I went through all of my reading material the first few days in Africa. I found a worn paperback copy of Jarhead in my room and I haven't been able to put it down since. I am not really a big war book fan, but I have read a few spy books and being in a compound surrounded by burly Texans and Scots felt a lot like a few episodes of M*A*S*H, so it felt appropriate. I really had no idea what I was picking up. I seem to recall some sort of furor about it a few years ago, and from the paperback cover I can see that they made a movie about it (I know, I suck. Apparently I was living in a cave at the time) but that is pretty much all the background I had before starting the first page. By the end of the first chapter it was clear that Anthony Swofford is a shit-hot writer and that I was going to get a glimpse into the raw, fragile psyche of a young man who has not only seen and done some serious shit, but who has also done some serious analysis of himself and of the USMC.
The following paragraph from the first chapter has stuck with me for days. Swofford is talking about how, after getting their orders, his unit goes out and gets every war movie they can find and then they sit and watch and drink and get themselves ready for combat. Swofford talks about the ironic fact that our most famous anti war movies, movies that the general population would list as being commentaries on the cruelty and uselessess of war, are actually fuel that fires the murderous agression in these young military minded men.
Filmic images of carnage and death are pornography for the military man; with film you are stroking his cock, tickling his balls with the pink feather of history, getting him ready for his First Fuck. It doesn't matter how many Mr. and Mrs. Johnsons are antiwar--the actual killers who know how to use the weapons are not.
I wonder how Coppola feels about this.
6 comments:
Seriously, do you really think there's anything "ironic" about the fact that so called anti-war movies are watched by boys going off to war? I question the use of ironic because if it is an unexpected result then I would suggest you (and Swofford) are a bit naive:
I expect boys going off to war to get themselves psyched for the experience, and watching a hyperbolic display of blood and guts seems in line with that expectation.
Does the statement "Filmic images of carnage and death" suggest anti-war movie? Maybe, but if war is carnage and death than a movie about war would not surprisingly have carnage and death. I have not seen a war, so I don't know what it is, and any movie is going to be an interpretation.
The safest thing is to see movies as entertainment, but if you must attach an agenda, such as commentaries of the cruelty and uselessness, etc., then you risk people "missing the point."
I suppose the irony is, after seeing the commentary on the cruelty and uselessness of war, the boys DON'T drop their guns and sign up for a peace march, but do you really think the boys (your military minded men) go to war because they are uninformed by Hollywood? They missed seeing Jarhead or something?
There is no irony, but I think Swofford gets that. He says It doesn't matter how many Mr. and Mrs. Johnsons are antiwar--the actual killers who know how to use the weapons are not. Meaning they actual killers are not political, they are just young boys, indifferent to agendas but moved by movies.
Then again, the ones voting, lobying government, making donations to political parties are not getting their cocks stroked, their balls tickled, and so on, by the pink feather of history. They are the ones watching the movies thinking "Wow, I sure don't want my testosterone-blind son to get killed playing soldier, so I'm going to vote liberal next time".
Or maybe most people watch movies to be entertained.
Ouch! That had to hurt Jade- but I think "no irony" hit the nail on the head!
Irony
–noun, plural -nies.
1. the use of words to convey a meaning that is the opposite of its literal meaning: the irony of her reply, “How nice!” when I said I had to work all weekend.
2. Literature.
a. a technique of indicating, as through character or plot development, an intention or attitude opposite to that which is actually or ostensibly stated.
b. (esp. in contemporary writing) a manner of organizing a work so as to give full expression to contradictory or complementary impulses, attitudes, etc., esp. as a means of indicating detachment from a subject, theme, or emotion.
3. Socratic irony.
4. dramatic irony.
5. an outcome of events contrary to what was, or might have been, expected.
The irony is not so much that the "fact that so called anti-war movies are watched by boys going off to war". It is that the movies that were intended to put off of war; to show us the horror and futility of war, actually fuel the young men going off to fight.
You're right though, it is not an awe-inspiring or particularily unique observation. The irony is there, but it is not particularly papable. It obviously struck something in your agenda though, no irony.
I guess I was most impressed by Swofford's descriptive prose. It made me think.
Whoa, I didn't think my agenda was particularly papable! (I think you meant palpable, but I don't think I need the dictionary definition for this one)
Sure, it would be ironic if movies intended to put people off of war fueled more war. Was Apocalypse Now intended to put people off war? Really, I don't know. I know some see it as anti-war, or more specifically as a criticism of not being able to get the job done, getting muddled in the crazy shit, costing tax-payers too much money to look after France's failure to save us all from Comunism, or whatever, but anti-war in general? I sure don't think it's pro-war. It's pretty complex.
But, does intention matter when it comes to irony? Really, I'm not trying to be a jerk, I actually wonder if people think it matters what the director intends. If a person intends to make a movie to change the way people think, and it doesn't work for some of the viewing population (who actually have a paradoxical response), is it ironic? If most of the people respond the way the film-maker wanted but a few don't, is that ironic?
I bet most people think I'm a idiot (you included), but I believe that it does not matter what a film-maker intends, it is the end product that matters: intentions form the end product for sure, but what the end product does to people is not affected by the intentions.
"intentions form the end product for sure, but what the end product does to people is not affected by the intentions"
This is the irony in a nutshell, No Irony. Of course irony has everything to do with intention (see definition 2a.),coupled with the fact that the films that are intended to turn us off war actually do the opposite to some people. I think Swafford's point was that there are people out there, people who actually sign up to fight, who get off on those images. They get off on the images of carnage and destruction that many would find horrifying. They could care less about the anti-war movement or the political agenda. They want to kill things.
