One of the most intriguing parts of Swimming to Cambodia, as performed by Spalding Gray, is the transition between his different anecdotes. His story is set up as a collection of seemingly random little tales of his time as an actor in The Killing Fields. While on the surface his stories seem to have little or nothing to do with each other, they all serve a purpose in his broader message. I believe that the key to understanding the connection between these anecdotes is in the final lines of each segment and the transition to the next.
As far as I can tell, Spalding Gray's movie has 7 transitions between segments of his larger story, and 5 of these segues end with a broad political message that pertains to the American role in Cambodia in 1975.
First, Gray says that an invisible cloud of evil fell over Iran, Germany, Cambodia........ and America. He is essentially blaming America for the worst "auto homeo genocide in modern history by the Khmer Rouge" for not helping
At the end of the following scene, Gray talks about why he moved to Manhattan - he wanted to move to an island "off the coast of America." Instead of being somewhere that he felt had no identity (America), he wanted to be somewhere with only a few people (Manhattan qualifies I assume) and be able to have a grasp on the place in which he lives.
Next, Gray discusses Renee's neighbors who play the music too loud, and how he wants to eventually "take a stand." This is a metaphor for America, asking when America will stop running away from problems and worrying about its own reputation when it should be standing up to the "bullies." He eventually throws a bottle at the door, but runs away in cowardice. He wonders aloud to himself, "How does a country like America begin to find the language to negotiate with a country like Russia or Libya if he can't even begin to do it with his neighbors in New York City." His situation is a microcosm of the situation between America and the rest of the world. He feels that we as a country have shut ourselves off so much that we can no longer relate, and therefore can no longer offer aid to others who need it.
At the end of the next segment, Gray quotes Jaffe, saying "Morality is not a movable feast." This is a part of the movie that I had a question with - to be honest, I really don't understand what he means by this. I got the sense that Gray disagreed with this sentiment but I don't know why. Nevertheless, he also makes the point that we know about Germany's holocaust because we have association with the country, but no one is able to determine what is happening as 2 million people die in Cambodia because we don't have enough interest in them as a country and as a people.
I don't understand the end of the movie (or book for that matter) also. I felt that I was following his words until he said his last line "I think I know what it is that killed Marilyn Monroe." This made absolutely no sense to me.
Despite my questions as to the meaning of some of Gray's narration, I believe that he is implying his love for Cambodia as a country. While I was watching the movie, all I could think about was one of the first lines of The Killing Fields, "A country that I came to love, and pity." I believe that this connection between Schanberg and Gray - how they both experienced Cambodia differently but both came to love the country, and how they display this in their works - is what I will be writing on in my upcoming paper.
Wednesday, March 16, 2011
Tuesday, March 15, 2011
Rolling Stone Article: An Epilogue to Swimming to Cambodia
I felt that Swimming to Cambodia and the Rolling Stone article, written by Spalding Gray, are very connected. The article seems to be a kind of afterword to the book in a sense. