McNamara: A Complex Man

Like the title states, Errol Morris’ The Fog of War definitely strives to portray exactly that message—that war is indeed a fog and not any clear, definite thing. The documentary conveys this message by allowing one subject (Robert McNamara) to be the main focus from beginning to end. Through this extensive look into the mind of such an integral part of the Vietnam War, the audience is able to begin to understand the complexities of the war as they see that McNamara himself is a complex man.

According to some background research I did on the film, Morris entered his interview with McNamara as a planned twenty-minute session. Morris was wanting to make a film about Vietnam, not about McNamara specifically. It wasn’t until the camera began rolling that Morris realized the exceptional material he had unlocked: a man who seemed to be confessing the guilt he had carried around with him for decades. All the while, of course, still carrying a militaristic charisma that defended his dignity.

The artistic flare that Morris weaves into the documentary makes it seem as if McNamara is talking directly to me, with close-up views of his face and him looking directly into the camera. It seems that McNamara has a liking for getting so close to a subject that it makes you feel as if you know them on a personal level. Not only does he do this throughout the film with McNamara, but he also does this with the awkwardly long shot of Kennedy as well as with others.

This film was made in 2004, which puts it at about 30-35 years past McNamara’s active role in the war. McNamara had three whole decades to ponder over the consequences of his actions and the justifications for his reasoning. At times McNamara admits his own wrong, such as admitting that he was acting as a “war criminal.” At other times, however, he still defends many of his actions, justifying that it seemed like the right thing to do at the time, and therefore no one can be blamed. The most eloquent idea that McNamara presents, however, is at the end. When asked one last question about the war, he replies: "Vietnam is so complex that anything I say will require qualifications.” I think that this is the most important lesson to be taken from this documentary.

Fog of War

Unlike Hearts and Minds, the documentary Fog of War gave me a better understanding of why the US thought they had the right idea to invade Vietnam. But like McNamara states, the American government didn't know the Vietnamese well enough to emphasize with them and put themselves in their shoes. By showing McNamara admit and analyze his mistakes throughout the war, the film attempts to build sympathy for the man.

McNamara visits Vietnam far after the war is over and realizes the war was just a huge misunderstanding. After finally getting to know the Vietnamese people and seeing what they were truly fighting for (freedom), McNamara realizes the US was unaware of this at the time and basically saw the Vietnam War as an addition to the Cold War that needed to be taken care of. Although being naive of the Vietnamese people doesn't justify the American intrusion, I still almost felt sorry for McNamara because the film portrays him as a man stuck in a bad situation with no way out.

It made me wonder what I would have done in a similar situation. McNamara was a business man who had very little experience as the Secretary of Defense and he made that very clear to President Kennedy. The film takes away some of his blame by showing how he was pressured into his position. It almost seems as if McNamara wants to blame Johnson for the war since McNamara apparently told him that, "we ought to think of other action rather than military action." This is also an attempt to take the blame of McNamara and see him more as the good guy who had no choice but to follow the president's orders.

Despite who said this or who did that, I don't think it is fair to blame one single person for the Vietnam War. McNamara was obviously blamed for much of the military action that took place during the war, but it's hard for me to put myself in his shoes so I really don't have much room to judge him. Ultimately, this documentary attempts to take some of the war guilt off of McNamara's hands.

The Other Side

“The Fog of War” provides an interesting perspective on the many wars that the United States were involved in. Many films are very quick to point fingers at “conspirators” and skew clips and snippets of past media in order to prove their point. One thing that “The Fog of War” did very well was to let the main focus of the documentary, Robert McNamara, speak for himself. Again no overbearing narrator was present in the documentary, which left the audience to believe they were coming up with their own conclusions. In fact, Errol Morris takes this rhetorical design in a different way by allowing McNamara narrate his own thinking process and background.
The presentation of McNamara’s own account in the documentary humanizes the former Secretary of Defense, by allowing him to tell his side of the story and show true emotion. By introducing this point of view McNamara is not the perpetrator, but he argues that he was a victim of his situation. It would’ve been easy for Morris to make a documentary giving evidence on the incompetence of the government during each of the wars, but instead he chose to let McNamara speak his mind and give the lessons he learned from his experiences. Because of this, I believe that Morris is trying to give a commentary about how war often clouds people’s judgment and that even extremely intelligent and logical people like McNamara can be confused in the “fog of war”. Furthermore Morris explores how even in succeeding wars, many of the same mistakes were made, giving credence to McNamara’s lesson on how "You can't change human nature.”

Though Fog of War by no means justifies America's involvement in the Vietnam War, it gave more understanding of why it did happen. It allows us to see what the American gov't went through,the complex web of confusion that is war. Was the Maddox attacked by the North Vietnamese? Maybe once? The truth was they did feel threatened, and wanted to protect America..was it right to start bombing based on such unclear information? But what if they waited and more Americans were killed? They faced so many complex decisions that had to made quickly. I guess this allowed me to see some reasoning for how it began,even though it was largely a slippery slope fallacy--if we let them take Vietnam, Communism will inevitably spread to all surrounding areas.
But the fact remains: after they knew mistakes had been made, they chose not to try and correct them. They instead decided to shield the public from the truth, blatantly lying and continuing on in a losing battle.

McNamara's lack of Ethos

If this was McNamara’s attempt at qualifying or excusing his actions prior to and during the Vietnam War, he achieved just the opposite. He makes two major mistakes in the documentary which in my eyes discredit any ethos he has toward teaching the viewer "lessons".

His first big mistake is denying the blame for his actions, and in fact quickly placing the blame on president Johnson when asked who should be held responsible for the war. This made McNamara look even guiltier. He further tries to pin blame on the “fog of war” as the title suggests, saying that the definition of the “fog of war” is that “war is so complex that it is beyond the ability of the human mind to comprehend all the variables” Yes, I understand that there are multiple layers to war. Yes, there are of course many people and circumstances to blame. But, was McNamara not a consistent force escalating the war? You were Secretary of Defense, McNamara, obviously you are guilty of something; we’re not stupid!

His second big mistake is not answering the questions asked of him. One of the “lessons” he talks about is to “answer the question you wished was asked of you”. Seriously McNamara? What possible good can he think would ever come from telling us that he is not being honest with us, (even in this documentary)? Yes in hindsight, most Americans would say that the war was a terrible idea and most would also try to say they were against it. However, that doesn’t change their actions or words during the war. Toward the end of the documentary there is a flashback to an interview of McNamara during the war where he is asked whether the “war is turning into a stale mate”. He laughs in response and outright lies saying that the US military is showing “substantial progress”. Soon after this he also says in a “lesson” that you cannot change human nature. So basically putting these two "lessons" together, I gather that he was a liar back in the war years and is still a liar now.

