By the lengths of both posts, there seems to be a lot to cover, but I think most of the discussion centers on one argument so I'll be quoting out of order.
as soon as one ounce of western sensibility was showed on the characters i was put off. of course they should be humanized, i didn't suggest otherwise. I'm just saying that the universally human characteristics that you mention, should have been the exclusive defining virtue within their hopes, dreams and humanity. the amount of western influences changes this, intentional or not, to suggest that virtues are only found in one direction. the leader of these soldiers were the most wise and Christ like (martyr-esque) of all the characters. they're following this democratic way, to find peace. that's a little fucked up to me, especially when this film streches far out into the world as i previously mentioned with distribution.
See, I think you're looking too much into this. The Japanese leaders in question were not finding peace through the west. The one thing Ken Watanabe's character brings from the west is the understanding that their military is far more sophisticated than the Japanese. He is trying to update the defense mechanisms so they have a fighting chance against an invasion.
Also, with the character Baron Nishi (the celebrity soldier who knew Hollywood stars) what he relates to his fellow soldiers is the understanding that the Americans are not soul less. The infranty soldiers were made to understand that they were. He does not tell his fellow soldiers that to understand peace you have to embrace the west. To attain clarity is to understand and emphasize with your enemy. If the English were the enemy, a similar point could be made about them.
I disagree with what you say because American films are not just made for Americans, they're made for everyone that wants to lay down the dollar. when you have guys like jack Valenti dominating the world and only wanting American movies made, right or wrong, you take on more of a responsibility; to not only give one perspective of events. morals from stories work on a primitive level, so that they can get passed on as wisdom. if it's done in a way that depicts the events true to how the people conveyed in the film think, rather than the way the audience thinks, is more true to the actual events/feelings/lessons. don't cater to the audience, let them expand their mind and come to the truth, and embrace the difference. with the way it was done, depicting a subtle message of western way of life that is foreign, yet rational and caring, subversively suggests that thinking any other way is inherently wrong.
Taking from my first part that I don't think the film implies Western ideals so much as it implies emphasis and respect with the enemy, I move on by clarifying what I mean when I say Clint Eastwood is representing a national cinema for America. This isn't just to cater to the entertainment value of Americans. It also isn't to cater to their beliefs and sympathies. Some films that represent national interests do this, but I think Eastwood is representing America in that he is representing the American perspective as a theme and viewpoint to the war.
If an English filmmaker was making the same story, he could highlight instances and moments that have English references. He would be explaining the war from the English side as someone would do who was choosing a perspective and theme to their story. It has nothing to do with alienating audiences around the world or promoting a bias. It has everything to do with selections and choices that are in drama.
morals from stories work on a primitive level, so that they can get passed on as wisdom. if it's done in a way that depicts the events true to how the people conveyed in the film think, rather than the way the audience thinks, is more true to the actual events/feelings/lessons. don't cater to the audience, let them expand their mind and come to the truth, and embrace the difference. with the way it was done, depicting a subtle message of western way of life that is foreign, yet rational and caring, subversively suggests that thinking any other way is inherently wrong.
you see, it suggests that the humanity in these Japanese soldiers was the western influences. that leaning toward democracy will set your body and spirit free. it is very subversive and dangerous imo.
Like I said before, I don't see it at all. The film has numerous vantage points and references that show the humanity and struggle of the characters that have nothing to do with America. The soldiers who begin to defect against the suicide missions and try to fight for their lives may be influenced by the leaders in question, but I do not think those leaders were educated by Western principles to see through the absurdities of war. I just believe they are professional soldiers who understand the nature of their work better.
Consider the point of Grand Illusion. It was about World War I and showed the nature of the war as the last war where Generals where made to treat ranked prisoners of war with respect and courtesy. The comment on the film years later said there was a striking difference between the first two world wars as the second one was an ideological brain wash to convince the soldiers and elites to find evil and disgust in their enemy. Many soldiers and ranking officers did believe the ideological spin, but also many experienced officers did not and saw their work as a duty and job that needed to be carried out with professionalism. The order and clarity that Ken Watanabe's character enforces into the regiment may be an example of this and the reason why many soldiers started to think outside of the ideological box they were forced to believe.
