Some time ago, I read a review of Vietnam War movies by a journalist who had served as an infantryman in Vietnam. He had a simple criterion by which to judge the authenticity of the films, "If you weren't there, did it make you glad you weren't?"
He found that many Vietnam War movies actually made the experience seem exciting. "Apocalypse Now", "The Deerhunter" and "Full Metal Jacket" failed his test; "Platoon" was the one he felt caught the feeling best.
Sidney J. Furie's "The Boys in Company C" seems to fall somewhere else.
The story follows a group of marines from boot camp to combat in Vietnam, although it is often compared to "Full Metal Jacket", it also reminds me of "M*A*S*H" and "Catch 22". Although "Boys" has a realistic enough look, the irony knob is turned up so high that it almost becomes satire.
It was made at a time when just about any bizarre thing about the war in Vietnam would be believed. Mel Gibson's "We were Soldiers", a straightforward film about a real battle with few side-trips into the surreal, wasn't made until 2002.
The interesting thing about comparing "The Boys in Company C", with "Full Metal Jacket" is in the cinematic technique; Furie against Kubrick. "Full Metal Jacket" had to be masterclass for Sidney. Kubrick's film has a beautifully choreographed rhythm and flow compared to "Boys", which seemed to cram in as much chaos as it could.
"The Boys in Company C", released in 1978, was not the inspiration for Kubrick's 1987 film. "Full Metal Jacket" was based on "The Short-Timers", Gustav Hasford's 1979 novel based on his experience in the marines - the film follows the book fairly closely.
Even though Kubrick shot "Jacket" in England and didn't have a real paddy field to play in, his style makes Furie's film seem a more pedestrian effort. The difference in R. Lee Ermey's performances between the two films pretty much says it all.
I find "The Boys in Company C" interesting but frustrating. However as a social document, it's a film that represents the disillusionment and mistrust of institutions that followed the end of a war that is still disturbing.
He found that many Vietnam War movies actually made the experience seem exciting. "Apocalypse Now", "The Deerhunter" and "Full Metal Jacket" failed his test; "Platoon" was the one he felt caught the feeling best.
Sidney J. Furie's "The Boys in Company C" seems to fall somewhere else.
The story follows a group of marines from boot camp to combat in Vietnam, although it is often compared to "Full Metal Jacket", it also reminds me of "M*A*S*H" and "Catch 22". Although "Boys" has a realistic enough look, the irony knob is turned up so high that it almost becomes satire.
It was made at a time when just about any bizarre thing about the war in Vietnam would be believed. Mel Gibson's "We were Soldiers", a straightforward film about a real battle with few side-trips into the surreal, wasn't made until 2002.
The interesting thing about comparing "The Boys in Company C", with "Full Metal Jacket" is in the cinematic technique; Furie against Kubrick. "Full Metal Jacket" had to be masterclass for Sidney. Kubrick's film has a beautifully choreographed rhythm and flow compared to "Boys", which seemed to cram in as much chaos as it could.
"The Boys in Company C", released in 1978, was not the inspiration for Kubrick's 1987 film. "Full Metal Jacket" was based on "The Short-Timers", Gustav Hasford's 1979 novel based on his experience in the marines - the film follows the book fairly closely.
Even though Kubrick shot "Jacket" in England and didn't have a real paddy field to play in, his style makes Furie's film seem a more pedestrian effort. The difference in R. Lee Ermey's performances between the two films pretty much says it all.
I find "The Boys in Company C" interesting but frustrating. However as a social document, it's a film that represents the disillusionment and mistrust of institutions that followed the end of a war that is still disturbing.