Tuesday, March 25, 2008
Sunday, December 9, 2007
Movie night
Sorry, I won't be able to make it to the movie night tonight! Turns out I have a review session for one of my finals that clashes with this...REALLY sorry Mr. P!
Saturday, December 1, 2007
"The Bloggin' Train":
I posted an R.A. of sorts on my personal blog. I hope you get a chance to see it Mr. Piekarski.
Thursday, November 29, 2007
Free Book? I'll Take That:
Mr. P,
I am sorry that I forgot to ask you about this after class that day, but could you post the information on how to order that free book for freshman on the 100 books professors wish they had read in college? I would definitely be interested and maybe somebody else forgot about it as well. Thank you!
I am sorry that I forgot to ask you about this after class that day, but could you post the information on how to order that free book for freshman on the 100 books professors wish they had read in college? I would definitely be interested and maybe somebody else forgot about it as well. Thank you!
The Big Lebowski: The finale of class
Sunday, December 9th, 7pm at 500 South Congress Apt 243, we will say goodbye to the Rhetoric of Vietnam by going bowling, Lebowski style. Beverages and snacks will be provided. Your presence is requested and highly anticipated.
Wednesday, November 28, 2007
Imperial Life in the Emeral City: Inside Iraq's Green Zone
The New York Times announced the ten best books of the year. Here is the review of one of them, an example of excellent rhetorical analysis.
Boys in the Bubble
Regardless of how the war ends, Iraq is not Vietnam. This is true not just militarily and politically but also in the reporting about the two conflicts. For many journalists who covered Vietnam and subsequently wrote books about the war, the experience could be understood only as a hallucinogenic nightmare, and they described it in gonzo prose to match. The reality of Iraq is much more frightening than a bad acid trip, but the writing about this continuing fiasco has been cleareyed and sober, and all the more powerful for it. Rajiv Chandrasekaran’s “Imperial Life in the Emerald City: Inside Iraq’s Green Zone” is a fine example.
This book tells the bureaucratic story of Iraq’s Year 1, the year after the overthrow of Saddam Hussein, when the United States was the legal occupying power and responsible for the country’s administration. The primary mechanism for that work was the Coalition Provisional Authority, headquartered in the Green Zone, a blast-barrier-encased compound created around Hussein’s Baghdad palace, on the west bank of the Tigris. Chandrasekaran, The Washington Post’s Baghdad bureau chief during this period, catalogs a lethal combination of official arrogance and ineptitude behind those walls that doomed Iraq to its bloody present every bit as much as insufficient military manpower did.
To begin with, the C.P.A.’s recruitment policy would have shamed Tammany Hall. Loyalty to George W. Bush and the Republican Party was apparently the prime criterion for getting work at the C.P.A. To determine their suitability for positions in Iraq, some prospective employees were asked their views on Roe v. Wade. Others were asked whom they voted for in 2000. Republican congressmen, conservative think tanks and party activists were all solicited by the White House’s liaison at the Pentagon, James O’Beirne, to suggest possible staffers.
Before the war began, Frederick M. Burkle Jr. was assigned to oversee Iraq’s health care system. He had a résumé to die for: a physician with a master’s degree in public health, and postgraduate degrees from Harvard, Yale, Dartmouth and Berkeley. He also had two bronze stars for military service in the Navy, as well as field experience with the Kurds in northern Iraq after the 1991 gulf war. A week after the liberation, he was told he was being replaced because, Chandrasekaran writes, “a senior official at USAID told him that the White House wanted a ‘loyalist’ in the job.”
That loyalist was James K. Haveman Jr., who had been recommended by the former Michigan governor John Engler. Haveman’s résumé included running a Christian adoption agency that counseled young women against abortions. He spent much of his time in Iraq preparing to privatize the state-owned drug supply firm — perhaps not the most important priority since almost every hospital in the country had been thoroughly looted in the days after Hussein was overthrown.
On page after page, Chandrasekaran details other projects of the C.P.A.’s bright young Republican ideologues — like modernizing the Baghdad stock exchange, or quickly privatizing every service that had previously been provided by the state. Some of these ideas would have been laudable if they were being planned for a country with functioning power and water supplies, and that wasn’t tottering on the brink of anarchy.
But how could these young Americans have known what life was like for ordinary Iraqis since they never left the Green Zone? Instead, they turned the place into something like a college campus. After a hard day of dreaming up increasingly improbable projects, the kids did what kids do — headed for the bar and looked for a hookup. As for the Iraqis, they were conspicuous by their absence.
Presiding over this unreal world was the American viceroy, L. Paul Bremer III, who comes across in this book as a man who has read one C.E.O. memoir too many, a man who knew his mind and would not have his decisions changed by the inconvenient reality of Iraqi life just outside the blast barriers. All of this would be funny in a Joseph Heller kind of way if tens of thousands of Iraqis and thousands of American soldiers weren’t to die because of the decisions made by the C.P.A., the Pentagon and the White House.
In Chandrasekaran’s account, all the arrogance, stubbornness and desire for career advancement crystallized at the end of March 2004, when Bremer decided to shut down a newspaper published by the radical Shiite cleric Moktada al-Sadr. With typical high-handedness, he made the decision without thinking through the possible consequences. He had no military backup plan if Sadr decided to fight and, predictably, Sadr’s Mahdi Army did fight back. Within a few days four American private security operatives were ambushed and killed in Falluja, their mutilated bodies hung from a bridge over the Euphrates. Suddenly, a year after overthrowing Hussein, the United States was fighting Shiite insurgents on one front and Sunni insurgents on another. This is the one and only time that the American military appears in Chandrasekaran’s otherwise civilian story, but his description of the skirmish between a platoon from the Army’s First Cavalry Division and Mahdi Army fighters is absolutely brilliant. It is eyewitness history of the first order.
If there is one thing missing from this account it is the author himself. Reading a 300-page book is a bit like driving across country with a stranger you’ve met through a message board. By the time you reach the Mississippi you hope to know your traveling companion reasonably well. That’s not the case here. Chandrasekaran’s personal views are absent until almost the very end of the book.
I think I understand why. He is adhering to the professional code of journalism: reporting facts with scrupulous neutrality and objectivity. However, I sometimes think that the relentless political attacks on the professionalism of reporters in Iraq have forced them to take a very narrow view of what that neutrality and objectivity mean. Those of us who have covered the invasion and its aftermath have an obligation not only as journalists but as citizens. We have had a privileged view of these epoch-defining events (and we didn’t get our jobs by taking litmus tests on abortion). We have a duty to bear passionate, accurate, personal witness — to be something more than mere compilers of facts.
It would have been worthwhile if Chandrasekaran had given us a greater sense of what he thought about overthrowing Hussein and, more to the point, what he felt upon returning to Washington after having seen the bloody result of its policies. But that is a philosophical difference I have with the author. This is a clearly written, blessedly undidactic book. It should be read by anyone who wants to understand how things went so badly wrong in Iraq.
Thursday, November 15, 2007
More RA topics
For those that need to or want to write a few more RAs, here are some suggestions:
1. Maya Lin, either the documentary or her own essay.
2. Rambo: First Blood Part I or Rambo: First Blood Part II. Both are equally, uhh... worth writing about.
3. David Foster Wallace's essay "Up, Simba" in your course packet
4. Al Gore's Inconvenient Truth, and ten rhetorical strategies he uses that make his presentation go.
5. Any other text that you deem worthy of your own analysis.
1. Maya Lin, either the documentary or her own essay.
2. Rambo: First Blood Part I or Rambo: First Blood Part II. Both are equally, uhh... worth writing about.
3. David Foster Wallace's essay "Up, Simba" in your course packet
4. Al Gore's Inconvenient Truth, and ten rhetorical strategies he uses that make his presentation go.
5. Any other text that you deem worthy of your own analysis.
Wednesday, November 14, 2007
Maya Lin
I have to admit that after reading the Maya Lin essay, I didn't really understand how much thought and meaning that she actually put into designing this memorial. I actually don't think that I had ever even seen the memorial before. But, the movie did a good job of showing me how something so simple can mean so much. She didn't even have to make the memorial this grand spectacle to have honor the veterans. And as she repeats in the movie many times, its not about being gaudy or extremely noticable, it just was about giving the veterans and those who lost loved ones in the war, a place to remember.
Maya Lin
This movie showed that the Vietnam War memorial was more than the simplistic design that it seemed. Even this monument has its way of getting its message across. Every small thing about this monument has its own meaning. The designer herself had to explain what she meant by some of the things that she did to it. I think that overall, the design is subject to everyone's own interpretation. Maya Lin said that the design was meant to have people spend time and reflect on where their loved ones died in the war. Some other individuals saw it as a black hole in the past.
It took courage to stand up for her design against some of the people that disagreed with her design. Sadly, most of the people that were against her design were simply into petty arguments such as the nationality of Maya Lin.
It took courage to stand up for her design against some of the people that disagreed with her design. Sadly, most of the people that were against her design were simply into petty arguments such as the nationality of Maya Lin.
Achillies in Vietnam
I would actually agree with Sev about the book giving us the reason why the Greeks went to fight the Trojans, but not telling us why we went. I think part of the reason is Shay is just wanting to give us sufficient background to the Illiad, for those of us who haven't read it, and then he goes off to making the psychological comparison of what war does and how the soldiers in the Illiad, and the Vietnam veterans, share some belief's. I find it interesting that the way Homer depicts the soldiers in the Illiad, it's in a way that the soldiers actually show honor to the opposite side they are fighting. The book explains that part of this is because they spoke the same language, and they were fighting face to face, they didnt view themselves as superior to the other group they were fighting. The Americans and Vietnamese didn't share that language, that culture, and they didnt actually fight face to face...the Vietnamese used more of the hit and run tactic...and the American soldiers didn't really show any type of honor towards the Vietnamese. I think the language barrier was something that kept this from happening. One of the stories that stuck to me was when an American soldier saw a Vietnamese hiding in a bush. He asked him to come out, but the Vietnamese shot him instead. The soldiers M-16 wasnt working. The soldier then goes on to say that he was trying to give this guy a chance...again, the language, and not understanding each other caused this respect, honor towards the opposing side, never to have developed between both sides, making it impossible...
Vietnam vs. Greek Mythology
Dr. Shay is a genius.
