“We are made wise not by the recollection of our past, but by the responsibility for our future.” – George Bernard Shaw
“Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it.” - George Santayana
“What experience and history teach is this -- that people and governments never have learned anything from history, or acted on principles.” – George Wilhelm Hegel
“What we do about history matters. The often repeated saying that those who forget the lessons of history are doomed to repeat them has a lot of truth in it. But what are 'the lessons of history'? The very attempt at definition furnishes ground for new conflicts. History is not a recipe book; past events are never replicated in the present in quite the same way. Historical events are infinitely variable and their interpretations are a constantly shifting process. There are no certainties to be found in the past.”
- Gerda Lerner
Seldom do we hear individuals of high power admitting they made mistakes. Hearing former Secretary of Defense Robert McNamera say “we were wrong” comes as a shock because people generally don’t like to acknowledge errors in judgment (especially politicians) and he comes from the generation of politicians who unwaveringly supported the conflict in Vietnam.
Errol Morris’ Fog of War is a warning to Americans and future generations to recognize the lessons learned by McNamera throughout his life as a policy maker.
The film is divided into eleven sections, or eleven rhetorical arguments. Each section begins with the text of McNamera’s lesson followed by elaboration that draws from his experience, mistakes and his own philosophy.
The intensity and sincerity of his speech as well as his own remorse for the lives lost during Vietnam convey a strong ethos that implores the audience to factor in his wisdom when making decisions in the future. His own rhetoric is emphasized by a dramatic score by Phillip Glass and montage of images and conversations between McNamera and Presidents that illustrate the confused trajectory of the conflict and its consequences on McNamera and the public.
Although the lessons in Fog of War are mostly illustrated by McNamera’s tenure as Secretary of Defense, they transcend the foreign and domestic conflicts and can be viewed pragmatic wisdom. The lessons are direct but abstract and open to interpretation. McNamera proves their validity through his own experience in war however every single one of them can be applied to the lives of others.
“To empathize with your enemy” can represent the acknowledgement of an opposing viewpoint in an argument. McNamera’s statement that “rationality will not save us” is similar to the idea that logic alone will not win an argument. In McNamera’s case, luck saved the United State from nuclear war, not three rational men of power. Similarly, ethos and pathos can prevail over logic in an argument.
To admit that “There’s something beyond one’s self” is to recognize the responsibility one has to society, to morals and to ethics beyond one’s own needs.
“Maximize efficiency,” “get the data,” and “be prepared to reexamine your reasoning” are all traits of responsible thinkers that can apply to everything from simple decisions in consumer spending or tremendous decisions to invade a foreign country.
Whether or not we learn from our mistakes is difficult to determine. As historian and author Gerda Lerner believes, no event in the present will ever mirror a past event for variables are constantly evolving. Essentially, we seldom make the same mistake twice. For example, I stubbed my toe on a chair two weeks ago walking from my Kitchen to my room. It was painful so I told myself to be more careful when walking barefoot (as if it was the first time it had happened). Earlier today I stubbed the same to on the leg of my piano as I stood up. Same accident, different circumstances, new mistake.
The nature of a mistake is unpredictable and is only realized once it is too late. There is often sufficient warning leading up to it however we often disregard it or fail to realize the clues.
My point is its easy to make mistakes but when we fail to factor in the wisdom of our predecessors and their mistakes, we run the risk of ignorance. We will never know the mistakes we have avoided only those that have been made but with an increased consciousness, we can minimize the damage and hopefully avoid them to begin with.
Errol attempts to heighten the awareness of his audience by encouraging them to factor in the lessons learned by Robert McNamera in their lives. Undoubtedly, people will forget and ignore McNamera’s words but those who are conscious of his wisdom will recognize circumstances that can be dealt with and possibly avoided,
Monday, October 26, 2009
THIS IS ONLY THE BEGINNING.
The Fog of War paints a vivid image of self defense on the part of Robert McNamara for the part he played in The Vietnam War and the Cold War. In retrospect, he did his quite well. My favorite quote from the film was "Answer the question you wished was asked." This simple, one line statement summed up not only McNamara's position throughout the Vietnam/Cold War, but what I consider to be, the mindset of the majority of American politicians.
Robert Strange McNamara was a brilliant man. Had he not been asked to bear the burden of Secretary of Defense for the United States of America during these perilous times, he could have ultimately been one of the most powerful businessmen in the world. I admire him for his decision to serve the country and President Kennedy. This film paints McNamara in a new light that takes away the warmonger title associated with his name for his actions. At the end of the film, I felt a certain sense of pity for the man. Perhaps this is the product of excellent rhetoric on his part.
A powerful segment of the film came during the Cold War. McNamara states that Fidel Castro would have sacrificed all of Cuba in an attack on America. This reality of the choices involved in war and the weight on each end of the scale presented throughout the documentary provide for a powerful argument against anti-war documentaries like Hearts and Minds. While I still believe that the Vietnam War was wrong, the what if? aspect to Robert McNamara's statements in the Lesson #11 segment (You Can't Change Human Nature) make me question was our involvement necessary? The dominoes rising back up as the camera is rewound to a powerful, mysterious string arrangement provides for a moving testimony to these statements. "You don't have hindsight at the time."
In the lesson, You Can't Change Human Nature, there was one scene in particular that struck me as overly moving. McNamara is discussing the idea that War will not be eliminated in our lifetime or for generations to come- A bomb technician is wheeling a bomb to a plane, on the bomb's facade, inscribed in white paint is "THIS IS ONLY THE BEGINNING." A chilling moment in the movie. We, as young Americans, have not witnessed a war as severe as Vietnam. This piece of visual rhetoric should frighten even the bravest of Americans.
Sunday, October 25, 2009
"Is That What We Want in the 21st Century?"
"Is That What We Want in the 21st Century?"
War seems to have this ability to punish the "guilty" at the sacrifice of the innocent. So, we observe the human race continually entering into these great conflicts over and over throughout history. I must ask is it necessary? How has the disconnect form to where disagreements, injustices, debates can not be solved in peaceful ways? This disconnect gives us an sense of entitlement along with justification of violence as a means for a solution in times of mutual disagreement. Yet, the justification of violent acts is dangerous, especially in these times. War has evolved from a dispute between a few countries over several years of gruesome battles to annihilating thousands of people within a few moments by a press of a button. As McNamara states, "We need to think more about killing and conflict. Is that what we want in the 21st century?"
"The Fog of War" addresses realities of war in our time, the 21st century. The lives of millions of people are easily dispensable in times of war as Nuclear war is a reality in our time. We must be more apprehensive upon entering these conflicts because no longer are few countries are at stake, but entire continents. McNamara enlightens the truths of how close we, as Americans, were to total Nuclear War with the Soviet Union. He states throughout his position as the secretary of defense he was in the Cold War as the fear of being annihilated with a nuclear weapons was so realistic to him. How realistic is nuclear war to us? To our men and women in office?
McNamara tells of Castro's willingness to annihilate Cuba in efforts to attack the United States. The idea of one man's power to dictate the lives of millions brews a fear within me. To know our lives could be within the hands of cruel dictator is rattling to our sense of security. We may not be able to change the perception and morality of dictator such as Castro, but we are able to control our own and influence our leaders. We must ask ourselves to rethink this idea of war and our willingness to enter into it, support it. Not only our lives are at stake, but the lives other societies around the world. War in the 21st century, must be handled with tact, apprehension, and virtue for it is diffent beast in this day of age as it effects the lives of billions of people. So now, I ask, "Is that what we want in the 21st century?"
War seems to have this ability to punish the "guilty" at the sacrifice of the innocent. So, we observe the human race continually entering into these great conflicts over and over throughout history. I must ask is it necessary? How has the disconnect form to where disagreements, injustices, debates can not be solved in peaceful ways? This disconnect gives us an sense of entitlement along with justification of violence as a means for a solution in times of mutual disagreement. Yet, the justification of violent acts is dangerous, especially in these times. War has evolved from a dispute between a few countries over several years of gruesome battles to annihilating thousands of people within a few moments by a press of a button. As McNamara states, "We need to think more about killing and conflict. Is that what we want in the 21st century?"
"The Fog of War" addresses realities of war in our time, the 21st century. The lives of millions of people are easily dispensable in times of war as Nuclear war is a reality in our time. We must be more apprehensive upon entering these conflicts because no longer are few countries are at stake, but entire continents. McNamara enlightens the truths of how close we, as Americans, were to total Nuclear War with the Soviet Union. He states throughout his position as the secretary of defense he was in the Cold War as the fear of being annihilated with a nuclear weapons was so realistic to him. How realistic is nuclear war to us? To our men and women in office?
McNamara tells of Castro's willingness to annihilate Cuba in efforts to attack the United States. The idea of one man's power to dictate the lives of millions brews a fear within me. To know our lives could be within the hands of cruel dictator is rattling to our sense of security. We may not be able to change the perception and morality of dictator such as Castro, but we are able to control our own and influence our leaders. We must ask ourselves to rethink this idea of war and our willingness to enter into it, support it. Not only our lives are at stake, but the lives other societies around the world. War in the 21st century, must be handled with tact, apprehension, and virtue for it is diffent beast in this day of age as it effects the lives of billions of people. So now, I ask, "Is that what we want in the 21st century?"
Maya Lin
The thing that struck me the most about Maya Lin was her calm yet persistent demeanor.
I doubt that anyone could watch that documentary and not understand that Maya is clearly very devoted to her work and possesses great talent. Yet, she did not strike me as arrogant or pretentious. I was continually impressed with Maya’s skills and determined work ethic but most of all how she was able to maintain a professional yet likable demeanor throughout all of her varied and challenging undertakings.
Maya Lin clearly posses an innate talent for designing both visually pleasing and emotionally charged works. In fact, in the scene where they announce the winner of the Vietnam Memorial design contest, the guy next to her mentions how the top design firms in the country were competing for the job while Maya, only a student at the time, ended up winning. However, I think her talent is also apparent in how she was able to successfully execute such a wide variety of designs. She makes sculptures, museum shows, houses, fountains, and some other creations I cannot even label, yet all done with extraordinary skill and expertise.
However, Maya Lin doesn’t just have natural talents, she also has an intense personal devotion to her work. She obviously dedicates an enormous amount of time and care into each project. I found this particularly noticeable in the scene where she is analyzing how the water flows over the letters in the civil rights structure. She talks about filling the points with epoxy to make sure that the water flow is even and doesn’t clump together. Also, in the glass project, she stated that she had to experiment heavily with different types of glass until she eventually found a mixture that finally possessed the color she felt was best. However, she also is very emotionally invested in each of her projects. There are numerous scenes where she discusses how she goes about planning each design and she spends a considerable amount of time talking about the emotions contained and portrayed by each design. During the scene where she examines the circular portion of the civil rights design, she talks about how anxious she was while she waiting for it to be fabricated, hoping desperately that it would turn out how she imagined.
Yet, I think Maya Lin’s best quality is her calm and mature demeanor. A lot of her tasks dealt with very controversial subjects. In fact, in quite a few of the issues she had little to no first hand experience. She discusses how most of the civil rights movement occurred before she was born and she talks about how she was fairly sheltered from the Vietnam War. However, she still as able to understand the significance of these events and convey that through her designs. She was only a student when she designed the Vietnam Memorial, and throughout the litigation that ensued, she was verbally attacked by people who were much older and more powerful than her. Yet, despite her obvious nervousness, she was able to clearly and logically defend her designs amidst the onslaught of belligerence. Also, as a professional procrastinator, I can relate to the stress of a fast approaching deadline. However, even when the museum curators are installing the show hours before the museum is supposed to open, she remains calm. Determined and focused, yet calm.
Even while under enormous pressure from forces far more powerful than herself, Maya Lin manages to retain a pleasant disposition, and even considering her seemingly endless talent and will to succeed, I feel that this is her best quality. From a young age, Maya has been able to successfully showcase her abilities, both in art and in cultural understanding, even while she is under enormous societal pressures. She attributes a lot of her strength and courage to her parents, and while I am sure that they deserve thanks, Maya also deserves the credit. Her parents are not in her shoes and although they raised her, Maya is still the one who had to stand there and defend her work while people questioned and accused her, and that is why I have developed a great respect for Maya Lin.
The difference
“Rationality will not save us.”
