most nearly just of all recent wars I can think of.<br /> <br /> The image has gone on to become part of the American national narrative about itself. All nations do this - take moments which seem to represent their highest and their best and weave them into a self-image.<br /> <br /> But I wonder whether these sorts of image make nations tend to resort to war more quickly then they should. War should be the very last option after all other avenues have been exhausted. All countries have their own versions of this image as Anders points out. It may say something about humanity that we have fewer iconic images of triumph through patient negotiation. I am trying to think of any now and not succeeding. That is a pity. As Churchill said 'Jaw, jaw is better than war, war'.<br /> <br /> So I look at this genre of iconic war images with respect and admiration for the real events, but also a nagging feeling that as well as celebrating heroism they also feed into some of humanity's darker sides.</p>

<p> </p>

They were kids. They had to take Iwo to gain an airstrip on a volcanic wasteland. Japanese could not afford to lose the strip and built deep concealed bunkers. Lots of marines got shot and killled. Same for Seabees who followed closely. The story of Iwo was critical to our strategy to get our B-29s closer to the mainland of Japan. Why, to do terrible fire bombing in a war where, as a training film quoted" The Japs have thrown the book away." Who is to blame for such a war. Not the United States. We won by our industrial power and willingness to draft young men, eventually some with a kid and wife like my Machinist Mate father in law (farmer from Illinois who drove a truck, then a bulldozer and anything the Marines needed). And we used horrible weapons, like napalm and eventually nuclear weapons. Now moralists will try to spin this photo into something it is not. I see it and the bronze replica in Arlington as a tribute to the heroism of our fighting Marines and Seabees. The photograph is a powerful and perfect image of a team who reached the hights after great sacrifice. It was widely popular for the homefront then....and some movies delve deeper into the men. To me it represents all the young heroes (broadly defined as being there and doing a nasty job in malarial waterless chunks of volcanic rock) who in fact volunteered-many many- for this type of combat against a well trained militaristic foe, acolytes of the Empero God, and that boasted it never had lost a battle..since Port Arthur. And not going to lose to weak indulged, mama boys, over nourished and underspirited, - no Emperor God to serve- GIs and Marines and Sailors in LSTs and landing craft and EOD teams.

Who fell into the hands of the Army and its code of bushido. Who arranged prisoners in a Battaan deatj march. And did not care to take prisoners, and despised and mutilated captives....dying for a ruthless code of conduct.

 

A good piece of history however you embrace it or define it....a good choice. What we did for Japan after the war redeems some of our actions to snuff out this relentless empire.

So. Stop by Arlington Cemetery on your DC trip. Worth it. Stop militarism if we can reach that elusive goal. But keep our powder dry..

Several thoughts about the Rosenthal picture and some of the comments in this thread:

1. It was taken while the battle was still going on. Mt. Suribiachi (where the flag was flown) was the high point of the

island and it's peak had been seized by the Marines. The battle would rage on for another month. There were still

spider holes and bunkers on Suribiachi that held armed Japanese. it's true they didn't raise the flag under a hail of

gunfire. But it's also true that there were still Marines fighting and dying on Suribiachi when the second flag was raised.

2. There was film of the flag raising. Watch it. It's nothing spectacular--almost boring. It's a powerful message about

our art...about how still photography can freeze and emphasize a particular moment. The guy doing the filming was right

next to Rosenthal, if you do a stop-action on the film, you can see Rosenthal's photo. But in the hurry of movement as

the group of Marines raises the flag, that dramatic pose get's lost.

3. There are many reasons why the photo is powerful. But for people who know nothing of WW-II, the military, or even

war, it's still a powerful photo. It's a dynamic photo--while the poses are frozen you see and can predict the movement,

you can see the bodies seek to surge forward. And basic photo composition rules will tell us that a diagonal line is the

most dynamic you can have...it provides energy to a photo. And then you have a geometric shape (pyramid or triangle)

formed by the flagpole and the line of men. So you have a still photo that screams movement and energy and dynamic

nature. I understand the reasons why the absence of faces is symbolic from a military standpoint. But think of why B&W

is powerful for some photos...it emphasizes form/lines and hides or de-emphasizes other elements (that would otherwise

be distractions. The absence of clear faces (and identities) allows us to focus on the physical effort, the dynamic

movement in the postures. We don't get lost in thinking "well, guy #2 looks like a hunk or a movie star" or "guy #3

certainly hasn't shaved but #4 has...or he could be young and not have facial hair." To put it another way, take off their

uniforms and have them dressed as telephone workers and have them raising a telephone pole and it's still an

impressive, eye-catching photo for some of the composition reasons I've mentioned.

