Old:
An example of this statement, is told in Tim O'Brien's "How to Tell a True War Story", he goes on to say: "A true war story is never moral. It does not instruct, nor encourage virtue, nor suggest models of proper human behavior, nor restrain men from doing the things they have always done. If a story seems moral, do not believe it. If at the end of a war story you feel uplifted, or if you feel that some small bit of rectitude has been salvaged from the larger waste, then you have been made the victim of a very old and terrible lie. There is no rectitude whatsoever. There is no virtue " (1).

New:
Tim O'Brien, author of "How to Tell a True War Story", provides us with an example of this idea by stating,
"A true war story is never moral. It does not instruct, nor encourage virtue, nor suggest models of proper human behavior, nor restrain men from doing the things they have always done. If a story seems moral, do not believe it. If at the end of a war story you feel uplifted, or if you feel that some small bit of rectitude has been salvaged from the larger waste, then you have been made the victim of a very old and terrible lie. There is no rectitude whatsoever. There is no virtue" (1).

Old:
An example of this would be when Davidson and Lytle, authors of "Where Trouble Comes", had said in the text "myth deals with expectations rather than reality" (417).

New:
Davidson and Lytle, authors of "Where Trouble Comes" establish the difference between authenticity and myth by elaborating on this idea: "myth deals with expectations rather than reality" (417).

Old
In the article where trouble comes by Davidson and Lytle they speak about how in the Movie the Green Barriet with John Wayne, they make the American soldier out to be a stereotypical macho man. They state, “Wayne ........... Tough" (405).

New
In the article where trouble comes Davidson and Lytle suggest that in the movie Green Barriet John Wayne is portryaed as a sterotypical American tough guy: " "Wayne.......... Tough". (405)

Old

Davidson and Lytle suggest that these movies are mythical in different aspects. They want to make the point that movie companies write their own version of the war, rather than historical facts which they call “Authentic“. Davidson and Lytle authors state, “Grant .............. happend"

New
Davidson and Lytle point out that Green Barriets, Platoon and Deer Hunter are "Mythical". The authors explaine this by stating " Grant......... happend" .

Quotes

Old:
O'Brien mentions in "How to Tell a True War Story" that true war stories often don't have a point, moral, or serious excitement (O'Brien, "How to Tell a True War Story", 174 and 181).

New:
O'Brien tells us thattrue war stories often don't have a point, moral, or serious excitement (O'Brien, "How to Tell a True War Story", 174 and 181).

Old:
They define mythical as "... a real or fictional story with a recurring theme" (Davidson and Lytle, 405)

New:
According to Davidson and Lytle "a real or fictional story with a recurring theme..." is a defintion for myth (Davidson and Lytle, 405)

Rework on quotations

Original:
Tim O'Brien, an American novelist once said in his article "How to Tell a True War Story" that "War is Hell; War is nasty; war is fun.....war makes you dead."(180)

New:
As Tim O'Brien described in his article "How to Tell a True War Story" that " War is Hell;... war makes you dead."(180)


Original:
"Films strive for an ... human ways." ( Davidson & Lytle 405)
New:
According to Davidson & Lytle, "Films strive for an ... human ways." (405)

revized quotes

Old
Thomas Hobbs...says that the human state of nature is war.
New
Thomas Hobbs insists, “The natural state of nature is war” (3).

Old
“In the end a true war story is never about war… it’s about love and sorrow” (10), says Tim O’Brien.
New
“In the end a true war story is never about war... It’s about love and sorrow” (10), reminds Tim O’Brien.

Old
O’Brien states, “You can tell a true war story from its absolute and uncompromising allegiance to obscenity and evil” (1).
New
Author Tim O’Brien recognizes that, “you can tell a true war story from its absolute and uncompromising allegiance to obscenity and evil” (1).

Old
According to Davidson and Lytle an authentic war film is one that has characters that are individual, realistic and ambiguous.
New
Davidson and Lytle maintain that an authentic war film must have individual and realistic characters: “to a historian viewing the film the characters do look less stereotyped” (416).

New Quotes

Old:
O’Brien writes, “Story-truth is truer sometimes than happening-truth. {203}”

New:
O’Brien argues in his piece, “story-truth is truer sometimes than happening-truth.” {203}

Old:
“Hollywood, an industry that markets the fantasies and fears of popular culture, inescapably finds itself in the myth business creating short stories, themes, and character types that embody the culture ideals of its audience and give expression to their deepest feelings” {Davidson, Lytle 405}

New:
Davidson and Lytle describe in their article how Hollywood constantly finds itself creating fantasies to satisfy their audience, leading Hollywod to find itself in the myth business. {405}

A)
Original
“Myth,” as described in “When Trouble Comes,” “deals with expectation rather than reality. (417)”
New
“Myth” as described by Davidson and Lytle, “deals with expectation rather than reality” (417).

B)
Original
The authors then quote New York Magazine that said: “What really matters is authenticity, which this movie has by the ton. (416)”
New
The authors then provide a quote from New York Magazine: “What really matters is authenticity, which this movie has by the ton” (416).

10/22

For Wednesday, rework all of the quotations in your essay in the manner we described today (if you've forgotten, the handout is listed to the right). To keep things interesting, you will be allowed to use the 'As (name of author) states/indicates,' or the 'According to (name of author),' format only once in your next draft of your paper.

Once you've reworked all of your quotations, post two (both the original and the new version) here on the blog for all of our perusal.

And remember, your final draft of essay 2 is due, stapled to the draft that was due last Friday (10/26), via email on Monday, October 29th.

Sources

This is the relevant information for the two key sources for the essay:

Author: Tim O'Brien
Title: The Things They Carried
Year: 1990
Publisher: Penguin
City: NY

Author(s): James West Davidson and Mark Hamilton Lytle
Title: After the Fact: The Art of Historical Detection Volume II
Year: 2005
Publisher: McGraw-Hill
City: NY

10/17

This is a long post. Be sure to read it in its entirety.

As we discussed in class, we will be working with the first draft of the second essay somewhat differently than we worked with the first. By 5pm on Friday, October 19th, you will send a copy of your essay via email to both your peer review partner and myself. Then by 10am on Monday, October 19th, email a response (the parameters are outlined below) to both the partner and myself.

The Response:

I will not be grading or commenting on this draft, which will be the only draft of this essay before it is assigned a grade. That means that these peer reviews are terrifically important: you will not just be helping your partner with what you think will improve your paper, but also what you think I will be most interested in seeing in their work. We discussed what that means in class, but to recap: the specific requirements outlined in the prompt; attention to specific detail in texts and the appropriate films; and paragraphs which consistently demonstrate their purpose, involve textual and cinematic evidence, and connect back to the overall argument.

For the review itself, first read through the essay at least once, getting a sense of the piece as a whole. Then go through the manuscript using the tracking changes tool to make suggestions about the paragraphs...

(NOTE#1: as I said in class, do not go through making proofreading changes to the sentences--this is their job. Should there be a pattern of poor grammar that you notice, be sure to point it out. Otherwise, limit your comments to 'comments': that is, what in the paragraph is working and what isn't, rather than rewriting it.)

(Note #2: You are required to have at least one comment on each paragraph. Feel free to put the comments in terms specific to me: 'I think Prof. Henkle would have a problem with the second sentence here because...')

...After you've gone through and made your comments on the individual paragraphs, write a 200 or so word general comment on the essay, in much the same way you have seen me do with yours. Do this at the top of their essay, in letter format (addressing it directly to the author). If you're using the tracking changes format, this will appear in red.


A Few More Notes:

The preferred format is MS word, which will give your reviewer the opportunity to use the 'track changes function' I demonstrated in class. (If you cannot access MS word during this time, email me for other possibilities--still, MS word is going to be very helpful here).

The peer review groups have been assigned for anyone who was in class, plus Polina (who was assigned a partner to make up an odd number of students). Contact me if you need the email address of your partner. Those of you who were not in class, need to contact me immediately to be assigned a partner. If you have been assigned but have since forgotten your group member, the partner list is to the right.

pearl harbor

The movie pearl harbor is about the attack on pearl harbor, Hawaii, by the Japanese in a pre-emptive strike, on December 7th 1941. the Japanese thought that the US was going to invade them for their oil and rubber so they attacked them first. the movie was made in 2001, and it depicts the lives of 2 soldiers who are best friends and how they split up and are reunited during the war. Randall Wallace didn't really follow the truth in the movie, instead he directed the movie toward the audience and what they would like. there weren't very many war seance. the movie starts off showing you two boys playing in 1923 showing you right from the beginning that this movie is not going to be specifically about the fighting but also about the lives of the characters in the movie. the characters are the bored antsy teenagers that wanted to run off to war. Ben Afflek volunteered for a station in the British air force. the characters seem very stereotyped and the dialogue is not really about the war. the movie has a war in it but its more of a romance torn apart by war and sewn back together very roughly. in "the man i killed' by Tim O'Brien, the death of the enemy wasn't especially victorious in the narrator's mind. he grieved over it and felt guilty, even though it was war. while in pearl harbor when there is finally a fighting scene and they are flying over japan and dropping bombs they feel no grief only triumph over the people who surprise attacked them and killed two thousand people. Davidson and Lytle would not see this movie as authentic because the fights they did have were not similar to the ones in real life.

The Battle of Ia Drang

The movie “We Were Soldiers” was adapted from the book We Were Soldiers Once..and Young by General Harold Moore and Joseph L. Galloway both who were at that battle and acted as consultants to this movie.. The movie and the book are both about the first part of the Battle of Ia Drang which took place in the highlands of South Vietnam from November 14 to 16 1965.

