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.
