Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

When Boys Will be Jarheads

By Lakshmi Chaudhry, In These Times. Posted November 18, 2005.


Sam Mendes' film version of Anthony Swofford's Gulf War memoir succeeds in airbrushing the harsh reality of war while obscuring the tragedy.
Advertisement

There are two great Hollywood narratives about war. The "good" war version -- think World War II epics -- goes something like this: Boy meets war, discovers courage under fire; boy wins war and comes home/dies a hero. Vietnam and its attendant sorrows brought us a variation on the theme: Boy meets "bad" war, discovers the dark side; boy loses war and comes home a disillusioned but wiser man. Antiwar flicks like Platoon and Apocalypse Now hewed close to the traditional plotline but inverted its value system, redefining true masculinity as an enlightened opposition to the horrors of war.

But all Hollywood movies construct war as a rite of masculinity, a crucible of violence from which the soldier emerges either a stronger, better man or forever destroyed. So, director Sam Mendes was already in trouble the moment he decided to make a movie based on Anthony Swofford's memoir Jarhead. Here's how this true-life tale of a Gulf War Marine grunt (Jarhead) unfolds: Jarhead meets pointless war, wallows in fear, confusion, and ennui; Jarhead watches the Air Force win the war and comes home, well, a Jarhead.

The young men in Swofford's book are not innocent boys hardened by war into fighting men, but unhappy, insecure kids who desperately seek and fail to find answers to their masculine angst in battle. Or to be more accurate, in the absence of battle that characterizes our age of pyrotechnic warfare, conducted at great distances behind the battle lines and above the ground. The book violates the Hollywood mythology of the warrior in its unflinching portrayal of the bloodlust of twenty-year olds. Where grim-faced men on the big screen kill the enemy out of duty on the sands of Iwo Jima, or in desperation and madness in the jungles of Vietnam, the lads of the Surveillance and Target Acquisition/Scout-Sniper platoon are dreaming of "getting some" long before they get called up for duty on the frontline:

I've spent many hours of my life imagining what my bullets will do to the enemy. The medulla oblongata is the most coveted shot. Entry through the mouth or the eyeball is also acceptable. The Marine does not shoot to injure but only to kill. Sometimes my imagined enemy has been a Russian, sometimes a Chinese, sometimes an Arab, depending on world events and what version of those events I'm receiving or currently involved in.

The book exposes the single greatest lie about war: Heroism among soldiers lies not in facing death but inflicting it upon the enemy. As Swofford puts it, "To be a true marine, you must kill." We don't want to think of our sweet-faced hometown boys as bloodthirsty killers, which is why Hollywood would rather serve us up heroes like a kind and gentle Tom Hanks in Saving Private Ryan who refuses to kill a German POW with the words: "Every man I kill the farther away from home I feel." We want to believe that even the act of taking life is a personal sacrifice that "our boys" make on our behalf. They kill -- with regret and at great cost to their soul -- so that we don't have to.

To his credit, Sam Mendes does not shrink from showing the soldiers' unseemly enthusiasm for blood. As the Marine squad pumps itself for battle by screening Apocalypse Now, Mendes pans across the faces of the soldiers as they watch helicopters lay waste to an entire village -- including children -- in the "Ride of the Valkyries" attack sequence. There is no mistaking the near-orgasmic expressions of joy on their faces. Then there is the moment when Swofford's friend Troy suffers an emotional meltdown because he is denied the opportunity to take out an Iraqi officer.

Yet the jarheads in his movie remain carefully confined by Hollywood norms. As A. O. Scott observed in the New York Times:

Swoff's comrades are basically stock platoon-movie figures retrofitted for postmodern warfare. There is an irresponsible prankster (Evan Jones), a trash-talking Texan (Lucas Black), a shy, nerdy guy (Brian Geraghty) and a Latino family man (Jacob Vargas) who shows off pictures of his pregnant wife. Sergeant Sykes is the in-your-face, tough-talking leader who shows his tenderness and wisdom at just the right moment as the flames of burning oil wells illuminate his features.

Even Jake Gyllenhaal's Swoff is just one among a long line of brooding, sensitive anti-war heroes -- except with a propensity for luridly sexual language.

More unforgivably, Mendes succumbs to Hollywood's need to airbrush reality. The more unpleasant aspects of jarhead behavior -- in keeping with war movie tradition -- become the preserve of one "bad apple," who is entrusted with the job of offending Arab women, shooting camels and desecrating dead bodies -- over the loud protests of his platoon mates.

