Research Paper Updates: The Influence of the Media in the Vietnam War Era

After much thought, I decided to switch my artifact for the research paper from John Erick Dowdle’s No Escape (2015) to Francis Ford Coppola’s Apocalypse Now (1979) because I think this film is more suitable for what I want to research, which is how and why the media actively shapes Americans’ perception of historical events. I am also especially interested in the role Orientalism plays in this process. Unlike No Escape, Apocalypse Now has a lot more historical significance because it was released shortly after the Vietnam War (1955-1975) and is considered one of the most famous films about the Vietnam War. In addition to that, there is more room for debate about the significance of the film and its portrayal of Southeastern Asians. While exploring this topic, I intend to consult Edward Said’s Orientalism (1978), debates about “otherness,” scholarly interpretations of Apocalypse Now, historical evidence about Americans’ attitudes toward the Vietnam War, and biographical information about Francis Ford Coppola.

The photojournalist (left) accompanies Captain Willard (right) as he first encounters the Montagnards in Cambodia (Source: www.businessinsider.com)

Francis Ford Coppola is an accomplished director, producer, and screenwriter; his most famous works include The Godfather trilogy and Apocalypse Now. Coppola’s Apocalypse Now—starring Marlon Brando and Martin Sheen–is an award-winning Vietnam War film that follows Captain Willard’s expedition along the Nung River to reach Colonel Kurtz, whom Captain Willard has been ordered to kill. The majority of the film focuses on the upstream journey, which represents the soldiers’ departure from civilization and descent into madness. Most of the movie was filmed in the Philippines, although some footage was shot in the Dominican Republic and the United States. Apocalypse Now was largely inspired by Joseph Conrad’s Heart of Darkness (1899), which explores the scope of man’s evil through its portrayal of Belgian imperialism in the Congo.

Since Apocalypse Now is one of the most famous Vietnam War films, I am interested in how its contemporary audience reacted to it, especially since it was released so shortly after the end of the Vietnam War. My working thesis is that Apocalypse Now reflects anti-Vietnam War sentiment its contemporary audience would have felt; however, it shifts the focus from soldiers’ physical injuries to their psychological trauma, at the expense of the Vietnamese. Although the combat scenes are portrayed spectacularly, the film undoubtedly highlights American soldiers’ psychological turmoil. In the film, Vietnamese characters are dehumanized and primarily used to advance the Western plot. For instance, as Captain Willard and the accompanying soldiers make their way up the Nung River, the soldiers kill Vietnamese passerbys because a woman protests while they are searching their boat. Although that woman survived, Captain Willard mercilessly kills her, presumably because it would be inconvenient to provide her with the medical attention she needs. Even when these soldiers kill Vietnamese civilians by mistake, evil triumphs when Captain Willard gives into his selfish desire to kill the Vietnamese woman merely to advance his mission. In addition to that, the fact that the soldiers become increasingly brutal as they travel up the Nung River implies that the Vietnamese are somewhat at fault for the soldiers’ transition into a more savage state of being. I am curious about the implications of this portrayal of war shortly after the Vietnam War, such as whether it influenced or changed the national attitude toward the war.

Research Paper Updates: Orientalism in the Media

For the final quarter of Humanities Core, we are free to explore our personal interests about war further in depth for the Research Project. We must choose an artifact from the time period we want to study and analyze its importance. I want to research whether portrayals of Orientalism in the media are used to retroactively justify decisions such as imperialism or the Vietnam War. I chose this topic because I found Edward Said’s theory of Orientalism very thought-provoking and wondered if it can apply to contemporary society. In addition to that, I have not seen a lot of contemporary analysis on Orientalism of Southeast Asia. My initial inspiration was when I watched the film No Escape, which seemed blatantly racist and problematic. I narrowed and refined my topic by further researching the concepts of Orientalism and otherness, and considered how they could be applied to this film. Sources that have been key in defining my research topic include scholarly articles on Orientalism and otherness and film reviews.

My artifact is director John Erick Dowdle‘s film No Escape, which was released in the U.S. on August 26, 2015. No Escape is about an American family, the Dwyers, who move to an unspecified Southeast Asian country because the father, Jack Dwyer, gets a job there. Shortly after their arrival, they find themselves amidst an insurgency and struggle to survive. The film largely focuses on how this rebellion impacts the Dwyers rather than Southeast Asians, whom this insurgency affects more. Dowdle’s most popular films have been horror films. In No Escape, he successfully terrifies the audience throughout the film in a way similar to horror movies. Director John Erick Dowdle works with his brother Drew Dowdle, who is the producer of the film. In 2007, John visited Thailand shortly after it experienced a peaceful insurgency; during his trip there, he began to wonder what would happen if he was stuck in a foreign country in a more violent insurrection, which inspired his idea for No Escape.

