The Horror:

I was not that impressed with "Apocalypse Now". This may be, in retrospect, because I do not feel that I liked it. It just did not draw me in as the other films have, and I felt like the whole film was plodding along. It definitely had suspense in that I was eagerly awaiting Sheen's arrival into the world of Kurtz. It just did not deliver. I was not impressed with Kurtz in any way. He seemed like a sick, old, twisted man that did not deserve the position of power he had acquired. I saw nothing appealing in him. There were so many unexplored avenues that could have been taken with this film that simply were not. We need to see Kurtz as a intelligent radical worthy of our attention and compassion. Instead, to me at least, he was portrayed as a man deserving of death. I had no qualms over Sheen killing him the way he did and felt that the Army was more than justified in ordering his execution. I wanted a better grasp of the motives behind Kurtz's actions - what drove him to the point of insanity and why does he do what he does now? None of this was delivered. Perhaps it was to be left up to the audience to determine these things, but I just think that too little was revealed. Sheen, I think, understood Kurtz from the beginning. The only difference between the two men was that Kurtz succumbed to his insanity while Sheen faced his own head on and kept moving forward. The last words spoken by Kurtz (and what are probably supposed to be the most memorable), "the horror," represent the horror of life and the evil of which mankind is capable. Kurtz personified this evil by fully surrendering to his own "dark side" and releasing it upon the world.

The Vietnam Conflict:

I just finished speaking to Major Catazaro. I made sure to be really careful in how I addressed the issue with her. She first of all agreed that I was repeating the question correctly because I wanted to make sure not to misquote her. She said that other countries use a modified version of the salute by either using their left hand or tilting the right fully upwards in a manner much different than ourselves (both of which she demonstrated). I then carefully brought up the issue of the Vietnam War, telling her that I was fairly well-versed on the subject, am in your class, and generally understand that we lost the war and how that would conform to her theory as to why we salute. She said that the trouble with that lied in a misunderstanding. First of all, the proper terminology for it is the Vietnam Conflict. This special categorization negates it from being a war and therefore would not apply to the saluting rule under that specific terminology. Secondly, we did not loose the war. We pulled out. I understood this to be much like a retreat, but I believe her point was this was another means of validating her statement. Lastly, she informed me that Austin is an extremely liberal town and as such I will not always receive the truth, even from my professors. She said that only military officials (such as herself I assume) would be fully capable of understanding what occured in Vietnam and that most civilians could not know the "truth" even if they tried. I thanked her for her clarification and ended it at that.

One thing I could not help but noticing was a bit of confusion on her part. It really did feel like she had been trained to believe these things. I had to gently pull to get further information from her and even then it seemed like she had a bit of a struggle within herself to come up with answers.

Now, I would like to tell you some end-of-semester project ideas that have popped into my head. I liked your idea of an album. However, I think I would rather sing a really long one rather than six individuals, something similar to that one we began to hear in class. The only trouble is that I have no prior experience recording (could I do it for you on a tape recorder alone?), and also, if it need be done on a computer I have neither the background nor technology for doing so. Maybe that overrides that option then. My other idea was to put together some sort of Vietnam scrapbook. Not necessarily from the perspective of one having gone throught the war or containing memorabilia from my time there. I was thinking more all inclusive. Perhaps it could feature songs, letters home, photgraphs, movie posters, any number of things. Just let me know which of these two endeavors you believe I should focus my efforts on. Maybe I could even do a combination of the two.

Peace out, Mr. P.

Symbolism in "Platoon"

Like I began to say last night, there are so many different layers to this movie. Stone was a perfect director for this film, having been through the war himself, and effectively captured the subtle nuances of war that I think American audiences would be most responsive to. I just wanted to point out a few things I noticed while watching this film. Let me know if any of them strike you.

I found the Elias/Barnes dynamic to be the most compelling aspect of the film. Is the term for that "foils"? Anyway, they were complete polar opposites. While Barnes represented rash decisions and sheer, mindless brutality, Elias stood for calm and rational moral decisions despite the hell of war surrounding him. Despite his known distrust of Barnes, Elias greeted him with a smile when alone in the forest just moments before he was shot and betrayed. The camera zooms into Elias' mouth and we see it close into a hardened almost grimace as he realizes that his comrade has not come to his aid, but rather to bring about his demise. I found it most telling when Barnes' says to Elias' remaining followers, "I am the truth." This was a very dramatic line which I think captures the essence of many soldier's philosophies. For Barnes', the only way he could go on being the type of man and go on living, was to believe in his own reality and disregard the truth that may be found in any other individual. The Barnes/Elias relationship symbolizes the duplicity of man. While Taylor originally found himself drawn to Barnes (the darker side of man's nature), he soon realized that he would rather take the higher road in life by subscribing to the kindness and moral awareness present within Elias. What does this say for mankind? Are we to believe, through Stone's depiction at least, that we are all initially drawn to corrupt souls rather than the goodness in life?