Michael Linder:

"So I look at this genre of iconic war images with respect and admiration for the real events, but also a nagging feeling that as well as celebrating heroism they also feed into some of humanity's darker sides."

 

If they feed into a memory that is complete they must arouse a lot of thoughts. As they did among the survivors. ( Father in Law could not sleep for years after and polished the wood floors in deep of night)

If you get a chance, do watch the series " Band of Brothers" now on Netflix, formerly an HBO ca.12 hour series.

Why we fight is not to embrace militarism per se, only as a means to some end. Not to gain colonies. Nor oil or hegemony in the long run. At the least to maintain alliances which we need globally. To mediate with the Bully Pulpit as T.H. did in a more black and white world....

For the GI or sailor- same since Pellaponesian Wars; it was caring for you "mates"in the phalanx. The squad and the company on Iwo.

Only from the macro view can we try to judge/evaluate the past What about VictoryGardens,anyone rmember them as kids?. I doubt anyone would go for the scenario that Philip Roth describes in his alternative history novel. Thing is that someone must lead and take the gaffe, someone with a few allies who have the means and the wealth and semblance of representative government. Until Klattu (Day the Earth Stood Still) and his silver clad companion issue a cosmic mandate to all nations. And put petty ethnic and religious squabbles to bed.) I still do not dig Sunni vs Shiite. Don't bother to demarcate for me. Thanks.

<p>Gerry: I'm a little puzzled by what you quoted as it applies to me. Can you please explain?</p>

<p><em>"Why we fight is not to embrace militarism per se, only as a means to some end."</em></p>

<p>I would agree that most of those brave soldiers of WWII at Iwo Jima, in other parts of the Pacific, and in Europe did not embrace militarism as an end in itself. Indeed, war was the means necessary to thwart enemies who were foisting horrors on the world that could not remain unchecked. But a PHOTO like this is different from the men and memories it pictures. It and other icons like it have a kind of power that goes beyond the actual moments it depicts. I think it does lend itself to a sense of national pride in military might and in winning at all costs. And just as it elevates heroes it may also blind us to the very real suffering that results and that we, ourselves, now cause. </p>

<p><em>triumph through patient negotiation</em><br>

Colin, how could the US have "patiently negotiated" a response to Pearl Harbor?</p>

The photo I chose for this week's discussion, "Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima" is probably one of the most reproduced photos ever taken. It is also probably one of the most cropped, edited and enhanced photos. Trying to find a photo that would reflect what was actually on Mr. Rosenthal's 4x5 inch negative was a bit daunting. I thought this would represent a straight print made from the negative:

 

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/a/a1/WW2_Iwo_Jima_flag_raising.jpg

 

but it seemed too small for display. The photo that I used:

 

http://www.iwojima.com/raising/lflaga2.gif

 

was larger but it looks like about 1/2 inch was cropped off of each side of the negative and a small amount off the top giving it a square format. It also is more contrasty as if it were printed on #3 grade photo paper rather than the normal #2 grade. Many of the photos I saw tried to get the sky behind the men to show as pure white, even glowing. I would prefer the more natural looking gray sky. Still, I decided to use that larger image.

 

I think I like the uncropped image more. The extra amount of empty space around the men adds even more emphasis to the scale between the men and the universe. Often the photo is cropped to a vertical format in which the top of the flag pole is almost touching the upper left corner of the photo. That does a nice job of putting emphasis on the men but it leaves out the vastness of the scene which, to me, adds much to the photo.

<p>The photo symbolizes one triumphant moment in a long conflict with a determined and powerful enemy.</p>

<p>No photograph, statue, book, movie, article, or account can capture all of the details or nuances. The photo captures a moment. That's all that any photograph can do. The fact that we see the image and think about the complexities and nuances of war indicates to me that the photographer did his job well. His image inspires thought, emotion, and reflection even to this day.</p>

<p>Thanks to James for this well-timed post on the weekend of the anniversary of D-Day.</p>

Michael : Whoops. Sorry old chap I got my Michael mixed up with my Colin whom I intended to quote. It happens, alas. (Knuckles rapped sound:;;ouch that hurts)

I agree btw with the previous comment, it goes without saying that each image evokes a large and diverse response. Makes an image classic for that reason alone even if it were not a stirring subject, a good design and a moment of moments in a long battle that is mostly going to be history and a short paragraph in the bloody island campaign saga. Okinawa. Tarawa. Guadalcanal. Marianas. Leyte Gulf. More.

