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.