Waiting for Saddam

Rating: 5/10 (14 November 2005)

It's hard to see what all the fuss is about, concerning "Jarhead." I have not read the book, but it strikes me as the classic page-to-stage or page-and-screen problem: the real allure of the book is something about the tone, something about the voice, something that might only be approximated by a voice-over. Normally the prospect of tons of people going to see a movie where nothing happens would make me first in line, but this film just isn't about much, and nothing much is revealed other than that Marines are sex-starved, aggressive and bored. The special mark of this movie seems to be: nothing happens. While you will see many scenes of metaphor-challenged commanders orating to shiny (with oil) faced young would-be Audie Murphys, they will only distinguish themselves from the other 8,000 times you have seen this scene because: in that movie it served a purpose. Sure, Roger Deakins kicks ass, now give him something to shoot. I can't really understand how they spent so much time on this film, or so much money, or why Jake Gyllenhaal is getting so much acclaim, he's merely serviceable and not given much to do. Even one of my favorites, Peter Sarsgaard, is getting undeserved praise; his character, obviously underwritten to be seen immediately as a troubled kid with a violent past, instead comes across as the gravedigger from "Garden State" who got caught raiding the coffins and sent to the military. This makes his eventual fate all the more vague because I had no idea what sequence of events could have caused that to happen to him. This film could have been made with the exact same people in it by Killer Films or some indie outfit and would have greatly benefited by the tarted-up sheen that makes it all too apparent that ain't nothing' going' on and ain't much illumination coming out of that. What did they spend all the money on, anyway? It wasn't on actors, special effects, costumes, locations, maybe just on an overrated director. All three of his films so far have been full of skin-deep metaphor with purported deeper meaning. This one doesn't have the smugness of Kevin Spacey, but it still purports to be some sort of massive statement about the state of the soldier. Perhaps the accumulation of mundane details in the book transcends boring and becomes a statement about man's place in the universe or something, but not in this movie. Just rent Full Metal Jacket again, really. And remember, as one of the posts on this IMDb profile says: "YOUR ANTI-American IF YOU DON'T SEE IT." No, seriously, another problem with it is that its attempt to be anti-political just makes it pro-war. Sorry, but not to be explicitly against a war you are participating in (as Pat Tillman was recently revealed to be, incidentally) is to tacitly endorse it. Of course there isn't free-speech in the military, but then why is the person told to shut up against the war instead of for it? Telling that person that politics don't matter because they're there isn't like making a statement about reality and a present situation; it is a statement like telling people today that more lives should be wasted in Iraq to justify the other wasted lives and not insult their memory already, and as there are people shouting that the film was made by "liberals" and a director from the UK who hasn't served, let me say as an ACLU member that it is the sort of left-wing propaganda I could do without. It's about as left-wing as Joe Lieberman. The only real good I can see coming out of this film is that hopefully some of the military wives and girlfriends will think twice before two-timing their men overseas.