Not long ago it was one of those rare Saturdays – the womenfolk were gone and it was just me and my sons. As readers will know I am committed to the New Testament doctrines of non-violence and non-resistance and yet unlike some within the Anabaptist or Holiness traditions, I believe in engaging culture on a certain level. This is not with an intent to transform or exert political influence but I believe we do need to understand the context in which we live. There are limits, all the more as culture becomes overtly sinful in much that is produces.
I don't believe we can really have regular television anymore
and I've believed that since my conversion in the mid-1990's. But I'm not
opposed to all movies and while I eschew certain types of content with little
tolerance for it – I will watch some things that other Christians might raise
an eyebrow at. I tend to watch things that have some potential value, are a source
of reflection, or potentially a stimulus to further inquiry. As such, I have
little time for many of the films that rank high in terms of popularity.
The Evangelical world has little trouble with violence and
war. In this case I'm speaking of war movies and things of that nature. Why
would someone like me want to watch such a thing? For several reasons – there
are things to think about and meditate on. The values of these movies influence
culture and shape the thinking of people – in particular young men. There are
certain types of movies that are wanton in their violence and glorify it. There
are others that are a bit more introspective and ambiguous.
'Saving Private Ryan' certainly sought to glorify the
invasion of Normandy and adopted the Americo-centric perspective of World War
II history and its narratives. This was to be expected and while the movie was
set within the backdrop of the larger story of D-Day and the Western Front, it
also told other stories about people, motives, and the like. I remember letting
my older son watch it years ago – I had to fast forward some of the dialogue.
At this point in time both my sons hear much worse on a daily basis out in the
workplace. Anyway, I remember he was really struck by the beach scene and the
depiction of men lying on the sand, with their guts falling out and crying out
for their mothers. It hit him in a way that battle hadn't before – the real
ugly and base aspects of it, men broken, men losing control of their bowels –
the sheer madness of it all and in some cases the futility of it, men not even
getting a chance to fight, simply killed by a hail of bullets or an explosion.
It didn't seem very glorious.
I believe we can and in some cases ought to watch some of the
offerings of pop culture but of course we do so as Christians. There's no Fundamentalist
check list that we can use viably. A four letter word does it for some. Turn it
off. In other cases I can think of movies that have no violence, language, or
sex but the message is awful, the parent-child interactions, the manipulations
and the like are subtle and evil. I wouldn't have wanted my kids (when younger)
to watch these films as the issues are too subtle. In some ways it's just
simpler to say, these people (the characters in the movies) aren't Christians.
We don't talk like that. And guess what? They hear it every time we go out the
door anyway.
That's different from inviting it into your home. I
understand that and I'm not a libertine in this regard. There's a lot I won't
watch. There are many things I start to watch and turn off – sometimes within
minutes. There are many movies and shows that I'm surprised people will watch
and openly talk about – all the more within the Christian community.
Aside from being a bit of an enigma and given his
relationship to the Christian community, Mel Gibson has long been a
frustration. He's been involved in some decent movies but he's also produced
and been part of a lot of rubbish.
I was never interested in his 'Passion of the Christ' movie
and have never seen it. I remember the Evangelical response which I found to be
troubling. It too played a role in the lowering of the bar with Rome –
something that was already well under way by the movie's release in 2004.*
I recall seeing Braveheart when it came out and finding it to
be both fascinating and maddening at the same time. After the bizarre
anachronisms of a film like Excalibur, it was nice to see a medieval film that
in many respects attempted a degree of authenticity and yet Gibson seems to
have a penchant for re-writing history. Braveheart's accuracy was appalling.
Some historians get nit-picky about banners and outfits, and types of weaponry
used in some films – and yet the movie may still be accurate enough and more
than captures the gist of the events. That's not really the case with
Braveheart. Gibson just lies and very few of the characters and their interactions
are presented with any kind of historical care. Wallace is an enigma to be sure
and some license must be granted but Gibson's fictitious use of prima nocta, Wallace's relations with
Isabella, his depiction of Robert the Bruce, as well as his timelines and
depictions of the battles are just inexcusable. It's pure Hollywood and as such
the historical record is distorted – so Gibson can make his action movie. But
people loved it and I was in Scotland just a couple of years after it came out
and a lot of the Scots loved it too.
Returning to the Saturday at hand I had wanted to watch
Gibson's 'We Were Soldiers' for some time. As one interested in The Vietnam War
I am also interested in how it has played out culturally. Most Vietnam movies
are said to depict the war in negative terms. I would actually dispute this. It
depends on what you mean by negative. There are some films that would qualify but
many more represent some kind of revenge fantasy or stories of rogue
operations, rescues, and the like. And yet the cynicism of the war is always
present. I always heard that Gibson's movie was different. It was the Vietnam
movie the veterans liked and so for that reason – and because I believe most
people actually believe in myths (as opposed to reality) about Vietnam – I
wanted to see it.
Gibson didn't direct the film but as the star and as his Icon
Productions was behind it – I knew he played a part in how things were going to
be depicted. He had also worked with the director before. It's not 'his' movie,
but it's a Gibson movie to be sure.