Now, as for the intention of the war films mentioned by Swafford? Well he (and I) generalized here, and we would have to look at each film and look up the director's comments to be sure, but Swafford was saying yes, that is the intention of some of those films. I am pretty certain that if I polled a number of my friends and coworkers and asked if Apocolypse Now or Platoon were pro-or anti-war movies the majority would say they were anti-war.
Finally, Swafford did not say that "young boys" are the ones indifferent to agendas. He said "the actual killars who know how to use the weapons" are not anti-war.
I take exception to the inference that young boys and testosterone are the only mix required to see a movie of mass carnage, horror and destruction and get off on it. (And I am sure that many men do too.)
This is not what Swafford is saying. I think he is saying that, in general, the person who signs up to be a killer is fueled by images of killing, regardless of the intention of the presentation of the images.
Ah, I love it, the good old definition fake out. I was sure it would come up, but thought this blog was dead and would not get around to it (dead blog: interesting things happening offline).
The definition fake out: when arguments fail you, quote a definition so the other person looks stupid for needing a word 'spelled out' for them. If a person is too stupid to use a dictionary, then they must be too stupid to think.
Oh, wait, we've already done that part. This is the second part of the fake out: if you want to make people feel really stupid point back to a specific part of the definition, ideally the part that supports your position.
It's perfect. How could someone argue with 'see definition 2a'? Unless that part of the definition is not what was being discussed, it is a risk of the definition fake out, definitions, as transcribed from the dictionary, may contain contradictory evidence. But, what do definitions prove? Nothing, they just define usage, and a definition with many parts shows that a word has many 'accepted' uses, or meanings.
But the fake out is good. It makes you look shit-hot smart without much effort.
Like, of course, irony has everything to do with intention, dumb-ass, since in definition 2a we see that it is a technique for indicating intentions contrary to what is stated. It actually says intentions in there, it must be true, it is proof. Dumb-ass.
Only, definition 2a deals with literary technique, like metaphor or simile, not outcome of events that are contray to expectations. Oh, hell, that's part 5 of the definition, what does that mean? Ah, maybe the dumb-ass was thinking about the other part of the definition, well, still a dumb-ass.
Ok, typing all that was too much work, but I think I had a point in there. I didn't reference specific parts of the irony definition because I assumed we were talking about expectations and outcomes. I should have been more clear, by asking if intentions mattered when it comes to the irony of definition 5, because, yes, Swafford is probobly making a point about the people who actually sign up to fight being turned on by the images, and that goes contray to his expectations because he thinks the movies are intended to be anti-war, and there is the irony for him. I don't think there is irony because I think the expectations are flawed, and I don't think intention matters in this case because we're not talking about Copula intending to be ironic in the literary technique way, if that were the case then it would have been possible to discuss the attitude that is the opposite of what he actually stated.
My claim is that if you intend to make an anti-war movie (or any movie with an agenda) and it does not work, that is not ironic. It sucks for you, if that was your only intention, but I do not think it is ironic just because your intention and the outcome are different. I think there could be situations where the outcome of a movie is ironic, but I do not think the one disscussed here counts.
It's like that female angst singer from the past: "rain on your wedding day, isn't that ironic?" I don't remember the actual words, but rain or your wedding day is not ironic, it just sucks. Climatic outcomes have nothing to do with intentions or expectations, rain and sun just happen. If your wedding day happens on a day with low pressure or whatever goes along with precipitation, then you get wet, but it's not ironic. I think some people us the word ironic to describe situations they think suck, or are unfortunate, but not actually contrary to expectations (part 5 of your definition), but have courage, if a certain usage is popular enough it will soon appear as its own part in the definition.
I'm not sure what polling your friends about those movies will prove. I'm sure if you gave them only two options, pro or anti war, i'm sure the majority would agree with you. I don't think it's pro war. Does that mean I think it's anti-war? According to your friends and coworkers poll I'm sure it does, but I actually think it is neither. I think the war issue is secondary, but there isn't room that that, is there? Agree or disagree, no in between.
I'm enjoying this, by the way, it's fun to discuss this stuff, so what's next?
You take exception to the inference that young boys and testosterone are the only mix required, and so on.
You should take exception. That is a stupid thing to say, I can't believe I said that. I am sure that older males and even females can see a movie like that and get off on it.
I'm really sorry, I'll have to go back to see just how I messed up there, hold on.
Ah, I took a look, and I don't see how you inferred (I know, deduce or conclude, blah, blah) that I said it was only young boys. I did say 'on the other hand, the ones voting" to mean that subset of the population was not joining up to fight, but I did not say, or even imply, that only young boys get off on the movie. I'm not sure how that came up at all. Ah, the ones voting and lobying government is made up of many different ages and could be male or female, and even in that group I bet there are those who do get off on the carnage and do not want their own children to go off to war. All I meant was the people getting their balls tickled, etc, are generally young men (more young men than young women), and they are not yet political in the same way that their parents are. I know Swafford did not say that, but I don not see the inference to only young boys.
I totally agree with what you're saying Swafford is saying (I don't really know what Swafford is saying, but I trust what you've told me so far), and it is, um, what I am saying: "the person who signs up to be a killer is fueled by images, regardless of the intentions."
I don't know. Don't take exception. I didn't say 'only young boys,' and I did not mean for you to infer it.
I'm sorry. This is your blog. Infer what you want. See Irony where you want. You're right.
Post a Comment