Swofford's memory is less kind. Here's how First Sergeant Martinez responds to his men's propensity to vent their frustrated need to kill on dead men in the book:

Because we are U.S. Marines, and honorable, we do not shoot dead men, we do not carve their skulls open with our E-tools, we do not throw grenades into a pit of corpses, and after we don't do these things, we don't take pictures of the resultant damage. If we do take pictures, and the pictures are discovered, we will be punished under the Uniform Code of Military Justice. And if we steal weapons or articles of identification or other battlefield trophies from the corpses, we will also be punished under the UCMJ. Carry on.

Digg!

Lakshmi Chaudhry is a senior editor at In These Times and writes the L-Files for AlterNet.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Well, what I really want to know --
Posted by: MPJ on Nov 18, 2005 6:30 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What I really want to know, after reading this very sensitive and considered review, is if Lakshmi Chaudhry has actually been in combat. Her review says a lot about movies and war; she knows movies; does she know war except through movies?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» What I mean -- Posted by: MPJ
» Why? Posted by: decembrist
A different perspective.
Posted by: Lincoln fan on Nov 18, 2005 6:32 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The function of literature is to present ideas that make us think about issues that transcend the story, to present characters that serve to help us understand ourselves and others, and perhaps to unfold a vision of a better life. The function of a movie is to entertain and provide an escape from thinking about issues that might be uncomfortable.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: A different perspective. Posted by: johnmcq2
» RE: A different perspective. Posted by: nemarluk
» RE: A different perspective. Posted by: johnmcq2
hrmm
Posted by: daniel1982 on Nov 18, 2005 7:30 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The fact that Jarhead (the movie) did not come with an overt anti or pro war message, and hence doesn't satisfy zealots on either side, leads me to believe that it is a relatively factual account of the first Gulf War; from a particular perspective of course.

I saw the movie and I thought it was great.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

War then... war now - it's still not good in any sense
Posted by: MTguy on Nov 18, 2005 8:44 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If you talk much to veterans of WWII, they hate war pretty much across the board. They don't like having to fight one... ever. For any reason.

"Jarhead the book asks that we accept that all wars -- good or bad -- are brutal and loathsome. That the young men we send into battle will often behave badly irrespective of the reasons for invading Iraq or any other country."

Partly it's because, to survive, you may have to do things you would never think of doing otherwise. Things that later you are definitely not proud of having done.

I haven't seen this movie yet, but I think I'll make sure I do this weekend. Maybe the more we understand about war, the less we will want to fight another one and the harder we will work to find some alternative way of settling our disputes and differences.

More tolerance and understanding would be a good start.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Another B.S. movie imitating art that poorly imitates life (and death). Freaks.
Posted by: ABetterFuture on Nov 18, 2005 9:01 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I don't go to movies for "information". I go to movies for entertainment, and I won't be going to see Jarhead. I served with folks in the 11th MEU, and INEVITABLY movies are poor, skeletal representations of reality that create poor, skeletal caricatures of the people--many of whom are just doing their job. The value of ordering those folks to "resolve" world issues at the point of a gun is a far better topic for discussion (and dissention) than whether Mr. Hollywood has another bloody damn blockbuster on his hands.

Take that (and another stupid ghoulish war picture) for what it's worth.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Here's what it really looks like
Posted by: ScottP on Nov 18, 2005 9:46 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I'm not going to give any of my money, or even an hour of my time, to some Hollywood war profiteer. War is bodies burned by phosphor, if you like that you can see the real thing. Don't say I didn't warn you, do not follow this link unless you're prepared to see the true face of war that corporate media won't show:
http://dahrjamailiraq.com/gallery/
view_album.php?set_albumName=album32&page=3

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

No Shit
Posted by: tgabriel on Nov 18, 2005 12:20 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This article states the obvious. Almost 40 years ago, I joined the Crotch to kill me some gooks and find me some hores.

The reference to gangs is also amusing. We called ourselves - among other things - Uncle Sam's Misguided Children and Uncle Sam's Motorcycle Club. A gang? Of course we were - the most dangerous gang on earth. On more occasions than I wish to remember, surrounded and taking machine gun, mortar, and rifle fire - casualties mounting, helecopters trying to get in and being shot down or waved off, we knew no bad things would happen to us, really, simply because we were Jarheads - Grunts - the finest fighting men on earth -MARINES.

Now folks are wondering why these fearsome young people join the Marine Corps.

Nothing, apparently, has changed. You who have never been there will never understand it and we who have paid dearly for the privelege cannot explain it. I am sad that we have not moved beyond such things in our society. I feel very humble that I survived my time in hell and wish the brothers I lost could have come home too...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

No one will say it, but we believe in war
Posted by: Sojourner on Nov 18, 2005 1:13 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Not just that it sometimes is a necessary evil. Not that we must defend ourselves from our enemy. Not that we are better at it than anyone else, and someone needs to do it. Like the class bully who can rightfully claim that he just believes in himself, the US believes no one can do a better job.

