Vietnam in Films and Books - Coursework Example

Vietnam in Films and Books 2006 Vietnam has largely remained an area of darkness to the Western mind. A quagmire to American soldiers, a country enmeshed with jungles and swamps and the guerilla upsurges thrashed the American out of their land, a defeat that the U.S. cannot still wipe out from its national psyche. Vietnam stands for unplanned war strategies for the big power and moral decadence for America. Books, stories and films about Vietnam by Americans show clearly that they still cannot forget the guilt and the defeat in a war that they found to be unnecessarily heavy. A long-term debate reigns on this subject. Has Vietnam been treated larger than life in books and films? Commenting about Vietnam war, Tim O’ Brian, the author (and a Vietnam war veteran) of the story The Things They Carried (first published in 1979) says, “In Vietnam there was a general aimlessness, not just in the physical sense, but beyond that in the moral and ethical sense" (cited by Healy, "Flashes from the Foliage"). Right from the beginning, the story evokes the reader the heaviness the young and unprepared soldiers had to endure. The things they carried were largely determined “by necessity”, which included “P-38 can openers, pocket knives, heat tabs, wrist watches, dog tags, mosquito repellent, chewing gum, candy, cigarettes, salt tablets, packets of Kool-Aid, lighters, matches, sewing kits, Military payment Certificates, C rations and two or three canteens of water” all that added together weighed “between fifteen and twenty pounds, depending upon a man's habits or rate of metabolism” (O’Brien, pp 1-3). Hidden within this apparently frivolous language, O’Brien also skillfully conveys his message of the absurd connotations the word “necessity” invoked in the battlefield of Vietnam where all he saw”… were flashes from the foliage and the results, the bodies.” (Cited by Healy, "Flashes from the Foliage"). O’ Brien raises the question whether these were soldiers condemned to bear the moral brunt of the war as a necessary evil or whether the weight was unnecessarily imposed on them, totally unprepared. Taking an apparently comical stance, the narrator also adds items like Ted Lavender's "six or seven ounces of premium dope," Rat Kiley's comic books and Kiowa's Bible and his distrust of the white man (pp2-3). Were drugs and comic books necessary in harsh conflict ridden situation like a battlefield of Vietnam? They could be, especially since these young soldiers were heading for a war they had no emotional attachment to, leaving all the human shades of their personalities back home and fighting a war in a marshy land. In such situations, drugs and comic book fantasies could serve the purpose of medical cures to psychopaths. He narrates the huge burden that Ted Lavender was carrying before being shot, and how it speeded up his fall when he was shot dead like "a big sandbag or something - just boom, then down" (Page7). Next, we are told about the extra things they were carrying—extra necessary, so to speak-- from breakup grenades to brass knuckles and a feathered hatchet (pp8-9). The weapons they carried shows the slaughter in to which they pushed to "They carried all that they could bear, and then some, including a silent awe for the terrible power of the things they carried" (Page9). Yet, thee men looked cooled may be to give the impression that they were unperturbed by the gruesome war, just like soldiers who were up for a fight: "awkwardly, the men would reassemble themselves, first in private, then in groups, becoming soldiers again." (19) They concealed their fear with a grin, just like dead men smiling:"they used a hard vocabulary to contain the terrible softness . . . as if to …destroy the reality of death itself" (19-20). O'Brien discovered the truth behind the reality of this burden movingly:"they carried the soldier's greatest fear, which was the fear of blushing. Men killed, and died, because they were embarrassed not to." (20-1). Such was Vietnam war, a reality for the soldiers, a remorse and a guilt that hung heavy for those conscientious American who participated the war without knowing why. In the story, Tim O’Brien gives attention not only to the weight of the things that they soldiers carried but to the weight and pressure they felt inside their heart The point can be best illustrated with the character Lieutenant Cross who carried the emotional load of his love for Martha, a love which according to him made him culpable for the death Ted Lavender who “ went down under an exceptional burden, more than 29 pounds of ammunition, plus the flak jacket and helmet and rations and water and toilet paper and tranquilizers and all the rest, plus the unweighed fear”( page 7). It was Lieutenant Cross who realized the weight (again with a philosophical insinuation) to which these young soldiers were down with. “It was very sad, he thought. The things men carried inside. The things men did or felt they had to do, “admits cross, his name bearing the mixed weight of responsibility and human compassion. At the end, as Ted died, with the burden of moral depravity of watching a shameless war that made him indulge in little frisks. “You usually think a love story is about kisses and roses, but sometimes people do bad things for love," said O'Brien in an interview to David Louis Edelman of Baltimore City Paper in 1994 . Vietnam war did not reflect much of gutsy, heroic glamor from Amercian soldiers. In his death, Ted Lavender transcended that gutlessness which Cross had to endure. But as for other soldiers, they continued to live with the psychological split—daring and brave outwardly, afraid and shaky inside. Some people contend with this