Two totally different civilizations. Two totally different time periods. Two totally different battles. And yet, Shay is still able to successfully merge together the two seemingly different wars. By making references to Homer's classic story, the Iliad, Shay reveals the timeless themes within all wars. Obviously there was no Athena or Hera or even Zeus in Vietnam, but the search for meaning within the chaos of war proves to be present in both Vietnam and in Troy. The total destruction and the lack of morality brought about by war is emphasized through the comparisons to this Greek literature. The overly dramatic and fantasized scenes in the Iliad help pin point the abstract struggle within the Vietnam soldiers.
Other then exemplifiing the univerisal themes within war, examples from the Iliad also serve as a good reference for the reader. Although his books were written 3000 or so years before our time, Homer's works are among the most widely read pieces of literature (other then Shakespeare and the Bible). Chances are that most people, at one time or another, have been introduced to the famous story of the Trojan War. Sure, we may not remember all the detials... something about a guy named Achilles and his foot and he was friends with Zeus and all those gods on Mount Olympus, and there was some girl named Helen, she was pretty... Sure, we might not know all the detials but we have a basic idea. There is a much higher probability that more people would understand references to the Iliad rather then ones to, lets say, A Tale of Two Cities. Both deal with war, but Shay purposely makes the comparison to the Iliad instead because readers are more likely to make the connection between the references and the Vietnam War. Which in turn leads to a better understanding of the struggle that the Vietnam soldiers endured.
Two totally different civilizations. Two totally different time periods. Two totally different battles. And yet, Shay is still able to successfully merge together the two seemingly different wars. By making references to Homer's classic story, the Iliad, Shay reveals the timeless themes within all wars. Obviously there was no Athena or Hera or even Zeus in Vietnam, but the search for meaning within the chaos of war proves to be present in both Vietnam and in Troy. The total destruction and the lack of morality brought about by war is emphasized through the comparisons to this Greek literature. The overly dramatic and fantasized scenes in the Iliad help pin point the abstract struggle within the Vietnam soldiers.
Other then exemplifiing the univerisal themes within war, examples from the Iliad also serve as a good reference for the reader. Although his books were written 3000 or so years before our time, Homer's works are among the most widely read pieces of literature (other then Shakespeare and the Bible). Chances are that most people, at one time or another, have been introduced to the famous story of the Trojan War. Sure, we may not remember all the detials... something about a guy named Achilles and his foot and he was friends with Zeus and all those gods on Mount Olympus, and there was some girl named Helen, she was pretty... Sure, we might not know all the detials but we have a basic idea. There is a much higher probability that more people would understand references to the Iliad rather then ones to, lets say, A Tale of Two Cities. Both deal with war, but Shay purposely makes the comparison to the Iliad instead because readers are more likely to make the connection between the references and the Vietnam War. Which in turn leads to a better understanding of the struggle that the Vietnam soldiers endured.
Achilles in Vietnam & Maya Lin
After reading Achilles in Vietnam and watching Maya Lin, I think we all have a newfound respect for the veterans. Reading and watching the veterans welcome themself home in a parade was heartbreaking. Reading about the soldiers talk about their "bros" was touching and heartbreaking at the same time. The one particular story that stuck out to me was the one about one soldier afraid of getting close to anyone again after his best friend had died. These soldiers come back completely different and nothing can change that.
I admire Maya Lin for her ability to stick up for her original plan, for it was her design that won the contest. She did not let the opinions of others let it change her mind. All it took was for everyone to understand her intentions behind the idea. She did not mean any harm and in no way wanted the memorial to be like a stab in the back, like one veteran saw it as. It is incredible to see someone our age put so much thought into the memorial and have the strength to stick by it. Like she said, any memorial would have evoked controversy and I don't think she could have handled it better any other way. I can see why Mr. P says he falls in love with her everytime he watches the documentary.
The veteran's perspective is an extremely important one. Sure LBJ and McNamara make these decisions but the veterans are the ones suffering and really fighting for their country. Actions speak louder than words - McNamara and LBJ make these decisions, but who are the ones really implementing the plans? Who are the ones fighting?
I admire Maya Lin for her ability to stick up for her original plan, for it was her design that won the contest. She did not let the opinions of others let it change her mind. All it took was for everyone to understand her intentions behind the idea. She did not mean any harm and in no way wanted the memorial to be like a stab in the back, like one veteran saw it as. It is incredible to see someone our age put so much thought into the memorial and have the strength to stick by it. Like she said, any memorial would have evoked controversy and I don't think she could have handled it better any other way. I can see why Mr. P says he falls in love with her everytime he watches the documentary.
The veteran's perspective is an extremely important one. Sure LBJ and McNamara make these decisions but the veterans are the ones suffering and really fighting for their country. Actions speak louder than words - McNamara and LBJ make these decisions, but who are the ones really implementing the plans? Who are the ones fighting?
Maya Lin
I loved this documentary! I can't believe Maya Lin was our age when she won the contest. It makes me feel so un-accomplished. I admire her! Not only is she brilliant. She is so classy. The Vietnam memorial was obviously very controversial and it took a lot of strength to handle the criticism she did. It really upset me that people made a big deal out of her nationality. She's American. It says a lot about the pettiness of parts of society. I was touched with the amount of consideration of the soldiers she put into the memorial. She did not want it to be about the war, but rather about the men and women who are heroes for fighting and dying for their country. I think everyone should think about Vietnam veterans in that lighting. They served their country, even if they didn't agree with the situation. That takes courage and if nothing at else that is something to be admired. Maya Lin's maturety and composure inspired me and I hope others as well. She stood up for herself and for her design but did not put others down in the process. The fact that the memorial was designed by someone of that nature gives it more strength. Because the good in one person is now expressed in a famous memorial that gives thanks to thousands who share some of those good qualities. We all should recognize that and learn from it.
Reflection
After watching the documentary about Maya Lin and reading about the Vietnam Memorial, I feel like the most effective part of the memorial is reflection.
The names are carved into a shiny black wall in which you can see yourself. You feel responsibility, guilt and shame. You are beside the names in the wall- but worse you are alive and they aren't.
This shame and guilt makes me think of Hearts and Minds. In my RA I argued that Davis shows scenes of a brothel and a football game to impose shame and guilt upon the viewer. The same goes for the reflection in the wall. It is reflecting everything about life, not only life in the viewer but behind the viewer in the capital of the US.
This is so moving when you look into it, its amazing.
The names are carved into a shiny black wall in which you can see yourself. You feel responsibility, guilt and shame. You are beside the names in the wall- but worse you are alive and they aren't.
This shame and guilt makes me think of Hearts and Minds. In my RA I argued that Davis shows scenes of a brothel and a football game to impose shame and guilt upon the viewer. The same goes for the reflection in the wall. It is reflecting everything about life, not only life in the viewer but behind the viewer in the capital of the US.
This is so moving when you look into it, its amazing.
Maya Lin
Strong woman. And an even more creative woman. One thing that seems to stand out about her memorials are that they're very simple. Simple, yet extremely symbolic. One can tell that they're not just a bunch of stones put together with the names of those martyred. As with the Vietnam War Veteran's memorial, Maya Lina actually symbolizes the things she thinks should be remembered from the war through the design and architecture of her memorials. The hole, or "wound", in the ground, the arranging of names in chronological order so that it doesn't seem like a name is lost between a bunch of other similar-sounding names: it's obvious that she actually CARES about the feelings of the people who would be affected most by these memorials. She wants to give each soldier the respect they deserve.
Even in the Civil Rights Memorial, she uses the flowing water to symbolize healing. I think it's amazing how much thought Maya Lin puts into these designs and the way she incorporates the meanings through symbolism is remarkable. I never thought architecture could have anything rhetorical attached to it. Whenever I visited memorials or monuments, I never really bothered to understand the symbolism or hidden meanings behind it. But after watching the documentary and understanding what thoughts go behind building a monument that has so many emotions and controversies related to it, I really admire Maya Lin. Not only for her courage to face the criticism that she did at such a young age but also for her sheer genius in doing what she does.
Even in the Civil Rights Memorial, she uses the flowing water to symbolize healing. I think it's amazing how much thought Maya Lin puts into these designs and the way she incorporates the meanings through symbolism is remarkable. I never thought architecture could have anything rhetorical attached to it. Whenever I visited memorials or monuments, I never really bothered to understand the symbolism or hidden meanings behind it. But after watching the documentary and understanding what thoughts go behind building a monument that has so many emotions and controversies related to it, I really admire Maya Lin. Not only for her courage to face the criticism that she did at such a young age but also for her sheer genius in doing what she does.
The Face that Launched 1,000 Ships:
At first glance, comparing the Vietnam War to events talked about by a blind bard nearly 3,000 years ago seemed like a rather far-fetched and heavily contrived idea to me. I wondered how a work of fiction meant to entertain the superstitious Greeks could possibly pertain to our modern society. Well, Shay quickly answered this question within the first few chapters of the book, and I began to realize what a work of genius it really is.
Achilles is revealed to struggle with feelings of desolation and becomes consumed by rage. This parallels with the interviews Shay conducts with Vietnam veterans in psychiatric wards suffering from post-traumatic stress disorders. The comparison between the two subjects is clear and generates new thoughts and insight into both the classical work and our own understanding of the veterans. More than anything, I now feel a profound need to help those that went off to war, fighting for America, and returned home as something less than they were before, bereft of hopes for the future and a connection with society.
The one thing this book does not question is our motives for being in the war in the first place. Menelaus goes off to Troy to retrieve his wife and Achilles follows as a man loyal to his allegiances. Why did we go?
Achilles is revealed to struggle with feelings of desolation and becomes consumed by rage. This parallels with the interviews Shay conducts with Vietnam veterans in psychiatric wards suffering from post-traumatic stress disorders. The comparison between the two subjects is clear and generates new thoughts and insight into both the classical work and our own understanding of the veterans. More than anything, I now feel a profound need to help those that went off to war, fighting for America, and returned home as something less than they were before, bereft of hopes for the future and a connection with society.
The one thing this book does not question is our motives for being in the war in the first place. Menelaus goes off to Troy to retrieve his wife and Achilles follows as a man loyal to his allegiances. Why did we go?
