Skip to main content

believe the hype


Go see Jarhead.

Go see it at the next available opportunity, don’t waste time thinking about it. That’s an order.

I didn’t actually go out with the intention of seeing jarhead tonight. I had meant to go see Good Night and Good Luck, which I still intend on doing. As it happens, I made a typically lazy decision. Good Night wasn’t playing at a theatre convenient to where I was at that specific moment in time, so I opted to go see the other movie I was interested in, Sam Mendes’ Jarhead. It wasn’t really a close second, because I tend to find movies about being in the army a little alienating. It’s like watching a room full of the people I used to hate in high school from the safe side of one-way glass. Kind of entertaining, but the people inside still seem vaguely dangerous to someone like me.

I guess this change in plans is what one would call providence, because Jarhead is one of the best movies I’ve seen in years. I am going to have to see it again, because I’m still marveling at what a masterful, controlled piece it is.

Based on the memoirs of a real-life Gulf War vet (the first one), Jarhead is one of the only army films that doesn’t rely on predictable caricatures of military types to connect you to a larger story being told by the director. The story in this case is the soldiers- wide-eyed, stupidly courageous, openly vulnerable boys thrown in a situation that is completely foreign to both their civilian lives and their army training.

Don’t believe the comparisons that you here between Jarhead and other war movies, because it simply isn’t like most other war movies. There’s no war, for starters. When most people think of recent movies about war, they think about the preponderance of films about Vietnam, films that showed the full horror of war, the battles, the massacres of civilians, the gory injuries. The soldiers in Jarhead don’t see battle. They see accidents and aftermath, but the war is as bloodless as the parched desert landscape.

Because the first Gulf War, from the perspective of those of us who watched it from our sofas, was surgical, quick, painless, there is a tendency to dismiss it in comparison with the debacle that was Vietnam. The war was fought with overwhelming popular support (although some of us still walked in the streets and screamed “no blood for oil” to deaf ears), it was over quickly and it was a victory. It lacked the cultural impact of Vietnam (something which is touched on with particular finesse in the movie) and as a result, the soldiers were simply expected to come home and go back to regular life. The point the film makes, very eloquently, is that this is an impossibility. The gun, as the narrator points out, is the soldier’s phantom limb, no matter what war he has been through. It’s what he always reaches for.

In the same way that the first Gulf War was different than the Vietnam war. Jarhead is very different from films about the Vietnam war. This is no Platoon or Full Metal Jacket. It could be compared to the Deer Hunter, but the most apt comparison, in terms of war films, is to the 1930 masterpiece All Quiet on the Western Front, a film that (for different reasons) managed to get inside the mind of an average soldier in a way more unsettling than any number of scenes drenched in blood.

Comments

Ludovic T. said…
thanks for the info, l'll check it. Yesterday l watched 2010 space odyssey-first contact. l like much this film, pictures are great and the philosophy of life too. And to stay in a war trip, Enemy at the gate is one of my favourite film.

Cheers.
flora_mundi said…
I haven't seen 2010 yet, although, since I've seen 2001 a few times, i must get around to it... thanks for the reminder :-)

as long as you're here, why not read more?

fun-raising

no, i am not dead, nor have i been lying incapacitated in a ditch somewhere. i've mostly been preparing for our imminent, epic move, which is actually not so terribly epic, because we found a place quite close to where we are now. in addition, i've been the beneficiary of an inordinately large amount of paying work, which does, sadly, take precedence over blogging, even though you know i'd always rather be with you.

indeed, with moving expenses and medical expenses looming on the horizon, more than can be accounted for even with the deepest cuts in the lipstick budget, dom and i recently did something that we've not done before: we asked for help. last week, we launched a fundraising campaign on go fund me. it can be difficult to admit that you need a helping hand, but what's been overwhelming for both of us is how quick to respond so many people we know have been once we asked. it's also shocking to see how quickly things added up.

most of all, though, the ex…

losers?

just a short time ago, i waxed prosaic about trump supporters who felt betrayed by their candidate pursuing in office the exact things that he said he would. short version: i have no sympathy.

today is a bit different. in the wake of america's bombing of a syrian air strip, in response to a chemical weapons attack by the syrian government, my facebook and twitter feeds were peppered with plaintive shades of "we believed you". these are the people who heard trump say that he wanted the united states to step back and focus on defending its own. indeed, trump did say such things, over and over; america cannot be the policeman of the world. even arch-liberal cynics like me had to admit that this was a refreshing argument to hear from someone outside the paul family, and, could easily have been turned into trump's greatest argument against hillary clinton. [he chose to go another way, which also worked.]

trump also said, repeatedly, that america needed to invest heavily …

long division

after the united states election last year, there were the usual calls for the country to unite behind the new president. that never happens anymore, because, since george w. bush scored a victory in 2004, having launched the country into a war in iraq for no reason, the people on the losing side of a presidential election have been pretty bloody angry about it. democrats hated bush 43. republicans really hated obama. democrats really hate trump.

it didn't help that trump didn't make the typical conciliatory gestures like including a couple of members of the opposite party in his cabinet, or encouraging his party to proceed slowly with contentious legislation. barack obama arguably wasted at least two and as many as six years of his tenure as president trying to play peacemaker before he felt sufficiently safe to just say "screw you guys" and start governing around the ridiculous congress he was forced to deal with. not-giving-a-shit obama was the best president in …