Casualtie of War

“Casualties of War” is a war drama that was made in 1989. The story is about a squad of 5 American soldiers, Private Max Eriksson, Sergeant Tony Meserve, Corporal Clarke, Private Diaz and Private Hatcher, fighting in the Vietnam War.  **** they end up kidnapping, raping and beating up a young Vietnamese farm girl, Than Thi Oanh.  The underlying theme of “Casualties of War” is how soldiers can become dehumanized in times of war and how, under these violent circumstances, moral behavior is so easily discarded.  Also, another key element is the very tight link between masculinity and how much some of these men feel pressured by their “brothers”, as they call them, to be a “real man”. I will discuss some of these issues in more depth in the following paragraphs.

First of all, I must say that this movie clearly demonstrates the link between war and masculinity. The soldiers we get to meet in the movie always seem to have the need to prove their masculinity in order to get their companions’ respect and admiration. Their individual attempt to kill as many Viet Cong as they can to prove that they truly are the best killing machine, the best soldier and, consequently, the most masculine one of them, is a good example of this.  There is an unspoken need to prove one’s masculinity through the violence of one’s actions.  When, following the kidnapping of the Vietnamese farm girl by Sergeant Meserve, Private Eriksson refuses to rape her, Meserve practically forces him to do so by taunting him with names such as “chicken shit”, “faggot”, “sissy” and “queer”, thus attacking a soldier’s most sensitive aspect: his masculinity.  Fortunately, Eriksson does not let these insults affect his moral behaviour, although he has to face the constant pressure and verbal abuse of his fellow soldiers.  He is inking but we can clearly see that masculinity is very important for every single soldier and they constantly need to prove their “brothers” that they are real man and that the right place for them is where they are, fighting this war.

Secondly, I will examine the different male characteristics exhibited by each of the principal male characters in the movie. Although a traditional conception of masculinity exists in the army, it is not always upheld by all of the male characters. In the army, a real man isn’t just masculine, he is hypermasculine. A real army man feels no pain, has no fears, follows orders without questioning them and is not allowed to be sentimental in any way. A real man in the army will exhibit no traditionally feminine traits and will become a real killing machine.

If we start by taking a look at Sergeant Meserve, we can definitely see this character definitely upholds the traditional conception of masculinity. By kidnapping and raping the Vietnamese girl, he disobeys army rules but it remains a very masculine thing to do for any army man. He never displayed any empathy for this girl and for him, she was just a “sex slave”. He was the man he was the one in control, he was the one giving orders. If anyone disobeyed him, he would make sure they would not do the same error twice by degrading them and making sure that everyone knew he was the most masculine of them all which explained his higher status. When the time came where Than Thi Oanh became a threat for the squad’s security and mission, he did not hesitate to have her killed and did not express any sort of remorse afterwards. At one point in the story, Meserve says that the he was told by the army that his gun was his weapon. He disagrees with that statement. Rather than that, Meserve says that a gun is a gun and that his weapon was actually his penis, ultimate symbol of masculinity. Sergeant Meserve had really been turned into a hypermasculine man by the army and if I may, a hypermasculine man in the army is outside of the army, a real monster.

Then, I’ll study another very masculine character, Corporal Clarke. If we follow the military’s traditional conception of masculinity, Clarke is probably a perfect example of the army’s “real man”. He follows Meserve’s orders to the word, practically never questioning them. Even when it comes to raping their Vietnamese “sex slave”, he willingly follows orders and proves his masculinity once more. When he gets the opportunity to give out orders to his inferiors and prove his superiority to them he never hesitates to do so. Towards the end of the movie to protect himself and his “brothers” who raped the Vietnamese girl, Clarke attempts to murder Eriksson. This man actually tried to kill another man who once was his friend! It shows at what point killing becomes a banal thing for these men and at which point being a man in the army is so closely linked to becoming a heartless, mindless killing machine.