It takes place in 1965, during the early days of the official
American War. It must be remembered the US had been involved since the end of
World War II and had heavily backed the French in their failed attempt at
reconquest. Then the US got directly involved, and played a role in splitting
the country in two and installing a proxy regime in Saigon.
To many Americans it was critical that Washington stand with
its allies and stay true to its commitments. This was always a farce as South
Vietnam was a creation of the United States. It wasn't an ally. It was a
satrapy, a colony representing American interests in Indochina. The North and
the bulk of the Southern population rejected this imposition and division of
their country – and especially rejected the heinous, brutal, and corrupt regime
installed by the US, a regime filled with cronies associated with French rule
and under Diem, Catholics were elevated and Buddhists were persecuted.
This was the period of the 'advisors', the unofficial war the
US fought that underwent a sharp escalation under Kennedy. His record on the
war is disputed and many believed that after the Cuban Missile Crisis and his
American University speech in June 1963, it was Kennedy's intention to wind
down US operations in South Vietnam and attempt to end the Cold War.
Regardless of his intentions, he was dead before the year was
out and Johnson escalated the war on the basis of the farcical Gulf of Tonkin
Resolution which had been drafted months before the supposed events. Johnson began bombing and officially began
the 'ground war' in the spring of 1965. Twenty years of US involvement had just
moved into the next phase and the final decade of the war is what is usually
referred to as 'The Vietnam War' by the American public.
In the fall of 1965, one of the few large-scale and pitched
battles of the war was fought at Ia Drang. It was a battle that featured the US
directly fighting North Vietnamese forces. The movie depicts this battle and
Gibson's 'Colonel Moore' in preparation for it. It explores the development of
the US strategy to use helicopters in the conflict and so forth. As a former
helicopter buff I found this interesting as it was a frequent topic of
conversation in my youth. There are also touching scenes of the wives left in
the United States and the measures taken by some of these women to help each
other in the face of sorrow and bad governmental organisation.
It's easy to see why veterans and patriotic Americans like
the movie. It doesn't explore the reasons for the war, or the tortured
struggles of those caught up in it. It's straightforward if naive. Good guys
and bad guys and on that level is completely deceptive.
As with all the battles in Vietnam, the Asians would suffer
the greatest losses. Always at a disadvantage, they had to pay a heavier price
in order to stand their ground. But US losses in this battle were heavy – at
least by American standards. Nevertheless, the movie depicts the battle as an
unambiguous American victory. And yet this is not the case and the 'final
assault' in the film is completely fictitious and yet critical to the movie
plot. The audience walks away from the story with the sense that the Americans
came out on top.
The truth is in addition to the final assault never
happening, the battle wasn't even over. It was more widespread and continued
after Gibson/Moore's elements had been vacated. The overall battle was a 'draw' even by
Moore's account. And for the Vietnamese that was tantamount to a victory and
they took it that way. The movie's depiction was disingenuous. If anything the
US units pulled back and were forced to re-assess the nature of the war they
had signed on to. For the Vietnamese it was an encouragement. The Americans can
be stopped and in the end they were right.
Like Braveheart and The Patriot, Gibson continues to involve
himself in movies that romanticise these historical events and seem to project
a kind of wish narrative upon them. He wishes it had gone this way or ended
this way. I realize that history can't be accurately depicted on film. You can
only do so much in that limited time span. But this is not just the
streamlining of plot, the combining of characters and conflation of events.
This is introducing pure fiction to give a perception that is blatantly false.
The fact that Evangelicals have been so thrilled with Gibson
and the 'Christian' element to his stories and the like is puzzling to say the
least. But in the end given the Evangelical commitment to fame, fortune, and
its lust for power and the fact that the movement has repeatedly and willingly
sold its soul in its quest for these things – it's backing of Gibson isn't all
that surprising.
'We Were Soldiers' was worth seeing on one level – but with a
very critical eye. My reasons for seeing it or recommending it are very
different than those of the general American public. It's not to be celebrated
but is instead a lesson about Hollywood, about the romanticising of history,
and the way overt mendacity is excused in the interests of propaganda.
----
*As an aside it's interesting to note that Gibson is working
on the sequel and plans to depict Christ in Hades along with some other
material related to the fall of the angels. Aside from being theologically
problematic (to depict such things and engage in speculation) and probably
sacrilegious (which is not a problem for either the Evangelical and Catholic
communities), it will be interesting to see the Evangelical response to this as
Gibson is likely to range into doctrinal realms unfamiliar to them and which
many of their number overtly reject. Many of them reject the idea (enshrined in
the Creed) that He literally went to Hades. As one who leans toward the
Harrowing of Hell view of Christ in Hades, I'm likely to agree more with Gibson
than the Evangelicals but I still have no interest in the movie. Some things
cannot and should not be depicted. If that was true for Narnia and Middle-Earth
– how much more when it comes to Scriptural teachings regarding the Spirit
world?