Military Masculinity and the Transformation of Men in "Full Metal Jacket" (1988) and "The Bridge" (1959)

I argue that despite changes and transformations in the war film genre over the years, one theme that remains constant is the transformation of young men into killing machines. More specifically, a transformation which is foregrounded through their weapons and through violence in relation to their bodies and their masculinity (Eberwein 114), as well as through the equating of heroism with said masculinity (Boyle 149). Masculinity within the military, and thus within the war film genre, is typically marked by self-discipline, endurance, and the absence of emotions in order to constantly appear brave and heroic (Bjerre 136). This form of transformation and masculinity is evident in Kubrick’s Full Metal Jacket (U.S.A, 1988) and Wicki’s The Bridge (Germany, 1959), both of which are regarded as strong anti-war films. Despite these films being made in different time periods, by different directors, and based on different wars (Vietnam War and World War II, respectively), the connection between the weapon and the male body, and subsequently masculinity as it relates to the transformation of young men into killing machines is evident in both films. 

The breaking down of bodies and their relation to weaponry is evident from the very beginning of Full Metal Jacket when Sergeant Hartman (R. Lee Ermey) is first yelling at the new recruits. He tells the recruits that they are not human beings, refers to them as ladies and calls them names as a way to break them down and encourage them to become true “men” which, in the context of the war film, is to be a killer. This implication is told explicitly by Sergeant Hartman when he tells the recruits they will become a weapon (Rambuss 169). This connection of the male body with the weapon is further foregrounded and emphasized in the scene when the recruits are made to sleep in their beds with their rifles; the Sergeant tells them to give their rifle a girl’s name as it will be the only thing they are sleeping with in the near future. They are told that the rifle is their best friend and are forced to march holding their rifle with one hand and their genitals with the other, while chanting that one is their rifle and the other (their genitals) is their gun (Eberwein 121). The rifle, and weaponry and violence more broadly, is immediately connected to their body, their (hetero) sexuality, and thereby their masculinity through the rigorous training drills and scrutiny from their sergeants as he attempts to transform them into proper killing machines. 

This breaking down of the body as weaponry is particularly evident through the character of Private Leonard “Gomer Pyle” (Vincent D’Onofrio) and his inability to keep up with the standards set out by Sergeant Hartman. Pyle is targeted from the beginning, with Hartman singling him out in one of the opening scenes for not speaking loudly enough. Hartman tells Pyle to “sound off like [he’s] got a pair”, equating the loudness that is demanded in war to one’s manhood. This is the first time spectators are introduced to Pyle and he is immediately made into an inadequate outsider within what is often framed as an “everlasting male family” (Rambuss 169) and as a result, he is targeted from the very beginning of the film due to his failures in training. Pyle’s inadequacies and incompetence are inherently linked to his body; he is labelled as the fat character from the beginning and this is the reason as to why he is the only one who cannot succeed in the physical training drills of climbing, running, and doing pull ups. In addition to his physical stature, Pyle is not well versed with his rifle, and is targeted for his failing to hold it on the correct side of his body and his inability to properly piece it together. Pyle’s two major failures as a recruit are directly related to his physical body and his skills with his weapon, which in a war film, are connected both to each other and to his masculinity, thereby making his failures representative of his failure to “be a man”. These inadequacies are ones that the army aims to unmake in order to remake him as a proper soldier (Rambuss 169) and this is particularly evident in the scene when Pyle is beaten by his fellow recruits, as well as the outcomes following the beating. 

Due to his incompetence throughout training, Pyle is singled out by Sergeant Hartman on multiple occasions. This takes a turn, however, when Hartman turns Pyle’s individual struggles into a consequence for the rest of the recruits. Hartman loses his patience with Pyle and announces to the rest of the recruits that the reason Pyle has been struggling is because he has not been properly motivated by his fellow recruits and as a result, anytime Pyle misbehaves or does not perform his role to standard, it is the other recruits that will be punished through physical drills. Soon after this announcement, as well as the following punishments, Pyle is subject to a “blanket party” from the other recruits; he is beaten by soap bars wrapped up in cloth while he is pinned down to his bed overnight. It is through this “blanket party” that Pyle is quite literally whipped into shape by his fellow recruits and this is one of the markers of their transformations into killing machines. The other recruits do not want to suffer through physical drills as a result of Pyle’s incompetence, so they resort to violence and makeshift weaponry (the bars of soap) to transform him into a proper soldier. This transformation is successful, as in the scenes that follow the beating, Pyle’s weaponry and rifle skills improve drastically as does his compliance with Sergeant Hartman’s commands. Furthermore, the recruits were encouraged to beat Pyle by Hartman, who claimed Pyle’s failure was their fault for not properly motivating him to succeed. The recruits are put into a position of needing to be heroic and save both themselves from Hartman’s punishments, as well as Pyle from his failure to perform the proper military masculinity. This, coupled with the teachings in the beginning that they will be a weapon and that they (or at least their penises) are a gun, illustrates the ways in which Hartman and the army as a whole are responsible for the recruit’s behaviour and Pyle’s suffering. This is largely due to the ways in which the training, and the war film as a whole, inextricably links the male body and weaponry, as well as heroism and bravery, as a marker for one’s masculinity. 

