“Platoon”
is the semi-autobiographical account of Oliver Stone’s experiences in
Vietnam. It came out seven years after
“Apocalypse Now” and was followed soon after by “Full Metal Jacket” and
“Hamburger Hill”. More than those other
films, it impacted the movie-going public and Vietnam War veterans. It was cathartic for many veterans. Stone dedicated it to Vietnam War veterans. It
became the definitive Vietnam War movie.
The film was a big hit with audiences and most critics. Produced for only $6 million, it made $138
million. It was awarded the Best Picture
Oscar and also won for Director, Sound Mixing, and Editing. It was nominated for Original Score and
Cinematography. Willem Dafoe and Tom
Berenger got Supporting Actor nods (Michael Caine won for “Hannah and Her Sisters”). The movie is ranked #86 on AFI’s Top 100
list. The shooting was done in the
Philippines (the Pentagon refused to support the film) and took only 54
days. The film was shot in sequence and
this began immediately after the two week boot camp for the actors. Stone meant the film to be a counter to John
Wayne’s “Green Berets”.
The
film begins with a quote from Ecclesiastes:
“Rejoice O young men in thy youth…”
(The loss of youthful innocence is a major theme.) Cherries (new guys) including Chris Taylor
(Charlie Sheen), come out of the womb of a transport plane and are confronted
by body bags. “All right you cheese
dicks, welcome to the Nam. Follow me.” We know we are in for a metaphor-laden movie
when our rookie warriors are sneered at knowingly by some vets. Taylor’s narration explains that he is a rich
college boy who dropped out to find himself and do his patriotic duty. He is in
a platoon that is divided in loyalty to either Staff Sergeant Barnes (Berenger)
or Sergeant Elias (Dafoe). Elias’ crew are called “the heads”. They smoke pot
when they are in base camp. Barnes followers are more into alcohol. The two
sergeants have different views of the war. Elias is on his third tour and
although he was gung-ho at the start, he now believes the war is going to be
lost and maybe it should be. Barnes is hard core and believes in doing whatever
it takes to win. He is not a big fan of the Geneva Convention. Barnes is the de
facto commander of the platoon because Lt. Wolfe is green and incompetent. The
movie is set in 1967-68, the time when American prospects in ‘Nam began to go
downhill. It reflects the war weariness that was characteristic of this period.
It is basically a series of vignettes inspired by Stone’s experiences in the
war. There is a night ambush, an assault on a village, a firefight in the
jungle, and a big set piece battle in the climax. Along the way, the audience
gets a tutorial of life as a grunt in front line unit.
ACTING: A+
ACTION: A (8/10)
ACCURACY:
N/A
PLOT: A
REALISM: B
CINEMATOGRAPHY:
A
SCORE: A
SCENE: the firefight
QUOTE: Elias: “We [the U.S.] have been peoples’ ass
for a long time. I guess it’s our turn to get our’s kicked.”
HISTORICAL ACCURACY: The
film does not claim to be a true story, although Stone made no secret of it
being autobiographical in spots. Stone
was a grunt along the Cambodian border in 1967.
Taylor stands in for him. The
narration reflects Stone’s situation when he entered the service. The letters to his grandmother appear to be
at least paraphrases of the young Stone’s experiences and attitudes. The characters in his screenplay are
supposedly based on several of his mates in the several platoons he was in. There are obviously some composite characters
which is standard for a film of this type.
Barnes and Elias were based on two of Stone’s sergeants, but they were
not in the same platoon. Stone did stop
a rape as did Taylor and he was wounded in the neck in his first ambush, but
the rest of the vignettes can be classified as based on incidents that happened
to someone somewhere.
The accuracy comes in the
realism. Stone was very serious in
getting the details right. For that
reason, he brought in Dale Dye as his main technical adviser and Dye’s input was
impactful. Significantly, Dye tried to
rein in some of Stone’s creative license (ex.
drug use in the field). He failed
in some cases, but overall the movie does not have any glaring falsehoods. I
think “Platoon” was the first use of his boot camp method of training actors to
realistically portray soldiers. Here is
a list of facts you can learn from the movie that will save you from reading
the numerous books I have read on the war:
1. Replacement
soldiers (i.e. Cherries) were treated like dirt.
2. Sergeants
ran the platoons. Many lieutenants were inexperienced and incompetent.
3. Every
soldier knew how many days that they had left in their tour.
4. If
a Vietnamese civilian ran, it was assumed they were the enemy and you could
shoot them.
5. Villages
were burned if they were considered sympathetic to the Communists.
6. Some
soldiers injured themselves to get out of combat.
7. Volunteers
felt they were fighting for our society and freedom.
8. Latrine
waste was burned using kerosene.
9. Drug
use was common in rear areas.
10. Young Americans
sometimes committed atrocities due to stress or revenge.
11. The Vietnam War
gave some sociopaths an outlet.