When this phrase appeared across the screen, I felt like a tank just rammed into me, knocked me off my chair, and imprinted the words “déjà vu” across my forehead. The idea of dealing only with the “truth”, the “facts”, and “nonfiction” is not a new idea to only Tim O’Brien; others, such as Robert McNamara have also thought of this.
McNamara credited the end of the war to the fact that “we lucked out.” All of our leaders were rational people, the data were all logical, the other world leaders were also rational, but that didn’t matter. In the end, luck prevailed.
A parallel is drawn for me between McNamara’s differentiations between rational and luck versus Tim O’Brien’s differentiation between truth and lie. Both have the warning of society needing to be wary of depending too much on the “truth” or “rational” part of life. Being rational can only get you so far, and the other part has to be luck. Humans are prone to error, not matter how rational we may be “human fallibility can [still] destroy nations.”
In my personal opinion, I believe society has placed an emphasis more on the factual and concrete ideas of life. Take our education system; once you can tell how protein is synthesized in the ribosome and then transports to the Golgi apparatus, you get an “A” for mastering the material. However, in an English class it is still entirely possible to argue that your paper deserved a higher grade, because you had effectively used the process of “redefining your terms”, avoided all of the common fallacies, and persuaded half of the class to change their stance after reading your paper. Getting an “A” is the main objective of most students, and in providing a more concrete way of attaining the high grade based on mastery and not something up to the professor’s discretion, the factual side of life is sought after more.
However, McNamara and O’Brien argued that this is not all to the world. The world is in need of fiction and luck. O’Brien captured our attention with his war stories that could possibly be all lies. McNamara told us of how close we were to war, and how even though our leaders were rational and knew how horrible war could be, they still were going to take that step, because logic dictated it.
---
Here’s a further thought.
In class, I felt like there was a slight conclusion drawn on that as a society, we have placed more value on business, but English and rhetoric are the ones that are able to move our hearts and strengthen our soul. Without English and rhetoric, our souls will shrivel and die. My question is this… how come we still place emphasis on religion, when for all we know, it could just be another lie?
When this phrase appeared across the screen, I felt like a tank just rammed into me, knocked me off my chair, and imprinted the words “déjà vu” across my forehead. The idea of dealing only with the “truth”, the “facts”, and “nonfiction” is not a new idea to only Tim O’Brien; others, such as Robert McNamara have also thought of this.
McNamara credited the end of the war to the fact that “we lucked out.” All of our leaders were rational people, the data were all logical, the other world leaders were also rational, but that didn’t matter. In the end, luck prevailed.
A parallel is drawn for me between McNamara’s differentiations between rational and luck versus Tim O’Brien’s differentiation between truth and lie. Both have the warning of society needing to be wary of depending too much on the “truth” or “rational” part of life. Being rational can only get you so far, and the other part has to be luck. Humans are prone to error, not matter how rational we may be “human fallibility can [still] destroy nations.”
In my personal opinion, I believe society has placed an emphasis more on the factual and concrete ideas of life. Take our education system; once you can tell how protein is synthesized in the ribosome and then transports to the Golgi apparatus, you get an “A” for mastering the material. However, in an English class it is still entirely possible to argue that your paper deserved a higher grade, because you had effectively used the process of “redefining your terms”, avoided all of the common fallacies, and persuaded half of the class to change their stance after reading your paper. Getting an “A” is the main objective of most students, and in providing a more concrete way of attaining the high grade based on mastery and not something up to the professor’s discretion, the factual side of life is sought after more.
However, McNamara and O’Brien argued that this is not all to the world. The world is in need of fiction and luck. O’Brien captured our attention with his war stories that could possibly be all lies. McNamara told us of how close we were to war, and how even though our leaders were rational and knew how horrible war could be, they still were going to take that step, because logic dictated it.
---
Here’s a further thought.
In class, I felt like there was a slight conclusion drawn on that as a society, we have placed more value on business, but English and rhetoric are the ones that are able to move our hearts and strengthen our soul. Without English and rhetoric, our souls will shrivel and die. My question is this… how come we still place emphasis on religion, when for all we know, it could just be another lie?
Fog of War vs. Hearts and Minds
I know that I better not say this but..man, oh, man was I glad Fog of War wasn't just another version of Hearts and Minds. It was so refreshing to see the other side to the Vietnam War argument. I very much enjoyed watching Fog of War because it is everything that Hearts and Minds is not. This is not to say that I absolutely hated having to watch Hearts and Minds, but it certainly was not very agreeable.
The two documentaries present very different sides of the issue. Hearts and Minds is an anti-war movie, and it sets out to persuade the audience that what happened in Vietnam was wrong and that the United States government and its imperialistic policies are to blame. Fog of War is a 2003 Errol Morris documentary consisting mostly of interviews with Robert McNamara and archival footage.
I also liked the way Fog of War was actually executed more in comparison to Hearts and Minds. Fog of War had a clear structure and it was easy to follow. The documentary was broken into 11 lessons and followed a chronological order of McNamara's life and the events of the war themselves. I had much more difficulty following the points made during Hearts and Minds. It seemed like it was simply showing images and stories of the lives of the people affected by the war in no particular order or pattern.
Hearts and Minds also showed a very large number of disturbing graphic images and told very heart wrenching stories, which made the movie very hard to watch. Quite frankly, it depressed me. Fog of War did not take a huge emotional toll on me. It was actually very enlightening and enjoyable to hear a highly intelligent man speak about his life experiences and hardships. Throughout the documentary, my respect and admiration of this man grew exponentially.
Hearts and Minds also seemed to continuously bash the government system and the people that were key to instrumenting the Vietnam War. It was full of anti war ideology and did not address the other side of the conflict. Fog of War gave me a more in depth look at what led the leaders of this nation, McNamara in particular, to make the decisions that were made and to try to explain their reasoning in a way that I could understand. McNamara is very honest in his self-reflection and does not try to cover up his tracks. It was very moving when he made a comment about being considered a war criminal if the U.S. had been on the losing side of the conflict.
The Fog of War
The Fog of War and Hearts and Minds seem to use similar rhetorical techniques to stimulate the audience's emotions: a specific choice of historical footage to tie in with spoken arguments, close ups and other cinematic techniques to capture interviewee expressions, a lack of narration, etc. However, during several moments in The Fog of War, director Errol Morris managed to use raw data as an appeal to pathos.
Lesson #5 states "proportionality should be a guideline to war". In order to reinforce McNamara's argument, Morris one-by-one lists the names of major cities in the United States with respective damage percentages to illustrate the magnitude of the destruction done to Japanese cities before atomic weapons were used. As time progresses, cities, percentages and images are listed at an ever-increasing rate. At the same time, a silent yet suspenseful orchestra plays in the background.
By reading a name, humans have the capacity to create personal definitions through imagery and memory. When I read "New York 51%", many important images came to my mind. I thought of the Manhattan skyline, the construction at ground-zero, Madison Square Park, the Empire State Building. I thought of Queens and Brooklyn, large sidewalks, hot-dog vendors and crowded streets. I thought of my family, my cousins, aunts and uncles, my parents. With the relationship that I have with New York, it's difficult to imagine over half of it destroyed, let alone knowing that many people suffered those difficulties as a city across the Pacific was actually destroyed in similar proportions.
Using these comparisons, Morris sought to stir the emotions of his intended audience by allowing it to create definitions, images, and memories which form the basis of America's culture and prowess. Major cities across the nation tend to form part of what we can define as the United States. For example, Detroit and Los Angeles have been constantly associated with the auto and movie industries, respectively. By allowing the viewer to make the connections between major cities and the backbone of the United States, Morris gives us a wake-up call by adding an ingredient of destruction to our definitions. It's a matter of perspective. Morris gives us a glimpse at the fate the Japanese suffered during World War II as we try to understand how we would feel if our major cities faced similar destruction and despair.
Much in the same way as Maya Lin used names in the Vietnam War Memorial as a way to bring back everything someone could remember about a person, Morris deployed a similar method as a way for his audience to remember everything they could about a particular major city. Only, Morris used McNamara's argument coupled with imagery to destroy those recollections in order for the audience to understand the emotions many people experienced when destruction was a reality. Morris also demonstrates how elements that appeal to logos, such as technical data, can be used to control the flow of emotion in his audience.
Lesson #5 states "proportionality should be a guideline to war". In order to reinforce McNamara's argument, Morris one-by-one lists the names of major cities in the United States with respective damage percentages to illustrate the magnitude of the destruction done to Japanese cities before atomic weapons were used. As time progresses, cities, percentages and images are listed at an ever-increasing rate. At the same time, a silent yet suspenseful orchestra plays in the background.
By reading a name, humans have the capacity to create personal definitions through imagery and memory. When I read "New York 51%", many important images came to my mind. I thought of the Manhattan skyline, the construction at ground-zero, Madison Square Park, the Empire State Building. I thought of Queens and Brooklyn, large sidewalks, hot-dog vendors and crowded streets. I thought of my family, my cousins, aunts and uncles, my parents. With the relationship that I have with New York, it's difficult to imagine over half of it destroyed, let alone knowing that many people suffered those difficulties as a city across the Pacific was actually destroyed in similar proportions.
Using these comparisons, Morris sought to stir the emotions of his intended audience by allowing it to create definitions, images, and memories which form the basis of America's culture and prowess. Major cities across the nation tend to form part of what we can define as the United States. For example, Detroit and Los Angeles have been constantly associated with the auto and movie industries, respectively. By allowing the viewer to make the connections between major cities and the backbone of the United States, Morris gives us a wake-up call by adding an ingredient of destruction to our definitions. It's a matter of perspective. Morris gives us a glimpse at the fate the Japanese suffered during World War II as we try to understand how we would feel if our major cities faced similar destruction and despair.
Much in the same way as Maya Lin used names in the Vietnam War Memorial as a way to bring back everything someone could remember about a person, Morris deployed a similar method as a way for his audience to remember everything they could about a particular major city. Only, Morris used McNamara's argument coupled with imagery to destroy those recollections in order for the audience to understand the emotions many people experienced when destruction was a reality. Morris also demonstrates how elements that appeal to logos, such as technical data, can be used to control the flow of emotion in his audience.
Human Nature
The Vietnam War brought about many different feelings across America. Some were adamant supporters of American involvement while others strongly opposed any intervention in another country's affairs. In The Fog of War, Robert McNamara outlines 11 lessons he learned throughout his life and his career as Secretary of Defense. A majority of his points pertain to the problem of natural human tendencies. Humans tend to prefer logically thinking things through to predict outcomes of events, knowing exactly what is going to happen and how to counteract that. Yet McNamara states in lesson 2 that rationality will not save a country in war. He explains that the "rational" choices that President Kennedy made in regards to the Cuban missile crisis nearly caused an nuclear war that was only narrowly avoided.
Lesson 7 states that belief and seeing are both often wrong. The interviewer interjects with the statement that we see what we believe even if it may not be true. What human doesn't want their own personal beliefs to be true and for others to share that belief? McNamara's very last lesson is that you can't change human nature. As much as someone would like to believe that another war like one that occurred in the past won't happen again, there is always something that sparks a strong hatred in one country for another. President Eisenhower told the American public that WWI was the war to end all wars, yet since that time, many wars have already been fought and we're even in one right now. Hostility can't be completely eliminated from the range of human emotions.
This hatred that fuels these many wars that have existed for thousands of years, however, cannot actually be helped according to McNamara. I really like his explanation of the title of the film, The Fog of War--that there are much too many complications for humans to comprehend the all the intricacies of war itself. McNamara doesn't pinpoint the War on any specific individual or group of individuals. Our human judgment and understanding are inadequate to actually deal with it all, which leads to kill one another out of our lack of comprehension of the concept of war.
Lesson 7 states that belief and seeing are both often wrong. The interviewer interjects with the statement that we see what we believe even if it may not be true. What human doesn't want their own personal beliefs to be true and for others to share that belief? McNamara's very last lesson is that you can't change human nature. As much as someone would like to believe that another war like one that occurred in the past won't happen again, there is always something that sparks a strong hatred in one country for another. President Eisenhower told the American public that WWI was the war to end all wars, yet since that time, many wars have already been fought and we're even in one right now. Hostility can't be completely eliminated from the range of human emotions.
