In many ways the extensive media coverage of Vietnam accounted for the tremendous anti-war feeling that was generated in America at the time. Considering the formidable cost in life and money, many people simply could not see why US troops were fighting in Vietnam. It was this opinion that forced not only the public but also many government officials, even presidents, to seriously consider why America was involved in the war at all.
Despite the coverage in the news, the Vietnam War was a subject that was initially avoided by Hollywood filmmakers. War films had always been popular with Hollywood, but here was one war that one did not to wish to look at. Why do you think this was? Why do you think that it took decades until American filmmakers were to make films about Vietnam, many of which attempt to portray actual events and not simply repeat the old style of war films?
Many Americans, and many soldiers who went to fight in Vietnam, initially expected a real war, one like those as seen in the movies where "ground was taken, advances made." It was a shock to find that US and VC battalions often took the same piece of land again and again, that there was no clear front line, that this was not a war between nations but a revolutionary civil war on the surface and an ideological war underneath... This shock caused confusion within soldiers simply because of the image of war that had been portrayed in the movies, did not align to the war which was being fought in Vietnam.
Who was the enemy? Was it the villager? Was it a shadow? Was it themselves? If there was no obvious enemy then how could soldiers see themselves as liberators? What were they defending?
Viewers had been "brought up" with war films and other media, but again Vietnam was very different. If Platoon is part of the war-film genre, then, as critics, we need to be very clear as to what we mean by war-film genre. What do we expect in such films? Consider the qualities and archetypes of (1) characters, (2) settings, (3) plots, (4) conflicts, and (5) imagery, motifs, and themes which viewers expect of war films.
Naturally, audiences have certain expectations of "the war film." Part of the pleasure in watching certain types of films is that viewers enjoy predicting what will happen next and having these expectations fulfilled. But what happens when a film that falls into the war-film genre and all its attendant expectations conversely does not seem to fit the genre?
Recall our conversation about war movie archetypes. On the most basic level, war films portray and fulfill the expectation that there will be a victory of one side over another, the victor usually being the freedom-spreading US. How many of these archetypes apply to Platoon, how many do not? Which aspects operate on only an overt, visual level in Platoon? That is, although Platoon looks like a war film, it is the deeper conflicts and latent themes of the film that make it different. For example, we, as an audience, know straight away which side we are meant to identify with, who we are to support, who are to be the heroes and who the enemy.
In three ACE'd paragraphs, please respond to any of the following prompts in order to perform a brief analysis of Oliver Stone's Platoon. Begin with discussing who you would say are the heroes in the film and who you would say is the enemy? Using our discussion about war-film archetypes, analyse whether or not the heroes and enemies fit into the expected "norms" which govern these two types of characters. In what ways are the normal "heroic" qualities that you would expect to see in a war film shown in Platoon and in what ways are these qualities problematized or thwarted? If Platoon does not fit in with the normal archetypes of a war film, then we need to consider the ways in which it differs. Why do you think that Stone has made these directorial choices? What is Stone trying to do or say? What are the film's stances on morality, soldiering, trauma, etc. In what ways does Platoon have viewers look at war in the normative way and also the "new" way as projected after the media spectacle of the 60s and 70s? Finally, consider Chris's closing statement in your response's final paragraph:
I think now, looking back, we did not fight the enemy, we fought ourselves, and the enemy was in us. The war is over for me now, but it will always be there, the rest of my days. As I'm sure Elias will be, fighting with Barnes for what Rhah calls "possession of my soul." There are times since, I've felt like a child, born of those two fathers. But be that as it may, those of us who did make it have an obligation to build again. To teach to others what we know, and to try with what's left of our lives to find a goodness and a meaning to this life.Your journal response is essentially a draft to your next Response Paper! This journal is due, posted to the blog before class, by Wednesday, February 13th.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThe movie Platoon was released in 1986 and marked an obvious shift in war movies. Platoon was not a propaganda piece intended for mass American consumption. The movie was released long after any glory associated with Vietnam had faded. The horrors of the Tet Offensive were already well known to the American Public as well as the severe mishandling of Vietnamese civilians at the hands of the Americans. As such, the movie does not follow the typical war story lay out. While at first glance, it appears simple to distinguish the “good guys” and the “bad guys,” the lines become increasingly blurred as Platoon progresses. Barnes employs cruel interrogation techniques in a Vietnamese village and latter shoots an innocent. In most war movies this would have him flagged as the antagonist. On the other hand, Taylor’s staunch defense of the potential gang rape victims would immediately propel him into the protagonist role. However, in the events that follow, this theory is tested. Taylor tries to initiate a fragging and later fatally shoots Barnes. The end of the movie reveals that both men were severely affected by their experiences, Barnes, driven to the point of insanity and Taylor returning home jaded.
