POLITICS IN JUNGLE BOOTS

A VIETNAM WAR DEPICTION THROUGH MOVIES.

BY: Fernando de Mello Pimentel

The world we see today, thrusted by a globalized set of integrated political and commercial trading practices, is arguably very dissimilar from the bi-polarized and ideologically lugubrious background of the 20th Century´s post World War II years, also known as the “Cold War”. At a time when an imaginary line divided the globe in two geopolitical blocks – the capitalist and socialist –, the United States and the former U.S.S.R were the two major players at the chessboard in charge of the strategy for the rest of the World´s fate. Both sides designated what was known at the time as their “Spheres of Influence”, which in practical terms meant that strategic alliances with other ideologically close countries were drawn with the sole purpose of achieving world-wide domination. Such concept was clearly materialized with the construction of the Berlin Wall (1961-1989), also known as “Iron Curtain”, which literarally divided the world into zones of capitalist and communist ideologies.

America´s role at the time was to secure the deployment of capitalist economical aid, political influence and military support to other areas of the world in detriment of Soviet communist regime expansion, and vice-versa. The Cuban Missile Crisis (1962), the wars of Korea (1950-1953), Vietnam (1959-1975) and the Soviet-Afghan (1979-1989) and the constant and widespread fear of nuclear annihilation - at the verge of a massive arms race - were all under the spotlight of world foreign affair policies promoted by both parties. The Vietnam War was perhaps one of the most intriguing outcomes of this conflicted era. It has been increasingly depicted in countless hollywood productions and television series ever since the mid 70´s.

Debuting in 1978, in this sphere of cinematographic story telling, is Michael Cimino´s epic “The Deer Hunter”, which describes the friendship of 3 Pennsylvania steel workers of Rusyn ancestry. As strong and realistic as this tale is, perhaps no other film is as psychological and nerve-wrecking as Francis Ford Coppola´s “Apocalypse Now”, with its intense narrative about an american special forces elite soldier having gone totally insane in the jungles of south asia and having decided to take matters by his own hands and methods. This 1979 motion picture has stirred up audiences around the globe by portraying the horrors of war and its tormenting effects on both civilians and military personnel. Embracing all of this chaotic nature is the fictional Nung River, which metaphorically stands for Colonel Kurtz´s gradual but irreversible psychological navigation towards a derranging stream of consciousness which undeniably led him to cross over to the dark side of mental sanity.

While “The Deer Hunter” was a film about friendship ties dilacerated by mental breakdown caused by imprisonment in Vietnamese P.O.W camps and the unbearable hardships of coming home, and “Apocalypse Now” was a harshly psychological metaphor for military desertion and misconduction of War, Oliver Stone´s 1986 auto-biographical “Platoon” is the definite account on the sheer loss of innocence every young enlisted man underwent during his tour of duty. In the movie, Stone explores the 25th Infantry Division´s Bravo Company Platoon as a microcosm which emblematizes the Pentagon´s controversial and misleading military policy to restrain communist expansion in southeast asia.

Political and ideological clashes erupt between the outfit´s two main leaders – Staff Sergeant Barnes and Sergeant Elias – triggering a polarizing conflict within the platoon which precipitates the decay of morale. The inoperative Lieutenant Wolfe is incapable of controlling the ongoing joust within his group. His total lack of authority over the platoon is accurately portrayed throughout the movie and is somehow Stone´s testimony on America´s incompetence in directing the war.

Politics is a recurring theme in “Platoon” which uncompromisingly displays the military´s unquenchable thirst for power. While Sergeant Barnes is the personification of the ambitious quest for unlimited power, Sergeant O´Neil represents a submissive class of ‘boot-licking” scoundrels who will give unconditional support to their superior officers in exchange of personal benefits. On the extreme opposite end lies Sergeant Elias, a hippie humanist who cares for his fellow men as if they were his own blood. Elias is an authentic crusader who has been in country long enough - at least three complete tours – to become completely acquainted to the devastating sub-products of war and thus form a solid contrary opinion about it – traces of pacifism can actually be inferred by his non-violent behaviour and clear pursuit of escapism. His natural leadership skills spontaneously blossom as he constantly finds himself supporting and coaching rookies who have just been freshly shipped into the combat zone. On the other hand, Sergeant Barnes gains similar respect from his men by casting terror among both foes and friendlies – which pretty much builds his reputation on being feared. Although morally distinct in character, both leaders are equally sharp on combat skills and military tactics.

In addition to the testimonial nature of the film, “Platoon” is also renowned for its scenes of graphic and verbal violence which have been warmly captured by Stone while in duty. “Platoon” is arguably one of the most authentic and visceral movies to depict the tragedies and misfortunes of an entire generation of Americans living during the cold-war era. It also realistically depicts the crude “Politics in Jungle Boots” of a nation struggling to find its role in a Post-World War II nazi-fascist free world.

All Rights Reserved - 2007 FPimentel Poems & Publishing Co.