argument. Some films and books showed the Vietnam war with an altogether a different image of America and its soldiers. David Halberstam, in his book, The Best and The Brightest (1973), quotes Attorney General Robert Kennedy' bemoaning, "Vietnam, Vietnam; we have thirty Vietnams a day here”. Books on Vietnam have appeared to hit the stand increasingly since the 1970, a significant part of them being on anti-Vietnam war. Some Hollywood films have taken a serious departure, notably We Were Soldiers, directed by Randal Wallace (2002). The film is based on a 1992 book authored by Hal Moore (the lieutenant colonel in charge of the crucila conflict between U.S. and North-Vietnamese soldiers in late 1965) and Joseph L. Galloway, the UPI reporter-photographer covering the action. Four hundred American troops reached in Ia Drang in the Central Highlands area of vietnam to find 2,000 North Vietnamese troops waiting to retaliate . We Were Soldiers narrates the fight froma different perspective, albeit retaining some the older Hollywood war film cliches. It is true that the film, like Hollywood war films, have similar stock. It depicts the frustatingly cool, daring and rough yet committed and caring Lt. Col. Hal Moore, officer-in command (Mel Gibson), the racially unbiased amry composition who accord in accord with bulldog tenacity, the traguc death of a young and inited soldier, the worried and concerened families back home. But the film, even while holding its belief in patriotism high, does so because it found the war to be so morally ambiguous that it is difficult for the American to be in line with their country . Lieutenant Colonel Moore was well aware of this no-win situation when heroes to Vietnam to participate in the fight. He knew that his scanty, inexperienced and young troop was no match to the huge number of Viet -Congs he was about to face. He was also aware that his enemies were fittingly placed to fight against them froma land they belong to and they were fighting a battle with a moral purpose. Randal Wallace, in his ruthlessly objective direction, shows the other side of the war— seen form the Vietnamese soldiers, where like the Americans the Vietnames also also had a personal side of tragedy falling on them. They were as troubled about their families and friends as the Americans were. Randal Wallace also depicts the earlier butcheries of foreign intruders in Vietnam, like the French colonizers brutalities during 1950’s. This conflict initiated U.S intrusion in Vietnam subsequently. The film starts from showing this carnage obviously highlights the origin of the war in Vietnam from disapproving viewpoint. Lt. Col. Hal Moore must be having a thorough idea of that disaster—aguilt a cannot get rid of.as a historian of military studies (Petrakis, 2002) Yet a keen viewer knows that the film is ultimately an old wine in a new bottle. The bottle has the new look of not showing like the earlier war fims, the excesses commited by the GI’s – shooting, raping, whoring around Vietnam and boozing to the hilt. In this film, the American soldier is a common person living a normal life, attached to family and friends, missing them while being in a massive war. Compared to the distrustful and cynical approaches of "Platoon" and "Full Metal Jacket", "We Were Soldiers" is has more human concern to the extent that it has been criticized by certain sections for showing inflated figures of North Vietnamese losses while understating the loss of the American side. Even so, the film could get away from its long legacy of Patriotism and hero-worship as the last bastion to justify the American war crimes. The more rigorous Moore became a troop the more tribute hr earns. A gristly though, he seemed to be always on the alert with his eyes moving everywhere to keep an watch over situation and scuttling around with his blistering M-16 a reminder of the old bloodthirsty Hollywood heroes. Randall Wallace skillfully establishes the American hero’s fearlessly patriotic image, this time with strength of combating against massive Vietnamese soldiers with, a comparatively a meager number of young, initiated. He is doubly clever as to give us a supposedly unbiased narration of a historian. Mel Gibson, sometimes remind us of JohnWayne with his fiery gaze and curt similes as if all his ouwardly toughness actually act as a veil to his inner compasionate heart. Gibson looks quite alike the archetyal JohnWay in We were Soldiers, especially like John Wayn’s commanding films like Sands of Iwo Jima (1949), The Flying Leathernecks (1951), Fort Apache (1948), She Wore a Yellow Ribbon (1949) and Rio Grande (1950). In those films the hero’s charisma rises above moral responsibilties of actions (Petrakis, 2002). In a speech to his men on the eve of their departure for Vietnam, Lt. Col. Hal Moore (Mel Gibson) told the troop that they were "going to what home was always supposed to be." One doubts about the responsibility of such a statement, considering what these soldiers were about to face (and something that Moore was already aware of). One is not sure whether Wallace, as the scriptwriter is that nifty as he is in his directorial skills. At least in such statements as above he does not prove to have enough restraint. His dialogues are mostly lumbering and bloated, like the funnily sentimental soldiers and over-concerned wives of the soldiers back home. The sham team spirit that was the vital point of the book affected the film’s plot as well. Even though the film is seemingly a dispassionate narrative of the war it fails in doing that because the soldiers here are portrayed as characters without flaws. The are just common people, live in an uncontaminated America, which has not heard of the racial prejudices, sexism