Maya Lin
Maya Lin was a very impacting movie for me. Not only did this young architect design one of the greatest, most memorable memorials of our time, but the amazingly the architect was a woman. Even more amazing than that is that this young girl was a student, no older than myself when she created something that is going to be around for generations to come. One thing I keep asking myself though, whether it is relevant or not, is why we as Americans celebrate a loss and an act in time in which we were very wrong. I do understand and sympathize with all who have lost loved ones. Perhaps this is why the memorial is black. To remember those who lost their lives, rather than a monument celebrating the actual war itself. Either way I felt that the bland design was very powerful as a stand alone piece and there was much thought put into it. I would also like to know how much background Maya Lin had on the Vietnam War and whether it was more heartfelt, or if it was just another project she wanted to accomplish. As of this point I almost comparing myself to her when reffering to our final class projects, though not to her magnitude of course. I am working on that documentary right now for the final project and this feels like it has become less of an assignment for me and more of a personal goal and sense of accomplishment. I want to make this as true and as powerful as I can, which is what I am sure Maya Lin had in mind. Who knows, maybe I will go on to win an Oscar for a Rhetoric project. (I know I know... Keep dreaming Cory!)
Tuesday, November 13, 2007
RA #11: An Inconvenient Truth
Due date: November 25th
Mission: Watch An Inconvenient Truth in its entirety.
Discern: 10 rhetorical strategies Al Gore uses to make his presentation kick-ass.
Write: On your personal blog, number the ten points 1-10 and after each observation, tell me why it makes his rhetoric and his presentation better.
Reflect: On how you, too, can use these strategies to help turn your presentation into something the class will learn from and enjoy. The goal is excellence and nothing but.
Mission: Watch An Inconvenient Truth in its entirety.
Discern: 10 rhetorical strategies Al Gore uses to make his presentation kick-ass.
Write: On your personal blog, number the ten points 1-10 and after each observation, tell me why it makes his rhetoric and his presentation better.
Reflect: On how you, too, can use these strategies to help turn your presentation into something the class will learn from and enjoy. The goal is excellence and nothing but.
Project Sign Up List
Tuesday 27:
1. Jenny
2. Brant
3. Tiffany
4. Cory
Thursday 29
5. Kiersten
6. Deepti
7. Eva
8. Jeff
December 4
9. Casey
10. Jorge
11. Severin
12. Taylor
December 6
13. Daniel
14. Caroline
1. Jenny
2. Brant
3. Tiffany
4. Cory
Thursday 29
5. Kiersten
6. Deepti
7. Eva
8. Jeff
December 4
9. Casey
10. Jorge
11. Severin
12. Taylor
December 6
13. Daniel
14. Caroline
Monday, November 12, 2007
Maya Lin and the Vietnam Memorial
This article was fascinating. A look into the mind of a creator enables the audience to relate the piece to a thorough process that developed over time as opposed to just a product that appeared one day after hours of construction. I find it most interesting that Maya Lin did not originally design the Vietnam Memorial for a competition. Knowing this information, I'm more inclined to appreciate her work for its artistic value alone. Initially, I figured there were more competitive motives during the design process. Often when there is something at stake, people will sacrifice their own preferences for public appeal. Seeing as how Maya Lin was inspired by past memorials and her quest to remember individual lives instead of thematic conclusions, the art seems more genuine and in her case more heartfelt.
Introduction to Achilles in Vietnam
"I see you coming down the street, but don't see me, because you're in your own world not looking for ambush. How come you're like that? I envy you."
This book explores another aspect of the Vietnam War: something we've not really discussed till now. What happens to the soldiers AFTER the war is over or after they return to their homes? Their lives are changed forever, they're different people altogether. The introduction of this book sets the stage for the rest of the book that is to come. It doesn't mention Homer or Achilles or anything else, yet. It just gives an account of a war veteran and how his daily life has been affected by the war. The first-person account really makes the situation relatable, and just more..real. We've have various discussions about the importance of fiction v. non-fiction. But truly, knowing that this whole account is real and non-fiction tends to make a MUCH stronger impact on me because these are experiences that real people have gone through. Shay begins the book with the basics...no fancy analogies, no hard-to-understand analysis. He just gives an honest, word-to-word account of a war veteran's dilemma in dealing with daily life. I think this really helps the reader understand the overall situation of post-war trauma before the book goes into depth and into the technicalities of this condition.
This book explores another aspect of the Vietnam War: something we've not really discussed till now. What happens to the soldiers AFTER the war is over or after they return to their homes? Their lives are changed forever, they're different people altogether. The introduction of this book sets the stage for the rest of the book that is to come. It doesn't mention Homer or Achilles or anything else, yet. It just gives an account of a war veteran and how his daily life has been affected by the war. The first-person account really makes the situation relatable, and just more..real. We've have various discussions about the importance of fiction v. non-fiction. But truly, knowing that this whole account is real and non-fiction tends to make a MUCH stronger impact on me because these are experiences that real people have gone through. Shay begins the book with the basics...no fancy analogies, no hard-to-understand analysis. He just gives an honest, word-to-word account of a war veteran's dilemma in dealing with daily life. I think this really helps the reader understand the overall situation of post-war trauma before the book goes into depth and into the technicalities of this condition.
Thursday, November 8, 2007
What a mess!
That's honestly all I could think of at the end of Path to War. I loved, loved, LOVED this movie! We've watched various movies on the Vietnam War but I think I finally understood what a big mess we'd gotten ourselves into after watching this movie. Did anyone else notice how many times Johnson asked his advisers "What do we do now?" He obviously had absolutely NO CLUE how to deal with the situation because it only seemed to be getting from bad to worse. We made no effort to understand the Vietnamese or their tactics. We made over-confident, zealous decisions and only realized the repercussions AFTER it was too late and thousands of people had died.
Was McNamara good or bad? I don't think there's an answer to this. He was a genius, no doubt but he made some blatantly wrong decisions concerning the Vietnam War and he seemed to be well aware of it by the end. I actually felt so frustrated during the movie because it was obvious we had ample opportunities to pull out before things got out of hand but we chose to prolong the war. LBJ made several wrong decisions which led to years of misery. Why did he not listen to Ball and Clifford? Why was he so influenced by McNamara? Why was McNamara so adamant on going on with the war?
If only we'd stopped ourselves in time...
Was McNamara good or bad? I don't think there's an answer to this. He was a genius, no doubt but he made some blatantly wrong decisions concerning the Vietnam War and he seemed to be well aware of it by the end. I actually felt so frustrated during the movie because it was obvious we had ample opportunities to pull out before things got out of hand but we chose to prolong the war. LBJ made several wrong decisions which led to years of misery. Why did he not listen to Ball and Clifford? Why was he so influenced by McNamara? Why was McNamara so adamant on going on with the war?
If only we'd stopped ourselves in time...
Fog of War
I actually would of enjoyed watching Fog of War first, then Path to War. The reason I enjoyed Fog of War was because of the insights it gave me of McNamara's work in the Kennedy and Johnson administration and how the decisions made by our government led to a deeper engagement in Vietnam. McNamara breaks down everything and gives us a better understanding as to how certain political figures saw the war and their opinions on winning it and what he thought as an advisor. I also enjoyed the detailed background that was given. It gave me a better understanding...just seeing where he came from. Another thing I enjoyed was that he spoke of "conventional wisdom," us learning from our mistakes. He spoke about our situation now a days...I might not have all the inside information of what's going on...but it seems like we haven't learned much from our past mistakes...hopefully this doesn't come down to haunt us in the future...
Fog of War and Path to War
Fog of War and Path to War are two of the more important movies that I've viewed for this class this whole semester. I say this because few movies shows the inside, political, aspects of the Vietnam War. McNamara gives us an extremely detailed history of how we got to Vietnam. And because of this it helped me better understand the reasons behind America entering the war and maybe why our leaders chose to do some of the things they did. Path of War also made me feel very sympathetic to Johnson's situation whereas before I really had some very negative views on him. So often we see our political leaders critized for every decision that they make that it becomes easy for one to be overly harsh and forget that these people making the decisisions are just that, people. They go through their own internal conflicts to try and decide what they think is best. Although they might sometimes not make the best decisions it makes one think what kind of choices you yourself would've made had you been in that position.
Wednesday, November 7, 2007
Path to War
An emotional response to Path to War. I cried, or expressed deep feelings of sadness, in this movie just as much as any other movie from the semester. Watching Johnson’s presidency crumble was almost tantamount to the emotions evoked when you watch the actual violence on the ground in Vietnam. It is very interesting and very depressing to study Johnson’s presidency. He was a leader with ambitious domestic policy goals and initial successes that were stifled by the U.S. involvement in Vietnam. Often times his means to accomplish program objectives were more manipulative and harsh than I prefer, but I still admire his tireless efforts to improve civil rights and education and fight against poverty. As we witnessed one portrayal of the decisions that had such devastating impacts, it was frustrating to know the outcome and not be able to shout at them through the freaking glass (TV). Path to War depicts Johnson on such a personal level that you can not help but empathize. At the same time, it is irritating and almost hard to understand why he was so heavily influenced by McNamara when there were obviously really intelligent, peace-mined men surrounding him. Nonetheless, the circumstances were depressing and so is the thought of all that could have come from Johnson’s programs and never did. It is beneficial to investigate the Vietnam War from all angles. Often times when we predominantly focus on the physical destruction of the war, it is easy to forget the people behind it and the tribulations they had to go through. It makes one wonder how they might have acted during such arduous times.
Path to War and the portrayal of LBJ
I would never want to be president especially after watching "Path to War". It seems that even a man of morals and decency cannot win. No matter what you do (as president) people will disagree and there will be conflicts. It's human nature. "Path to War" made me feel for LBJ. He is portrayed as sensetive man (as shown by his remorse for the death of the pilot). He was simply a man between a rock and a hard place. He made decisions and whether they were right or wrong, he chose them (or at least this film depicted him as chosing them) because it is what he felt was best. I really enjoyed watching "Path to War" because it once again brings about a different perspective. Each day we are bombarded with the wrongs of our presidents, past and present. It is rare that a president is portrayed in a flattering light when he was involved in an event that was/is considered a low point in U.S. history. It is rare that we are shown the inner conflicts of emotions from our President and how they meant well. I thought this was another interesting point of view that doesn't really oppose a view but rather adds depth to all of them. One cannot make a good judgement without looking at all view points. "Path to War" conveys that although there were wrong choices, not all the leaders were evil and there was good intentions present.
Fog of War
We've seen numerous depictions about the fighting and violence within the Vietnam War from both an American and a Vietnamese point of view. But for the first time, through Fog of War, we are introduced to the other side of the problem... The documentary reveals the political battle waging on back home in America. Through McNamara, we are informed about the complex and delicate situation taking place within the White House at the time.
