Jarhead has received much criticism, particularly in the US, for seeming to avoid the political implications of the Gulf War, and - by extension - those of its still-raging sequel. One of the best put-downs I have read came from the New York Times: “It is a movie that walks up to some of the most urgent and painful issues of our present circumstance, clears its throat loudly and, with occasional flourishes of impressive rhetoric, says nothing.”

However, while it is certainly true that Jarhead is not a political tract, to maintain that it “says nothing” is simply wrong. It doesn’t have one definitive statement to make, no, rather it has many smaller - though not necessarily less important - things to say. In fact, in the time since writing my short review I have moved on in my thinking to consider it far more politically committed than it first appeared. Is this what has happened to other reviewers too: a hasty opinion being formed by the surface of the work that wasn’t allowed the time to mature granted to the Alternate Takes writer?...

The most obvious place to start when looking for political critique in the film is with Foster, the one character we meet who seems to have any informed scepticism about Operation Desert Storm (on a side-note, I might mention it seems obvious that when most critics talk about the film’s lack of politics what they really mean - understandably - is its lack of forcefully left-wing politics). It is through Foster that we hear the liberal/left-wing Western perspective on the Iraq war: he tells his fellow marines that this is a war for oil, he complains that they are being censored in conversations with the press, he voices concern that the anti-chemical-warfare pills they are forced to take have not been properly tested. This character, however, is sidelined by the film in just the same way as such a soldier would be sidelined in Iraq: if you are there and you’re having to fight this war then that is the end of it; “fuck politics,” as Troy says. Still, it is important that his voice of dissent is - even if only sporadically - heard.

Now, it seems to me that a main reason for people considering Jarhed apolitical must be because of the superficial fact that it shows little-to-no actual combat, and therefore can show little of the old truism that ‘war is hell’. I say this because: exactly where is the in-depth, engaged political discourse in the now-classic war films - in, say, The Deer Hunter (1978), or Apocalypse Now (1979) or Full Metal Jacket (1987)? I would argue that in actual fact these ‘socially aware’ films don’t delve more deeply into actual political issues than does Jarhead, but what they do delve brilliantly into is the actual nitty gritty of violent, bloody, hellish battle. The spectacle of war is so disgusting - so persuasive a visual argument against war - that it makes these films’ anti-war message feel far more forceful and perhaps thus more politically-charged than it actually is. Let’s also not forget that Vietnam is a war that is inextricably tied up with a period of great social upheaval, when massive changes in public consciousness were taking place all over the world. To make an anti Vietnam War film is to engage on some level with this particular extraordinary moment in time, and thus to be aligned with all of its political implications.

Jarhead doesn’t have this luxury: millions of us may have taken to the streets to protest the Iraq invasion (in 2002), but the present social unrest has nowhere near the far-reaching political implications it did in the 60s and 70s. Neither does Jarhead have the possibility of convincing us of how politically committed it is through painful visions of thousands of young men being slaughtered. Having accepted this, though, let me point out again what it does show us: young men going insane in the desert. How can it be doubted that we are intended to find it sick that not being able to kill is driving these soldiers mad? It may not be combat - but rather the lack of it - that is pushing these boys over the edge, but it is nevertheless being caused by the fact that, again, they are soldiers stationed in a war zone for reasons that they do not fully understand. As Swafford says, “Every war is different, every war is the same.” In terms of the film’s opinion of what war does to a human being, Jarhead is as critical of the events it can depict as are the War Movie Classics.

Apocalypse Now

Obviously, the scene fascinatingly shows an anti-war war film being reinterpreted as a pro-war war film, with the marines mentally recasting the US forces’ role from being the villains of the piece (as intended by Coppola) into being the heroes. Although I have said that images of war carry an inherent argument against what they depict, this scene shows how easily slippage of meaning can realistically happen. We can call these marines idiotic film viewers all we want - the fact is that there is violence being depicted onscreen, and they have been given the chance and the right to relate positively to it (similarly, the aggressive style of Public Enemy’s ‘Fight the Power’ allows its political point to be lost on the marines at the film’s end). By not showing any violence whatsoever (save for one accidental ‘friendly-fire’ killing back at boot camp), Jarhead in a sense becomes the ultimate pacifist war film, one that it is - surely - impossible to misinterpret as gung-ho heroics.

Finally, the fact that Vietnam haunts the movie - both through film references and, at one point, musically (hearing The Doors’ ‘Break on Through’, Swafford says, “That’s Vietnam music - can’t we get our own fuckin’ music?”) - may itself have a political edge to it. Perhaps not quite as relevant to the first Gulf war, Vietnam casts a long shadow over its current incarnation: once again confused American soldiers are fighting an invisible enemy in a war they cannot possibly win. It may seem like lazy - maybe even offensive - leeching off the political significance the previous war to some, but using Vietnam’s cultural legacy to draw a line of continuation between the events of forty years ago and now is an acknowledgement of the role of history and politics the likes of which one rarely finds in Hollywood movies. Jarhead’s skull may not be the empty vessel we might at first believe.