as so on- which can only exist in but cannot project the warmonger in Vietnam (Scot, 2002). It is true that books and films about Vietnam tend to exaggerate—from both side of the fence Books on Vietnam started to come in the market even before America got in to the war, directly. As expected, most of these books either depict the cruel and the harsh attitude of American soldiers or directly encourage barbaric atrocities in a jingoistic air. Here, Spencer Tucker’s book takes mid-way. It condemns Western intrusion that dates back to French occupation with their conflicting blend of ideas pertaining to “Enlightenment” and “Classic Realism” that paved the way for the U.S. to invade the region, providing an initial trade and missionary groundwork. Unlike a lot of book that depicts the Mai-Lai and other atrocities done by the American, Tucker does not hesitate to condemn both side, even while he ceaselessly attack the American side to fail to under a the Vietnam reality which, says Tucker, they derided as a “quagmire”. He equally criticizes the North Vietnamese guerillas failure to live up to promises. For example, he shows how the Viet Cong attack was made even after the Soviet Premier Alexei Kosygin appealed for self-control during his stay in North Vietnam. It pushed the erstwhile USSR to change its guidelines of restricted participation considerably (Vietnam, 2000) He considers that one could not find out the “truth” about the Vietnam War “without first studying the Indo-China War, which in turn could not be understood without probing Vietnamese nationalist attitudes during the period of French rule. That in turn was conditioned by long Vietnamese opposition to China”. Vietnam War, he stresses, is a war in modern times that shows “the need to study history”. It is, according to Tucker, a shocking affair for the United States “in terms of lives and treasure as well as in domestic upheaval”. The Vietnamese have done “much better at putting that war into perspective than have Americans”, says Tucker (Vietnam, Page Number, vii.), asserting that the history of Vietnam revolves around two major themes. The first is the attempt to conserve the “national identity” against outsiders. This led to the “thousand-year-long struggle” against Chinese rule (111BCC—AAD938), ensued by a long endeavor to save freedom and harmony among different regions against the Portuguese, Dutch, French, and then the Americans. The second premise is spreading out of the land in so far as the Cà Mau Neck of land. Civil Wars and war with other countries have long been an element of the turbulent history of Vietnam. Tucker quotes the noted nationalist- scholar Pham Quynh who said, “We Vietnamese are a people in search of a country and we do not find it ” (from General Y. Gras, Histoire de La Guerre d’Indochine (cited in Vietnam, chapter 1, Page Number: 1). Tucker does not end his book with the fall of Saigon or the great American escape from the land that they once sarcastically described as a political quagmire, as do most other writers. His last chapter deals with the reunification of Vietnam, its role as an aggressor on Cambodia, short term conflict with Red China, its newfound rapport with its former intruder America and its attempt to fit into the new world economic order by reversing its former pro-socialist and anti-imperialist standing. To the majority of Americans, the Vietnam War is a sustaining cause of guilt and remorse. Americans blame no one else for the war but themselves. Tucker harks back that America's role was much stronger than that of guilt (Vietnam, 2000). The war in Vietnam that ended almost three decades from now, still haunts the memory of those American who wanted to find out the real cause of the presence and the subsequent crash of the American in the swampy terrains of Vietnam. Reasons are many, like in most wars. Some condemns the long drawn history colonization some attribute it the American external policy of combating communism. Failures are also attributed to the American misunderstanding about the ground realities of Vietnam. Amidst this debate the marl quandary of the Americans, the guilt and the remorse that originated from the massacres and losses liner to ask about the final question: for whom did the war serve its purpose? Who gained, who lot” What weight did the war compel to endure? Was it all that necessary? Works Cited O’Brien, Tim, The Things They Carried, Broadway; Reprint edition 1998 Healy, Barth. "Flashes from the Foliage." New York Times Book Review. March 11, 1990, pg. 8 Edelman, David Louis, Baltimore City Paper, October 19, 1994 David Halberstam, in his book showed The Best and The Brightest, Greenwich, CT: Fawcett, 1973, p. 98 Petrakis, John , We Were Soldiers. - movie review, Christain Century, March 2002 ,2002 Scot, A.O., Early in the Vietnam War, on an Ill-Defined, movie review, We Were Soldiers, The New York Times, March 1, 2002, Tucker, Spencer C., Vietnam, UCL Press. London. 1999. Vietnam - The Scar That Will Not Heal, The Journal of Conflict Studies, Volume XX Number 1 Fall 2000department of social Studies, Fairleigh Dickinson University, Madison, New Jersey, USA, General Y. Gras, Histoire de La Guerre d’Indochine (Paris, 1992), p. 584 We Were Soldiers United States, 2002, U.S. Release Date: 3/1/02 (wide), Running Length: 2:18, MPAA Classification: R (War violence, profanity) Cast: Mel Gibson, Madeleine Stowe, Sam Elliott, Greg Kinnear, Chris Klein, Josh Daugherty, Barry Pepper, Keri Russell Director: Randall Wallace Producers: Bruce Davey, Stephen McEveety, Randall Wallace Screenplay: Randall Wallace, based on "We Were Soldiers Once, and Young", by Hal Moore and Joe Galloway Cinematography: Dean Semler Music: Nick Glennie-Smith Read More