Randal Wallace, the director and screenwriter of this movie, went to great lengths to authentically “recreate the war’s/battle’s historical context (418). The movie opens with actual news footage after the battle in Vietnam of an interview with the Col Moore expressing his gratitude to his men for their courage and sacrifices during the battle. He tells the interviewer with barely contained emotion to “convey to the American people what a tremendous fighting man we have here. He’s just an outstanding man and…I can’t tell you how highly I feel for them. They’re tremendous.”

These are some of the many things that were done to create that authentic feeling:
They used real equipment such as military helicopters and land vehicles and real napalm.
The used the clothing of 1965 for the non-military actors and the correct uniforms of the time and place for the military personal.
The portrayed accuracy in the appearance of the characters throughout the battle; everyone was dirty and bedraggled.
They used props that were used by the real characters during the conflict such as cigarette packs, books, and field equipment.
The not only acquired the period armaments the combatants used the also built AK-47’s from scraps for the North Vietnamese soldiers.
The depiction of wives getting telegrams telling them that their husbands were killed being delivered by cab drivers.

Yes there were thing that were done that didn’t happen during the battle such as using fireworks instead of bullets and computer generated airplanes but I don’t believe they are of great consequence compared to the things that Wallace got right. Gen. Hal Moore felt that this movie accurately portrayed what happen there so who are we to doubt him?

JarHead

Jarhead is a movie that is about the Gulf War but it doesn’t really focus on the war itself. The movie is more of a story-truth than a happening-truth. This would be called a Hollywood movie and not a historical movie. The story focuses on one men and how he spends his days in the war. Even thought the movie is about the war and the soldiers that went to it, you don’t really get much information about the war and you only hear them talk about the war for small periods of time. The movie moves really fast and there aren’t that many events that happen. They stay along time which each even that they put in the movie and about two are the only ones that have to do with the war itself. They add the element of family and girlfriends which is what attracts people to what the movie and also because they put funny scenes. They show the fear that the soldiers have and how much they also want to be there. The main character doesn’t kill anyone during this movie. Is really interesting how he spend somewhat more than 120 days in the war and in the movie he says that he spend four days with four hours and one minute in the war. Meaning that most of the time they were there doing training or doing nothing at all and just waiting and they only spend so little of their time in the action of the war. He never gets to fire his gun against an enemy and never kills anyone. Davidson and Lytle would say that this movie is not authentic and it actually isn’t. Even thought this movie is suppose to be about war, is more about how the war may affect someone and how it changes the things back home because time doesn’t stop in the real world when they are at war. When it comes to saying that is a war movie it really isn’t authentic but if you talk about the meaning of the movie, you would say that even thought it may hadn’t happen that way that it is true. So it is just the truth with some exaggerations and things that may or may not have happen.

Platoon

A movie made in 1986 well after the Vietnam war, has seemingly captured a true essence of the soldiers that participated in such a task. The movie concentrates on the character played by Charlie Sheen who voluntarily chose to be in the Vietnam war for 365 full days. He quickly begins to regret it a week into his journey with the platoon as he finds himself suffering under difficult natral conditions leading him to tire faster, faint more and allowing for the soldiers with him to undermine him and attack him verbally.
The movie has a very depressing and mournful tone all throughout. There is nothing patriotic about it that flatters American decision in entering the war (especially through a very violent redneck character named Bunny, whose destructive nature emphasizes a terrible American stereotype). Furthermore we see that all the men, besides the character played by Charlie Sheen, are poor or unable to evade the war which shows how the War is inevitable for those who couldn't buy their way out of it. There is lack of pride within these men, as the men had in movies such as Green Berets, and their use of pot and deragotory speech of women show how little they favor being part of this war, hence making them characters easier to relate to and more personal. This, in turn, is the reason why Davidson adn Lytle would find this film, very authentic.
Davidson and Lytle themselves interpret Platoon as "the first commercially successfful films to look thhe war itself. to see Vietnam as history." With this quote Davidson and Lytle seem to convey the idea that seemingly historical facts within a movie allow it to become more authentic rather then a movie that prides itself on effects, just because they can use them, or the element of love to capture the audience. In Platoon there is really no sign of victory, regardless of the little missions the platoon does succeed in, theres still constant silence, with mere crickets adding to the jungle effect. The only music we hear is the solemn and depressing adagio for strings that just speaks for the characters most of the movie.
The only happiness we see in all these men is when they are diving themselves from the war entirely , just trying to escape, which i find to be the most authentic feeling. Their struggle with natural obstacles or the kidn of treatment they receive from one another consdiering the time it is based on, allow even more authenticity to pour through. EVerything from red ants, to race, to illegal killings become a dispute, which seems to me as the unhealthy animal instinct humans may have, especially trapped in such violent conditions.

Apocalypse Now - authentic

The movie Apocalypse Now, is quoted as “pretentious” (p 422) by Davidson and Lytle. The movie does not explain what is going on, but rather makes the watcher guess. This film is considered authentic according to Davidson and Lytle. This movie does not have any war stereotypes. It gives you war for what it really was. It makes war seem ambiguous. This movie has accuracy, which is needed in order for a movie to be considered authentic.

This movie is not pro Vietnam. The director of this movie wants you to think that war is addictive, that it in reality it drives you nuts. It wants you to understand that when your fighting, you want to be home, and when your home, you want to be fighting.

The movie opens up with the forest being bombed. You then see a quiet, but dark room. The only source of light entering that room is from a half opened blinds on the window. Outside of the room, it is very light. In the background nothing is heard, except a helicopter flying is heard in his head. He is at home, but wants nothing more than to be back in the forest, fighting. The music in the beginning of the movie is very peaceful. This movie makes you conclude that people at war do pointless things. It makes war seem absurd. The people fighting make a battle that has no actual gain it, other than a personal gain, which in this case would be surfing with the good tides.

Pearl Harbor

The movie of my choice is Pearl Harbor written by Randall Wallace. The movie is set during the time in which the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941. The movie in general is about a love story that is set during a war that complicates everything. To be more specific the movie is about a pilot who falls in love with a nurse. The Pilot volunteer's to go fight in Britain, and his best friend and the love of his life are transferred to Pearl Harbor. While in Britain the Pilot "dies". The nurse finds out and is extremely depressed but shortly after hooks up with his best friend. I can go more into detail but as you can see the movie has nothing to do with the actual bombing in Pearl Harbor. In stating that I believe that Davidson and Lytle would call the film a myth. I believe this to be true because the director choose a certain event like Pearl Harbor just to be the setting of his love story. Davidson and Lytle prove my point when they say, "Hollywood, an industry that markets the fantasies and fears of popular culture, inescapably finds itself in the myth business, creating stories, themes, and character types that embody the cultural ideals of its audiences and give expression to their deepest feelings ( Davidson and Lytle 405). The film give very little information on the actual events that took place on the horrible day. The movie could have given more information on the historical event that actually took place for it to have been considered some what authentic.

Reality in war films

It is true that almost all of the war films created so far are not 100% accurate on events telling. Even the films that provide evidences and first hand documents are not perfectly truth. Almost all of these films contain personal emotions and dramatic plots. "The historical 'reality' presented by dramatic films is radically different from that of a letter or diary." ( Davidson & Lytle 403) I agree with this statement. The film "Flags of Our Father" also supports my opinion.

"Flags of Our Fahter" is rather a personal memoir than historical presentation. But in some specific fields, it is even more accurate than those historical presentation film. Memoir as a first hand document is considering as accurate as diary and letters. The mian character in this film is a retired soldier who was once fighting for the United States during WWII against Japanese armies. When the war ended, the soldier himself is treated as a national hero because he was the one who swings the flag after the victory. Newspapers and TV shows were talking about him all over the time that put him in a position as hero. But himself, in the other hand, did not satisfied because he was not the one who bring victory to the U.S. He was a soldier that fight the war with all other soliders. Those who died in war were the heroes that sacrificed their lives to the victory. News reporters were miss reported the fact and showed no respects to those who died in the war. According to the main character and also the way i agreed that war heroes are not the one who survived in the war but the one who sacrificed their own lives in order to bring up the victory to the country.

Born on the Fourth of July

Born on the Fourth of July tells a story of a man who changed his beliefs of the Vietnam War after experiencing the fighting himself. Davidson and Lytle would say that this film is not authentic. They would say the movie is not authentic because most of the scenes are dramatized. The movie begins showing Ron Kovic Tom Cruise) doing all the normal things a teenager would do, like playing baseball and hanging out with his friends. This scene is authentic because it’s the life of any young man. But Kovi goes to fight in the war and suffers paralyzing wounds. When Ron Kovic returns home he expects a hero’s welcome, but instead he received discouragement. This is when the non authencity begins. He went to fight because he wanted to defend his country against communism but he soon finds out that the government had lied to him and his friends. He expresses his feelings to his parents and his naïve mother orders Ron Kovic to move out of the house. This scene of moving out is included to make the audience feel sympathy for the hero. The cries between mother and son makes tears run down the audiences cheeks. In Where Trouble Comes Davidson and Lytle states, “No matter how “true” a feature film tries to be to the emotions of it’s characters, it makes will always place dramatic considerations above strict fidelity to the historical record” (405), proves that even the moment of a son leaving his house because of a disagreement of war issues.
The film is easier to be able to pick out the exaggerations then a text. In this film the lighting, color, music and clothing all emphasis the idea that the war was a mistake. The changes of setting was more interesting then just seeing the Vietnam war and all the fighting. The love scenes were included to sell the movie as said by Davidson and Lytle “To justify the a budget of millions, a film must make money, and over the years box-office receipts have proved that audience are attracted to plot with an element of romance” (404).

