Full Metal Jacket *****

”This Vietnam War movie seems to be divided into two different parts. I really liked the first part where they had military training but I didn’t like that much the second one. I felt it missed something” - Julia

Julia’s review on Stanley Kubrick’s Full Metal Jacket is very typical. Many people liked the movie’s first part with rough military training commanded by almost senseless officers. But they felt that the second part was not on the level of the first one because nothing special actually happened in Vietnam except some random battles. They wanted to see more fights and action – things that they are used to see when they watch war movies. What is even more terrible is that some viewers enjoy the movie because of its violence. That is the problem with this kind of movies that are really anti-violent but they need to show some violence to proove that it is not rational to use mental or physical violence. A Clockwork Orange and Natural Born Killers have the same problem. One can understand the movie in so many ways that it is possible for one to understand only those parts of the movie which include violence and action.

I consider that Full Metal Jacket has at least two big ideas. Firstly it is about abstract ideas that are just beliefs about reality or how the structures of reality should function in concrete life. In the first part of the movie military training is made because of a belief on war (military doctrine) that soldiers should be in this one form. In this so-called realistic view the world is built on the law of strongest. Thus a man has to be the strongest. That is to say the war is here an abstract idea that finally meets concrete action in Vietnam. We find finally that the war was something else that the trainers or the soldiers expected. It was emptier than glorious. One can find this also from Hegel’s philosophy: “What is rational is real, what is real is rational.” According to Hegel abstract ideas are not full if they do not exists in concrete. Hence the rudiments for the war and generally all the army doctrines in the first part of the movie are only abstract ideas that do not fully find their place in concrete action. In other words the structures of US army are not rational. One can actually point that in addition they are not real – only abstract beliefs of reality. This is why Kubrick wants to make a difference between the two parts: they are meant to be different! The second part of the movie may be boring because it has to be a bit boring. It describes the insanity of the war – how the dreams and romantic ideas of humans as killing machines turn out to be just bluff.

Secondly it is about the idea of man who is born to kill. It is a kind of analogy with the idea of the idea of abstract beliefs of reality. The training officers use brutal methods to change average men to fearless soldiers that I would call pure killing machines. Officers’ abstract assumption is that man is made to kill other men. In this view that is the law of nature: only strongest can survive. This is very close to the principal philosophical question of man’s basics: are we naturally good or evil. Kubrick shows how army changes the personalities of the movie’s main characters. It is criticism on army’s authoritarian structures where an individual is put to one form that is said to be only acceptable form of military life. The movie defends those who had to fight in Vietnam. It was not their free choice to join the campaign in Asia. That is to say that the men in this movie did not fight for their right to be what they wanted or their view of that man is fundamentally good. No, they were told to be good if they are “evil”, if they kill enough without feelings.

Kubrick’s Full Metal Jacket is one of the best war movies ever made. It is a clear description of humanity in the field of blood. It contains very explicit criticism towards conservative values and realistic political theories of power. Full Metal Jacket is a liberal movie that wants to respect the diversity of human life. We can, and we have the right to, live in different forms and cultures and solve the coming clashes without violence.