I would feel more sympathy for this man if he would just admit his actions and answer all of the questions. Yes, he tears up a few times. Yes he says, “We all make mistakes”. But, he never fully accepts blame; there is always an excuse. If he is not honest with me about his actions during the war nor completely honest in his answers to the questions the interviewer asks, how can I find the "lessons" he is trying to teach in the documentary credible?

Maya Lin: A Strong Clear Vision

Although her design was controversial, Maya Lin had idea of what the Vietnam Memorial should represent. I think she wanted to emphasize the remembrance of the lost soldiers and allow American Patriotism to take the backseat.

Maya Lin says that she, "really did mean for people to cry" and when "you read a name, or touch a name, the pain will come out". Maya knew that her design would strike on debate and erupt negativity, but even so, see had a "strong clear vision" about what would connect better with those who lost friends and family members. When we look at the Marine Corps War Memorial we see a soldiers raising an American flag, without knowing anything about the statue I see a representation of American pride and American resilience. Though the memorial is for the honored soldiers, the statue itself doesn't give you that idea at first glance. Maya's goal wasn't to create a large US flag, but create something in which the people could actually feel and embrace emotionally. I think she saw the American soldiers as not just American Soldiers, but as human beings -- human beings that all had a family waiting for their return home. When we think about war memorials we think of statues, flags, and accolades, Maya Lin went with was she envisioned and created a tombstone to remember the soldiers; a tombstone families and friends could visit and remember there lost ones by.

Fog of War

The title “Fog of War” was the first thing that perked my interest in this movie. Wikipedia defines it as “a term used to describe the level of ambiguity in situational awareness experienced by participants in military operations.” This film involves the fog that not only hinders the soldier’s view but the different fogs that hinder our views of the war as well as all those involved.

The introduction to this movie begins very powerful. The music entices you to feel and to be moved not toward a bright happy response as more colorful music would lead, but rather uses dark and ominous melodies – perfectly matching the fear in a fog of war. McNamara then speaks of a sentence in which he said which he stopped and this banter is included but for what purpose? Maybe it’s to say that the perception of things especially in war can be changed up and edited to reveal whatever is necessary. He then talks about the mistakes that a good commander would accept that they’ve made, but with the arrival of nuclear weapons, one mistake is catastrophic. Lastly he introduces the purpose and points that he’ll reveal, talking about the lessons he’s learned. By going back in time and revealing all the aspects of McNamara’s traits that set up his ethos, and at his age talking about hindsight and retrospect, we can’t help but sit and watch the lessons that taught so much to McNamara.

Another fog of war is revealed regarding the consequences of war. "[General Curtis] LeMay said if we had lost the war, we would have been prosecuted as war criminals. And I think he's right. . . . What makes it immoral if you lose and not immoral if you win?" The reason that nobody from the U.S. was prosecuted depended heavily on the fact that we won that war, but that also begs the question: since we obviously didn’t win the Vietnam war, are we too supposed to judge those involved in the war? Or does war ignore the humane aspects and simply allow all rules to be thrown to hell?

The Fog of War

Although I felt that Robert McNamara was sincere in “The Fog of War,” I don’t believe that he was successful in supporting every one of his Eleven Lessons. For example, in Lesson #5—proportionality should be a guideline in war—he names a series of Japanese cities that were destroyed, matching them to American cities of equivalent size, and telling us to imagine the destruction. It’s a very effective visual, supported by names of cities along with percentages flashing across the screen, but McNamara then states this "is not proportional, in the minds of some people, to the objectives we were trying to achieve." What does he even mean, where is the conclusion? There is no lesson learned here. Later he states, “LeMay, said if we had lost the war, we would have been prosecuted as war criminals. And I think he's right… What makes it immoral if you lose and not immoral if you win?" It is a very good question, but instead of explaining further, he then proceeds to make excuses, explaining that it was the Cold War, and how the government truly believed in the domino. He even says that he was only following the orders of his President. Sometimes his logic just plain doesn’t make sense. For example, he explains how his position as secretary gave his wife and son stomach ulcers, yet exclaims how they were the best years of their lives. The documentary ends with McNarma being asked if he felt guilty or responsible for what happened in Vietnam. He replies with "I don't want to go any further into this… it would arouse more controversy.” But wasn’t that one of the main points of this documentary? Wasn’t it a chance for him to explain the reasoning behind government actions?

Maya Lin the Silent Author

One of the most interesting topics posed in the documentary is the purpose of the “silent author”. Maya Lin uses this phrase as she speaks at the tenth anniversary of the Vietnam Memorial. She speaks of how that she, as the mind behind the design, must remain silent and let her work speak for itself. She is merely a conduit through which the emotions of the veterans could flow. This particularly resonates with the Civil Rights Memorial that she designed years after her success with the Vietnam Memorial. By incorporating a quote by Martin Luther King Jr. she decides to highlight the work of a notable Civil Rights activist instead of drawing attention to her design. Although the work is hers, the true author or inspiration behind the work is the Civil Rights Movement itself.

The documentarian also highlights this “silent author” aura with the incorporation of a reoccurring scene in which Maya Lin works on an unnamed project. Years after Lin completed her Vietnam and Civil Rights Memorials, she continues on with other projects. By coming back to the same scene with a hardworking present day Lin, the director emphasizes that out of necessity all of her pieces have the implied author of the people to which they are dedicated. While she may or may not be personally attached to the things she commemorates, her artisanship is rightfully not the center of attention but rather the ideas and emotions evoked while examining her works.

Maya Lin

The words for Maya Lin are courage and creativity. I am utterly amazed how Maya is able to turn her abstract ideas into giant architectural works of art. I also admire how she focuses so hard on her projects that nothing can stop her from achieving it. Her entry for the Vietnam Veterans Memorial visually was not that awe-inspiring which caused a huge opposition against it. However, she sternly sticks by what she claims as a simple and meaningful memorial and eventually overcomes the movement from the conservatives to add unnecessary parts onto her design. The fact that she was an undergrad when she began putting in the works of what would become the Vietnam Veterans Memorial shows you how awesome she is. I can see why Krzys has "I Heart Maya Lin" under his Bio on Twitter now. She's like the cutting blade she uses to cut out patterns: she's sharp and focused towards her objective to make complete forms. Also, I think what makes Maya's work particularly interesting to me was her psychological intent in her art. She wants her architecture to evoke emotion and engage people. She intended for people to cry at the Vietnam Memorial. She wanted people to touch the water on the round granite at the Civil Rights Memorial. Maya Lin is thoughtful, creative, courageous, and simply a special person. I call it amazing.

