Platoon: A Cultural Review

Platoon is a film regarding the moralistic situations war forces upon men. Released in 1968, on Christmas Eve interestingly enough, the ground breaking film was both written and directed by Oliver Stone. Including many brilliant actors such as: Charlie Sheen, Tom Berenger, Willem Dafoe, Forest Whitaker, Kevin Dillon, Keith David, John C. McGinley, and Johnny Depp, the film boosted the careers of some, and furthered the careers of others. And, although it had a varying range of acceptance due to its violent content and questionable material, Platoon remains one of the most acclaimed war films to date. The film truly embraces its famous tagline: “the first casualty of war is innocence”.
The film begins with several poignant scenes regarding the results of the war upon the soldier. Our main, Chris, played by Charlie Sheen, begins a narration of sorts, taking form in a letter to his grandmother back home. The first bit of action comes about as Chris’s patrol is ambushed by the enemy, resulting in the death and maiming of several soldiers. This tragedy, however, is mitigated due to Chris’s next scene, in which he joins some of the other men, partaking of their alcohol and marijuana, he finally seems a little happy as a result. This happiness is short lived though, for, as the film moves on, several more members of the platoon are killed by the Vietnamese.
The soldiers then happen upon a Vietnamese village and, with the death of their “brothers” so fresh in their minds, have a hard time keeping control of themselves. This results in the violent death of several villagers and the beginnings of a split in the force, the vicious on one side, and the moralistic on the other. The film races on with another battle, the most significant part being that the militant and slightly psychotic Sgt. Barnes attempts to murder the more sensible and compassionate Sgt. Elias. Barnes convinces the force to move out, explaining the death of Sgt. Elias; he is thwarted, however, when a severely wounded Elias runs out of the jungle, Vietnamese soldiers on his heels. He does, unfortunately die, and with him the largest moral balance left in the force.
Realizing what Barnes had done, Chris and some other soldiers plot to eliminate Barnes. They are found out though and decide against it. The film then begins to come to a close with one final battle, the largest so far, in which final decisions are made and many lives lost. Most prominently, Chris ends up killing Barnes in self defense, before collapsing due to his wounds. After the battle is over, Chris is told he can go home, he however never thinks he can leave, at least not in spirit. His final words, expressing the entire theme of the film, bring the movie to a stunning close.
It is easy to see why this film would be considered controversial. Its view of the military is far from stellar, really really far. While most other films of the genre exacerbate the bonds of “brotherhood” and other such things the military commonly tries to present, Stone, however, focuses on the opposite, what tears the military apart. Normally war films are shown as propaganda in favor of the military as a whole, this one, however, sets the stage for future films to question, perhaps, the normal idioms of such things. Stone uses moralistic decisions in this case, to do most of the tearing apart. Once again this was not a very common thing to see in a film of the day, soldiers were supposed to know what they were doing was in the right, leaving no room for alternative thought.
As I mentioned above, the film’s primary message is the moralistic battle for the soul that war jumpstarts. On one side you have the vengeful, vicious side, on the other one sees the more rational and peaceful bunch. One could actually argue that these two sides present in the film were meant to represent the varying sides present domestically during the time period in which the film is set, namely the hawks and the doves. Other themes present in the film, most of which are also pretty controversial, can be pulled out pretty easily. First, one might note the fact that war is seen in a negative light in the film, rather than the noble and patriotic duty more commonly displayed. Another theme that should be mentioned is the equality presented between the black and white soldiers in the film. Only once is there any sort of racist commentary and, naturally, it is thrown out there by the “bad” guy.
The film certainly seems to present many post-modern viewpoints throughout its entirety. Most prominent is the varying viewpoints between the soldiers. Where once there had to be a definite universal viewpoint on everything, suddenly there is a cornucopia of various views and outlooks on life. Additionally it should be noted that there, besides a few crosses and a picture, there really is not any true sense of focus on God. Prior films in the war genre would have at least mentioned something, but American society had shifted away from that. Another point is the casualty the filmmakers make many “morally grey” situations to be. Several times murder of an officer is mentioned, on both sides of the conflict, and while the conversation remains serious, the scenes lack the intensity such decisions would normally warrant. Naturally, heavy drug usage is also shown. This is again something in conjunction with the post modern view point of “whatever you think okay is great for you”, plus the film is set in the late sixties.
It is very interesting to look at how various elements of the film reflect its themes, well, when is it not? The first thing that caught my eye in this regard was how Vietnam is presented in the film, especially in the beginning. There are multiple scenes where various small, but deadly, wild animals harass the characters, giving the jungle a subtle darkness that has nothing to do with the lighting. Additionally, there are not very many times when the weather is perfect. Most of the time it is either kind of dark and raining, or, there is a tremendous glare, the sun high in the sky, making Vietnam to be a very uncomfortable place to be. The soundtrack is nothing special, in my opinion, but it does convey the mood of a given scene accurately, it just does not stand out at all. Many times in the break room where many soldiers are scene smoking or drinking the lighting used makes the scenes seem almost surreal. Rather this is reflective of the drugs being used or the actual moral ambiguity of the usage, I cannot guess. In the end, Stone does an above average job at creating a very real “sense” of what is going on, using all one’s senses in conjunction.
The film, all in all, was very good. It put a new spin on war and the struggle of the soldier. It reflected the post modern society in which it was made fairly accurately and presented its messages pretty well. It made the viewer think. And, thatis sometimes the most important thing a film can provide.