Windtalkers

The movie Windtalkers is a film based on the Battle of Saipan between US and Japanese forces for the island of Saipan. Historically speaking, I can say that the movie is pretty accurate besides the characters in it. The Battle of Saipan was a battle to gain control of the isle of Saipan and kick the Japanese out. The 2nd and 4th Marine Divisions we're responsible for all the land battles, while there was support artillery from the sea and whereever they set up ground artillery. In the movie we have the 2nd Marine Division landing on the shores of Saipan, backed by artillery support, to capture the island for utilization against the Japanese. The movie is called Windtalkers because the term windtalker is what they called Native American code talkers in WWII, in which case here are two Navajo men. In reality, Navajo code talkers played a key role in successfully relaying messages and directing coordinates for artillery fire that could be intercepted, but couldn't be understood or cracked by the Japanese. I believe Davidson and Lytle would take this movie as mythical instead of authentic. The Battle of Saipan wasn't even very accurately portrayed in this movie, to be frank the Japanese soldiers that were stationed in Saipan we're worn-out and wounded soldiers, not like the fierce fanatical fighters you see in Windtalkers. The real Battle of Saipan was some 30,000 poorly equipped Japanese soldiers defending against some 70,000 well equipped US soldiers with aircraft carrier and bomber support. The whole operation took less than a month to complete with obviously an American victory. However in the film, the Japanese soldiers are these very well equipped soldiers who, as Davidson and Lytle would put it, "(they shout alot and run around ineffectively)(WhenTrouble 423)."

The film is titled Windtalkers, however if you've seen the movie the two Navajo code talkers are just sideshows compared to how much attention they put on Sgt. Joe Enders. And just because of that the film loses a chance it could have had at being authentic, instead of telling a story or an account of these Native American code talkers, it decides to focus on Sgt. Joe Enders, the defender of the codetalkers. The battle scenes are quite action packed and intense, but a little too unrealistic. In the first battle scene with the slaughter of then Cpl. Joe Enders, as the last soldier is killed in front of Enders, Enders takes a brief pause and screams for a good minute, also the bullets have stopped coming, but after the end of his yell a grenade in slow motion
flies through the air and explodes in front of Enders. I think Davidson and Lytle would agree that this is a little too dramatic. Though there are some historical accuracy that Windtalkers displays, the other's are just plain inaccurate. This film could seem like an authentic piece, but I doubt Davidson and Lytle would agree on that.

Authentically Saving Private Ryan

The movie Saving Private Ryan, produce by the extremely well known Steven Spielberg, is one that Davidson and Lytle, authors of “When trouble comes,” a detailed analysis of war representation through film, would almost definitely describe as “authentic”.
The word “authentic” according to Davidson and Lytle refers to historical accuracy. According to these authors, authentic contrasts with the word “mythical,” explained by Davidson and Lytle as “deals with expectations rather than reality. (417)” The authenticity or reality of war is extremely well presented in this film.
Saving Private Ryan is about a group of soldiers during World War Two, who are sent on a mission to find and bring Private James Ryan home back to his mother. He is ordered to come home after his three brothers are killed during the war. This movie is mainly composed of Captain John H. Miller, played by Tom Hanks, along with his group of troops, encountering many different military obstacles on their conquest or wild-goose-chase, trying to reach Private Ryan.
This movie was shot in such a way that authenticity is very easily seen. There are many crucial details that may be overlooked, but in fact help prove or support the validity in this film.
One detail that is very important is how the cameras were used throughout the movie. During all of the fighting scenes the cameras actually move with the actors. The cameras give the viewer the feeling that they are actually part of the group, following the soldiers with their every step. This proves authenticity in the way that the cameras were positioned in angles that the real feeling of what it was like to be part of the action could really be experienced by the audience. Also, at certain points in the film, during various fight scenes, the cameras zoom in on Captain Miller. The lighting becomes a little tinted and the view becomes a little fuzzy. From there the camera shoots as if it is Captain Miller looking around almost in slow motion. Miller and the audience are able to see the atrocities that occur during war, with the slow motion to emphasize reflection on the historical reality.
The blood and guts throughout the movie also help support the idea of “authentic”. The producer of this movie is not trying to hide anything that really occurred during war. Spielberg shows the viewer the incredible amount of gore in order to show what actually occurs on the battlefield at time of vicious fighting. At one point in the first battle seen, Tom Hanks’s character gets sprayed with a comrade’s blood, and then lifts his helmet from the ground and empties it of blood. This detail shows the historical realness of what really happens during war.
Although there are many more details the few definitely helps to prove the idea that historical accuracy is demonstrated in this film. This gives support to the claim that Davidson and Lytle would view Saving Private Ryan as “authentic”.

The Patriot

In the movie, The Patriot, we follow a family of Americans who are entangled in the epic Revolutionary War against Great Britain. The main protagonist, Benjamin Martin, does not want any involvement in the war at first because of his past experiences in the French and Indian War but eventually enters the fight to avenge the death of one of his children. The murderer of his son is none other than Colonel William Tavington, the cold-hearted red coat commander who will become the main antagonist throughout the rest of the film. Martin, with his rag tag militia, does tremendous damage to the British forces stationed in America and eventually turns the tide of the war.
I didn’t need to finish this film to know that if Davidson and Lytle were sitting right next to me, they would find many reasons to call this movie a huge myth. The picture that The Patriot paints is “Americans are amazing, just good men while the British are tyrannical monsters”. Colonel Tavington is delineated as a man without a conscience in this movie. It just happens that he kills off two of Benjamin Martin’s sons to further grip the viewer’s heart. One scene to take note of is when Tavington barges into a church and promises to spare the lives of those who give the whereabouts of the militia. When a man, out of fear, gives the hard kept secret away, Tavington leaves the church, locks the door and burns everybody inside to the ground. The camera goes into the burning church to show the panic and pain of the people while we also see the face of Tavington show no remorse. Even more heart gripping is the fact that the eldest son of Benjamin Martin’s wife and family burned in the church as well. A blossoming love story is crushed by the main villain; where have we seen that before?
Martin is portrayed as a superhero throughout the movie. He takes down countless British soldiers, even when the odds are against him. Of course, the hollywood explanation behind his sudden power boost is that he needs to rescue his eldest son from being hanged. The last battle is twisted up with music and slow motion action to make Martin’s victory more epic than it should be. All in all, The Patriot is as authentic as my chances to attend Harvard.

Braveheart-mythical

The movie starts out with men wearing rags, looking on one hand like Native Americans and on the other hand like George of the Jungle. The men fight on horses that seem very much like an olden day war. Almost right away there’s a love plot to catch the attention of the audience. Once the woman of his dreams dies, William Wallace {Mel Gibson} takes charge of the men who did this to his lover, the English. When the war between Wallace’s side, the Scottish, and The English commence, one will notice a myth straight away as Wallace is constantly fighting for the entire Scottish side. It seems almost as if he’s a one-man team beating the English all on his own. This is of course quite mythical. In the movie, First Blood Part 2, Davidson and Lytle bring up a similar case where Rambo locates an MIA prison camp trying to rescue American prisoners. Everyone thinks he will fail because he’s all alone but “Needless to say Rambo manages to fight off entire detachments of Vietnamese and their Russian allies, rescuing the American prisoners and piloting them safely home. {423}” From these two examples one can see how mythical a scene like this could really be.
On the other side we see Gibson in an authentic light when we hangs on to the handkerchief of his lover, which helps him get through the war. It gives him strength to give a pep talk to his fellow soldiers and keep them going. However on the other hand one might look at the actual battle scenes and notice that the Scottish have no armor, all they have is rakes and sticks to fight while the English have Armor, and real weaponry. Davidson and Lytle point out that just as Gibson and soldiers in Braveheart lack everything essential for war, making this an evidential myth, “Cimino went to extreme lengths shooting these sequences, not so much to re-create historical reality as to obtain the proper “look” for this myth. And because myth deals with expectation rather then reality, Cimino obliged. {417} Myths keep an audience more entertained because they are films where the audience expects something to happen and it usually does. This gives satisfaction to the audience and at the same time, a successful movie.

Saving Private Ryan

One of the war films I am writing about is Saving Private Ryan. The author of Where Trouble comes by Davidson and Lytle would say that Saving Private Ryan is “Authentic”. Saving Private Ryan unlike other war movies they do not exaggerate or dramatize events. In Many war movies that we see today, when a soldier is shot and killed it does not look authentic. Hollywood directors seem to dramatize the death to much. Many times the soldier flops back and forth before hitting the ground. In a lot of movies there is barley any blood after the guy gets shot. In Saving Private Ryan when a soldier was shot and killed they fell straight to the floor without any theatrics there was blood all of the dead soldiers body. The movie is very gruesome and can be nausating at times. Saving Private Ryan does not care if your grossed out they want you to feel how they felt. Saving Private Ryan did not stereotype the American soldiers like other war movies do. The movie showed many deaths on both the enemy and the American side. The soldiers uniforms looked very real. The movie even shows accidental deaths which occurs alot during war. Many war movies dont show this. There was a scene in the movie where on of the soldiers puked when he reached Normandy. I think this is important showing the soldiers as human rather then perceiving them to be tough macho men. The small amount of sound In the movie makes the film seem more authentic. Other movies need the music to make the movie more dramatic. The movie has a whole looked real its almost scary. The movie was on location which is very important in getting a better feel for the place they fought at.
Davidson and Lytle would be very pleased with the work Steven Spielberg did in making saving private Ryan a accurate account of what happened. The movie was in the point of view the soldiers. This was done to show the viewers the reality of war. The main thing here was there were no sides just plain facts. Dispite what people say the movie companies are better off get the histroical facts right because that will get more viewers.