12. New
guys (called cherries) were sometimes put in situations (like walking point) that
caused casualties.
13. The
men carried a lot of gear.
14. Critters
like ants, mosquitos, leaches, and snakes were a problem.
15. It was rare for rich guys to serve in the
infantry in Vietnam.
16. Rules of engagement were often violated.
CRITIQUE: I
can still recall the impact “Platoon” had when it was released. Numerous articles examined the effect the
film had on the Vietnam veteran community.
Most critics latched on to the film as a true depiction of the war. Add to this the effect it had on the public
in general. The entertaining nature of
the film made it the definitive portrayal of the war for average Americans. Since that initial onslaught, the film has
had a polarizing effect and has strong detractors.
Stone can claim truthfully that
he is a much better director now than he was in 1986, but this is still his
opus. It was personal for him and the
passion shows. You can fault the agenda,
but not the craftsmanship. The movie had
a low budget and no support from the Pentagon (no surprise there). It does not show. Dye made sure the details were correct. The gear is spot on and the behavior,
language, and life of the men are realistic.
Stone got enough military equipment from the Philippine government to
give the film some scale. The
cinematography is not obstrusive and exchews bells and whistles. However, the night scenes in particular are
amazing and show boldness in a genre that often avoids night actions. The music is memorable, especially the usage
of “Adagio for Strings”. No one who has
seen the movie can hear the tune without flashing back to the movie. In contrast to that, there are long stretches
where there is no music. For instance,
the final battle. Stone does not dilute
the battle noises with mood setting background music. The three battle
scenes are among the best in war movie history. Edge of your seat.
The movie reminds of "Glory" by mixing the human interaction with
great combat.
“Platoon” on the surface seems to
be your typical dysfunctional heterogeneous small unit movie. Stone does use the platoon to delve into the
theme of divisiveness, but this is not a WWII or Korean War movie where each
member represents an archetype. No one
is from Brooklyn, Italian, a ladies man, a hick, etc. The dysfunction is created by the division between the heads
and the boozers. There is no bonding on
the horizon. For this reason, the actors
are not acting out stereotypes. Instead,
they are written as individuals. Because
each is a moon in either the Barnes or the Elias orbit, character development
is subtle. The movie rewards repeat
viewings to really get to know the men.
A character like Lerner (Johnny Depp) can get lost in the tumult. With that said, the acting is top notch. The ensemble is of up-and-comers and they
show great promise. Sheen evinces the
proper naivete and eventual loss of innocence.
The showier roles of Elias and Barnes are nailed by Defoe and Berenger. Special mention to the two most loathsome
characters: Dillon as the psychopath
Bunny and John McGinley as the ass-kisser O’Neill. All of them went through Dye’s boot camp and
their performances reflect immersion over the usual emoting. They are not playing soldier, they seem to be
soldiers.
What sets the film apart from the
standard war film is the metaphors.
Stone is not subtle in his themes.
Barnes and the boozers represent the right wingers in America during the
war. Elias and the dopers represent the
doves. Within this metaphor is Barnes as
the win at all costs warrior and Elias is the disillusioned believer who now
feels the war is unwinnable. Most of the
platoon represents the lower-class cannon fodder sent by rich people to fight
their ideological war. Taylor stands out
as the rarer idealistic volunteer fighting out of duty to American
society. Much of this is heavy-handed,
but Stone does not seem to care about making it subliminal. For example, the boozers play poker
(competition) while the dopers do singalongs (cooperation). By the way, I have seen the deleted scenes
and the movie could have been much more bludgeoning.
The movie flows smoothly. This is partly due to the fact that it was
shot sequentially. The plot moves from
soldier life to combat in an ebb and flow manner. The dialogue is a strength and the soldier
talk is not dumbed down for the average viewer.
“Snake and nape”? Anyone good at
context clues should not be too lost.
CONCLUSION: To
do this review, I watched the movie (for the fifth time, at least) and Stone’s
commentary version and Dye’s take on the film.
Plus the making-of documentary and the other extras. All this confirmed my original view when I
saw the movie in a theater in 1986. This
is a great movie and still the best Vietnam War movie. This is coming from a reviewer who admires
all the other serious contenders (The Deer Hunter, Apocalypse Now, Full Metal
Jacket).
I
am aware that there are some ranters against the movie. Stone is partly to blame by making comments
about it being the realistic
depiction of the war, instead of a realistic
depiction of the war. Some veterans and
pro-war types took offense to the negative portrayal of the soldiers and their
actions. They assume that Stone was
implying the platoon was typical. Stone
was not apologetic about that impression.
On the other hand, anyone who has argued that the incidents and
personality types did not exist in Vietnam is being naïve. For instance, My Lai did happen and the
incident in the movie was nowhere near the scale of that event. Besides, I do not feel the movie demonizes
the American soldier in Vietnam. I
cannot imagine people spitting on vets coming out of theaters. Empathy must
have been the most common emotion.
