The Movie Guru

Sam Mendes’ new film “Jarhead” chronicles the life of a young Marine grunt during the Gulf War in a fashion reminiscent of Stanley Kubrick’s 1987 Vietnam classic “Full Metal Jacket.” I say this because Mendes’ film, like Kubrick’s masterpiece, has three distinct acts, which show the growth and evolution of a soldier from boot camp to the uncertainty of combat to, finally, the horrors of war. In spite of this glaring similarity to the Kubrick classic, the film stands on its own as a realistic depiction of military life during the first Gulf War.

Jake Gyllenhaal (“October Sky,” “The Day After Tomorrow”), giving the best performance of his career thus far, stars in the film as Anthony Swafford (upon whose bestselling firsthand account the film is based), a young cadet who, over the course of the film, begins naïvely, but slowly develops into a testosterone-fueled, sexually frustrated sniper who wants nothing more than to achieve his first kill (again, comparisons to “Full Metal Jacket” are appropriate). Other soldiers, such as Peter Sarsgaard’s (“Kinsey,” “Shattered Glass”) character, share in Swafford’s frustrations while “in the Suck” (a.k.a. being a Marine).            However, holding this group of rage- and anxiety-filled soldiers together is Staff Sgt. Sykes (played by Oscar winner Jamie Foxx, achieving another great performance). His appearance as the military father figure provides stability amidst the chaos, both for the characters in the film and also for the audience.

To reveal any more plot points of the film would be unfair to those who haven’t seen it. I liked the film greatly, but I do not feel it is as good as Mendes’ other films (“American Beauty” and “Road to Perdition”), nor do I think it is as good as some other recent war films, namely “Black Hawk Down,” “Saving Private Ryan,” and “Three Kings.” Speaking of “Three Kings,” I read some opinions of prominent critics regarding the film and many are upset over the fact that the film does not take any political sides and that “Jarhead” would have been an ample opportunity to make comparisons with the current War in Iraq. I feel that these critics are missing the point. Although the book reportedly has some political elements to it, I think this would overly complicate an already dense film. To add politics to the film would be to clutter it.

Mendes and screenwriter William Broyles Jr. (“Unfaithful,” “Cast Away”) did the right thing by presenting the story as a matter-of-fact exploration of Marine life instead of making it a sociopolitical treatise. Critics and audience members who were and are likely expecting “Three Kings II” will be rightly disappointed. I do think “Three Kings” is a better film than “Jarhead,” but while David O. Russell’s film acts as satire, Mendes’ latest acts as an exploration of military life. As seen in this film and another underrated Vietnam entry “Hamburger Hill,” military life consists of training, followed by lengthy periods of uncertainty and waiting, concluding with horrific and pointless combat. While other war films exist solely to depict the gore and undeniable excitement of combat, “Jarhead” exists to show the effects of boredom on a group of uncertain young men.

With “Jarhead,” Mendes has crafted a “Catch-22” for the Gulf War generation. It may be a “Catch-22” without the satiric bite of Heller’s classic novel, but “Jarhead” still packs a powerful anti-war statement that few films of recent memory have had the courage to provide. For this very reason, I give “Jarhead” a commendable 3 stars (out of 4).