While the elements of sexuality that are present in Full Metal Jacket are not quite the same in The Bridge, the concept of unmaking and remaking one’s body in relation to weaponry and proper military masculinity is still present. Similarly to Full Metal Jacket, it appears to also ask how a young man is converted and transformed into a killing machine (Rambuss 169). Throughout the film, joining the army be it by choice or by draft is regarded as a brave and noble act, particularly by the main group of boys whom the story follows. From the start the boys are shown to be excited to go to war despite any concerns coming from their families, as they want to prove that they are brave and can represent their country. While the boys do not explicitly refer to their masculinity or their need to prove they are a “true man”, their need and excitement to be heroic closely aligns with wartime and military masculinity being equated with bravery and endurance. This becomes even more so when they get to their basic training and their higher commanding officers to only move forward, only battle, victory, or death, and that to defend any small part of land is to defend all of Germany. It is through these teachings that the boys are ultimately and unnecessarily killed defending the bridge. Because of these teachings and their implicit undertones regarding masculinity, the boys make the choice to defend the bridge, even after being ordered to leave, as they hoped to prove themselves as proper soldiers through their unwavering bravery which is deeply connected to military notions of masculinity (Basinger 104). 

Another more explicit example regarding bravery and masculinity within the military is through the death of Sigi (Günther Hoffmann). Sigi insists on going to war in fear that if he does not, he will be viewed as a coward, despite the worries and concerns from his mother. While fighting on the bridge, a war plane goes over the boys and when Sigi is the only one to duck down to not be hit, he is made fun of by his friends who tease him for appearing cowardly. In order to redeem himself and prove his bravery to his friends, Sigi does not duck down when the next plane flies over and is unfortunately killed by said plane. Sigi refusing to duck down is not simply him trying to prove his friends wrong and display his bravery, it is him attempting to gain control and perform this military masculinity that demands bravery, endurance, and lack of (“weak”) emotions. Similarly to Pyle in Full Metal Jacket, Sigi does not properly fit into the masculinity that is expected within the military and he suffers as a result. While he is not subject to the same physical breaking down that Pyle faces from his fellow recruits, he is subject to the verbal and emotional breaking down from his friends who tease him, as well as through the commanding officers’ teachings that they must defend their country and must not move back. In the same way that Pyle changes drastically after he is whipped into shape by the other recruits, Sigi also changes quickly after he is verbally broken down by his friends; when he does not duck down for the next plane. Sigi not ducking is him attempting to align with the military masculinity that is demanded of men in war, as it is his way of proving his bravery and endurance that is required in order to be properly “masculine”. 

The weaponry in connection to the body in relation to Sigi’s situation is through Sigi’s body and the weaponry coming from the overhead plane that ultimately kills him. One could also argue that one of the ways in which the boys are transformed into killing machines is through their training that demands bravery and to only move forward, and this is seen when they tease Sigi for being scared. Although they are not physically beating him, nor are they the ones who kill him, they are in a way responsible for his death as if they had not made fun of him the first time, Sigi would not have been too ashamed to duck the second time and thus would not have been killed. Similarly to how the recruits in Full Metal Jacket beat Pyle as a way to motivate him to be a better soldier (i.e. to better perform military masculinity), the other boys in The Bridge essentially do the same thing. While they are not explicitly told by their commanding officer to motivate Sigi, like the recruits were told in Full Metal Jacket, they were implicitly told through their training that pushed ideas regarding the need to be brave and not back down. As a result, the boys pushed this ideology onto Sigi when he did not uphold it and he ended up being killed as a consequence. 

As has been illustrated throughout this paper, the theme of the transformation of young men into killing machines is one that remains constant over the years within the war film genre. Using the examples of Full Metal Jacket and The Bridge, which were made in different time periods and surrounding different wars, this transformation that is foregrounded through weaponry in relation to men’s bodies and their masculinity is present in both films. In Full Metal Jacket, these connections are more explicit, as seen through the commands, training, chants, and marches led by Sergeant Hartman, who connects the men’s rifles to their (hetero) sexuality, their physical bodies, and subsequently their military masculinity as a whole. This is further illustrated through the character of Private Leonard “Gomer Pyle”, who does not perform this masculinity correctly and is punished as a result. His punishment comes in the form of a physical beating from his fellow recruits, who were told by Sergeant Hartman that they must motivate him to do better. This beating not only resulted in Pyle being (literally) whipped into shape, it also demonstrates the beginning of these men’s transformations into killing machines as seen through their resorting to violence and makeshift weaponry. 

In The Bridge, while the elements of sexuality seen in Full Metal Jacket are not explicitly present, there is still the concept of the unmaking and remaking of the male body in order to properly conform to military masculinity. This is evident throughout the film and in the ways the boys view war and serving in the military to be a brave and noble act, without consideration of the consequences and realities. This is particularly so in the character of Sigi, whose death comes as a result of being made fun of for ducking out of the way of an overhead plane. The teasing that comes from the boys is related to the concept of military masculinity, as their teasing comes as a result of Sigi’s cowardice, which goes against what is expected of military masculinity. Furthermore, this moment may represent the beginning of their transformation into killing machines, as it is their teasing that ultimately results in Sigi being killed. This transformation comes as a result of their training which, although is not as explicit as that of Sergeant Hartman, still pushes ideas of only moving forward and only showing bravery. Both Full Metal Jacket and The Bridge illustrate ideas of masculinity within the military through the relation between the body and weaponry, thereby proving how this theme of transformation within the war film remains present over many years.