Barnes had been shot seven times. The only remaining wounds we see inflicted upon him are a leg injury and then the final three shots which kill him. One could argue that the 9th shot by Charlie Sheen would have been enough to finish him off and thereby brings forth the interesting reference to the nine lives of a cat. I do not know if this was in fact intentional on any level by Stone, but when you add the seven to the leg and then killing blow, I found this an interesting comparison. I was hoping you could clear something up for me. I understand that Barnes was a disturbed and cruel man, but why was he killing his own men at the end of the large VC battle. i understood his angst against Elias as rational for that brutal attack, but what reason did he have for turning on his own men at that point? Or was it just that by that point he was so consumed by the insanity of was and his own rage that he no longer had a grip on what he was doing exactly?

Now for my final comparison. Elias is the Aramaic form of the Biblical Elijah. He was the chief prophet and messenger of God in the Jewish faith. This is of note due to the ideals he represented. Unlike Elijah, however, he was not successful in his goals. His goodness, while encouraging followers, was not rewarded in this life, even though retribution for his death was eventually achieved. i think that the greater parallel may lie in him being a Christ-like figure. Much like Jesus, he too was betrayed by a comrade. The greatest visual evidence for this lies in his own death. As Elias falls and throws his arms upward and out toward Heaven, a blatant parallel is made between himself and the crucifixion of Jesus.

Thousands of things must slip my mind as I write this. I am sure many more would become apparent upon repeat viewings. As for what was not shown, I regret to inform you that I cannot place that at this time. All I can think is that a complete lack of true happiness or human decency (other than that of Elias) is not present in this film and limited to few other characters we have seen in the others. Another definite aspect that we have not seen in a film thus far (although most definitely not what you would desire to be pointed out) is the response to the war on the home front, nor any glimpses of American civilian life at this time at all, although the reaction of Taylor's going to war by his parents is evidence by the fact that he only speaks to his grandmother in letters home.

Sounds like your Major has been watching Patton too much. Though wars are messy and unquantifiable, it is understood by everyone around the world that the United States lost the Vietnam War. So not only were hunderds of thousands of people killed, but saluting privileges were lost as well? The horror!

Broken Bridges:

We salute with our right hands because medieval knights wore their sheaths on the left side and drew their swords up to the right as a sign of respect to other warriors. Today in class, Major Catazaro asked us, "Does anyone know why we are the only country in the world to salute with our right hand?" This took me offguard because I already knew of the old tale going back to the knights and certainly did not realize we are the only country that does so. Because of this I hesitated to answer. It turned out I was not the only person with some level of confusion. Nobody replied and she supplied the answer, "because we are the only country in the world that has never lost a war." I did not quite understand the concept, but because it was stated as such an obvious and direct fact, I did not feel like raising the issue or asking for further explanation. Am I to assume that every other country that has lost some battle in the distant past salutes with their left arm to reflect their shame. That is the only way I understood how to take it since our books explain the salute as a position of honor. I was also curious as to how this relates to the concept of Vietnam. Through our studies thus far, that is a war we lost as far as I understand, so should we not lose this right-handed saluting privelage as well? Or is this overlooked due to some pulling out clause or treaty? This is certainly a topic that I plan to research further though. Also of interest, my science teacher explained that when marching across bridges, military personal do not step on cadence because they would match the bridges natural frequency or vibrations (I forget exactly how he phrased it), and this would cause the bridge to collapse. Now I will be one step ahead of the game when we cover marching across bridges in drill!!! :)

I'm thoroughly enjoying your posts and contributions in class, Severin. Your presence is particularly intriguing because you are in training to be a military man yourself, and thus can offer us an inside perspective. Most impressive, however, is how open minded you've been. Foster that and you will be rewarded.

With regard to Patton, I can't help but feeling that the rhetoric of the opening speech is one of arrogance. That, as you rightly pointed out, no man is larger than life. That statements like "America will never lose a war" are symbolic of the kind of imperialistic arrogance that led to the great tragedy of Vietnam, and now, Iraq.

