| Platoon (1986) — movie review |
| Today’s review is for the Vietnam war drama “Platoon” directed by Oliver Stone and starring: Charlie Sheen as Private Chris Taylor (the narrator and main character), Tom Berenger as Staff Sgt. Barnes (the “bad” sergeant) and Willem Dafoe as Sgt. Elias (the “good” sergeant). The movie is a morality play set in the context of the Vietnam war and is basically a battle for the soul of Pvt. Taylor. Of course, nominally, the U.S. forces are there to defend “freedom” in Vietnam from the commies in North Vietnam. |
|
| The basic plot is that a young man is seeking to do “something” meaningful with his life and so he volunteers to join the Army and go to Vietnam as an infantryman. The film begins with his arrival in country, moves to his first couple of patrols, jumps to his making friends, jumps to an incident where the platoon destroys a village (a “Mỹ Lai” recast) and then jumps to a climactic battle where the Americans are overrun and we see which side (“good” or “evil”) Pvt. Taylor chooses and why. The movie ends with Taylor and a handful of others surviving the battle and on a chopper being medevaced before getting sent home (back to the U.S.). |
|
| Is this movie any good? How is the portrayal of war? The acting? The drama? And, do I recommend this film? Yes. Very good. Very good to excellent. Dark and tense. Yes, very highly (with qualifications). |
|
| Any good? – This is easy! The film was nominated for eight(8) Academy Awards and won four(4) including “Best Picture” and “Best Director“. It is widely considered to be a “classic” and one of the best “war” movies of all time. I don’t disagree with either assessment. It is also considered to be an anti-war movie, which I disagree with. I found it to be an anti-Vietnam War movie, but not an “anti-war” (itself) movie. It is NOT a “rah-rah” John Wayne style (“The Green Berets“) movie, but it did show acts of courage, selflessness, and genuine caring for your fellow comrade-in-arms. It also went out of its way to portray the brutality of wars and individuals fighting in wars, particularly when the combatants feel abandoned and misled by their country and government. |
|
| How is the actual portrayal of war / combat? I would say it was so-so to very accurate. The casual viewer probably doesn’t notice such details, but there is a difference between fighting a war and shooting the fighting of a battle. In reality, soldiers are trained to disperse and stagger. This is so individual enemy explosions don’t injure or kill multiple soldiers. This, however, doesn’t make for good filming. In this film, when there are long shots, you can see the troops deployed correctly. When there are close-ups, you (the director) do what you can to keep the actors engaged for drama. I didn’t have any problem with this, and, in fact, “like” it because it shows the audience real tactics when it can. Most movies show combatants bunched together all the time, so they can have face time and exchange words “in-frame”. War is dirty, wet and terrifying in a jungle. (Actually, war is dirty and terrifying in any climate.) It is also isolating. |
|
| I also favorably noted “little” Vietnam things which added to the realism. One detail, in particular, was showing the Vietnamese soldiers tying off their arms and legs with straps before attacking. It’s not explained in the movie, but North Vietnamese Army (NVA) did this to prevent bleeding out when attacking and while expecting to be injured. As it was explained to me: our main infantry weapon (M16) fires at high muzzle velocity bullet, but what it adds with speed to target, it lacks badly in “dropping power”. A NCO (non-Commissioned Officer) I worked with in Germany said he’d been in a firefight and he hit someone with his M16 multiple times and the guy just kept running towards him. The sergeant released the rifle, pulled his pistol and shot the guy. It was a “fast-draw” shot and he missed the guy’s body but hit him in the hand. The force of the slower but heavier bullet spun the attacker around and knocked him to the ground. Already dying from the M16 wounds, the attacker was not able to get up to continue his advance. The sergeant was not known to be a braggart, so I took him on his word this happened. |
|
| As to the “qualifications” mentioned above, there are several scenes with either cruelty to “presumed” combatants, civilians, and dismembering of enemy dead bodies (ear trophies). There are also numerous scenes of badly injured and deceased U.S. forces (and enemy forces), so let the squeamish beware. |
|
| Acting? – Generally, I found the acting to be very good to excellent. Of course, the big three (Sheen, Berenger and Dafoe) deserve full marks for their performances, but a number of the bit roles were also believable – if not relatable. In particular, there are a couple of great scenes where you see the actors look at each other and you can “see” the hatred / fury in their eyes. Great acting and great filming! Both Berenger and Dafoe received nominations for “Best Supporting Actor” Oscars, although neither won. |
|
| Drama? – As a non-combat veteran, I found the film to be both realistic and dramatic. There are both light (daytime) and dark (night time) scenes which are used to alternate between exposition and action. It works. The film is frequently claustrophobic in its build up to an action sequence (battle / tension release) and without using “ha-ha” humor, it reminds us that war can be both sarcastically “funny”, futile, bonding and isolating – ALL at the same time! The film high-lights that in war, sometimes none of your “best choices” are necessarily good options. Spoiler alert: Bad sergeant tries to kill good sergeant and then abandons him behind enemy lines to inevitable death; protagonist kills bad sergeant in retribution “for the loss of the good sergeant”; but, in the end, he must live with his bad choice (fragging a fellow soldier) for the rest of his own life back in “the world“. |
|
| Final recommendation: Very Highly recommended!! As previously stated, this film is a “classic” and considered one of the best in it’s genre – of ALL time. Again, there are scenes of severe injuries and death, a moderate amount of foul / racist language and drug use, an off-camera but stated attempted rape of a young female Vietnamese, and any number of other atrocities by American forces. It is arguable if these were as frequent and / or widespread as implied by this film; it is not arguable that they did occur (in Vietnam, anyway). |
|
| Side Note(s): I am a Vietnam Era veteran and a volunteer (not drafted). I did NOT serve in an active combat zone – two years stateside and two years in West Germany. My direct military experience is limited to my own training in field artillery exercises and standard infantry tactics in basic training and NCO Academy. The term “fragging” refers to the use of a fragmentation grenade to kill someone in your unit (generally higher in your chain-of-comand) because they have offended you or you believe they will cause unnecessary injury or death to you or others in your unit. It is also used (as in this film) to describe shooting that other person with intent to kill them. And, believe it or not, this was my first viewing of this film! I have generally been indifferent to viewing movies about the Vietnam War and am only now catching up on what I previously chose to skip. |
|
| . |
| Click here (2 July) to see the posts of prior years. I started this blog in late 2009. Daily posting began in late January 2011. Not all of the days in the early years (2009-2010) will have posts. |
|
|
|
Kevin Barrett's Blog 