 |
| Crystal Davis |
 |
| Dawn Halfaker |
 |
| Jake Schick and Dexter Pitts |
 |
| Bryan Anderson, James Gandolfini, Dawn Halfaker, Eddie Ryan, Dexter Pitts |
 |
| Jonathan Bartlett |
 |
| Michael Jernigan and Brittani |
When I went to Iraq I had a smile on my face. I believed in the war. I thought that we could do some good. I wanted to help the Iraqis have the same freedoms we take for granted every day. I enjoyed my time in the gun club we call the Marine Corps. How could I not? That is my family background. I am a third generation marine. Shooting machine guns and blowing stuff up was enjoyable at the time. I did not know then the horrors of combat. I had an incredibly catastrophic thing happen to me. That is what I was told by someone in passing.
I do not agree. I was given a second chance at life.
We are not all so lucky. I attended the funeral of the Navy corpsman who saved my life. He died on his third combat tour in Iraq. The times have not always been happy-go-lucky. There were a lot of hours in surgery and in rehabilitation facilities. I can stand tall today and wear a smile on my face that is a country mile wide. I can do that because my family loves me. God blessed me with more days in this world. I have a girlfriend who is everything that I was so certain that I would never find. I beg of you, when it gets too deep and you feel like that it will never get better, smile. Sometimes it is all that we have to fight off the blues and get back on our horse and push through.
This is Michael Jernigan, the marine who lost both eyes, writing in The New York Times, 26 October 2007. He contributed regularly for The Times, and if you have time, check out some of what he has written. His stories are not what you might imagine them to be. He has since this documentary become a motivational speaker. Similarly, Dawn Halfaker, the Army lieutenant who lost her arm and shoulder to an RPG, has gone on and become a successful businessperson. And the mother of a five year old. By any and all definitions, she has achieved greatly, disability and all. So too has Bryan Anderson, the first soldier we meet who lost both legs and an arm to an IED. Here's a video of him showing how he navigates the world. He has published a book, and with Jake Schick, the last veteran we saw in the film, has acted, both in Clint Eastwood's American Sniper, which we will watch later in the term. On a smaller scale, of course, we see in the film Army specialist Crystal Davis return from traumatic leg injuries to be able to dance. And there is Army corporal Jonathan Bartlett, with his funny home video, joking about his time in Iraq that cost him his legs. "I'd do it again in a second," he says. "Of course, without losing my legs." The men and women we see in this film are, no doubt deliberately, a cross section of those who fought and were injured in the war: male, female; officer, enlisted men; army, marines; college educated (Halfaker is a West Point graduate), high school educated (Crystal Davis); rural, urban, suburban; black, white; physical injuries, psychological injuries. And we've seen aspects of them in Born on The Fourth of July and In Country. Some of them mention their anger and depression.
Several responses to this from my own viewing. One, having seen it eight times, I still find it hard to watch. I know what's going to happen, but whenever we see an IED being triggered in an insurgent video, I still jump, and still wonder how anyone could survive the explosion. Two, the stories of these veterans still affect me: marine Eddie Ryan with his head scars and devoted mother throwing out love to James Gandolfini; Dawn Halfaker hoping to never be asked if she can give someone the time since she can't lift her prosthetic arm; Crystal Davis tearing it up on the dance floor; Michael Jernigan's eye made up the gems from his wedding ring. Three, I still marvel at the youthfulness of these soldiers and marines: 21, 22, 23, etc. Four, I am still surprised at the attitudes that many of these men and women show: their lack of anger and bitterness, their positive outlook, their hopefulness. Look at what Michael Jernigan says at the top of the page. Crystal Davis says she wants to go back and finish the job despite what happened to her (I wonder what she says now, 12 years later). Still, so soon after her injuries, that's almost incomprehensible to me. At the same time, a few of the vets reflect on their naivety, their lack of real knowledge of what they were getting themselves into. There is sadness expressed here, but not a whole lot of regret.
