Directed By Sean Penn

Starring – Dylan Penn, Sean Penn, Josh Brolin

The Plot – Jennifer Vogel’s (Dylan Penn) father John (Sean Penn) was larger than life. As a child, Jennifer marveled at his magnetizing energy and ability to make life feel like a grand adventure. He taught her so much about love and joy, but he also happened to be the most notorious counterfeiter in US history. Based on a true story and directed by Sean Penn, Flag Day is in an intimate family portrait about a young woman who struggles to rise above the wreckage of her past while reconciling the inescapable bond between a daughter and her father.

Rated R for adult language, some drug use and violent content

FLAG DAY | Official Trailer | MGM Studios – YouTube

POSITIVES

– Unique casting. In casting an actual father and daughter duo with the responsibility of the two leads, it solidifies a rarely authentic experience that transcends the silver screen, allowing the film’s meaningful material to hit that much deeper because of the way each actor sees the other in fictional and non-fictional rendering. Because of such, we’re not only treated to a tender vulnerability as an audience that constantly hangs over our heads for the duration of the movie’s run time, but we’re also offered something that no other film in 2021 can competently solidify, and that’s the brilliance of art imitating life before our very eyes. In my opinion, it’s a creative decision that further intensifies the captivation that the duo of Penn’s hold over our interpretation, and one whose magnitude for investment is made all the more believably transfixing because of an arsenal of dialogue that hits a bit deeper when the pawns in movement convey an evidential double meaning.

– Penn is mightier. If you’re struggling for any reason to check out “Flag Day”, consider the benefit of attaining two exceptionally gifted performances for the price of one, which supplants an unusual crossroads between the careers of Sean and Dylan. With this being the latter’s debut effort, it’s clear that she brings with her the fiery registry and spell-binding influence over intense scenes that made her father a household name, but unlike Sean, it’s the tenderness and frailty that she consistently maintains, which makes her an empathetic presence. For her father, it’s the neurocies and ticks associated with his characterization that not only vividly paints the difficulties of parenthood for irresponsible people, but also conjures up a slice of humanity within his portrayal that keeps him constantly relatable despite his illegal activities constantly defining his character. As expected, the magnetism of chemistry between them is satisfyingly enticing to invest in, and the film’s sweet touch of cementing the evolution of one career while adding to the prestige of another is a full circle moment that will inevitably bring more acclaim to the Penn name.

– Production enhancements. Considering this is a story that spans various decades and character aging, the necessity for designs in the world of make-up and prosthetics manage these appearances seamlessly, all the while maintaining the familiarity of the actor inside. In fact, there’s a subtlety instilled that I greatly appreciated that played into natural aging instead of complete deconstruction, and when documented during close up sequences of facial registry conveys the passage of time in a far more effective manner than any title screen can even attain. On top of this, the wardrobe and wig work not only point to various evolving styles of the 70’s and 80’s American landscape, but match with it a level of detailed consistency that never broke my investment to the timely elements of the narrative, in a way that isn’t obvious or heavy-handed in framing. It further adds to the grainy textures of the movie’s color pallet by offering a transformative experience to its visual capacity that feels so far away from anything resonating in contemporary canvases, and adds a weathered allure to the presentation that enriches the home video style of footage in the montage sequences.

– Meaningful soundtrack. Blessed with decorated artists like Bob Seger, Eddie Vedder, and Janis Joplin, to name a few, the movie’s eclectic musical interests bring with them one of the more satisfying soundtracks in recent memory, and one with deeper character significance, the longer the film persists. Considering this is a film taking place entirely from Jennifer’s perspective, the memories of her jumbled childhood includes visual memories, but also audio accompaniment from various radio tunes that were a staple of timely relevance. This is especially the case with Seger, who dons not one, but two tracks heard throughout the first two acts of the movie, in the relevance of John’s overwhelming distaste for rock radio in contrast to his love for opera. Beyond this, the lyrics of R.E.M’s “Drive” when sung by Vedder elicits a lyrical interpretation echoing the very beats of Jennifer and John’s complex relationship, all the while bringing forth stirring emotional relevance in the context of Eddie’s familiar fiery registry.