Alternate poster for No Escape (Source: www.avsforum.com)

No Escape was filmed in various Southeast Asian countries, including Thailand, Vietnam, and Cambodia. I found it interesting that the film never specified the exact setting and only referred to it as a Southeast Asian country. I thought that that this conflated all Southeast Asian countries and classified them as “the other.” However, upon further research, I discovered that No Escape was inspired by an insurrection in Thailand. Dowdle chose not to identify the setting in order to honor the request of the Thai government. To comply with the Thai government, Dowdle also had to avoid using the Thai language, the color yellow because it is associated with the king, and depictions of the Buddha. In addition to that, Dowdle claimed that it was actually an anti-interventionist message because the rebellion arose from American exploitation of Southeast Asian resources, notably the water manufacturing company that Jack Dwyer works for. However, I think that this message falls short due to the portrayal of the Southeast Asian rebels as relentlessly violent, dehumanized killers. This particularly reminded me of Orientalism, which argues that the West reduces foreign countries—such as those in Southeast Asia—to primitive, broad stereotypes in order to establish the West as superior to them. In the past, this idea has been used to justify Western imperialism because it falsely framed imperialism as helping civilize a less advanced society. I think a similar dichotomy is present in No Escape because it characterizes the Dwyer family as innocent Americans who unfortunately got caught up in a Southeast Asian rebellion, while it characterizes the Southeast Asian rebels as one-dimensional characters who only care about terrorizing Southeast Asian civilians and foreigners.

I picked the film No Escape as my artifact because it really stood out to me as a problematic depiction of Southeast Asia in the media. Instead of picking a topic first and then finding an artifact, I did it the other way around. When I saw this film, I noted that I might want to consider it for my research paper (and previously blogged about it). No Escape really opened my eyes to the kind of harmful depictions of other cultures in the media and made me wonder about the function of these portrayals. My working thesis about No Escape is that it unintentionally contributes to American xenophobia, which makes it a contributor to Americans’ collective memory about events such as imperialism and the Vietnam War. I plan to find out more about my artifact by researching the film’s production through interviews with the cast and crew, film reviews that address whether or not the film is racist, and the events that transpired in Thailand that loosely inspired this movie.

An Extensive Look At Torture

The general public can never fully comprehend the extent of torture, as it is a mostly underground occurrence that we are only exposed to in brief glimpses of news—such as the release of prisoners being tortured in the Abu Ghraib prison—and through distorted depictions in the media. I think that torture should be avoided unless in extreme cases, such as the time bomb case presented by Dershowitz.

Before the debate, I was against torture as a means of extracting information from suspects because it is easy for soldiers to get overwhelmed with the amount of power they have over those they are torturing. For instance, American soldiers extensively tortured and humiliated prisoners in Abu Ghraib. The controversial images that were released from Abu Ghraib demonstrated that these soldiers derived some kind of pleasure from degrading these prisoners.

During the debate, I had to defend a side that I did not necessarily agree with. Dershowitz made a good point about the ticking time bomb in which torture is presented as a necessary evil. The ticking bomb situation is one in which government workers capture an individual involved in a terrorist attack and torture him in order to obtain information about future terrorist attacks. This appeals to one’s sense of morality by presenting the audience with two extreme options: either treating this terrorist prisoner with dignity or by torturing him in order to save others’ lives. In this scenario, the cost of depriving an individual of his basic human rights by torturing him is less than the cost of letting many individuals die. I would agree with Dershowitz’s interpretation of this scenario. However, this situation is very rare and this method can be problematic. Even if this situation does happen, then there is a possibility that government officials can be torturing an individual who has no knowledge of the event at all, or even an individual who is not involved with the attack in the first place. For this reason, I am still mainly against torture because it is morally wrong and should be avoided as much as possible. Individuals should not be authorized to inflict pain on others because it gives them too much power. As demonstrated in Abu Ghraib, there is a risk of the torturers getting carried away with their job and continuing to torture individuals even after they have gathered all of the information they need.