McNamara fills us in with a broad range of information dating all the way back to World War I. We learn about the ideals of Woodrow Wilson, the threat of nuclear war, Kennedy's assassination, and Johnson's term as president. All of which lead to the very complicated situation within Vietnam at the time. Before the documentary we have not seen a piece of Rhetoric that involves all these key aspects. I almost forgot how important the Cold War and the impending destruction of "the bomb" was to the situation. Although Johnson is notorious for his role in the Vietnam War, it is easy to overlook the much worse damage that would have ensued if Goldwater (who was equally as notorious for his love for the atom bomb) would've taken the presidency. There were many deaths... both the Vietnamese and American... but the numbers would have been much higher if we had chosen to simply bomb. McNamara points out in the beginning of the film that the government's perception that Vietnam was fighting only for the Chinese and Russian governments (rather then for their independence) proved to be a major reason for America's involvement. The extreme fear of communism nations played a HUGE part of the war and it was interesting to see a documentary that included that.
McNamara fills us in with a broad range of information dating all the way back to World War I. We learn about the ideals of Woodrow Wilson, the threat of nuclear war, Kennedy's assassination, and Johnson's term as president. All of which lead to the very complicated situation within Vietnam at the time. Before the documentary we have not seen a piece of Rhetoric that involves all these key aspects. I almost forgot how important the Cold War and the impending destruction of "the bomb" was to the situation. Although Johnson is notorious for his role in the Vietnam War, it is easy to overlook the much worse damage that would have ensued if Goldwater (who was equally as notorious for his love for the atom bomb) would've taken the presidency. There were many deaths... both the Vietnamese and American... but the numbers would have been much higher if we had chosen to simply bomb. McNamara points out in the beginning of the film that the government's perception that Vietnam was fighting only for the Chinese and Russian governments (rather then for their independence) proved to be a major reason for America's involvement. The extreme fear of communism nations played a HUGE part of the war and it was interesting to see a documentary that included that.
Johnson & McNamara
I agree with Caroline in that Path to War portrayed Johnson as sympathetic and frustrated. When he was in the kitchen with his wife though it was too over the top...I don't want to see the president so unable to control his surroundings, this made me dislike him. When he was told he made all the ultimate decisions and to basically stop bitching about what everyone else did to him I was glad, he had the opportunity to make the right decision.
The scene in church was important to me and very symbolic. Johnson brought hatred, fear and anxiety into such a calm and serene setting- just like he sent bombs, soldiers and guns into Vietnam.
The scene in church was important to me and very symbolic. Johnson brought hatred, fear and anxiety into such a calm and serene setting- just like he sent bombs, soldiers and guns into Vietnam.
Path to War and Fog of War
We've taken yet another perspective of the war, and this time it's the politician's view - more specifically, LBJ and McNamara. Both movies show really how complex the war was and we can never really understand all aspects of the war to its fullest extent.
What stuck out the most to me was in Path to War how there were multiple occassions when LBJ could've pulled out of the war but he didn't. It took him awhile to realize that his actions were not getting anywhere in terms of winning the war. Instead, more lives were killed, time was wasted, and a lot of money was spent. Whats even more disappointing is, here we are 30 years later and we're still making the same mistake by going to war with Iraq.
The movie portrayed LBJ in a way that was asking for sympathy. We see him frustrated and wishing life was the way it was before he was president. We get to see just how much chaos really goes on in the white house.
What stuck out the most to me was in Path to War how there were multiple occassions when LBJ could've pulled out of the war but he didn't. It took him awhile to realize that his actions were not getting anywhere in terms of winning the war. Instead, more lives were killed, time was wasted, and a lot of money was spent. Whats even more disappointing is, here we are 30 years later and we're still making the same mistake by going to war with Iraq.
The movie portrayed LBJ in a way that was asking for sympathy. We see him frustrated and wishing life was the way it was before he was president. We get to see just how much chaos really goes on in the white house.
The Political Side of the War
I must say that I have really been a fan of both Fog of War and Path to War. They both touch on a side of Vietnam that hasn't really been covered in our other texts: policy. Both films equally portray the importance of Robert McNamara. As Secretary of State, he had a lot to do with which way our foreign policy would go. Fog of War shows the idea of containment as foreign policy, which led to our role in Vietnam. Path to War doesn't go into foreign policy as much, but does display our leaders contemplating on what direction to go. I think both of these films are very critical in understanding why we went to Vietnam. The domino theory created an abundant amount of fear in our politicians, and that fear was used to create foreign policy. It's unfortunate that this was the case. I really don't feel that these films were created to make McNamara look like the bad guy. He definitely seems like a bad guy in Path to War, but I felt the same way, if not stronger, about LBJ. Ultimately, I don't think anyone can blame LBJ or McNamara. As a society, people were against communism. McCarthyism sprung up in the late 40's lasted well into the 50's. It was definitely still existent before Vietnam, which could have easily been the deciding factor in going to Vietnam.
In response to Severin...
McNamara states: "The fog of war is that war is so complex, beyond the capability of the human mind to comprehend and understand all the variables. Our judgement and understanding are not adequate, AND WE KILL PEOPLE."
I believe he is not simply stating that the war was complex and that there was confusion as to why we were there, but more importantly he was trying to convey that there are complex and necessary decisions that rest upon the shoulders of few individuals. Is there some sort of moral law that leaders should abide to? Ofcourse. But when it comes to protecting the interest of one's nation, a leader has to make decision that will affect many lives and stand by that decision. Sometimes it can be the right decision, other times it can prove to be a drastic mistake. I believe McNamara said a mistake can kill a nation.
Imagine if you had to bear that burden. How could you sleep at night? What would you do? How would you handle the criticism? There is no way of escaping the aftermath of your decision/indecision: lives will be lost no matter. Will you save a life by taking one?
I believe he is not simply stating that the war was complex and that there was confusion as to why we were there, but more importantly he was trying to convey that there are complex and necessary decisions that rest upon the shoulders of few individuals. Is there some sort of moral law that leaders should abide to? Ofcourse. But when it comes to protecting the interest of one's nation, a leader has to make decision that will affect many lives and stand by that decision. Sometimes it can be the right decision, other times it can prove to be a drastic mistake. I believe McNamara said a mistake can kill a nation.
Imagine if you had to bear that burden. How could you sleep at night? What would you do? How would you handle the criticism? There is no way of escaping the aftermath of your decision/indecision: lives will be lost no matter. Will you save a life by taking one?
Choices in War:
McNamara makes the statement that the fog of war is all the complexities of war which can never be fully understood by men. He is correct in a sense. Nobody at the time was able to fully understand the Vietnam War or why it occur ed. Even those that thought they understood the people realize they do not, as evidenced by Trip to Hanoi.
When we look back on the war today, even now we do not comprehend fully what lead to the conflict and why it was necessary. In a historical context, however, even now we cannot look back and say with clarity that if we had not gone into Vietnam, everything would have turned out fine. Domino theory was never disproved and never can be at this point, but it is a far better thing that it did not occur than had we risked not creating a war with the Vietnamese and it had. The greatest crime, is that our officials seem to have learned nothing from the recent past and thrust us into a war with Iraq for reasons even less understandable and seemingly meaningless than Vietnam.
When we look back on the war today, even now we do not comprehend fully what lead to the conflict and why it was necessary. In a historical context, however, even now we cannot look back and say with clarity that if we had not gone into Vietnam, everything would have turned out fine. Domino theory was never disproved and never can be at this point, but it is a far better thing that it did not occur than had we risked not creating a war with the Vietnamese and it had. The greatest crime, is that our officials seem to have learned nothing from the recent past and thrust us into a war with Iraq for reasons even less understandable and seemingly meaningless than Vietnam.
Fog of War and Path to War
I think both movies really try to portray their main characters (McNamara and Johnson) in ways that are contrary to what people normally see them as. In Fog of War, McNamara claims that he was just doing his job and being loyal to the president. In this light, the Vietnam War is hardly seen as "McNamara's War". In Path to War, rather than depicting Johnson as a president that led his country into an unnecessary war, the directors make him seem like a man that had his dreams of a peaceful society destroyed by a bad circumstance. In other words, LBJ is a victim of something that would inevitably happen anyways.
Something interesting about this movie was the way they showed the Gulf of Tonkin affair. This scene was briefly touched on in this movie, but it was very important in igniting a conflict between US and North Vietnam. There was a lot of confusion here; as a viewer, I couldn't really tell if they had confirmed if the North Vietnamese had actually attacked or not. Anyways, LBJ began to order bombings. There was not much to say about any lying that took place about what happened to the public. It seems like LBJ himself was misinformed about the incident. The movie also makes him look good by the way he reacted to the pilot that was shot down during one of the first bombing missions. He seemed to be so hurt by the loss of just one person (out of the eventual 55,000).
Something interesting about this movie was the way they showed the Gulf of Tonkin affair. This scene was briefly touched on in this movie, but it was very important in igniting a conflict between US and North Vietnam. There was a lot of confusion here; as a viewer, I couldn't really tell if they had confirmed if the North Vietnamese had actually attacked or not. Anyways, LBJ began to order bombings. There was not much to say about any lying that took place about what happened to the public. It seems like LBJ himself was misinformed about the incident. The movie also makes him look good by the way he reacted to the pilot that was shot down during one of the first bombing missions. He seemed to be so hurt by the loss of just one person (out of the eventual 55,000).
Tuesday, November 6, 2007
Tuesday Recap; On Tap for Thursday
Great job this morning making sense of a hearty and sometimes heady essay. I applaud you for your willingness to talk about ideas that make you uncomfortable because, as Susan Sontag wrote, it is only when we face our own discomfort can we begin to understand "the other side." And the other side, as the Vietnam War has shown us, is just as important as our own.
On Thursday we will try our best to do the following:
1. Read and talk briefly about another Susan Sontag article.
2. Talk about your final projects: what you are doing and what are the main questions motivating your project. In other words, it is only the beginning to say "I'll be interviewing so and so." Next you need to tell us why you are interviewing so and so and what questions you hope to answer by doing whatever you're doing; that is the difference between an unsophisticated and flat report and an insightful and worthwhile project. Think about Sontag: she didn't merely report that the Vietnamese use of language was "flat" but also asked herself why she was perceiving it that way which in turn enabled her to break through her own cultural perspective and allowed her to come up with an answer as to why they speak the way they do.
3. Talk about Fog of War and Path to War. Your RAs for this week should be about how the two movies compare and contrast to one another. One angle, for example, might be to ask how we feel about Robert McNamara after seeing Path to War and why? Then: how do we feel after seeing Fog of War? Why? What is it about the rhetoric of the films that moves us toward these ways of seeing?
