January 22, 2006

Jarhead

jarhead.jpgWhile there has rarely been any shortage of people (especially from the film industry) claiming that war, and specifically the war in Iraq, is pointless, this story brings a new angle to that point of view.

We experience the war from the point of view of one particular marine, and while the purpose and success or failure of the US presence in Iraq as a whole is not dealt with, the pointlessness of this particular individual's presence in the war zone is keenly felt throughout the entire second half of the movie.

Jake Gyllenhaal plays Swoff, an ordinary individual who enlists into the marines, and quickly decides that he would rather be anywhere else. A fortuitous transfer brings him into an elite sniper's unit. Once there, the training, psychotic camaraderie and mind-numbing discipline quickly transform a group of 40 trainees into a squad of 8 professional snipers.

Saddam invades Kuwait and the marines are deployed. They originally believe the entire war will be over in a matter of days, but the situation quickly becomes a waiting game, as these expert snipers come to realise that when the air force is capable of destroying entire platoons with single strikes, there is little role for expert marksmen. Their presence in the desert appears to be a combination of pointlessness and public relations.

The narrative of this story has a powerful message about what we put enlisted soldiers through, the expectations that are set, the preparation their training gives them, and how those expectations are not met once they are deployed in battle. Their vision of what going into combat as highly-trained members of an elite fighting force quickly rubs up against the reality of waiting for six months in a sandy ditch, and the effects on their morale and their capabilities becomes quickly apparent.

The bravado and behaviour of the marines and their leadership, the gung ho "we are so righteous and unstoppable", and in particular the platoon commander's welcome speech given to the marines as they arrive on the ground in Kuwait, all serve to make us wonder what sort of creatures were sent there, ostensibly to represent us, including our interests and morals in the area, and the impression the locals were left with after they saw the behaviour of the armies of the west, both on the ground and on CNN.

The performances are good, and there's nothing wrong with the detail of the script, other than the occasional loss of momentum, but the basic premise of the movie is difficult to carry off. What, after all, is the point of a war movie which has as it's message the pointlessness it all? It's hard to make a point about pointlessness and keep the movie functioning within the parameters which make the audience walk away and feel either entertained or enlightened.

While no blame can be attributed to the makers of the film or the actors within it, the decision to make this book into a movie was misguided, because it just doesn't seem to work.

Posted by nlvp at January 22, 2006 11:50 AM
Comments

I agree with everything you've said up to the final 2 paragraphs. Whilst you may have not enjoyed the film, that doesn't mean you can extrapolate that into a failure on the part of the filmmakers.

I was half expecting Jarheads to be Full Metal Jacket light and was pleasantly surprised to find that it did in fact manage to bring a fresh perspective to the 'war movie'.

Initially comic, the marines head for Iraq with a 'Hoorah' but their experiences there end up somewhere between purgatory and hell.

I thought the movie did an excellent job of highlighting the extent to which the lives (as opposed to the deaths) of young, mostly ignorant, men are grist to the mill of the modern war machine.

Posted by: Incandenza at January 24, 2006 08:30 AM

"Whilst you may have not enjoyed the film, that doesn't mean you can extrapolate that into a failure on the part of the filmmakers".

That's hardly fair! In fact - I specifically said that it was not a failure on the part of the filmmakers : "While no blame can be attributed to the makers of the film or the actors within it". It's the choice to convert this book to film in the first place that I think was ill-advised, because as a result the film lacks any sense of resolution or denouement.

I agreed with you that the point of the film is excellent : "The narrative of this story has a powerful message...", I just don't think that it is a subject that lends itself well to a movie, and probably worked much better as a book.

On a separate point - I think the google ads to the right are quite funny. As I write they, two of them are : "Special Ops. Training - High risk protection training in dangerous places" and "God Loves Soldiers - a site for soldiers about Jesus Christ".

Posted by: nlvp at January 24, 2006 09:25 AM

Fair point, but who made the decision to turn the film into a book except the filmmakers?

I think my basic point was this:

Personally, I enjoyed the movie and felt that it conveyed its point admirably. I have no problem with a movie about pointlessness (it isn't paradoxical for the point of a text to be the pointlessness of something/anything be it life, war or the Belgian Secret Service ;) ). As such, I felt both entertained (although without any sense of catharsis) and enlightened (since it did in fact show things in a light I had not previously considered).

As a consequence, I disagree with your assessment that the premise was inherently flawed, said assessment being based on your own response to the movie.

Posted by: Incandenza at January 24, 2006 06:12 PM
Post a comment









Remember personal info?


Please enter the security code you see here