How do Hollywood movies portray the American war hero?

 

 

 

          I first came across this question when reading an article by Alyssa Rosenberg for a class project. In the project, one of the subjects addressed was the soldier image and the ideal soldier was a strong Caucasian male. Women and men of other ethnic backgrounds were not perceived as ideal for the soldier image and so never though of as an American war hero. Then as I began to research different movies and how they display an American war hero I found that in many war movies men and women of many different ethnic groups are portrayed as American war heroes. These video clips show how diverse the American hero can be. The American hero is someone who cares enough for their country to fight for it. Its not just one person, but anyone and everyone who chooses to protect their country.

Is the Truth Worth a Life?

Many war correspondents and photographers go into war zones to document what really happens on the frontlines. They put their lives at risk in hopes of bringing back the truth behind the curtains of war. Are the truths of war worth the lives of war correspondents’? I do not think they should put their lives on the line to exploit the truth. They have loved ones back home who wish they would stay and not put their lives in danger.

I came across an example of this in an article I read for a group project in my English 101 class. The Taliban abducted a French photographer named Pierre Borghi on November 27, 2012. He was looking for work in the humanitarian or urban sectors. Pierre Borghi was given a piece of paper on which to write down his information for a background check to be given to the Taliban Cabinet then passed down to the French authorities. Since the French authorities were not meeting the Taliban’s demands, they said Pierre’s execution would be within the next few days. As a result, Pierre did not wait when he noticed his chains were loosed he escaped back to a military base.

Two more examples of war correspondents putting their lives in danger are Sebastian Junger and Tim Hetherington  the war correspondents for the Korengal Valley and creators of Restrepo. Sebastian and Hetherington put their lives in danger in order to document what the soldiers of Battle Company, 2nd Battalion, 503rd Infantry Regiment of the 173rd Airborne Brigade did while in the Korengal Valley. They were caught in the middle of many firefights between the soldiers and the Taliban and their  lives were constantly in danger. Sadly, on April 20, 2011 Tim Hetherington was killed in Misurata, Libya while on another war correspondent assignment.

War correspondents have dangerous jobs that require them to put their lives at risk for footage of frontline warfare and how soldiers live while at war. Are these assignments worth the war correspondent’s lives? , should they be given security and boundaries to where they can film? I believe if they are going into a war zone, they should be protected and given boundaries that they should not cross. If these conditions are not met then war correspondents should not go to that war zone, its just way too dangerous for them to be out in the field.

 

Americas Negative Impact

Why does the United States interfere in wars overseas? Do the natives appreciate the help we give? Many natives of countries at war feel that the United States causes the situations to become worse. Some natives do not want help from American soldiers; they just want to deal with the problem themselves or hope that it will resolve itself. Many Middle East and African countries do not want help from American soldiers.

During the battle of Mogadishu, many civilians lost their lives and their much degraded city’s condition became worse. Homes, markets, and other buildings were destroyed in this battle. Families were driven from their homes and forced to live somewhere else, and all of the natives point their fingers towards the American soldiers for the cause of the destruction. They did not want the United States’ help in the first place and feel their presence made the situation worse. An example of this can be seen from looking at the story of a Somali woman, Hawo Hussein Adan, also known as the “Helicopter Woman.” She lost her home when an American black hawk helicopter crashed and her home became engulfed in flames. She  lost two of her children  from the falling debris which is a direct result of the negative impact the American soldier brought upon the civilians.

           In the Korengal Valley, the natives never allowed any country or group to come in their homeland and control them. They fought off every attempt to do so, even by the Taliban in the 1990’s. The Korengalis rely on each other for help and have become somewhat self-sufficient in their own eyes. They have their own timber industry greasing the ground causing trees to fall and transporting the timber through trails in the valley. They have made their land fertile for farming and built their homes to be able to withstand bombings and earthquakes. In the documentary Restrepo, the American soldiers’ defense wires happen to kill a Korengalis man’s cow; he was angry and wanted reparations for his cow’s death. The man wanted money but the soldiers could not give him money, so he left angry and unsatisfied. When the fire fights started in the Korengal Valley, many of the natives were killed in the cross fires and they became angry with the American soldiers and started to question their presence.

