"Platoon" Movie Review Essay & Film Analysis

ESSAY TOPICS:   film analysis movie review Platoon
Mankind knows Oliver Stone as a director-provocateur, pet pull the nerves to distributors due to age restrictions and moralizator due to acute topical issues. The first such experience happened with the film 'Platoon' from 'Vietnam trilogy', released in 1986. Its special feature is convicting demonstrate the shady side of the war, not only in Vietnam, but all in principle. Initially, there is an involuntary treatment to Remarkovskomu 'All Quiet on the Western Front', written about the First World War. Treatment is carried out through the mouth of the main character, a soldier of the 25th Infantry US company Chris Taylor, who came to fight for the romantic impulses, not seeing the real horror. And more often than men live in hell on earth, the more psychologically breaks. Stone adds even more romantic by the fact that Taylor - a volunteer, a member of a wealthy family who abandons his studies at the college for noble motives. It would seem that such life turns are fantastic, but the director copied them personally myself, too, had abandoned Yale and went to the world's trouble spots.
world seen Taylor series, ugly, inhuman. The atmosphere of the fighting shows sheer hell. There is no civilization. All around the jungle ambushes and exotic fauna, helicopters, shooting, trenches. And, of course, people. Even among them there is no sense of security. Faceless guk - is one thing, but your colleague - the subject of a more detailed. The aim was to show Stone's internal relations between the composition of the platoon. In the center - a conflict between two sergeants Barnes and Elias, two veterans tarabanyaschih here somewhere from the first fights. But the plot is full of them not wholly. Various everyday situations in a military fraternity or, in this case, 'brotherhood' themselves appear a kind of revelation, and when they carefully filled film, you begin to believe in them, without further evidence. They are great to depict hell of Stone. It adds confidence that the director was a witness and drug abuse, and racism, and murder by the same army. But in thinking begin to doubt it all pretentious and pathetic was the already infamous war
Sergeant Robert Barnes - an exceptional scum. He did not give any chance to rehabilitate himself, exposing his ruthless sadist with half pokotsali face and instructed his words the most perishable of thought. Antipode is Elias, who, it seems, there are no flaws. Honest, fair person who did not spit on the moral and legal laws. Different characters of people face each other in Vietnamese inferno and it seems no longer see each other as allies. At least, Barnes, who makes the most bestial act as a good-natured Elias looks and smiles efforts charismatic William Dafoe. Does this trust? No, no matter how hard the actors and the surrounding ambient. Their conflict started from the moment the squad destroyed the village - also a very controversial episode. And then he disappeared.
And okay, the presence of all these internecine squabbles justified, because they actually took place. The fact is that when you try to scoop up as much as possible to truly suffered terrible truth content. It suffered greatly. Two hours is not enough for the disclosure of such a painful topic. A more time-consuming action scenes, without which it is difficult to imagine a war movie. sergeants confrontation is pointless. It seems so. What is the meaning of action Barnes? Why, why, for what in the end? After all, between the two key scenes Sergeant sobachatami and peacefully communicate. Conflict stalls and does not develop. It is clear that the moment of betrayal is very emotional, especially for the spectator. But really it was done solely because of the pressure of emotion and logic leans on purpose?
And in the case of the village to shoot even more controversial. And, as if time itself as the principal, because it was filmed under the influence of the mass murder at My Lai - crime committed by soldiers of the US Army in 1969. In the 'Platoon' arises contradictory interpretation of such cruelty. Explain the affect, the state of extreme tension as possible, but there is a snag in the other. The episode was filmed, though, with a view to further expose the bastards fighters, which in this case raises certain questions to the authors. At the beginning of the film Taylor writes grandmother that these guys that surround it, this company - the best people he had never seen, do not know. He speaks loftily about them, with the echo of the fact that both father and mother are no match for them, and ordinary civilians, in no way involved in Vietnam, with whom he grew up for example. And then the 'best people' left and right quarrel, kill animals, beaten to death with the butt of inhabitants, raping little girls ... At the same time, Taylor mocks mentally retarded. So this is - the pride of the nation. Local events, thanks to generality, generalize and say about the soldiers, among which really many true heroes, while in the US respect for war veterans is really great at the national level. In comparison with bylju work Stone antipatriotichna excessively. It causes hatred, as if the evil of the world is not possible to convert good afterwards. Interestingly, many secondary characters and extras are at least good people who do not need this war even more so. Vietnamese, by the way, are the same kind, or act as a walking target. They did not imbued with anger, although the first person something they are enemies, not the Yankees
only thing that can somehow justify Stone -. It is the complexity of the filming took place. Movie was filmed in the Philippines, just at the time of the revolution in the country Yellow. For 54 days (number of days for which was filmed 'Platoon'), it was extremely difficult to finalize the maximum quality, so even just to complete the work. Especially when two weeks passed training, training a soldier's life of the war years. They emphasized the importance of them, almost all the actors involved, and they benefited from it - in no one of them can be seen schlock. But in the rush limped other things. For all his massive battle and drama - the pressure on the emotions, with a grand atmosphere with its great pop music to the point - the problem with the camera work. The script, unfortunately, are not fully implemented, leaving sharp subjects undisclosed. The director wanted to show the problems of fragging (killing of soldiers from the same army), but deep-solved this problem can not be called. I wanted to show the drug problem - in the end the moment a glimpse of sweeps in the film and no consequences has not. Etc. One demonstration of the facts a little, it is very important to describe them convincingly, and only thanks to other documentary sources that do not have relations to the film, you realize that Stone does not lie.
6,5 out of 10

How to cite this essay: