R. Lee tells the story of how he got the part: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N5zZvl_UWQo
Too bad there’s no chant for spelling Sergeant. 
Brit here, a “Gun” is the squad support weapon.
i.e. a Machine gun, light, medium or heavy.
But thats in the British Army.
As a matter of interest I believe that the whole film, includingthe " in country" scenes was made in England.
Kubrick lived in the UK, and was terrified of flying. All of his films from *2001 *onward were filmed within driving distance of his home.
"As for the war scenes, to me, its not a stretch to think that a CO would come down on a soldier with peace symbol on his helmet, especially during the Vietnam war. "
I would agree, but the actor who portrayed the marine colonel was (to me, anyway) portrayed as a buffoon.
And as long as we’re getting correct terminology documented…it’s Drill Instructors in the Marines, not Drill Sergeants.
It was more clear in the book, but the colonel was a “poge” - a paper pusher, not a combat officer.
Longer hair could be just a movie device to show the audience the passage of time (or change in the characters) since boot camp… as seen on Jack Bauer in 24 between the seasons 1-2 and 5-6… also Bond in Die Another Day (while imprisoned) and so on. Then again, they might just have looser grooming standards during combat operations.
shrug
As for the officer… there’s always one like that in every organization, the petty little pencil pusher who is more interested in minutia than the bigger picture (not exclusive to the military). In this case I suspect the officer existed as a contrast, to underline the whole warrior theme… the men were warriors, killers… and the officer was a desk jockey.
I was in US Army, Ft Sill, OK, in mid-80’s, and the “This is my rifle, this is my gun…” chant along with mandatory crotch grabbing and holding the rifle above head one-handed was done (during Basic) maybe a dozen times to individuals. My take on its use was that the ‘guns’ were the artillery pieces all around us the Drills pointed at when yelling at us boots and the rifles were, well, rifles.
To a person, no one ever called their rifle a gun more than once (that I noticed). There was definitely a need to train to differentiate guns -v- rifles on Ft Sill (Artillery Training Center). Sure this applies to all the Services to some extent for various reasons.
So I started reading the book yesterday and was quite surprised at the violence portrayed between the DI and recruits.
I am aware that things were different in the Vietnam era (and our company commanders told us as much). They were able to smack recruits around quite a bit.
However, in The Short-Timers it appears that the beatings are rather severe.
Was this really the way it was?
Examples:
Sounds excessive.
Was this the Marine equivalent of “Memphis Belle” movie, where many different incidents were combined into one single flight for dramatic purposes? Or were they really that savage every single day?
I went through Marine Boot Camp in 1969. Whether sanctioned/permitted or not, there was physical contact between DI’s and recruits. Nothing, however, I’d characterize as beatings. Just as it’s very much different today (to the dismay of many), I suspect that it was much different in the early 1960’s than in 1969.
I’m guessing that it had to do with attention to detail and what the corp issued you was a rifle, not a gun. I remember watching the movie jarheads and one scene were jake glynendal was describing his weapon, as if it was memorized by rote from the book( FM something).
Civ and never in any service, I can only think that this had something similar to do with what else may the recruit (or boot) have never bothered to learn. For educational purposes, running around with dick in hand on the one,and rifle in the other all the while yelling the mantra loudly, would have been an effective learning tool.
Declan
As has already been said, the “Vietnam” scenes were indeed filmed in London.
From wikipedia; Kubrick shot the film in England: in Cambridgeshire, on the Norfolk Broads, and at the former Beckton Gas Works, Newham (east London).
minor7flat5
QUOTE:
Sergeant Gerheim grabs the back of Leonard’s neck and forces Leonard to his knees,** pushes **his head down into the yellow pool. Leonard struggles. Bubbles. Panic gives Leonard strength; Sergeant Gerheim holds him down.
I read somewhere that this was supposed to be a scene in the movie, but R. Lee Ermey stated that a D.I. would not do that to a recruit, nor were they beaten by D.I.'s unless defending themselves from the recruit.
The live ammo scene was contrived because I do not think this would happen in real life. How do smuggle a weapon of that size into the barracks. There were several DI’s, not just Hartman.
Smuggle? The recruits routinely sleep with their rifles close at hand. The “This is my rifle, there are many like it but this one is mine” scene depicts exactly that. It’s not odd at all for Leonard to have his rifle in the barracks. It’s possibly unlikely that he might have live rounds, but I can imagine him hiding a few from the platoon’s frequent visits to the ranges.
Speaking of which, in one scene Hartman praises Leonard’s shooting, but actor D’Onofrio’s lack of control of his rifle kinda undercuts that.
Captain, what is somewhat contrived is live ammo in the barracks, not rifles. Rifles are issued almost immediately after entering boot camp. However, live ammunition isn’t even seen until marksmanship training, several weeks later. As noted earlier, it is next to impossible for a recruit to leave a range, the firing line for that matter, with live rounds. Every round is religiously accounted for. If a recruit was caught even trying he’d end up in the brig (after being beat silly in my day), no questions asked.
Stupid weapon question: why did they train with M14’s when they were (mostly) all going to be issued M16’s in combat?
Is that still the case today?
I’m asking because it completely contradicts my own experiences in a non-US military (we were supposed to have a full magazine upon us at all times from the second week of basic training, as well as 5 more full mags in our web gear, and we kept a bucket full of loose rounds in our barracks in case someone needed to top off).
Well, doesn’t Israel operate on the principal that attack is always imminent?
In the Canadian military, we only get live rounds on the ranges. It is conceivable that someone could hang onto a live round (if I was going to swipe one, I’d feign a rifle jam, pull the cocking handle to eject a live round, slip it into my boot when nobody was looking), but at the end of the day, everyone must affirm that they have no “live round, empty casings or pyrotechnics in my possession, sir!” with vague but severe penalties waiting for liars. There are red “amnesty boxes” scattered around, in case you find something later caught in your clothing and can drop it in, no questions asked.
The point being that we’re not strip-searched after a range day, and I doubt the marine recruits in the sixties were, either. A sufficiently determined and sneaky recruit, if he was subtle about it, probably could filch one round at a time across three or four range days. I’m a little curious about where he’d hide the rounds until Crazy Day, though.
Full Metal Jacket was set in 1968.
From Wiki.
The concept, I think, is that IDF troops are expected to start thinking like soldiers from day one. And part of being a soldier is making sure your magazines are always full.
Plus, in gave the sergeants the chance to shout “ready for battle in five minutes!”, after which we were expected to be lined up by our tents with our vests and helmets on, our magazines and canteens full and our weapons spotless. It’s a good drill.