Fog of War

McNamara was only a part of "a mechanism that in a sense reccommended" killing of 100,00 men women and children in Japan. He talked of the importance of "needing to think more about killing, about conflict" and if that's what we want in the 21st century. He admitted not being qualified for the position of Secretary of Defense.
And yet, somehow his recommendations to the President were to keep information from the American public. Wouldn't you think that being completely honest would be the best move, if your intentions really were best? Hiding details from the public didn't help his cause at all.
He said that he would only "answer the question [he] wished had been asked of [him]." So maybe the real questions had even been asked, but he answered them in a way as not to give his mistakes away. One of his lessons was to "be prepared to reexamine your reasoning," which was illustrated with bargraphs of men killed in action, wounded, tons of bombs dropped, images of dead bodies and burning villages, and rolls of images of soldiers in action.
He said that the war was the President's responsibility and never took credit for any of the wrongdoings of the war. He said that if Kennedy lived through it, the escalation would not have reached what it had. If he was really so opposed to the war, why didn't he speak out? He was in the perfect position to make a large impact of the direction that the war was taking and said nothing.
Even after his "resignation," McNamara chose not to say anything then either. Was he just being a coward? Or was there true evilness radiating from those actions (or lack of action)? Either way, he set an impressive precedent for administrations in the future. (sarcasm)

Fog of War

In the film, Fog of War, McNamara explains his different lessons that can be learned from the mistakes that he himself and the U.S. government made during the Vietnam War. His fifth lesson, "Proportionality should be a guideline in war," was one of his most effective and compelling arguments because he was able to redefine his military actions in terms of our own lives, a way of informing the American public about how war can be compared on the home front if we were to be the ones being bombed.

He makes a good point by showing all of his fancy statistics and comparisons, which seems to be all McNamara really has. The images of destruction and percentages of cities destroyed compared to our major cities is extremely effective to his logical argument. He is able to logically show how the destruction we caused on the Japanese cities was ridiculous statistically. Not only did the numbers make it seem unnecessary, but the thought of another country destroying 50+ of our major cities with fire bombs.

What he did lack was a conclusion about how we could have fought the japanese logically without bombing them. Yes he makes sense by saying we could have lost 20,000 or more troops on the beaches of Japan, but he never comes forward with his own conclusion, that he could have made when he was in office and it would have mattered.

The Things They Carried

The title says it all really. Tim O'Brien was very successful in comparing what the soldiers were actually carrying and what they were carrying emotionally and psychologically. In a way, Tim was trying to tell us that the soldiers did have the burden of carrying heavy equipment and worrying about dying, but the underlying theme was that each and every soldier has an important story to tell, and just showing what they did and what they carried does not do anything for somebody who wants to know how the soldiers truly felt after what they experienced. He does this by listing the many different items they have to carry. He tells us the exact weights and descriptions of every little piece of equipment, but this is like any old war story right? He then goes on to describing how the men also carried a heavy heart, that had to weigh the most, and how all of their thoughts are heavy as well. These comparisons of physical weight compared to mental and emotional weight help us relate how unimportant the rest of the world is when all you can feel is the weight of your own feelings. How can we look back at a war and read about the battle tactics and how the United States lost because we implemented the wrong strategy, when all we need to do is feel the weight of the war through a soldier's eyes. I guess all we can really do is look back and say 'Oh.'

The Things They Carried

Through different stories told by American soldiers, O'Brien explains how to discover the truth behind war stories. O'Brien reveals Rat's disappointment when he never receives a letter back from his best friend's sister. From this story, he suggests that "if at the end of war story you feel uplifted... then you have been made the victim of a very old and terrible lie" (68). O'Brien claims that there are no happy endings or any particular moral to war stories. Rat was extremely upset when he was never acknowledged for his sincere letter. The end. He doesn't eventually run into his best friend's sister and discover that his letter was the best thing that ever happened to her.

O'Brien also tells Rat's story about Mary Anne who discovered her passion for battle. When Rat seems to be adding in his own commentary, Sanders tell him to "get the hell out of the way and let it tell itself" (106). Since all that matters is the "raw material", the truth behind the story becomes foggy when you add in your opinion. It prevents the audience from forming their own ideas about the story, whether it has a moral or not.

Sanders also states that in order to tell a story right you "need a consistent sound, like slow or fast, funny or sad" (107). By exaggerating a war story to provoke different emotions like laughter or tears, the point of the story is misunderstood. Basically, Mary Anne lost her innocence after becoming acquainted with the Greenies. Adding in your own personal opinion only distracts the listeners from the point of the story.

Ultimately, O'Brien attempts to make his audience realize that true war stories will not effect how we go about our daily lives. He begins to explain that in the end, really, there's nothing much to say about a true war story, except maybe "Oh" (77). There is no deeper meaning to the never ending war stories. The raw facts are the only truth because everything else is just someones interpretation of what they remember happening.

Story Telling

When reading The Things They Carried, O’Brien’s excerpt about storytelling was the section of the novel that grabbed my attention the most. This was because to me, it linked almost directly to how the use of rhetoric can influence a speaker’s meaning. O’Brien notes that “a true war story is never moral. It does not instruct, nor encourage virtue, nor suggest models of proper human behavior, nor restrain men from doing the things men have always done.” He suggests that other war stories, however uplifting and inspiring they may sound, are not the “true” way to tell the stories. This is justified when O’Brien states that "I want you to feel what I felt. I want you to know why story-truth is truer sometimes than happening-truth." He’s trying to tell us that, sometimes fiction is the only route to communicate certain emotions to others, and that sometimes the real events, when told, betray the true feelings felt in the heat of the moment. This relates to rhetoric because it tries to hook the audience emotionally, not by using the logical facts, but instead “molding” the truth to allow the audience to attempt to live vicariously through his own experiences.

The Things They Carried and Notes

In the short story The Things They Carried O'Brien writes in a rambling way about the different equipment the soldiers actually carried. He goes into detail that doesn't seem important at first about the weight of these objects. These inanimate objects aren't important until compared to the emotional tolls the men also carried.
Their hearts are heavy. They must weigh the most. Their thoughts are heavy too. I believe towards the end First Lieutenant Jimmy Cross realizes with all the real weight from his gear he cannot afford to carry anything of an emotional nature like letters from Martha. He had to become a soldier more like a machine doing a task rather than a man who could get tied up in emotions, which in war could ultimately kill you. This is why he burnt the letters and the pictures to become more regimented.
I think Norman Bowker, from the Notes short story, never fully separated life back in the States with life in Vietnam during the war. When he couldn't get past the fabricated daydreams of life after the war created during it, he ended up killing himself. He "described the problem of finding a meaningful use for his life after the war" to O'Brien.
O'Brien probably inhanced the things they carried story to help us understand Notes better. O'Brien mentions this tactic in Notes.

