Full Metal Jacket (1987)

 

Full Metal Jacket

One of the recurrent themes of Stanley Kubrick’s production is the corruption and corruptive effect of militarism. “Paths of Glory”, “Dr. Strangelove” and to a large extent “A Clockwork Orange” all carry that line. This message is nowhere condensed as strongly as in “Full Metal Jacket”, Kubrick’s Vietnam War epos.

“Full Metal Jacket” plays out in two acts. The first act takes place in boot camp for the US Marine Corps. Without any introduction we see new recruits arrive at the camp and we are directly thrown into the welcome speech by Drill Sergeant L. Hartman (R. Lee Ermey). It is quite long and the point of it is to make the recruits understand they are worthless and only he matters in their world now. It is one, long dressing down.

As the recruits go through training it is clear that Leonard Lawrence (Vincent D’Onofrio), called Gomer Pyle by Hartman, is having a hard time getting things right. This earns him scorn and abuse from Hartman and when Hartman makes it the entire platoon’s problem, Pyle finds himself very much alone. James Davis (Matthew Modine), “Joker” by Hartman, is assigned to help Pyle. They form an uneasy friendship and it is largely due to Joker that Pyle completes his training. At graduation Pyle takes his own life as well as that of Hartman.

In the second act, Joker is in Vietnam as a journalist for an army news agency. When the Tet offensive in 68 hits, he is sent north to a battlefield where he reunites with one of his friends from boot camp, “Cowboy” (Arliss Howard). Embedded in his squad he joins the fighting, a fight that seems to confuse those taking part in it. The only brutal fact seems to be that people die. When the squad gets pinned down by a sniper in a position where they are not even supposed to be, the pointless dying reaches a climax.

“Full Metal Jacket” can be seen as two separate movies with apparently little tying them together. With the death of Pyle and Hartman at the conclusion of act one, it feels is if that concluded that story. When the movie continues in Vietnam Joker and Cowboy are the only links to the first act. The story now moves at a different pace, with different characters and with a seemingly different plot. Commenters on the movie have noted that the second part appear aimless, that it seems to go nowhere.

I read the two parts differently. Part one is the destruction of the civilized individual in order to create the Homo Militaris, and the second part is showing this new crippled creation is further destroyed for no apparent purpose in the war. The second part feels aimless exactly on purpose. The skirmish is just another pointless encounter that kills people but does not change anything. It is completely generic.

There are quite a few movies out there that follow soldiers through basic training and then on mission, both dramas and comedies and they usually have that in common that the unit is fused together through the hardships of training, that a bond is created and something is won. “Full Metal Jacket” has none of that. There is no camaraderie, there is no upside. Basic training is destruction, not creation and while it may feel like a miss if you are thinking of “Band of Brothers” or “Stripes”, it is entirely on purpose. The only fusion taking place is the common rejection of humanity.

The most spectacular character of the movie is without a doubt Ermey’s Hartman. I learned that Ermey was in fact an actual marine drill instructor and that he added a lot to the role himself. He is completely believable and scary as hell. It is telling that he is also the only character that really stands out. Even Joker, the lead of the second half, is only really an observer and an uncommitted one at that. In the final scenes, even his humanity seems to die. I think it is deliberate that we hardly get to touch these soldiers. There are glimpses of something else underneath, but soon after they are usually dead or somewhere else. Destroyed by the machine of war.

I do not know if “Full Metal Jacket” qualifies as an entertaining movie, but it is certainly an effective movie at conveying its message, even if it never spells it out. It is ugly and pointless in its plot, but anything else in its message. That makes it very much a Kubrick movie. If you are a fan of Kubrick, there is no way around this one.