MovieChat Forums > The Last Detail (1974) Discussion > Corruption and Critique of the United St...

Corruption and Critique of the United States Military


“Man says go, got to do what the man says” Mule says in the 1973 film, The Last Detail, as he describes the rules of the military to a group of anti government hippies in New York City. The movie, starring Jack Nicholson not only critiques the United States military itself but also talks about life inside the military and how Mule and Buddusky are stuck inside a system which is corrupt. Despite the fact that this film is a dark comedy, it is this evaluation of the corruption of the military which makes the film so poignant not only for it’s time, but for viewers today.

The Last Detail is filled with critiques of the American military. The movie, taped in the early 1970’s deals with the end of the Vietnam War and the negative response to this very unpopular war. I think that this is most obviously seen in the actual content of the film. Eighteen year old Meadows is being sent to prison for eight years for the theft of forty dollars. He is being sent to a prison where he will not be able to fend for himself for the purpose of being made an example of. The character of Meadows himself is pathetic and so naïve that it is hard for the audience not to feel bad for him and be angry with a system which would penalize him so harshly. Though Buddusky and Mule’s job is to show him a good time before leaving for jail and allow him to experience things he hasn’t been able to, this is sad in many ways because his life is being taken away before he gets to actually enjoy it. The viewer cannot help but feel bad for a character that is so likeable and is being punished so severely.

The director is also making us doubt the importance of the military by his choice of music. A carnival like music is associated with many scenes in the film. This gives the impression that the military is not supposed to be taken seriously. The drumming noise of typically patriotic songs doesn’t evoke a feeling of nationalism in the audience but instead, when played during scenes where there are fights and during comedic moments, it’s is lighthearted and comical, there to poke fun at the American military establishment.

Another way in which the film makes the audience lose respect for the military is by having the characters themselves actually doubt the establishment for which they work for. When Buddusky suggests that Meadow’s mom should write letters to her Congressman about the unfair treatment of her son, Mule responds that she can write letters until she owns the post office. Both Mule and Buddusky know that nothing can be done for Meadow because the system is unfair and doesn’t care about the circumstances of the individual. The film gives the impression that the individual is not what’s important in the military. The three main characters in the film are very likeable and have strong personalities which relate with the audience. But, in the military they are not treated with the respect that we believe they deserve. In a culture which looks so highly on the individual it becomes difficult to understand how the military could refuse to see the circumstances of the individual, in this case the punishment of Meadows. The director forms a wall between the American audience, who respects and idealizes the idea of individualism. As opposed to a military that refuses to look at the individual circumstances of Meadows. This wall furthers our dislike of the military itself.

But the thing that I found most interesting about the film was the fact that Mule and Buddusky seem stuck in their roles as petty officers in the army. The two are not married and seem to be trapped in a profession which is corrupt, but still comfortable and familiar to them. Nicholson says that, “I guess that we’re just a couple of lifers” meaning that they will forever be in this establishment because there is nothing else out there for them. Much like Meadows, who will be spending a chunk of his life in prison Mule and Buddusky are stuck in a system which doesn’t respect or appreciate them. At the end of the film when we discover that their papers to allow them to bring Meadows to prison have not even been signed by their head officer the audience realizes how insignificant and disposable they must be. They aren’t even appreciated enough to be remembered to be signed out. This mentality of being “lifers” is an important theme that the film deals with. There is this underlying idea that the American military is over all corrupt and unfair. Not only as an establishment but for those individuals who are apart of it.




reply

They are Petty Officers in the Navy, not the Army.

reply

And it was not TAPED in 1970, it was FILMED.

reply

Meadows is being sent to the stockade for eight years and a D&D for the theft of forty dollars. Meadows is getting special treatment because he stole the money from the CO's wife's favorite charity.

reply

"Meadows is getting special treatment because he stole the money from the CO´s wife´s favorite charity".

That the "corrupt" part of it - it shouldn´t legally matter WHO you steal it from and some boss´s bitch shouldn´t be the one calling the shots on this.



"facts are stupid things" - Ronald Reagan

reply

You've never been in the military and you will never know what this film really means.

