Full Metal Jacket and the limitations of Kubrick

[Gold Trumpet]

First off, stop giving my arguments the name of trying to make the movie convential. Again you said something of convention with my intention, with Jerry Bruckheimer. How many times do I need to say this? I'm not going for convention, but trying to find a better way to bring out the themes with Kubrick's movie.

For your first argument, there is no need for the soldiers within the battle to realize the threat as a more realistic one. That would actually be off putting for the film since it is an exploration of what they assume and don't really know. You instead make the audience aware of how bad it will be for them and let the soldiers go into it to discover it.

My using a Kubrick quote was not because I discovered the truth of what the finale means through him, but it only confirmed my prior beliefs and was able to give me a hindsight on what he better wanted to say. Full Metal Jacket is not a movie like 2001: A Space Odyssey where more thought of ones own is applied in determining importance or meaning. To get Full Metal Jacket is quite easy so I am arguing in the case of it to be shown better.

My main points within the movie are this 1.) the movie obviously at the end was a personal journey for Joker to learn how hard it is to kill and become dehumanized from the experience and 2.) I agree on what it does but thought it could have suited itself better if it made that fact more apparent as a personal story, because as recollection calls, the movie just jumps into the sniper scene and seems off putting in giving effect and 3.) the sniper scene is so thin itself in bringing fear upon the soldiers to understand the horrors of war that it doesn't seem benefiting to the ideas in play for the movie.

~rougerum

[Jeremy Blackman]

I'm not going for convention, but trying to find a better way to bring out the themes with Kubrick's movie . . . To get Full Metal Jacket is quite easy so I am arguing in the case of it to be shown better.

Anyone who tries to improve a Kubrick movie is destined to fail.

instead make the audience aware of how bad it will be for them and let the soldiers go into it to discover it.

So.. separate the audience from the soldiers? How would that improve our emotional connection with them?

I agree on what it does but thought it could have suited itself better if it made that fact more apparent as a personal story

Focusing on Joker more than he already does would dilute the broad statements Kubrick's making. There's no reason to focus on him and make it a "personal story" because he's not much different from all the other soldiers. So we would learn something about Joker's background, that he has a wife and kids at home, that his parents disowned him, that his friends protested the war as he left to fight in it... is that what you want? That whole idea reeks of convention (I don't think you're getting past that yet) and I don't think I could handle that much cheese, especially in a Kubrick movie.

[Gold Trumpet]

Why is it that when I say something, you always imply something else?

And about trying to make a Kubrick movie and being destined to fail. I would have agreed with you there, but only when I was 17 or something. Now, I don't even consider Kubrick a main source of inspiration but someone who made some great movies.

It's not really a separation of them from our care or following at all, but giving us information that they don't know. This has been done in many movies and novels and never before has been disputed as removing connection anything. And your argument is even farther removed when it is applied for just one scene.

Personal story would not necessarily involve a background story, which I wouldn't do at all anyways. It would involve a more personal exploration of Joker himself going through the war focusing on his situation and the build up to the sniper scene. You didn't argue my comments on how the sniper scene almost seemed dropped in instead of placed as a proper ending to the story. My suggestion is to just extend the narrative to a point where it is felt that there is an escalation to the sniper scene, the very first scene of threat put upon the soldiers and the revelation for Joker on how it is to kill someone. The audience would feel the scene of threat much more if there was a better heightened storyline leading to it. That's a common understanding for the movies in playing a scene to the best you can, but the sniper scene seems more dropped in than placed properly. That's all.

~rougerum

[Cecil]

this is, without a doubt, the stupidest thread ever. the mere suggestion that kubrick has "limitations," especially in full metal jacket, is ludicrous.

[Duck Sauce]

this is, without a doubt, the stupidest thread ever. the mere suggestion that kubrick has "limitations," especially in full metal jacket, is ludicrous.

Although I cant agree about the limitations of Kubrick, I have very much enjoyed reading this thread. The FMJ sniper debate is one I pray never ends. I like reading things that I am not intelligent enough to conclude on my own.