This hatred that fuels these many wars that have existed for thousands of years, however, cannot actually be helped according to McNamara. I really like his explanation of the title of the film, The Fog of War--that there are much too many complications for humans to comprehend the all the intricacies of war itself. McNamara doesn't pinpoint the War on any specific individual or group of individuals. Our human judgment and understanding are inadequate to actually deal with it all, which leads to kill one another out of our lack of comprehension of the concept of war.
The Suspense
Music is powerful. In fog of war the power is expressed as the composed material meshes with the visuals allotted to the viewer. Constantly I felt a sense of suspense despite the rather open testimony of Robert McNamara. Director Errol Morris seems to use this creation to blame the evils of war in general on fate rather than simple human beings.
As early as the opening scene, symphonic music is present in a form that leaves the viewer on seats edge despite the simplistic and rudimentary interview in progress. It is like a horror movie in which the inevitable bad is on the brink, yet it has not showed itself yet. In the interview McNamara continually expresses the desire he and others had to do the right thing. This conflict between content and music seems to sum up Morris' argument as a whole.
Because of prior knowledge, we as viewers already know the content and conflict of the Vietnam War. Morris represents this through the ominous background music he deploys. By this he is showing that the atrocities of the Vietnam war were created independent of an upstanding and successful family and business man in Robert McNamara.
McNamara's Fog of War
I feel to have both grown as a learner and as a student of the Vietnam War because of watching this documentary. Regardless of what you believe about the decisions McNamara has made and the kind of person he has become throughout his rather interesting life, I think respect must be given when respect is due. The man has worked in high positions in multiple wars, served as the Secretary of Defense under two different presidents, attended both Berkeley and Harvard (two of the nation's best universities), been promoted to the President of one of the largest U.S. automobile companies (Ford), and even served as the President of the World Bank. Quite a resume if I must say and to not at least respect what the man has to say is rediculous. Knowing this, just from the fact that I was able to listen to him offer advice and voice his opinions for a couple of hours was beneficial to me. Not to mention we were able to be opened to a whole new point of view on the Vietnam War we had not been yet exposed to in this class.
In "Trip to Hanoi" we were able to see from the other side of the playing field (the Vietnamese), in "Platoon" and "Full Metal Jacket" we were able to get a feel for what it was like to be a soldier in the day to day activites of war, in "The Things They Carried" we were able to better grasp the thoughts and emotions running through an individual soldiers mind, in "Hearts and Minds" we were able to sympathize with anyone involved in the casulaties of the war, and now in "Fog of War" we were able to get a perspective from a lead figure in U.S. government.
Robert McNamara is a figure that I believe to be both genuine and good intentioned just from the feel and vibe I get from his interviews. Take into consideration, he has been able to sustain a family with wife and kids throughout the unimaginable ups and downs of his lifetime. This already a rare accomplishment in present day America just for the average citizen and for him to have kept his family together through the thick and thin shows me he has a good heart.
I thought that this documentary was well constructed and some of the rhetorical tools used were very effective. I like the fact that we were provided with recorded phone calls between McNamara and the Presidents of their respective times. These phone calls were placed in strategic parts of the film between certain scenes and interviews that really emphasized what the calls were about. This particular element providing me with a since of credability for the film in that the topics being discussed reflected actual conversations taken place during the time. Also, McNamara's 11 lessons from war kept the documentary in a orderly flow that really helped us viewers keep up with where his ideas were coming from. Its hard to relate to what a person has to say about a certain issue without knowing what lead that person to think and behave in that certain way. In fact, I believe this according to him, was the difference in winning the Cold War and (label however you want) the Vietnam War. The fact that we knew more about where the Russians were coming from and what they wanted out of the war where as our vision and outlook on the Vietnam War was skewed to that of the Vietnamese. We saw it as an element of the Cold War, they saw it as a Civil War.
From our required materials so far I believe this to be the most beneficial. From a Vietnam War stand point, I think this documentary was the most beneficial because it seems the root of the confusion in this war started with the U.S. government and we were now able to get an idea of what was going through a key figures mind. How are we supposed to get to the bottom of the confusion without getting to its sourse? McNamara was able to provide us with another perspective on the war and on the topic of rationality that we seem to have covered pretty thoroughly in class this past week, having more sides to something = more rational conclusion. From just a person viewing this film stand point, I was able to take his 11 lessons and apply them to life's lessons. I could only dream to have the career and amount of money he has made through his life and if these are some of the 11 lessons he believes he has accumualted, the quote "I wish that I knew what I know now, when I was younger" comes to mind - I think I'm going to get a head start.
In "Trip to Hanoi" we were able to see from the other side of the playing field (the Vietnamese), in "Platoon" and "Full Metal Jacket" we were able to get a feel for what it was like to be a soldier in the day to day activites of war, in "The Things They Carried" we were able to better grasp the thoughts and emotions running through an individual soldiers mind, in "Hearts and Minds" we were able to sympathize with anyone involved in the casulaties of the war, and now in "Fog of War" we were able to get a perspective from a lead figure in U.S. government.
Robert McNamara is a figure that I believe to be both genuine and good intentioned just from the feel and vibe I get from his interviews. Take into consideration, he has been able to sustain a family with wife and kids throughout the unimaginable ups and downs of his lifetime. This already a rare accomplishment in present day America just for the average citizen and for him to have kept his family together through the thick and thin shows me he has a good heart.
I thought that this documentary was well constructed and some of the rhetorical tools used were very effective. I like the fact that we were provided with recorded phone calls between McNamara and the Presidents of their respective times. These phone calls were placed in strategic parts of the film between certain scenes and interviews that really emphasized what the calls were about. This particular element providing me with a since of credability for the film in that the topics being discussed reflected actual conversations taken place during the time. Also, McNamara's 11 lessons from war kept the documentary in a orderly flow that really helped us viewers keep up with where his ideas were coming from. Its hard to relate to what a person has to say about a certain issue without knowing what lead that person to think and behave in that certain way. In fact, I believe this according to him, was the difference in winning the Cold War and (label however you want) the Vietnam War. The fact that we knew more about where the Russians were coming from and what they wanted out of the war where as our vision and outlook on the Vietnam War was skewed to that of the Vietnamese. We saw it as an element of the Cold War, they saw it as a Civil War.
From our required materials so far I believe this to be the most beneficial. From a Vietnam War stand point, I think this documentary was the most beneficial because it seems the root of the confusion in this war started with the U.S. government and we were now able to get an idea of what was going through a key figures mind. How are we supposed to get to the bottom of the confusion without getting to its sourse? McNamara was able to provide us with another perspective on the war and on the topic of rationality that we seem to have covered pretty thoroughly in class this past week, having more sides to something = more rational conclusion. From just a person viewing this film stand point, I was able to take his 11 lessons and apply them to life's lessons. I could only dream to have the career and amount of money he has made through his life and if these are some of the 11 lessons he believes he has accumualted, the quote "I wish that I knew what I know now, when I was younger" comes to mind - I think I'm going to get a head start.
its foggy
Throughout the documentary we, as the watchers, are bombarded with facts not only from Robert McNamara’s experience, but also from government records. It shows us the hard facts, giving the movie credibility, its pathos is strong because many of the facts are introduced in a way that make the choices made to be thought of as reasonable.
Every time that the documentary changes ideas a new rule is displayed on the screen. These lead the audience in the direction that the director wants us to go. It allows us to understand the meanings that are behind the footage, sound bites, and pictures. We are shown another side of the war in terms of these rules. They are meant to be our guidelines. The director knew that by placing these into the documentary that the audience would be steered into thinking what he wanted us to.
He juxtaposed the applications of many of the rules in two different American conflicts, whether it was the Cuban Missile Crisis or World War II. He allowed the audience to see that when the rules were followed that the conflicts would not be looked back upon as horrible mistakes that could have been prevented.
I also like that we are shown Robert McNamara as a person with human emotions, not just an evil man who tried to destroy Vietnam.
Every time that the documentary changes ideas a new rule is displayed on the screen. These lead the audience in the direction that the director wants us to go. It allows us to understand the meanings that are behind the footage, sound bites, and pictures. We are shown another side of the war in terms of these rules. They are meant to be our guidelines. The director knew that by placing these into the documentary that the audience would be steered into thinking what he wanted us to.
He juxtaposed the applications of many of the rules in two different American conflicts, whether it was the Cuban Missile Crisis or World War II. He allowed the audience to see that when the rules were followed that the conflicts would not be looked back upon as horrible mistakes that could have been prevented.
I also like that we are shown Robert McNamara as a person with human emotions, not just an evil man who tried to destroy Vietnam.
Friday, October 23, 2009
A young architecture student with a penchant for primitive Outback weaponry
According to thewall-usa.com, the Vietnam Veterans Memorial is “not a war Memorial but a Memorial to those who served in the war.” Be that as it may, the memorial is still a giant permanent fixture, situated smack dab in the middle of our nation’s capitol. Regardless of the ostensible/official purposes for its construction, the memorial also serves as a symbol of the Vietnam War.
To a large degree, the memorial represents America’s collective judgment of the war as a phenomenon in American history. Vietnam veterans were highly cognizant of this aspect of the memorial’s meaning; and this is why some veterans were so virulently opposed to the memorial’s design. Many veterans were viciously harassed and ‘spat’ upon by fellow American citizens when they returned from Vietnam. To these veterans, the memorial was “a black scar, hidden in a hole,” a continuation of the detached, unsympathetic judgment which had been cast upon them in airports and on the streets—as if the entire country was spitting in their faces.
In addition to any messages which the memorial may communicate to surviving Vietnam veterans and to the widows, children, and parents of nearly 60,000 fallen veterans, the memorial will also serve a significant educational function for future Americans. It tells generations to come how America feels about the Vietnam War; and successive generations will accept an increasingly summary characterization of the war, much as we do now for the “American Revolutionary War” and even “World War II.”
So what does the Vietnam Veterans Memorial say to veterans, widows, and future generations of Americans? Ultimately, this question is not definitively soluble—it is far too personal. Even two Vietnam veterans, with similar war experiences, could look at the same memorial and react quite differently. One might see it as a poignant symbol, representing the ‘price of freedom.’ Another might see a ‘black scar.’
As a representative of future generations, I will say this much: Having visited the memorial twice, my own lasting impressions are as follows: 1) Sheer volume- ‘so many fucking names’! 2) The human reality represented by the endless engravings- names like “Adam” and “James” and “Daniel.” 3) The permanence, timelessness. The wall has no artistic flourishes which reveal the passionate hand or twinkling eye of a budding artist. In fact, as I watched Maya Lin, I was almost surprised to think of the wall as having been designed, in the first place.
To a large degree, the memorial represents America’s collective judgment of the war as a phenomenon in American history. Vietnam veterans were highly cognizant of this aspect of the memorial’s meaning; and this is why some veterans were so virulently opposed to the memorial’s design. Many veterans were viciously harassed and ‘spat’ upon by fellow American citizens when they returned from Vietnam. To these veterans, the memorial was “a black scar, hidden in a hole,” a continuation of the detached, unsympathetic judgment which had been cast upon them in airports and on the streets—as if the entire country was spitting in their faces.
In addition to any messages which the memorial may communicate to surviving Vietnam veterans and to the widows, children, and parents of nearly 60,000 fallen veterans, the memorial will also serve a significant educational function for future Americans. It tells generations to come how America feels about the Vietnam War; and successive generations will accept an increasingly summary characterization of the war, much as we do now for the “American Revolutionary War” and even “World War II.”
So what does the Vietnam Veterans Memorial say to veterans, widows, and future generations of Americans? Ultimately, this question is not definitively soluble—it is far too personal. Even two Vietnam veterans, with similar war experiences, could look at the same memorial and react quite differently. One might see it as a poignant symbol, representing the ‘price of freedom.’ Another might see a ‘black scar.’
As a representative of future generations, I will say this much: Having visited the memorial twice, my own lasting impressions are as follows: 1) Sheer volume- ‘so many fucking names’! 2) The human reality represented by the endless engravings- names like “Adam” and “James” and “Daniel.” 3) The permanence, timelessness. The wall has no artistic flourishes which reveal the passionate hand or twinkling eye of a budding artist. In fact, as I watched Maya Lin, I was almost surprised to think of the wall as having been designed, in the first place.
