"Masculinity as Excess in Vietnam Films" by Susan Jeffords Summary by M. Attebury

This article is about how Vietnam films like Platoon and Rambo portray the exchange of power within the father/son dynamic under the guise of combat sequences. These often come at times in history when the definition of masculinity is being questioned and challenged, and is therefore unstable. This instability is played out in the movies where the lead character represents the son who questions his identity, with much ensuing chaos and violence (combat). This tension is relieved when the son takes over the role as father by eliminating the father-figure in the film somehow. At this point the main character's masculine identity has stabalized and the patriarchal father/son dynamic is reproduced and reassured.

In Platoon, Chris Taylor is the lead character and is in the son role. Taylor questions his reasons for being in Vietnam, says he wants to be anonymous, rejects his family's traditional middle-class life, and says that maybe he can "start up again and be something I can be proud of"--his identity is show to be unstable. In the final combat scene, Taylor proves himself to be a "rabid combat soldier" (1055). Jeffords says, "During the battle, Taylor emerged from his confusion and loss of identity as a 'warrior', a man who no longer knew fear" (1055). The father-figure in the movie is Barnes, Taylor's commander. It is important for Taylor to kill Barnes in order to take his place, so the narrative works it so Barnes attacks Taylor in the fury of battle with the Vienamese, giving Taylor a reason to kill him. At the end of the movie, Taylor is no longer confused, he has found himself and says he must "teach others" the lessons he has learned in the war--in other words, he is paternalistic.

In the Rambo movies, Rambo is in the son role. His commander is Trautman, who is the father-figure of the movies, who Rambo eventually rejects. Instead of going home to America with Trautman at the end of the first movie, Rambo just turns away and walks into the jungles of Thailand. Trautman steadily loses power in the movies, he is "emasculated". Another commander, Murdock, takes over and tells him "I'm in charge here, you're just a tool". The narration makes it seem like Rambo's final rampage is in response to the killing of his female Vietnamese guide, but Jeffords thinks that really it was meant to be the final restructuring of his masculine identity where he gets to prove himself and take control. She cites a break in events--his female guide dies, a brief scene occurs where Murdock again tells Trautman he is not in charge anymore, then Rambo goes on a killing spree.

The fact that the restructuring of masculine identity and the exchange of power within the father/son dynamic is not the explicit point of the narration is what Jeffords calls "excess". These films show the thinking of patriarchy:power can only be transferred through the father/son dynamic (women had no significant role) and in a masculine arena (a war).

I feel that Jeffords article is correct in thinking that these movies are more about masculine identity than the portrayal of a war that they seem to be. However, i think some of her analyses was a little far-fetched and there were some holes. For example, she doesn't explain why Murdock is the one who effectively usurps Trautman's power in Rambo if Rambo is the son who is supposedly trying to overthrow the father.