Stamina888
08-09-17, 05:13 AM
After seeing several of Kubrick's films, I expected a film with great dialogue, atmosphere, immersion and thrilling moments. However, I was surprised to see a genuinely story-focused experience.
Starting from a flawlessly executed and paced parody of military boot camp, it immediately draws the viewer into an entertaining circus. The parody works because it is theatrical but doesn't stray too far from reality. While the dialogue is heavily flavored, most aspect of groupthink that Kubrick mocks actually happened in real-life to the same extent. The movie is separated into two halves: the first a boot camp comedy which ends on a dire note. And then the reality of Vietnam where the training is over and the loss begins. These dualistic halves reconcile very well because both are an effective critique on the male ego in their own way. Upon re-examining the film, I noticed that each aspect of the halves relate to each other in some way (such as events in the first half being metaphors and foreshadowing for events which would occur in the second half). With two very animated and iconic characters from the start aside, the movie becomes about Joker: a wisecrack who is fond of commentary but not most apt for taking responsibility.
This is not an action movie. This is not, primarily, a war movie. This movie is about the sad truths of human nature. The social critique of this movie starts with the conclusion that "war is hell" rather than ending with it. Instead of the focus being on nationalistic Americans being slowly disillusioned by reality, it starts with an already disillusioned liberal social-intellectual who realizes that, he can be just as savage as the less-cognizant infantrymen which the viewer is supposed to be mocking. The American soldiers are shown to embody some of the most vile human traits when exposed to war, yet, I as a viewer, feared every potential of risk to their lives and hoped they all made it out alive. The viewer, I presume, is to want to see their positive traits as a brotherhood protecting each others lives. But this film has a bleak, though arguably accurate, representation of men as tribal, unbridled and violent beings.
In this film, mens pride comes to haunt them: from the humiliation, . Hartman's humiliation of poor Pyle, the degradation of teenage Vietnamese women, and man's ability to rally behind a cause fervently. Maybe the only real "change" in this film's protagonist, is perhaps acceptance. Beyond a just war film, Kubrick's ability to showcase the ability of the male ego to both destroy lives and fold in line for blind obedience makes this film resonate.
8.5/10
Starting from a flawlessly executed and paced parody of military boot camp, it immediately draws the viewer into an entertaining circus. The parody works because it is theatrical but doesn't stray too far from reality. While the dialogue is heavily flavored, most aspect of groupthink that Kubrick mocks actually happened in real-life to the same extent. The movie is separated into two halves: the first a boot camp comedy which ends on a dire note. And then the reality of Vietnam where the training is over and the loss begins. These dualistic halves reconcile very well because both are an effective critique on the male ego in their own way. Upon re-examining the film, I noticed that each aspect of the halves relate to each other in some way (such as events in the first half being metaphors and foreshadowing for events which would occur in the second half). With two very animated and iconic characters from the start aside, the movie becomes about Joker: a wisecrack who is fond of commentary but not most apt for taking responsibility.
This is not an action movie. This is not, primarily, a war movie. This movie is about the sad truths of human nature. The social critique of this movie starts with the conclusion that "war is hell" rather than ending with it. Instead of the focus being on nationalistic Americans being slowly disillusioned by reality, it starts with an already disillusioned liberal social-intellectual who realizes that, he can be just as savage as the less-cognizant infantrymen which the viewer is supposed to be mocking. The American soldiers are shown to embody some of the most vile human traits when exposed to war, yet, I as a viewer, feared every potential of risk to their lives and hoped they all made it out alive. The viewer, I presume, is to want to see their positive traits as a brotherhood protecting each others lives. But this film has a bleak, though arguably accurate, representation of men as tribal, unbridled and violent beings.
In this film, mens pride comes to haunt them: from the humiliation, . Hartman's humiliation of poor Pyle, the degradation of teenage Vietnamese women, and man's ability to rally behind a cause fervently. Maybe the only real "change" in this film's protagonist, is perhaps acceptance. Beyond a just war film, Kubrick's ability to showcase the ability of the male ego to both destroy lives and fold in line for blind obedience makes this film resonate.
8.5/10