Tim O'Brian's How To Tell A True War Story

In this short piece by Tim O'Brian, our author uses his own personal experiences from his time in the Vietnam war to discuss war as a whole. His writing is not linear but always returns to the story of his fellow soldier Kurt Lemmon stepping on a mine and dying and the subsequent letter his friend Rat writes to Lemmon's sister. Rat writes a heartfelt letter and is angry when he gets no response. This reminds me of PTSD. Rat and his troop experienced something visceral and emotional and he tries to tell a civilian about it but she doesn't respond. Someone with PTSD has experiences from the trauma they experienced that someone else can't conceive. It is just as Tim O'Brian says, its not about the actual story but the meaning and the time in between. O'Brian brings up a story he was told about men laying in the jungle on a recon mission. He knows that the story is a lie or at the least embellished but its still a true war story. Its not the details that matter as much as the emotion it evokes in the listeners mind. War is terrible and the people that live through it come away with scars unseen, like Rat who is grieving his friends death and is driven to anger that his friends sister doesn't reply to him. O'Brian says that his account of Lemmon dying is just that, his account. He suggests that to Lemmon it was light killing him and that everyones angle of sight was different. This reminds me of PTSD because what he is saying is that everyone adjusted to the situation differently and it is printed in O'Brian's mind in a specific way.

Bradbury: Hotel Rwanda

The movie Hotel Rwanda starring on Cheadle is an interesting take on the events that occurred during the three month genocide of the tutsis by the hutus.  As far as I know, the facts of what happened in terms of the genocide are accurately depicted in the film. The whole aspect of the hotel is apparently based on real events but I think it is safe to say that it is a loosely based interpretation. Most movies based on real events are dramatized because real life is always less interesting than what can potentially be put on camera. Since I do not know what actually took place however, I will write this blog solely from what I saw in the film, under the knowingly false impression that it is accurate. So I begin: The events circulating Don Cheadle's hotel are extremely sad. The movie makes a point to show that the rest of the world did not care about Rwanda. One statement by a U.S. official was that the United States was not sure if the risk to American lives and dollars was worth the cost of intervening. I think this statement is completely inaccurate. Going off of the movie, I saw an army of disorganized men, most of whom did not have firearms. I do not think that small groups of men with machetes could pose much of a threat to the United States military. The real reason I believe the Americans or any other major country did not intercept this slaughter was because they would of had nothing to gain from it. Unlike the middle east, Rwanda has no resources. It also posed no threat to our economy like communism did which prompted s to help South Vietnam. All in all, the film does not paint the world in a good light. The only man that actually helps Cheadle is his boss and I am willing to bet it was because he was both guilted into it and did not need the negative publicity surrounding his hotel. The U.N. pretended to help but did not want to get their hands dirty. The only time one of them fires a shot was in his own defense. On the radio, the tutsis heard reports that the world was covering up this catastrophe by stating that acts of genocide were happening instead of all out genocide, which was the case. I think that the movie does a good job of doing what Don Cheadle advised the tutsis to do: guilt people into caring.

Bradbury: Ides of March

This is the first still picture from the Ides of March that I would like to discuss. The movie surrounds a campaign to win the state of Ohio's delegate votes in the presidential election. The movie, from what I saw, seemed fairly accurate to how a real election would happen. This scene depicts a speech by Morris (played by George Clooney) announcing that the man directly to his right supports his run for presidency. This scene in the film shows just how ruthless politics can be. That man has much pull amongst the delegates and was planning on supporting another delegate. All of a sudden, another candidate promised him more power (a cabinet seat) and he switches his support. Is there any idealism left in politics? Does anybody run for the sake of the people. When the movie starts out, the audience is lead to believe that both George Clooney and Ryan Gosling's characters are idealistic. As Clooney's true form unveils itself, Gosling's grasp on ideology is shattered, and he results to blackmail and back-room dealing to stay in control. He ends up betraying his good friend and the audience does not even know if it was worth it because it is never discovered who wins. I do not think winning is the point however. The moral of the story (if I may be so cliché) is that everyone in politics is corrupted. You can see that Clooney has brought his wife and young daughter on the stage with him. This as merely a device used to make him appear like a family man and acquire more votes.

This picture I find interesting because the face is split between Clooney and Gosling's characters. They are juxtaposed in the sense that one is an idealistic youngster and the other is merely a face that masks the true politician behind it. The two are dopplegangers of one another. As the movie progresses the audience learns that the two men are not much different: they both want to win and they both will do whatever it takes. This is what Clooney the director is trying to say in this film.

Bradbury: Human Trafficking

The film "Human Trafficking" deals with a modern form of slavery: forced prostitution. This hushed up illegal activity takes place today right here in America. Women are lured by attractive men into getting passports and then the girls are whisked away to foreign places to be used as items of sexual pleasure. The women are essentially turned into a product, to be owned, sold, and bought. Most of them come from the former Soviet Union, a place where work is scarce and hard times abound. Sex is an everlasting resource. Although young girls and attractive women are the prime target of these malicious predators, oftentimes little boys are kidnapped as well, as portrayed in the film.
Why do few women ever live to tell their tale? The threat that keeps them to stay is not necessarily one of a physical nature. Their families are threatened to be killed or physically harmed and this threat keeps the sex slaves in line. While there are divisions of America's police force that investigate illegals in the states that are forced into prostitution, many young women are never found.  The American government, in my opinion, should be able to better prevent abductions into human trafficking rings, simply because of their access to advanced technology.  ICE (US Immigration and Customs Enforcement) is a division of the US government that's goals include targeting human trafficking rings and sex slavery.  According to their website, most of their recent investigations have been domestic, not international.  They state on their website that they are "serious about ending human trafficking".  Hopefully in the near future, their efforts will start proving more effective, and in the future, may even eradicate sex slavery completely.

