I don't get it.
-
Archived from the IMDb Discussion Forums — Full Metal Jacket
erkucz00 — 9 years ago(September 12, 2016 07:38 AM)
This is a well made, well written and well acted movie, with a great soundtrack to boot. I just don't get the message though. Scenes like the one with pvt. Pyle seem to be sending an anti war message, while other scenes seem to glorify it. Is this intentional? "saying something about the duality of man? You know, the jungian thing?" I just don't get it.
HelloMy name is Inigo MontoyaYou killed my fatherprepare to die. -
sparker21 — 9 years ago(September 12, 2016 12:55 PM)
Kubrick said that Paths of Glory was his war movie, or anti-war movie. In this one he deliberately does not take a position on war. It's about the experience of becoming and being a soldier, or marine in this case.
-
tectactoe — 9 years ago(September 23, 2016 07:20 AM)
I don't think
Full Metal Jacket
is inherently pro-war or anti-war; I just don't believe that's the focal point of the film. I think it primarily showcases two things:
I think the first point is made to show you how the entire process of war can change people. How normal people are verbally (and sometimes physically) abused, belittled, and hardened to the point of mental exhaustion in many cases, in an attempt to turn them into consciousless killing machines - an arguable necessity during wartime. It very clearly shows two common paths: complete mental breakdown, as in the case of Pvt. Pyle, as well as a true mental toughening, as is the case for many of the other soliders.
Secondly, I believe it shows that no matter how much you're yelled at, no matter how many obsctacle courses you complete, or how many miles you run in the rain, or how many headshots you get during rifle practice - NOTHING can truly prepare you for war. The sniper scene - look at how quickly everyone's form and standard protocol breaks down as soon as guys start getting shot. It's true, though - nothing can really prepare you for war besides war itself. And those who make it through can oftentimes end up with an even more demented view of reality - showcased by the singing of the Mickey Mouse at the very end of the film.
That's why it always bothers me when people say they don't like the second half of
Full Metal Jacket
. It's necessary for the first part to comepletely come full circle. This is Kubrick's best film, in my honest opinion (I know most people disagree). -
Blueghost — 9 years ago(November 02, 2016 09:06 PM)
As I've written in the last hour on other threads, this is Kubrick's version of a Vietnam War movie. It's a neutral look at Mathew Modine's "Joker" character's experiences in the Vietnam war, and not much else.
Some of the scenes are created to give us the audience the flavor of the kind of war Vietnam was, but the film itself doesn't take a position on whether the war was good or bad or fought well or executed with or without any morality. The scenes that you and I saw in the film are simply there as elements for us to watch and then think about.
It's good film making because the scenes are well tied together, and don't present a biased narrative so much as letting the scenes present a neutral narration about US Marines sent to fight in a civil war that had the communists backing the enemy. -
outis-6 — 9 years ago(December 28, 2016 12:34 PM)
This is a great film for those of us who got sucked into the service at the time. Without adding a slant, it simply demonstrates the brutality of: first; basic training. A little exaggerated because in no instance would the DI allow a recruit to have a live round in the barracks. However it demonstrated the scenarios that draftees had to put up with in going through basic. As such, I think it was terrific. Second Part: was even better in demonstrating several aspects of the Vietnam war. First of all, many of the "troops" were just sucked in from civilian life and the absurdity of war and military life are demonstrated for all to see. These are just regular Joes walking around in a foreign jungle/city doing what they are told. The female VC sniper symbolizes the fact that it was an indigenous people fighting for their own land. Even tho just a tiny female she was deadly and had to be dealt with in a deadly fashion. That whole war was totally foreign and pointless and yet deadly to those shipped into it. I would think that this film would have a much different impact on those who lived through the times, as opposed to the youth of today who never had to put up with the Draft hanging over their heads. Never having to contemplate being in the situation that Joker was in whether they liked it or not. It was very impactful for me having had to serve but being fortunate enough not to go to Vietnam.
-
kdimmick — 9 years ago(December 31, 2016 10:52 PM)
A little exaggerated because in no instance would the DI allow a recruit to have a live round in the barracks.
Uhhh.no one "Allowed" it to happen,Pyle simply kept it hidden. ..
While a live round being smuggled back to the barracks from the rifle range might be a bit unlikely it is very well within the realm of possibility having actually seen someone do it at Parris Island myself back in 1979.
Iran is not a terrorist country!LittleZeke aka: "LittleBrain" 3/10/15 -
goldenboy72 — 9 years ago(January 29, 2017 06:16 PM)
Read this thread and have something to add
Many people divide FMJ into first and second halves. I see it as a three-act film.
Act 1: Training - Concludes with Pyle's and Hartman's deaths.
Act 2: In the Rear with the Gear - Joker 'on the job' with Rafterman as journalists, not solidiers.
Act 3: A Minister of Death - The entire sniper scene where Joker eventually learns that his is indeed, "born to kill".