We Were Soldiers

“These are the true events of November, 1965… the Ia Drang Valley of Vietnam…” This is the first thing you hear as the movie, We Were Soldiers, opens on a dry deserted valley. If you were to ask Davidson and Lytle if this movie was authentic they would probably say no. It follows all of the war movie clichés, such as the unwounded-well-rounded-colonel, the American victory, the morals, and the heart-wrenching emotions it evokes. We can deduce this by reading the excerpt “Where Trouble Comes”. They talk about how certain directors will make choices to make the story seem better and to sell the movie, “…directors and screenwriters will tinker with the plot and characters until the story provides them with what they need.” (Where Trouble Comes”, 404.) The movie itself seems exactly that, until you watch the behind the scenes bonus feature titled “We Were Soldiers: Getting it Right”. Here the director explains he wanted to “get it right” because no Vietnam movie has yet to do so. The Author of the book the movies is based on agrees and is satisfied that the directors follow the story and try not to stray from the book, but who’s to say this book is authentic?
The battle of the Ia Drang valley was the first battle where the Viet Cong were directly fighting Americans, and it lasted for 56 hours straight ending in an American victory. This is the basic plot of the movie and it is factually correct. But what wasn’t factually correct was a multitude of things. The actual conversations, the love stories (although I’m sure they had wives and families waiting for them), and the way the battle actually took place. The movie even shows the Viet Cong plotting their attacks. How would the American Army have any clue what conversations these Vietnamese men had with each other? This was probably added to round out the plot, or some other crazy artistic decision.
Something that Davidson and Lytle mention, is that mythical war stories always show the enemy as vicious and the Americans as the superior ones. In We Were Soldiers there are quite a few scenes that humanize the VC soldiers, in example a young soldier writing in a journal that holds a picture of his wife and gets brutally murdered, later the Colonel mails the wife a letter telling her he was an honorable man.
This movie may be an exaggeration of the truth but it's still the truth.

10/15

In order to help each other, as well as begin working on your essay due Friday, write a 250-400 word response discussing one of your films. Is that film 'authentic' according to Davidson and Lytle? Why or why not? It should refer specifically to both Davidson and Lytle and your film. The specificity of description will be one of our major concerns here--how do you describe a film with the same detail one can describe a text?

As always, any responses less than 250 words do not count for credit.

10/10 Wrap

You'll notice that the prompt for the second major essay is listed to the right for your consultation.

For Monday, read 'How To Tell a True War Story' and be prepared both for a quiz on it and to discuss O'Brien's project generally, particularly in relationship to the Davidson & Lytle chapter we've been working with. Think about the following question, which I'm sure to ask: How is the Davidson & Lytle's opposition of 'myth' and 'authenticity' like O'Brien's 'story-truth' v. 'happening truth'? More importantly, how is it different?

No response for Monday, though the response for Wednesday will require you having watched at least one of the war films for your essay, so be sure to be doing that this weekend. You don't want to be in the position of writing and watching at the same time.

Mythical?

In the excerpt "Where Trouble Comes" Davidson and Lytle speak in much detail about the way historical events are portrayed in movies. They also discuss the many choices made by the directors to make their movies more appealing and entertaining for their viewers. These choices involve making changes to some of the events that took place to make them more action packed. Davidson and Lytle also talk about the different views historians and directors have. Obviously a historian is an expert on history and will do his best to record the actual facts. However, directors are more into making their film into a big hit, disregarding the events that actually took place.

I believe that Davidson and Lytle would consider Tim O' Brien a historian to a certain extent. " I'm forty-three years old, true, and I'm a writer now, and a long time ago I waked through Quang Ngai Province as a foot soldier" (O'Brien 203). That quote best describes the fact Tim O' Brien actually took part in the war, fighting as a foot soldier. In saying that Tim O' Brien talks about many events in his excerpts, many of them are fictional but they are authentic. He actually wrote a whole chapter that was completely fictional, this chapter was called "The Man I Killed." In this chapter he refers to a soldier he killed and started to elaborate on the mans life as if he knew him. He went to the extent of actually give the man a year in which he was born and even his place of birth. When referring to those stories Davidson and Lytle would consider Tim O'Brien's stories to be mythical.

Happening Truth

I believe Davidson & Lytle would look at Tim O’Brien’s “The Man I Killed,” and recognize that this story is authentic by O’Brien’s telling of his “happening truth.”

In Tim O’Brien’s “The Man I Killed,” he describes killing a Vietnamese man who belongs to the NLF. The descriptions are very detailed each time he tells of this man’s death. I can feel his pain not only because of his repeated depictions which focuses on different aspects of the death nor because his platoon buddy, Kiowa who keeps encouraging him to let the event go, but because of need to create his “story truth” that speaks very clearly to his agony.

The two dominate myths (the western and the WWII combat epic) of the American cinema are not portrayed in the story. In this story, O’Brien feels grief for killing his man. He does not believe that “Americans have come to Vietnam to protect innocents and promote democracy…” If he felt that way, he would not need to think about this man’s life and how miserable he looked in death (Davidson & Lytle 409).

Each time he describes the man the reality is balance with a “what if.” He imagines this man may not want to fight but felt the pressure from his family and hamlet to participate in fight these invaders. He imagines that he might have gone to a university to study Mathematics. The ring on this man’s hand and picture in his personal belongs makes O’Brien think he may have been married.

O’Brien makes it clear to the reader, which part of his story is real and which is imagined; both make this authentic.

Mythical or Authentic?

Davidson and Lytle’s article Where Trouble Comes is about how many Vietnam War movies such as Deer Hunter and First Blood are mythical and have many changes in order to depict characters, background, and the war in a positive or “American” view. Since there was such protest against the Vietnam War in America filmmakers created films which did not change the outcomes of the Vietnam War but in First Blood’s case, showing a victory for America by rescuing a dozen prisoners (423). Platoon was the first successful to look at the Vietnam War itself as history and not myths of near invincible heroes and fabrications. Soldiers are not trigger happy gunmen with a mission to prove but instead are scared and will often try to weasel out of hard assignments to avoid being killed. Platoon also depicts emotions soldiers faced while fighting in the Vietnam War, “Sheen is tormented by ants that crawl over him; he faints from the heat and humidity of the hard march; he stares anxiously into a rainy, impenetrable dark, trying to spot the invisible enemy” (424).

In Tim O’Brien’s The Man I Killed, after killing a Vietnamese soldier, an American soldier named Kiowa feels strong emotions of guilt and denial. Kiowa tells the Vietnamese soldier to “Stop staring” and “Man, I’m sorry” (144) while lying dead full of holes and bleeding. Kiowa tries to rationalize his actions by stating that it is war and he had to do something. Davidson and Lytle would look at this O’Brien story and say that is indeed authentic. Kiowa feels deep regrets for what he did and asks for forgiveness to his “enemies.”

Written by Davidson and Lytle, Where Trouble Comes, it is depicted in their article as a mythical intrepertation. This is described with a scene in Deer Hunter, which it is exaggerated into a different perspective. It is also blown out of porportion making it seem worse than what the truth and reality really is. This idea is quoted as, " in their evil hands, their holiest myth of the west - the ritual of the one shot kill was pervered into an evil game of torture." (419) With a simple kill presented in the movie it is also drastically overstated. Movies doesn't necessarily bring what's war about. It shows how films can be portrayed and what the realistic life at war can be very differently seen. Therefore illustrates that as one may show one thing it can be viewed as well as another set of outcome.
In comparison, in Good Form by O' Brien, he states that "I remember his face, which was not a pretty face, because his jaw was in his throat, and I remember feeling the burden of responsibilty and grief." (203) This statement shows that O' Brien witnessed the tragic incident of a man's death. In addition, he explains in every detail about the man's body describing its facial position as well as body position. he also allows the viewers to have a clear and vivid feel upon his guilt upon his description about the man's dead corpse he saw. He paints the picture bringing the audience with him there.

Story-truth or Happening Truth? Mythical or Authentic?

In Davidson and Lytle’s article ‘Where Trouble Comes’, Michael Cimino discusses the dramatizations in his movie The Dear Hunter, “I wanted people to feel what it was like to be there, to be in jeopardy every moment” (418). Dramatic scenes, such as the Russian roulette scene, involve the risk of losing life. In movies and in writing, characters and situations are often made up or exaggerated in order to connect with the audience. The danger of losing life can easily help speak to an audience because it is something everybody is concerned about. The Russian roulette scene is similar to the story ‘The Man I killed’ by Tim O‘Brien. In it, he describes a dead soldier killed in battle. The connection here would be the importance of life and the danger of losing it in both stories. He uses detailed descriptions in order to help communicate images and emotions to the reader. However, we learn that most of what O’Brien tells the reader is fiction. That what he was really doing was trying to make the reader feel what he felt during the war. In ‘Good Form’ by Tim O’Brien, it has been said, “I want you to feel what I felt. I want you to know why story-truth is truer sometimes than happening truth.” Both Michael Cimino and Tim O’Brien admit to having stretched the truth, if not having made up their own truth, in order to help relate to the audience or reader.