________________
I will not fear.
Fear is the mind-killer.
I will face my fear.
I will let it pass through me.

reply

<< You've never been in the military and you will never know what this film really means. >>

Amen, Brother.

reply

"...it is this evaluation of the corruption of the military which makes the film so poignant not only for it’s time, but for viewers today"

"The character of Meadows himself is pathetic and so naïve that it is hard for the audience not to feel bad for him and be angry with a system which would penalize him so harshly."

Back around the time this movie was made, when I was a good deal more like Meadows than I care to remember, I might have agreed with you, I dunno. But now I have to say that I'm utterly furious with Meadows for being so spineless and bringing all this trouble down on his head. There is no way any shipmate could ever depend on him as he is presently constituted. Sticking him in prison for several years might very well be doing him a favor, because if he isn't gotten out of the way somehow he will either be killed (likely) or cause someone else's death (also likely). He's a walking disaster area. On top of his general gormlessness he's an inept kleptomaniac in an environment where theft is one of the worst possible sins. One way or another he is fated to be removed from the Navy "gene pool".

"...job is to show him a good time before leaving for jail..."

Their duty is to deliver him to prison. They exercise a certain amount of...erm...discretion in how they do that, and in fact deliver him a much better man than they find him. But their pity, which is real, would turn to horror if they thought they might find him on their next ship.

"character that is so likeable"

I think the actor did a superb job of portraying a character who is not only extremely *un*likeable but also -- as he is at the beginning of the film -- very nearly worthless.

"...choice of music. ...there to poke fun at the American military establishment."

I'm sorry, I have to disagree again. I think the music is a work of genius and deep understanding. As a former Navy EM from exactly the relevant time I feel well understood and viewed with considerable compassion by this movie.

"...Both Mule and Buddusky know that nothing can be done for Meadow because the system is unfair and doesn’t care about the circumstances of the individual."

They know the system is imperfect and that technically speaking Meadows is getting raped. There is abuse of power there which they cannot influence. But it's abuse within the system, not by the system, and they know that too. They know Meadows deserves punishment for his action. And on a deep level they know he -- karmicly you could say -- will be punished by the universe for his immaturity.


"...impression that the individual is not what’s important in the military."

Fair enough...it isn't. People who join the military definitely sacrifice some of their individuality, whether they know it or not. That is the purpose of uniforms, formations, all sorts of things. It is the purpose of boot camp (and frankly Meadows is so gormless it's quite unlikely he'd have made it through boot camp. He'd have either improved in the normal boot camp, or improved in the more physical one for slow learners, or been discharged.

"...in the military they are not treated with the respect that we believe they deserve."

They are treated with a different sort of respect...the respect to demand that they do their duty.

"...difficult to understand how the military could refuse to see the circumstances of the individual, in this case the punishment of Meadows."

This is fiction. Not likely to happen just like this in life. But I agree that individual recourse is lacking and sometimes people get caught in the gears. However on a larger scale these things correct themselves. No sparrow falls in the Navy without *somebody* noticing, and reputation is a powerful thing.


"...seem stuck in their roles as petty officers ... stuck in a system which doesn’t respect or appreciate them."

No, really -- the system both respects and appreciates them, just not in ways that make sense to you. These men are serious and skilled professionals who for reasons of personality (Buddusky) or race (Mulhall) have much better opportunity in the Navy than they would outside of it. They both know it and both appreciate it. Mulhall stating this fact openly would be highly unusual, but he needed to get across to Buddusky that if Buddusky wanted to throw his career away in an eruption of his internal anger he should do it some time when it wouldn't also wreck Mulhall's. Buddusky understood perfectly, and he wouldn't have done it anyway. He's pissed at the universe but he's far from stupid.

"...have not even been signed by their head officer ... insignificant and disposable they must be."

Actually they haven't been signed by the duty desk because our heroes forgot to check out when they left. Since they actually are where they're supposed to be this is a sort of technical breach that can get them yelled at but probably not in any real trouble unless they had a reputation for this sort of thing. And the circumstances of their departure make this kind of slip understandable. They have to stand still for a certain amount of grief from the officer, but not an unlimited amount. By calling for the XO they're putting him on notice that his conduct as well as theirs will be under review whether or not XO dresses them down. He has a lot more to lose than they do because he *is* acting like a prick even though he feels morally justified because of his belief that they had beaten up the prisoner in an abuse of their own power. His outrage is real and does him credit but he's in over his head and can't afford to press the point.

