Platoon - 1986

With the approach of Hurricane Irene, I decided to head out to the local public library to pick up some oscar winners at no cost. I came back with 3 movies, one of which was Platoon. When I popped the DVD in and the opening credits started rolling I was incredibly surprised. Charlie Sheen, Johnny Depp, Willem Dafoe, Kevin Dillon, Forest Whitaker, Oliver Stone, Tom Berenger! What an insane amount of talent for one cast. Have to keep in mind this movie was before Charlie Sheen lost his head, before Depp became a pirate, before Dafoe got substantially creepier, before Dillon became 'Drama' etc...I was really excited to see what all of these familiar faces looked like 25 years ago!

The movie deals with classic Vietnam War themes- fighting a complicated enemy, stuck in a guerrilla war strategy that we didn't know how to fight (still don't), racism and classism between the soldiers, etc. If you have ever watched or read anything about Vietnam, you'll pretty much know what's coming. In one sense, I felt like I had seen this movie a hundred times. Still, what made the movie experience worthwhile were a couple of scenes that absolutely knocked me on my ass.

In the Vietnam War, the enemy hid in the masses. Small innocent villages often fed and supported the Vietnamese army. Everybody you talked to, as an American, would give you one story and then turn right around and set you up to get ambushed. It is with all of this knowledge in mind that we need to approach the scene in which the platoon comes to a small Vietnamese village. Berenger sets the scene right away by shooting a man running away in the distance. Nobody really knows what this man was up to but he could have been a scout. At least that's how they reason shooting him in the back from 100 meters away. The platoon runs through the village pulling people out of holes, questioning the villagers about why they had so much food, etc. 

Sheen and Dillon find themselves in a hut with a one legged, one eyes adolescent male and his mother. At the behest of Dillon, and with emotions overflowing, Sheen starts yelling and shooting at the ground near the man's feet, making him dance. This was one of the most honest and from what I gather, accurate depictions of how close American soldiers were to losing it in the bush. Finally, Sheen comes to his senses and tries to leave. This is when Dillon, who had been suggesting they kill the man and his mother (who he claims was probably the boss of the whole thing) walks up to the one-eyed, one-legged kid and starts slamming his head with the butt of his gun. After about 4-5 blows and with blood splashing on Dillon and Sheen's faces, Dillon is impressed with himself about destroying the kids face and having brains everywhere. Really a shocking scene. But damn, it felt truthful.

In the same village Berenger gathers everyone and starts questioning people through the translator, an unrecognizable Depp. The man being questioned claims to have no idea of any ties to the enemy and the exchange gets heated. Berenger does not believe anything the man says so Berenger shoots the man's wife in the head. All of the men in the platoon are incredibly shocked. As was I! Realizing that the man was still not speaking, Berenger grabs the guy's daughter and holds her by the neck with a gun to her head. When I was watching, I kept thinking, don't do it. For the love of god don't. 

Right as it seemed he was going to kill her, Dafoe, who seems to play the moral foil to Berenger, runs in and gets into a fistfight with Berenger. This sets the stage for their complicated relationship which eventually ends in one of the most iconic scenes in movie history, Sgt. Elias' (Dafoe's) death, and everyone in the platoon turning against Berenger.

This is the scene, which evokes a famous Vietnam picture, of Dafoe stumbling out of the woods after Berenger shot him:

This movie shows American soldiers at their worst: raping locals, doing massive amounts of drugs, killing for the sake of killing, being insanely racist, falling asleep on the job, etc. It's a pretty unglamorous interpretation of war and definitely an unflattering depiction of America. It seems characters like Dafoe and Sheen, who seem to keep their morality are exceptions and not the rule.

One last thought, near the end of the movie, after the orders are given to pretty much exterminate all of the Vietnamese soldiers that had moved in to the American base, there is a pretty sickening scene which I thought was great filmmaking. A bulldozer is shown taking all of the bodies and putting them in a huge hole. It was incredible how those bodies rolled through the dirt and on top of each other. Wow.

A must-see film, but one that could make your stomach churn and one where the plot will seem very familiar. Also, fun fact... the movie cost $6.5 million to make. It grossed almost $140,000,000. That's good business!

The English Patient - 1996

I watched this movie today in 2.5 sittings. It's really tough for me to stay locked in for over two hours with movies and this one at 2h43m is way too much to take down in one shot. Needless to say this movie seems to need every one of these minutes to develop the impressive number of story-lines and then to neatly tie up the lose ends. No complaints from me about the movie being boring or anything, quite to the contrary, I'd say it was intelligently crafted.

