Discussion of the Article: "Where Trouble Comes"

Solution Preview

First, a basic summary:
This paper is about the historical value of war films. It's primary thesis is that, concerning Vietnam, Hollywood has not entirely come to terms with American behavior there. As time has worn on, Vietnam films have been more ready to show American irrational violence, but never to such an extent that it makes Americans look like the "bad guy". The only thing the author uses against the war was the 1968 My Lai massacre. Because movies did not portray this (though plenty mentioned it), the author feels that Hollywood has not come to terms with the war itself. What has happened instead is that movies have gone from idealization of war (The Green Berets, starring John Wayne) to the psychological torture of war itself (Platoon). Movies are not history. They create myths. "Myth" - a story that a society tells about itself. It is not necessarily "false", but instead, is an ideal that a society is striving towards. In John Wayne, it's about unity and comradeship. The Green Berets is a symbol of this type - not meant to be a precise duplicate of war. We can say that it is about keeping the home front active and morale high. These myths address the irrational (or, maybe, the sub-rational), the feelings we have about ourselves and our mission. Myths are "true" in this sense, but false in their specific manifestations.

The Green Berets - shot during the Vietnam War with John Wayne. Negative reviews said that it romanticized war. Others said that it is what the country needed - a strong patriotic film. Apparently, the latter won, and the movie was a success.

War movies are inherently problematic - it is a construction of battlefield reality. Drama matters more than fact. The issue is the story, the characters ...