Many years ago Emmy Yang wrote her blog on this movie. It affected her deeply—it made her do some serious rethinking of her present views. This is it:
Hey guys,
I
don’t know about you, but I had many feelings while watching this HBO
documentary, Alive Day Memories. I’m not sure what to think about the
ten men and women who were interviewed. All of them had a different
story, a different experience, and perspective about the war. There
were, perhaps, some sentiments that overlapped—such as Lt. Dawn
Halfaker and Sergeant John Jones’s—but I’m not sure we can make
generalizations about these soldiers. Can we?
While I was watching the documentary, I found myself rethinking my preconceived notions about servicemen and women. Coming from a family and school that values academics, I never seriously considered joining the military. I thought that people who joined did so because they had no other option. They came from families of lower income. They did not do very well in school. To some extent, this notion is reflected in Crystal’s story. As she says, in her small Southern town, the only way to get out was to join the military. She says she was “the lucky one” among her friends who had married and settled down. But this prejudice clearly cannot be applied to all of the ten people. Halfaker attended West Point, an elite military academy. She clearly has been educated and we can see that she is eloquent in speech. She is not my vision of a typical soldier, but then again what is a typical soldier?
The documentary confuses and violates my prejudices about soldiers. I came out of class feeling an overwhelming sense of confusion, but also respect and appreciation for these men and women beyond what I have ever felt. Each person’s story, while only a few minutes long, touched me in a way that I can no longer look at a soldier in the same way. I had been so easy to judge. I did not understand the sacrifices these people make, sometimes unknowingly, and what they have to deal with coming back from war. I don’t think I can ever fully understand either.
• •What did you think about the film? What were your reactions while watching the film and afterwards? Which soldier or marine particularly stuck out to you—and why?
2 •Did the film echo or contradict your preconceived notions? If so, how? If not—what did it support or reinforce?
3 •Halfaker,
who loses her arm, says she is “glad” she did it. Corporal Jonathan
Bartlett says he would
“ do it all again”. How can some of these men and
women come to terms with their injury and even
s say they would go back to
war?
I
think Emmy's questions are still valid. So, given that we have about
ten minutes of it left to watch, go ahead and answer her three queries.
Remember to read 24-26 in In Country. Crystal Davis from small town South Carolina where, as she said, had two choices if she wanted to leave the town: get married and move away with her husband...or join the service. Perhaps Dawn should consider these choices as well.
See you Monday.
Remember to read 24-26 in In Country. Crystal Davis from small town South Carolina where, as she said, had two choices if she wanted to leave the town: get married and move away with her husband...or join the service. Perhaps Dawn should consider these choices as well.
See you Monday.
During and after this film, I felt an overwhelming amount of sadness. My only coherent thought was how badly I wanted a pint of chocolate ice cream. There were so many jarring images thrown at me that I felt dumbfounded, speechless. The part of this film that I felt was the most poignant was that these are real people. In the other movies, I have been able to separate myself from the characters a bit. For example, in Saving Private Ryan, I knew that it was based on a real story, but those were just actors on the screen. In Alive Day Memories: Home From Iraq I could not have that same reassurance. The insurgent videos of the soldiers being blown up were terrible, but I did not find those clips as hard to watch as the ones of the soldiers being happy. I know it sounds ludicrous, but it goes back to being able to distance myself. When I saw Sgt. Eddie Ryan at the Marine barracks in Iraq dancing I got so sad. The juxtaposition between the lively man in the video and the man who is now in a wheelchair really got to me. These are the stories of real people. I could never imagine going through something like that. I also almost started crying when Halfaker talked about never being able to hold her baby because that is something that I never thought about. It seems like such a simple desire to be able to hold one’s baby, but she will never be able to cradle her child in both arms. If I were Halfaker, I would be mad at the army, but she is not. Her company’s vision is “continuing to serve.”
ReplyDeleteCrystal Davis made a very good, but sad point. For some people, the only way out of their current life is to join the military. I think that she joined the military because she wanted out. I think Dawn Halfaker joined the military because she wanted to be a leader. In both cases, they did not join the military because they felt a deep desire to serve. Both of them wanted to make better lives for themselves. I think that even though the military altered the interviewees' visions for their lives, they now have an even greater sense of what it means to be alive. Most people take life for granted, I know that I do, but because these people had their lives taken away from them, but then through the miracle of science or luck or God or some combination, their lives were given back to them. There is something so powerful in that, but also very guilt-ridden. If I were in one of their situations I would try to live every day with a sense of purpose, but I do not think that I would try to live it with purpose because I almost did not have the chance to live. I think I would live my life with purpose because I knew someone who was not given the same chance.
