An in-progress list of RA #3 topics

1. Caroline wrote on her blog post: "I watched Platoon yesterday and I have to say all these war movies are beginning to seem all the same." Agree or disagree and provide evidence. If you agree, what does it mean that the rhetoric of "all these war movies" is the same? If you disagree, tell us how they differ and what the differences tell us about them.
   
2. Compare the rhetoric of Platoon with the rhetoric of Apocalypse Now. Did one feel more "realistic" than the other? Which one felt closer to the truth, whatever that is? How did the film achieve that "truthy" realism?
   
3. The creation of the superman gave Hollywood the opportunity to construct a character who could transcend most moral and social categories while helping obfuscate the war's connection to U.S. politics and society. The superman allowed the movie-going audience to view Vietnam as a war fought by men psychically and morally different from themselves, men whose internal lives remain unfathomable and live on a more-murderous and elevated plane of reality than other men. It allowed the particular political reasons for the war and the moral questions that the intervention and the fighting itself elicited to remain untouched. It also granted the public ideological and psychological comfort with the notion that the death and destruction had more to do with the human condition than with any concrete decision made by the U.S. government or any moral responsibility of the American public for actively supporting or passively accepting the war. How do Platoon or Apocalypse Now support or negate this statement?
4. Sgt. Elias (Willem Defoe) and Sgt. Barnes (Tom Berenger) bookend the spectrum of differences among enlisted men. What rhetorical moves does Oliver Stone make to embolden and highlight these differences?
5. You've now seen three movies: FMJ, Platoon, Apocalypse Now, and you know what they show. Think about what they don't show, and how these omissions affect the audience.