Ain't war hell ?!??!! Ah hahahahaha...

Rating: Null/10 (9 September 2002)

I won't go into details about the plot, I assume with all other reviews of this film, you got the gist of it...
I will however attempt to go through details which make this film one of the most fearsomely authentic and majestic experiences captured by a single man's uncanny vision.
Using the camera as a window into the human experience, Stanley Kubrick was among the (very) few directors to truly capture the human psyche as a rich and complex whole...
As some of you may know, Kubrick began his extraordinary odyssey as a director by first being a freelance photographer for Look magazine, a path which transpires on this film...
In this feature, he amazingly captured the loss of innocence, as a singular part of men, but also as a much grander totality of society...

I just want to mention one striking scene to justify my phrase, the hair cut sequence.
These men arrive at a barber and get shaven, you clearly see their curiosity, fear and quest for adventure in their faces, unknowing what kind of hell they've embarked upon. It is a very powerful message as to how, as much as a singular part of -these- men, but as well as the Americans in foreign settings, how innocent and inexperienced they truly are... They send men to die in conflicts that don't affect or concern them.
And Kubrick uses a very strong metaphor to imply that idea, the hair itself represents innocence... One becomes comfortable with his hair, it is his identity, a way to differentiate himself from his fellow man.
Kubrick takes that away as a symbolic image in the way the system (militarily speaking) takes off your image, your true self, by shaving off the seemingly only way to truly distinct yourself from others...
From there, the cleansing begins...
In the following time period, a sort of routine sets in. Stanley is able to create a sense of relative normalcy in the first part of the picture, the men are together, at home, in America. As unpleasant and awkward as it seems, they get in a feeling of acceptance that this is what they came for, an adventure.
But something goes wrong in the plan
It is interesting to see the wide depth of knowledge or understanding the film's director had on human beings. As in 2001 and throughout all his career, Kubrick drew a picture to see humans as a mechanical tool of some greater force (A theme completely and brilliantly achieved in the haunting masterpiece, Eyes Wide Shut..)
This film is no exception to the quest. Man is an ultimate machine and is on a continuous journey to the ultimate truth, but as it goes, some flaws occur. As the characters come and go, the one being who appears as the most out of place is perhaps the most honest portrayal of man. With a mind blowing zoom-in on the face of Gomer Pyle, we see the absolute control of the situation, both within the plot and cinematically, and a complete loss of inner power all at once...
And this brings up to the next and somewhat lesser appreciated chapter of this film. The linear effect of the days in training is a way to amplify the chaotic mess that was the Vietnam war fiasco. It seems that few appreciates the second part of the film. To me it shows the true genius of the man who captured it, Stanley.
I would like to paraphrase a quote from a lesser impressive film, but with an interesting phrase nonetheless. From Vanilla Sky; 'without the bitter, the sweet isn't as sweet...'
Notice the stability of Parris, and the stark contrast it has with Vietnam.
Instead of the camera on wheels, he practically always uses a steadicam. In the process, it works as both extreme realism technically speaking, and another brilliant metaphorical aspect. One which clearly displays the instability of the geographical, political, social and more importantly, the psychological setting these young boys are in.
It is a much more impressive part of the film to me, because it shows the truly devastating aspects of war on its combatants at large, the pattern of instability which soon has total control over the men. I can see that the phrase, bitter/sweet, is seen here. I meant to say that one important aspect of the way we see Vietnam in the film is a much broader and lesser defined whole than America. But it is clearly as important in the picture he tried to take of the history.
We made a definable observation in the training, we understand the way things go, much like a prison, it has a tendency. Whereas in Vietnam, or any war theater for that matter, they're is no tendency. And that is ultimately how this film succeeds in showing. The unpredictability and challenges of combat. I worship films such as Apocalypse Now, The Thin Red Line, or The Longest Day for showing a wide range of how one can capture war, but it seems no film comes nearly as close to capturing the factual thing. It was fascinating to see how, in Apocalypse, war is seen with a breathtaking lyrical sense. But not here The Longest day, a masterpiece, showed war with an acute sense of patriotism, which is good for the way it was presented in history, but FMJ makes none of that, quite the opposite in fact...
There is no concessions here, what you see is what you get. The brutal honesty is what blows me apart in this film. No big explosions, no dramatic music at key moments, no heroism, just war.
I love this part more as well for the following, it allows an opportunity to see Kubrick, the photographer, the artist, in action. Granted, the entire film wraps like a documentary, but in the way he captured Vietnam, it is much more so The bleak light, the austere empty city, the long pauses of dreadful silences, it is an example of how Stanley Kubrick went against the stream of Hollywood as a director, never allowing any chance for relief or entertainment, he presents his view of what went wrong, why did the Americans lose the war, why they're so disliked abroad, the structure of the film goes against conformity. No one in history ever had the guts to do that, and that itself is a huge mark of honor !