ReplyDeleteThe main point of the movie is to emphasize the devastating nature of the war and its uselessness. The characters do not accomplish anything worthwhile and there is no vital battle ground that is gained. Indeed, this is emphasized by the parting shot of the movie. The camera looks on as Taylor, from a helicopter, observes the mountains of dead bodies below him. There is no expected shot of a victory parade or celebration that might accompany the end of a regular war movie. Noticeably absent is the lack of patriotic music that usually makes up the bulk of war hero movies. The only soundtrack is Taylor’s broken sobs as he tries to reconcile himself with the scene below. Taylor joined the infantry division and went to Vietnam in the hopes of protecting his country and achieving glory. He went in expecting to find a clear enemy in the Vietnamese people and instead just found a flawed system of corrupted power. The shock shown in the ending scene is that of a man who's had his country knocked off a pedestal. Taylor was forced to acknowledge the horror inflicted by the US in Vietnam and in doing so, had to alter his view of America forever.
Stone himself served in Vietnam and was wounded twice in battle. When asked about Platoon, he replied “"Platoon would be more of the character I was, just shaken up.” He latter said that Platoon was the story of him realizing that war was nothing like the patriotic recruitment posters made it out to be. He therefore wanted to create a movie that realistically depicted the dreadful events that happened in Vietnam. Stone also wanted to expose the extent of American cruelty in Vietnam and Cambodia. Although America had some idea of what transpired in East Asia after the Tet Offensive was publicized, the majority of troop actions were still covered up. Stone also wanted his movie to be seen as a warning. In an interview with Bill Moyers, Stone stated that “The mass killing and suffering of civilians in Vietnam reminds him of today’s war in Afghanistan.” Platoon was meant to, not only denounce the war in Vietnam, but to also act as a reminder of the untold consequences that war inflicts on innocents.
In Platoon, Chris says explicitly in the conclusion that the enemy is “ourselves.” Whether or not that comment is meant to refer to America as a whole, an internal struggle, or something else, the movie as a whole clearly frames the antagonist as Staff Sergeant Robert Barnes. Barnes is characterized in a fashion comparable to a super-villain trope. He is merciless to Vietnamese communities and uses his position as an armed adult to threaten the lives of children and murdering civilians who have no means of defense.
ReplyDeleteWhile this behavior is observed in many of the American soldiers in the film, Barnes takes it a step further by also betraying his own comrades in order to maintain the power he is abusing. It’s these actions against American soldiers that reinforce Barnes as the antagonist of the story. This is a clever tactic on the producers’ part: Frame the villain as an individual rather than one of the larger parties in the war. This approach avoids framing the Vietnamese or the Americans as evil, and therefore disrespects neither party.
But the problem with this approach is that it prevents any real unified commentary on the war. Platoon touches on inequality in America; Platoon addresses the mistreatment and rape of the Vietnamese people and land; but these scenes are brief and they play little role in the actual narrative. Thus, Platoon as a whole is not a movie about the War in Vietnam. Platoon is an action movie about a man who was corrupted by power, and is replaced by another man who doesn’t want to do wrong to Americans. It shows that some members of the Hemdale film corporation wanted to tell a unique and critical story about war and American culture, but the end product is a story that the American people have already heard before: hardly as revolutionary as what the writers must have initially intended.
[Possible other topics for essay: American perception of self-value, larger context for why]
ooo I realize Eva and I present really different perspectives. That may translate into fun discussions in the classroom.
Deletepart 1
ReplyDeletePlatoon (1986) is a movie depicting American soldiers in Vietnam. Contrary to what might be expected of a more traditional American war film, Platoon explores the flaws of American soldiers and their mistreatment of Vietnamese civilians. However, this is not as unique as it might appear. Platoon shares many central themes and plot points with Full Metal Jacket and Apocalypse Now, two of the most well-loved Vietnam movies of American film. I will be comparing these three movies to explore how the Vietnam war appeared in American film, and its differences and similarities with more “traditional” war movies.