It's quite a remarkable movie really. And they nailed the language and how it's used exactly. I only heard one expression (the CMAA said it) that wasn't in everyday use where I served, and the amount wasn't exaggerated in the slightest.

'kin-A, I mean Kind Regards,
david, ex-HM2

reply

It's quite a remarkable movie really. And they nailed the language and how it's used exactly. I only heard one expression (the CMAA said it) that wasn't in everyday use where I served, and the amount wasn't exaggerated in the slightest.
Forget the languge - they got the MAA's cup hook right.

And the book is even closer; it begins with a description of a transient barracks in Norfolk; as i read it i was looking around me and going - yah, here's the crack on the wall, check, there's the stain on the ceiling, check... (One guess where i was when i read it.)

The only thing wrong with the film, and it's a BIG thing wrong, is that it omits the entire last third of the story completely, giving it a more-or-less happy ending compared to where the book goes.

**SPOILER FOR THE BOOK**

Scroll down.

S
P
O
I
L
E
R

F
O
R

T
H
E

B
O
O
K

In the book, Badass and Mule don't go back. They stay in NYC; put their guns and SP bands in a mailbox.

They spend most of their time drunk.

Going out for more beer, they encounter the Shore Patrol; as a joke, Mule whispers to Badass that they can jump these guys and deck them and run, but stands aside whil Badass does so... But when the SP uses his stick on Badass (justifiably and properly) by bad luck it kills him.

So the book ends with Mule in Portsmouth himself, facing five years bad time and a dishonorable, and the CMAA telling somebody "...you got chaser duty; you're taki' the Badass hiome..."

reply

My take on this is that Badass and Mule, for all their bitching about the Navy, are really the backbone of it. When it comes down to brass tacks, these guys will step up and do their duty. They are not ass kissers, and they don't give patriotic speeches about how they love the Navy, but they are the kind of men you can depend upon.

reply

"A more-or-less happy ending".

Wtf? It´s tragic and depressive either way you cut it. And the book´s ending seems very much redundant as the point had already been made - Meadows is stuck with a prison time of ridiculous lenth for ridiculous reasons and Budussky & Mule are stuck in a lifetime of working a dreary job, following orders and being browbeaten by their superiors. No future.



"facts are stupid things" - Ronald Reagan

reply

Frankly Meadows is so gormless it's quite unlikely he'd have made it through boot camp. He'd have either improved in the normal boot camp, or improved in the more physical one for slow learners, or been discharged.


As a matter of fact, the bit in the hotel room where Bad Ass starts teaching him the basics of signalling shows he's actually a quick learner with some things. He probably got through basic training because he could pick up straightfoward skills quickly and do all the relatively brainless "discipline" stuff. OK, I don't know what U.S. Navy basic training for seamen was like 40 years ago but perhaps you didn't need to be that bright or worldly. I know he does seem pretty gormless, but then it's also hard to imagine Bad Ass being in charge of people and having to be responsible (he's a Petty Officer 1st Class, equivalent to Staff Sergeant in the Army or Marines) It's a film.

But then this is early 70s, Vietnam and all that, so he could have been drafted. I'm guessing the standards back then may not have been as high as today.

reply

As a matter of fact, the bit in the hotel room where Bad Ass starts teaching him the basics of signalling shows he's actually a quick learner with some things. He probably got through basic training because he could pick up straightfoward skills quickly and do all the relatively brainless "discipline" stuff.


Boot camp isn't about brains, it's about character. I'm reasonably sure that I was the smartest man in my company by a considerable margin, but that didn't make me a good sailor. I barely made it through boot camp and I was a poor sailor, I'm sorry to say. I wish I could go back and do it over. A still-alive memory from boot camp...my CC yelling at me "Beierl, if you balanced your brain on the edge of a razor blade it would look like a BB rolling down a four-lane highway!"

Boot camp in any service has always had the deliberate intention of breaking down a man's individual personality and re-forming him as part of a company. Traditionally this has been a rather physical process, but by 1970 when I was in boot camp the Navy had figured out that it didn't necessarily have to be (for most people).

