Vietnam: First Kill (Coco Schrijber, 2001)

[MyNameCriterionForum]

Vietnam: First Kill

Modest but very interesting short doc about Vietnam specifically and the nature of killing in general and avoiding politics altogether.

Fans of Michael Herr - his writings and especially his soft-spoken appearance in Stanley Kubrick: A Life in Pictures - will be especially interested as he is all over this one, lending the movie a hypnotic, reflective quality.

Not unusually creative or extraordinarily well-made, it benefits from a relatively challenging and unpleasant point of view -- essentially stated by Herr early in the film: "The fact that one experiences so much beauty, and so much pleasure, in a situation that's commonly thought of as being unrelievedly horrible and ghastly... that's a problem for the Western mind to deal with... if war were Hell, and only Hell, and there were no other colors in the palette, you know, if that was the essence of the experience, and all that there was to the experience, I don't think people would continue to make war."

You Tube trailer

View the film HERE.

[Person]

In pre-Christian, pre-Liberal ages, war was seen by many cultures as a virtuous and noble pursuit. The Ancient Greeks and Romans, as well as the feudal Japanese and Native American Indians, all had a radically different psychologies when it came to warfare. I can't really articulate what those psychologies were with concision, as I never experienced them in the proper sense, but I think I have a foggy notion of why it is that warfare can be seen as being sublime. If men are opposed to one and other and don't fear death, then war becomes a pursuit, a game, an endeavour. And if one takes pride in the activity and becomes skilful and flexible, then I could imagine it being an enthralling experience. But modern warfare doesn't really provide this as much as it did in ages past. Mass pessimism regarding warfare was felt in the aftermath of the First World War, when, due to medical advances, many, many men survived, yet with horrific physical disfigurements and psychological traumas. To be mortally wounded in a battle really ought to mean to die in a battlefield.

Modern warfare is not just horrific, it has an air of pettiness about it - banality. Technology has taken the thrill out of warfare. Pre-First World War warfare shows a whole different set of psychologies that approached war as something often noble, yet still tragic. The jungle warfare of Vietnam was often a throwback to older forms of warfare, but the sense of confusion and disorder that it had took much of the thrill out of it, one imagines.

War made great men out of would-be anonymous dullards. Think of what we learned about the human condition from Marshal Henri de la Tour d'Auvergne. Talking to his nervous body body before battle:

"You tremble, carcass; but if you knew where I am taking you right now, you would tremble a lot more."

Also, in past ages, civilians were not caught up to the same degree as today during wars. This also soured the noble perspective people had about warfare. The cost of it, too, is also seen as obscene. But the basic concept of war isn't obscene or immoral, I feel. It has been one of the great catalysts of cultural refinement and in itself can be refined into an art.

These are thoughts out of season, there can be no doubt!

[bkimball]

Also, in past ages, civilians were not caught up to the same degree as today during wars. This also soured the noble perspective people had about warfare. The cost of it, too, is also seen as obscene. But the basic concept of war isn't obscene or immoral, I feel. It has been one of the great catalysts of cultural refinement and in itself can be refined into an art.

Some beautiful thoughts placed on the dinner table. In a time of unknown enemies, paranoia, fear, shadow governments, and general public apathy, you speak of war as a museum piece. I cannot see the war you describe in contemporary times, but only in places that analyze such things from an intellectual level. Godspeed.

[Person]

Also, in past ages, civilians were not caught up to the same degree as today during wars. This also soured the noble perspective people had about warfare. The cost of it, too, is also seen as obscene. But the basic concept of war isn't obscene or immoral, I feel. It has been one of the great catalysts of cultural refinement and in itself can be refined into an art.

Some beautiful thoughts placed on the dinner table. In a time of unknown enemies, paranoia, fear, shadow governments, and general public apathy, you speak of war as a museum piece. I cannot see the war you describe in contemporary times, but only in places that analyze such things from an intellectual level. Godspeed.

Wow, I feared a backlash (and that may still occur!) so thanks! The artful war as a "museum piece" - I like that. I think that it is a technological problem we are dealing with. If you have read Martin Heidegger's philosophy, you may have an idea of what I'm referring to. Our attitude towards technology has alienated ourselves from life - and war would be included within this. War never used to alienate man in past ages - only in modern, 'high-technology' wars do we find alienation as an outcome. War has also become 'anti-ecological' where it destroys landscapes, pollutes - both in the build up to war and in after-effects of warfare. I could on, but I'll leave it at that.

[Belmondo]

A long time ago, I was a young lieutenant in Vietnam, and although there were strong positive aspects to being an officer in the military for a couple of years, I'm not entirely ready to concede too much "beauty and pleasure" from it - except in retrospect. There were moments, of course, of great beauty. I had the chance once to fly along the Vietnam - Cambodia border and watch the low level landscape change from bomb cratered rice paddies to pristine jungle - quite a sight, and there were other moments of pleasure. But, you're in a war zone and at least a bit on edge most of the time and the only real thing on the mind of most soldiers is connecting with the men around them and staying reasonably alert even though running on little sleep.

The helicopters and effective radios we used made us feel that we were in very much in a high tech war. When we were lost in the jungle which was ofen enough, we employed the high tech device of calling for an atrillery round in a certain location and we could tell from the blast more or less where we were. If you are on low ground - make sure you plot the round to land on a hilltop - remember; you are lost, you idiot.

[Nothing]

It is ridiculous to suggest that civillians were spared the ravages of warfare in ages past. The "right of pillage" - to rape, murder and steal from the population of the losing side - is/was a large part of the appeal in this 'honourable' warfare you talk about - the American war in Veitnam, the genocide of 4 million Vietnamese, Cambodians and Laotians, being no exception.

[tryavna]

War never used to alienate man in past ages - only in modern, 'high-technology' wars do we find alienation as an outcome. War has also become 'anti-ecological' where it destroys landscapes, pollutes - both in the build up to war and in after-effects of warfare.

Gordon, I generally respect your intelligence and thoughtfulness, but this strikes me as an extremely dangerous idea. For one thing, you risk romanticizing some sort of ideal warfare -- as if war itself has not always been a social disease (only its modern, "high-technology" forms). But from a purely historical point of view, you make it sound like pre-modern peoples were somehow "in tune" with war as a welcome aspect of everyday life. That raises a number of problems: When did "modern" warfare actually begin? With WWI? There are actually quite a few precursors to Heidegger who describe "modern" warfare in much the same terms during the Crimean War, the American Civil War, etc. One of the most sophisticated comes from, of all people, Jack London's war correspondence during the Russo-Japanese War of 1904-05. Then, of course, there's plenty of textual evidence to indicate that, throughout history, many cultures perceived war as a rupture with established everyday order (certainly a type of alienation, is it not?) -- even in some of the less aggressive passages of the Hebrew scriptures, which talk about the land weeping, bleeding, etc. (in the books of Jeremiah and Daniel, I believe). In other words, I think that, at some level, we do a disservice to the past to think of our experiences of war as being somehow exceptional.

[MyNameCriterionForum]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ldzld4myS6w" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;