The Things They Carried

While reading Things They Carried, I could not help but to realize how Tim O’Brien’s war experiences turned into such a phenomenal literary piece. O’Brien states “Often in a true war story there is not even a point, or else the point doesn’t hit you until twenty years later…” meaning that the point of the personal accounts came to him much later in his life. The point may be viewed upon differently in many minds, but, personally, I believe that point of the stories was to represent the experiences that the soldiers carried.

The composition of his war experiences seemed to be written down for the purpose of a diary. He presents many short stories that each serves a specific purpose in telling a certain story in its entirety, whether it was about telling a true war story, or even killing a Vietnamese soldier. By providing, me, the reader with these stories I am able to get a view into the experiences that O’Brien and his platoon encountered during the memorable Vietnam War.

Personally, the title The Things They Carried means literally, the things they carried. By this, I mean the stories and experiences that the Americans took from this war are the things they carry. In the case of the American troops, it was the sight of the death of their friends, such as the death of Curt Lemon, or the heartache from a girl thousands of miles away. These were things they carried during the war, as well as after for eternity.

The Things They Carried

Tim O’Brian really emphasized the use of repetition of, “the things they carried,” to explain the important things that individuals from each troop carried with them during the war. He not only uses the repetitious phrase to describe possessions that these soldiers carried but he uses the phase to symbolize the feelings, as well as the trying times and weathers that they face on a daily basis. The things that each soldier carried tended to consume them completely. For example, Lieutenant Jimmy Cross carried letters from his love. These letters distracted the Lieutenant from performing his duties adequately for his troops and thus resulted in the death of one of his soldiers. Taking full blame and responsibility for his fallen man’s death, the Lieutenant burned the letters but still could not let go of his love. He continued to carry her letters with him and they continued to consume his thoughts.
All of the soldiers in Tim O’Brian’s book were carrying a sense of cowardice inside them. Their cowardice nature was a symbol of their fear for not having a promised tomorrow. None of the soldiers were brave enough to admit their fear of the war, therefore they all joined a troop. Some might not think of them as containing cowardice but they did because they all went to war out of fear of people knowing that they were in fact, afraid. Their presence in the war was out of pure cowardice, not bravery. Tim O’Brian himself attempted to flee the war but as he approached freedom, out of fear of others thinking he was a coward, he cowardly came back and joined the war.

Mind Games

The aspect of the book that I found the most interesting was how Tim O’Brian seems to tell his reader one thing and then suddenly change his mind. This turns the book into more of a rhetorical teaching device than a war book.

For example he spends the whole chapter “The Man I Killed” repeating details about the man he killed merely to later tell us that he never killed him, it was a lie. His rhetoric, specifically in the repetition of details is so descriptive that I could feel his guilt. I felt so sorry for O’Brian. Then, when he says that the story was a lie, I felt betrayed. I had been tricked into feeling sorry for him. I didn’t want to believe the O’Brian who was telling me the story was false. This just proved to me how persuasive the rhetoric of pathos is. I had been convinced via O’Brian’s emotions to believe that he had killed this man and could not outlive the guilt of it. He had been so convincing that when he logically mentioned later that the story was false, I had a hard time changing my mind.

Another example of how he uses his mind games for rhetorical purposes is in how he teaches his reader how to tell a true war story in one chapter and then later says that there is no such thing as a true war story. This was more of a proof of the power of ethos. The true fact that he had fought in Vietnam had me convinced that his stories about Vietnam would be true.

I think that with the two examples listed above, O’Brian wants to show that stories, like war, are all about perspective. Each person tells a story differently from the next person just as each person experiences a war differently than the person fighting next to them. He also wants to show that the stories about war or death are more about the people in the story than the story itself. The purpose of the story is not to have a moral or an extraordinary tale or even anything truthful about it. The purpose of the story is to remember the people in it and to allow them to live on forever.

The Things They Carried

Through storytelling in The Things They Carried Tim O’Brien attempts to distance himself from his disturbing memories of Vietnam. I noticed that most stories are told in the first-person point of view, but the third-person point of view is used for exceptionally painful stories. Once again, O’Brien attempts to maintain a distance from his experiences. In “The Man I Killed” O’Brien describes the body of the dead Vietnamese soldier in great detail, sharing Kiowa and the other soldier’s reactions. Never once does he mention his own feelings about the dead Vietnamese soldier though. It is implied from his lack of personal input that he suffers extreme guilt for the death of the Vietnamese soldier. Through storytelling in The Things They Carried O’Brien discovers personal healing.

The things they carried

In “The Things They Carried”, I found it difficult to comprehend if there was a duality in the purpose of this novel. O’Brien writes “A true war story is never moral. It doesn't instruct nor encourage virtue nor suggest models of proper human behavior nor restrain men from doing the things men have always done. If a story seems moral don’t believe it. If at the end of a war story you feel uplifted or if you feel that some small bit of rectitude has been salvaged from the larger waste then you've been made the victim of a very old and terrible lie. There is no rectitude whatsoever. There is no virtue.” I found this line to be very heavy to the rest of the novel that was written afterwards as I could not distinguish if a selection of text had a purpose behind it but as I tried to believe it, or maybe I was just compelled due to the pathos he set up or ethos as a soldier, I felt the significance behind each story as a means to convey experiences of confusion.

When narrating the story of Jensen and Strunk, I felt the significance was the mentality behind each of the men. The necessity to steal and be wronged by the theft, though through the chapter “The things they carried” the knife held meaning as every article and item held meaning to the men, led to the results of the chapter. Despite Jensen’s fear and Strunk’s pacifistic stance regarding the beating, the two men end up being friends and with Strunk’s death on the flight, Jensen’s duty is relieved – his relief ironic of the title “Friends.” Despite being enemies they understood a code of conduct, just or not, and despite being friends, they showed little sympathy at the state of the other.

“I survived but it was not a happy ending. I was a coward. I went to the war.” O’Brien’s desire to avoid the war and yet be compelled to fight shows a chain of causality. He runs to Canada, befriends an elderly man, and yet in the end, the weight of his consciousness only comes crashing down. Even after the war, he discusses his relative ease in adjusting to graduate school. The significance of this story deals with our consciousness – what it forced him to join, what it forced him to fight, and how it forced him to move on. The story lacked a moral ending and yet even now I cannot vouch entirely for the validity of this war story after all his adamant disposition against the war and being twenty yards to freedom, yet conforming to the standards of his hometown, seems a so unbelievable human that it could be well made to describe that sense of wartime virtue that so many story give off.