<p>I was an alive fifteen year old at the time of the flag raising and I am also a Viet vet. The flag raising makes me think of the troops. The grunts. The ones in all wars who slogged in the mud, bug infested jungles, burning desert sands and freezing Winters. They followed orders and went into unquestioningly into battle to be physically and mentally traumatized and killed in WWII to protect their country and its way of life. I have trouble with the later wars but not with the unfailing loyalty and dedication of our troops. I grew up next to Dibble General hospital in WWII and regularly saw horribly burned and maimed troopers who were there to try and recover. Iwo Jima was an ongoing agony of fear, volcanic sand and Japanese gunfire. Thousands on both sides died. Today I think of the troopers who served in Iraq and Afghanistan who spent tour after tour who then had their efforts systematically ignored as they have brought their mental and physical trauma back home. The flag raising makes me think of them and their families and their sacrifices. I think the flag raising is a symbol of all those who served and sacrificed in our wars:both the just and unjust. The troopers who raised the flag were atop the most deadly battle of the Pacific theater. They are among the real unsung heroes of the battle for that island. There are a myriad untold stories of the heroism and sacrifice of our troops. They simply deserve better these days. If the United States is the greatest world military power it is largely because of the "grunts". I use that term with great respect and affection for I have seen some of them first hand.</p>

<p>Patriotism is a powerful force for all nations during war especially when you have been attacked as we were by the Japanese. To deny our instincts as humans to defend our territory is a useless exercise that just doesn't work. Prior to Pearl Harbor being bombed, most Americans wanted nothing to do with "that" war in Europe. The remembered all the sacrifices they made during the first Great War and didn't wish to get involved. However, with one miscalculation, the Japanese changed everyone's mind when they attacked Pearl. Overnight, most everyone became a war hawk much like what happened on 911.</p>

<p>The picture represents "revenge", "getting even", military might, patriotism, unity, glory, heroism. The two hands grasping for the flag pole are the hands of every American viewer seeing themselves there and assisting in the victory and raising of the flag. The picture was cropped to place the flag in the powerful 1/3 position. They eliminated the wasted space on the left and top from the original which also centers the whole image and provides a balanced composition. A powerful image indeed.</p>

 

<p>For this series I find these the most helpful and clear explanations of how the photograph works as a composition, etc.</p>

<p><em>For this series I find these the most helpful and clear explanations of how the photograph works as a composition, etc.</em><br>

In fact this picture shows how strong emotional content can have a powerful effect even with a poor composition. Given a free hand to select a viewpoint, Joe Rosenthal might arguably have chosen this one:<br>

http://www.bing.com/images/search?q=Iwo+Jima+Memorial&Form=IQFRDR#view=detail&id=41DD14FFDB0A3E0098FC5762981E1C23A3E1A98D&selectedIndex=146<br>

or even the composition featured in the postage stamp, but did not have any option, being told where to stand by a press officer (and needing to keep out of the way of the motion picture cameraman). He would also no doubt, given the opportunity, have used a filter to capture sky tone and shot several frames, getting the men to stop and repeat their action (presumably he had regular 4x5 filmholders or even plateholders and not a Grafmatic sheet-film magazine, which is why he could allow himself only one shot and had to take a guess on the best moment for this).<br>

It would also be nice to see a print from the original negative, which clearly the on-line examples are not - these days 4x5 film is regarded as an art medium and is processed with loving care, in the "good old days" 4x5 plates were often processed extremely crudely (sometimes in the interests of cutting processing time to a minimum) and were often thrown away when as many prints had been run as seemed likely to be needed.</p>

<blockquote>

<p><em>triumph through patient negotiation</em><br /> Colin, how could the US have "patiently negotiated" a response to Pearl Harbor?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>David, none of WWII came out of the blue but was preceded by many years of tensions and talks.<br /> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Events_leading_to_the_attack_on_Pearl_Harbor<br /> Sometimes talks can avert a war but sometimes there comes a point when the talking is finished and the shooting starts. I think we should celebrate the talking part more. Perhaps the trouble there is that when the talking is successful there appears to be little to celebrate. As this week's subject photo shows it is a lot easier to celebrate heroism and victory.</p>