Another character I would like to take a look at is the main character in this story, Private Eriksson. Of all the men in the movie, Eriksson is the one who displays the most traditionally feminine traits and thus is the less conformed to the hypermasculine man ideal of the military. Although Eriksson follows orders he is given reasonably well, if they go against his moral views he is most likely to refuse to accomplish them. But remember, a good soldier or a good man in the army should be emotionless and not be sentimental. Thus the fact that Eriksson refuses to follow some orders for moral issues is in some way a feminine trait and makes this soldier a little less masculine already. Also, many times in the story, we will see Private Eriksson displaying emotions such as empathy and care towards the Vietnamese girl, Than Thi Oanh. At some points, we even see Eriksson on the verge of breaking out into tears. A good militarized man though should never be sentimental and even more important should never cry! Crying and feeling empathy towards someone, once again, these are traditionally viewed as women’s values and do not have their place in a good soldier’s mind and heart. Eriksson, also a very stubborn and someone who sticks to his convictions will never be influenced by the pressure that is put on him by his fellow soldiers thus will remain a rather feminized soldier all along the story.

Finally, one last interesting character I want to examine is Private Diaz. This soldier is very interesting because as soon as we meet him, we feel he is in some way torn between two ways of thinking. At first, following Than Thi Oanh’s kidnapping, Diaz comes to Eriksson, who he had noticed as being the most compassionate of the men in his new squad, and asks him if he’s allowed to refuse to violate the young Vietnamese girl. Eriksson obviously answers him he is allowed and that he had his back and vice-versa. This shows that, similarly to Eriksson, Diaz displayed some traditionally feminine traits. When the Sergeant Meserve actually tells Diaz to rape their Vietnamese “sex slave” though, Diaz crumbles under the pressure that is put on him by his fellow soldiers and hides his feminine side, displaying only his hypermasculine soldier personality. He follows orders and rapes Than Thi Oanh. Afterwards, we will never see Diaz’s rather feminine traits. We can guess that they are still alive in this unsecure soldier’s soul but he knows that it is best for him if he forgets about it and just follows the traditional conception of masculinity in the military. With all the pressure he is put under by his “brothers” Diaz finally also becomes this hypermasculine ideal soldier.

Pressure! The pressure to be this hypermasculine soldier and to follow the military’s ideal conception of masculinity. As soon as their training starts the soldiers in the military are brought to think that they are a group and not individuals. A group believing in the same ideals and with no individual personality. When a soldier is found to carry different values than the ones taught to every soldier in the army, his “brothers”, obviously thinking they not what is the best for him, will pressure him to become one of them, they will force him to conform to the true soldier identity. This hypermasculine killing machine! In “Casualties of war” we can clearly see this. At the beginning of the movie, Eriksson doesn’t seem to show any sign of particular value or emotion. He is presented to us as just being one of those soldiers and his relationship with his fellow American soldiers is a good one. There doesn’t seem to be any tension between them because they seem to be the same. But as soon as Eriksson starts demonstrating signs of feminity or of values that don’t have their place in the army, other soldiers seem to feel threaten by him. They feel this soldier could eventually become harmful to their work and chemistry, soldiers like Clarke and Meserve will immediately try to bring this man back to the real soldier he should be by insulting him, putting a huge amount of pressure on him and by threatening him. For some men such as Diaz, this pressure to be like your “brothers” can be unbearable and they will eventually go back to being this hypermasculine killing machine. But for a few others like Eriksson, this pressure is never enough to change them completely and then, their relationship with fellow soldiers and their experience in the army is ever so more complicated.

To conclude, in the movie “Casualties of war”, we never really get to see women’s role in the army or hear their opinion about it but the movies makes it oh so very clearer to us what it is to be a soldier. What you are taught you should be, what you are taught is wrong or right and the pressure these men have to becoming some sort of hypermasculine killing machine. And what happens to men, if there ever are some, who refuse to give up their values and moral beliefs when they go behind enemy lines. We see what the relationship may be between these men in the military and what kind of pressure these men might have to carry and face. Unfortunately, as I stated earlier, we never really get to see the “women side” of this whole thing and this would be an interesting subject to study and that probably is present in some other story.

Bibliography

·         Casualties of War. Dir. Brian De Palma. Perf. Michael J. Fox, Sean Penn. DVD. Columbia Pictures, 1989.