“Dershowitz: Torture could be justified” was informative because it presented two opposing views of torture; while Alan Dershowitz advocates for the use of torture in extreme situations, Ken Roth contends that torture should never be allowed, regardless of the situation. Dershowitz attempts to justify torture by mentioning that through certain methods of torture, “countries all over the world violate the Geneva Accords . . . secretly and hypothetically.” This attempts to put America’s use of torture into perspective: although it is morally wrong, other countries utilize torture too, so it might not be that bad after all. However, the fact that other countries engage in torture does not negate the fact that it is morally wrong. Dershowitz continues his line of thinking by stating, “If we ever came close to [using torture . . . ] I think we would want to do it with accountability and openly and not adopt the way of the hypocrite.” Although I do not agree with his implication that the use of torture is inevitable and there are no better alternatives, I agree that the public should be aware of the methods of torture that are being employed. This way, the use of torture will not completely be in the dark and there will be more of a discussion about its immorality.

Ken Roth challenges Dershowitz’s argument by stating, “the fact that sometimes laws are violated does not mean you want to start legitimizing the violation by getting some judge to authorize it.” This accusatory wording makes it seem like Dershowitz wants to promote the use of torture by making it legal. However, Dershowitz makes it clear that that is not his intention because torture will happen regardless of whether or not there are warrants; however, these warrants will impose some regulations on the type of torture that can be used, who can use it, and when they can use it. Ken Roth further elaborates his point by saying, “Once you open the door to torture, once you start legitimizing it in any way, you have broken the absolute taboo.” I agree with this point; however, removing the taboo associated with torture will most likely result in people no longer brushing the issue under the table and actually having a conversation about it. Roth appeals to the audience’s sense of American nationality by stating, “We have to understand the United States sets a model for the rest of the world. And if the United States is going to authorize torture in any sense, you can imagine that there are many more unsavory regimes out there that are just dying for the chance to say, ‘Well, the U.S. is doing it, we’re going to start doing it as well.’” Roth then draws an extreme connection between torture and terrorism: “If you start opening the door [to torture . . .] you’ve basically sent the signal that the ends justify the means, and that’s exactly what Osama bin Laden thinks. He has some vision of a just society. His ends justify the means of attacking the World Trade Center.” This was very striking because terrorism is a taboo that no one wants to be associated with. By saying that torture is essentially a gateway to more atrocious acts, he implies that it can lead to events such as 9/11. Although the logic of this claim is not that sound, it makes a very emotional case.

Ultimately, I agree with Dershowitz’s claim that in the time bomb case, it causes less long-term harm torturing the individual involved in terrorist attacks in order to prevent the deaths of innocent civilians. However, I do not think that Dershowitz’s argument could be applied to torture situations in general because these time bomb scenarios are rare. Rather than utilizing torture, the government can use other, less harmful technology in order to keep its citizens safe.

A Brief Analysis of “History from Above” in the Media

I recently watched No Escape, a film about an American family that relocates to an unidentified Southeast Asian country because the father gets a job offer there. The film was incessantly terrifying, leaving viewers unable to relax for more than a few seconds at a time; the majority of the footage shows Southeast Asians committing heinous acts while Americans desperately run for their lives.

No Escape is an evidently xenophobic film that depicts a struggle between two sides that are polar opposites: the Americans (“the good guys”) and the Southeast Asians (“the bad guys”). The film left little room for interpretation; for the most part, Southeast Asians are represented as violent savages who terrorize others, while Americans are portrayed as innocent bystanders.

While it is true that there is no possible way to depict a coup non-frighteningly, the fact that the film focuses on Southeast Asians being so statically brutal makes it xenophobic. On the other hand, it paints Americans as the saviors; it makes the audience sympathize with them and wish for them to prevail over the horrible circumstances they are stuck in. However, the film fails to take into account the innocent Southeast Asians who get caught up in the rebellion. Only a small portion of them are actually part of the group that wants to overthrow the government; however, the film makes it seem like the majority of Southeast Asians are rebels. This film offers a portrayal of “history from above” by highlighting how the coup affects the Americans rather than the country’s actual citizens. In the end, the Americans get saved while the Southeast Asians are left to perish. However, the film does not particularly convince the audience to feel compassion for them; it ends on a supposedly good note as the Americans escape such a barbarous country against all odds.

Films like these, which create an exaggerated distinction between entire races, contribute to Americans’ bias against those who are different from them. No Escape demonstrates how “history from above” can undermine a lot of people’s experiences in wartime. By portraying Southeast Asians as predominantly vicious individuals, it dehumanizes them. The film also does not refer to the psychological conditions of the rebels or Southeast Asian citizens, while it thoroughly delves into the inner conflict of the American father. Both those involved in the coup and the citizens were definitely afflicted by the horrors of war, but the film’s inability to refer to that at all prevents the audience from sympathizing for the Southeast Asians.

This type of mindset is particularly harmful in times of war. This xenophobia can convince citizens who were originally opposed to the war to support it and further reinforce the opinions of those who originally approved of the war.