The Things They Carried: First Impressions

On the cover of my version of the novel, there’s a quote from the New York Times: “A marvel of storytelling…[The Things They Carried] matters not only to the reader interested in Vietnam but to anyone interested in the craft of writing as well.” Sounds like the perfect selection for this class then, huh? Perhaps that’s why Krysz was jumping up and down with excitement when talking about it. Indeed, Tim O’Brien masters a writing style that is simple enough for someone off the street to read yet engaging enough to attract fellow writers. And all the while we’re getting a first-hand glimpse of life as a U.S. soldier in Vietnam. Like Sarah mentioned in her post, the novel does seem to have a quality of being like a “therapy session.” In my words, I would call this the diary-like aspect of the story: O’Brien seems to be talking to his readers as if they were his friends, as if a diarist would write in his diary. At the same time however, as the quote states, a lot of the novel is storytelling. Therefore, we find a balance between the feelings that would be found in a diary and the plot that is found in a novel. And while Borders and Barnes and Nobles refer to this book as fiction, we also must take into account that this is a work of fiction from a writer who was actually over in Vietnam, who is actually a middle-aged man now living in America. Thus, I find O’Brien’s credibility as a writer higher than many others because he was a witness to the war.

Story-truth

At the end of The Things They Carried we are left not really knowing what truly happened-which stories were real, which ones were made up-which I think is exactly how O'Brien felt. He too didnt, or couldnt, even distinguish reality from his imagination. He wanted us to feel that confusion, to understand that thats what memories are, thats what the mind does. The War had become a mixed up version of the truth-a blur of what really happened and how he remembered it happening. But the exact truth doesnt matter-how you remember it is what counts, how it affects you and makes you feel. So he didnt need to focus on facts, but on making us feel what he felt.
He uses these stories not only to connect with us-or really make us connect with him and his experiences, but to comfort himself. He kept his memories, the people he cared about, his experiences, alive through his stories. As long as he could tell stories, he could hold on to these people forever, because with each story they came alive once again.

Repetition

While reading The Things They Carried, I was often distracted by the number of times O’Brien repeated ideas. However, I do think that his use of repetition within his novel succeeded in conveying a multitude of different ideas. By repeating ideas such as what the men carried with them and how men died, the repetition conveys that the things they carried were more than just material, they were also emotional and burdening.

For example, on page seventy, O’Brien first recounts how Curt Lemon died. Then, not too much further in the story, O’Brien recounts it again on page eighty-three. Since O’Brien knows that the audience hasn’t forgotten what happened to Curt Lemon, he uses this repletion to convey the impact his death had on the minds of the men. The high frequency of this story and others like it within the novel suggests that even though death was common to the soldiers in Vietnam, the aftermath of death is still as upsetting. This repetition can also be seen with the death of Ted Lavender.

Another message O’Brien conveys through his use of repetition is the soldiers’ need for something to ground them. For instance, on page two, O’Brien writes, “They [letters] were signed Love, Martha, but Lieutenant Cross understood that Love was only a way of signing and did not mean what he sometimes pretended it meant.” Then, on page twenty-four he writes, “She signed the letters Love, but it wasn’t love, and all the fine lines and technicalities did not matter.” In this use of repetition, O’Brien conveys that these types of thoughts are on the minds of the soldiers often and give them something to think about while surrounded by war.

Therapy through writing

While reading “The Things They Carried,” I kept thinking of how it reminded me of someone having a therapy session written down. O’Brian told stories, fictional stories about Vietnam. At first I thought it was a memoire of Vietnam stories because I knew that the author was a veteran, but it seems like he was just telling these stories to get a load off himself.
When I go to a therapy session, sometimes there are elaborations, stories that kind of happened, etc.. The point of therapy isn’t to lay down your life story verbatim, but to feel better. I think that this is what this author was doing. He took a life altering 2-3 years of his life in Vietnam and wrote out his pains. He told stories to get over the trauma. Whether or not they were true is beside the point, it helped him get past the horrors that he went through. Seeing your best friend die, walking around in a sewage pond, and getting shot at- all of these things happened one way or another.
His friend who hung himself didn’t have any way to release those feelings. He didn’t have an out for his emotions and so he just snapped one day. I think that by writing these short stories, O’Brian was saving his own sanity. Different people cope in different ways, but writing I believe is a wonderful way to get everything out in the open. Writing helps me organize my thoughts, remember sequences of events, and better understand myself.

Deception at its Best

After watching the documentary, Hearts and Minds, I felt an immediate sense of anger and betrayal. I can't think of a better way to show how we were deceived by our own government than to place their lying faces right next to the emotional scenes of the war they are lying about. The overall effectiveness of this film is that the documentary feel of it hides the argument they are trying to present. When I was watching it, at first, I felt like I was in another history classroom where I was just going to be fed information, and then left to discover my own opinion about the topic. However, Davis (the director) was able to make us feel angry and frustrated with our own government by placing the interviews and speeches of the soldiers themselves right next to the very thing they were lying about.

This technique of placing the representatives of the U.S. right next to the completely opposite situation of the Vietnamese, begins with the first 5 minutes of the film. Davis takes us directly to a village where people are living in poverty and constantly working for a living. We see them as just plain village people, not savages or crazed peasants. Just people in a third world country, trying to live a decent life like you and me. They don't seem to be in any kind of danger, or in need of any immediate assistance, however, as we see them working in the fields, an American soldier walks in the field of view, almost out of nowhere, carrying a weapon. Why do we even need soldiers in a peaceful area? Are we afraid of the woman with the basket in the field? Do we have some sort of obligation to protect those in this village? Or are we simply just taking advantage of the local villagers for food and shelter because we feel they need us and should help us? Davis did a good job of showing how differently we appear in a country we really should never have been in in the first place.

Later in the film, Davis shows the destroyed parts of a village, interviewing various villagers who have lost everything, including people they loved. After interviewing a local man who used to have a kitchen and house, Davis shows us an interview with a former soldier who was doing the bombing runs. He claimed with a cold conscience that he was just doing his job, and that nothing was more satisfying than seeing something explode. It was a professional business trip that concluded in a successful solution. He went on later to say that it was easier for him to do because he could not see the blood and people dying when he dropped the bombs. How does this make it any better? Yes, he was doing his job, but saying that it was OK to do just because he didn't see the immediate effects on the people doesn't make what he was doing right. A parallel can be drawn between the ideal American fortune 500 business meeting around the time of the recent lay offs. Many professionals met in certain areas of the country, discussed what was best for the company in terms of financial stability and saving the face of the company. They executed their orders from the CEO and other high executives without considering how it would effect any lower people in the company. Their way of laying off people with families was a soldier's way of dropping a few well placed bombs here or there, as long as it saves the face of the nation. This makes us all wonder, "Was this war just a professional business decision?"