Monday, October 19, 2009
The Things Tim Carried
The Things They Carried was a very intriguing read. Very seldom do you come across a book that has to be read for academic purposes and you actually enjoy reading it. Most of the time you get these fascinating stories about Benjamin Franklin and his contribution to the constitution and shaping America, and honestly, I mean no disrespect to historians, but who cares! However, when reading this I didn’t think “Who cares?” or why care, I thought “I care.”
When I first “encountered” the book it was in the fall of my sophomore year in a History class. I read some chapters and some stories but re-reading this made me look at the story a little differently. When first reading it, it was one of those stories that we had to read because it had some relevance to what we were learning, but truth be told, not much. We probably covered Vietnam in one lecture or two and kept moving, therefore I didn’t really focus much on the book nor did I feel pressured to learn its context. However, after learning so much about the war and seeing documentaries like Hearts and Minds and movies like Platoon and Full Metal Jacket, I think as a reader you can’t help but read the novel differently and see it in a different light. You now think about the soldiers, what they went through, how they felt, and the effects that it had on the victims of both sides of the war.
While reading this in the beginning I had to stop and ask myself, “Is this real?” The accounts that Brien details had me wondering did these things really happen. While being a fiction novel, some of it certainly doesn’t feel fiction. For instance, when Brien tells the story about private Lemon, which made me think almost immediately of Lot 49 and the rhetorical play on the naming of the characters, Brien tells of his fear of the dentists and what he did to overcome that fear. However, only overcome it, he went back and faced his fear just to face it complaining of a “tooth ache” that was really no physical ache at all, besides the ache of an unconquered fear. Hmmm, talk about what makes a man army strong, right!
Nevertheless, one of the most touching and memorable stories was when Brien tells the story of “Tim” and the man he killed. What I find so gut-wrenching about this scene was the fact that Brien describes every detail of what the man who was shot in the face looked like. “The skin on his left cheek was pulled back in three ragged strips,” talk about a description of the Saw movies, but no this was war and I definitely wouldn’t put it past the book that things like this didn’t happen. In fact, I know things like this happen, but something about this story, although fake, made me look beyond the fiction category and see it for a tale of soldier’s untold stories.
When I first “encountered” the book it was in the fall of my sophomore year in a History class. I read some chapters and some stories but re-reading this made me look at the story a little differently. When first reading it, it was one of those stories that we had to read because it had some relevance to what we were learning, but truth be told, not much. We probably covered Vietnam in one lecture or two and kept moving, therefore I didn’t really focus much on the book nor did I feel pressured to learn its context. However, after learning so much about the war and seeing documentaries like Hearts and Minds and movies like Platoon and Full Metal Jacket, I think as a reader you can’t help but read the novel differently and see it in a different light. You now think about the soldiers, what they went through, how they felt, and the effects that it had on the victims of both sides of the war.
While reading this in the beginning I had to stop and ask myself, “Is this real?” The accounts that Brien details had me wondering did these things really happen. While being a fiction novel, some of it certainly doesn’t feel fiction. For instance, when Brien tells the story about private Lemon, which made me think almost immediately of Lot 49 and the rhetorical play on the naming of the characters, Brien tells of his fear of the dentists and what he did to overcome that fear. However, only overcome it, he went back and faced his fear just to face it complaining of a “tooth ache” that was really no physical ache at all, besides the ache of an unconquered fear. Hmmm, talk about what makes a man army strong, right!
Nevertheless, one of the most touching and memorable stories was when Brien tells the story of “Tim” and the man he killed. What I find so gut-wrenching about this scene was the fact that Brien describes every detail of what the man who was shot in the face looked like. “The skin on his left cheek was pulled back in three ragged strips,” talk about a description of the Saw movies, but no this was war and I definitely wouldn’t put it past the book that things like this didn’t happen. In fact, I know things like this happen, but something about this story, although fake, made me look beyond the fiction category and see it for a tale of soldier’s untold stories.
Sunday, October 18, 2009
Tim O'Brien vs. Tim O'Brien
The Things They Carried by Tim O'Brien was a wonderful and absolutely intriguing read. This novel is loaded with meaning, rhetorical tools, and complex characters that I would love to touch on in this post. However, I would like to focus on Tim O'Brien (the character) and Tim O'Brien (the author).
I had the chance to look up some information about the author as well as the novel itself at a library a couple of days ago. It came as a great shock to me that Tim O'Brien (the character) and Tim O'Brien (the author) are not really the same person; although, I should have been able to guess so judging by the fact that The Things They Carried is considered to be a work of fiction and not an actual memoir.
I believe that this was actually a great rhetorical move on the part of the author. Tim O'Brien (the author) actually served in Vietnam, thence a number of events described in the novel had actually happened in real life. However, Tim O'Brien (the author) chose to name the narrator and protagonist after himself and actually gave the character a similar life story, excluding a few minor differences. Tim O'Brien (the character), obviously, also served in Vietnam. He is an accomplished writer. He is also 43 years old.
I believe this was an interesting way to present the story of the Vietnam War because Tim O'Brien (the author) was able to recount his own experiences at war, as well as create events that had never took place through the voice of Tim O'Brien (the character), while still being able to claim it all as his own point of view. Both Tim O'Briens are guilt-ridden middle aged men, who turn to writing about the war in order to cope with painful memories.
How to Tell a True Song, Movie or Advertisement
Well, it looks like I am not alone in taking a particular interest in the “How to Tell a True War Story” chapter. As some of you have mentioned, I thought O’Brien’s contrasting of absolute truth and personal emotions was insightful and intriguing.
In “How to Tell a True War Story”, O’Brien discusses how absolute truth and purpose in a story are not as relevant as the overall impressions of those who experienced the event. O’Brien ends the chapter by saying “a true war story is never about war. It’s about sunlight….It’s about love and memory. It’s about sorrow” (85). O’Brien is saying that the actual truth behind a story is not what matters. What really matters are the emotions involved in the story: what the storyteller feels and what the audience feels.”
Although O’Brien was specifically talking about war stories, I believe this philosophy applies to all forms of communication. O’Brien’s philosophy that gut-reactions are more important than absolute truth can be clearly seen in how society reacts to music, movies, and advertising.
A quick survey of the iTunes Top 10 songs serves as proof that the emotions evoked by music are more important that truth or morals. With all due respect to the Black Eyed Peas and Britney Spears, when the most popular songs in America have choruses that state “Lets Do it, and do it, and do it, and do it, and do it…” or , “1, 2, 3 Peter, Paul & Mary Gettin' down with 3P, Everybody loves Countin”, I would find it hard to argue that absolute truth is the most important aspect of music. Now I would also find it hard to argue that these type of songs aren’t fun, or that they don’t evoke positive emotions. Maybe “Party in the U.S.A.” has changed someone’s life somewhere, but I feel pretty comfortable assuming that these songs are popular for the emotions they evoke and not the wisdom and personal insight they spread.Surveying this weekend’s box office results also supports O’Brien’s theory. All of the top-10 box grossing movies from this past weekend were classified as either thriller, children’s, or comedy. Not to say that these movies can’t have deep and profound morals, but the mere names of the categories suggest otherwise. Thrillers are literally meant to “thrill” the audience. Comedies are supposed to make you laugh. Children’s movies, while occasionally containing some sort of moral or message, are usually dumbed down enough so that their targeted demographic will enjoy and understand them. Obviously this is not always the case. I thought Wall-E ingeniously incorporated an important message into a film that still holds massive appeal to the younger generation. Yet, movies like Wall-E are an exception to the predominant conventions of appealing to the audience’s emotions more than their personal beliefs.
Finally, advertising is another realm of communication that exemplifies O’Brien’s philosophy. For example, iPod and Apple advertisements have become extremely iconic throughout the past decade, but why is that? I doubt it’s because of the “absolute truth” contained in the ads. The early iPod advertisements merely showed shadowed figures dancing on colored backgrounds, iPod in hand, to up-tempo, fun music. Obviously Apple isn’t trying to pound you with a list of logical reasons to buy their product, they are merely instilling emotions in you that will hopefully make you want to buy their product. These ads are fun and cool to look at. They aren’t based on technical specifications or product features, they are based on emotions
Using these examples found in music, movies, and advertising, Tim O’Brien’s theory seems to hold up quite well. O’Brien states that absolute truth is practically irrelevant compared to the feelings and emotions conveyed by a story, and I believe that these examples prove that this theory doesn’t just apply to war stories but actually applies to all forms of communication.
The Things They Carried isn’t just a collection of fictional stories about the Vietnam War, it is also a statement on rhetoric. “How to Tell a True War Story” is an extremely relevant chapter on how emotions can outweigh absolute truth in effective rhetoric. Jay Heinrichs’ also acknowledges in Thank You For Arguing that even the soundest logic needs to be accompanied by effective ethos and pathos. Communication isn’t just stating facts, and both Heinrichs and O’Brien affirm that emotions are an integral part of rhetoric.
Memories and Stories
From the first paragraph of The Things They Carried, I was intrigued. Author Tim O'Brien begins with a third-person point of view, exploring each of the soldiers' personalities and quirks, keeping his tone and style of writing casual. O'Brien then switches to first-person point of view, giving some more insight of his feelings towards the Vietnam War and all the different experiences he encountered. Each chapter details an event that O'Brien either was present for or heard about through a friend. As he writes, he also explains how the reader must be cautious when listening to war stories because they aren't always completely true. He adds in some of his own twists to more deeply engrave the story into the reader's mind.
The last few chapters of the novel sparked my emotions the most. The soldiers form such strong bonds while out fighting together and become like brothers. Yet when they are separated for a period of time, they fall apart, and O'Brien described that he felt betrayed when he was no longer in battle with everyone else. O'Brien is hurt by the loss of kinship he once had. He also talks about how much the war had changed his outlook on life. His prior, quiet life "had somehow been crushed under the weight of the simple daily realities" (227), leaving him feeling much darker and crueler. The rather luxurious life back in America was so different than the war-stricken life in Vietnam.
In order for the soldiers to cope with the atrocities of the war and attempt to keep themselves sane, they used humor as an outlet. They didn't want to think of their dead comrades as actually dead. Rather, they would pretend they were still alive, imagining their voices and faces as they were before, talk to each other as if they were still sitting amongst them. O'Brien wanted to preserve all he had gone through in the war and preserve the lost lives of his fellow soldiers, even if it meant adding in his own details, anything to keep his memories alive. His use of pathos helps the reader to connect with his stories and better understand the hardships the soldiers had to endure.
The last few chapters of the novel sparked my emotions the most. The soldiers form such strong bonds while out fighting together and become like brothers. Yet when they are separated for a period of time, they fall apart, and O'Brien described that he felt betrayed when he was no longer in battle with everyone else. O'Brien is hurt by the loss of kinship he once had. He also talks about how much the war had changed his outlook on life. His prior, quiet life "had somehow been crushed under the weight of the simple daily realities" (227), leaving him feeling much darker and crueler. The rather luxurious life back in America was so different than the war-stricken life in Vietnam.
In order for the soldiers to cope with the atrocities of the war and attempt to keep themselves sane, they used humor as an outlet. They didn't want to think of their dead comrades as actually dead. Rather, they would pretend they were still alive, imagining their voices and faces as they were before, talk to each other as if they were still sitting amongst them. O'Brien wanted to preserve all he had gone through in the war and preserve the lost lives of his fellow soldiers, even if it meant adding in his own details, anything to keep his memories alive. His use of pathos helps the reader to connect with his stories and better understand the hardships the soldiers had to endure.
The de-glorification of war
The extremes of public reactions to personal experiences in the Vietnam War were well-charted by American veterans. John Kerry burned his war medals in front of throngs of protestors in Washington D.C.; Lieutenant Coker spoke of such virtues as courage and love of country in front of a hometown crowd, with uncomplicated admiration.
Tim O’Brien, upon returning from a war in which he had never believed, seemed hell-bent on avoiding extremes. He refused to indulge in simplified characterizations of the war which would vilify one side or the other; nor would he allow himself to rapturously sing the praises of countless untold acts of selfless heroism which he had personally witnessed during epic battles.
