So I'm teaching an honors seminar on the Viet Nam wars and I've been showing movies as a supplement. I've seen a LOT of movies, including many "about" the Viet Nam war (2nd Indochina War to most of the world). So far, we've seen Apocalypse Now, We Were Soldiers and Gardens of Stone. Coming up will be Full Metal Jacket, Hamburger Hill, Green Dragon, Journey from the Fall and The Beautiful Country.
As a veteran, I'm often asked what movies I like or which movies are good. As a veteran, my opinions are strongly colored by my experience and my own beliefs about what happened over there and why, so I'm sure my opinions are far from objective. But, as Sgt. Hazard says in Gardens of Stone "Opinions are like assholes - everyone seems to have one" so I might as well share mine!
Let's take the ones I really don't like first. All of the Rambo movies are really insulting. If folks would just take those for what they are - an excuse to blow things up and reduce the world to black and white - I wouldn't be so ticked at them, but some folks seem to think that those movies have something meaningful to say about the war. Trust me - they don't. That goes in spades for all the Chuck Norris bs. At least in Norris' case he actually served in the armed forces - Stallone didn't. The Deer Hunter won "Best Picture" against another Viet Nam movie Coming Home and others such as An Unmarried Woman. Parts of The Deer Hunter are certainly worthy - I especially like the scene in the bar back home at the end when they sing "America, the Beautiful" but I really detest what they did with the war. Another "best picture" winner was Platoon and again, parts of the movie are worthy but much of it is just awful. I especially dislike the way the platoon acted in the village and all the drug scenes. The last thing you want to be when in combat is high.
So what are some worthy Viet Nam movies? Well, I'm showing some of them, though a number of the American films are not stellar. I would say that Green Dragon is worthy. The first time I saw this, I really lost it (major crying jag) when the South Vietnamese general raised the South Vietnamese flag and began singing their national anthem. For years, it had been kind of a joke in my family because I would often sing the opening lines and I think Peg thought I made it up - but when that scene appeared in the movie, it just hit me real hard. I volunteered in large part because I thought the South Vietnamese needed and wanted our help. It is now clear that not only didn't the South Vietnamese "need" or "want" our help, but that in fact our intervention made the situation worse for them. That crystallized for me in the scene mentioned above. Similarly, Journey from the Fall shows the plight of those who supported the Saigon government when they were placed in "re-education" camps "after the fall". And finally, The Beautiful Country shows the plight of Amerasians that resulted from liasions between U.S. troops and South Vietnamese women.
Of course, movies are not reality; but as I told my class - movies can be art and art often gets at deeper truths.
Wednesday, September 14, 2011
Saturday, August 27, 2011
"Race"
Clearly, I'm not a daily blogger kinda guy! Well, I spend enough time on the computer as it is, so blogging is low on my list of priorities. But lately, a number of things have coincided to stir the old blogging juices once again.
One of those is the summer movie season - usually a season pretty devoid of interest unless you like to watch stuff blow up. However, the recent release of "The Help" has generated a storm of controversy, recently analyzed by A. O. Scott at the NY Times. One of my facebook friends was irate at the positive spin this movie was receiving, and posted a critical review. The review, as you can see if you follow my link, was entitled "The Help" - a feel good movie for white people. I thought the review was good and raised some important points. A. O. Scott in his analysis contends that the director intended to raise the issues noted in the critical review. Since I haven't seen the movie yet, I'll withhold judgment - but the issues are important and won't go away.
Last year, it was "The Blind Side" that stirred this kind of thing in me. I rated it as a "good" movie but couldn't help noting that one could view it as patronizing. Is the only way out of dire circumstance for people of color due to some kind-hearted white folks? We watched "Precious" recently and my wife said afterward "I wonder if some republican was behind the production of this movie" - because one could look at it as "proof" of the evils of the welfare state.
It is very difficult to have an honest discussion about "race" in this country (or maybe any country). However, as a science type, I'd like to point out what evolution tells us about "race".
