Was Barnes really a 'bad person'?
-
spookyrat1 — 12 years ago(August 17, 2013 04:38 PM)
If you asked Elias this question as Taylor just about did, the night before that fateful encounter, he would have said no and responded as many of the above posters have.
But I think we are asked to believe that during the events that transpire during this movie, he slips over the edge and loses his grip on reality, doing and sanctioning deeds that Elias, Taylor, their ilk and hopefully us, would agree, should never have occurred.
Therefore have to agree with J-Street 9 when commenting thus:
"He really cared for his men"
"Not all of them. Not any who got in his way. He was as dangerous as the VC." -
Kawada_Kira — 12 years ago(May 09, 2013 08:41 PM)
If this was a movie about a war waged by any country other than the US, and if Barnes had been the exact same person except as a German or a Japanese or anyone else, no one would even ask that stupid question.
Sig under construction -
dnlbkr9 — 12 years ago(July 14, 2013 08:37 PM)
By the time the movie started (or at least after Sandy, Sal, and Manny die) he was. But I don't think that the character was always like that. I don't think accomplishing the mission was anything he cared all that much about, I just think that he was so hollow by that point in time in his life that he didn't know how to do anything except for fight the war.
-
mightykc — 12 years ago(September 16, 2013 01:54 PM)
Barnes was a evil man. He may have been a competent field sergeant but the thing that really makes him a bad character is the killing of Elias. He disagreed with Elias on a lot of stuff, but at the end of the day, he killed a man on his own side for absolutely no reason other than he didn't like him. Completely unforgiveable thing to do as a military person. I know a lot of people like his character, but from the first time I saw this movie I couldn't stand Barnes, reminds me of bully bosses that play by there own rules.
-
Citation_Needed — 12 years ago(January 20, 2014 10:41 PM)
Elias wasn't a man on his own side. Elias was ready to turn in one of his own for doing his damn job. Killing the enemy. There was absolutely no ambiguity with that village. It was straight up VC. Underground tunnels, holes, weapons, and enough food to feed an army (pun intended). Barnes had every right to waste anyone there to extract information and for what they did to one of Barnes men. They were flat out lying and dicking him around. A warzone is no place to be siding with villagers over your own platoon. The people Elias was trying to save were probably the same ones who ran him down and shot him to death.
-
vittimafia — 12 years ago(January 27, 2014 07:35 PM)
Since the first time i watched the movie I usually skip that village scene because it overshadows the movie in such a sad way and stays with me afterwords. I always used to sympathize with Elias in that scene, however what you are saying is probably the truth, very difficult to make rational decisions there i guess, especially when you are angry, sad, drunk, high, tired, injured or all..
We saw the same in Saving private Ryan with the German they let go and later ends up killing one of them; and recently that situation in Lone Survivor with the shepherds.
There were kids and old ladies in that village but on the other hand your friend has just been killed, pfff I think everyone would be torn apart in a situation like that, turning the Platoon on each other.
That was real? I saw that movie, I thought it was bullsh*t -
Citation_Needed — 12 years ago(January 28, 2014 09:51 AM)
What you're saying relates more to Charlie Sheen's scene with the guy hopping than it does when Barnes shot that lady. He wasn't on a power trip, getting emotional, or cracking up under the pressure. He was facing reality and dealing with it. Barnes was trying to save future lives by interrogating the people (enemies), who were very loyal, proud, and putting up a stone wall. If killing someone would get them to talk, there should be no hesitation, nor someone trying to question him about it. Why would anyone side with a villager who condones and therefore is responsible for killing one of your men, and possibly many others on your side.
War is hell. We all know this, but somethings are unavoidable. But it's something total different when you've got people like Elias falling out of rank, and trying to turn on someone who is supposed to cover him and get his back. -
vittimafia — 12 years ago(January 28, 2014 08:32 PM)
Yeah, maybe I'm just to sentimental when it comes to old ladies and retards..
When Barnes met Elias later in the jungle, Elias smiles, then his smile fades and seconds later Barnes shoots him. It is very contradicting the emotions in that scene Was Elias really happy to see Barnes there and did he think they would get back together? (very naive yes?)
That was real? I saw that movie, I thought it was bullsh*t -
rongan — 12 years ago(January 29, 2014 07:56 AM)
So, I take it Elias, the rat, is a bad person and Barnes is the good guy, in your mind?
I read Stone had the My Lai massacre in mind when he wrote the village scene.
To most, I hope, the cold blooded murder of villagers in THEIR country by Americans is BAD. (also the rape of children or does the lose of a friend justify that, too?)
You don't believe in following orders or the law? You think losing friends or trying to obtain information gives a soldier a right to murder someone?
It's a FACT, soldiers just prior to going to Vietnam were trained about the treatment of Vietnamese. And they were given a Code of Conduct card to carry at all times in Nam.
During the training we were told even if a prisoner jeopardized our mission and you was ordered to kill him, you are guilty of murderer and could be executed.
Some of us know better and would be ashamed of their actions. Not try to justify it. -
This_is_an_outrage — 12 years ago(February 03, 2014 10:54 PM)
Agreed. That scene in the village immediately brought to mind the My Lai Massacre. Also, it's previously been mentioned in this thread that the village was clearly cooperating with the Viet Cong. However, at the start of the scene the man in the village explained through the interpreter that they have no other choice and that the VC come in and take anything and give whatever orders they want. While the villagers of Mai Lai had been cooperating with the VC, they did so at gun point.
-
cockroachcharlie — 9 years ago(April 30, 2016 09:00 PM)
Elias wasn't a bad guy. That much is obvious.
I think it's too much to call one good and the other bad. Both were very three dimensional characters.
Barnes takes the death of the members of the platoon very seriously. That shows up throughout the film. Hence his viciousness on a village that was, as far as any of them could tell, undeniably NVA friendly. Yeah he did overreact. He even knows it, but I'll get to that.
Barnes murder of Elias was definitely a criminal act, but I wouldn't call it an evil act. From what I could tell of the character, He felt Elias was just TOO goody goody. Elias decision to push for a court martial and continue to do so, in Barnes eyes, was not the real issue he should have been focusing on. Fighting the war was. There's more but it's hard to explain. In short, Barnes wasn't just eliminating a monkey on his back, he was removing a weak link from the platoon.
His big speech in the happy hut later reflects a lot of what I've said, and really shows how he views the world. In my opinion, he was seriously regretful of the things he has done and who he has, in his eyes, been forced to become. This is why he offers them the chance to kill him, and then gets angry when they all back down. He opened himself up to them, and it isn't until he closes himself again that Chris attacks. I imagine if he had taken Barnes on his offer immediately, he wouldn't have gotten whipped for it.
Ultimately, I don't consider Barnes a bad person. I feel he was definitely on the darker end of the morality scale by this point in the movie, but genuinely felt that he had to be. He was a case of "he who fights monsters." His job was to help win the war, and he was going to do what he had to do to win it, but at the same time, he hated doing what he had to do. It's why he is in no way upset when Chris kills him at the end of the film. It ended his own pain. -
DariusStrain — 12 years ago(September 18, 2013 07:26 AM)
I agree that the characters are allegorical and that's kind of what I don't like about it. It's almost like Stone thought that the war itself isn't dramatic enough, you need a bunch of allegories to spice it up a bit.
Also I'm sure there were shootings of one's own troops in the Vietnam war, fraggings, but there was just a little too much of that in Platoon. I would have preferred a more realistic war tale.