Someone was telling me full metal jacket is a patriotic story about what it means to be a soldier... I never read it that way and was surprised to see that view, so I am wondering what the general view is... if I have been reading it wrong all these years even though all I know of Kubrick says otherwise ... that even though it has many sophisticated layers, at its core it is very critical of the war machine. The person I was talking to didn't see it that way at all...

I felt stupid just voting. Who told you this?

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/KMEViYvojtY&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/KMEViYvojtY&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

I'd love to hear your friend's take on Paths of Glory.

Here's a tip: If it is a Vietnam war movie and not named The Green Berets, it is anti-war.

As a critic Truffaut argued that all war films are pro-war, because despite their good intentions they glamorize battle, and Sam Fuller criticized Full Mettle Jacket for being what he called "just another damn recruitment film." I think Fuller's full of shit, but his opinion should carry some weight since he was a veteran and a filmmaker. That being said, even though I agree with Truffaut, yes, on the surface and in very simplistic terms I think FMJ is anti-war. However, I think most of Kubrik's work is about dehumanization and FMJ in particular is about dehumanization by war. One thing I DON'T think it's about is Vietnam. Not in the way that Platoon or Apocolypse Now is. It's about "modern war", how it differs from ancient war, how rediculous paradoxes emerge, how technology makes war less personal and more devestating.

I think FMJ is "about" war, neither for nor against, but simply about it. It just shows the savagery/bravery/insanity of it all.

I've never seen a pro-war movie.

Red Dawn

That was a pro-s**t movie.

When you make a movie about something, you do sort of glamorize whatever it is you're making the film about whether you want to or not. The same is true for anti-drug propaganda.

Does Trainspotting glamorize heroin addiction? Ewan McGregor might be swimming around in a filthy toilet, but we paid to watch him do it. And he's also saying witty things, pulling one over on his dick friend, and getting laid.

Not a good example since Kubrick himself, when asked why he was revisiting the war genre, made a point of saying that PoG was an anti-war film while FMJ is just a war film.

Full Mettle Jacket? Really?

I voted no stance. Everyone, I would hope, understands that war's a shitty thing. Any movie that fails to convey this to some degree is ridiculous. That said, there are few, if any, movies that are truly anti-war. A film might criticize a specific war, but most at least seem to accept that it's sometimes a necessity. I think Full Metal Jacket showed some of the horrific aspects of war, and being in the military in general, but I don't think it's purpose was to convert people to pacifism.

I agree, it isn't to convert the masses in any way, but instead to hold up a mirror to us. The first part is about the conditioning of the public against a common and perceived enemy; meanwhile the Joker represents the citizenry or public in the film, consciously or unconsciously being opposed to war but ultimately falling in line to the chain of command and rallying behind a "common cause" or preservation of our "own kind".

The first half of the movie has a sense of outrage as one young man is tormented until he cracks.

The rest of the movie is like a combat report. Soldiers do macho posturing. Soldiers bargain with whores. Soldiers engage the enemy. Soldiers regroup. End. I don't see any patriotic pride, admiration of the men, or horror at their situation. There isn't even an antagonist, just gunfire from out of sight. It has all the emotional content of a plumber snaking out a clogged drain. They do the job, they move on, and no one else cares.

What about Rambo? He single handedly defeats the VC. He's our All American boy.

So Spielberg glamorized not only the Holocaust, but also slavery?

A Jewish friend of mine remarked after SCHINDLER'S LIST: "Only Spielberg could make a film about the Holocaust and have a happy ending."

I dunno if it was really a happy ending or not...it was kind of well. Neither. The Schindler Jews walk after being told by the Russians that nobody wants them...and then we get ending with the actual survivors. I'm not sure where it's really happy...

Now that's funny!

I don't think he glamorized the Holocaust, but there are certain scenes which certainly bothered me, and not because of the actions. For example, when Nazis blast away a family, we see it done in shadows and silhouettes (all this from my aging memory, BTW) and it's choreographed so "artistically" that the impact is lessened. Similarly, when a girl gets beaten up by the Fiennes character, it's intercut with shots of Schindler having a party, and looks more like an exercise in creative editing and camerawork. To quote Peter Griffin, "it insists upon itself." For a subject as serious as this, Spielberg's shmaltzy and overbearing style get in the way of the drama.

I think you're looking for the Human Centipede thread. Don't worry, it's still floating around here.

I think you're ignoring the film's black-comic/satiric tone. Everything you say happens, but it happens in a way that is archly comic. As someone above said, Kubrick isn't saying war is bad (because everybody already knows that) he's saying war is complex and filled with conflict both internal and external. He's saying that modern technology and comunication has allowed war to become something completely absurd, terrifyingly absurd.

haha, a pretty good general rule.

I thought this one was a troll post at first but I guess this the OP's friend just didn't get it.

Yes, his "friend".