Most of what they did was messing with our heads, keeping us off balance, violating our expectations and undermining our trust in a social framework we thought we could believe in. For example, when we arrived, suddenly we were confronted with a bunch of senior petty officers acting brusque and in a sense hostile. We were immediately required to stand in painted rectangles where we stripped off completely, leaving our civvies there on the floor, and then were marshaled into a tight line to file through and be issued our initial clothing allowance. "All right, move it! Tighten up that line! Nuts to butts, make your buddy smile!" Seventy eighteen year old total strangers, making our buddies smile with E-6s and E7s snarling all around us. At ten o'clock at night in January in Great Lakes Illinois.

Next day wakeup in the temporary barracks at 0400 by the Company Commander (a First Class) banging garbage can lids together. "All right lads, move it! Shake a leg! Drop your cocks and pull up your socks!" The last a bit ironic since in fact we weren't allowed to remove our clothes, socks and skivvies included, for the first week or so after we got back to our individual painted squares and put them on. We slept in our dungarees and boondockers (low boots) for that week. And the bulk of our initial (partial) uniform issue spent the first 3/4 of our time in boot camp lashed to clotheslines outside with "clothes stops" which were part of our ditty bag issue.

Later that day, after our first of twelve weekly twenty-five cent, thirty second haircuts, obligatory purchase of writing paper and the Bluejacket's Manual, and other hoo-hah (and our first exposure to the absolutely astonishing stench of the drainage system from the chow hall, plus the thrill of getting herded around at ten below zero F in our dungarees ("Plan of the Day is peacoat collars UP, watch caps DOWN over the ears!")) we marched (sort of) to our permanent barracks where our CC held up an inch-thick binder in front of us and said "All right you maggots, this here is the book of rules we're supposed to follow dealing with you. Well I got sad news for you, we're not about to. And just in case anybody has the bright idea of complaining to the command...people have been known to slip in the showers around here, or fall downstairs; so I'd think twice if I was you."

And then he went on to tell us about informal methods of social control within the company -- sand showers, where a dirty man is held down and scrubbed with floor brushes and sand, blanket parties and "locks in socks" parties where an offending man has a blanket thrown over him in the middle of the night and the snot beaten out of him. "Sorry sir, must have had an accident, sir...". Thus both informing us of and tacitly sanctioning internal group control by anonymous violence. And horror stories about what would happen if we were sent to the brig, how the Marine guards hated boots (probably true...), and the fabled place of horror, SID (Special Instruction Detachment or summat) where recalcitrant boots would be sent to be re-formed in a more physical style. A real place, we saw it every day; but nobody in my company was ever sent there. Most of us were thoroughly terrified. None of this ever happened, and physical abuse was rare and mild. The threats were sufficient. True hard cases or people who weren't taken in by the mind games actually did get sent to SID for a more traditional style of boot camp. The rest of boot camp was doing everything in a company, of learning from both directions that if one man screwed up everyone around him might suffer (or, later on, die), of learning the bare minimum of how to do a sailor's job.

OK, I don't know what U.S. Navy basic training for seamen was like 40 years ago but perhaps you didn't need to be that bright or worldly.

You had to be breakable, by subtle means if possible or more directly if not. Genuine hard cases were discharged. This may all sound a bit horrifying, but it's a genuinely necessary part of becoming a soldier or (Navy) sailor; always has been and always will be.

I know he does seem pretty gormless, but then it's also hard to imagine Bad Ass being in charge of people and having to be responsible (he's a Petty Officer 1st Class, equivalent to Staff Sergeant in the Army or Marines) It's a film.

Beg pardon? All services are totally heirarchical, and the title Petty (or in the other US services, Noncommissioned) OFFICER is not an idle one. Starting at grade E4 you are routinely expected to take charge of other men; more in some rates than others, but it's always there. My boot camp CC, with total responsibility for the lives, welfare, and indoctrination of seventy men at a time, was a First Class, as were most of the Company Commanders. The air force and army have "technical" rates who are not normally in the chain of command, but the Navy does not.