Yet he had been greatly affected by the war, and felt compelled to share the experience. So rather than write a war novel that could just as well have been the script for a John Wayne flick, he wrote about the things men carried in their rucksacks while humping. He wrote about how a junior officer privately doted over a picture of a high school volleyball player, while another soldier, being a bigger guy, had chosen to pack his ruck sack with extra desserts. He mentions how the Army dentist who spoiled a day of R&R had had bad breath; how the main thing he remembered after being shot, when his own life seemed to be in jeopardy, was the new pair of boots on the feet of the cherry medic who had waited too long to treat him.
O’Brien weaves a few yarns that are quintessentially ‘Nam. He goes into excruciating detail, drawing readers into eerie, fog-draped mountains where they hear music and impossible voices in the night. But then he tells us they’re mostly hearsay, and that the guy he heard them from was a big exaggerator. Tim O’Brien has a good deal to say about the hardships inherent in the experience of war; but he does not glorify them, and he begs us not to glorify them, either.
Tim O’Brien, upon returning from a war in which he had never believed, seemed hell-bent on avoiding extremes. He refused to indulge in simplified characterizations of the war which would vilify one side or the other; nor would he allow himself to rapturously sing the praises of countless untold acts of selfless heroism which he had personally witnessed during epic battles.
Yet he had been greatly affected by the war, and felt compelled to share the experience. So rather than write a war novel that could just as well have been the script for a John Wayne flick, he wrote about the things men carried in their rucksacks while humping. He wrote about how a junior officer privately doted over a picture of a high school volleyball player, while another soldier, being a bigger guy, had chosen to pack his ruck sack with extra desserts. He mentions how the Army dentist who spoiled a day of R&R had had bad breath; how the main thing he remembered after being shot, when his own life seemed to be in jeopardy, was the new pair of boots on the feet of the cherry medic who had waited too long to treat him.
O’Brien weaves a few yarns that are quintessentially ‘Nam. He goes into excruciating detail, drawing readers into eerie, fog-draped mountains where they hear music and impossible voices in the night. But then he tells us they’re mostly hearsay, and that the guy he heard them from was a big exaggerator. Tim O’Brien has a good deal to say about the hardships inherent in the experience of war; but he does not glorify them, and he begs us not to glorify them, either.
grabbing attention
“I survived, but it’s not a happy ending. I was a coward. I went to the war,” expresses the narrator in The Things They Carried, thus providing a unique antiwar argument that derives its strength from its perspective. Consistently Tim O’Brien paints the atrocities of the war in a way that an audience with no prior experience can relate. He does this by mixing fiction that paints a clear story with a factual based but cloudy outline.
In the first chapter, O’Brien begins to paint this clear picture by relating factual information that serves to build both his logos and pathos. To start, O’Brien shows the materials that the soldiers carried or “humped”. By doing this he is able to create a logical base that is both methodical and conceptual for the audience. Everything in this sequence is described by weight, and thus the physical tax it all takes on the soldiers in turn being described.
Everything after O’Brien’s foundation strays from structured form. Throughout the novel O’Brien appeals to emotions through randomized deaths and spur-of-the-moment decisions. O’Brien explores fictionalized reactions to extreme events that portray elements of each character as an individual, but collectively as they are related to the war. O’Brien’s exploration incorporates a wide variety of elements ranging from the death of a friend to the killing of an enemy, a fantasized relationship to a complex breakup.
Ultimately, we as readers are not to be able to decipher between fact and fiction. O’Brien even gives us insight to this. He wants us to understand rather that he is attempting to provide an understanding; an understanding that the war is wrong.
Stories (bring the past to life)
I love the quote that Renee picked out: "What stories can do, I guess, is make things present." (204 (in my book))
This book is all about stories. Each chapter, a different story, many times from different points of view, different perspectives, but they're all doing the same thing: making the past come to life.
The book is set up as fiction. But the narrator is Tim O'Brien? And the names of the soldiers are people that O'Brien actually fought alongside? (I even looked it up to see if those were their real names.) In "How to Tell a True War Story," O'Brien even says "This is true" in the opening. It's hard to decide if these stories are fiction, which the book says they are, or if there is some truth to them.
I believe that there is some truth to them, much truth to them. And maybe not necessarily in the facts (though I do think that O'Brien used some facts of what did actually happen to create these stories). I think the real truth, the important truth is the subjective here, not the objective. Did "On the Rainy River" actually happen (or happen that way)? I don't know. Maybe, maybe not. But those feelings described by the story, the feelings of fear, embarassment, indecision, are all very real. And the same goes for all of the stories. Is this actually what went down? Who knows. But the truth isn't in the objectiveness of the story teling, but the emotions and feeling behind them. That is where the story teller and the audience can relate, connect, understand.
Stories bring the past to life. They are a way of coping, struggling, working through what has already happened by making it a part of the present. Many of the stories are told from O'Briens perspective years after they have happened. The details of the story are probably lost with time, but the emotions from these events are still a part of O'Briens' (or whoever the narrator may be) life. The feelings are still real.
Yes, this is a "fiction" book. Personally, I struggle reading fiction. I almost never do voluntarily because I struggle with seeing value in reading something that's made up, fantasy, not real. What's the point? But I think it is important to see that The Things They Carried isn't exactly "fiction." Yes, these stories could all be made up by O'Brien, and therefore fictional, but the feelings and emotions behind them are very real.
This book is all about stories. Each chapter, a different story, many times from different points of view, different perspectives, but they're all doing the same thing: making the past come to life.
The book is set up as fiction. But the narrator is Tim O'Brien? And the names of the soldiers are people that O'Brien actually fought alongside? (I even looked it up to see if those were their real names.) In "How to Tell a True War Story," O'Brien even says "This is true" in the opening. It's hard to decide if these stories are fiction, which the book says they are, or if there is some truth to them.
I believe that there is some truth to them, much truth to them. And maybe not necessarily in the facts (though I do think that O'Brien used some facts of what did actually happen to create these stories). I think the real truth, the important truth is the subjective here, not the objective. Did "On the Rainy River" actually happen (or happen that way)? I don't know. Maybe, maybe not. But those feelings described by the story, the feelings of fear, embarassment, indecision, are all very real. And the same goes for all of the stories. Is this actually what went down? Who knows. But the truth isn't in the objectiveness of the story teling, but the emotions and feeling behind them. That is where the story teller and the audience can relate, connect, understand.
Stories bring the past to life. They are a way of coping, struggling, working through what has already happened by making it a part of the present. Many of the stories are told from O'Briens perspective years after they have happened. The details of the story are probably lost with time, but the emotions from these events are still a part of O'Briens' (or whoever the narrator may be) life. The feelings are still real.
Yes, this is a "fiction" book. Personally, I struggle reading fiction. I almost never do voluntarily because I struggle with seeing value in reading something that's made up, fantasy, not real. What's the point? But I think it is important to see that The Things They Carried isn't exactly "fiction." Yes, these stories could all be made up by O'Brien, and therefore fictional, but the feelings and emotions behind them are very real.
Its Personal.
Throughout Hearts and Minds Tim O’Brien uses many different rhetorical devices to show the readers what being in the Vietnam War was actually like. He writes his thoughts, and those of others; we are able to get a view of life in the war.
He uses stories from other men and from his own personal to try to give the audience the feel of the war and all that it entailed. He gets the audience to trust what he is telling them is true by using the fact that he was there in Vietnam as a soldier. This gives the audience the notion that they can trust him and thus give in to his attempts to show them what it was like.
I love that he tells all the stories not only from his point of view, but also from those of other soldiers he was with in Vietnam. It makes the stories seem more sincere and that makes them more believable. The men are just normal people that were forced to join a war that they didn’t want to be a part of anyways. It goes along with the commonplace from Thank You For Arguing. By using the men he allows the people to envision themselves in the midst of the fighting.
He allows the readers to get to know each of the characters, which allows the reader to become emotionally attached to each one. He uses the emotional connection to each of the characters to make the readers feel for the characters and their stories. It makes the book feel personal.
He uses stories from other men and from his own personal to try to give the audience the feel of the war and all that it entailed. He gets the audience to trust what he is telling them is true by using the fact that he was there in Vietnam as a soldier. This gives the audience the notion that they can trust him and thus give in to his attempts to show them what it was like.
I love that he tells all the stories not only from his point of view, but also from those of other soldiers he was with in Vietnam. It makes the stories seem more sincere and that makes them more believable. The men are just normal people that were forced to join a war that they didn’t want to be a part of anyways. It goes along with the commonplace from Thank You For Arguing. By using the men he allows the people to envision themselves in the midst of the fighting.
He allows the readers to get to know each of the characters, which allows the reader to become emotionally attached to each one. He uses the emotional connection to each of the characters to make the readers feel for the characters and their stories. It makes the book feel personal.
The View of the Implied Author and the Goal of the Author
What impressed me most about “The Things They Carried” was Tim O’Brien’s use of “implied author” versus “author”. From the very beginning, O’Brien explicitly states that this novel was “a work of fiction,” and it was exactly what I expected when I first started reading this book.
In the first chapter, everything was in third person omniscient, and I was able to get a sense of how many characters there will be and their characteristics. However, I was really surprised when the point of view shifted to first person in the second chapter and never specified who “me” was. When I finally figured out that the implied author was Tim O’Brien, it made me do a double take to find out whether this book was truly a fiction book or really non-fiction. I found that the novel is declared as a fictional book, but has a lot of O’Brien’s (the author) history within it.
Finding that out made me more proactive to determine whether this novel could be based on true stories, but was considered fiction in order for O’Brien to keep the identity of his platoon members confidential. It wasn’t until later that I realized his purpose in inserting himself into the story. The Tim O’Brien in the novel was the implied author. Although most of his experiences are consistent with Tim O’Brien the author, ultimately, the implied author expresses the feelings about the war, which the author could not do. The implied author allowed for the author to not have war nightmares that many veterans suffered through, because the implied author told all about the war, and served as the author’s catharsis.
There is a fine line between the implied author and author, just as there is a fine line between fiction and non-fiction in the novel. There are points where I struggle to figure out if the war story was true, until I realized that it didn’t matter if the war story were true, because they served O’Brien’s purpose.
“What stories can do, I guess, is make things present” (180).
I believe that was the goal of O’Brien’s writing. It was his way of letting the world know about war. How he saw the war, allowed others to see the war, and allow for catharsis.
In the first chapter, everything was in third person omniscient, and I was able to get a sense of how many characters there will be and their characteristics. However, I was really surprised when the point of view shifted to first person in the second chapter and never specified who “me” was. When I finally figured out that the implied author was Tim O’Brien, it made me do a double take to find out whether this book was truly a fiction book or really non-fiction. I found that the novel is declared as a fictional book, but has a lot of O’Brien’s (the author) history within it.
Finding that out made me more proactive to determine whether this novel could be based on true stories, but was considered fiction in order for O’Brien to keep the identity of his platoon members confidential. It wasn’t until later that I realized his purpose in inserting himself into the story. The Tim O’Brien in the novel was the implied author. Although most of his experiences are consistent with Tim O’Brien the author, ultimately, the implied author expresses the feelings about the war, which the author could not do. The implied author allowed for the author to not have war nightmares that many veterans suffered through, because the implied author told all about the war, and served as the author’s catharsis.
There is a fine line between the implied author and author, just as there is a fine line between fiction and non-fiction in the novel. There are points where I struggle to figure out if the war story was true, until I realized that it didn’t matter if the war story were true, because they served O’Brien’s purpose.
“What stories can do, I guess, is make things present” (180).
I believe that was the goal of O’Brien’s writing. It was his way of letting the world know about war. How he saw the war, allowed others to see the war, and allow for catharsis.
Tuesday, October 13, 2009
Hearts and Minds...truly.
This movie was truly a moving one. I have yet to sit through a documentary about war and be so fascinated. When watching the movie, I put on my RTF hat and sat down to think about and analyze this film. One of the opening scenes pictured a village of people living their lives and doing what seems to be normal work, but then we see this image of a soldier walking across the field in the middle of the village's work and what shocks me is how unaware the people of the village seem. They seem to carry on with their lives as if this intruder’s presence was habitual. An interruption in their daily lives seemed to not be so interrupting to the people.