We Can Change the World Forcefully

Davis accurately depicts the United States government's conception that we are supposed to save the world from "evil" forces like communism. I believe he shows how America became intoxicated with their newly acquired power over the world after World War II and ultimately shows America's wrongfully justified wrath on a mostly peasant country.
There was a since of duty in Americans then to better the world, to rid it of evil forces like the Nazis. American citizens thought their government couldn't be wrong after WWII and the American government took advantage of this to pursue personal agendas. They went into Vietnam to prevent the spread of Communism in a newly free country. They did it forcefully. And they were wrong.
American soldiers and American citizens began to see it. Journalists like Susan Sontag wrote about how wrong our government was for attacking the Vietnamese. Davis filmed it. After all, the Vietnamese were fighting the French for independence just how the Americans did against the British two centuries before. This is why America was wrong.
Ho Chi Minh talked of admiration towards the United States and their independence and protection of individual liberties. Why could the Vietnamese not have the same? Their own form of it should be allowed. Why did America have to intervene? They were hypocrites. It was a contradiction of their own values.

hearts and minds

Peter Davis’ play on the Hearts and Minds campaign title coined from President Johnson effectively parodies the euphemism representing the dualism portrayed by the war. By using contrasting points of views as well as an overall linear progression through the war, Davis sets up pathos through empathy and patriotism that marks the critically positive and extremely negative reactions to this film.

The film begins with a depiction of the Vietnamese country side. People working and making a living and it depicts a peaceful country side where people are trying to survive through daily means. It quickly follows the escalation of the war stating that American could “possibly control the future of the world” mixed with a song of soldiers. The number of presidents in support of the war speaking ultimately of the “hearts and minds” of the people there add to the patriotic understanding that first captured the hearts and minds of the American mainland. It builds a false sense of patriotism as it quickly switches to the feelings of desperation and leads to the flip side of this war.

To me some of the most powerful scenes were the interviews with the different soldiers – their commentaries and reactions. Many speak of the pleasures of war. One soldier at 35:56 speaks of the enjoyment of the kill, speaking of not wanting it for the “politics or whatever but because they were the opposition.” He grants much of what Sontag states in “Trip to Hanoi” that these people, the Vietnamese, were less than people in the American’s eyes. I empathized with the original scene where the people working to survive and the pleasure that seemed to glisten from the solider as he ended their hopes. This sense of compassion ties strongly to the positive reactions of this film: the flip side of the war marred by the depression of the bombings and killings.

The contrasting points of view tie heavily to the contrasting results of the war. The presidents assured the general public of the swift advancements of the war and their cynicism of the Tet Offensive and the actual failure of progress ties many of the contradictions portrayed in the film. The torturing of a native without the capacity to understand, threatened by helicopter dropping, and the officer’s response in the denying of such allegation only prove to strengthen the disparity between reality and what was fed to the public. This disparity adds strength to the emotional connection as the deceived revel on the manipulations they were barred against.

It’s not terrible difficult to see the responses against this film. While certain soldiers and certain officers were interviewed in their disgruntled nature, not all could see the negativity of the war like Coker. He tells the children at a school how the war was won despite the opposite being true – another layer of deception to the next generation. It stirs outrage at the fact, not only was the public tricked but that despite these acknowledgements Coker still attempts to undermine the kids. But at the same time, the existence of these accounts brought into light serve to portray the connections that people so far away could be the same as the rest of us – that the opposition could be the same as any other person.

Hearts and Minds

Hearts and Minds is a sobering look into the effects of the Vietnam War, both in the United States and in Vietnam. There is no Morgan Freeman to narrate the message about the horrors of war in a Discovery Channel-esque fashion, but rather Davis lets the images and people speak for themselves. In foregoing a strict formal documentary commentating merely on “when and where” of the events of the Vietnam, Davis is asking us, the viewers, to attempt to find our own significance in the things we are being shown.

One technique that Davis uses throughout the documentary is the juxtaposition of interviews and events in the US with the same things in Vietnam. A solid contrast is drawn between the Vietnamese people and the American soldiers. On one side a Vietnamese man speaks of the sorrows of the loss of life in Vietnam as he hammers away constructing children’s coffins. On the other side a former soldier in uniform calmly explains how his bombing missions were “professional” and was necessary job.

When placed next to each other in this manner, its hard not to sympathize with the Vietnamese people. The inclusion of clips of violence and death, raise the questions “why are we doing this” in our minds and blurs the demarcation between “good” and “bad” in the Vietnam War. Were we right to be there? Did the inconclusive end really justify the horrible means? Do we really have an authority over the way a people should live their lives? These are all questions that Davis encourages us to ponder over, using not only our minds, but our hearts.

What Did we Learn?

In the documentary "Hearts and Minds", Davis uses the brutal images he’s captured first-hand in conjunction with interviews from both sides to convey the thought that the American’s were ignorant and merciless in regard to the situation in Vietnam. He builds credibility as an anti-war proponent by interviewing soldiers who have come back willing to tell their agonizing stories. It is incredible the level of self- indignation these soldiers felt towards the acts they committed. It is also incredible the level of ignorance that high-ranking officials in the American government display through their comments on the war.

Throughout the movie, the audience was introduced to many different people. We saw deserters, POW’s, Senators, Generals, and the soldiers themselves. Each one had a different perspective on the war. For example, the soldiers that we met that have come back from the war agreed that America shouldn’t have been there. One ex-soldier stated, “We weren't on the wrong side. We were the wrong side.” This simple parallelism perfectly summarizes what many soldiers agreed upon. They felt that they were more the enemy than the enemies they were fighting. At the end of the movie, one of the soldiers was asked what they thought America learned from being in Vietnam. He simply replied that everyone involved in the war was afraid to admit that they did in fact learn something. Whether it was out of shame for what they did or out of some level of self-preservation, many Americans were afraid to admit what they had done.

One specific idea that Davis wanted to convey was excellently executed near the end of the movie. Davis was trying to prove that the view that Americans had towards the Vietnamese was completely skewed as a result of labeling them their enemy for so long. In the scene that I am referring to, Davis documents the grief that the Vietnamese go through when dealing with the deaths of loved ones. We hear the piercing cries of children and witness one mother trying to climb into the grave of what the audience is led to presume to be her son. All of these images provoke sympathy with the audience, and when General Westmoreland comes on the screen immediately after stating “The Oriental doesn't put the same high price on life as does the Westerner. Life is cheap in the Orient”, we are angered by the idea that someone could be that incredibly ignorant.

The naivety portrayed in the American people in the documentary leads the audience to question whether or not what was happening in Vietnam was worth it. Additionally they were led to question the level of inhumanity that people could drop down to. Overall, Davis is successful in conveying his extreme disapproval of the war. Sense this was compiled in hindsight of the war, Davis uses this documentary as a warning for the future, one that he hopes will sink into every heart of every American.

