Review of the Film, Platoon

Rocio Rodriguez

Platoon: The Film on the Vietnam War “Somebody once wrote: ‘Hell is the impossibility of reason.’ That’s what this place feels like. Hell” (Platoon). The controversial issues concerning Platoon were not on the film itself, but about how this film portrayed the war in Vietnam and the affects the war had on the soldiers morally, physically, mentally, and emotionally. Oliver Stone directed and wrote the screenplay, using his own experiences as a reference. Oliver Stone chose to enlist in the United States Army in 1967; he fought with the 2d platoon of Bravo Company and 3d Battalion. He was in combat duty for fifteen months before he was discharged in 1968 (Norman). Oliver Stone’s foundation of the film was the depiction of the terror that the Vietnam War caused, but some critics saw violence within the U.S. Army while others saw violence between the U.S. soldiers and the Vietnamese villagers, reviewers saw inhumane actions while others saw a necessity for the inhuman actions, and scholars saw fear within the soldiers while others saw fear in war itself.
The analysis of this film depicts the vast differences and controversial issue of the sixties.
Platoon is a film attributed to the Vietnam War, and is based on an infantry within the U.S. Army. The film begins with Chris Taylor, the protagonist played by Charlie Sheen, who is a young, naive, and wealthy college dropout who decides to enlist in the war and help his country like his father and grandfather before him. When he arrives in Vietnam he is the underdog to the grunts, he is nothing compared to the more experienced soldiers. The grunts “can take it, can take anything” because “they’re the bottom of the barrel” (Platoon). Chris Taylor’s first sight of Vietnam is a pile of body bags that take his place in the helicopter for the return trip. He enters an infantry division that has two different commanding officers; Staff Sergeant Robert Barnes, played by Tom Berenger, and Staff Sergeant Elias Grodin, played by William Dafoe. Barnes and Grodrin are two completely opposite characters. Sergeant Barnes is depicted as an evil character by his actions throughout the film. The scene where the 25th infantry enters a Vietnamese village after the death of one of their own, looking for the responsible Viet Cong. Barnes believes the village is aiding the Viet Cong soldiers after finding many military weapons. Barnes automatically shoots the old chief’s wife in the head, and holds the woman’s child at gunpoint threatening to shoot the child if the villagers do not reveal the whereabouts of the Viet Cong. This scene portrays Barnes as the evil and inhuman sergeant, who does not believe in right or wrong. Sergeant Elias Grodin, on the other hand, is the character that is portrayed as good. Grodrin cares for the rookies like Chris, when no one else does. Grodrin defends the rookies against the lieutenant when the lieutenant sends them into combat without any prior knowledge of Vietnam on their first day, he also informs Chris what he does and does not need to be carrying in his sack.
Platoon had different receptions and many did not accept the film. This film has a short focus on a single infantry platoon fighting near the Cambodian border during 1967. Oliver Stone’s script was rejected when he first presented the screenplay of the film; it took him at least ten years before the Hemdale Film production company finally decided to fund his film. Platoon was both praised and criticized for the amount of violence and inhuman actions the film presented about the war. It revealed what soldiers were forced to do to survive in the corruption they were living in. Some saw it as Anti-American while others viewed it as Pro Vietnam (Loughran). This film had controversial issues before the release date.

Critics have opposing views on the violence that Oliver Stone’s film Platoon depicts. The different views between the critics are the violence between the men within the infantry, and the violence between the Vietnamese and the U.S. soldiers. According to Mr. Gray “Comradeship among killers is terribly difficult,” (18) therefore Michael Norman argues that the men in the infantry have “little kinship…They may serve together, but there is no sense of self-sacrifice among them, no loyalty and no love. And it is thus not surprising that many of Mr. Stone’s characters come across as cold blooded killers” (18). There is a scene where Sergeant Barnes looks for Sergeant Grodrin to let him know they where about to bomb the area and had to evacuate, and instead Sergeant Barnes shoots Sergeant Grodrin and informs the other soldiers that he was dead when he found him. Chris, the main character, reluctantly believes him and the soldiers load onto the helicopter. As they are lifting off Chris sees Sergeant Grodrin tracked down by the Vietnamese and killed. This scene justifies Michael Norman’s opinion of the movie’s violence. They did not fight the enemy; they fought themselves and the enemy within themselves. These men would not take a bullet for one of their fellow soldiers they are selfish and their only goal is to leave Vietnam alive no matter what it takes.