One might say that there are two types of American war movies: those that criticize the military, and those that support it. This is a lax definition, but, in the context of Vietnam, effectively categorizes two broad American perspectives on foreign military intervention. Indeed, Vietnam was a contentious topic in the 60s and into the 70s, and as support for the war waned, movies mirroring this sentiment began to come out in the 70s and 80s. Films explicitly criticizing the actions of the American military had never been so mainstream, especially not in the same framework as traditional war dramas. Platoon, Full Metal Jacket, and Apocalypse Now each have unhappy and at least vaguely unsettling endings, resolutions that do not satisfy, that leave the audience wondering whether things might have been better if our protagonist (each of them volunteers, not drafts) had just stayed home. At the time of the releases, 1986, 1989, and 1979 respectively, a war movie with such an ending was surprising. Traditionally, war films bolstered the spirit, showed a soldier who suffered but persevered and found that it had all been worth it. Vietnam movies almost satirized this format. Each movie portrays a soldier whose motivations are unclear, and become even muddier as the film goes on, and who becomes less and less certain in his mission as bodies (American and Vietnamese alike) drop around him. Tension is built, but is never released as it is in a more patriotic or traditional movie. We are never assured that it was all worth it. Platoon ends in a protagonist who is haunted by the hell he had seen and perpetuated. Full Metal Jacket ends in an eerie chant, a hollow tribute to the America the soldiers had just killed a young girl for. Apocalypse Now, perhaps the most disturbing of the three, ends with more questions than answers. All three technically end with a fulfillment of the mission, but none with the satisfaction we expect or desire. This lack of satisfaction is often said to mirror the result of the actual Vietnam war, but perhaps it is more than that. In the movies, the mission is completed, but for what? Even if America had succeeded in Vietnam, would that have erased all the atrocities committed in the name of freedom and victory? Did the ends justify the means? These Vietnam war movies answer with a resounding no, and it is this that separates them from more traditional American war films.
part 2
ReplyDeleteOne might also say that the two types of American war movies are those that value the life of an American above all others, and those that do not. This definition is one less often discussed, and sets up a dichotomy that seems to have only one half. We know very well in traditional war movies, the enemy is less human than a road to American glory. Murder is only murder if it is an American dying. The enemy is differently defined in these Vietnam war movies, summarized succinctly in Chris’s final line: “we did not fight the enemy, we fought ourselves, and the enemy was in us.” But there is a similarity in what this means for the film. The enemy may be Nazis, or it may be the monster in Barnes, or even Chris himself, but nevertheless, the frame of the movie is the same: American soldiers go overseas to kill the other guy. Was the Viet Cong the enemy? These movies would argue that the real monster was within the Americans committing atrocities, but the Americans are still the protagonists. Elias, who burned down a Vietnamese village not ten minutes previously, is given a ceremonial and tragic death. His final act is to reach up for the sky, his upturned face and outstretched arms reminding the audience of a Jesus-like figure, dying for the sins of the American army. Compare this death to that of the nameless woman who is on screen for all of five minutes. The humiliation, mutilation, and murder of Vietnamese people is a feature of these Vietnam war films, an aspect of the real purpose of criticizing the military. In each movie, they are referred to almost exclusively by a slur. In Apocalypse Now, Cambodian and Vietnamese bodies are strung up around Kurtz’s compound like streamers. In Full Metal Jacket, Vietnamese women are simpleminded prostitutes, but for the sniper in the final battle. Ultimately, in each of these movies, Vietnamese people are nameless victims of violence, there to either highlight the cruelty of some American soldiers or the mercy of others. The dead mother in Platoon died to show Barnes’s brutality and Elias’s humanity. She had no story, no name, no agency. Despite the consistent theme that the real enemy is in American soldiers, there is never any problem raised with gunning down Viet Cong soldiers. Vietnamese people deserve agency in stories about their own country. They deserve representation beyond prostitutes and dead villagers. Why are invaders and murderers in Vietnam centered over Vietnamese people in their own country? The lives of (brown) foreigners always comes second to the angst of white American soldiers. In this way, Vietnam war movies line right up with a long tradition in American film.
For a movie to truly go against the conventions of a traditional American war film, it cannot center American soldiers, regardless of whether it criticizes them. A wholehearted condemnation of an invasion does not protagonize the invader.