What's the point?


I have watched it 3 times already (plus many other times if you count Youtube short clips) and I'm planning on watching it a few more times since I like it more every time I watch it. Yet, if someone who hadn't ever watched it asked me what's the point or the main theme of Full Metal Jacket I wouldn't be able to give a good answer. Ok, I could say it's a critique of the effects war has on soldiers but we already know that ''war is bad'', so there's no need for Kubrick to tell us.

So what am I missing? What's the point? Or does it even have a point?

reply

we already know that ''war is bad'', so there's no need for Kubrick to tell us.


I'd say that not all of us know that. This isn't a cautionary tale or morality play. It's a screen adaptation of a semi-autobiographical novel called "The Short Timers" by Gustav Hasford. Perhaps the question of what it's about would best be posed to Hasford but, like Kubrick, he's dead. So there goes that.

Since the third act is basically a mish-mosh of material from the novel, some of Joker's journey from Parris Island Marine recruit to Vietnam squad leader gets lost in the translation from novel to screenplay (which is weird because Hasford and Kubrick co-penned it).



-Rod

reply

So what am I missing?


Obviously you are not missing anything. Seems you enjoy the film. If someone asked you "what's the point in toilet paper?" I'm sure you could muster a response.









He killed sixteen Czechoslovakians. Guy was an interior decorator.

reply

Films don't always have to have a point, sometimes they just tell a story. It's a story of a guy (Joker) going through basic training, then being deployed during the Vietnam War. I honestly think that they probably intended to spend more time in Vietnam and less in basic, but they just couldn't cut anything R Lee Ermey did. To me it always seemed that the second part had more of a story to tell, but they just ran out of time. This movie could have easily been at least 3 hours long.

reply

The point was that Vietnam was pointless.

The people of South Vietnam weren't willing to fight for or support the oligarchy that ruled their country. American troops were fighting a limited war for untenable political objectives we would have had to have kept fighting and pouring troops and lives into in order to maintain the status quo. Yet the American governments had been blatantly telling the American people for years that victory was just around the corner, when clearly that wasn't true.

Men fought and died for pieces of land that the minute they left, control reverted back to the enemy in many cases. So they literally died for nothing. In many cases it was impossible to tell who was our enemy and who were our allies among the Vietnamese people. We weren't just fighting soldiers but women and children as well, which was an unpopular situation domestically and with American troops. We obtained no traditional objects of war, capturing and holding territory, defeating and breaking an enemy government,

Thirty years after when this film ended, 1968, we were trading partners with the People's Republic of Vietnam. They are firmly part of the world capitalist economy. So what did all their fighting for a Communist state achieve? Where they in fact committed Communists or was allying with the Soviets are cynical calculated choice to avoid being dominated by the Chinese or foreign colonialist powers?

I think Kubrick did a excellent job of portraying this situation.

reply

Nice summary.
And now we see similar situations in Iraq and Afghanistan. With all our military might and budget being the only world superpower, these invasions should be a layup, but war is profitable for everyone involved and the desperation to keep the world currency flowing. Now in the absence of a superpower, we have to fight an ideological/tactical boogeyman "Terrorism".

reply

Yes. And that whole sniper sequence was the Vietman War in microcosm--the hi-tech rich American forces entering into a war fought by people who used any means necessary to fight--using women, civilians. It's like Cowboy said--'that sniper's just tryin' to suck us in one-at-a-time.' But American leadership was dragging us into the 'big Muddy' of an Asian war. The majority of the Vietnamese people--the North Vietnamese and the Viet Cong in the South, saw Americans as foreign occupiers, just like the French and Japanese before them, which was understandable.

reply

Sometimes a movie is just a movie.

reply

The point is that we are in a world of *beep*

reply

The way I see it, the movie has no point or real purpose because Kubrick wanted to show how the Vietnam War and the motives behind it were pointless and not justified

reply

What's the point of war? It ruins people's lives and minds. And for what? Why would we fight and kill fellow human beings? This is an anti-war film. That's the point.

reply