You also qualify your thought that "Bush is a bad man." I'm not sure that statement needs to be qualified.

One more thing: a sign of a great mind is one that makes connections between disparate subjects and fields of inquiry. If things are beginning to appear cohesive, well, then, maybe you've got a great mind on your shoulders?

Writing About the Movies and One Other Thing:

There really is not all that much new on my mind. I went through a day-long orientation for my new job as an usher at the Frank Erwin Center this past Saturday. It was so tiring. I am beginning to wonder how I will stay as busy as I am and still do well in school. I signed up for four events already. This coming Saturday I get to watch the Rice game and get paid $10.50 an hour for doing so. It is a pretty good job then I guess, it will just take up a lot of time when I do it. On the plus side though, it is an entirely flexible schedule, so I only work or sign up for events when I want to.

A funny thing happened last Thursday after I had your class. My AFROTC group met up outside for drill instruction. My flight commander, essentially a bossy, fifth-year senior drill instructor, had to yell at one of the girls in the group. She was chewing gum. He exclaimed, "SWEET JESUS!!! Are you chewing gum in MY uniform?" I had to practically bite my tongue to keep from laughing or getting any kind of smirk on my face. At that point, he reminded me so much of the man in Full Metal Jacket that it was nearly impossible to keep from cracking up.

That is about all I have got. I find the reading on films to be very informative, and its examples will prove useful as we write our own critiques on movie rhetoric. I have my first physics exam this coming Thursday, so for the next several days, that will be the dominant thought on my mind.

Too Many Things... Too Little Time!

I am really beginning to enjoy all of my classes. With the exception of physics, there seems to be a remarkable cohesiveness in how all the discussions and readings throughout my classes seem inextricably tied together. That is not to say that they all cover the same topics, just to say that I notice certain things within each class that may pertain to another and hopefully I can use at some point within another class or even during my future life. I know it sounds silly, but that realization gives me a sense of joy and just makes me happy somehow. I love feeling well-rounded and have never felt so much so as now that I am at U.T. It can be exhausting at times, but I am loving it.

There are so many things I could discuss, but to be honest I need to get on with my paper and physics homework. I have P.T. right before your class both days, so if I ever appear a little groggy or incoherent (hopefully not that extreme), please forgive me. Anyway, in response to the opening scene of Patton, I found it a very nice and moving war speech. It proved to be slightly humorous, due to its being taken out of context, but still I found it to be a believable war speech and can understand how somebody high-ranking in the military could have those particular views and the freedom to address a crowd in that manner. The acting seems like it will be incredibly strong, and I cannot wait to view the entire film as soon as I have the time. In the opening, one gets to see all of Patton's regalia - from war medals, to his four stars, all the way to his flashy rings. In this manner he is portrayed as a larger than life figure and yet as the camera shifted more to a distanced perspective, the American flag dwarfed him from every angle. I believe this may be done to show that even the most powerful men have a small place in history. It also goes to show that America and what we stand for, has taken many such men as Patton to form us into the free republic we are today. The U.S.A., therefore, is a collective of many different viewpoints and cultures, and in having "America" drape over Patton as she does, he is shown to have an extremely narrow and limited viewpoint, that despite all his power, really is of very little importance. Do you agree with any of this Mr. P.?

I will discuss FMJ in greater detail during my weekly writing assignment. I will choose my own topic, although I am as yet unsure what that will be exactly. I would like to comment however that I wish we had learned what the female Vietcong sniper had said before she died. I want to know the exact meaning of her prayer, be it Christian hymn or traditional Vietnamese. In response to your question, I would say that despite the numerous benefits of communism in its ideal form, no form of government may ever succeed if it is brought about through military means, enforced by armed forced, and adds oppression to the populous. No matter how great and pure a concept socialism may have been at the time of its initial conception, it was brought about in every place through brutal means and featured little to no consent within many of those under its dominion. We naturally opposed communism, because it represented everything we feared America could become, a country of militant dominion over the people within their own country rather than as a means of defense. Does that mean we had a right to go into other countries to reshape their own governments? I really do not know. Nobody does. The more we study Vietnam, the more it seems like an only slightly less absurd occurrence than the War in Iraq. I am not saying that President Bush is a bad man. I just mean that while the Vietnam Conflict built up and intensified over many years, Iraq just seemed to have popped up over night at one man's fancy. I don't understand why he had and continues to have so much power. In regards to communism, I believe it was due to failure from the beginning because no regime that does not have the peaceful support of those under its dominion can ever hope to be successful in the long run. I know I got off on a bit of a tangent, but I hope that answered your questioned. Have a great night, and I will see you in the morning. Hopefully tomorrow we will not find ourselves in the Amazon once again.