But then this is early 70s, Vietnam and all that, so he could have been drafted. I'm guessing the standards back then may not have been as high as today.

The Navy (like the Marines) has always had the cream of whatever crop there was; though the crop did vary. But AFAIK they have never drafted men. They certainly didn't during Vietnam, although I was the only man in my company of seventy who had not been drafted into the army (and four days later took the oath as a Navy man). It used to tick them off no end when the CC would holler "Remember, you volunteered!" There was a good deal of racial tension in the Navy at that time, but my impression of the sailors around me in the '70s was generally high, with the occasional chronic f-up. However because of my rating (Medical lab technician) I never went to sea and never hung around with deck apes and the black gang, so my sample was biased.

reply

During the Vietnam War, there was limited conscription into the US Marine Corps. I saw it happen. The day I joined the army, at the same time they were processing the inductees (draftees). At the end of the process, the inductees were separated from the RA enlistees by a kind of low partition that we could see across. After a little while, uniformed marines came into the inductee area and called off two names. Those two were taken away, the USMC "cut" for the day out of, oh, maybe 75 or 100 inductees.

From my experience in the army during the late Vietnam War era, the portrayal of military attitudes was realistic. It was an era of low morale and minimal respect for the military. The tattooed lifers skating along in the service with no particular respect for themselves or the system was not atypical. Since then, the military has established "up or out" standards that have caused professional enlisted men to be, well, more professional.

reply

[deleted]

A still-alive memory from boot camp...my CC yelling at me "Beierl, if you balanced your brain on the edge of a razor blade it would look like a BB rolling down a four-lane highway!"


That's great! It reminds me of the kind of shit the high school football coaches I played for in Texas and Tennessee. They always had creative ways to describe how dumb your fuck-up was! LOL!

reply

<Corruption and Critique of the United States Military>

Having never been in the service, I do agree that it's a critique of the military but never did I think this film showed the Navy as being corrupt in the same vein that Vietnam era dtrs. Coppola, Kubrick or Stone would of portrayed it. Bureaucratic, cold, inefficient & uncaring yes, corrupt no. If anything, this film brought to light how innocent young teenage boys would be made sacrificial lambs in a system that would set them up be cannon fodder if they actually got to see any action.

Buddusky & Mulhall were the only emphathetic father figures that this cherry Meadows ever had. They're jaded but sympathetic career guys who knew the short cuts to take advantage & manuever the system in the kid's favor for a proper send-off. Even with all the sentimental pathos, the glue that held their trilateral relationship together was still based on trust. Meadows got desperate as time was near & broke this trust when Buddusky & Mulhall let their guards down assuming the trust intact. They were not about to sacrifice their own positions to be derelict of their duties, so status quo is maintained. Only until their time spent with Meadows did these two lifers ever stop to self-evaluate their own lives in uniform given it's contradictions. They did their job but that doesn't mean it they regretted not letting him go so herein lies the contradiction. War is hell... okay, next assignment. Anchors Aweigh plays on, fade to black.

reply

There is this underlying idea that the American military is over all corrupt and unfair. Not only as an establishment but for those individuals who are apart of it.


yeah, thats why so many of stay in the service even knowing that'll we go to Iraq. you haven't a clue what the service is like me friend...

reply

Whoa dude. I don't think the original poster meant any disrespect. Despite a few 'typos' which were pointed out by others, he is just pointing out some interesting things about the film, in an objective and pretty non-biased way. I read his words carefully and he seemed to carefully balance the fact that he is just observing the anti-military bias in the film. I may be wrong about the writer, but his words so far don't show an overt bias of being anti-military, however he writes a very interesting film analysis as to the overall anti-military bias of the movie. As for the character, if such a man were being treated poorly by the system, how would this be any different than the travesties of justice meted out to civilians from our own justice system? Large systems sometimes bash persons down. They aren't perfect. I respect todays' military and usually really resent vicious anti-military biases, but this was a film made during the VietNam war, and the military may have been a completely different animal during the Viet Nam years. As an end note, I'm a film buff AND a combat vet myself, so I'm not talking completely without knowledge of the military ;)

reply

I have to basically agree with StoneGriffin.
When I saw the original poster's thread title my USN combat vet feathers were starting to bristle but patience and critically reading the comment smoothed them out.
The original poster has an interesting critique of the film. I don't agree with much of it. But it is interesting.

