Thesis: The movie Platoon has become a significant event: it marked the shift in people’s perception and attempted to reflect the actual war experience of a person openly.
Introduction
The Vietnam War is probably one of the most embarrassing pages of American history, yet it continues to draw the attention of politicians, journalists, researchers, cultural workers, and ordinary people. The movie Platoon has become a significant event: it marks the shift in people’s perception and attempts to reflect the actual war experience of a person openly.
The main character is Chris Taylor, who volunteered in Vietnam in 1965 and joined the 25th Infantry Division not far from the Cambodian border. The harsh reality disappoints him: his existence is inessential since he is green and unaware of the real combat. In the context of the war, the confrontation between two non-commissioned officers, the cruel-hearted Barnes and the humane Elias, is depicted. The massacre during the village raid becomes the turning point that separates people. Fearing the court-martial, Barnes premeditatedly kills Elias. Taylor finds himself fighting in two battles, the war and the conflict within the platoon. Fierce combat begins. The American defense lines are broken, and many soldiers die. The next morning, Charles finds Barnes, talks to him, and shoots him after the staff sergeant tells him to do it. Wounded, Charles may return home now.
The movie is based on Stone’s first-hand experience. He depicted himself as Charles, and the sergeant Juan Angel Elias with whom the director served, is the real character who became the inspiration for Elias Grodin.
Context
In 1968, Stone wrote a screenplay Break that, obviously, could not be produced in those times when the Vietnam war was not to be widely discussed and evaluated; however, it served as the basis for the movie later. The majority of studios were reluctant to provide funding for a movie concerning this topic because it was expected to be a commercial failure. For a long time, the director worked on other projects. Having overcome all those troubles and prejudice, Stone managed to shoot the movie in 1986.
From the historical point of view, this scenario is not surprising. In the 1960s, the polarization of the society, numerous protests, and public anxiety caused by the contradiction between the country’s external politics and individual comprehension were the core motif of the public mood. In comparison, the atmosphere of the 1980s is notable for the renewed interest in those events and the desire to interpret the past and know what happened. The director wants the audience to see the honest truth about the war and demonstrates what ordinary people witnessed there. His message is that any war, a sort of initiation of an idealistic young person, leads to the moral decay of a human being. It is the opportunity to learn one’s character: “we did not fight the enemy. We fought ourselves. And the enemy was in us” (Platoon). At the same time, it is wrecking for people.
Use of History
The historical accuracy of the movie is ambiguous. On the one hand, Stone, the veteran of the Vietnam war, truthfully depicts the reality and pays attention to every detail from soldiers’ helmets with different words written on them to drug use. He also reflects the behavioral tendencies, for example, fragging, i.e. the murder of a fellow soldier in the war setting. On the other hand, the director does not want his movie to be the encyclopedia of the Vietnam war. He focuses on the disastrous effect of war and individual experience. As the events unfold, there are very few facts referring to politics or military operations. The environment recedes into the background to some extent as more important issues, the relationships within the platoon and humanity, are emphasized.
In this respect, one cannot learn much about the exact facts of the Vietnam war, but there is a chance to understand its stress and people’s behavior in those circumstances. I can state that I learned the hidden part of the war that usually stands behind figures, statistics, and names. Now I know more about life in the United States during the period of the Vietnam war.
Personal Assessment
This movie impressed me very much. In my opinion, it pictures the tragedy of a person in an unnatural and fatal setting. Every moment is thought-provoking. The contrast between the opposite phenomena is illustrative: the precombat silence and firing, the talk about the night sky and stars and wounded people on the ground, mercy, and cruelty evoke the sensation of hopelessness and regret for the unavailing actions. It might be only a coincidence, but the prevalence of green is also expressive. Nature and military uniform exemplify the contrast between life and war. Thus, one can feel the atmosphere of that period and enrich one’s knowledge of history with the movie. I will recommend this movie to my fellow students who want to know more about the influence of any war on people’s characters and fate.
Conclusion
To sum up, Platoon describes the Vietnam war through the perspective of an individual. While the epoch itself is depicted with remarkable accuracy, the history is not in the focus of the director’s attention. This movie is an important event since it gives the opportunity to understand people of those times and their feelings.
Work Cited
Platoon. Dir. Oliver Stone. Beverly Hills, CA: MGM. 2011. DVD.
Danhof, Clarence. Change in Agriculture: The Northern United States. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2012. Print.
Demaree, Albert Lowther. The American Agricultural Press, 1819-1860. New York: Columbia University Press, 2014. Print.