Davidson and Lytle’s article “Where Trouble Comes” does not try to depict one point of view in order to satisfy the needs of the reader, instead they are analyzing the views of many film makers who are trying to represent the Vietnam War. Davidson and Lytle try to distinguish what is real fact, in Tim O’Brien’s words- “happening truth”, or what is made up to help attract an audience. Also known as ‘authentic’ or ‘mythical’. To better understand such a concept Davidson and Lytle have said “..myth deals with expectations rather than reality” (417). With that being said, it is believed that Davidson and Lytle would probably look at O’Brien’s stories and consider them to be mythical because O’Brien has even said that he writes to get an emotion from the reader, so they can feel how he felt, rather than use factual events. If O’Brien’s stories were authentic, they would include real events that have happened in the war and to himself, rather than the sad and dramatic one he tries to portray.

Reality vs. Fiction

Whose to say, with all the information on the Vietnam War that we have access to today, that any individual can't write a story in the point of view of a war vetran? Not to say O'brien's stories were mythical, but it can be assumed, allowing it to only become a different version of Davidson and Lytles "Where Trouble Comes." In this case it's short stories rather then movies, thats the only difference.
But i personally do feel that O'briens short stories are more athentic simply because the accounts he provides are so much more personal: "I remember Norman Bowker and Henry Dobbins playing checkers every evening before dark...the playing field was laid out in a strict grid, no tunnels or mountains or jungles...the enmy was visible, you could watch the tactics unfolding into larger strategies." In this sentence alone you can sense the emotion in the author, how he desired simplicty but how he it didn't exist.
"Where Trouble Comes" is a more dramatic outlook on the Vietnam War stylized to attract viewers stictly for the purpose of money, not so much to convey an idea. How Davidson and Lytles would approach O'briens work is most probably authentic, in fact his stories would be a rather strong unit in a war movie and yet another contribution to the media.
Unlike O'brien, who uses personal and touching accounts to give a vivid idea of the war, Davidson and Lytles describe a movie entitled Deer Hunter, which at most points even fails to relate much to the vietnam, which confirms how they use myths to seduce the viewer: "Sadistic guards force them to join a sadistic game of russian roulette...nick...survives...Michael...uses the bullets to kill the guards and escapes with Nick and Steven." Russian Roullete definitly has no significance in the war facts, or emotions, which supports the mythical point.

Authentic or Mythical?

In "Where Trouble Comes" by Davidson and Lytle the short story describes how producers change the facts in order to make the movies more interesting. The story consists of different movies and describing how everything is dramatized. Davidson and Lytle stated, "The historical "reality" presented by dramatic films is radically different from that of a letter or diary, or even from a secondary account like The Jungle" (403), giving us an understanding that there are different forms of reality. Its not only the factual data included. The short story "Spin" by Tim O' Brien from The Things They Carried is the total opposite. Tim O' Brien was in the actual war and witnessed everything he wrote. The use of "I" is very powerful because it shows the reader Tim O' Brien was present. Davidson and Lytle would say that O'Brien is a mythical writer. "The war wasn't all terror and violence. Sometimes things could almost get sweet" (O'Brien 35), shows that when talking about a war its not all about negative. One of the paragraphs in "Spin" describes how it was a ritual to play cheeckers every afternoon. O' Brien states the positive parts of the war and leaves more of the negative parts.

Keep the realism or over Exaggerated?

Article “when trouble comes” written by Davidson and Lytle have provided examples to show how modern films create mythical representations of war .As one who knows that most of the War films have over exaggerated the true information of history from many aspects. Ineluctable, Many War films are hard to make impersonally. Obviously, the films are not accurate by engrafting personal views and emotion to a “reality recollections”.
The article is based on Vietnam War. Davidson and Lytle mentioned about some war movies are using historical truth .However, while defining the real evidence found in history, director also changed or added information in order to match their personal “ideally” picture. As the authors’ state: “This piece is a dramatic film, not a scholarly monograph. Like novels or plays, films strive for an artistic standard of “truth” that resides less in the particular of historical record than rendering situations and characters in authentic, human ways. (pg 405)
“The Man I Killed” by O’Brian gives a point of view from a solider to the Vietnam War in his early time. As a witness to the war of Vietnam, O’Brian went through all the events that appeared to his sight at that time. Back to his memories, he clearly listed certain incidents he had faced in the past. At this aspect, he is a historian for fact. However, O’Brian has failed to carry the title “historian” according to Davidson and Lytle‘s perspective for what a true historian should be. The principle for a real historian is: 1. always stick with the truth. 2. Judgy a historical event in an impersonal way. O’Brian has made his 1st mistake to against the tenet, “Daddy, tell me the truth,”Kathleen can say, did you ever kill anybody?” and I can say, honestly,”of course not.” Or I can say, honeslty,”yes.”(pg 204) A historian can’t cover the truth with personal feeling which includes: guilty, shameless, embarrassment. They always have to be impartial to recount what was exactly happened during the past.
If the authors Davidson and Lytle would make a critical to the story “The Man I Killed” by O’Brian, they probably would consider it as a mythical representation not Authentic.

Detailed Reality

Davidson and Lytle write about the mythical representations of war in modern films such as The Green Berets and The Deer Hunter while O’Brien gives us his account of the war from his own perspective as a foot soldier. If Davidson and Lytle were to read some of the excerpts from O’Brien’s book, I believe that they would call O’Brien’s work authentic because they understand that this writing comes from personal experience and emotion, rather than money or entertainment. The two authors wrote about the movie Platoon and praised it for showing the true nature of war. They wrote, “Platoon also dramatizes the anguish of fighting in Vietnam. Sheen is tormented by ants that crawl over him; he faints from the heat and humidity of the hard march; he stares anxiously into a rainy, impenetrable dark, trying to spot the enemy” (424). Rather than an epic tale of a seemingly invincible hero, Davidson and Lytle admired the sheer reality of war.
O’Brien writes about just how real war really can be in his short story titled, “The Man I Killed”. He gives us a startling detailed image of a man who he believes he has killed with his own hands. He writes, “His jaw was in his throat, his upper lip and teeth were gone, his one eye shut, his other eye was a star shaped hole” (139). The reader can imagine this picture so clearly because of all of the vivid details. Davidson and Lytle would deem it authentic just by reading the first couple lines of this short story.

Does Reality Make Stories or Do Stories Make Reality?

Davidson and Lytle, the authors of “When Trouble Comes,” an in-depth analysis of representation through war films, would look at Good Form, a short story by a war veteran named Tim O’Brian in a very interesting way.
In the article by Davidson and Lytle it states: “John Wayne’s film demonstrated that although myths might distort history, they could not ignore it entirely if they hoped to speak to audiences in lasting and satisfying ways. The tensions between ideal and the real, between “what should have been” and “what was,” made The Green Berets an unconvincing film for many Americans”(410). This quote can be explained that in order to capture audiences, the use of myths to represent cultural ideals and expectations, whether historically accurate or not is very important. These myths are carefully chosen to give the audience a full understanding of what is meant to be represented or demonstrated through that specific story or film.
In O’Brian’s short story he writes: “ I want you to know why story-truth is truer sometimes than happening-truth”(
203) He later states: “What stories can do, I guess, is make things present”(204) This author is trying to convey the message that he may tell a story in a way that although is not historically accurate, is expressing and even stressing the ideas and feelings behind what could be an authentic occurrence. Particularly in this short story, O’Brien first tells the reader that he was a foot soldier patrolling Quang Ngai Province and establishes that as truth. He then shares a short event where he was present and witnessed an opposing soldier dying, but states that that occurrence never happened. The reason he does this is to be as Davidson and Lytle would say, “mythical,” in order to illustrate to the audience how he was feeling at that time. Next, O’Brian states what he calls the happening-truth, as he truthfully admits to the “faceless responsibility and faceless grief (203)” that he is left with after witnessing the dead bodies as a soldier many years earlier. This preceding statement is what Davidson and Lytle explain as "authentic." The story-truth is what follows as the author exaggerates these feelings of responsibility and grief by saying that he killed that member of the opposing forces, “attaching faces to grief(204)”.
As we can see, producers, authors and the like, use mythical and authentic stories or movies in order to suggest and expression their feelings. The controversy then arises of whether reality makes stories or stories make reality.

Truth or Lie

Davidson and Lytle conclude that " The historical 'reality' presented by dramatic films is radically different from that of a letter or diary, or even from a secondary account like The Jungle". (403) In other words, first hand documents such as letter or diary often give the most accurate information about particular events. Second handed documents such as books and films are most likely to give false information because this kind of information usually include personal emotions and point of view. Tim O'brien's stories about Vietnam War is more likely to be consider as mythical according to Davidson and Lytle's conclusion.

Even though that Tim himself was a soldier in Vietnam War that experienced the truth behind the war, but the story which he writes is not 100% accurate. This is because he put too much his own emotions into the story and sometimes, he even make up his own stories in order to make the it more interesting. Quotes such "I remember his face, which......I was present" ( Tim O'brien 203) and "I want you to feel what I felt.... happening-truth." (Tim O'brien 203) evidenced that the story "The things they carried" is not all about truth but the author's emotion too. According to Tim, that when reader falls into the emotional words in an article, he/she will consider this story as a truth whatever it is really truth or not. Tim thinks that the truth can not be written, truth is what the reader feels about it. When a reader feels the same way as the author does, than it is a truth.