I thought the film did an excellent job of showing who joins the military: there is not one archetype of people who go into war and there is not an archetype of veterans after the war. During the film, I was stuck both by how much respect I felt towards the veterans who fought to keep on living after the war and by how I kept imagining myself in their shoes: what I would do if I was in their situation. Jonathan Bartlet stuck out to me the most. I think it is because I identify with him quite a bit; he has a lighthearted air about him, he was kind to the people he talked to, but most of all, he had a sense of humor, even when discussing the worst day of his life. Deeper than the jokes, he didn’t let his nearly insurmountable challenges change who he was or what he believes. He says he would go back again if he could, but would miss the bomb next time. I identified with and admired how he blended humor and depth.
ReplyDeleteThe movie did not contradict any of my preconceived notions. Perhaps they would have two years ago, before Jack decided on West Point; two years ago I had a similar trope in my head about the military: mostly blindly patriotic meatheads. After Jack went to West Point, it really changed how I saw service and patriotism from a blind adherence to abstract values to standing up for one’s principles.
It comes down to what I most admired about Bartlett; if a cause was worth risking death for once, then it is worth risking death for again. I believe that Bartlett’s and Halfaker’s belief in why they went to war is stronger than the setbacks they face. Losing a limb doesn’t invalidate why they fought; “Never tell a soldier he does not know the cost of war.” We can infer that Bartlett and Halfaker knew the risks of what they were getting into. If the cause was truly worth the risk of death in the eyes of Bartlett and Halfaker then why would it not be worth it again?
•What did you think about the film? What were your reactions while watching the film and afterwards? Which soldier or marine particularly stuck out to you—and why?
ReplyDeleteOverall, I believe this film was very heart touching and inspiring. In contrast to the other movies that we have watched which were inspired by true events, these WERE true events captured and told on camera. The factor of being able to hear, see, and interpret their own stories from their own perspective made it feel more real and personal to the audience and me in my opinion. The soldier that stuck out to me greatly was Dexter Pitts when he regales his experience with PTSD. He said that he was generally a big teddy bear, a soft guy, but the things that he did to children, choices he made to survive, still haunt him to this day. He would tell other soldiers about what he did and they would not believe his actions. “Not Dexter, he would never do that”. I think it really stuck to me how you could visually see the affect his memories did to him when telling his story. One strong quote he says along the lines of “I want to take control of my life, not let one bad mistake I made in the past control me. I don’t want to be known as the crazy uncle in the family who came back from the war, whose not right in the head.” As he says this, you can see the distress in his voice. After being released from the army, he finally thought he was free, but his memories keep haunting him. He is struggling to not have his own memories control and define who he is., which in a sense, could be said for everyone on different levels.
2 •Did the film echo or contradict your preconceived notions? If so, how? If not—what did it support or reinforce?
This question is a bit hard to answer. Over the course of this class so far, any preconceived glorified notion of war has already been stripped away from me, replaced with true war stories from veterans and family members. In doing so, this movie only helped to reinforce the demasking of the glorification of war, showing the true after effects of the war. As said in the previous question, this documentary really connects with the audience on a more personal level, as it is not based off of an event, but the real thing thing. These stories are told from the people themselves, making the impact even more meaningful. It reinforces the idea that everyone goes to the army for different reasons, and presents true war stories to the audience.
3 •Halfaker, who loses her arm, says she is “glad” she did it. Corporal Jonathan Bartlett says he would “do it all again.'' How can some of these men and women come to terms with their injury and even say they would go back to war?