On the other hand, Roger Ebert argues that the violence is between the Vietnamese and the U.S. soldiers. He says, “There is rarely a clear, unequivocal shot of an enemy soldier” (1) in Platoon and therefore the civilian’s presence enrages the troops by just being there. According to Roger Ebert, “Some of the men in Platoon have lost their bearings, are willing to kill almost anyone on the slightest pretext” (1) and for that reason their violence towards the Vietnamese is ten fold. Even when the Vietnamese are innocent they are still in danger of being killed by the soldiers. There is a scene where Sergeant Barnes kills the wife of an old man and threatens to kill his daughter to get information from him. And on top of all that the soldiers, under the orders of Lieutenant Wolfe, burn the village and take the villagers with them (Ebert).
Another opposing view that critics had on the film Platoon was the powerful effects the Vietnam War had on men. Critics had different views on the soldier’s actions; some believed they were inhumane because of what the soldiers did while others thought it was necessary to do those actions. Though “Platoon illustrates, in an unflinching detail, the dehumanizing power of war” (Bereardinelli, 2), it gives the soldiers a way to survive the war with their actions. According to James Bereardinelli the movie was not concerned with the rights or wrongs of killing, but with the survival of the war. Platoon was about counting down until the tour of duty was over, and the ability to survive and live a decent life with the horrors they were forced to endure. Bereardinelli believes that the infantrymen are still human even through all the carnage, he uses the scenes of when Sergeant Grodrin saves a child from being executed by Sergeant Barnes and the scene where Chris stops a girl from being raped by the infantrymen as evidence to his claim that they are still men and they still have morals. These men did what they had to do to survive the terrible conditions of the Vietnam War, and killing was a vast part of it.
In contrast, Frederic and Mary Ann Brussat believe that these soldiers were inhumane because of the actions they chose to do. According to the Brussats they say that Platoon,
… reveals the hallucinatory quality of battle, the high toll of fighting under the strain of combat for many months, the consequences of extreme situations, the alternative current of fear and craziness, the perversity of violence induced by frustration, and the loss of all sensibility except the will to survive. (1)
The men have become inhumanly animals because of everything they have been forced to undergo. The will to survive is the only thing driving these men to fight; they are not fighting for their country any longer. These men use drugs to numb their feelings and to escape the horrors. The Brussats’ described the soldiers in the infantry as animals because of the their loss of sensibility. This brutality is shown through a scene where the infantrymen find one of their own men’s mutilated body and a village with hidden weapons. The soldiers burn the village and several Vietnamese civilians are killed in the process. These civilians did not have to be killed they were innocent bystanders, which have nothing to do with the war(1).
Oliver Stone’s film is clear in imagery and in context about fear, fear of being killed or succumbing to the war. And it is the one main point that almost all critics agree on. Fear is what overrides hunger, exhaustion, and all other discomforts. Vincent Canby’s description of fear is the fear in war itself. According to one of Canby’s articles, “It shares with the soldiers the pervasive physical discomforts of heat, damp, insects and exhaustion that, somehow, are made bearable by (because they seem less important than) their fear” (31). The film functions like an adrenaline but feels like a headache and this is what drives them and creates the will to survive. Canby wrote two articles in New York Times and they both pertain to fear and what it does to the men. The men are able to overcome almost all obstacles by their fear.
Bereardinelli’s description of fear in the film is the description of fear within the soldiers not in the war itself. Fear is described by Bereardinelli as “living each moment with the Angel of Death hovering close” (1). Fear is described, as something other than an emotion; this fear that builds throughout the film is what gives the audience the ability to understand what these soldiers went through during the Vietnam War. Fear is shown within the first part of Stone’s film as Chris arrives in Vietnam and placed in his infantry, while he sees many body bags taking his place in the helicopter. There is a soldier that tells Chris, “If you’re going to get killed in Vietnam, it’s better to get killed in the first couple of weeks. Otherwise, you just waste time worrying about it” (Platoon).