NEGATIVES

– Intrusive narration. This is once again another example of unnecessary narration influencing these sequences, when everything we need to colorfully interpret is right before us, front and center. That’s not to say that Jennifer’s commentary is completely unnecessary, just that the feelings and emotions that come so effortlessly in Dylan’s weathered registry often overstep boundaries in matters that leave very little to interpretation and body language of the talented ensemble, making this feel like a novel with accommodating dramatizations instead of a cinematic feature. If it was called upon during the beginning and ending of the movie, it would be forgivable enough, but I counted no fewer than eight different occasions that dramatically cut into the integrity of each scene, making this an inescapably consistent cliche within its own production that grew arduous with each passing minute.

– Nauseating presentation. When “Flag Day” and Penn aren’t being pretentious with a series of stitched together montages ranging in everything from American politics to the ever-shifting musical scene, the movie’s cinematography alienates us with several experimental styles and framing designs that overcomplicate the depiction. The most obvious offense is the shaking camera scheme with a desire to illustrate various memories through the movements of its aging protagonist, but instead just prescribe motion sickness for its combination of quick movements and blurry focusing. On top of this, the editing itself is frightfully amateur and inconsistent. When it isn’t brutally cutting into scenes requiring unabashed focus as a reaction of confrontation, it pastes certain scenes together in a confusing and incoherent manner. One such example pertains to a story taking place entirely in the past, and then spontaneously moving forward without warning, before then cutting back to the past after it. This is the only time this happens throughout the movie, but not the lone victim of disjointed storytelling that oversells something so simple and elementary.

– Strange framing. It’s weird enough that the trailers for the film promised a scintillating thriller full of unpredictable intrigue, but when coupled with the ball-dropping momentum from telling this from Jennifer’s perspective, leads to many challenging conflicts that it creates for itself. Considering the main selling point of this movie was John’s illegal manufacturing and circulation of 22 million dollars, I was astonished that the movie doesn’t spend a single solitary minute on the subject once the introduction to the movie has concluded. This leaves a three course meal of intrigue, stakes, and uncertainty left uninvited to the finished product, in turn leaving this a boring and unfulfilling character study that undersells the appeal of its unique characteristic. It’s easy to understand that Jennifer knew so little of her father’s dealings, so a lot of that is a mystery, but to not even make it a focal point of the movie’s climactic third act is ignoring the single biggest element of allure from audiences seeking it out.

– Shamefully pandering. When are dramatic screenwriters going to learn that a movie can’t just be about the intensely riveting moments when pertaining to life’s many spontaneous movements? I ask this because too much of a good thing undercuts the tension in this and many other movies before it, for the way the redundancy of these scenes and nothing else undercuts the attention they command over their audience, happening too often to amplify their evolution naturally. It’s like this family only exists during the moments when controversial and conflicted impacts can be felt to test them, and add dramatic flare to fool audiences into believing that this story was more riveting than it actually turned out to be. Not only was I bored from a majority of this derivatively lukewarm gruel, but I also feel that the absence of its nuanced moments made for a manipulatively alienating experience that reaches for heart and humanity, but comes away with urgency and monotony.

– Limited scope. While not an absolute necessity in the boundaries of a Father/Daughter narrative, the absence of social commentary or substantial influence from the outside world creates a missed opportunity to further paint John’s financial disposition. This affords the character a complete lack of motivation that we as the audience are forced to interpret as just another greedy person whose actions are driven entirely by the almighty dollar. If the family persisted with a bleak outlook made all the more foretelling from various residential moves or an abundance of job losses, then it would enhance the motivation and relatability of the characters, and prescribe depth for an unpleasantly claustrophobic and condensed story. This is obviously where the movie would’ve been better suited to be told from John’s perspective over Jennifer’s, especially considering the leaps in logic start to mount by the midway point, and we’re forced to endure shifts in the family’s journey without justification. Especially considering the story drives through political era’s of Carter and Reaganomics, there’s could’ve been a much more meaningful layer of sociology at the creative’s disposal, but as it stands this is a mostly ambiguous experience that doesn’t become any easier by film’s conclusion.

My Grade: 5/10 or D