As the new war film “Jarhead” comes to an anti-climatic end with its two main characters falling short of their morbid ultimate goal, the divide between the two Marines is made quite apparent. In war, there are no cut and dry answers to the right and wrong of organized killing director Sam Mendes proclaims. Sitting in the aftermath of their failure — neither man has recorded a kill — Jake Gyllenhaal’s character tells his friend, “I’m trying to get out, and you’re trying to get in.”
This Gulf War film, which is taken from Anthony Swofford’s memoir of the same name, chronicles the marine life of its main character “Swoff” from boot camp to Desert Storm’s end. Mendes and screenwriter William Broyles Jr. convey the boredom of the trigger-happy marines with several episodic events in the Arabian Desert. While playing football games in gas suits and having a Christmas Eve party complete with booze and early ’90s hip-hop, Swoff runs the emotional gamut, entering as an alpha marine and exiting as a disenchanted soldier. The film closes as Swoff sits looking out over an empty landscape, unable to forget the place where he found purpose.
“Jarhead” is one of the first big-budget films since Stanley’s Kubrick’s “Full Metal Jacket” to explore the uncertainties of war. For every anti-war stance “Jarhead” makes, it inserts a vote of marine loyalty to strengthen its apolitical stance. Strictly pro-war films had been prevalent before Mendes and Broyles decided to take on Swofford’s memoir. With films like “Saving Private Ryan” and “We Were Soldiers,” Hollywood seemed to be laying its claim to a pro-war sentiment.
Early war films were rarely void of a concrete position — a position that was generally pro-war. There were several silent war films done by D.W. Griffith that were anti-war, but the advent of sound allowed for Lewis Milestone’s 1930 adaptation of “All Quiet on the Western Front,” which was a rarity in its depiction of war. During World War II, the norm was films like “Wake Island,” “Air Force” and “Destination Tokyo,” which were made while the war was still being fought, often glorifying American soldiers.
With Kubrick’s satirical film “Dr. Strangelove” and Robert Altman’s comedic “MASH,” directors began to voice their dissent to American wars. Kubrick and Altman set the stage for what would become a mixed sentiment toward war in cinema over the next 20 years. “Dr. Strangelove,” which was released in 1964, is outlandish in its criticism of nuclear conflict during the Cold War, while “MASH” remains plausible in its absurdity of the daily activities of a Korean War field hospital, yet still gives voice to the horrors of battle.
But Francis Ford Coppola’s 1979 film “Apocalypse Now” created a ripple effect that can still be felt in war films of the 21st century. Paired with “Full Metal Jacket,” which was released nine years later, “Apocalypse Now” was in direct opposition to American involvement in Vietnam. Coppola and Kubrick both relied on the disenchantment of the public for their films to succeed.
“‘Apocalypse Now’ was done … when most Americans were disillusioned with American involvement in Vietnam,” Chuck Maland, UT professor of film, said. “(Americans) were happy the country was out, even if the war ended badly for the United States.”
The influences of “Apocalypse Now” and “Full Metal Jacket” on “Jarhead” are strikingly evident. In the opening scene of “Jarhead,” Swoff is thrust into a barrage of profanity from his drill instructor, mirroring Matthew Modine’s scene-one verbal lashing at the hands of Gunnery Sergeant Hartman in “Full Metal Jacket.” Mendes also uses a famous scene from “Apocalypse Now” in which marines bomb a Vietnamese village. The marines in “Jarhead” are issued certain films to watch and the air raid scene from Coppola’s film is one Mendes uses. But interestingly, Mendes uses the scene to create an entirely different effect.
“I remember seeing that scene of the helicopters sweeping into and bombing the Vietnamese village,” Maland said. “The audience I saw it with clearly saw it as an example of American military policy gone awry, a huge contrast to the macho celebrations that the scene elicits among the Marines.”
Coppola and Kubrick had the luxury of a more one-sided America. History has shown that a great majority of the United States has a negative view of the war in Vietnam. Mendes, on the other hand, released a film during a time when the divide over the Iraqi conflict is great. It could be argued that Mendes’ unbiased approach to the war was due to his strict adaptation of Swofford’s memoir, whereas Coppola and Kubrick loosely based their films on works of literature — “Apocalypse Now” on Joseph Conrad’s “Heart of Darkness” and “Full Metal Jacket” on Gustav Hasford’s “The Short Timers.”
But Maland suspects that Mendes’ apolitical approach might have been due to production companies being leery to invest money in a film that stood on either side of the war debate.
“War films are always changing, particularly big-budget ones, because the filmmaker has to get money to make the film,” Maland said. “The filmmaker can’t take a clear political position about the war it depicts that is too different from the targeted audience or the film is likely to flop. I’ll be interested in seeing how ‘Jarhead’ does. ‘AN’ cost about $32 million in 1979, ‘FMJ,’ managed by a careful Kubrick, cost $17 million in the mid-1980s, “Jarhead” cost about $70 million.”
Critics have given the film mixed reviews. A.O. Scott of the New York Times called the film “irrelevant,” but the Chicago Sun-Times Roger Ebert said “Jarhead” is “uncanny in its effect.” Maland attributes the uncertainty of critics to the uneasy air looming over the current war front. If Mendes was looking to make a film void of a stance, he might have picked an inopportune time.
“I think ‘Jarhead’ is being released in a difficult time for [this] kind of film,” Maland said. “American support for the current Iraqi War is dropping quickly, according to polls, and the filmmakers tried to make a film that tries not to take a stand about American military involvement in the Middle East.”
Only time well tell if “Jarhead” will be held in the same esteem as “Apocalypse Now” and “Full Metal Jacket,” but the current inability of filmmakers to take a biased approach, whether it be pro or con, toward war, appears to have somewhat of a hindrance on the quality of war films.
“The anti-Iraqi War segment of the audience may dislike the Marine bravado [in ‘Jarhead’], while the pro-Iraqi and military segment of the audience may dislike its lack of cathartic violence,” Maland said. “The performances were quite good, but the film won’t make my list of top-10 films about war.”