On Thursday we will try our best to do the following:
1. Read and talk briefly about another Susan Sontag article.
2. Talk about your final projects: what you are doing and what are the main questions motivating your project. In other words, it is only the beginning to say "I'll be interviewing so and so." Next you need to tell us why you are interviewing so and so and what questions you hope to answer by doing whatever you're doing; that is the difference between an unsophisticated and flat report and an insightful and worthwhile project. Think about Sontag: she didn't merely report that the Vietnamese use of language was "flat" but also asked herself why she was perceiving it that way which in turn enabled her to break through her own cultural perspective and allowed her to come up with an answer as to why they speak the way they do.
3. Talk about Fog of War and Path to War. Your RAs for this week should be about how the two movies compare and contrast to one another. One angle, for example, might be to ask how we feel about Robert McNamara after seeing Path to War and why? Then: how do we feel after seeing Fog of War? Why? What is it about the rhetoric of the films that moves us toward these ways of seeing?
Monday, November 5, 2007
Okay... maybe not...
So... this is a bit last minute, but it turns out I don't have time to watch the movie with everybody tonight. Big advertising test tomorrow, so I'll be devoting the rest of my night to that instead.
RSVP
sadly, i won't be able to make tonights viewing. i'll be studying for tomorrow's midterm all night. hope you all have a nice time!
Sunday, November 4, 2007
Saturday, November 3, 2007
Rejoice
Friends,
From now until the end of class, your blogging requirement is as follows:
I would like you to post once on your personal blog by Monday at 10pm and once on the community blog by Wednesday at 10pm. So instead of 4 blogs per week, you now only have to write two. That's the good news. The better news is that now all your blogs will be thoughtful, engaging, and will show evidence of deeper critical thinking and will be a showcase of your ability to convey those deeper thoughts in your writing--a perfect example of when less is more.
Thursday, November 1, 2007
Question for the Class Regarding Monday's Movie Night:
Is there anybody I could ride with to the movie? I don't live on campus, but could meet you anywhere that evening that you need me to. Just contact me at severinwitte@yahoo.com or through blackboard if that would be a possibility. Thanks!
November 1st Recap
Because a large percentage of the class was suffering from some terrible Halloween hangover, either physical or spiritual, or both, I decided to take pity on your debauchery-inclined selves and extend the RA deadline to Tuesday. Likewise, be prepared to say lots of smart things about "Trip to Hanoi" on Tuesday in class. It is an important text and merits a thorough discussion.
Meanwhile, back at the farm, the brave souls who did make it to class (including Kiersten, who was still recovering from her cameo as Little Red Riding Hood) watched the first 40 minutes of the film Path to War. I am going to watch the remaining 2 hours of the film at 8pm on Monday night at my humble home, and everyone is invited. It is not mandatory to show up, but it is mandatory that you watch the film. If you plan on making it, please let me know so I can buy ample popcorn.
Next Thursday's RA will ask you to compare and contrast (loosely and in any insightful way you see fit) Path of War and Fog of War, the other film which you are responsible for watching this coming week.
A peaceful and restful weekend to you all.
Trip to Hanoi
Sontag's writing is an easy read. Her thoughts flow very fluidly so that its easy to follow her thoughts about her trip. You can in a way just "sink into the rhetoric" and still understand what she's doing as well as the context.
It is interesting to see a first hand recollection of a trip (by an American) to North Vietnam during the war. You really see the misunderstanding between people of different cultures but also between people of differing ideological perspectives. Sontag writes that she is treated with extreme hospitality because she is a guest in the country. This is not something you would expect for a foreigner from a country that is invading their own. She ate fresh meat and fish every day while most regular people would eat rice and bean curd every day. It is simply oriental attitudes that cause them to treat guests so well. I think the part that most stands out was the fact that Sontag, feeling uncomfortable about being treated so well compared to regular people, didn't know what to do. Was she supposed to ask them to back down? If she did, would they be offended? Would they laugh when she asked for rice and bean curd over fresh meat? This shows that she not only understands how they act but also what they would think. A country with people of such different values about guests would obviously also have different attitudes towards political issues such as communism.
In response to whether or not Trip to Hanoi is "more real", I would agree that Sontag's writing does have more of an effect on people. This all comes down to pretty much the same issue as before in The Things They Carried. The fact that you know that it happened makes it so that it has more of an effect on people. If you knew that it was a fictional story it wouldn't have the same effect on people; this was something that O'Brien was well aware of when he was creating the structure of his book.
It is interesting to see a first hand recollection of a trip (by an American) to North Vietnam during the war. You really see the misunderstanding between people of different cultures but also between people of differing ideological perspectives. Sontag writes that she is treated with extreme hospitality because she is a guest in the country. This is not something you would expect for a foreigner from a country that is invading their own. She ate fresh meat and fish every day while most regular people would eat rice and bean curd every day. It is simply oriental attitudes that cause them to treat guests so well. I think the part that most stands out was the fact that Sontag, feeling uncomfortable about being treated so well compared to regular people, didn't know what to do. Was she supposed to ask them to back down? If she did, would they be offended? Would they laugh when she asked for rice and bean curd over fresh meat? This shows that she not only understands how they act but also what they would think. A country with people of such different values about guests would obviously also have different attitudes towards political issues such as communism.
In response to whether or not Trip to Hanoi is "more real", I would agree that Sontag's writing does have more of an effect on people. This all comes down to pretty much the same issue as before in The Things They Carried. The fact that you know that it happened makes it so that it has more of an effect on people. If you knew that it was a fictional story it wouldn't have the same effect on people; this was something that O'Brien was well aware of when he was creating the structure of his book.
Wednesday, October 31, 2007
The Rhetoric of Hearts and Minds
I just wanted to say something I didn't get to say in class on Tuesday. There was something said about Hearts and Minds being bad Rhetoric because it was just as bad as the other films...just showing one side of the argument. The reason I found this movie to be a good film was because it actually did show both sides in a way. For example: There was the perception of what the American people thought of the Vietnamese. Then the film would show something to counter those statements. It convices us as an audience that the Vietnamese people aren't primitive, or ignorant, or people who don't value life. They are human like you and me. It also showed how ignorant our leaders were...it was actually disappointing to see how that one guy kept stumbling, trying to buy time when Davis asked him about communism. The pilot seemed like the only guy who realized that this perception that we had about the Vietnamese was very wrong...he even broke down crying when he was asked to put himself in that situation. Trip to Hanoi is interesting because it somewhat does the same thing. It goes from the author being ignorant...thinking as the people in Vietnam as primitive...like in Hearts and Minds, to her changing her perception of the people after she knew what they were about...
Re: Trip to Hanoi Questions
In response to questions about Trip to Hanoi, I don't necessarily think that "more real" writing of any more importance than fiction. However, I think a lot of us tend to see the real stuff as more meaningful. Fiction brings us into a world of imagination but nonfiction is what is really real. To me personally, I tend to question the works of fiction because although there may be meaning and such behind it, I know it isn't real and tend to regard it as not as important or significant. I tend to put more emphasis on nonfiction work. That's not to say that I don't enjoy fiction because I think fiction is really strong because it we're able to think of and imagine things that we do not face in reality.
Another question is, is it common that there are non fiction works out there with a tad bit of fiction? Like we've discussed before, sometimes we tend to fill in gaps of our memory by putting in thoughts that we think happen because we don't remember. We hear things and see things so often that we begin to accept it as truth when maybe we don't really know if that's true. Also do we sometimes twist up stories to make it more interesting? Do we really believe that everything labeled non-fiction is the absolute truth with no sugarcoating or additions to make interesting?
Another question is, is it common that there are non fiction works out there with a tad bit of fiction? Like we've discussed before, sometimes we tend to fill in gaps of our memory by putting in thoughts that we think happen because we don't remember. We hear things and see things so often that we begin to accept it as truth when maybe we don't really know if that's true. Also do we sometimes twist up stories to make it more interesting? Do we really believe that everything labeled non-fiction is the absolute truth with no sugarcoating or additions to make interesting?
Trip to Hanoi
I really liked Trip to Hanoi. I enjoyed the fact that is comes from a journalist/scholar. Sontag's writing style is beautiful. I think this work is much better than the fiction pieces that we have viewed/read thus far. She is very good at explaining the cultural misunderstandings between the Americans and Vietnamese. She really goes into depth on explaining how the Vietnamese viewed the Americans, and how she viewed them. This is a crucial element of Vietnam that we have not yet really seen. Hearts and Minds touches on this lightly, but Trip to Hanoi finishes the job. I've always thought it would be an awesome job to go to a foreign country that the US is actively engaged in war with. Especially as a journalist. Sontag's writing definitely makes me want to do something like that one day.
Trip to Hanoi questions
Ok, so I really loved this but it really made me have some questions. Is Susan Sontag more believable because she writes in journal entries and in the first person? Is this "more real" writing of any more importance than fiction? Is her angle to gain support through the rhetorical use of journal entries or did it just happen that her journal entries seem to be more convincing than a fictional story? Or is the fact that she discusses points of view that aren't spoken of often the reason it sounds so convincing?
Hearts and Minds
This movie was really good at indirectly depicting Americans in a bad way. I noticed that half of the movie didn't actually criticize what we were literally doing. One would obviously understand this aspect of the movie if they also understood the context. Some of the movie seemed to just show what we now know were obviously faults as something people did without knowing what they were doing wrong at the time. In other words, several of the people in the film are depicted as just plain ignorant, particularly General Westmoreland. Sadly, I think that a person as distinguished as him is more or less a representation of the ideal American. He is a representative for all Americans. This ignorant depiction of Westmoreland (or all Americans) is probably a big reason that Hearts and Minds was such a controversial film when it was first released. People didn't like being proven wrong.
Dashboard Confessional:
I welcomed the reading of Trip to Hanoi into my life with open arms. It was great getting a seasoned journalist's perspective on the war. I found her to be a little overly biased in the beginning, but it was interesting watching her perspectives change throughout the essay. She cared so much for the Vietnamese people and yet upon reaching Vietnam, often viewed them as primitives. As the story progressed, she herself began to further acknowledge them as people after witnessing their compassionate natures toward even fallen American troops. She understands that as a foreign culture she naturally has trouble understanding them. She realizes though, that their simplicity, rather than a curse, is what drives their very lives and makes them the respectable and noble individuals which she perceives them to be. She risked her very life for the chance to hopefully gain a better understanding of the people and be able to generate further awareness for their cause. She certainly was narrow minded in her viewpoint of American imperialism, but the greatest thing for me was seeing her perceptions change over time. By the end, she acknowledged herself as an American and admitted to loving her life as one, she just does not agree with American policies. She does not have to be unpatriotic to disagree with the government.