It wasn't always so simple in popular discourse. We had "the war to end all wars" and the United Nations to make war unncessary.

We believe in war the same way the alcoholic believes in alcohol or the addict in his drugs. So long as there is no one we must answer to, at least no one for whom we have respect, we'd rather die than change.

That's what we've always been told is the meaning of faith--to die rather than change. But what works for the next life doesn't work in this one. And we're too stupid to see that what makes our rulers rich is the difference. The deaths in Iraq are filling the bank accounts of our governing class.

There are enough comments in this thread to show how and that people not only approve of war but can come to relish it.

How did the USA become Dante's inferno?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Jarhead's Promo Video
Posted by: Linda on Nov 18, 2005 5:46 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The JARHEAD movie promotional video, which received huge exposure on TV Guide's online channel, would be a Marine Recruiter's wet dream, & couldn't be designed to make the Iraq War more "sexy" & "cool": it's like a Joe Camel or Marlboro Ad for cigarettes! Probably used the same Advertising company.
The book may be "anti-war" but the promo for the movie sure isn't. It even uses KANYE WEST's "Jesus Walks" song for the background music. Kanye must've okayed it. Why? Most people won't go see the movie. But they WILL see the Promo for it, over & over & over. It's priceless!
After WWII, by the way, many black soldiers who had just come home were being killed in the South, along with their wives, until Franklin Roosevelt finally was shamed into intervening. We know how black vets were treated after Vietnam War. How will black veterans of the IRAQ War be treated by the chickenhawks who got rich off sending them?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

War sucks period.....
Posted by: Michiganman on Nov 18, 2005 7:39 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I agree with this article, the movie is an a..hole hollywood makeover.
Here is the real deal........
Boy goes to war sees death,desperation and futility, comes home and thinks this society is a F-ing joke.
Then spends the rest of his life trying to forget the whole damn mess.
Screw U Boosh

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

beentheredonethat
Posted by: Beentheredonethat on Nov 19, 2005 5:05 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I thought the film, Jarhead, gave a realistic view of the all volunteer force that has been the basis of our armed forces since the end of the Vietnam War. As someone who served in Vietnam, in support of the Marine Corp, which meant, I was hunkered down next to them, when the in-coming mortars or rockets were hitting our camp. The Marine Corp will always have my respect, for they always get the worst assignments in combat (i.e, to be sitting ducks at Khe Sanh firebase in Westmoreland's adaptation of the French tactics that cost them the war) and the worst equipment to do them. Which the film covered, in the difference of com equipment between the Army and Marines.

The film for me, brought to life one of the most awful parts of being the military, the waiting for the fight, most always done in some lousy place, like the northern desert in Saudi or in a jungle in Southeast Asia.

While there were some things borrowed from Kubrick's earlier
film "Fullmetal Jacket." The ritual of the rifle, done by the sniper scout company, which could be a scene right out of boot camp and of course, the takeoff on the corpse scene. Which in Fullmetal Jacket was presented as real life as fiction and in Jarhead, was presented as fiction as real life?

The other thing that was an interesting commentary on war, was the fact, that the war moved quickly beyond the range of the Marines hoofing it into war. That other than being attacked by their own planes, they only could find what were the remains of the war, i.e., the scene that was like the highway of death. Where our technology has outpaced the conventional tactical use of the Jarheads in a 21st century war. That even when they were in allowed to use their skill for killing people, one by one. Technology and its addictive force, trumped them because of the spectacular way in which technology kills. So instead of a single bullet and pink mist when the round hit home, modern technology, gave us a show that killed not one man, but everybody with shock, awe and massacre.

In the first Gulf war, these Marines found themselves chasing the fight, and not finding it. And as the main character whose narration ends with the comment, "they're still in the desert." My thought was that the Marines in the desert today, don't have to chase the fight in this war, but have it finding them unrelentingly.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

War is masculine, Peace is feminine, and other social constructs
Posted by: azay on Nov 23, 2005 11:31 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The discussion thus far has focused on the symptomatic wartime behaviors of men in uniform. Let's do some root cause analysis.

Lakshmi wrote about the role of war & killing as a road to masculinity and manhood. This all assumes that "masculinity" is a reality. It's not.

"Masculinity" and "femininity" are both social constructs. Gender is currently constructed within and as part of a social power relation that continues to define 'women' as subordinate to men, in part stemming from many religions that continue to see God as a male figure.

Because gender is intrinsically linked to people's self-identity, any change in how humankind addresses the riddle of peace making and peace keeping needs to confront the gender differences that religions continue to promote. Homophobia is simply a variation on the religion certified paradigm of what it means to be a woman or man in today's society, regardless of country or religious affiliiation.

Struggle for social change needs to confront this power relationship in order to really work for the 'freeing' of human potential.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]