A few of these scenes from this movie brought me back to the war movies we watched in class. One scene in particular was the scene when the soldiers were gathering up the bodies much like in Platoon at the end of the movie. The soldiers are moving the lifeless beings with no care, no consideration, and no compassion. Simply slinging bodies in efforts to carry out the missions issued to them. They were robotic machines. I personally would be terrified to touch a dead body and if I were reluctant to do so I would do so with upmost care and respect. However, this just alludes to the point that many of the injured veterans were making when telling their accounts of war. They became desensitized during their time in the heat of battle and did whatever it took to stay alive, even if it meant for one soldier, using another to shield himself from death.
One of the things that shocked me the most about this film was the realness that it possessed. I was shocked when a man was shown in the street getting executed by another soldier. I was surprised as we are used to seeing such things edited and only in movies with fake guns and executions, but to see a man actually lose his life in front of my eyes was appalling to say the least. Then another account in the movie was when there was an older woman and she was telling of her account in a camp where she was abused and tortured by soldiers and it reminded me of Platoon when the soldier invaded the village and killed innocent people, and the scary thing about the whole situation is that you would think people would have lenience towards women, but actually spared none and as we saw in the clip with the napalm, not even children.
Speaking of this scene it was something about seeing this as opposed to just seeing pictures that I have seen over and over again picturing the young naked girl running down the street with a burned body and the child with his flesh literally hanging off of him. I thought this lended even more evidence to the dehumanization of the soldiers during the war. Another shocking scene was the scene of the soldiers inside the brothel (I guess you can call it that). I found it crazy that these men could sleep with the women of the country and could turn around and kill them in the next instant. No feelings, no morals, and no consideration. The same woman that a soldier was about to be sexually engaged with could have and I strongly believe, would have been the same woman if she was seen on the street or under different circumstances that would have been killed.
Overall I found the film to be shocking and real in every sense of the word.
A few of these scenes from this movie brought me back to the war movies we watched in class. One scene in particular was the scene when the soldiers were gathering up the bodies much like in Platoon at the end of the movie. The soldiers are moving the lifeless beings with no care, no consideration, and no compassion. Simply slinging bodies in efforts to carry out the missions issued to them. They were robotic machines. I personally would be terrified to touch a dead body and if I were reluctant to do so I would do so with upmost care and respect. However, this just alludes to the point that many of the injured veterans were making when telling their accounts of war. They became desensitized during their time in the heat of battle and did whatever it took to stay alive, even if it meant for one soldier, using another to shield himself from death.
One of the things that shocked me the most about this film was the realness that it possessed. I was shocked when a man was shown in the street getting executed by another soldier. I was surprised as we are used to seeing such things edited and only in movies with fake guns and executions, but to see a man actually lose his life in front of my eyes was appalling to say the least. Then another account in the movie was when there was an older woman and she was telling of her account in a camp where she was abused and tortured by soldiers and it reminded me of Platoon when the soldier invaded the village and killed innocent people, and the scary thing about the whole situation is that you would think people would have lenience towards women, but actually spared none and as we saw in the clip with the napalm, not even children.
Speaking of this scene it was something about seeing this as opposed to just seeing pictures that I have seen over and over again picturing the young naked girl running down the street with a burned body and the child with his flesh literally hanging off of him. I thought this lended even more evidence to the dehumanization of the soldiers during the war. Another shocking scene was the scene of the soldiers inside the brothel (I guess you can call it that). I found it crazy that these men could sleep with the women of the country and could turn around and kill them in the next instant. No feelings, no morals, and no consideration. The same woman that a soldier was about to be sexually engaged with could have and I strongly believe, would have been the same woman if she was seen on the street or under different circumstances that would have been killed.
Overall I found the film to be shocking and real in every sense of the word.
Friday, October 9, 2009
Someone hates the Government...
“The Oriental doesn’t put the same price on life as the Westerner” said General William Childs Westmoreland in Peter Davis’ 1973 documentary Hearts and Minds. The vehemently anti-war documentary is riddled with similarly painfully ironic quotes that represent the psychological domination of the American over their in soldiers in Vietnam. Davis juxtaposes contrasting images of American brutality with excerpts from interviews, classic patriotic films and footage of the Vietnam War to convey the hypocrisy of the American government. The documentary portrays the government and its soldiers of having a sweeping, ignorant perception on the misunderstood culture of Vietnam. The contrast of the weeping, broken families and General Westmoorland’s insensitive statement conveys the degree to which people of power ignore the collateral effects of war. His statement reflects the westerner’s elitist and antiquated perceptions of non-westerners. Even his rhetoric “oriental,” which has become politically incorrect reflects his and his government’s lack of concern and understanding of the conflict.
Much like Stanley Kubrick’s tactic of juxtaposing humor and brutality to instill a sense of discomfort in his audience, Hearts and Minds juxtaposes the truth of war with Ameican ignorance to instill a similar feeling. The most disturbing part of the film was the conclusion where the documentary portrays a patriotic parade in a small American town being disturbed by anti-war protesters. The “patriots” curse the protesters for being unpatriotic and begin fighting one another, a symbol of America at war with its ideological self. This scene is made painfully ironic by the images of children marching through the streets with fake guns, chanting militaristic hymns. In portraying lines of brainwashed children, the filmmakers intentionally draw a parallel to the Hilter Youth of Nazi Germany who grew up knowing nothing but the morals of the Third Reich. The filmmakers argue that the American government breeds support for their agenda by shaping their citizens into images of what they want them to be.
Tamir Kalifa
Much like Stanley Kubrick’s tactic of juxtaposing humor and brutality to instill a sense of discomfort in his audience, Hearts and Minds juxtaposes the truth of war with Ameican ignorance to instill a similar feeling. The most disturbing part of the film was the conclusion where the documentary portrays a patriotic parade in a small American town being disturbed by anti-war protesters. The “patriots” curse the protesters for being unpatriotic and begin fighting one another, a symbol of America at war with its ideological self. This scene is made painfully ironic by the images of children marching through the streets with fake guns, chanting militaristic hymns. In portraying lines of brainwashed children, the filmmakers intentionally draw a parallel to the Hilter Youth of Nazi Germany who grew up knowing nothing but the morals of the Third Reich. The filmmakers argue that the American government breeds support for their agenda by shaping their citizens into images of what they want them to be.
Tamir Kalifa
Thursday, October 8, 2009
Hearts and Minds
Before I began watching this documentary I didn’t quite know what to expect. I couldn’t remember anything that was said about this film in class but after watching a portion of it, it became quite clear what this film’s focus was: uplift Vietnamese while degrading the Americans. Now don’t get me wrong I totally agree for the Vietnamese to finally get a voice in what this war has done to them. I feel that it is very important that Americans get to see how that war affected the Vietnamese. Edward Sowders’ speech hit the nail on the head when he began talking about how the Americans ruined the lives of the Vietnamese. That kind of made me feel good to see that an American was standing up and saying “We were wrong.” What I don’t agree with is the bashing of the Americans. I know that those soldiers weren’t perfect but this film depicts them as monsters. For example the scene about the soldiers throwing the Vietnamese man out of the helicopter because he couldn’t tell them what they wanted to know. Now whether this was a true account or not is unknown according to the film but I still think it was a little extreme to add in this documentary. This just made the soldiers look cruel and heartless. Another example would be how the director kept making it seem like the soldiers were addicted to Vietnamese hookers. I think it is okay to show it once, but repeatedly showing it just made the soldiers look like dogs in heat. That one scene where the two American soldiers were with two Vietnamese ladies doing their business was too long and totally unnecessary.
Now the film did give a raw aspect of the war. It had a lot of good footage of what the Vietnamese saw on a daily basis during that time. I just feel that it was edited to point out good guys and bad guys and for once America was explicitly depicted as being the bad guys.
Now the film did give a raw aspect of the war. It had a lot of good footage of what the Vietnamese saw on a daily basis during that time. I just feel that it was edited to point out good guys and bad guys and for once America was explicitly depicted as being the bad guys.
Peter Davis' Own Heart and Mind
While watching Hearts and Minds by Peter Davis, I chose to focus my attention on the argument that the director intended to make and the way in which he tried to achieve this purpose. The filmmaker has to have made a number of deliberate decisions during the filming and editing process to plainly point to one clear statement, and I find it useful to note the techniques that he used to do just that.
Peter Davis portrays the conflicting attitudes regarding the War in Vietnam in this heart-wrenching documentary. Throughout this piece, the director contrasts the statements and opinions of the people that were personally involved in the war, both the con and the pro. I believe it was important for the director to show the full spectrum of opinions about the war in order to enable each viewer to make the decision on his/her own terms.
I especially admired the director's mastery of playing up the viewer's emotions, such as in the opening scenes of the movie. The documentary begins by showing the villagers going about their daily business with no disturbance or conflict, until the american soldiers start cutting across the screen. This scene was very powerful, in my opinion, because it juxtaposes what the citizens of Vietnam wanted their country to be, and how the United State's involvement is making that dream virtually unattainable.
Davis also effectively uses sounds to better convey his message. The music choice greatly amplifies the meaning of the scene during which the song is played. For example, Bobby Bare's 500 Miles which is played during the landscape shot of the street of Saigon. It helps the viewer better identify with the soldiers that were forced to leave their hometowns and were flown across the ocean to an unfamiliar country. Davis also uses a number of uncomfortably long pauses during the interviews, and I believe the reason for that is to let whatever was just said to really sink in and to give the viewer a chance to form his own opinion.
I also found it interesting that there is no background narration for this documentary. I have always thought that documentaries HAD to have narration because that is the only way the viewer can understand what is being presented to him/her. Although, this did throw me a bit off guard, I was grateful to be able to simply watch and have the ability to think through the images on the screen without being told what they are and what to take away from them.
Overall, this is an excellently made documentary made by a talented filmmaker. Although, I believe the main intent of Davis' Hearts and Minds was to show basic facts and opinions of both sides of the conflict, it was easy to see where exactly the directors own heart and mind were while making this excellent documentary.
If hindsight is 20/20, "Futuresight" is blind
As Hearts and Minds shows in such a constant and repeated manner, people suffered as a result of the Vietnam War. Vietnamese died. Americans died. Loved ones were lost. It would be foolish to argue with any of these statements. The invention of the camera has allowed director Peter Davis to show us these things. However, what about the wars that were not so heavily filmed? I would venture to guess that people suffered as a result of WWII as well. Americans died. Germans died. Loved ones were lost. So why was Vietnam so different? What makes Vietnam a mistake but WWII a success?
Hearts and Minds is an excellently crafted documentary in that it provides an argument and supports its argument with evidence. When broken down, the entire film consists of three types of scenes: those that show the suffering of the Vietnamese, those that portray the “lies” of the American government, and those that show the go-between: the soldiers who were coerced to impress the suffering on the Vietnamese by the “lies” of the government. When combined, Hearts and Minds conveys a story of an oppressive regime that employs brainless minions to carry out their selfish, evil will. However, Hearts and Minds never addressed the opposing viewpoint.
I believe that the Vietnam War was essentially similar to WWII. Rarely do Americans question the validity of the U.S.’s participation in WWII. Hitler and the Nazis are portrayed in American society as the essence of pure evil, a true threat to humanity, and Americans were the knights in shining armor who successfully slayed the dragon.
However, America only involved itself in WWII when it felt that its safety was threatened. Disregarding conspiracy theories for which I have heard very little believable proof, historical evidence supports the idea that the U.S. only decided to enter WWII after Pearl Harbor was bombed. The U.S. had been attacked, and so it needed to protect itself. Most Americans accept this as a totally logical and justifiable reason for entering the war.
Yet, the situations surrounding the U.S.’s entry into Vietnam are essentially similar to those of WWII. At the time, communism was perceived as a very real threat to the U.S., arguably even more so than the Axis regime. Before Vietnam, the U.S. was involved in the Cold War; a time in American life where school children were subject to bomb raid drills. At this time, communism seemed extremely dangerous. So, when it appeared that communism was spreading, the U.S. government had a justifiable reason to send troops to Vietnam. Just like in WWII, the U.S. was trying to protect itself from a perceived threat.
One of the arguments presented by a few interviewees in Hearts and Minds is that the U.S. should learn from what happened in Vietnam to avoid similar problems in the future, but that is exactly what the U.S. was doing when it entered Vietnam. After trying to remain uninvolved in foreign conflicts during the start of WWII, the U.S. was attacked at Pearl Harbor. So, when another perceived threat, communism, was rising, the U.S. applied what it learned from WWII. The U.S. wanted to attack the enemy before it was attacked by the enemy. So, if WWII and Vietnam began under similar conditions, why did they end so differently?
