eugene@eos.UUCP (Eugene Miya) (09/07/89)
CASUALTIES OF WAR
A film review by Eugene Miya
This review is in the opinion of the author and in the public domain.
The structure of this film is largely in the form of a flash back which
takes place in 1974 at the time of Nixon's resignation. The flashback itself
is based on an incident which took place in 1966 and was subsequently written
up in New Yorker in 1969.
The film is a somewhat different film compared to many of the plastic
coated comedies, light hearted dramas, and big budget shoot them movies of most
summer far. This film tries to be an accounting of one event during the war.
I went to see this film because I, as many curious, wondered how Michael
Fox would do in dramatic role. I think he does well. I did have the
reservations that this was another Vietnam era film where by Vets would come
out looking crazy or half deranged. This being a problem with many of the
films including PLATOON and COMING HOME. Direction was provided by Brian
DePalma.
I think the film does a reasonably good job. It is not highly insane like
the allegory of the DEER HUNTER or APOCALYPSE NOW. On the other hand this
wasn't quite Platoon or Full Metal Jacket. The film does end on kind of an
upbeat note, definitely positive, I would hope that vets haven't walked out of
the theater by this time. The investigation did take place, and people brought
to "justice."
***** SPOILERS: Summary ******
The film starts with Erickson (Fox) on a subway. Nixon's resigning
(paper) when a Vietnamese girl steps on the Muni (SF). He flashback (sweaty).
The film goes to confusion of a night patrol and ambush. Fox falls into a
tunnel entrance and gets stuck (I know some one who fell into a North Korean
tunnel and survived). This whole section is good. We see Fox has a good
Sargent.
The next day on a search during lunch. The Sarge (played by Penn) is
standing with one of his buddies when a sniper hits the buddy. A short
firefight ensues. There is one scene when a VC jumps into a tunnel in sight (a
little improbable, but it conveys the impression). These guys don't trust the
villagers.
The next assignment has them going on long range recon. It is during this
that Penn decides to abduct the girl. A new grunt (Diaz) has no idea what's
going on ("Is this usual?"). They bring her along on the patrol where they
rape her. Diaz tells Erickson he won't go along, but in the end does. The
argument with the Sarge is a moderately powerful statement of "Going along"
[much better than DEAD POET'S SOCIETY].
The next day, the patrol located a VC cache, they call in an fire mission
which also happens to waste a River Boat (friendly fire). It is during this
that Erickson has a chance to free the girl (unsuccessfully). The Sarge
decides to waste the girl, at which time Erickson draws VC attention (this is
actually just prior to the fire mission). This all takes place at once. They
end up shooting the girl.
After they return to their base. Erickson just misses a fragging. His
officers won't listen to him, only one buddy will. His Lt breaks the squad up.
During another patrol, Erickson and one buddy are talking when a new man who
has been bugging them steps on a mine. This is the moral climax of the film
where he decides to tell. He goes to the Capt. Also no show. I won't spoil
the solution.
In the end, an investigation locates the body of the girl, the four are
court martialed and the flashback ends with the Sarge whispering something into
Erickson's ear.
Flash back ends. Short interesting conclusion.
** END Spoilers **
The film does have its holes and bad points: one of Erickson's comrades is
just a bit too homicidal, and the officers perhaps a bit too "don't rock the
boat." One does wonder what is whispered. One does wonder if the Sarge is out
in the world (sentence is over by now). Does he want pay back?
The film does portray combat well (confusion, waste, the there
one-minute, gone the next). It is just one incident. Fox does portray a
character who is somewhat naive and "goody-two shoes." I won't numerically
rate it. It is also hard to say you "enjoy" this type of film. It's not clear
how a viewer might place themselves (if they would be an Erickson, or a Sarge,
or even better a Diaz). But it is a change from the lighter films of the
summer. There's no purely evil character. They are all victims. I do think
the film is worth seeing.
Another gross generalization from
--eugene miya, NASA Ames Research Center, eugene@aurora.arc.nasa.gov
{ncar,decwrl,hplabs,uunet}!ames!eugene