“The Sympathizer” makes a very strong statement about race
and war, even stronger so when you incorporate ideas from Nguyen’s “Nothing
Ever Dies.” Most of this statement also heavily relies on how wars are depicted
in film. The Captain’s main goal when he goes to work on the movie with the
Auteur is to ensure that Vietnamese people are represented with respect and
honor. His efforts prove rather unsuccessful. Vietnamese characters in the
movie remain unnamed and many to not have lines at all. Some characters that
are featured in the credits are “VC Rapist #3,” “Desperate Villager,” and “Pretty
Nurse.” The Captains name ends up being omitted from the credits entirely. I
believe this is representative of minorities being erased from history,
especially the history of wars. Bon was not happy with the representation in
the movie. “You were going to make sure we came off well, he said. But we weren’t
even human… All you did was give them an excuse, he said. Now white people can
say, Look, we got yellow people in here. We don’t hate them. We love them”
(Nguyen, 289). Bon makes an important statement on the representation of people
of color. When the people of color were on the “bad guy” side of the war, they
are depicted in movies as inhuman, monstrous, cruel. When people of color were on the “good guy”
side of the war, they are depicted as disposable. Either way, people of color
are trivialized and used to make a point.
In “Nothing Ever Dies,” Nguyen says that “Hollywood is a
component of the military-industrial complex” (Nguyen, 14). I believe that this
is very much true. Hollywood amplifies America’s sense of blind patriotism;
they always paint the American military as the saviors of the story,
particularly the white people in the military. This feeds the sense of America
being the best country in the world with the best military in the world. Pride
in your country is never a bad thing, but painting your military as godlike can
be problematic; it often comes at the expense of people of color around the
world. Many people do not recognize the terrible things that our country has
done to people of color; take how we treated Native Americans and native Hawaiians
as an example. Wars that take place in third world countries and/or countries
populated by people of color are often overlooked. People of color suffer as we
turn a blind eye.
I think an interesting thing that Nguyen does is not giving
many of the white characters names. They are referred as titles like “the
Auteur” and “the Thespian.” This parallels how Vietnamese characters were named
in the movie. By doing this, the Captain is claiming some power over white
people and how they treat and represent people of color. It is an interesting
swap of perspective.
This post definitely brought me new thoughts on the ideas that Nyguen was writing about. However, I would add a few things to your post about Nyguen’s interpretation of the intersection of war and race. While I agree with your paragraph about race, I would argue that Nyguen is not just targeting the depiction of “people of color” but of Asians in particular in his story. This may seem like a meaningless distinction, but for me it made a difference in how he approached the subject because Hollywood’s dynamic with each minority is different. Also, I would argue that in the case of this book the Auteur was not trying to depict the American Military as some kind of savior. He even insists that they blow up the graveyard set to show how inhumane they are. I don’t think Nyguen was trying to make a point about glorifying the American Military, but instead that Hollywood makes every story about them as opposed the people whose land they are in. So, while you are not wrong that Hollywood glorifies the Military in many films (i.e. everything by Michael Bay), in this specific case I don’t think that was the issue he was addressing.
ReplyDeleteYou’re post made me think a lot about Hollywood’s role in history. The narrator is clearly criticizing the Auteur, his work and Hollywood as a whole because of its inaccurate depiction of history. I think one of the reason that the narrator wanted so badly to make the movie historically accurate was because he agrees with some of the statements that the Auteur makes about the lasting impact of art. He says that one day the movie “will not just be about the war but it will be the war” (178). Long after the real facts are forgotten it is going to be works of art that people learn about history from. The west “owned the means of production and therefore the means of representation” (179). They are going to be the ones to tell the story and the ones that people believe. This is one of the reasons that people know so little about the Vietnam War. What Hollywood creates to tell its story has no substantial fact or truthful representations of the events and people involved. The narrator calls the film “a creation whose purpose was destruction (288). While the literal meaning of this could be the destruction of all of the sets and items used in filming, it also can be seen as a destruction of truth. The death of the reality of the war and its replacement with the American version.
ReplyDeleteI’m in agreement with your views on Nguyen’s message concerning the neutered portrayal of Vietnamese in the movie as well as Hollywood’s patriotic and nationalistic overtones. I believe Nguyen focused on the movie element so much to draw attention not only toward American-Vietnamese interactions, but to make the reader more observant toward the power of cultural exportation and Hollywood. When discussing one of the narrator’s youth learning sessions with Man he sums up this idea by stating, “An audience member might love or hate this Movie, or dismiss it as only a story, but those emotions were irrelevant. What mattered was that the audience member, having paid for the ticket, was willing to let American ideas and values seep into the vulnerable tissue of his brain and the absorbent soil of his heart,” (Nguyen 173). Understanding the cultural implications and aspects transmitted through media, one sees that much of the “authentic” minority representation is simply a guise for American values. The narrator says as much by claiming, “The swing of a dialect and the trim of a costume had to be real, but the truly important things in such a movie, like emotions or ideas, could be fake,” (Nguyen 179). Taking in these lessons one identifies this pattern through strings of Hollywood works even today. Take Argo for example, Ben Affleck’s academy award winning 2012 film detailing the Iranian Hostage Crisis. While the film had many positive roles for minorities, it also granted a disproportionate amount of credit to the American forces in a historically multi-national operation. If one wants a subtler example, one can look at Disney’s Mulan. While the story features a traditional Chinese tale and heroine, the characters are given decidedly more American traits such as romance, individualism, and rebelliousness over originally Chinese traits like stoicism, collectivism, and cooperation. As such, not only does Nguyen point out the misrepresentation of his countrymen in the plot line, but he also draws attention to the powers of media and cultural representation in the modern day.
ReplyDelete