In many cases, their injury is a part of their identity. It is proof of what they have done and that they have served their country. During the film, Eddie’s mother tells the audience that Eddie didn’t want to cover up his scars. “They are his battle scars. Isn’t that right Eddie?” In other words, it is a part of their identity now. In addition, being in the army is a totally different atmosphere than in civilian life. Whereas in the military, all the soldiers can understand you to some extent about how war has affected you, oftentimes, the civilian world could never understand or comprehend the atrocities and experiences of war. This is shown when Dexter says that it is hard transitioning into civilian life because it feels like no one ever understands him. War is were they can feel whole again, they can feel needed, and be surrounded by those who understand the same hardships as they have experienced.
I honestly do not know how I feel about this documentary. It was pretty terrifying. I had to keep telling myself that the insurgent videos did not use CGI; they were not remakes of what happened. Those videos are real, and I think the effect of that is still yet to hit me. I wish there was more time to get to know each soldier as we were only allotted 5-10 minutes with each interviewee, but I am also guiltily relieved that each person was only given so much time, as each passing second took a little more of emotional toll. Bartlett has stood out to me not necessarily because of his specific story, but because of how he chooses to share this story. His story was the only one where I felt something other than shock, sadness, etc. He encouraged us to laugh and to feel quite the opposite of pity, which took me by surprise. He did not want our pity.
ReplyDelete(Preconceived notions of what?) I honestly cannot say that I have any fully-formed preconceived notions about war/soldiers/veterans/etc because I am still forming my perceptions and ideas of these aspects of our society, so I cannot really answer that question. It’s one of those things where I know I could never begin to understand what a veteran has been through, so all I can do is take in as many perspectives regarding the subject as I can and form a sort of collage rather than one cohesive picture.
I do not know how someone could have so much conviction as to say that they would go back to war and finish what they started after they almost died there once (or multiple times.) I just cannot even imagine how that would feel. It shows just how stubborn and determined (and prideful?) the human race can be. Curiosity: would y’all say that based on what we have witnessed so far that people go to war for themselves or for others?
1. Out of all of the films, clips, and movies that we have watched so far and after all of my reactions saying "that was horrifying" or "that was the hardest thing I have ever had to watch", none of them can compare to what we witnessed watching the film on Friday. That was the saddest, most thought-provoking, most shocking, most I don't even have a word to describe it, hardest thing I have ever had to watch. Something about this film in comparison the others that we have watched was different, and I think it's because it was all real. These are real people. They are not characters based off of real people, they are not actors, this was not staged or molded in any way to meet Hollywood standards, this was real and it was shocking. Hearing all of the soldiers' stories and watching those bombs go off and hearing about how their lives have changed and how young they are and who they used to be, it was literally the saddest thing I have ever experienced. All of the soldiers' stories were heartbreaking but the one in particular that really got me was the soldier who couldn't remember his own kids' names. I literally just started sobbing at that part. You could tell that all he wanted to do was remember his kids' names and how much it frustrated him and upset him that he couldn't. He talked about feeling dumb for having to ask his brother what his own kids' names are and how much it hurt him and you can tell that he loves his kids so much and wants to be able to show them how much he loves them, and the war took away his ability to remember his kids' names. All of these war stories from real soldiers were so upsetting and hit harder than anything we have watched all year.
ReplyDelete2. I think I agree with what Emmy Yang said about this changing my preconceived notions about soldiers. I think this whole year I have been characterizing soldiers and veterans into a different category than real, average, everyday people and this was the first time that it really struck me that they have lives and identities outside of being a soldier or veteran of war. I can relate to Emmy talking about how she thought that many soldiers join because they have no other option because I found myself thinking that too and also because I still even after everything we have read, wonder why I anyone would choose or want to go to war or be a soldier. My vision of a typical soldiers has always been an uneducated, hypermasucline boy who doesn't know what he's getting himself into, but this film has kind of changed that vision for me.
3. I think it makes sense for the soldiers to say that they wouldn't go back and change their decision and not go to war because your experiences make you who you are, and if they didn't go to war they wouldn't know what they know or be who they are today. For some reason, I also understand why some of them said that they would go back again. I think that after you have experienced something as amazing or life-changing as war, it's hard to come back to such a normal life and normal, average life may not seem like enough anymore.