Hearts and Minds

In his documentary, Hearts and Minds, Peter Davis relies on pathos, showing real-life images and interviews of Vietnam during the war. He creates feelings of extreme guilt by showing the innocent, human being side of the Vietnamese people, and he creates anger through the merciless images and interviews of the American soldiers’ treatment of the Vietnamese.

Davis succeeds in making Americans feel ashamed of their role in the war. A soldier tells about an incident where a Vietnamese soldier is thrown out of the airplane because of a communication barrier. The next clip is a stern looking sergeant claiming how he doesn’t believe such things occurred. It creates anger as it appears that the sergeant simply "brushes off" the topic. Throughout the documentary high school football scenes of coaches hyping their teams to crush the enemy and win are shown, paralleling the American attitude of letting nothing get in their ways of winning the war. One soldier in an interview explains how he wasn’t even sure what he was fighting for; he just wanted to kill because they were the enemy. Another scene describes a sergeant’s pride at watching his men’s faces during a funeral, a solemn moment, that is interrupted when he adds the fact that they still looked like “a bloody bunch of good killers,” completely ruining the sincerity and innocence of the moment.

Throughout Davis shows us what effect the war had on the innocent- the ruins of Vietnamese villages, crying children. He shows multiple interviews with Vietnamese people all claiming the same thing, about the amount, from their homes to family, they have lost. There is also a part in the documentary where multiple Americans are interviewed and asked if the war has affected them; all respond that it hasn’t. One man even has the nerve to admit that he doesn’t know which side of Vietnam America is fighting.

Towards the middle though, Davis does show a scene where prosthetic legs are being made for American soldiers and even interviews a soldier who has been paralyzed. These parts of the documentary show us that even though the Americans are seen as the bad guys, and the Vietnamese as innocent, it shows that even American soldiers suffered too. Showing how both side suffered ties into Davis's main argument that the Vietnam War was drawn-out much longer than it needed to be, and also that many people lost their lives for nothing.

"The Price that You Pay"

Watching Peter Davis’ Hearts and Minds left me with a sort of shock; I sat in my dorm room completely mesmerized as the credits rolled and the American troops marched on happily to the beat of a drum and some merry trumpets. I thought to myself: what was the point? Not the point of the film, for that is clear. But what was the point of America’s involvement in Vietnam? In his film, Davis uses exquisite cinematic rhetoric in order to persuade even the most conservative viewers of the horrors of the Vietnam War. Furthermore, he incorporates captivating footage that frames the Americans as the bad guys that no proponent of the Vietnam War could defend against.

Where to start, where to start? Hearts and Minds is full of foils and ironies that portray the tragedies of war. The film begins with nothing terrifying: U.S. troops walking peacefully through a Vietnamese village with some nice local background music. Then, a brief history of what led up to the war. Ever so slowly, Davis begins to build his argument against America’s involvement in the Vietnam War. The first example of when Davis begins to depict the U.S. as ignorant is with footage from an interview with Walt Rostow, an aide to Presidents Kennedy and Johnson. When asked why the Vietnamese need the U.S. there, you see him stumble as he attempts to answer; perhaps because he doesn’t have a good one?

As Davis’ argument becomes stronger and stronger, he begins to use the same pattern of rhetoric in order to win his argument: he will show a clip of the Vietnamese and then foil it with an American saying the complete opposite, thus accomplishing his goal of making the U.S. look bad. And this technique works brilliantly. It is also shocking to note some of the quotes he gets from the Americans. In many cases, his rhetoric isn’t even needed because the idiots make the case against themselves. For example, take the officer talking about the church service: “I turned around and looked at their faces...and my feeling for America just soared...they looked determined and reverent at the same time, but still they're a bloody good bunch of killers.”

Throughout most of the documentary, there is still a slight argument that could be posed against Davis’ attitude, which is that there were obviously many Americans being killed in gruesome manners as well. However, he seals the deal in two ways: repeatedly stating that WE were the intruders and, most effectively, with a quote from a big shot, General Westmoreland: “the Oriental doesn't put the same high price on life as does the Westerner.” It left me with a feeling of shame for my country. Of course, there are two sides to every story, and I do not believe that any particular American or even America as a whole is 100% to blame for every atrocity that occurred in Vietnam. However, it makes me sad that so many of us don’t respect human life equally. Hearts and Minds successfully points out how much death occurred in the war…and to what end?

The Funeral Scene

After watching this film, I was thoroughly impressed (for the lack of a better word) by the extensive use of rhetoric by the American leaders at this time. The returned veteran of the war changed his choice of words to fit the audience that he was talking to- first to a crowd (speaking about how America made him a good American), next to a group of school children in a cafeteria (speaking in simpler terms "they don't like us" and then to a group of middle aged house wives (appealing to their morals and American values of being raised "right").
I was focusing my attention to the rhetoric of our "leaders" (Nixon, Johnson, Westmoreland, etc.) used when speaking to the American people. They kept digging themselves into a deeper and deeper hole in Vietnam, with no end in sight.
Suddenly as I was thinking about all of this- the media's impact on public opinion and how that worked and comparisons to the Iraqi War... the sobs of a young boy at his father's funeral rushed into my consciousness.

His raging sobs, his cries, his wimpering. It brought me back to the day I heard of my own father's death. He held his father's photograph as they loaded his casket onto a truck. He shook with terror as the Vietnamese flag was draped over the casket. His surviving mother joined in the sobbing and attempted to crawl into the hole with the casket.
"Life is plentiful and life is cheap in the orient"
"Life is not important"
-Westmoreland

Putting these two scenes together, really affected me. I am a human being who has felt the pains of a close member of my family dying. But, I am also an American, the same as this ignorant man talking about "oriental" people as a whole. This makes me, like the marine, lose my patriotism, my pride in the America. Life is not cheap, life comes at a very high price- including the Vietnamese.

We are #1

The U.S. involvement in the Vietnam War left many soldiers wounded, and many innocent people tortured and killed. As a result of this war neither party gained much benefit, and the actions America took in Vietnam contradicts the idea that America is the hero, and we always be a winner.

Peter Davis takes a very effective approach in presenting his documentary. He includes one-on-one interviews with former leaders, soldiers, and includes clips from the war itself. But what makes it really unique is how he incorporated the perspective of the Vietnamese. In the movie we see on-site interviews during battles, and interviews of soldier reflecting on their experience. As I watched the interviews of the soldiers I noticed a common trend; many of them stated they really didn't know who they were fighting or why they were even in a war. The documentary emphasized that the soldiers were "brainwashed" by the words of their leaders and U.S. pride, their main objective was to just kill and kill everyone that was their "enemy" (even though they really didn't know who the enemy really was).

Davis structurally formatted his movie in a way where you would get one side of the story and then the perspective from the other side. He included clips from movies to emphasize the point he was trying to make, and counter reactions from how the Vietnamese were affected by the actions of the Americans. A solider mentions that he "Had a job to do", he never saw blood or heard any screams, he was "Doing a job, and being professional". Another solider mentions that he enjoyed the explosions, like little kids and firecrackers, he had no idea what he was bombing but got an excitement from the explosions itself. To counter this, Davis shows a clip of how the bombing affected a Vietnamese citizen and his home. The Vietnamese were at the mercy of the Americans and Davis' approach in the movie shows how ruthless America was in this war.

Peter Davis made it clear that the United States is very prideful, and winning is the only option. He included a clip of a football team getting ready for "battle" and a coach and preist promoting winning, and that this is just an example of the game of life. Winning at no cost was very apparent. America was afraid of what communism would do if it spread and tried to stop it. However, instead of being the "heroes", the war did nothing but casue turmoil for the Vietnamese and soliders that fought the war. Davis tactifually used a camera angle that was close up to the soldiers being interviewed. When they were talking about fighting, they had smiles and a look of accomplishment. Toward the end of the movie we see the camera zoomed out to only see the same man in a wheelchair and crying over the actions he took in the war. We not only see how the war negativley affected the Vietnamese, but the toll it took on the soldiers. The idea that the America must stop the spread of communism ultimately led to deaths of many citizens trying to fight for national pride. It left its own soldiers handicapped and emotionally scarred, but like it shows in the end of Davis' movie, America will always be celebrated and will remain on top.

In his documentary Hearts and Minds, Peter Davis shows the emotional and physical effects that the Vietnamese suffered during and after the war. In the beginning of the documentary, Davis shows a peaceful village in Northwest Vietnam with upbeat music and the sounds of children's laughter. This portrays the Vietnamese as innocent, harmless people. As the film progresses, the documentary shows these innocent people (who are only fighting for their freedom) mistreated, tortured, and killed by American soldiers who are inconsiderate of how many lives they affect.

One former American soldier describes how unfairly two captured Vietnamese were treated for not being able to tell the Americans what they wanted to hear, when in fact the captives were unable to speak English. Although the Vietnamese only wanted to make it home alive, the Americans beat them and threw them out of the helicopter anyway. Davis illustrates how awfully cruel the American soldiers treated the Vietnamese who simply fought for the rights of their country.

Davis shows several interviews from the perspectives of people in Vietnam. Many women were tortured in the prisons and kept there for years, but "their only crime is loving their country." Davis often repeats this idea that the Vietnamese only wanted peace in their country, but because of this they were tortured. One woman told her story of being beaten so badly in prison that she still bleeds from her nose and ears. She even lost her hair in prison after lime juice was thrown on her, causing her skin to boil. Davis paints vivid pictures of the inhumane treatments the Vietnamese received.

The American soldiers in Vietnam were trained to view the war like a game of football, only wanting to win without taking responsibility for the damage done to their opponent. Clips of high school football games are spontaneously shown throughout the film, proving how Americans learn at a young age to take pride in winning no matter what the circumstances may be. In the series of interviews, Davis shows a soldier speaking about a mission where he had to drop bombs over Vietnam, and he returned after hitting his target feeling successful. Although the soldier was unaware of what he hit or who he killed, he was pleased as long as he felt a sense of victory.

American Government: Brainwasher of Hearts and Minds

The one line in the entire documentary that made me the angriest was about 15 minutes from the end when General William Westmoreland says “The Oriental doesn’t put the same price on life as a Westerner”. He goes on to say that to them, “life is cheap” and “not important” This statement seemed so ridiculous after the scene just before it where a young Vietnamese boy was sobbing uncontrollably over the loss of a family member, I assume it was his father. In this same scene a woman tries to crawl into a grave that is being filled, to be with the person inside the grave. If that Westmorland had seen the same scene that I had, he never, never would have been able to say what he said. It just made me so angry!!!! It’s just so ridiculous that he would say such a thing!! This shows how many Americans didn’t even think of the Vietnamese as people during the war years. This shows why journalists like Sontag were so shocked to find that they were real living, breathing, feeling, human beings!

Okay, let me take a step back; obviously this documentary is very anti Vietnam War and so these two scenes were very strategically placed next to each other. Their placement did the rhetorical trick and got strong emotions out of me. Anger. Perhaps Westmoreland merely meant that the Oriental government doesn’t put the same price on life as American government; however I doubt that’s what he meant. And even if he did mean that, it seems to me that after watching this documentary and the scene where so many men are getting fitted for prosthetic legs, that the American government wasn’t very good at caring about American lives either.

Assuming that Westmoreland was talking about the Vietnamese people in general, I wonder how many other Americans shared this belief with him at the time. Throughout the documentary there were American military men talking about how killing the Vietnamese was their “job”, a “game”, or even that they “enjoyed it”. How brainwashed could Americans have been? At 1 hour and 17 minutes into the documentary a man talks about how the five presidential administrations related to the War had in some way lied to the American people. He goes on to say “it’s no tribute [to the American public] how easy it was to lie to us”. So here we have a country that has been taught to believe that they can blindly follow their government, because it will always do what is right for them. The problem is when these leaders lie and believe things like “the Oriental doesn’t put the same price on life” that things go terribly wrong. And whether these leaders realized what they were doing or not, they expected Americans to do and believe what they said. What kind of democracy is that?

hearts & minds

Hearts and Minds uses a combination of raw emotional footage along with powerful commentary to articulate to the audience one simple message: stop the war. Throughout the documentary, uncut images of the atrocities of war are shown to the audience. These images are composed of bullets to the head, human flesh burnt by napalm, and a series of beatings. The very sight of this graphic footage will cause anyone to stir with emotion. Especially the scene where a little boy grieves uncontrollably at the coffin of his father. You can't get any more tearful than a child mourning the loss of one of his parents. It's real and pure and you cannot do nothing else but feel sympathy. The commentary from both sides of the conflict serve to explain what each side was feeling during the war. A vast array of opinions are presented, but the overall sentiment is clear which is the Vietnam War should've ended sooner than it did. It was obvious when Robert Kennedy gave his speech about how this war has lasted longer than it needed. The war has been dragging on due to the lies and policies the previous commander in chiefs fed the American public. Together, the imagery and stories combine together to form a visual essay for its viewers. The arguments lie within the scenes and I think one of the best scenes is where the Vietnamese father lashes out against Nixon for his daughter's death. He says, "Give this shirt to Nixon because my daughter can't wear it anymore. She's dead!" You can see the father break down into tears as he tries to make sense of what this war has brought upon him. This scene is a mash up of politics and emotions that shows the audience the daughter's death is as pointless as this war that's going on.