The last time the United States officially declared war was December 11th 1941. The Cold War that followed prompted a rebranding of American military conflicts for the sake of containment. The most devastating and farcical example of this is the United States’ attempt to defeat communism in North Vietnam. The United States involvement in Vietnam is still part of its very recent past, and inspired a great deal of interests within popular culture. For historians, the perspective that popular culture contributes is a valuable source for understanding how the conflict was perceived by much of the United States’ population. Stanley Kubrick’s 1987 film Full Metal Jacket examines how military training and combat shape a human being into a weapon, while subtly questioning the United States’ lack of progress in Vietnam. Tim O’Brien’s novel The Things They Carried published in 1990 presents similar notions, while also elaborating on the emotions felt before and after conflict. These texts serve as expositions on the effects war, and all of the baggage that comes with it, can have on an individual’s development, as well as the roles played by United States’ citizens and military leaders.
While many American films that depict war start in the middle of combat and present a hero who either dies or is the last one alive, Kubrick’s film focuses more on the psyche of regular boys who are turned into men able to kill. It begins with an honest depiction of boot camp for individuals volunteering or drafted into the Marine Corps. This opening sequence presents a great deal of evidence for how Marines were trained and what was expected of them. Despite the fact that the many soldiers in Vietnam were fresh out of high school, boot camp intended to transform each individual into a “minister of death praying for war,” because as regular kids they were “the lowest form of life on Earth.” [1] Obviously, a person only being told they are a killing machine does not make them one. Kubrick, however, presents this entire first sequence in constantly changing scenes depicting humiliation, brutally forced conformity, and outright brainwashing. Furthermore, the drill instructor Gunnery Sargent Hartman, uses Charles Whitman and Lee Harvey Oswald as examples of what “one motivated Marine and his rifle can do.” [2]
The effects of this type of conditioning are apparent in the actions of Private Pyle, as well as certain characters later in the film. Boot camp is designed to create killing machines and to prepare individuals for a new sense of morality. The murder-suicide committed by Private Pyle was the result of harsh conditioning to his simplemindedness. He was taught not to solve his problems by rational means like a normal person, but to destroy the enemy with his weapon. Later in the film, Private Joker encounters a door gunner in a helicopter firing at civilians running for their lives. Like other soldiers in Vietnam, he demonstrates a lack of empathy for the Vietnamese, stating “Anyone who runs, is a VC. Anyone who stands still, is a well-disciplined VC!” [3] Furthermore, when Private Joker asks him how he kills women and children, he exclaims “Easy! Ya just don’t lead ’em so much! Ain’t war hell?” [4] The door gunner is a prime example of what boot camp was meant to create.
Kubrick also uses the film to depict how leaders attempted to portray the Vietnam War. Even before the Tet Offensive which greatly demoralized popular support for the War, Private Joker’s newspaper editor demonstrates what the War’s leaders attempted to depict. He tells Private Joker to “only report combat action that results in a kill,” and that it is their job to “report the news that the why-are-we-here reporters ignore.” [5] Additionally, he directs orders from his superiors that “search and destroy” will be replaced with “sweep and clear.” [6]
Like Kubrick, O’Brien examines the process of changing boys into soldiers, but he goes further to show their immaturity before the War, and their psychological burden after the War. O’Brien’s attempt, which he is explicitly clear about, is not to depict the events that characterized Vietnam, but to recreate the emotions felt and the memories that last from those events. While not expressing any particular attitude towards the events, O’Brien better examines the grey areas of morality soldiers were subjected to as well as the expectations of what a soldier should be versus the reality of War.
O’Brien presents contrasts between what life was like state side and what it was like in Vietnam. This demonstrates the isolation and foreignness of what soldiers experienced. This is best illustrated in the love interests that take place with Dobbins as well as Mary Anne and Fossie. Dobbins wears the stocking of his girlfriend back home for good luck, and continues to wear it even after she has left him. If he were home, he would experience intimacy and companionship, but in Vietnam his relationship is only possible through superstition. Though Mary Anne and Fossie become engaged, Mary Anne is captured by the native culture and their relationship fails. Fossie had hoped to experience love and marriage, but normal social traditions and behaviors are impossible while he is at war in a foreign country. Another aspect of life that was different for soldiers was the subjugation of moral ambiguity. When Azar jokes about the girl dancing after her village and family are burned, Dobbins threatens to throw him in a well, even though Dobbins took part in the destruction of the village. The idea that one should respect the people negatively affected by one’s actions may be noble in some sense, but it is a contradiction that illustrates the hard choices some were expected to make while attempting to hold on to their own morality.
When O’Brien tells the story of the man he killed, he focuses on what may have been the man’s life, rather than his death. He gives the man’s life many of the same characteristics he has, and in doing so, suggests that it could have been him that died. This suggests how senseless combat was, considering many soldiers on each side did not really know what they were fighting for. O’Brien gives much credit to soldiers participating because of expectations at home. When he contemplates leaving for Canada, he only decides to fight the war out of guilt rather than patriotic duty. He describes feeling hate for their “blind, thoughtless, automatic acquiescence…simpleminded patriotism, their prideful ignorance,” and how they wanted him to fight a war “they didn’t understand and didn’t want to understand.” [7] This same predicament is illustrated in Bowker’s relationship with his father. While Bowker was in Vietnam his father constantly pressured him to earn medals. After he returns home with medals his father is pleased, but doesn’t understand the realities of war. For Bowker, the medals mean nothing. He only carries guilt, hardship, and the memory of Kiowa’s death. The expectations of communities and family members at home influenced the actions of soldiers in Vietnam. Though Curt Lemon is so innocent he faints in the dentist’s office, the expectation for him to be fearless inspires him to pull a perfectly good tooth just to prove his courageousness. The reality, as O’Brien illustrates is that the stereotypes of American Soldiers mean nothing in a real war. Despite proving his bravery, Lemon dies while playing catch with his friend.
Since the United States began entering in senseless combat, a culture of blind patriotism has steadily defined what American’s assume of their soldiers, and expect of their peers. This idea is a dangerous concept because it ostracizes rational thought. If a person is so concerned with the lives of American Soldier’s perhaps the most reasonable expectation would be to not send them off to be arbitrarily killed, maimed, or subjected to all-around horrifying experiences. Both Kubrick and O’Brien brilliantly depict the burden of expectation, moral ambiguity, isolation, and guilt carried by each soldier. The expectation is important because it demonstrates what role certain parts of American society played then, and gives a sense of where today’s concept of blind patriotism came from.
- Full Metal Jacket, directed by Stanly Kubrick (1987; Burbank, CA: Warner Home Video).
- Ibid.
- Ibid.
- Ibid.
- Ibid
- Ibid
- Tim O’Brien,The Things They Carried (New York: Broadway Books, 1998), 45.
Im in college and this blog is neccessary 