Watching these men and women make the best out of their lives was humbling. I think that their perseverance to not let their disabilities dictate their lives makes these veterans heroes. I was in awe about how they were able to talk about their “alive day” without completely breaking down. I wonder if they were so used to telling their stories that they were not triggered by the memories anymore or if each time they told their story, it was like reliving their traumatic experiences. After watching horrific film clips from the war that seemed impossible to survive and then seeing and hearing the stories of those men and women who somehow did survive them, baffled me. It is hard to believe how much these vets have been through at such a young age. When Jonathan Bartlett said he was nineteen on his alive day, I imagined what happened to him happening to myself or my friends. I don’t know if I would be able to be as optimistic as he was. His story showed me that although he struggled like Kovic, unlike Kovic, he seemed able to be genuinely happy with his life and the decisions about joining the army.
ReplyDeleteThis movie definitely contradicted some of my preconceived notions people joining the war. After reading Kovic’s story and watching The Deer Hunter and Saving Private Ryan, I had formed the notion that people who joined the marines joined under a false or incomplete narrative of war. These boys join the fight to become men and save their country, but once they are in war, they realize the war is hell and not heroic. When I watched Dawn Halfaker’s story, I was confused because her journey did not fit into the judgments I made about people who joined the war. First of all, she is a woman, so she did not have the pressure to prove her “manhood” like Kovic did which was the main reason he joined. Because she was so well educated, she must have known how terrible war really was and probably didn’t buy into the glorified war narrative that the characters in The Deer Hunter did. I know that she joined the army to “lead men,” but I am still confused how anyone could understand the true war narrative and still join. To me, it seems that the risk, horror, and trauma of war would outweigh the thrill and sense of comradery people receive from it, which is why I struggle to understand why people join.
This question of why they are so willing to “do it all again” was what struck me the most. I really struggle to comprehend how they are willing to go through the war again even when they are fully aware of how terrible it was. Like you were saying John, it amazes me how little regret they feel. I think I would definitely regret going to a war that disabled me, yet none of the veterans regretted their decision to go to war. Dexter Pitts said he felt like he did not belong in society anymore because the war had changed him so much. Maybe for the other’s, the sense of belonging they received from the war made their injuries worth it. I do not have a straightforward answer to this question because I honestly do not know how they not only do not regret going, but are also willing to go again.
Prompt One: I thought that the film was very educational for me. For instance, the facts that it shared about amputation and survival rates blew my mind. For the first time ever, we live in an age where battlefield injuries don’t necessarily lead to death, and what this led me to think about was how many soldiers come home--bodies changed from injury--and have to relearn their lifestyles. Halfaker particularly stood out to me because of her anecdotes about having just one arm… How she wood navigate public differently just because of it and how she wouldn’t really be able to hold her child if she ever had one.
ReplyDeletePrompt Two: This film reinforced my ideas that war was dangerous. But at the same time, it showed video clips of the soldiers joking around with each other in ways that I had always imagined they would, but never really been too sure. Though their lives were at stake, they mentioned having to joke to “take their mind off it.” And even in their quarters, they had fun times dancing together. These were the nice parts. I also enjoyed watching (I think it was) Bryan Anderson’s boxing match, because these activities all seemed so much more lighthearted than the surrounding war. I guess that when taken together, war can be confusing. It’s at once some of the best times of your life, but then just as suddenly the worst.
Prompt Three: I guess this answer kind of comes off the end of my last response. Though these soldiers had all been injured, the thought of returning isn’t that repulsive. In fact, I think that their reason to not mind “doing it all again,” is because of all the friendships and good times they had overseas. In cases like that of Crystal Davis’, the opportunity to fight was even more appealing because it was a chance to escape and start over. All probably had different motivations for joining, but each was equally strong. They all wanted to serve, and enjoyed their time while they did.
1. This film was really moving and eye-opening. It was difficult to watch the war footage, but I found it even harder to make it through some of the interviews. I can’t even try to put myself into these strong men and women’s shoes, as I know I will never understand what they have gone through, but I have so much respect for them. I started tearing up a lot while watching the movie, especially during Eddie Ryan’s interview. Watching his mom interact with him was incredibly emotional. I could see how much she loves him and cares for him.