If one of my close friends or relatives were abducted into a human trafficking ring, my first reaction would be to try to find them, or at least to find someone who could.  Liam Neeson's character in "Taken" comes to mind for me; this is the type of person I would try to contact if necessary, someone who would almost literally go to the ends of the world to save the victim.  Knowing the low statistics of women found after abduction, I would employ anyone possible in addition to the Federal government in hopes of increasing the chances.  I would probably pay any amount of money desired.

Bradbury: District 9

The film District 9, directed by Neill Blomkamp takes place in South Africa, years after an intelligent alien race crash landed on earth. The aliens, now common place in South Africa, are still segregated and live in slums. Some people are advocates of equal alien rights, but for the most part the aliens are looked upon as a lower race. This movie takes place post-apartheid, but the african american community also takes advantage of the aliens addictions and naivety. I find this ironic because the blacks in South Africa were kept down by whites and now free, they pick on the aliens by installing gangs in the alien ghettos to make a profit off them. The movie is about racism. The main character is an intelligent, upper middle class man with average political views. At first, he rejects his transformation and thinks he is becoming a monster. As the evolution (or devolution) continues, the man begins to feel sympathy for the aliens. This is a statement on how if an individual looks at life through the prospective of a lower class, they learn they are not so different. Just as whites kept blacks down, now people kept aliens down. Just as at one point in history it was an atrocity for whites and blacks to mate, now a doctored image of a man experiencing coitus with an alien is considered repulsive. The issue of racism is not solved in the film, as there is a sequel looming, but this comments on the fact that there is still racism and slavery in the world. Blomkamp is showing the atrocities of racism without explicitly saying so. That is what makes the movie enjoyable for the public. One knows that they are supposed to loathe the aliens because they are the outsiders, however you tend to end up rooting for them. They come off as scary and aggressive but are just like everyone else. This shows racial profiling and the injustices that go along with it. All in all, the film was enjoyable, jam packed with action, and a good political message.

Bradbury: Restrepo

The article Sebastian Junger wrote to eulogize Tim Hetherington relates directly to their time in Afganistan filming Restrepo. They were out in one of the most dangerous places in the world, (at least for an outsider) the Konigal Valley, filming the experience of war. While countless wars have been fought over the centuries, man has now evolved to a state where they can film and show the experiences of war to the rest of the world. There is soe horrible sights in Restrepo, such ast the scenes from Operation Rock Avalanche, and there are some beautiful sights, such as the bonding of men from different backgrounds to become a single unit, a single family. In the article, Junger mentions the fact that Hetherington had the idea that soldiers in war act the way they see soldiers in movies and photos, and propaganda. In a sense this is exactly what the two photojournalists were doing, except more accurately. Now, young men can watch Restrepo and see a more realistic aspect of war. Watching Restrepo changed the way I thought of war. The way Afganistan had been propagandized to me was a desolate wasteland full of crazy terrorists. The landscape turned out to be beautiful. The people in the villages just had different views on life than americans; possibly due to the images they have seen. If I were to ask Junger three questions about the film it would be: 1. Do you think you spent enough time to accurately show the war. 2. Do you think the war can ever be won. 3. Do you think that the Americans are ignorant to the Afganis. Three questions about the War: 1. Was the road really for the people of the valley? 2. Is this a just war? 3. Should Americans be in Afganistan? About his work: 1. Are you afraid of death. 2. Do you think your presence hinders the soldiers work? 3. What is your end goal?

Bradbury: Rendition

Is torture appropriate in any situation? Looking at history, one would have to say yes since it has been used since the dawn of war. It was popular even amongst the catholic church during the spanish inquisition. Thomas Moore, renowned as a saint, tortured heretics in the name of England. Today, people that agree with torture see it as a necessary evil. The United States of America's official position is that they do not torture. They do, however, perform acts of "extraordinary rendition". They essentially kidnap suspected terrorists and hand them over to the control of countries that do torture. Former CIA agent Robert Baer was quoted saying:"If you want a serious interrogation, you send a prisoner to Jordan. If you want them to be tortured, you send them to Syria. If you want someone to disappear -- never to see them again -- you send them to Egypt." Water boarding is a type of torture commonly used on prisoners. It is a simulated drowning  . One reported for the NY times subjected himself to water boarding for the sake of reporting. Paraphrasing, he stated it was the worst experience of his life and no human should be subjected to it. WHile we do not see water boarding being used in the film, we see other tactics such as electrocution. The prisoner in the movie is accurately depicted in relation to what actually happens. The prisoner was stripped naked, relieved of sight and sound, and psychologically broken down. I do not think this should happen to anyone. Especially if its done by the United States, who are a bastion of freedom and believe in due process. If we are truly a democracy, then why can the government take people secretly without our knowledge and without our say-so? There are other ways to extract information other than torture. It has been proven that being civil to prisoners has extracted more information than torture. Jake Gylennhall in the film states that if you torture one person you make 10, 100, 1000 more enemies. This means that victims of torture wil give up random names just to be relieved of pain.