I saw this movie when the end of my second tour in Nam placed me in Thailand, quite some time after our unit was told to stand down 'in country' but before the famous fall of Saigon. We were tethered to a detachment that had to go back in when the time came for ALL Americans (many of whom were those f-ing "suits" we combvets loved to hate) to leave. But that's another story.

I did know a sailor who got five years serious brigtime for stealing much less than $40. And attempted thievery is looked at with as much disdane as realised thievery. It's just that the attempted thief is not, yet, a good enough one.

As someone mentioned a thieving sailor is dealt with quite harshly, if not by the brass then by his shipmates. There have been a few times at sea a morning muster (0700) precipitated an immediate "man overboard."
No doubt the seafaring rathscallion was sent to Davy Jones's locker by way of Stantion 11, likely between the Middle (0030) & Morning (0430) watches, sometimes because of stealing from his shipmates or sometimes because of extreme tardiness paying back the many ship loansharks, amongst other 'crimes at sea'. Theft at sea, no matter the dollar value, is a gross infraction of trust. You must have trust amongst your shipmates. Must.
My brother (I didn't serve with women at sea) sailors will know exactly what I am speaking about.

A sailor who was as basically gutless as Meadows would be a great harm at sea. Who knows he just might be the one to leave the secure chain unsecured on the ladder from vulture's row at night. Again, another story.



reply

I've known people in the military like Mule and Badass who know their jobs well and good at them, but they call it as they see it and they usually end up retiring as E6's.

reply

What's an E6

So this is how liberty dies-with thunderous applause?

reply

Horse puckey. To the extent the US military is corrupt, it is corrupt for one and only one reason: stripped to its essence it is a government agency, and ALL government agencies are corrupt. ALL. Hold politicians who run the government accountable for governmental corruption. But it doesn't start nor end with the military.

Beyond that, military service is an honorable thing, and what makes it honorable is not so much doing it for country, but for one's fellows or shipmates. I spent 4 years in the Navy and got out a 2nd class petty officer about 5 months before this film was released. I saw it way back then, but haven't seen it since, so my recollections may be a bit hazy. I did pull duty once or twice guarding prisoners and supervising work details of prisoners. This movie was highly realistic in every respect. I personally knew at least a hundred 1st class petty officers like Buddinsky and Mule. I don't know if they are the "backbone" of the Navy per se, but there were a lot of them just like them, and the poster above who said they usually retired as E-6s had that right. These guys rarely made chief. Which isn't to say these kinds of guys were bad guys. They were just guys who could follow the rules, but only to a certain extent, and they had trouble stopping themselves from indulging their whims and pleasures. Alcohol usually played a big role in that department. I see the key to what they did here (in the film, I haven't read the book) was sympathy and a degree of loyalty, and not rebelliousness. They took care of Meadows for those reasons (sympathy and loyalty) but only once they bonded with him, and at that point, in their code of personal ethics, they felt like they owed him that much. If they had seen him as an a-hole or or jerkoff, they wouldn't have. They would have promptly and unceremoneously delivered him to Portsmouth in a highly perfunctory manner.

______________________________________

Get the facts first - you can distort them later!
_______________________________________

reply

I was in the Navy for 9 years. Most of that time was when the cold war was in effect. I remember thinking during one of our 6 month deployment underway, that the Navy (and the whole military) is very much like the Soviet Union.

If you are in the military, you can leave when you want to. Your movements and freedoms are severly restricted. Everyone (in the same pay grade) make the same pay. So a E-3 whose a boatswains mate, and an E-3 who is an Electronics Tech make the same pay. For those unfamiliar with the military, that's like making the same pay as an Electronic Technican with an associate degree at IBM, as a head french fry cook at McDonald's.

"The Last Detail" underscores probably the most aggreious similarity between the Soviet Union and the US Military. And that is in how insignificant and powerless the indiviual is.

However, the ending with the Marine Officer shows how two insignificant enlisted men are able to work the system to their advantage. This is possible only because they have lived in the system for so long ("lifers"), that they know to exploit it.

reply