The reason that the Vietnam War and WWII ended on such different terms can be explained in terms of the cultural differences between the Vietnamese and the Axis powers. If anything, the U.S.’s military advantage over the Vietnamese was far greater than any advantage the Allied forces may have had over the Axis powers. The only reason that the Allies won WWII and the Americans lost the Vietnam War is, as General Westmoreland said, “the Oriental, doesn’t put the same high price on life as does the Westerner.” Granted, in Hearts and Minds, General Westmoreland’s statement was placed directly adjacent to footage of the Vietnamese heavily mourning the casualties of war, and in doing so, Davis is basically mocking what he perceives as the utter ignorance of that statement.
However, I think General Westmoreland’s statement is not at all ignorant, and in fact, summarizes the reason that WWII and the Vietnam War ended on such different terms. Clearly, as Hearts and Minds does such an excellent job of portraying, the Vietnamese were entirely overmatched in the war. Yet, they refused to surrender. So, the U.S. reverted to bombings in hopes of inciting their surrender. The U.S. wasn’t bombing civilians, women, and children because it was a cruel, tyrannical regime. It was a calculated move following the adage “sacrifice a little to get a lot”. Once again, it was a lesson learned from WWII.
The dropping of the atomic bomb obviously killed innocent civilians, yet it also brought about the end of the war, and in doing so, saved countless other lives. Much like this, the U.S. was hoping that the bombings in Vietnam would discourage the Vietnamese to the point of surrender, and in doing so, they would save even more soldiers and civilians from dying. The U.S. government was not a cold, heartless killing machine. In its mind, it was seeking to bring about peace and safety.
Yet, the Vietnamese possessed a stubbornness unlike those of the Axis powers. They were not willing to surrender. Obviously they are still human, and so clearly death still takes a huge emotional toll on the lives of those affected. However, culturally, they were not willing to sacrifice their independence, even at such great costs. Then, as time passed and the threat of communism seemed to fade, the U.S. decided the best decision was to withdraw.
So, if we are to follow the advice given at the end of Hearts and Minds and try to apply what we learned in Vietnam to prevent future mistakes, we are forced to ask “What did we learn from Vietnam?”. I am by no means an expert, but from what I have seen and read, the only conclusion I can draw is that we learned not to rely on our history. Relying on what the U.S. learned through WWII is what caused Vietnam. As the saying goes “hindsight is 20/20”. It’s easy to look back and decide what was a mistake and what wasn’t. However, Vietnam only proves that history is not a perfect predictor for the future.
America wasnt always seen as the good guy...
In this movie I feel like I was better able to understand the feelings of many of the men in the war. In movies everything is so sensationalized that it is hard to make sense of it all. In this one, however, the men are easy to access because of the settings that they are in. The jumps between movies and real life makes this movie easy to understand and very informative. I liked this movie much better then Full Metal Jacket or Platoon, because I was able to know that what these men went through is real and it was not as graphic. It also shows what many of the Vietnamese people were thinking and feeling, “First they bomb as much as they please. Then they film.” Vietnam was torn apart, families in both Vietnam and America were torn apart, houses were torn apart, people were torn apart.
The way that the movie is sequenced is very good rhetorically. The very short clips of Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, and Nixon are all different in what they are saying about the war, and the way they are approaching it. It seems that the progression of the war went along with the harshness of what the presidents were saying.
Then a scene that has the men marching allows us to see the sentiments of many of Americans prior to the Vietnam War. America had just come out victorious and as they sang in the movie it “wouldn’t stop until all the world is free.” The absurdity of all of the men marching along in time with each other singing a happy song is truly astounding. However, you have to keep in mind that movies are made so that people will watch them; this movie shows the great passion that Americans had right after WW II, that Americans wanted to set the whole world free from communist rule. Every so often a scene from a movie is shown, allowing us to see what the dramatized version of events were.
The scenes that are of Americans that were in the war, or a large part of the war, are always serene and calm. They are usually alone and always well put together. They are given the feel of people that are well informed and a little colder then normal people. They are not in a natural setting. General William Westmoreland who was the Commanding General for the Vietnam War from 1964-1968 is sitting next to a tranquil lake while talking about his time before going to war. A man who went on 98 bombing missions sits on steps while casually talking about the excitement of the explosions from the bombs and how it was exciting to be in a life and death situation. The settings are there with a distinct purpose to propose the idea that Americans in the war are not affected in the same ways as the Vietnamese were.
The Vietnamese are portrayed as a people struggling to gain independence just as Americans once did. America and Americans are shown as the aggressor who cares for nothing but winning.
The way that the movie is sequenced is very good rhetorically. The very short clips of Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, and Nixon are all different in what they are saying about the war, and the way they are approaching it. It seems that the progression of the war went along with the harshness of what the presidents were saying.
Then a scene that has the men marching allows us to see the sentiments of many of Americans prior to the Vietnam War. America had just come out victorious and as they sang in the movie it “wouldn’t stop until all the world is free.” The absurdity of all of the men marching along in time with each other singing a happy song is truly astounding. However, you have to keep in mind that movies are made so that people will watch them; this movie shows the great passion that Americans had right after WW II, that Americans wanted to set the whole world free from communist rule. Every so often a scene from a movie is shown, allowing us to see what the dramatized version of events were.
The scenes that are of Americans that were in the war, or a large part of the war, are always serene and calm. They are usually alone and always well put together. They are given the feel of people that are well informed and a little colder then normal people. They are not in a natural setting. General William Westmoreland who was the Commanding General for the Vietnam War from 1964-1968 is sitting next to a tranquil lake while talking about his time before going to war. A man who went on 98 bombing missions sits on steps while casually talking about the excitement of the explosions from the bombs and how it was exciting to be in a life and death situation. The settings are there with a distinct purpose to propose the idea that Americans in the war are not affected in the same ways as the Vietnamese were.
The Vietnamese are portrayed as a people struggling to gain independence just as Americans once did. America and Americans are shown as the aggressor who cares for nothing but winning.
Heartless and Mindless
“The ultimate victory will depend on the hearts and minds of the people who actually live out there,” says president Johnson in a speech about the United States’ presence in Vietnam. Peter Davis centralizes this thought, in his documentary Hearts and Minds, as he seeks to display the demoralized position the United States held in a persecuted and victimized Vietnam. Davis does this in part by visually showing pain and suffering on the account of the Vietnamese and then juxtaposing this visual with a supposed American mentality provided by an interview with General Westmoreland.
To open this particular sequence, the camera view focuses in on a very informal Vietnamese funeral characterized by a heartbroken motherly figure and a stricken child, serving to openly display the value the Vietnamese place in their loved ones. In the early parts of the scene we witness the mother figure become so stricken by the loss of her loved one that she attempts to climb into his grave as it is being filled. She is so disoriented and stricken that it takes several people to withhold her from her woeful induced actions. The camera then moves about the scene, stopping on occasion to focus in on a downcast face before it focuses in on the fit of a young boy. The boy expresses himself by means of uncontrolled sobbing and unsuppressed wailing as he drags himself towards and places his face against the picture of a loved one, setting atop a grave.
After this chaotic and remorseful scene, Davis moves to an interview of General Westmoreland where Westmoreland downplays the value the Vietnamese place in life. In a very serene and peaceful natural landscape, General Westmoreland himself is dressed very professionally, but in a way that doesn’t draw any connection between him and his military career. Westmoreland is simply portrayed as the ideal American embellished businessman who knows what he is talking about. In this context, Westmoreland is completely separated from that which he seems to be able to offer so much insight. As he puts it, “Well the oriental doesn’t put the same high price on life as does a westerner.”
Ironically the scene soon shifts back to a Vietnamese landscape, which is blown away by a series of explosions at a magnitude that only the American military was capable. Through this conflict of actions versus words, Davis draws a complete picture of the hearts and minds of all those involved. He portrays an American nation unloading on a nation of which it has a skewed and biased view. I feel Davis is trying to ask: Does the outcome really depend on the heart and minds of the Vietnamese people, or does it depend more on the heartlessness and mindlessness of an oppressive America?
No Hearts and Selfish Minds
While watching Hearts and Minds, I found myself trying to listen for two things: a person who could convince me they believed in what they were fighting for and a legitimate reason for the U.S. to be fighting in the Vietnam War - I found neither. Instead, I found myself wondering what I would have done had I of been a soldier forced to go fight in a war for a cause I didn't believe in. A war with no direct threat to our nation's well being, only a theory that someday the spread of communism would be imposed on our people. The idea that I would be risking my life to prevent a theory, the "domino theory", would most likely end up with me buying a one-way ticket to Canada.
It is obvious that this is an anti-war film, but I think that I am yet to view or read some kind of material supporting what we did in Vietnam. All information I have gathered and analyzed leads me to believe that we were in the wrong. This film really did a good job moving me from my somewhat indifferent position on the U.S. being in the war to me being on the side of "what the hell were we doing over there." You know how at the sporting events, a thermometer looking gadget comes up on the jumbo tron and says "Louder" and you are supposed to scream as loud as you can to move the meter closer to one side. Well, that "louder" was the unsure voices of our soldiers, the politicians admitting they were in the wrong, and the scenes of inhumane deaths pushing my meter closer to the "I'm against what we did in the Vietnam War" side. I was waiting the whole documentary for some person to push my meter back towards the "Quiet" side, the indifferent position I was initialy in, and say something that made me think we were fighting for something justified.
The title "No Hearts and Selfish Minds" came to my head at the same time these other anti-war thoughts did. No hearts sprouted from the scenes of airplanes making daily trips over the Vietnamese land to give them their daily dosage of poison. How did we know that the enemy was going to be the recipient of this poison? We didn't, but we had a general idea that they were in the area and the fact that there were probably innocent people in the area as well didn't seem to be much of a concern leading me to come up with no hearts. We just figured that punishing the Vietnamese on a consistent basis would be at some point enough for them to want to surrender to us and give us the victory. This is where selfish minds comes into play. Rather we had a legitimate reason to be fighting in the war or not, rather we were making progress towards a cause we believed to be justified, we just didn't want to leave Vietnam and have the war remembered as a failure. Even though lifes would continue to be lost, families and friends would continue to be heart broken, our government believed a victory was enough to keep fighting for. Maybe, they were right, maybe their was a reason bigger than I can comprehend at this point with my little knowledge on the war, but I know that I am a believer of solving a situation with words rather than force and the fact that we human beings can get to a point where we are this hostile with one another is beyond me. What have we turned into and how did we get this way? I found myself asking this question as I pressed the power button on the T.V.
It is obvious that this is an anti-war film, but I think that I am yet to view or read some kind of material supporting what we did in Vietnam. All information I have gathered and analyzed leads me to believe that we were in the wrong. This film really did a good job moving me from my somewhat indifferent position on the U.S. being in the war to me being on the side of "what the hell were we doing over there." You know how at the sporting events, a thermometer looking gadget comes up on the jumbo tron and says "Louder" and you are supposed to scream as loud as you can to move the meter closer to one side. Well, that "louder" was the unsure voices of our soldiers, the politicians admitting they were in the wrong, and the scenes of inhumane deaths pushing my meter closer to the "I'm against what we did in the Vietnam War" side. I was waiting the whole documentary for some person to push my meter back towards the "Quiet" side, the indifferent position I was initialy in, and say something that made me think we were fighting for something justified.
The title "No Hearts and Selfish Minds" came to my head at the same time these other anti-war thoughts did. No hearts sprouted from the scenes of airplanes making daily trips over the Vietnamese land to give them their daily dosage of poison. How did we know that the enemy was going to be the recipient of this poison? We didn't, but we had a general idea that they were in the area and the fact that there were probably innocent people in the area as well didn't seem to be much of a concern leading me to come up with no hearts. We just figured that punishing the Vietnamese on a consistent basis would be at some point enough for them to want to surrender to us and give us the victory. This is where selfish minds comes into play. Rather we had a legitimate reason to be fighting in the war or not, rather we were making progress towards a cause we believed to be justified, we just didn't want to leave Vietnam and have the war remembered as a failure. Even though lifes would continue to be lost, families and friends would continue to be heart broken, our government believed a victory was enough to keep fighting for. Maybe, they were right, maybe their was a reason bigger than I can comprehend at this point with my little knowledge on the war, but I know that I am a believer of solving a situation with words rather than force and the fact that we human beings can get to a point where we are this hostile with one another is beyond me. What have we turned into and how did we get this way? I found myself asking this question as I pressed the power button on the T.V.