Mythical vs. Authentic

In the reading, “Where trouble comes” by Davidson and Lytle, they discuss the Vietnam War and how exactly film makers played off of the war. They discussed how many movies were geared towards a mythical view of the war, “because myth deals with expectations rather than reality” {417 Davidson, Lytle}. On the other hand some screenwriters took the controversial road and chose to create more of an authentic film. For Cimino, authenticity seems to revolve around dramatic feelings and constructing an emotionally arresting moment rather then a recreation of the wars historical context.” {416 Davidson Lytle}. The problem with these films is that they don’t give the audience a real knowledge of the war, rather “the message was tailored perfectly for those filmgoers who as Coppola said, didn’t want to “feel guilty” and who could now leave the theater singing God bless America, believing that the myths at the center of Michaels world remained intact” {Davidson 419}.
In the stories which O’ Brien writes about he discusses some truthful killings within his peaceful domain. As he states in his article, “Spin,” “The war wasn’t all terror and violence. Sometimes things can almost get sweet” {35}. This is more of a mythical approach. In this passage O’Brien explains that at many times during the war it was quite peaceful and the fellow soldiers would play games with one another. “How’s the war today somebody would say, and Ted Lavender would give a soft spacey smile and say, “mellow man, we got ourselves a nice mellow war today” {36 O’Brien}. This according to Lytle and Davidson would be a mythical view, one that many audiences may be fooled by, however not very true. On the other hand, in the article, “The man I killed” by O’Brien, there is much detail, feeling and compassion. It discusses an American man who killed an innocent man during the Vietnam War. The man could’ve been a million things but the Americans took his life away. Davidson and Lytle would call this more of an authentic story. Historians may be able to relate to it a little more, because it has a little more truth to and reality to it. The Americans killed many innocent civilians and as much as one may like to admit that they didn’t, this story tells it like it is. “Twenty years ago I watched a man die on a trail near the village My Khe. I did not kill him but I was present you see and my presence was guilt enough. I remember his face which was not a pretty face because his jaw was in his throat I remember feeling the burden of responsibility and grief. I blamed myself, and rightly so because I was present” {203}.

nicolefarahnik o brian mythical.authentic

Davidson and Lytle would consider O’Brian’s stories as mythical. According to Where Trouble Comes, by Davidson and Lytle , it is stated that “A myth, to quote one dictionary definition, is “any real or fictional story, reoccurring theme, or character type that appeals to the consciousness of a people by embodying its cultural ideas or by giving expression to deep, commonly felt emotions.” (405) According to this quote, as long as the same feelings or interpretations are perceived, then the story, which could be fiction or nonfiction, would be considered as a myth. Where Trouble Comes shows us that movies and stories do not show the real truth anymore, but rather dramatize everything to make it bigger than what it really is. “I want you to feel what I felt. I want you to know why story-truth is truer sometimes than happening truth.” by O’Brian, Good Firm. According to O’Brian, truth is when you get the same feeling that the actual person who went through it has gotten. He considers it more important to get the emotional value, rather than the occurring truth.

Mythical or Authentic

If Davidson and Lytle we're to read Tim O'Brien's material, they would consider it to be mythical. In "When Trouble Comes" they define myth as, "any real or fictional story, recurring theme, or character type that appeals to the consciousness of a people by embodying its cultural ideals or giving expressions to deep, commonly felt emotions." What Tim O'Brien writes aren't exactly non-fiction material, but what is true is that he has primary source of the Vietnam War, which is his experience as a veteran of the war.

As a person who fought in the Vietnam War, O'Brien has a better understanding of what really went on in Vietnam, rather than a news reporter who was just reading out military charts. However, his stories would be seen as mythical because O'Brien himself writes, "I want you to feel what I felt. I want you to know why story-truth is truer sometimes than happening-truth." Writing by this theme, he retells what he felt in Vietnam by giving it a dramatic feel, which would cause Davidson and Lytle to call it, "radically different from that of a letter or diary..."

Jason Eisenberg, Myth or authentic

The main idea in where trouble comes written by Davidson and Lytle is about how Movie companies add fake details and change the story line of an historical event to make money. Davidson and Lytle think it is wrong for movie companies to continue the trend, rather they should give the whole truth

Davidson and Lytle when reading Tim O Brien’s stories would find the stories to by mythical. Davidson and Lytle want movie companies as well as people telling stories about the Vietnam war for example to give the harsh facts even if it may be tough to swallow. They do not want movie companies and historians to depict the war in the wrong way. They don’t want the facts changed for movie companies to benefit off of. In the passage Where Trouble Comes it states “Grant the search for profits often pushes Hollywood to distort the past in hope of making films that audiences need and want to see”. (Davidson, Lytle.405). They are saying that many myths are added to war stories to attract the consumer. O’ Brien in his stories talks about how Lieutenant Jimmy Cross thought days and nights about the women he loved whose name was Martha. “In the late afternoon, after a day's march, he would dig his foxhole, wash his hands under a canteen, unwrap the letters, hold them with the tips of his fingers, and spend the last hour of fight pretending. He would imagine romantic camping trips into the White Mountains in New Hampshire “. Davidson and Lytle would call these accounts by Tim O’ Brien Mythical. They might say O’ Brien stories at times are nice, but too mythical. They would say that in such a brutal war there was no time to sit back and think of women back home. To Davidson and Lytle O' Brien is telling us these stories to soften up the real truth about the war. Davidson and Lytle would accuse O’ Brien of being mythical so in the future people would get a good feeling about the war and not the correct account of the war which Davidson and Lytle are stressing. The story is it self may be authentic. but the way it is told regarding the Vietnam War is Mythical because it brings a false representation of the Vietnam war.

Is O'Brien a True Historian

In O’Brien’s “The Man I Killed” he spoke a lot about what the man looked like and how the bullet holes affected his looks. These sections are historic but when he goes on to talk about what the man he killed used to feel and how he was raised, he has no idea. He is just saying what he thought happened, there is no was to see if that was the truth. He is just speculating. It is a fact that “the man’s head was wrenched sideways” (142). Because others could have seen it, but that the man killed loved mathematics is not a fact.
If O’Brien is supposed to be a historian he needs to stick to more facts and less feelings. I think that Davidson and Lytle would have a problem with calling O’Brien a historian. They would feel that he doesn't stick to the story enough. Also, in the end of “Good Forum” by O’Brien, he states that he would tell his daughter that he didn’t kill anyone when he wrote other stories about killing someone. Historians are supposed to tell the whole truth and let the reader see the facts and grow their own opinions. In their essay “When Trouble Comes”, Davidson and Lytle write that “like novels and plays, films strive for an artistic standard of ‘truth’”, so too O’Brien’s stories are changed by his own feelings and thoughts, they are a form of the truth but they aren’t fully truthful. So I think that Davidson and Lytle would view O’Brien’s stories as entertainment but not history, due to all of the opinions in the text.

The truth?

Davidson and Lytle talk about how directors make certain choices when creating a movie with historical truth in the excerpt read in class titled “Where Trouble Comes”. Some scenes actually happened, some were fabricated to make it interesting. They talk about how historians and filmmakers have different views. For example, historians stick to the truth and what really happened, while filmmakers will change everything disregarding truth-value to make their money. In fact one director, Michael Cimino, had openly admitted to doing so in an interview for this excerpt. He was questioned about a scene referred to as the roulette scene and said he wanted people to feel what it was like to be there. He said these “emotionally wrenching” scenes were used to sustain the viewers interest and make them feel what it was like to be there. The author said in this excerpt “Cimino was reluctant to talk, claiming he had only read about such games in a ‘newspaper report’.” So is this real? The authors consider this scene to be mythical.
Tim O’Brien can be considered a historian. Except this historian actually made the history and wrote his account of it. Davidson and Lytle would definitely consider O’Brien’s war stories as mythical because his reasoning was not to sustain interest but to feel what he felt, or what it was like to be there. We wonder throughout all the stories O’Brien is telling and we’re asking ourselves is he for real? Did these things actually happen? When we get to the chapter “Good Form” he says it was invented. Then he says “…I watched a man die on a trail near the village of My Khe. I did not kill him. But I was present… Even that story was made up.” Earlier in his book he wrote a whole chapter on how he killed this man, the story was authentic though fictional. It was an account of things that happened during this war, even if he himself didn’t witness it, it happened to some G.I, sometime, somewhere during the years America was fighting. It is authentic.

10/3

In an effort to make up for the class' general lack of knowledge about the historical realities of the Vietnam war, we're dividing up the period into years, with each of you taking one year and writing a 3-5 sentence (no longer) summary about what was happening in Vietnam during that year (even if your year follows or preceeds the height of American inolvement, we want to know something about what was happening in Vietnam during that period). We will assemble these into a 'timeline' we can post on the blog to give ourselves a sense of the events and their order. Critically, you must cite the source of your information, as you would on a works cited page. When you have finished, email your mini-paragraph and citation to me and I will post the results here on the blog.

Those of you who missed class were assigned a year--email me to get it.

Secondly, read all of the O'Brien listed under important links (two separate links, and 'Tim O'Brien: Spin, The Man I Killed, Good Form' consists of three pdf files). Expect a quiz on the reading Wednesday. In fact, expect a quiz every class until the reading consistency improves.

Lastly, post a response of 250-400 words connecting a specific moment (no more than a scene or one of the shorter stories) in one of the O'Brien stories to a specific quotation (of your chioce) from the Davidson and Lytle article 'Where Trouble Comes' in order to answer the following question: How would Davidson and Lytle look at O'Brien's stories? Would they call them 'authentic' or 'mythical'? Be sure to quote 'Where Trouble Comes' and O'Brien in your answer.