What we've learned from evolution is that all modern humans sprang from a single population that lived about 75,000 years ago. What we've learned from evolution is that the genetic diversity of what we might regard as a "race" is just as great as the genetic diversity of the whole species. What we've learned from evolution about human races is that the superficial differences between what we like to call "races" are just that - superficial.
I find that very hopeful. At some future point, perhaps we can move beyond "race" and start to think in much more inclusive terms.
One of those is the summer movie season - usually a season pretty devoid of interest unless you like to watch stuff blow up. However, the recent release of "The Help" has generated a storm of controversy, recently analyzed by A. O. Scott at the NY Times. One of my facebook friends was irate at the positive spin this movie was receiving, and posted a critical review. The review, as you can see if you follow my link, was entitled "The Help" - a feel good movie for white people. I thought the review was good and raised some important points. A. O. Scott in his analysis contends that the director intended to raise the issues noted in the critical review. Since I haven't seen the movie yet, I'll withhold judgment - but the issues are important and won't go away.
Last year, it was "The Blind Side" that stirred this kind of thing in me. I rated it as a "good" movie but couldn't help noting that one could view it as patronizing. Is the only way out of dire circumstance for people of color due to some kind-hearted white folks? We watched "Precious" recently and my wife said afterward "I wonder if some republican was behind the production of this movie" - because one could look at it as "proof" of the evils of the welfare state.
It is very difficult to have an honest discussion about "race" in this country (or maybe any country). However, as a science type, I'd like to point out what evolution tells us about "race".
What we've learned from evolution is that all modern humans sprang from a single population that lived about 75,000 years ago. What we've learned from evolution is that the genetic diversity of what we might regard as a "race" is just as great as the genetic diversity of the whole species. What we've learned from evolution about human races is that the superficial differences between what we like to call "races" are just that - superficial.
I find that very hopeful. At some future point, perhaps we can move beyond "race" and start to think in much more inclusive terms.
Sunday, March 20, 2011
"Merchants of Doubt"
It's the end of spring break - not much of a break for me as I was sick for most of it - and since I haven't posted since September I thought I might put this one out there.
While I was sick, I finished an excellent book entitled "Merchants of Doubt..." It's about how the same people who for decades tried to cast doubt on the harmful effects of tobacco are using the same tactics to cast doubt on climate change. And these same folks tried the same stuff with acid rain, the thinning of the ozone layer and pesticide use. What's the connection? The author of the book believes these people are "free market fundamentalists" who view any government regulation as bad. Naturally, industry LOVES these folks and does all kinds of under-handed things to support them.
Science is susceptible to their tactics (the same tactics used by creationists) because nothing is ever proven in science. Thus, one can always say that science hasn't PROVEN that humans are behind climate change.
Let's use a little critical thinking folks! Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas; that's simple physics. The concentration of carbon dioxide (and other greenhouse gases) in the atmosphere has almost doubled since the beginning of the industrial revolution. The global temperature has risen dramatically in the last 40 years. You figure it out.
While I was sick, I finished an excellent book entitled "Merchants of Doubt..." It's about how the same people who for decades tried to cast doubt on the harmful effects of tobacco are using the same tactics to cast doubt on climate change. And these same folks tried the same stuff with acid rain, the thinning of the ozone layer and pesticide use. What's the connection? The author of the book believes these people are "free market fundamentalists" who view any government regulation as bad. Naturally, industry LOVES these folks and does all kinds of under-handed things to support them.
Science is susceptible to their tactics (the same tactics used by creationists) because nothing is ever proven in science. Thus, one can always say that science hasn't PROVEN that humans are behind climate change.
Let's use a little critical thinking folks! Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas; that's simple physics. The concentration of carbon dioxide (and other greenhouse gases) in the atmosphere has almost doubled since the beginning of the industrial revolution. The global temperature has risen dramatically in the last 40 years. You figure it out.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)