Just seven years after Francis Ford Coppola's masterpiece "Apocalypse Now" came out, Oliver Stone submitted his own Vietnam War drama to resounding success. Unflinching and supremely tense, "Platoon" offers the experience of one lonely grunt in the deepest pit of Hell. Although I do not necessarily agree with the film's greatness, it is nonetheless a gripping and expertly crafted depiction of one of the bloodiest defeats in American history.
A young Charlie Sheen plays Chris, the lost soul and intelligent college dropout on a crusade, who has made the mistake of enlisting for the Army. Naive, unskilled fresh meat, Chris soon finds himself in the last great battlefield of good versus evil. Pulled between the just, if taught, Sgt. Elias (Willem Dafoe) and the scarred, ruthless killer, Sgt. Barnes (Tom Berenger), Chris must decide if he should fight for self-imposed affects of "humanity" or let himself be swallowed up by the great primal choice of fight or flight.
Although it was shot in the Philippines and not Vietnam or Cambodia, the thick jungles lend itself for an engrossing and entirely believable portrayal of the horrors of Nam. Stone wastes no time in plunging the audience into the gruesome details of what was essentially guerrilla warfare. A great many films have tried hard to capture the essence of various wars throughout history, and most have been unsuccessful. I feel strongly that one of the reasons why "Platoon" was so successful was due to the fact that it did not attempt to soften the stark nature of particularly unforgiving war. Boys were turned into men, and men were turned into monsters in the space of months, and Stone makes no attempt to blind the audience to that.
There are a great many scenes for which this film has become iconic. Most, I feel, are simply given in recognition of Stone's artistry, but the singular shot which I feel encompasses the entire message of the movie and really reveals the ultimate futility of it all comes at the halfway mark. The great controversial scene is the rape and illegal murders that come with the raid of a small farming village. We have all heard the stories of men on the battlefield who have made sport of killing civilians, devoid of consciences and numbed or broken by the effects of constant fear. The scene here is especially graphic, terrifying and infuriating. But the one shot which encompasses the entire message of the film comes when a G.I. who has just beaten an old woman and her mentally and physically disabled son lights their hut on fire and then lights his cigarette with the flames. At that moment we know we are not meant to hate the people, simply the war orchestrated by faceless, potbellied politicians.
The film, for all its great potential, marvelous acting, and realist production falls short when it comes to its narrative. The characters are never fully fleshed out, the time necessary to developing them instead being used on drawn out, loud and chaotic fight sequences. These are very effective for a short amount of time, but as they continue, and continue, and continue they become wearisome. The men are turned into nothing more than pawns on the giant chessboard facilitated by God and Satan.
Stone's religious overtones become overwrought as well. It is clear the Elias is meant to be Jesus ("Jesus fucking Christ", "water-walker", the betrayal by Judas which leads to his death), and Barnes who is intended to be Satan (the scars, the impossibility of his death, the fire in his eyes), both of whom fight for the wandering sheep. Of all the many things I hate in a film, one of the worst is when a movie is patronizing, thinking I can't figure out the little tricks and messages of the director or writer. "Platoon" wasn't terrible in this way, but the metaphors could have been toned down.
Furthermore, the final message is unclear. There seems to be a constant struggle between both freewill and destiny, and predestined good and evil. The men in Chris's platoon fall into the Barnes or Elias camp, based on their compassion and their willingness to fight. But in each of them they also find themselves with considerable choices in which they must make a conscious effort to decide. Chris is the intellectual and he is our protagonist, so we follow him as he becomes aware of the struggle. But which is it, reason or the divine? The films pulls both ways, and I wouldn't mind the ambiguity so much were the themes not so prominent.
Looking past all lofty snobbery, the film is very good. Not great, but very good. It is a war film that does not rely on gimmicks and gratuitous blood to make its point, but simply employs them to accentuate the fact that the war was demoralizing, dehumanizing and pointless. Although it kept me engaged I did notice my mind wandering, often drifting toward the question "Do we need another Nam film after 'Apocalypse'?" I say no.
3/4
No comments:
Post a Comment