Do the natives of these countries have the right to be angry and upset with the United States? I believe natives of countries like Afghanistan and Somalia have a right to be angry with the American soldiers. In their eyes, the American soldiers did more harm than good for the situation. If the United States was plunged into war and other countries came to help and did more harm than good we would be angry with them. Not having the support of the natives can make a victory in a war longer and harder to achieve.

The Unreal War

Ten years ago, U.S. troops were sent into Iraq and Afghanistan to fight the terrorist group Al Qaeda. Since then Hollywood has made movies about war and soldier’s experiences in war, but are these movies showing what war really is? Do they show how soldiers are actually affected by war? No, they change what war really is and only show a soldier’s condition after war. This will make them money and make the movies more emotionally appealing to the audience.

These movies do not show what war is really like. They are set to the “after-war” condition, when the soldier has returned home and is trying to reintegrate back into their civilian life. The movies start when they are welcomed home with open arms by loved ones and seen as heroes. This is what the audience wants to see, it is what makes them leave the movie with a good feeling but also sympathy towards the soldier. According to Alyssa Rosenberg, “the movie Stop-Loss is about a soldier, who has come home from war, but his contract is reupped and he has to go back overseas. This movie takes place in the “after-war” condition of the soldier and doesn’t show footage of war events and experiences of the soldier.” This movie appealed emotionally to the audience. The audience felt sympathy for the soldier, they believed that he should not have to return and go through the horrible experiences of war again.

 Movies like The Hurt Locker and Black Hawk Down take place in the field, in the middle of battle and come the closest to showing what life is like in the field, but are these movies true? They are not entirely true, but are based off real life events. However, Hollywood still changed stories or added attractions to the movies to make them more appealing to the audience. For example, in the movie Black Hawk Down there was a scene when a group of soldiers took out a group of Somali soldiers under the cover of the night in a stealth like way, and then blew up the weapon-mounted vehicle. This appeals to the audience because it was a cool way to take the enemy out without being detected and end it with an explosion. Another example of the changes that Hollywood makes is in The Hurt Locker when William James defies protocols and orders on his bomb-defusing missions. In the military, no one is allowed to break protocols and orders no matter how high their ranking.
 

How do veterans feel about changes in war movies based off real wars or battles? Doing this angers the veterans that have experienced these battles and conditions first hand. In my interview with veteran Larry Beverly, he stated, “The movies are entertaining and may have some truth, but they do not show what really happens and do not capture the true feelings of the soldiers. They only show what they think will capture the eyes of their audience, the dangerous explosions and action packed fighting. Veterans put their lives on the line to fight for their country and war movies make it appealing and enjoyable. This is what makes me as a veteran angry about war movies.” I agree with him that war movies should exploit the truths about war, how the soldiers really feel, and show their experiences first hand.

If Hollywood is going to continue to make war movies, they need to make them true by gathering more information on what really goes on in war. Some movies do come close to portraying some truth about the war, but Hollywood leaves out a lot of essential information. War movies can be entertaining but also need to be truthful, to show what a soldier really goes through for their country, not to give a sense of false support and sympathy to our troops. Veterans may feel disrespected but that is not Hollywood’s intention. They do not mean to make veterans feel disrespected they are just doing what will make them money.

Children In War

In the battle of Mogadishu every civilian that was loyal to General Aidid and his cause fought for him. Men, women, and even children were all a part of the Somali militia. No one would ever expect a women let alone a child to pick up a gun and fire back at them. Could you bring yourself to kill a child in this situation? In the movie Black Hawk Down, SGT. Urich travels through a family’s home and slips out the back window to avoid a mob. When he slipped out the window, he startled the little boy soldier and the boy shot his father by accident. SGT. Urich did not kill the child; he could not bring himself to do it. Should he have killed the child or did he make the right choice? Personally, I think that he should have shot the child.

It is my belief that no child should ever be exposed to wars and battles like those held in Mogadishu. Instead, they should be playing, laughing, having fun, and not fighting in a battle.  I think children are just entirely too young to be put in a battle. This was wrong for the militia to do but, I understand why it was done. These children followed their parents who supported General Aidid’s cause and so they fought alongside their parents. Did they know that the decision they were making was right? Maybe, maybe not, but they made the decision based off what they believed to be right. They did not know any better, and decided based off what they were taught.

As for me, if I came faced with a situation like this I would have to take the child’s life, although I would regret it for the rest of my life. However, as soon as that child picked up the weapon they became my enemy. I am not going to lie, I would have to wrestle with that decision for a moment but when push comes to shove, its either my life or theirs. I know it would be an extremely hard and long process to forgive yourself after committing such an act but you have to go on living. I interviewed my world history teacher Dawn Diver who is a former soldier. She stated that, “A child came to the base with a bomb strapped to himself. I chose to kill the child because it was either the child or everyone in the base.” To this day, she still thinks about that child and the choice she made.   

I know many people would not be able to pull the trigger in a situation like this. They just would not have it in them to take a child’s life no matter the circumstances. They couldn’t live with the guilt, regret, and pain of the aftermath.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Ten Year Struggle

    The Vietnam War has many vulgar secrets behind it. Much of the public does not know of the atrocities that happened in Vietnam. The reason being is because the American soldiers committed these vulgar acts under the orders of the government. In the history books they tell you an estimate of how many American soldiers lost their lives in this war trying to protect their country. What they do not show are those innocent Vietnamese lives taken for no good reason. There should not have been so many Vietnamese civilians killed in that war.

 The Vietnamese people had to plan their lives around the war. Nick Turse explains, "The Vietnamese had to plan when to look for food, when to farm, when to relieve themselves, when to hide in the bomb shelters, and when to leave the shelter before the American soldiers arrived." For ten years they had to put up with bombings and their homes being burned down. Nick Turse "Kill Anything That Moves"”, reports that the Vietnamese lived in bomb shelters after their homes were burned down.” "American soldiers saw them as enemy bunkers and threw grenades in them." Towns were ransacked, food supplies was poisoned, and towns left uninhabited. 

           According to Nick Turse's "Kill Anything That Moves", "American soldiers produced body counts by the millions. They went about these actions by massacres, tortures, molestations, and murders." The civilians were ordered to be lined up and then killed, some people were used for target practice, and others molested. In his interview with Bill Moyer, Nick Turse points out the Mali massacre. “In this massacre five hundred Vietnamese civilians were murdered.” Another massacre was seen by a veteran Jamie Henry that Nick Turse interviewed himself. “Jamie Henry overheard his point man, Captain Medina,  give an order to kill anything that moves. Within thirty seconds of the order, nineteen civilians were killed.” An atrocity like this should never have happened to innocents.

 

 

    The Vietnamese civilians suffered for ten years in their own homeland. To the Vietnamese this was an invasion of their home and they had to go into hiding. Their lives were changed by this war and they lost many loved ones, and homes to the path of destruction the American soldiers left behind. No one should have to go through suffering like that. None of them deserved to die the way they did just because they were suspected of being  enemy gorillas. They deserved to live out their lives to fullest, to make every day worthwhile. Why did the Vietnamese civilians have to suffer? Do they still have any feelings of rage towards the American soldiers for what they did?

---

 

Introduction

Hello everyone, my name is Alexander Beverly and I am starting a blog on interpretations on past wars. If you would please follow me I would greatly appreciated it.

I am a freshmen from Augusta, Georgia attending Jacksonville State University for culinary arts and plan to open my own restaurant one day. 
I am someone who is willing to go the extra mile to help others. I love making new friends and sharing my interest. I always  try to be a good friend, I feel its important to have friends. When i was a child my favorite movie was Free Willy. This movie and song "will you be there" by Micheal Jackson inspired me to be a good friend to everyone and to always help others before yourself.

This movie also taught me to follow my dreams and to live a free life. No one should live there life cooped up inside a shell, or you will miss all what life has to offer. So I am choosing to live my life to the fullest and walk my own path to my dreams.