Topic for "Trip to Hanoi" RA
"Language does not merely reflect reality, it creates it." Discuss that statement with regard to Susan Sontag's "Trip to Hanoi".
Hearts and Minds vs Trip to Hanoi
I agree with the two previous posts, Hearts and Minds seemed like an introduction into viewing Vietnam from a different perspective and Trip to Hanoi was that different perspective.
I thought it was interesting how the author used "I" and "we" as well and I think in Hearts and Minds this is equivalent to showing scenes of a football game and a parade; reminding the viewer (or reader) that he is American by showing what a stereotypical American is or does.
The section of the reading in which the author is taken to the grave of an American pilot was touching to me as well because I couldn't believe it was true. We have seen and read so much material about Americans killing Vietnamese for sport and in mass numbers (like in Hearts and Minds- the former soldiers being interviewed systematically killed hundreds without thinking twice), yet the Vietnamese make an effort to protect an American corpse...an American who killed Vietnamese. This seems too nice or perfect? Why would they do this? Americans do not make graves for them/care about their families? I think the author told this story to shock the reader out of thinking Americans are perfect and Vietnamese do not have feelings or emotions.
I thought it was interesting how the author used "I" and "we" as well and I think in Hearts and Minds this is equivalent to showing scenes of a football game and a parade; reminding the viewer (or reader) that he is American by showing what a stereotypical American is or does.
The section of the reading in which the author is taken to the grave of an American pilot was touching to me as well because I couldn't believe it was true. We have seen and read so much material about Americans killing Vietnamese for sport and in mass numbers (like in Hearts and Minds- the former soldiers being interviewed systematically killed hundreds without thinking twice), yet the Vietnamese make an effort to protect an American corpse...an American who killed Vietnamese. This seems too nice or perfect? Why would they do this? Americans do not make graves for them/care about their families? I think the author told this story to shock the reader out of thinking Americans are perfect and Vietnamese do not have feelings or emotions.
Monday, October 29, 2007
Trip To Hanoi
I really enjoyed Trip to Hanoi very much, In my opinion it was the equivolence to Hearts and Minds but in book form. I really enjoyed how anti-american the author initially begins but through his down writing comes to a conclusion at the end that he is part of, and loves his country though he does not necessarily agree with what they are doing. I specifically enjoyed how he used rhetoric to separate himself by say America then putting "I" in parenthesis or vice versa, but by the end he was quoting the phrase "I" and "we" as if he felt a part of the country again. This story, however, goes much more in depth than just his separation from America. It really puts into perspective the mentality of the Vietnamese people through the eyes of an American. The author can not truly ever know what the Vietnamese are thinking, yet he makes very crisp conclusions based on his observations and interviews with the natives.
Trip to Hanoi
I actually enjoyed reading Trip to Hanoi because, again, like Hearts and Minds, it gave us a different perspective of the Vietnamese people. What really got to me was when the author talks about the american pilot that was shot down by a Vietnamese farmer. They barried the guy and made like this shrine...then they go on to saying that they put him in a good coffin so that when the war was over his family could come and get the body. There was this big misunderstanding of the perception of the Vietnamese people and what was really going on in Vietnam. I think the author tries to convey this throughout this essay. "Thinking about Vietnam in America, it seems natural to dwell on destruction and suffering. But not here. In Vietnam, there is also a peaceful, fiercely industrious present with whic a visitor must be connected; and I'm not. I want their victory. But I don't understand their revolution." It's nice to read material that gives the Vietnamese people identity.
hearts & minds and peer editing
I enjoyed peer editing because it made me realize even more that there are so many topics that you can talk about in Hearts and Minds. The documentary seemed to have all effected us in different ways, each focusing on one specific part of the documentary. It also gave us ideas of writing styles and techniques that we got from reading peers' papers. I think we were all relieved to finally see a different perspective than we've gotten used to with Apocalypse Now, Platoon and Full Metal Jacket.
Trip To Hanoi gave us a perspective of the Vietnamese culture that we have also not seen with the exception of the opening scene of Hearts and Minds, though that was just a small amount. Susan Sontag's writing were effective in that we were able to feel as if we were there with her and understood her frustraion in being able to communicate and connect with the Vietnamese. The way that she compared and contrasted views of the Vietnamese and Americans helped us understand a bit of the Vietnamese culture and perspective and see how these two differ from one another. Not only have we learned of the war itself and its effect, I think learning about the Vietnamese culture is important to better help us understand where they are coming from.
Trip To Hanoi gave us a perspective of the Vietnamese culture that we have also not seen with the exception of the opening scene of Hearts and Minds, though that was just a small amount. Susan Sontag's writing were effective in that we were able to feel as if we were there with her and understood her frustraion in being able to communicate and connect with the Vietnamese. The way that she compared and contrasted views of the Vietnamese and Americans helped us understand a bit of the Vietnamese culture and perspective and see how these two differ from one another. Not only have we learned of the war itself and its effect, I think learning about the Vietnamese culture is important to better help us understand where they are coming from.
HEARST&MINDS
I really enjoyed focusing on the documentary Hearts and Minds over these last few weeks. Not only was the change in our class format interesting, but I also liked the movie itself. The style and rhetoric of Hearts and Minds was very overwhelming at first and a bit hard to decipher. But after thinking and discussing the movie, I was able to get a much better grasp on Davis's purpose. Davis was very suscessful in swaying his audience by only showing selective clips. I was very moved by his argument at first, but agreed less and less with the message of the documentary as I became more and more aware of Davis's strategy.
It was also interesting to read everyone elses thoughts. Critiquing wasn't only helpful for our big paper... but it also gave me a even broader view of Hearts and Minds. We haven't discussed the documentary as a class yet, so I definitely learned a lot more from the arguments within the papers I critqued. See you all in class tomorrow!
It was also interesting to read everyone elses thoughts. Critiquing wasn't only helpful for our big paper... but it also gave me a even broader view of Hearts and Minds. We haven't discussed the documentary as a class yet, so I definitely learned a lot more from the arguments within the papers I critqued. See you all in class tomorrow!
Trip to Hanoi - Fiction/Nonfiction
"Indeed, the problems was that Vietnam had become so much a fact of my consciousness as an American that I was having enormous difficulty getting it outside my head."
I was just looking up Susan Sontag (author of Trip to Hanoi) and an interview of hers caught my eye. Here's what she said:
Susan Sontag: Fiction writers have been made very nervous by a problem of credibility. Many don't feel comfortable about doing it straight, and try to give fiction the character of nonfiction. That a document of the writer's own character and experience seems to have more authority than an invented fiction is perhaps more widespread in this country than elsewhere and reflects the triumph of psychological ways of looking at everything. I have friends who tell me that the only books by writers of fiction that really interest them are their letters and diaries.
I think that's a really interesting rhetoric observation. I noticed that as a reader, I enjoyed reading Trip to Hanoi and was persuaded by it because subconsciously, I knew it was a first person account. It was something that actually happened. It made it seem more personal, and somehow more real. I remember when I read the Diary of Anne Frank, what hit me about it the most was the truth in it.
Why is it like this though? Why is it so important for us to think of something as true/nonfiction for it to have an impact on us? Does fiction not have the ability to touch our hearts or persuade us as well as nonfiction? Is rhetoric then dependent on truth more than imagination?
I was just looking up Susan Sontag (author of Trip to Hanoi) and an interview of hers caught my eye. Here's what she said:
Susan Sontag: Fiction writers have been made very nervous by a problem of credibility. Many don't feel comfortable about doing it straight, and try to give fiction the character of nonfiction. That a document of the writer's own character and experience seems to have more authority than an invented fiction is perhaps more widespread in this country than elsewhere and reflects the triumph of psychological ways of looking at everything. I have friends who tell me that the only books by writers of fiction that really interest them are their letters and diaries.
I think that's a really interesting rhetoric observation. I noticed that as a reader, I enjoyed reading Trip to Hanoi and was persuaded by it because subconsciously, I knew it was a first person account. It was something that actually happened. It made it seem more personal, and somehow more real. I remember when I read the Diary of Anne Frank, what hit me about it the most was the truth in it.
Why is it like this though? Why is it so important for us to think of something as true/nonfiction for it to have an impact on us? Does fiction not have the ability to touch our hearts or persuade us as well as nonfiction? Is rhetoric then dependent on truth more than imagination?
peer editing
just wanted to say i have enjoyed reading each other's papers and examining how hearts and minds, though different, had a powerful effect on each of us. it seems the movie really struck a chord with everyone and put the Vietnam war into a different perspective. it was also the perfect timing to watch the movie because it seemed we were all getting increasingly eager to be exposed to a perspective different than that of the American government or a U.S. soldier. By looking at each other's papers we are prompted to think of other ways of interpreting a film therefore helping us to generate new ideas about how to study rhetoric.
Trip to Hanoi
I found that I really liked Trip to Hanoi because of the completely different viewpoint that it gives about Vietnam. When I say completely different viewpoint I mean that in the sense that in almost all of the other books we have read and movies that we have watched, we are either right in the middle of the war, or reflecting on past war experiences. But in Trip to Hanoi, the author's main battles do not deal with the horrors of the Vietnam War but rather with breaking down cultural barriers and learning how to accept the Vietnamese culture for what it was. And I agree with the post before me when they said that the journaling was such an effective way to take the reader through the same journey as the author while he discovered how to appreciate the differeences between our cultures.
Trip to Hanoi & the use of journals
In the reading, Trip to Hanoi, I found it most interesting how the journal entries were very clear and honest and showed such a contrast of emotions from the rest of the piece. While reading the journal entries I thought the writer was being ethnocentric, which was annoying to me and it seemed to be annoying to him- almost like he could not help it, and I found it interesting how he continually referred to the Vietnamese as childish and how he felt as if he was being treated like a child. The entries reveal a lot of frustration. This frustration is later explained throughout the piece, by telling us the ways in which he is beginning to understand the Vietnamese. I think this is an important rhetorical skill because when I was reading I felt as if, by reading his personal journal, I knew exactly what he was going through which held my interest through the rest of the piece. I felt like I was there in Hanoi as well, experiencing how this trip has made the author grow; if I thought it was interesting and beneficial to him then this piece should be beneficial to all Americans...if it helped him- it will help us. I like to think I have read something that has made me better.