Because there is no school Monday, all of this is due by Wednesday at 10am. And of course, those who haven't yet read 'Where Trouble Comes' should do so immediately and expect it to also be covered in Wednesday's quiz.

about the Vietnam War

well.,be honest .My history wasnt that well when i was in high school for world history.As i know that the war of Vietnam is consider as the 2nd indochina war.After the the world war 2(1937-1945),American had send lots of soilders to Vietnam inorder to agianst the north Vietnam which they were on the south Vietnam's side.However , thats the only war which Ameircan had lose from all the time till now. Vietnam War is one of the special event from the cold war time, its the only war actually starts to use weapon to against eachother around that time.In addtion, this war had last for ten more years , American really spend lots of money for it.It was consider as a big mistake for the plan of American military .

Personally, im not into WARs.Also dont want see any war around the world.We are all human beings, thats the point.Why dont fix problems piecefully?"If there is still evil exists, that would be human's heart."(a quote from a game i have played)Human are eveil sometimes.We really cant blam the mistake to any one of them.If the war start, both will be respons to everything.No one is complete right or wrong.As we back to the history,Vietnam War did increased the problem about race ,human rights also discrimination problems in United States.It brought a great damage to the Ameican political,people who lives in american were livins in the minds of shadow for a long time.

Im not a war fan , so i really cant give that much opinions.But i hate WARs.It could really destroy a nation at a wrong decision.I dont know whats gonna happend in the future ,but my other hope is to make Bush stop hurting Iraq for stupid reasons.

Vietnam War

A question about Vietnam War films I would ask is why so many details are changed in Vietnam War films? Are filmmakers pressured by the government to show a certain point of view or perspective? Perhaps filmmakers believe they will earn more money if it’s shown in a more positive view of America and that will attract more viewers. A lot of people including myself don’t know all the details and what is true and what is not true due to various movies changing the facts in a certain way.

I don’t know much about the Vietnam War other than what I was taught in high school and what other people have said. I haven’t watched much Vietnam War movies and war movies in general. I was taught that the Vietnam War was one of most brutal wars ever and that America essentially lost the war. The point was to stop communism from spreading and in the end America failed that and Vietnam turned into a communist country. There were a lot of protests here in America for against the war and that we should stop it before we lose more soldiers in the Vietnam War. Soldiers were not as passionate and were unsure of what they were fighting for in the Vietnam War. A lot of soldiers were both mentally and physically hurt and could not function well after the war. I think it was also the first time they used biochemical warfare and that they used mustard gas but I’m not too sure about this. All in all, I know that the Vietnam War was a terrible war that resulted in many dead and hurt people.

I don't Know

I always wonder how, the people who make the movies about war, they make the scene of a big explosion without actually making the big explosion? I also wonder how they know that the way they look at the war is the right one and why they decide to choose that they will pick that side?
I also wonder why they pick the people they pick to do the movie or be the main character? Of wars I know nothing. Wars have never being any interest to me. I watched movies that are related to wars and have information about wars and they are name after some war but the thing is that I will only see if for the action in the movie and for the historical context. So all I know about the war we are talking about is the parts that I remember from the film and that is kind of all of the knowledge that i have of this. I am not such a history fan so I do not pay attention to the day of wars and reasons they happen and I do not know the name of wars that happen. I would say that there are only 3 wars which I remember which are the US Civil War and Both World Wars. So this part of the class. When people say Vietnam war the only thing that comes to my mind is that it was a war and that is what I know about this issue.

The Televised War

When I hear someone mention Viet Nam I think of those turbulent days of protest, the Draft, sit-ins, Berkley, kids getting high, Haight - Ashbury, Twiggy, The Beatles, Timothy Leary, long hair and bell bottoms, “free love,” Star Trek, bra burning, flag burning, HAIR, “trust no one over thirty,” the Black Panthers, Muhammad Ali, Malcolm X, Dr. Martin Luther King, Bobby, Mai Lai, Kent State, 1968 Republican Convention, the TET Offensive, the Summer of Love, Agent Orange, a little girl, naked running down a road, should the shape of the table be oval, round, square, rectangle or triangle?, and the daily death toll every evening on the six o’clock news.

For me the Viet Nam conflict was just something that was happening somewhere else. I would watch it on TV or read something about it in the “Long Island Press.” Most people supported the war in the beginning but as the conflict escaladed, the regular army troops were not enough, so a decision was made to start the draft; this is when public opinion started to turn against the war and after the TET Offensive I didn’t know anyone who supported it.

Many boys, evaded the draft by going to Canada, enrolling in college programs that such as education to get a number that would keep them from being called and some even registered themselves as conscious objectors when they signed up, facing ridicule from everyone.

I don’t remember any movies about Viet Nam during the conflict except for one, The Green Berets. John Wayne created a propaganda film to increase or maintain support for our involvement in the war just like he did during and after WWII. I guess Hollywood realized that we would not want to go the movies to see something we were watching in very graphic detail on our televisions daily.

Many years after the war I had boyfriends who served in the Army and Marines and they would never discuss what happened in ‘Nam or what they did there. I would look at their photographs, their young smiling faces, standing or sitting with their buddies, Blacks and Whites together in uniforms that showed they were well worn from being in the jungle. But these men had sadness that hung over them like a shroud. They were never really happy about anything; cynicism was their constant companion.

I agree with the author of the essay “Where Trouble Comes,” when he/she says, “for better or worse, with more accuracy or less, far more Americans have come by their understanding of the war by viewing dramatic films than by reading scholarly histories” (403). For me my understanding of came from watching the films The Deer Hunter, Apocalypse Now and Full Metal Jacket all movies about the conflict in Viet Nam that were released some years after the war ended; but I never understood what my friends endured until I saw Platoon. I didn’t know if I should believe what I was seeing. Oliver Stone was a Viet Vet himself but the media will tell/sell you anything just to make a buck, so I invited a friend to see the movie with me on my second viewing.

There is a scene in the movie where this platoon raids a village looking for VC. When the soldiers started shooting the villagers, my friend jumped up and bolted out of the theater. In the lobby he told me he was not going back inside, he had seen enough and what he saw brought him back, “in country.” Since that time, many men that I know who have seen this movie have agreed, it is disturbingly real.

Dien Bien Phu; Viet Nam now Iraq; “those who fail to learn from history are doom to repeat it.”


In Response To Jason:
Jason, I’m going to answer your question as to why critics make a big deal regarding a controversial movie. More often than not, these critics either believe that the government’s POV is valid or they have been hired or pressured by the government to support the government’s position. The government and critics know that the medium of film can reach and influence more people over the world and time than any newspaper, magazine or newscast can.

"No event in American history is more misunderstood than the Vietnam War. It was misreported then, and it is misremembered now".

I believe that the first time I ever heard about Vietnam was from my parents at a particularly young age. The topic about Vietnam arose after watching the movie Forest Gump. My parents obviously weren't going to go into depth about all of the details because of my young age. However, they let me know that this war was a very tragic and devastating one. They mentioned the fact that it was one of the longest and bloodiest wars, being that it lasted fifteen years. My father informed that the amount of deaths that resulted from the war were one of the highest he has ever heard of, he stated that the deaths were in the millions. What probably hit me the hardest was the amount of young boys that lost their lives for what in my opinion was a lost cause. Other movies that I have watched about Vietnam include Hamburger Hill and Full Metal Jacket. Movies portray a very vivid picture of wars from the authors point of view. The main question that I would like to be answered is, is the images and action from the movies I stated above really true? Where they dramatized in any from to make the viewer more drawn to it? I feel that movies about any time of war are rather depressing. However, I do feel that they are necessary to some degree. The whole world should be aware of what their government involves themselves in, including wars.

I have also learned and heard about the Vietnam War throughout my years of elementary and high school. I go to school in the United States, so my knowledge of Vietnam is obviously from an American point of view, which in my opinion leaves out all of the horrifying details.

"No event in American history is more misunderstood than the Vietnam War. It was misreported then, and it is misremembered now". --Richard M. Nixon, 1985

The Vietnam War

When portraying something in a film as historical and dramatic as a war, what reasons could there be for certain exaggerations being displayed? Clearly, a war is full of the blood and gore of any horror movie, as well as real life instances that could interest any viewer. This weeks reading 'Where Trouble Comes' uses specific questions in order to help create a "historical lie-detector test" for movies depicting the war. My question is, if war, particularly the Vietnam War, is so controversial already and has all of the drama that may interest an audience, then why must they embellish such a topic for film?
To be completely honest, I don’t know very much about the Vietnam War, or any war for that matter. In junior high and high school I learned all about world history and specifically United States history. However, unfortunately, I don’t remember any of it. I don’t remember having seen any war movies and I definitely don’t recall what I may have learned in anything I read about the Vietnam War. When the Vietnam War is mentioned, I think about how all throughout high school my friends Andres and Thomas would spend four long periods talking about war, past wars, current wars, foreign wars- you name it. And I think about how they both joined the Army once they graduated last year. From what I remember, the Vietnam War was one of the most bloody and longest wars to date.
I know that with any war comes a lot of death and violence. I was raised by my mother, a very peaceful woman, who wouldn’t even allow a water gun in the house so as a little girl I had no interest in guns and fighting and to this day I still don’t. I support our troops but I do not support the war. Even so, I still feel that in order to really have a real opinion on important topics like this; you must know as much information as possible. I’d like to learn more about the Vietnam War so that I wouldn’t be relying on others opinions, instead I’d be constructing my own.