Oliver Stone used himself as the main source of information to create the film that seemed controversial to many critics and reviewers. This film, although controversial, was a depiction of the real war that many Americans had to go through during the 1960s. The main purpose of the film for Stone he said was to “make a document of a time and place to re-create the reality of Vietnam so that those who stayed home or came of age after it ended would now know what it was like to be there” (18). The violence, inhumanity, and fear were a part of the Vietnam War, as well as the depiction of the terror that it caused. These critics all have the same ideas on this films they may be different but they can be reflected by the film. There are multiple scenes that can satisfy the critics and reviewers of this film.
The scene that can best satisfy all the critics views is when the infantry enters the Vietnamese village looking for the murderer of one of their soldiers. What they find instead is a village is hiding weapons and food to help support the Vietnamese soldiers. This enrages all of the infantry, and they are ordered to look for any Viet Cong members. The camera jumps to Chris and two other soldiers harassing a young man and his mother that they found hiding in their homemade hole. Chris yells at the boy asking him why he didn’t listen the first time, Chris’s fellow infantry men begin egging him on and in doing this Chris fires his gun at the boy’s feet making him dance and jump around the bullets. During this whole time the boy’s mother is yelling and crying at the soldiers to make them stop hurting her son. As soon as Chris is through messing with the boy, Bunny comes into the picture and starts hitting him like a maniac, badgering the boy’s head with the end of his gun. The mother becomes still and very quiet when Bunny kills her son, and her eyes are distant and far-gone because of the horror that she had just witnessed. The camera jumps to Sergeant Barnes and the other men who are interrogating the old village Chief. The infantry brings in the villagers to the center of the village where Sergeant Barnes tries to make the old chief explain the weapons and rat out the Vietnamese soldiers and confess their alliance to the North Vietnamese. While Sergeant Barnes is interrogating this old man the other soldiers are pushing him around between each other. When his responses are not enough to the questions he is being asked Barnes becomes very irritated with him and yells at the old man. During this time the old man’s wife comes in to the picture and she’s yelling and screaming at the soldiers about having rice and vegetables and that they’re only farmers and they have to make a living. They have no money and have nothing to do with anything to do with the war they’re innocent. While she is yelling her head off Sergeant Barnes walks away from her in a pensive manner and then suddenly he turns around and just shoots her dead. Their young daughter screams at the exact time her mother is killed causing Sergeant Barnes to grab her and sets her at gunpoint threatening to kill the old chief’s daughter unless the chief confesses to helping Viet Cong. Sergeant Grodrin comes into the scene and is angry with Sergeant Barnes and his actions with the old man’s wife and the young girl. They begin to fight each other and it takes all of infantry to separate them. After all of this happened Lieutenant Wolfe orders the infantry to burn down the village and take the Vietnamese with them under the orders of the captain.
This scene argues that this film was in fact portraying violence between the soldiers and the Vietnamese villagers. It also portrays the dehumanizing effects of war and the results it had on the soldiers. The scene showed the fear that the soldiers hold within them and the fear that war has on everything and everyone war touches. The scene argued all six different points of the critics. The men were portrayed as animals that lost their mind and were forced to do things that they would have never normally have done. The violence was shown through Sergeant Barnes and Sergeant Grodrin, which is the point made by Norman, in which he says that cold-blooded murders can have no comradeship among each other. In contrast to Norman is Ebert who believes that the violence is between the Vietnamese villagers and the U.S. soldiers this is also seen in the scene. The inhumane actions where seen in this scene as well reflecting on what the Brussats’ claimed. But it also reflected the actions the soldiers had to do which is supported by Bereardinelli’s claim. Fear within the soldiers was seen through the anger in them; Cosby’s idea was that this was where the fear was within the soldiers. Bereadinelli on the other hand, his theory was the fear was shown through the war and this is also seen in the scene. This scene helps support all topics of discussion between the critics and reviewers.
The cinematic details that help this scene portray what the critics believe in this film is the range of light and dark within the characters, the sound and tone of the men, as well as the camera jumping between small groups and finally finishing with the biggest part of the whole scene. The range of light and dark shadows of the soldiers is shown to the audience by the lighting of the camera it allows the audience to see the indecision in the soldier’s faces while they make a choice of what to do. This shows the audience where exactly their inhumane decisions come into play in the scene. The soldier’s choices allow the audience to come to terms with who in the infantry is good and who is evil. The sound that is heard in the background tells the reader that something is about to happen. The tone in the soldiers changes from yelling to going quiet; when they yell the audience can hear the quiver and fear within them, and it quite clear through their voice what is actually thought of the soldiers. The camera jumping to and from groups of soldiers within the village helps the audience become part of the war they can see what is going on throughout the village.