ReplyDelete2. I think it did some of both. The war footage echoed my preconceived notions. I expected the violence and the friendships between the soldiers. However, I was surprised that so many soldiers and marines were willing to share their stories. In a lot of the books we have read and movies we have watched, many of the characters do not tell their war stories to their family or friends, but these men and women were willing to talk about the worst days of most of their lives in a film that has been viewed all over the country.
3. I think they would go back because they believe in fighting for the U.S. and for the cause. Unlike many soldiers after the Vietnam War, they still think the war is just. Also, as John mentioned, Crystal says that she feels like she must “finish the job.” I think many of the other soldiers and marines probably feel the same way. They have friends who are still fighting, and they want to be over there to support them and win the war.
1.I thought that the film was much more difficult to watch than any of the others we have seen in this class. This film created a very clear image in my head about what war is like. It really showed how scary and unpredictable war can be. Dexter’s story stuck out to me the most. Although he did not suffer any amputations or severe physical injuries, his PTSD shocked me the most. Especially, when the film showed a video of him before returning home and he was laughing, it was clear to see the contrast to himself after the war. This part made me sad, specifically when he said his friends said he was “different” following the war.
ReplyDelete2. I think that the film echoed my preconceived notions because all of the men and women interviewed were so brave. They were very human and I am not saying that they seemed so valiant and unwavering that it was unrealistic, rather they all seemed wise. It seemed as though all the men and women learned from their experiences and continued to live and improve as humans regardless of their struggles. Their bravery, in my mind, comes from the fact that all of them were persevering and continuing to enjoy life following in such difficult circumstances.
3. I think that these soldiers can come to terms with their injuries because they have no other choice. All of these men and women have brushed so closely with death that they understand that they only have one life and they can either choose to take advantage of that or not. The fact they would return to combat following their injuries says to me that they realize they are the same with or without their injury. The soldiers decided to go to war before their injury so it only makes sense that they would want to go again.
I liked the documentary format of the film. There’s a straightforwardness to it that makes it more emotionally believable for me. It makes my gut believe. Like the previous films we’ve watched, it’s intense, but in a different way. There is less overall gore than there was in the past few movies, but knowing it’s a documentary and seeing the few images of people being shot or injured or blown up in relation to each personal interview is still stunning and hard to digest. I agree with John about the IEDs; every time there’s an explosion on screen, I flinch, even though I should know it’s coming by the seventh time there’s footage of a military vehicle going down a road. However, the image I can’t get out of my head is the one of a guy being shot from a slight distance. It’s simultaneously more and less dramatic than I thought it would be. On one hand, it’s so anticlimactic. There’s no buildup, no visible blood from this distance, no screaming. On the other hand, it happens so quickly. The bullet hits and the guy just collapses like an empty puppet. It was really quite disturbing to me in a way that makes me feel very naive for not realizing that someone being shot would die like that. As for the interviews themselves, Halfaker’s interview stood out to me for two reasons. One, her motivations for joining the army made more sense to me than I was comfortable with. I don’t believe in the army, like many of the veterans talked about, but I understand the urge to prove yourself by purposely putting yourself in a difficult situation, just to see if you are good enough. Two, the prolonged silence as she worries about holding her children is just devastating. There’s something about the absence of words that hit me harder than anything anyone said.
ReplyDeleteI think I see the pride of these veterans more clearly than I have in any of the other works we’ve watched or read. Even if Kovic was proud of being a veteran and Michael never takes off his uniform, that knowledge seems somehow secondary to their struggle with their war experiences. That may simply be a bias on my part, but the pride these veterans have in having served is unavoidable. There is some kind of lack of regret that I definitely didn’t expect.