Misunderstanding Through Misleading Representation

In class we just finished our discussions about ad representation. We talked about whether or not the ad being shown projects the product being sold as something different than what it is. In other words, does the advertisement give a false depiction of that specific item? Through these possibly misleading messages, an incorrect image or idea could be conveyed rather than the real or correct message. Concerning war films, do you think that the way that specific wars are portrayed in movies, actually capture the real life occurrences and experiences that really took place? Are war films drastically dramatized and therefore be misinterpreted? Are necessary details emphasized too much or too little? All these questions are very important in order to determine whether or not certain war films should be relied on for an accurate account of history.

I personally do not know very much about the Vietnam War. I know that it occurred from the mid 1960s through the middle of the 1970s. There was a lot of controversy about how long the American troops should have stayed in Vietnam. I am aware that the majority of the American soldiers were very young; many in their early twenties if not younger. Unfortunately, the American death toll from the war reached numbers above fifty thousand and the Vietnamese casualties more than one million. Also, I know that many people today are making comparisons between the war in Iraq with the Vietnam War. I really have not formerly learned about The Vietnam War but I would like to. I have seen the movie Forest Gump, which although was fictional, did include scenes relating to Vietnam. Due to my lack of knowledge about this topic, I do look forward to learning more.

Vietnam: another sacrifice to the Cold War

As we all should know about that after the end of WWII, two superpower nations: The United States and The Soviet Union share the most benefits over all the nations. As the war ends, the world has divided into two "sides" as well as Europe. The united states and its allies control the western part while the Soviet Union takes the Eastern part and east Berlin too. Cold War is a term describe the competition between the United States and The Soviet Union over ares such like political and military power. Through out the 50's, fear of communism spread out all over the nation. On the other hand, the Soviet Union is not satisfied for the situation in Europe. Soon, they plans to have the idea of communism distribute to the southern Asia, and than put it into action. The United States in the other hand, afraid that the communism is taking too much influence to the world, so they put into action too in order to share the idea of democrat which people own the government instead of dictatorship. Vietnam, as the result of the cold war has been divided into two parts: the north which is communism and the south which is democrat. In order to stop the communist, the U.S sends out troops to Vietnam to support the south.



No war is ended peaceful and so Vietnam. Millions of soldiers are either died or wounded in the war and civilians too. Ask for what the two superpowers gained in the war, the answer is "Nothing" because the war takes 15 years which is so much longer than the WWI & WWII. And the result is that the war ended with a peaceful treaty which is signed in Paris between two sides in 1973. Two years later (1975) , the north crossover the south, Vietnam is united which than brings communism back to Vietnam. This brings so much question to the U.S government such "What is the purpose of war?"and "Is there any explanation to the death of U.S soldiers." Until now, people in Vietnam are still suffering from the impact and there are people still suffering from the shadow of the war too.



It is true that films like Vietnam war or based on any other war are not showing all the events in accurate even documentary film. But evidences like the Vietnam war memorial field in Washington D.C is still refreshing our memory back to the painful 60's.

Vietnam War, a Hollywood hit

There are couple of questions I would like to ask about the Vietnam War and this essay. What is it with filmmakers and this obsession on trying to create a myth about the Vietnam War? I would also like to know why they would do this since I think it doesn't collaborate with their main objective, to make money.

I guess I know a bit about the Vietnam War having read about it in high school. I think the Vietnam War was the third war in which the US was fighting against communism. The first would be the lengthy "Cold War" which was a non physical battle between the Soviet Union and the USA. The second would be the Korean War, where a UN force mainly made of US and South Korean soldiers fought against the North Korean's to stop the spread of communism in Korea. I think the Domino Theory plays a big role in why the US went into Vietnam. Since South Vietnam was supposedly the "domino" that was about to fall to communism after the departure of the french colonials. Since that was the USA's foreign policy at the time, it seemed valid for the US to move into Vietnam as they did in Korea. Also, US forces were being attacked for no reason by the Vietnamese at sea. I also know that we actually lost in the long run as the North Vietnamese run over the South Vietnamese and turn the whole country into a communist state. The US also faced many casualties and spent an excessive amount of money to fund the war. I believe many of the veterans of the Vietnam War didn't receive benefits they should have received and many suffered from posttraumatic stress disorder.

Vietnam

Right now in philosophy I am studying different types of principles that relate to moral aspects and how they should be deciphered. One theory is cultural relativism that attempts to prove through various arguments that a culture decides what is right or wrong within that culture and one can never say that what another culture did was incorrect because they would then not be following cultural relativism. My question is even though according to cultural relativism whatever a culture deems right or wrong is in fact right or wrong, in your opinion did we handle the Vietnam War in a proper manner? What actions do you think we could’ve taken to allow our troops to come back earlier and possibly have saved lives?

The Vietnam War was something of quite tragedy that took place for about way too many years, from the early 50s to the 70s.. I have not learned about it all that much except when I was in a very intense history class in high school where I learned much detail about the different conferences which took place and who bombed who and how the war finally ended. Casualties were enormous. More than 6,000 Americans were killed in just one year alone, The war finally ended in 1974 but it was a long cold war that waited too long to finish. I haven’t really watched many movies or documentaries on it but I think its something very important and even though it may be very hard to watch all the blood and gunshots and bombs its something we must remember and be educated about in respect to the prior generation and in respect to ourselves as citizens to the United States of America.

Truth or false?

Often times, Hollywood takes a real event in history and distorts it to a certain degree in order to tell the fictional story within it; movies were meant for entertainment after all. Should we trust in these Vietnam war movies or even documentaries so blindly? Although I have yet to see any films related to the Vietnam War, I have seen a couple of war movies and from what I've seen, historical accuracy is not always the priority in war films. This may actually lead the viewer into believing something completely off.
As for the Vietnam War itself, I don't really know the details as well as WWI or WWII but I do remember learning in class that the soldiers who returned home from this war were treated like dogs and disgraces rather than heroes. The Vietnam War was not only an American loss but the beginning of America's terrible record on foreign affairs. I also remember hearing how the people of Vietnam did not want America there in the first place so one could only assume one thing-why the hell in America go there in the first place? In any case, this will be an interesting topic to discuss and write about.

Too Tragic for Words

What makes a person interested in making war movies? What is it about them that makes people want to sit for 2 hours and watch a movie where people die for their good deed? It's not easy for me to sit and watch movies like that. Is it just for the money? Is it to honor our country?
I don’t know much about the Vietnam war, but I do know it was long and possibly the most bloodiest of wars. South Vietnam ended up losing as well. This war is very similar to the war in Iraq, pointless in every aspect. Too many people died for something that will never change. America thought they could fix the communist problem in Korea and failed miserably. I learned about this war in school several times but none of the information stuck. I honestly don’t care to learn about this particular war or any war for that matter. There is nothing more depressing than talking about and learning about millions of death. While the intention of war is to fight for your belief in what’s right, killing does not make things right. I remember watching a documentary on Vietnam during class one day and all that was showed was bombs being dropped. It was hard for me to sit and watch such terror being glorified. What do young kids think of this? Do the people making these movies really think killing people is ok? My uncle had served in the Vietnam war. He died when I was younger so I didn’t get a chance to really talk to him, but my mother said he was deeply disturbed after he came home from war. It changed him. He would never talk of the war did not watch or allow his children to watch any war movies. This to me says the Vietnam war was one that was too tragic for words.

jason Eisenberg the vietnam war

I would like to know why critics make a big deal regarding a controversal movie? I ask this because they should know that directors write the movie in their best interests. Whether it be making more money or etc. I would also like to know if you think the government should try to sensor a movie they thought could turn out to be controversial?
When I think of the Vietnam war I think of controversy. I think of it similar to the war in Iraq. Many times when i am watching the news I hear negative references about Vietnam when they are talking about the Iraq war. Many people were opposed to the Vietnam war similar to the Iraq war today. Most of the country today is opposed to the war and I image it was the same back then. The opposing political parties were also against the war. Over one million people died in the Vietnam war. Many people questioned the intentions of the war thinking maybe it was for political purposes not military. I feel that if it were for political purposes it is a crime giving all those soldiers that risked their life for America for no reason. Many government officials even admitted later on that the war might have been a mistake. The Vietnam was from my knowledge was North Vietnam against America and southern Vietnam.
I never learned about the Vietnam war in school. My friend who is into past wars told me about the war. When I was told about the War I felt that like today America had domestic issues that they should have taken care of before worrying about a different nation. I have never seen a movie about the Vietnam war and given what I know about the war I would not want to watch one.

10/1

For Wednesday, read 'Where Trouble Comes,' which is analysis of Vietnam films, then come up with a question about Vietnam war films and/or the essay which you think the class should answer. We'll use these questions for a jumping off point for discussion, so questions without yes or no answers are preferred, as are questions that cannot be answered in one sentence or less, such as '1967.'

I'd also like to get a sense of general class knowledge, so in the second part of your 250-400 word response tell us what think about when you hear reference to the Vietnam war. I'm particularly interested in where and when you've learned about it (including school but not limited to school), and what films you have seen or know about dealing with the subject, what stories you've read, how you feel about them, how they portray the Vietnam war, etc. That is, give a general account of your understanding of the war and in particular the methods by which that understanding reached you. As always, the responses must be posted by 10am on Wednesday for credit.

We'll watch portions of two of the films mentioned in the essay on Wednesday. Also, for the following Wednesday (we're off Monday for Columbus Day) I'll be asking you to watch a war film on your own and write a response on it, so be prepared to find time in your schedule for that over the long weekend.