Two of these argument are strong the other is weak. The scene portrays more of the emotional fallacies than any other. The scene is emotional for the mother who lost her son, the old chief and losing his wife and almost losing his daughter. This is what this scene mainly has pathos. The light and dark shadows of each soldier is clearly seen and is in the open allowing the audience to see them clearly, the camera jumping from group to group of soldiers help the audience understand and it reflects with the critics making it a strong one as well. The sound and tone of the soldiers is not strong because it is not as noticeable as the other two and is of less value. This argument can be seen through the other two much more clearly and having a better result than this one.
This analysis helps to clearly view the different topic of discussion within all the critics mentioned above. It gives proof too each critics belief and allows the audience to come up with a clear and focused decision about this film and its different aspects of what this film has done to portray the Vietnam War. It agrees with all the critics and values each, but the analysis does take into more of the Brussats’s point of view on the dehumanizing effects of the war. It also leans on more of the violence between the Vietnamese villagers and the U.S. soldiers, which is part of Ebert’s belief. And the fear is clearly seen more within the soldiers instead of the Vietnam War itself, which is argued by Bereardinelli. These critics’ points of view do in fact allow the reader to create an assumption towards the film.
Conviction, Morality, and Obedience are three values underlying the values of the argumentation in the scene discussed above. Conviction is shown through Sergeant Barnes inability to hone into his senses from right and wrong. Morality is shown through all the indecisions of all the soldiers and what they believe they should do and what shouldn’t be done. Their morals still matter and they must figure out what is it that they should do. And the last value is obedience the soldiers want the obedience from all the Vietnamese villagers, it is a value that is seen throughout the scene and it reflects all of the critics, especially the value of morality.
Although these values may be different they can in fact be different form others it is what is seen. Critics have one opinion on this film and this film has many controversies within the sixties because of the Vietnam War and its affects on society and the men that served during that time.

Works Cited
Berardinelli, James. “Platoon Top All-Time 100: A Film Review by James Berardinelli.” Rev. of
Platoon. Top All-Time 100. N.p., 2003. Web. 23 Oct. 2010.
Brussat, Frederic, and Mary Ann Brussat. “Film Review: Platoon.” Rev. of Platoon. Spirituality
Practice. N.p., 2009. Web. 23 Oct. 2010.
Canby, Vincent. “Film: The Vietnam War In Stone’s ‘Platoon.’” The New York Times 19 Dec.
1986: C12. ProQuest Historical Newspapers The New York Times. Web. 5 Oct. 2010.
- - -. “’Platoon’ Finds New Life in the Old War Movie.” The New York Times 11 Jan. 1987: 21 and 31. ProQuest Historical Newspapers The New York Times. Web. 23 Oct. 2010.
Ebert, Roger. “Platoon.” Rev. of Platoon. Robert Ebert. Chicago Sun-Times, 2005. Web. 23 Oct.
2010.
Loughran, Susan, and Peter Austin. "The Vietnam War." Freshman Studies: The
Sixties (2010). Jones Auditorium. 21 Oct. 2010. Lecture.
Norman, Michael. “’Platoon’ Grapples With Vietnam.” The New York Times 21 Dec. 1986: 18
19. ProQuest Historical Newspapers The New York Times. Web. 23 Oct. 2010.
Platoon. Dir. Oliver Stone. Metro Goldwyn Mayer Orion Pictures, 1986. Film.

Cited: Canby, Vincent. “Film: The Vietnam War In Stone’s ‘Platoon.’” The New York Times 19 Dec. 1986: C12 - - -. “’Platoon’ Finds New Life in the Old War Movie.” The New York Times 11 Jan. 1987: 21 and 31 Ebert, Roger. “Platoon.” Rev. of Platoon. Robert Ebert. Chicago Sun-Times, 2005. Web. 23 Oct. 2010 Loughran, Susan, and Peter Austin. "The Vietnam War." Freshman Studies: The Sixties (2010) Norman, Michael. “’Platoon’ Grapples With Vietnam.” The New York Times 21 Dec. 1986: 18 19 Platoon. Dir. Oliver Stone. Metro Goldwyn Mayer Orion Pictures, 1986. Film.