There's a few things I'd like to touch on in this post: the narrative structure, Willem Defeo, the patient, and Juliette Binoche. First, the movie works in a series of flashbacks. Near the beginning a plane gets shot down and the pilot gets badly burned. Once he and his nurse are left by an abandoned roadside monastery the flashbacks of the patient's life become more and more prominent as he is bed-ridden and for all intents and purposes, faceless. So it goes like this: flashback, scene of the monastery, flashback, scene at the monastery, etc. Sometimes the flashbacks are prompted by what happens in the monastery between the characters and sometimes they are just continuations of the previous flashback. To be clear, I love how this technique works in this movie and in storytelling as a whole. It is one of my favorite ways to tell a story. A number of times I found myself reminded of the movie Amadeus which also employs a dying man telling his story through flashbacks. I guess I just wanted to mention that I noticed the technique too much. I was sort of distracted by it. I love the movie but I don't want to be overly focused on storytelling techniques as I was here. Perhaps this was due mostly to the visually shocking face (or lack thereof) of the patient (more to come on this).

I think that the most important and most interesting character in this movie was the one played by Willem Defoe "David Caravaggio." Defoe is a naturally creepy dude and his role in this film requires for him to be two-faced. He has ulterior motives in showing up at the monastery, he is not just a kind neighbor bringing eggs. I think his questionalble moral compass becomes clear when he steals the morphine while Juliette makes an omelet. Anyways, Defeo is what sets the wheels of the plot in motion towards the final reslution. He know who the english patient is and he believes that the patient is merely faking his loss of memory due to shame, anger, trauma in his past. Caravaggio pushes and pushes asking more and more pointed questions such as "what do you call the first wedding anniversary" a question we find from one of his flashbacks is something the patient would know if he were who Caravaggio thinks he is. A little confusing but still. Defoe kills this role and even though we find out he's found himself to the monastery to seek revenge and kill the patient, it seems that the patient injects some humanity into the character. Defoe turns in one of the best acting performances I've seen in a supporting role due to his balancing ever so delicately the two sides of his character and all that boils below the surface.

This is just an observation but when the camera focused on the patient a number of times, it was pretty sobering. It kind of jolted me and pulled me away from the story. It made it feel a little too real. Perhaps the director felt the same since he put a disclaimer right before the credits that he made up most of the story. When we were being brought back from a flashback it increased the sense for the technique when the patient was taking up most of the screen. Just a thought.

Finally, Juliette Binoche won an oscar for the performance in this movie as a supporting actress. I think she was amazing. I liked the simplicity to her character. I also liked her romance with Kip that she just allows to die out. I don't know why I liked it but it seemed right. Kip added a lot of nice moments to the movie, particularly the bomb in the piano scene. I think the scene where he is pulling her around in the church was awesome but totally cheesy. I'm actually very surprised that that scene is not parodied all of the time in the On the Waterfront kiss on the sand and waves nature.

So there it is. Some thoughts. A total masterpiece of a movie and one that fits the classic Oscar stereotype, a super long drama.

Shakespeare in Love - 1999

I didn't know what to expect with this movie. Even though it won the Oscar in 1999 I always stayed away. I thought it would be nothing more than a film adaptation of one of Shakespeare's plays. I'm really glad I was (sort of) wrong with my prediction. I think the movie is carried by Fiennes interpretation of a young Shakespeare. Shakespeare is energetic, youthful, and a bit naive. In contrast, he is also immensely talented and time and time again takes some life or death risks  in the name of his work and of love. Fiennes' Shakespeare is one of the most refreshing characters I've seen in a long time in film. It's a perfect mix of brash and gooey.

It's impossible to talk about this movie without mentioning Gwyneth Paltrow. She won the Oscar for best actress in her role as Viola. She was mesmerizing. I didn't particularly like how her assertiveness in pursuing acting totally clashed with her submissiveness in following through with her marriage. I assume this only reflected the times but I was unsettled by the inconsistency of her character. Nevertheless, Paltrow is extremely good in this movie.

Here's Gwyneth Paltrow's speech after winning her own oscar for the film:

Some other things I noticed...Ben Affleck's role as Henry VI was surprisingly good. I don't think Affleck is a very good actor (I think his brother Casey is better) but in this role he comes off as very honest and at times, sheepish.

I was very put off by one of the  make-out scenes where Shakespeare makes out with Viola dressed as a man. It was weird because even though they were alone, Viola kept on her fake mustache on for way too long! Fiennes should have taken it off immediately.

Finally, one of the best characters in the entire film is the nurse. She is hilarious and also very devoted to Paltrow. Their relationship parallels the one between Juliet and her nurse in the actual play. She steals scenes and arguably facilitates everything that happens between Viola and Shakespeare. Furthermore, the role of Queen Elizabeth is also perfect. She watches plays, seems approachable, jokes with commoners, and has a sincere feistiness about her. The movie is made so much better by the nurse and by the queen.

I'm sure an entire essay can be written about how Shakespeare in Love is a parallel of "Romeo and Juliet" (after all "R&J" is a result of the events in the movie) but I don't want to get into academics here, except to say that the little coincidences were very subtle and enjoyable.

Overall, I think this movie is a must for anybody that has read Shakespeare and enjoys film. The dialect is heavy, heavy, and I mean heavy with Shakespearian speech but it is not unintelligible. The characters carry the film (both majors and minors) and the scenery is also superb. The acting is so sincere and the forbidden love has everyone hoping for a happy ending, that indeed, does not come.

Here's the movie trailer: