"Feeling good's...

...good enough."

Saw this one first run in the theatre.  Still haunts me.  I'll try to sum it up as I take this step on the AFI Top 100 (10th Anniversary Edition).

Film 76

76.  "Platoon" (AFI Rank #86)

A couple of weeks ago, I posited that "Do The Right Thing" may be the best film of the 80s.  I even went so far as to say it kicked "Platoon's" ass all over the place.

I may have been wrong.  I may not have been.  I'm going to say, after watching this in its entirety for the first time in a while, that this is a terrific film, and I feel far less sure about my pronunciation of "Do The Right Thing" as the best film of the 80s.  This film, in stark relief, challenges that which we think we know, makes us question things we don't want to question, and beats us up for a couple of hours.

Oliver Stone's tale of what happened to one soldier, Chris Taylor (Charlie Sheen), as he tries to survive his (volunteered) time in Vietnam is harrowing, to say the least.  Never really defining morality, this film asks us many, many questions, while providing frustratingly few answers.  We know this when it's over (and this is somewhat taken from one of many Sheen voiceovers):  Hell is the absence of reason, and war is Hell.  I chose the quote from the film above as the "title" of this because...well...there's nothing about this movie that feels good.  And when Sgt. Elias (Willem Dafoe) says this to our protagonist, we get a deep sadness.  Sometimes, it seems, feeling good is good enough.  Even if the way to feel good is to smoke weed and, as Sgt. Barnes (Tom Berenger) says, "escape reality," that might just be good enough.

Written by Stone shortly after his return from Vietnam, this film sat around waiting for someone to greenlight it for nearly 15 years.  In researching the film, I found that Stone originally wanted Jim Morrison of The Doors to play Chris, and when Morrison died, the script was found in his room.  That's a lot of water under the bridge between writing and execution. It can be presumed that Stone, while making other films, probably tweaked this story multiple times, finally getting major studio backing in the mid 80s.  I am offering nothing buy my own conclusions here.  I imagine that part of the problem with getting it made was its unflinching look at the brutality in what AMERICANS did, but I'm guessing the fratricide issue was the biggie.  I have no doubt that men, in insane situations, and armed with weapons, will shoot each other.  I can't imagine that with the way the film ends, that Chris seems so...OK with it.  Later.

This film is great.  Of that I will not argue.  Why?  Let's start with the score.  Punctuated multiple times with "Adagio for Strings" by Samuel Barber, this film's music is decidedly poignant, and adds emotional depth to what we watch.  Throw in the score by Georges Delerue, and many, many popular songs of the era, and we are once again showed a stirring example of why film is such a unique art form.  There are musical plays.  There are plays with music.  Film, though, without the score...think about it.  More on that (and how it relates to one scene) in an upcoming review.  The score for "Platoon" is nothing short of magnificent.

Cinematography in this is also amazing.  While it may seem that it focuses on close-ups (it does), there are also terrific sequences with people running in the jungle, in a confusing manner, along with rolling vistas.  For my money, though, and it's cliché, the shot with Elias, having been shot by Barnes, and running from a horde of Viet Cong, as seen from the helicopter...is genius.   Little bit of trivia about that scene.  When the camera comes back to the ground as Elias kneels, squibs were supposed to be firing all over his chest.  None went off.  The shot was left in, and another take was not done.  Think about that scene.  Think about Elias's resignation, his sadness as his soul leaves his body.  Think about that punctuated with bullet holes.  I don't think it works, and neither did Stone.  Happy accident, for sure, but the director made the right choice in not trying to correct it.

I mentioned that I saw this film in the theatres in first run.  I remember talking with a neighbor of mine about it.  She was about 18 years older than me or so, and had been a teenager during Vietnam.  She was a hippie.  I, at the time, was interested in all things hippie, I think mostly for the drugs and free love, but also because I kinda dug the idea of maybe killing other people isn't really a workable solution to problems.  When we discussed it, we both talked about how much the film bugged us.  Her take, and I remember it as clear as a bell, was "there was no distinction between good and evil."  And THAT, my friends, is the crux of the film.  It bugged my neighbor.  It bugged me.  I think it bugged her from the idea that we didn't know whom we should like, but for me, it bugged me, and continues to, because we ALL are capable of both.  Chris discusses it in the final voiceover of the film, as he flies out of Vietnam:

"The war is over for me now, but it will always be there, the rest of my days. As I'm sure Elias will be, fighting with Barnes for what Rhah called possession of my soul. There are times since, I've felt like the child born of those two fathers."

The film asks us to look within ourselves, and see that both the good and the evil are within all of us.  And that being thrust into Hell, into the absence of reason, will sometimes provide an easy conduit for the evil to flow out of us.  If you haven't seen the film, I'm sorry, but I said I was going to discuss something later.   The finale of the film features our eyes, our protagonist, killing, in cold blood, the "evil" Sergeant Barnes.  He then is shown smiling, and doing the voiceover which talks about rebuilding, etc.  I have a tough time with that.  I'm thinking that, even in the absence of reason, Chris immediately understood the consequences of his actions, and that those actions would haunt his every moment from then on.  Maybe I'm wrong.  It's tough to swallow.

Also tough to swallow is the utter decimation of the characters we meet.  I know that war sucks, and that slaughters occur, but the "Hollwooding" of the battles feels like too much.  At the end of the film, only 4 characters that we've met and spent a decent amount of time with are left without grave wounding.  Maybe that's accurate.  It feels like too much.  Like gangster films that wipe out whole crews, this film seems like overkill.  If you need to, I did find a handy tally sheet, of all places on IMDB.  It's here, if you wish to know what happened to everyone.  It's the question about what happened to the men.  

There are a few scenes that merit mention.  The scene in the village is terrifying, and so intrinsic to the rest of the film, that to not mention its emotional impact would be negligent on my part.  Based on real events that happened far too frequently, we see in the scene the side of war that leads to, well, more war.  So much of what we compromise is based on this basic blood lust for revenge, it's no wonder that we still haven't figured out a better way to resolve conflict.  We see this scene in former Vice President Dick Cheney, saying he doesn't regret torturing people at all, in spite of its illegality and its proven ineffectiveness.  He just wanted somebody to pay.  That's what that scene in the film is.  It's payback for 3 soldiers killed, and all the men go along gladly with it, as does their CO in name, if not spirit, Lieutenant Wolfe (Mark Moses).  It is Elias, the man who understands what he is watching who ultimately stops it.  This sets up the conflict for the rest of the film, and for the rest of Chris's life (we presume).  It's a brutally effective scene.  It shows us so much in so little.  

Also worthy of mention is the final battle sequence.  Like "Saving Private Ryan," it has a "last stand" feel to it, right from the get-go, but it's a harsh pill to swallow, seeing so many people we've grown to care about die so indiscriminately.  Even Lt. Wolfe, so charmingly incompetent, gets killed, and we feel it like a gut punch.  Junior (Reggie Johnson), a malingerer, gets run through with a bayonet.  Bunny (expertly crafted by Kevin Dillon), himself an utter sociopath, gets his brains blown out, and we feel loss.  How is that possible?  These guys are the bad guys.  Or are they?  There goes Stone again.  We all have it, and war doesn't give two fucks which guy it is, it's going to destroy them both.  

Acting ranges from great to pedestrian.  Sheen was overmatched in this film, and spends a great deal of the film making sure we understand that.   I suppose some of that is because he always looks impossibly coiffed, and entirely too pretty, and he had nothing to do with that.  However, Chris Taylor is a tremendous character, and I wonder what he might have been like in the hands of Johnny Depp, who made his film debut in this one.  Taylor is heroic, and acts it in the film, often diving into battles where others cower.  I buy Sheen at those times, but not in his more thoughtful scenes.  Depp.  Depp coulda done it.  

I mentioned Kevin Dillon.  His Bunny, from the scalp hanging off his helmet, to the use of a SHOTGUN in battle, is a wonderful character.  However, it is one line, and his delivery, that still thrills me 30 years later.  "Ain't nothing like a piece of pussy...except maybe the Indy 500."  Truly a great line reading, and one that should go down in film annals.  If only it could.  It so thoroughly defines Bunny, it's a tremendous example of an actor who got it, and used his one moment to make us his bitch.  It's great work.  Work.  

Dafoe and Berenger are the draw.  Carving complex characters out of archetypes, the two are so dependent on each other for their own character, the synergy can be felt almost physically.  Barnes isn't nearly as fascinating without Elias, and vice versa.  Elias is a stone cold killer, despite his great love for humanity.  Barnes looks out for the men, even at his own jeopardy, despite his absolute abhorrence of the enemy.  There is a tremendous scene where Barnes stands up during a firefight, as everyone around him is sheltered, and marches right to the guy pissing him off.  He has no fear of repercussion.  His men come first.  It is telling that Elias takes on a whole shit-ton of VC, killing them indiscriminately.  Again.  Two sides to every story.  No evil.  No good.  There was another Vietnam film, made a year later, by Stanley Kubrick that was more blatant about it.  "Full Metal Jacket" includes a line about "The duality of man, the Jung thing."  Yup.  It's all here.

Get the theme yet?

Watch this film again, no matter how disturbing it is.  It is graphically violent.  It is brutal.  It is also a terrific film, and a timeless tale of morality.

Ebert's original review is here.  Roger didn't see metaphor.  I do.  It's 30 years later.  I do like his take on the fact that there are no real clear shots of the enemy.  That, I missed.