I'd love to hear a detailed explanation with examples and references to how this is a Western spin instead of just what I said. I have absolutely respected and loved every portion of your argument, but I also cannot see it in the film.
i think they both FMJ and the thin red line work on a metaphorical level. the insanity of war in that respect. the hornet's nest scene showed that both sides were killing machines, both deprived their compassions for rage to get the job done. letters from iwo jima and jarhead are too didactic, i don't care about the events of war myself, at least it's not my primary concern. i however care much more about the internal factors that come into play to make a soldier of war. both jarhead and iwo jima are melodramatic, they churn out our tears or disgust, whereas i feel full metal jacket and the thin red line open our minds to the soul of these characters (or the-lack-there-of in the case with FMJ)
I think Full Metal Jacket and Thin Red Line go for what you say they do, but I also believe they are works that simplify their subjects. The insanity of war...the internal factors that come into play to make a soldier of war...these are all general themes that have been around forever. Almost every film about war that is quasi serious attempts to detail these broad and general ideas. Both of these films barely cover these themes.
For instance, in The Thin Red Line....the film surveys different battles and numerous deployments of soldiers everywhere. It shows chaos in battle and the struggles soldiers have to go through. Fine. To give this a context, the film tries to show the peace that these soldiers once knew. One remembers their wife swinging on a tree swing back home. They reminiscence about their memories of home. Scenes show a soldier walking with native children through a village and enjoying the simplicity of their life. It shows the peace we have infringed upon with war, but...it ends there.
There is nothing deeper. There are no ideas the explain in more detail the personal agony that the soldiers went through. The characterization is an array of voice overs about the general feelings for being in war. If the film wanted to delve into their personal agony, it would have had much more details to show the depths of horror these soldiers have to go to to just survive war. Because the film focused on the surface level details and was continuous with the personal sentiments of the soldiers for home, I'd say that is melodramatic. Letters from Iwo Jima delves much deeper.
A soldier running through a hornet's nest of Japanese soldiers, killing them all and surviving is not a statement about how soldiers became killing machines. A statement like that would have come in scenes that focused on the preparation and aftermath of a killing. It would focus on the potential guilt of that soldier and how he carred on. Instead the scene is a rare action one in the midst of a deliberately paced film. It becomes acceptable because of the rest of the film around it doesn't give into those easy action sequences. But the scene should have been dropped. It is a cliche because 99% of actual soldiers who would have done that would have been killed. If it was going to be in the movie, it should have showed him dying badly instead.
Full Metal Jacket does better because it focuses on the road one soldier takes to challenge himself to actually kill someone. It shows a personality in the soldier that is more relatable to the audience than the typical portrait. It shows that joking about killing is easy, but doing so is another matter. My problem with the film is that it could have been more. It was drawn out to make one small point. Many people like to talk about the dense textures in a Kubrick film, but in this one, it wasn't there. When the end of the film becomes understood, the only question is how to connect the first half with the second half. When that explanation comes with Kubrick purposely going against expectations because the war genre may be the most overdone ever, it becomes obvious he is trying to challenge narrative norms.
But it doesn't make a great film for me. One of Robert Bresson's weaker films was Lancelot of the Lake. It was a film focused on narrative. It told the conventional story of Lancelot but focused on the repetitions of getting off and on the horses with multiple edits and then showed other repetitions we don't see generally highlighted in a conventional narrative. The film was meant to be disturbing and jarring to the senses because it was challenging the norms of one of the most normal stories. Full Metal Jacket challenges the narrative norms for one of the most popular genres, but since his ideas are so simple and lightweight compared to his other work, it does not make a great film.
