Anti-war, anti-military, but Ermey's great

Rating: 6/10 (5 June 2008)

When "Full Metal Jacket" premiered in 1987 we were only 12 years removed from Vietnam and still 14 years from the 9/11 attacks. I would submit that the public's views on Vietnam have changed since Kubrick made his film. Many Vietnam vets are now retiring and in recent years have finally been getting recognition for their service. The public's current determination to support the troops "downrange", fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan, is a reflection of the shame we feel for the way we treated Vietnam vets back during their war. Even those who bitterly oppose the current war are quick to say they still support the troops---which to me his hypocritical, because how can you support people who are doing something you despise?
I bought the movie after my brother linked me to a YouTube cut of the opening scene in the barracks where the gunny dresses down the "maggots". A fan of Gunny Ermey, I enjoyed his performance, but from what I know of today's recruit training from TV documentaries and talks with current troops, many of Sgt. Hartman's methods would never be allowed in today's Marine Corps or other services. The training is tough and demanding and it must be so, because on the battlefield there is no room for sissies or cowards and attention to detail and willingness to follow orders are often life-or-death matters. Discipline is a must in a military unit and very few of today's young people, or those from any era, who enter the military have much in the way of self-discipline.
The second half of the movie, depicting the Marines in Vietnam during Tet, has anti-war imagery that is almost too obvious. The Marines are now shown to be less than orderly in their discipline and sometimes close to being psychotic. They have little or no regard for the Vietnamese people and have no compunction about "wasting" civilians. The only Marine who shows empathy for the natives is Joker, who conspicuously wears a peace button in violation of direct orders from his superiors (and is apparently never reprimanded). The South Vietnamese culture is depicted as corrupt, as the only South Vietnamese we meet are thieves, pimps and prostitutes. By contrast, the only North Vietnamese soldier we see is a teenage girl, who prays as she is dying, something no American is shown doing. (How can she be a loyal communist and still be religious?) The message is clear: the communists were noble patriots seeking to overthrow the corrupt Saigon regime which was being propped up by the imperialist Americans. Yes, there is the scene of Joker and Rafterman at the mass grave of South Vietnamese who have been murdered by the NVA, but the impact of the scene is lessened---indeed, its message completely turned around---when the officer describing the atrocity continually smiles for the camera and then the colonel upbraids Joker for wearing the peace button. What kind of message would Kubrick have sent had he shown the officer weeping as he described the murders, or had the angry colonel rip the button off Joker's vest and toss it into the grave, saying something like, "These people could've used your (expletive) button, Marine. Then the peace-loving freedom-fighters would've left them alone, wouldn't they?"
It's been said that historical perspective about an event or era can only be achieved some fifty years after the fact, especially once many or most of the principals have died and so more objective accounts of their lives and contributions can be written. Now some 35 years after the end of our Vietnam involvement, we are beginning to see some of this.
The Tet Offensive, launched by the NVA and VC during the holiday truce, was a sign of things to come; after all, Hanoi blithely ignored the Paris accords once their own military and infrastructure had sufficiently recovered from the pounding it received from us in the early '70s and Nixon, who had no qualms about sending armadas of B-52s over the North, was out of office.
Kubrick was undoubtedly a good filmmaker, but his films seemed often to be almost too cerebral for the average viewer, visually stunning but conceptually muddled. At least to those of us here in the heartland; it's not surprising that the critics who live on the enlightened coasts loved him so much.