Response to Severin
The idea of war with Iran has been on the table since the early 1990s. Actually, the idea of war with Iran, Iraq, Syria, Jordan, and Lebanon has been on the tables since 1992. The plan was originally sought by the neoconservatives (Cheney and Wolfowitz). The idea was originally submitted to Bush SR but he said no. It wasn't until Bush JR that Cheney submitted the idea again (about one week after 9/11 to be exact). General Wesely Clark was recently on campus and talked about this issue.
As for Iran, this is an issue that everyone should look into seriously. I have ready many articles that talk about the Israeli's staging some sort of attack against the Iraniansand this will be the point when the Americans step into war against Iran (to protect our friends in Israel, of course)
If we do go to war with Iran, there will most definitely have to be a draft. Our enemy would expand further. I do believe Russia said a week ago that if the US goes to war with Iran, the US goes to war with Russia. World War III? Let's hope not.
It seems to me that the chief master would say something like that because the thought of war with Iran is now very real.
As for Iran, this is an issue that everyone should look into seriously. I have ready many articles that talk about the Israeli's staging some sort of attack against the Iraniansand this will be the point when the Americans step into war against Iran (to protect our friends in Israel, of course)
If we do go to war with Iran, there will most definitely have to be a draft. Our enemy would expand further. I do believe Russia said a week ago that if the US goes to war with Iran, the US goes to war with Russia. World War III? Let's hope not.
It seems to me that the chief master would say something like that because the thought of war with Iran is now very real.
Field Training Exercise:
This past Friday, I journeyed to Fort Hood. It's an expansive region of woods and desert terrain. I met many enlisted men comprised of both the Air Force and Army. It's neat how even after all these years of separation, they still work together on an army base for special operations.
One thing that a chief master sergeant said however frightened me. He said, "When we go to war with Iran or Syria, our special ops teams will come in very handy!" I hated this. What really sickened me was the idea that not only is he preparing his men for war, but he is eagerly anticipating it. I think this represents a certain type of man that joins the military more for a longing for battle and to release pent-up aggression than as an opportunity for leadership, personal betterment, and the chance to defend his country. A man such as this should never be granted a position of power. The men smiled, laughed, and cheered him on all the way though after the things he would say. I just think the situation in Iraq is already more than this country can handle without planning to destroy the political structure of two additional countries.
One thing that a chief master sergeant said however frightened me. He said, "When we go to war with Iran or Syria, our special ops teams will come in very handy!" I hated this. What really sickened me was the idea that not only is he preparing his men for war, but he is eagerly anticipating it. I think this represents a certain type of man that joins the military more for a longing for battle and to release pent-up aggression than as an opportunity for leadership, personal betterment, and the chance to defend his country. A man such as this should never be granted a position of power. The men smiled, laughed, and cheered him on all the way though after the things he would say. I just think the situation in Iraq is already more than this country can handle without planning to destroy the political structure of two additional countries.
Wednesday, October 24, 2007
The Pianist and Schindler's list
I love reading Jim Shepard's colloquial style! It is so different from most. He draws his readers in using a wide range of topics then the more he writes the deeper he gets into his true point of the article and when he does he hits his readers hard with colloquial style, use of sarcasm, and metaphors. It was fantastic!
Throughout Hearts and Minds Peter Davis constantly includes scenes that portray America as idiots. Why are we fighting the war? Who knows... The soldiers and majority of the American people had no idea yet we were killing and losing as many soldiers as we have in any other war. I think Peter Davis makes sure to present this as a larger point to inform viewers as to how passive we can be as a nation. Ironically the only Americans who seemed to figure out that we were the bad guy and did not belong in Vietnam, or were opting to move to Canada to avoid becoming a pointless killer, were the ones that were looked at as outcasts from America by dehumanizing our country rather than the Vietnamese. Though I had immense respect for them while watching the documentary, majority of American outcasted these people when this movie came out. I suspect that had a big part to do with what made it controversial along with presenting a more sympathetic outlook on the Vietnamese through carefully placed scenes that appeal to pathos. This is not to say that now we should all believe America was completely wrong and the Vietnamese were right, but it does make you think more critically after seeing both sides. I find it most difficult, and a big problem I am having, is to look at any form of Vietnamese text without forming some bias based on pathos. No one form of text has equally presented both sides of the story equally, yet I am beginning to see that piece of media may be impossible to make. For this classes purposes though I feel that Hearts and Minds was the most real and impacting as it is going to get for me and feel deeply sympathetic to both side. Both sides for their losses and more for America as apparently we are a bunch of rich dumbasses.
Re: Prostitution of Vietnam
I think what made the brothel scene repulsive was the scene that immediately followed. Right after one of the dudes says something to the effect of "If my girl at home could see this...", there's a quick cut to a Zippo being held by a U.S. soldier lighting a village hut on fire while his soldier buddies have them herded outside their homes. It's like Davis is saying not only is this brothel business demoralizing, but everything entailed by the Vietnam War is. The unnecessary herding of Vietnamese villagers through the use of force reduces them, making them as though they are less less than human. Forget that the huts are their homes, their personal sanctuaries, and everything in them is all they have. And as we watch their homes burn we cling to the words of the American solider that echo on, "If my chick at home could us now." Davis uses this scene to emphasize not only do the soldiers not know why they are fighting, but everyone back home has no clue what's going on in Vietnam. Davis seems to say if only everyone back at home could see what was going on over here, people would be pissed. What makes this scene so gross is that it reveals to us what is expended when "my chick" or an entire nation back home is unaware, be it personal ignorance, a government that hides it's actions, or both. What makes this scene disgusting is that it is all at the cost of burning villages, the demoralization of Vietnamese citizens, the sanity of young American soldiers and the death of so many people, Vietnamese and American alike.
Prostitution of Vietnam
That scene just did it for me. It was repulsive, disgusting and shocking all at the same time. These were the soldiers who were supposed to be in Vietnam to protect the Vietnamese. Except their actions don't seem to reflect that at all. It seems like they really couldn't care less about the Vietnamese, be it their men or their women, be it soldiers or villagers. Many of the soldiers didn't even seem to know WHY they fighting this crazy war.They just were.
I'm really glad Hearts and Minds allowed us to see the Vietnamese side of the story. It's something that seemed to be sorely missing from the other texts we've studied and it almost seemed as if the Vietnamese perspective wasn't even considered important in the VIETNAM War.
Hearts and Minds covers so many different aspects of the war. it doesn't just focus on the violence. It explores the impact on the Vietnamese, the impact on the American soldiers, the different viewpoints of the American soldiers, the political aspect, the business and industrial aspect...you name it, Davis covered it. He literally narrated the story of the Vietnam War in its entirety without going overboard on any one message. It was as if he was trying to ask the viewers (presumably Americans) a question instead of GIVING them an answer. Fantastic movie!
I'm really glad Hearts and Minds allowed us to see the Vietnamese side of the story. It's something that seemed to be sorely missing from the other texts we've studied and it almost seemed as if the Vietnamese perspective wasn't even considered important in the VIETNAM War.
Hearts and Minds covers so many different aspects of the war. it doesn't just focus on the violence. It explores the impact on the Vietnamese, the impact on the American soldiers, the different viewpoints of the American soldiers, the political aspect, the business and industrial aspect...you name it, Davis covered it. He literally narrated the story of the Vietnam War in its entirety without going overboard on any one message. It was as if he was trying to ask the viewers (presumably Americans) a question instead of GIVING them an answer. Fantastic movie!
parade in Hearts & Minds
It was refreshing to watch Hearts and Minds after watching movies like Platoon and Apocalypse Now, it was graphic but in a different sense....
The final scene in the documentary was very interesting to me. A parade is a time when Americans can honor veterans and veterans can feel pride in what they have done. Showing this after a documentary designed to portray soldiers as ordinary, or even less than ordinary is important rhetorically. The soldiers throughout the documentary are shown as dehumanizing murderers who kill systematically, shown through the brothel scene, interviews and footage from Vietnam.
The irony of the final scene is Davis' last punch to the viewer's gut; almost mocking the American public and I think it is perfect as the last scene.
The final scene in the documentary was very interesting to me. A parade is a time when Americans can honor veterans and veterans can feel pride in what they have done. Showing this after a documentary designed to portray soldiers as ordinary, or even less than ordinary is important rhetorically. The soldiers throughout the documentary are shown as dehumanizing murderers who kill systematically, shown through the brothel scene, interviews and footage from Vietnam.
The irony of the final scene is Davis' last punch to the viewer's gut; almost mocking the American public and I think it is perfect as the last scene.
Tuesday, October 23, 2007
The rest of the article on The Pianist and Schindler's List is excellent. Please finish reading it critically, asking yourselves what he's saying and why he's saying those things. How does he develop his argument? Notice the little things like tone, style, transitions and thesis statements. How does he conclude? Then, after having finished it, read your peer's paper and see what kind of suggestions you can make that would make their paper as good as Sheppard's. Put Sheppard in his place. Show him how it's really done.
Hearts and Minds
I really enjoyed this documentary, because I think that it did a good job of being well rounded. In other words, it portrayed the attitudes of both sides of the issue. Although I have to admit it did seem to be leaning towards portraying war as terrible, which is what the general message was for me.
Did anyone else think of The Things They Carried when Coker expressed his attitudes about people that dodged the draft? Contrary to O'Brien's attitudes, Coker said that people that ran were wrong, and that they were cowards. O'Brien thought that those that didn't run were cowards for not standing up for what they believe in. I thought that this was an interesting little thing to think about. Everyone is going to have their own attitudes about the war, even with a more or less one sided issue as the Vietnam War. Maybe it was just because this documentary was filmed in the early 70s, I don't know. There's no denying the fact that some people did/do think that the Vietnam War was worth it.
Did anyone else think of The Things They Carried when Coker expressed his attitudes about people that dodged the draft? Contrary to O'Brien's attitudes, Coker said that people that ran were wrong, and that they were cowards. O'Brien thought that those that didn't run were cowards for not standing up for what they believe in. I thought that this was an interesting little thing to think about. Everyone is going to have their own attitudes about the war, even with a more or less one sided issue as the Vietnam War. Maybe it was just because this documentary was filmed in the early 70s, I don't know. There's no denying the fact that some people did/do think that the Vietnam War was worth it.
Hearts and minds
Ok so although I had to watch the movie two times, I did enjoy Hearts and Minds just because of its different outlook on the war. This is one of the few movies that I've watched that didn't portray the soldiers as heros out there protecting America with faceless Vietnamese hiding in the woods. The way that you can see how what was actually happening in the war and what was being told to the public by the American government was startling. I think the scenes that effected me the most were the ones in which a Vietnamese man is talking about how his innocent children were killed by boms and then in the next scene you see General Westmoreland saying that the Vietnamese don't value human life. It was scenes like these and others that were so blatantly false that led me to believe that the war was just so falsely conveyed to the American public.
