Review of Jarhead
November 3rd 2006 03:11
Jarhead (2005)
Directed: Sam Mendes
Screenplay: William Broyles Jnr.
Based on the book by: Anthony Swofford
Jake Gyllenhaal, Peter Sarsgaard, Jamie Foxx
Sometimes Pointless is the Point
There are war films that show us the horror of war, there are war films that show use the violence of war, there are even war films that show us the pointlessness of war. 2005’s Jarhead, from ‘American Beauty’ director Sam Mendes, falls into none of these categories, rather it focuses on the repetitive and often pointless stupidity of military life itself, with some quite interesting results.
Following Corporal ‘Swoff’ Swofford and his squad of marine (or Jarhead – the name derives from the mandatory short hairstyles) snipers from the violence of boot camp to the Saudi desert and (eventually) into the front line of Operation Desert Storm of the first Gulf War.
The point of the movie isn’t war however. It isn’t violence. Most of the action takes place in the desert camp where the squad are based for Operation Desert Shield. It watches with beautiful precision as these young men train endlessly for the action that they were promised, but has yet to materialise. Thus they drill, drink and defecate all while trying endlessly to stave off the boredom that spans their every waking moment.
With no women, no action and only illegal alcohol to ease them through, they resort to mindless games and increasingly fights to pass the time. Narrated by Swofford we see the tensions within the camp as many of the men are deserted or forgotten by loved ones back home, and steadily come to rely on each other for support.
Eventually (after 170 odd days), Desert Storm begins and they are sent, as it were, over the top. Here again we see the sensitivity of ill-suited soldier Swofford (played by the very talented Gyllenhaal) as he is horrified by the violence they encounter, often directed at innocent civilians. After all they’ve been through, the brief battles seem hardly worth it and the war finishes after only a few days, although the experiences of war will stay with those who experience them.
Some of the people I saw this film with hated it. They thought it went nowhere. My only response is: Yes, of course it goes nowhere: eventually that’s where all wars go.
8/10
Today’s question:
Is it implicitly necessary for a war film to show violence to be convincing?
Directed: Sam Mendes
Screenplay: William Broyles Jnr.
Based on the book by: Anthony Swofford
Jake Gyllenhaal, Peter Sarsgaard, Jamie Foxx
Sometimes Pointless is the Point
There are war films that show us the horror of war, there are war films that show use the violence of war, there are even war films that show us the pointlessness of war. 2005’s Jarhead, from ‘American Beauty’ director Sam Mendes, falls into none of these categories, rather it focuses on the repetitive and often pointless stupidity of military life itself, with some quite interesting results.
Following Corporal ‘Swoff’ Swofford and his squad of marine (or Jarhead – the name derives from the mandatory short hairstyles) snipers from the violence of boot camp to the Saudi desert and (eventually) into the front line of Operation Desert Storm of the first Gulf War.
The point of the movie isn’t war however. It isn’t violence. Most of the action takes place in the desert camp where the squad are based for Operation Desert Shield. It watches with beautiful precision as these young men train endlessly for the action that they were promised, but has yet to materialise. Thus they drill, drink and defecate all while trying endlessly to stave off the boredom that spans their every waking moment.
With no women, no action and only illegal alcohol to ease them through, they resort to mindless games and increasingly fights to pass the time. Narrated by Swofford we see the tensions within the camp as many of the men are deserted or forgotten by loved ones back home, and steadily come to rely on each other for support.
Eventually (after 170 odd days), Desert Storm begins and they are sent, as it were, over the top. Here again we see the sensitivity of ill-suited soldier Swofford (played by the very talented Gyllenhaal) as he is horrified by the violence they encounter, often directed at innocent civilians. After all they’ve been through, the brief battles seem hardly worth it and the war finishes after only a few days, although the experiences of war will stay with those who experience them.
Some of the people I saw this film with hated it. They thought it went nowhere. My only response is: Yes, of course it goes nowhere: eventually that’s where all wars go.
8/10
Today’s question:
Is it implicitly necessary for a war film to show violence to be convincing?
| 55 |
| Vote |
Subscribe to this blog
Comment by JohnDoe
Film & TV on DVD
The humour is teh key, for me it was a modern day version of Mike Nichols Catch 22.
As for showing violence in war films, no it is not essential. (You better be a good filmmaker to take this route though)
What is essential is to show reactions and repocussions to the haneous nature of war.
Comment by Georgie
Oz Movies
I too was struck by this film. Hardly any war films seem content to show anything other then the mindless violence and horror (of which there is an inordinate amount of course), but its nice to see a movie with a slightly more intelligent perspective.
Comment by postmoderncritic
Postmodern Critic
Daily Inspirations
Relativity Watch
Padsoc
This was my favourite film of 2005 and I wish it had received half the attention Brokeback Mountain did during the awards season. I loved the postmodern use of music and the Waiting For Godot-style sensibility.
I don't like films that rely on violence to make a point (having said that, my favourite film is Fight Club, which is very graphic), and I wonder if representing violence is at all productive in any way - surely the best way to counteract the effects of violence is to show more positive images?
Comment by Georgie
Oz Movies
Oh easily one of the best fims of the year.
And I agree with you about violence in movies. It's an over used technique and has greatly (and sadly) desensitised us to its horrors.
I think my personal rule would be violence for violence sake is pointless, but violence for the sake of showing us how people react to violence (as Swoff does in this movie) is extremely important - even more important then positive images in some cases. All Quiet on the Western Front is a violent movie (although admittedly not a graphic one), but I have never walked out of a movie with a greater desire to burn all guns.
I read your review of Brokeback Mountain and have to say I disagree with it, although thanks for the heads up about where it was shot.
I thought the fact that their first encounter was violent and aggressive was an expression of their (read Ennis's) insecurities and his latent self-hatred. I also thought that their constant repression of their own feelings was an essential part of each of their characters (esp. Ennis). which was particularly well portrayed.
You said the whole film is permeated by a sense of resignment - unfortunately that is how many people, for many reasons see their lives.