Hearts and Minds
From Full Metal Jacket and Platoon to Susan Sontag's Trip to Hanoi, and finally to Hearts and Minds, my emotions have been on all ends of the emotional spectrum. Throughout the first two movies, I was in a constant state of depression and slight anger; throughout Trip to Hanoi, I was slightly annoyed with Sontag's Western viewpoint, but understood the honesty about her thinking; and throughout Hearts and Minds, shocked at the blatant feeling of superiority that many of the Americans felt towards the Vietnamese, and rather disgusted at how Americans treated and viewed the Vietnamese: below-human, simple items. It is still so hard for me to comprehend how the Vietnamese manage to be so strong throughout all they have gone through.
I liked listening to the stories of the pilots the most. At first, they stated how dropping bombs from their planes was "deeply satisfying" and they never had to worry about seeing blood or dead bodies. From the safety of their planes, flying free, all they had to do was press a button, occasionally seeing a few houses, never any people. Towards the end though, one of the pilots felt very sorrowful for what he had done. While he is speaking, clips of napalmed children are shown, their skin burned and peeling off in large chunks. Though the pilot had never dropped napalm, he had dropped other bombs that were still detrimental to the lives of the Vietnamese. He cries while he reflects on how he would react if those children had been his own. The coupling of the pilot's story and the video clips is very moving.
The whole documentary was hard to sit through and listen to not because it was boring, but because of the content and visuals. During the Vietnam War, Americans kept convincing themselves that they were doing the Vietnamese a favor, but what kind of favor is this if the people we are trying to help are left homeless, left without loved ones, and left without daily necessities? One of the interviewed Vietnamese comments on how America bombed their country, and now is back to film the after affects. Many Vietnamese viewed the American aide as more of an invasion, starting a war of genocide. Another Vietnamese stated that because they were fighting for freedom, Americans viewed them as Communist. The people of Vietnam are still proud though, because they have won their freedom.
It is hard to believe that people would impress their biased view upon young children as well. Prisoner of war George Coker spoke to a class of young elementary school kids about how the Vietnamese are "backward, primitive people." Coker views the Vietnamese as worthless, and takes part in the general, superior American view towards the War. Another statement I took offense in was General Westmoreland, who said "Life is plentiful and cheap in the Orient." I think it's so terrible that humans can think that about one another simply because they may act differently or look different from what you may be accustomed to. The Western belief of that time that Vietnamese are expendable objects for amusement or pleasure is rather aggravating.
At the end of the film, the Vietnamese people's extreme anguish from the death of a loved one is shown. The young boy's crying can be heard the entire time in the background, and as the coffin is being covered with dirt, one of the woman tries going in with the dead body. The suffering of the Vietnamese from the War and the destruction that America's intervention caused are explicitly shown in Hearts and Minds. This is a sharp contrast to Sontag's portrayal of the Vietnamese in Trip to Hanoi. She portrayed them as showing very little emotion, rejoicing in the growth of the country but suppressing any feelings of depression. However strong as the Vietnamese may be, they are still human and suffer just as much as any other human being.
I liked listening to the stories of the pilots the most. At first, they stated how dropping bombs from their planes was "deeply satisfying" and they never had to worry about seeing blood or dead bodies. From the safety of their planes, flying free, all they had to do was press a button, occasionally seeing a few houses, never any people. Towards the end though, one of the pilots felt very sorrowful for what he had done. While he is speaking, clips of napalmed children are shown, their skin burned and peeling off in large chunks. Though the pilot had never dropped napalm, he had dropped other bombs that were still detrimental to the lives of the Vietnamese. He cries while he reflects on how he would react if those children had been his own. The coupling of the pilot's story and the video clips is very moving.
The whole documentary was hard to sit through and listen to not because it was boring, but because of the content and visuals. During the Vietnam War, Americans kept convincing themselves that they were doing the Vietnamese a favor, but what kind of favor is this if the people we are trying to help are left homeless, left without loved ones, and left without daily necessities? One of the interviewed Vietnamese comments on how America bombed their country, and now is back to film the after affects. Many Vietnamese viewed the American aide as more of an invasion, starting a war of genocide. Another Vietnamese stated that because they were fighting for freedom, Americans viewed them as Communist. The people of Vietnam are still proud though, because they have won their freedom.
It is hard to believe that people would impress their biased view upon young children as well. Prisoner of war George Coker spoke to a class of young elementary school kids about how the Vietnamese are "backward, primitive people." Coker views the Vietnamese as worthless, and takes part in the general, superior American view towards the War. Another statement I took offense in was General Westmoreland, who said "Life is plentiful and cheap in the Orient." I think it's so terrible that humans can think that about one another simply because they may act differently or look different from what you may be accustomed to. The Western belief of that time that Vietnamese are expendable objects for amusement or pleasure is rather aggravating.
At the end of the film, the Vietnamese people's extreme anguish from the death of a loved one is shown. The young boy's crying can be heard the entire time in the background, and as the coffin is being covered with dirt, one of the woman tries going in with the dead body. The suffering of the Vietnamese from the War and the destruction that America's intervention caused are explicitly shown in Hearts and Minds. This is a sharp contrast to Sontag's portrayal of the Vietnamese in Trip to Hanoi. She portrayed them as showing very little emotion, rejoicing in the growth of the country but suppressing any feelings of depression. However strong as the Vietnamese may be, they are still human and suffer just as much as any other human being.
Wednesday, October 7, 2009
Rocky Marciano and the Little Engine that Could
Hearts and Minds asserts that a cultural obsession with winning was one of the main influences upon the United States’ involvement in the Vietnam War. Although this view is never explicitly stated by anyone in the film, Peter Davis presents his case clearly, first through repetition and later by sharply decontextualized content.
By including numerous interview excerpts in which top US leaders from throughout the Vietnam era invoke such concepts as ‘winning’ and ‘victory,’ Davis makes it clear that he is trying to draw attention to a specific attitude which is common to that group. From the documentary’s broader framework, we can easily infer that Davis’ purpose is to explore the relationship between this attitude and the course of America’s involvement in Vietnam.
The holistic context of the film, in which the war in Vietnam is examined from a wide set of perspectives, can be best summarized as the posing of one giant, “Why?” Or, to use the parlance of our times- WTF? Why did many American leaders, military and civilian, so consistently determine that the best way to deal with the communist revolution in Vietnam was to drop more bombs and send in more troops? Because they wanted to win.
Once Davis has clearly revealed the pervasiveness of the obsession with winning among such American leaders, he reveals this obsession's source with equal clarity. Where did William Westmoreland, Lyndon B. Johnson, and George S. Patton III get this insatiable desire for winning? From high school football.
After seeing reels of jarring explosions and hearing translated anecdotes from elderly female torture victims, our view shifts abruptly to a pastor delivering a cheesy pep talk, on the eve of the big game, to a group of healthy, fastidiously groomed, All-American young men. Later we witness the aggressive energy, bordering upon mania, of a high school football coach, as he addresses his team in the locker room.
Immediately after seeing the coach slap and punch several of his players, exhorting them to avoid defeat at all costs, our view shifts to cheerleaders, referees, a cheering crowd.
We see complicity: Westmoreland, Johnson, and Patton are not a few crazy bastards who just happened to occupy positions of great power at the same time. It turns out the obsession with winning is a fundamental part of the modern American spirit.
Regardless of how convoluted its reasons for fighting a war in Vietnam may have been in the first place, the American goal was clear—to win.
By including numerous interview excerpts in which top US leaders from throughout the Vietnam era invoke such concepts as ‘winning’ and ‘victory,’ Davis makes it clear that he is trying to draw attention to a specific attitude which is common to that group. From the documentary’s broader framework, we can easily infer that Davis’ purpose is to explore the relationship between this attitude and the course of America’s involvement in Vietnam.
The holistic context of the film, in which the war in Vietnam is examined from a wide set of perspectives, can be best summarized as the posing of one giant, “Why?” Or, to use the parlance of our times- WTF? Why did many American leaders, military and civilian, so consistently determine that the best way to deal with the communist revolution in Vietnam was to drop more bombs and send in more troops? Because they wanted to win.
Once Davis has clearly revealed the pervasiveness of the obsession with winning among such American leaders, he reveals this obsession's source with equal clarity. Where did William Westmoreland, Lyndon B. Johnson, and George S. Patton III get this insatiable desire for winning? From high school football.
After seeing reels of jarring explosions and hearing translated anecdotes from elderly female torture victims, our view shifts abruptly to a pastor delivering a cheesy pep talk, on the eve of the big game, to a group of healthy, fastidiously groomed, All-American young men. Later we witness the aggressive energy, bordering upon mania, of a high school football coach, as he addresses his team in the locker room.
Immediately after seeing the coach slap and punch several of his players, exhorting them to avoid defeat at all costs, our view shifts to cheerleaders, referees, a cheering crowd.
We see complicity: Westmoreland, Johnson, and Patton are not a few crazy bastards who just happened to occupy positions of great power at the same time. It turns out the obsession with winning is a fundamental part of the modern American spirit.
Regardless of how convoluted its reasons for fighting a war in Vietnam may have been in the first place, the American goal was clear—to win.
The TRUE "Hearts and Minds"
Take that, Susan Sontag. How’s that for your interaction with the Vietnamese? We are watching a documentary that doesn’t just display “the expansion of medical services, the reorganization of education, the creation of a modest industrial base…” through reading (Sontag, 208). Although we are not experiencing Vietnam through our own firsthand basis, it’s through the Vietnamese and the Vietnam War veterans that we are acquiring this information from.
I acknowledge that “Trip to Hanoi” is similar to Hearts and Minds in that you did go to Vietnam and you did report what was seen there, but as you said, “while a painting or prose description can never be other than a narrowly selective interpretation, a photograph can be treated as a narrowly selective transparency” (“On Photography”, 6). If a picture can say a thousand words, then the moving pictures must say ten thousand.
Hearts and Minds is at all not subtle in introducing the topic of the Vietnam War. The opening scene alone is powerful and overwhelming. Opening to thousands of soldiers in neat uniform, marching rigidly, standing in front of a huge monument, it’s a tremendous “in-your-face” effect that shows how the Vietnam War was a huge deal for the soldiers, and in no way can its effects be ignored.
The beginning was patriotic. There were men who went to war, because it was their duty, killed without a second thought, and smiled at the thought of killing another “savage” because in their minds, they thought they were in the right.
They can’t be blamed. Americans in the 1950s were brought up in the mentality that communism was going to take over the world if America didn’t step in to help the “lesser” countries. They were taught, “without America, the burden of war would be too great.” America was the “warrior country.” These soldiers didn’t have their own opinion about what they were doing, just serving their country and listening to their superiors.
Hearts and Minds showed the war from not only the American point of view, but also the Vietnamese. We hear and see from their point of view. We understand how the war had affected their lives, destroyed their homes, and killed their loved ones. At the same time, we see how strong they are. A Vietnamese man who makes coffins for a living, faces death everyday, says that, “no matter how many decades America fights, it will never conquer Vietnam… over here, as long as there is rice to eat, we'll keep fighting. And if the rice runs out, we'll plow the fields and do it again.” The Vietnamese have fought for their independence for a long time. They have a history of over five thousands years, and they will not allow it to be destroyed by a foreigner.
The turning point of the documentary for me was when reality settles in. We see the brutality of war. The Vietnamese are abused. The camera shows the same Vietnam War veterans in full view, and we see the amputated legs and arms. Americans at home don’t know the reason for the war, thinking that we’re “fighting for the North Vietnamese, right?”
This is the truth of the Vietnam War. It isn’t the simple minded Vietnamese portrayed in “Trip to Hanoi.” It isn’t all about showing your expertise and watching explosions. It’s the death of lives, destruction of lives, and a lasting scar in all lives involved.
//edit: I'm sorry for the incorrect spacing. For some reason it keeps printing out the html code for my paper, and I don't understand it to fix the spacing.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)