[©brad]

It's like watching a tennis match- back and forth...

[Jeremy Blackman]

Why is it that when I say something, you always imply something else?

Because what you say always implies something else.

You didn't argue my comments on how the sniper scene almost seemed dropped in instead of placed as a proper ending to the story.

It was abrupt, because it was the third act of the movie. It's like an episode, and I think it works. Your argument could be made about the transition from boot camp to war, and I would have the same response.

The audience would feel the scene of threat much more if there was a better heightened storyline leading to it.

Do you think we're supposed to feel threatened and emotional? I think we're supposed to feel cold and confused.

[©brad]

Very nice return by Mr. Blackman as he takes the lead. Mr. Trumpet, it is still your serve, love-30.

I'm afraid I have to wait until next week to see how the match ends. Heading off to Barcelona for the weekend with a senorita. Hope everyone has a good week, cya tuesday.

-cbr

[Pubrick]

I think we're supposed to feel cold and confused.

let's call that match point, shall we ladies?

[Derek]

Not to be anal, but hey, look at the thread I'm posting in....but shouldn't it be The Gold-en Trumpet?

[Gold Trumpet]

The movie is not really staged as a three act play at all. In many interviews before this movie was made, Kubrick always saw movies as just a three act play extended and found it to be a cliche. And frankly, I believe this more to be a two act play, with the very realized pure nightmarish situation of boot camp realized and then a toned down war experience that goes against what people would expect in a war film. Kubrick wanted to show the contrasts of what expectations of war were and what they really were. For much of the second half, Kubrick accomplishes it but then to finish the irony of the idea on how hard it is to really kill someone, I think his pacing and extension of the second half works against the build up to that moment. And also, the sniper scene happens during the second part purely for the reason that it is during Joker's first tour of duty, which dominates the second half and there is no indication within the second half to suggest a full third act to be taking place.

I think confused is correct, but that could have been shown through a killing where Joker had to bring out his agression of killing in a way that was not as nice as the mercy killing he did on the sniper who begged him to do it. Cold would come through our indentification of Joker for what he did, in the sense we feel he did something wrong or it was a brutal situation where brutality in its purest form had to place. For all these emotions to be the end result of what we feel for the character of Joker and the army, the characteristics I said must be in play first in the scene.

~rougerum

[Gold Trumpet]

And Derek, from the book where I got the name The Gold Trumpet, it uses quotes where it does suggest golden trumpet instead, but word use in the book itself relating to the characters were kept at The Gold Trumpet.

~rougerum

[MacGuffin]

Has anyone read the novel, The Short Timers? How faithful is Jacket to it?

[Gold Trumpet]

Prolly not very faithful since the author of the book, while the novel was being adapted by Kubrick and author Michael Herr, went through a great depression and fought to get his book back even I think. Then, he ended up killing himself. What likely is really brought from the book mainly is overall storyline and a few ideas, but Kubrick prolly adapted it with other Vietnam books in mind too.

~rougerum

[Jeremy Blackman]

I believe this more to be a two act play . . . there is no indication within the second half to suggest a full third act to be taking place.

You said the sniper scene felt abrupt and removed from the rest of the movie, and I sort of agree... so in that way I think it's a third act, although it's more related to the second act than the first. But every scene in the second act is so short and happens so quickly (the first scene of the second act is even cut short), and what I claim is the third act is just one very long scene. The second could represent observation, and the third could represent action. I think there's a comparison being made not only between the first act and the others, but between the second and the third.

Cold would come through our indentification of Joker for what he did, in the sense we feel he did something wrong or it was a brutal situation where brutality in its purest form had to place. For all these emotions to be the end result of what we feel for the character of Joker and the army, the characteristics I said must be in play first in the scene.

I felt he did something wrong.. at least that he was in the wrong situation, and definitely a "brutal situation." So for me, both of your critera were met. If it wasn't cold for you, and it wasn't emotional, then what is it?