Monday, October 22, 2007
Hearts and Minds
Hearts and Minds was not only the greatest text we have studied thus far, but it was also one of the greatest movies I have ever scene. This movie impacted me most directly because of its use of rhetoric the director used to persuade me to take a side other than my own country's. By then end of this movie the comparison of interviews made me side with the families of the Vietnamese. On a side note I just wanted to to say I have the upmost respect for the men who contributed to this movie who were able to get all of these interviews and war footage.
Hearts and Minds
I found Hearts and Minds to be a very interesting movie. It definitely is a 'pro-peace' movie in a sense, and uses the soldiers that were actually there to prove this point. Some of the scenes in this movie were quite horrific. I think this is important in Peter Davis' perspective because it allows the viewer to really question the cost of war. I really appreciated the fact that this documentary gave us a view into what it was like from some of the Vietnamese. Instead of being insane, crazy ass soldiers (like portrayed in the other films we have watched thus far), it shows them as being human. They lived day by day defending themselves. The thing that impressed me the most about this film is how it juxtaposes political policy next to reality. In the end it yields that some of their policies were short-sighted, and politicians often do not think well enough into a conflict (which could be said for other foreign conflicts that the US has been involved in).
its been so long....
I loved "Hearts and Minds"! Peter Davis did not make this documentary in an equal display of views however given the fact that the American public is bombarded with the opposing point of view in the news during the time this documentary was made it helped "balance" Americans' knowledge of what was occuring in the Vietnam war. Peter Davis used powerful images and selective interviewing and editing. He shows the Vietnamese speaking common sense and defending themselves and shows the soldiers as either idiots or "wised up" veterans. Lt. Fred Coker is the exception. Peter Davis conveys him as intelligent and articulate. I think this added more credibility to the film because it showed the pro-war side to contrast with the anti-war. Peter Davis is a master at rhetoric. "Hearts and Minds" was beautiful, powerful, disturbing, and thought provoking. He expressed the anti-war sentiment but added Lt. Coker for contrast yet furthered his own point by doing so. It was brilliant!
Cleaning up the cobwebs...
Indeed it has been a long time since we have gathered together, but I think the hiatus has given everyone time to conclude their thoughts over Hearts and Minds.
This movie has to be one of the most moving documentaries I have witnessed. There were many emotional cords struck through out the movie. Seeing firsthand the end results of America's attempt to "win a war" without any narration allowed us as the veiwer an overall greater experience. It really allowed the audience to see how America went from a nation of freedom fighters to that of blood thirsty winners.
This movie has to be one of the most moving documentaries I have witnessed. There were many emotional cords struck through out the movie. Seeing firsthand the end results of America's attempt to "win a war" without any narration allowed us as the veiwer an overall greater experience. It really allowed the audience to see how America went from a nation of freedom fighters to that of blood thirsty winners.
Exposure:
Wow! It has been a long time since any of us have seen each other. Even longer for me since I was not able to make the screening. I hope you all had a good time. It looked like a lot of fun. It is ironic that for the Platoon screening I was the only one to show up, and yet for this one everybody could make it but me!
Anyway, Hearts and Minds affected me more than any of the other films we have watched thus far. I watched it rather choppily and not under ideal conditions, but it was the first film we have seen which made me feel like crying. It is really the first film that I have seen in a long long while that has had any emotional effect upon me. It is just a sad sad film that makes us realize the hypocrisy of many American actions and forces the viewer to consider the humanity of people other than ourselves.
I gained a much greater understanding into the process of Vietnamization as well. For the first time, I understood that we were grooming South Vietnam to be more like America. We trained the S. Vietnamese soldiers to behave like our own troops, supplied their weaponry, and even began to bring our corporations into their country. Americanization would have been the better phrase for it.
Overall this was an extremely insightful and touching film that will linger with me for the remainder of this course and beyond. It is the first time I have ever really believed or understood the brutality of war.
Anyway, Hearts and Minds affected me more than any of the other films we have watched thus far. I watched it rather choppily and not under ideal conditions, but it was the first film we have seen which made me feel like crying. It is really the first film that I have seen in a long long while that has had any emotional effect upon me. It is just a sad sad film that makes us realize the hypocrisy of many American actions and forces the viewer to consider the humanity of people other than ourselves.
I gained a much greater understanding into the process of Vietnamization as well. For the first time, I understood that we were grooming South Vietnam to be more like America. We trained the S. Vietnamese soldiers to behave like our own troops, supplied their weaponry, and even began to bring our corporations into their country. Americanization would have been the better phrase for it.
Overall this was an extremely insightful and touching film that will linger with me for the remainder of this course and beyond. It is the first time I have ever really believed or understood the brutality of war.
For Tuesday
Dear Slothropians,
Please bring 3 copies of your RA to class. Not arriving late would also be in everyone's best interests. See you tomorrow morning, full of hope and charity.
Sunday, October 21, 2007
Saturday, October 20, 2007
hearts and minds
Hearts and Minds wasn't exactly what I had expected. I was expecting something more bloody and disturbing. I really liked the fact that there was no narrator during the documentary. In the commentary by Peter Davis he said that the lack of a narrator removes the curtain between the person watching the film and the actual film, allowing them to develop their own thoughts.
I felt that this was the first thing we've seen that I actually felt like I connected with. Peter Davis uses a lot of interviews with Vietnamese citizens, something we have not seen in other films. We are able to see a side that wasn't too common in other films. I especially enjoyed the opening scene and the Vietnamese music. We also see a lot of the Vietnamese culture which I thought was pretty cool. I read somewhere online that the man working on the coffins was in more danger than Davis and those interviewing him. The interview took place in the basement of a hospital. If the man had been caught by a Vietnamese official he could have been imprisoned just for speaking to Davis and participating in the interview. I found that really interesting that the man seem to not care about that at all. His interview contributed a lot to the documentary.
There are many scenes that remain stuck in my head including the interview of the two old sister speaking of losing their sister and home. It was even more emotional hearing it in Vietnamese than in English. The scene of the young boy crying over the loss of his father still flashes back in my head. To be so young and lose a parent during a war that you don't understand is something I couldn't even imagine. Victory, LBJ said, "will depend on the hearts and minds of the people who actually live out there." That was something I found myself thinking about after the documentary was over.
I went to Blockbusters and Hollywood Video looking for the documentary to watch again to write my RA but couldn't find it at neither of the locations I went to. I did find the whole movie online so if anyone is interested, here it is:
you don't have to download it and it plays right in your window.
I felt that this was the first thing we've seen that I actually felt like I connected with. Peter Davis uses a lot of interviews with Vietnamese citizens, something we have not seen in other films. We are able to see a side that wasn't too common in other films. I especially enjoyed the opening scene and the Vietnamese music. We also see a lot of the Vietnamese culture which I thought was pretty cool. I read somewhere online that the man working on the coffins was in more danger than Davis and those interviewing him. The interview took place in the basement of a hospital. If the man had been caught by a Vietnamese official he could have been imprisoned just for speaking to Davis and participating in the interview. I found that really interesting that the man seem to not care about that at all. His interview contributed a lot to the documentary.
There are many scenes that remain stuck in my head including the interview of the two old sister speaking of losing their sister and home. It was even more emotional hearing it in Vietnamese than in English. The scene of the young boy crying over the loss of his father still flashes back in my head. To be so young and lose a parent during a war that you don't understand is something I couldn't even imagine. Victory, LBJ said, "will depend on the hearts and minds of the people who actually live out there." That was something I found myself thinking about after the documentary was over.
I went to Blockbusters and Hollywood Video looking for the documentary to watch again to write my RA but couldn't find it at neither of the locations I went to. I did find the whole movie online so if anyone is interested, here it is:
you don't have to download it and it plays right in your window.
Friday, October 19, 2007
Wednesday, October 17, 2007
movies and more
only four pictures left on that vintage machine and then i'll head straight to CVS; i'm sure it has been a long time since yall have seen some one proudly whip out a disposable camera. my phone camera seriously stinks.
i really enjoyed our movie night. initially i did not want to watch the movie around people because during every film so far i have gotten super emotional and unpleasant to be around. however, it was nice to be in a room filled with fellow classmates and experience a movie together as we simultaneously learn about the Vietnam war together.
the movie was less graphic and gory than i imagined. i expected this to be the most violent of all films for some reason. it seems like the movies that are extremely violent and graphic are the most disturbing initially. they leave you feeling sick and set a superior foundation for a slumber full of nightmares. i feel like hearts and minds, though less visually disturbing, captured the human emotion in such a way that leaves you thinking forever. where as troubling images can fade out of focus, hearing Westmoreland say something along the lines of "they don't value human life the same way we do" stings forever. I just can't get over the scene with the young boy crying relentlessly over the grave of his family member. The way the director juxtaposed images and ideas with such immaculate timing and coordination made each message so powerful. I think this movie deserves the awards it received and it deserves to be praised for its straightforwardness and recognition of the truth.
i really enjoyed our movie night. initially i did not want to watch the movie around people because during every film so far i have gotten super emotional and unpleasant to be around. however, it was nice to be in a room filled with fellow classmates and experience a movie together as we simultaneously learn about the Vietnam war together.
the movie was less graphic and gory than i imagined. i expected this to be the most violent of all films for some reason. it seems like the movies that are extremely violent and graphic are the most disturbing initially. they leave you feeling sick and set a superior foundation for a slumber full of nightmares. i feel like hearts and minds, though less visually disturbing, captured the human emotion in such a way that leaves you thinking forever. where as troubling images can fade out of focus, hearing Westmoreland say something along the lines of "they don't value human life the same way we do" stings forever. I just can't get over the scene with the young boy crying relentlessly over the grave of his family member. The way the director juxtaposed images and ideas with such immaculate timing and coordination made each message so powerful. I think this movie deserves the awards it received and it deserves to be praised for its straightforwardness and recognition of the truth.
Hearts and Minds
Hearts and Minds was an emotional roller coaster…I actually think that the documentary is about the American soldiers against the American government….they really emphasize how unpleased the soldiers really felt…This is different to the other text/clips we have seen because they all have seemed to have focus on the dehumanizing process/brainwashing…and the loss of innocence…well this is the end result…getting screwed over…what really got me was how the aviator was saying that there was no emotion to what he was doing. He was a technical pilot, a professional…just go in, and get the job done…it seems like soldiers were robots…
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)