I honestly don’t know. It’s definitely not the reaction I would have expected. This is certainly not how Kovic feels, even though he does come to terms with his injury. I guess it comes down to having a sense of purpose and to think that they were actually doing the right thing and serving the country while at war. None of them seem to question why they were fighting the Iraqis and Afghanistanis the way Kovic questions the purpose of Vietnam. They didn’t ask to sacrifice, but I don’t know if they would consider that sacrifice to be in vain the way Kovic does. Perhaps it also has to do with not losing the war. Certainly, the fact that they lost Vietnam is a big deal for some of the vets in In Country. Maybe there isn’t that particular shame attached to Iraq and Afghanistan. Moreover, war isn’t just the moment that injured them. To paraphrase Tom, “It was special.” There was a scientific study published a few years back that studied the social interactions of squads in Afghanistan that essentially concluded that in those very high stress, life-or-death situations, the bonds between soldiers are ridiculously close. Facing death and a common enemy brings level of absolute trust and camaraderie that has few analogues in the civilian world. As a lot of the footage before their alive day shows, the soldiers also had fun together. In addition, in terms of the psychological impacts, loss of innocence is not always a completely bad thing. They have dealt with war and survived. They have proven themselves and become different people as a result of it. There is also a kind of strength in that knowledge of being able to cope and survive that perhaps we are too quick to dismiss.
1. I felt a mixture of several emotions while watching this film, the primary ones being admiration, sadness, and frustration. I admired the veterans’ strength and perseverance, and it was humbling to see the physical signs of their sacrifices. The film also left me feeling extremely sad because it’s difficult to watch explosions go off with the knowledge that what one is seeing is real, that real people are dying. Seeing and listening to each individuals experience was heartbreaking, and I admit I did shed a few tears, especially when listening to the father's sadness as he struggled to remember his daughter's names. Lastly, I felt rather frustrated because I couldn’t envision myself reacting to such situations with such positive, optimistic attitudes as the veterans in the documentary displayed. I think that if I had been terribly injured in war I would feel some anger and resentment towards the war, the military, the world, etc., and I wanted the veterans to feel some of that injustice too.
ReplyDelete2. I wouldn’t say that I necessarily entered into this viewing experience with a whole lot of preconceived notions about soldiers, marines, veterans, etc. Because it isn’t something that I’m exposed to very often, the concept of war and types of people who fight them are rather foreign and abstract thoughts for me. This documentary, however, helped to ground things for me by illustrating how soldiers are real people. As the film demonstrates, there is no archetypal soldier; they don’t fit into one box.
3. I just truly do not know the answer to the question of why these men and women are so willing to return to war and “do it all again.” Going back to my response to the first question, it is extremely difficult for me to comprehend how someone could sustain a life altering injury and continue on with no regrets or anger, and in fact have almost the opposite desire, the want to return to the same situation that injured them to begin with. Yes, one could argue that if one truly believes in a cause enough to die for it one time, then they are likely willing to do for it again. Personally, however, I think that such true selflessness is hard to come by, though the stories and determinations of the veterans displayed in the documentary seem to disprove my point.
The film was incredibly difficult for me to watch. I was really interested in what they had to say, but the footage of explosions and of their bodies before and after surgery were a bit overwhelming. This being said, I think sitting through those parts is important. I worry about how easy it is to ignore the ugly parts of war and life in general. I think civilians and people unaffected by war are privileged in a way, because we get to choose whether or not to see that kind of destruction. We can look away, we can close our eyes or pause the film and never press play again. But these people didn’t have that same luxury. They chose to join the army, yes. But just as Kovic was “tricked” and “lied to”, I would imagine these people didn’t get all of the information about what they were signing up for either.
ReplyDeleteI have a lot of respect for the people in this film. They all faced something extremely difficult, something that so few people can relate to. Pain and health problems aside, not having your problems understood by those around you is extremely difficult. I admire all the different ways they seem to have adjusted to their injuries as well. While they are all in similar situations, none of them handled the situation in the same way. This film also does an incredible job of not oversimplifying this common situation. They were injured, but there’s so much more to it than that. I didn’t realize how complicated recovering war injuries would be. I know that being in the Army was a dream for many of the people here, and I understand now that their injuries might not have taken that dream away. I think my ideas about war and soldiers were much more general before watching this film, and I really appreciate how it highlights each individual story and struggle without taking away from the one before it.