Noble Questions

Severin,

Yours are noble and insightful questions. I had planned on covering communism in some depth in class, with a fairly broad Wikipedia handout to start with--you'll get it Tuesday. Since this isn't a political science class, however, it won't be necessary for our purposes to get into the intricate workings of communisim and socialism, but it sure would do us well to know about them in general terms. To that end, here's a helpful bit I found:

In very broad strokes, socialism is an economic system in which "the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy." In modern societies, socialism often attempts to eradicate class divisions. While the word "socialism" is sometimes used interchangeably with "communism," the two aren't the same -- communism is a more extreme form of socialism.

Communism advocates the "collective ownership of property and the organization of labor for the common advantage of all members." While communism is first and foremost an economic system, it's also a political ideology that rejects religion. And just as communism is a form of socialism, Marxism, Maoism, and Leninism are branches of communism.

The more important consideration, for us, is why the Big Scuffle over what appears as a benevolent theory? Do you have any thoughts on this?

To answer your second concern about the negative portrayal of war and the army: this class, as I envision it, is not a history course either, but, as the name implies, the rhetoric of the vietnam war. Which is to say, in layman's terms, how do people talk about and make sense of the Vietnam War? What kind of "arguments" do they put forth? I certainly don't have an agenda, but I looked for the texts that seemed most rich in meaning and complexity. And given how complex this era was, we're in for some pretty heady and emotional subjects. Your question is exactly the right one to be asking. With regard to FMJ, for example, we can ask what Kubrick's point was, how did he argue it, and why or why not is it successful. I promise there will be many opportunities to hear from different sides of the story. But it will be up to you to raise the challenging questions, either here or in class, when you deem things are being one sided. I look forward very much to having you in this class, Severin. Welcome.

A Couple Questions:

Mr. P.,
I just got done watching some of Full Metal Jacket and could not help but notice how it portrays war and field training in such a negative light. I was just wondering, is everything we watch and study this semester going to display the armed forces as nothing but causing death and destruction? I realize that we are studying the Vietnam War, which naturally has an overall negative connotation associated with it, but many people do join the military for noble purposes, by choice, and war, I believe, can sometimes be a glorious thing. I was also curious about one other thing. Could you help explain the difference between communism and socialism to me? I was just a little confused on the topics and before going further, had hoped I would have a little better basic understanding of the variances between the two.

About Me:

I grew up in the small town of Brenham, TX. We have a population of just slightly over 10,000 people so coming to a school where my freshman class is larger than my entire town is a little overwhelming. About the only claim to fame we have is that we are the home of Blue Bell ice cream. My sister is actually best friends with the CEO's daughter. But in a town that small, I got a little sick of being just about the only boy in town whose parents did not work for the factory. In both high school and the years prior, I was very involved with various organizations and activities. From first through sixth grade I was actually the top fund-raising collector in my county for the American Heart Association. In high school, I held positions in student government, was vice-president for the Spanish club, participated in the National Honors Society, and played soccer for all four years. My senior year, I got to be king of my town's Maifest. It is an old German celebration that is a little stupid but actually is the largest event of its kind in our nation. If you have facebook, you can look me up and I have pictures of me in full regal attire that you might enjoy seeing. My dad and all of his five brothers went to this university. It is the only place I applied and where I have always wanted to go. I actually live off campus with my grandmother, which makes it a little harder getting to know people, but I am still having a good time. Orientation 6 was my session and by the time I went to apply for my classes, most things were full. My SAT score had placed me out of RHE 306K and all I knew was that I needed 309. Upon registration, I saw that their were actually many different versions of this course, but only three were still open. Yours was the only one that interested me and the name Rambo drew me in from the start. I have always loved that movie. Right now, I am in Air Force ROTC. I signed up because I have always had an interest in flight and quite frankly, could use a scholarship. That is all I can think to say about myself for now. I am sorry it got so long. If there is ever anything else you would like to know about me, do not hesitate to ask. Have a great week-end, and I will see you on Tuesday.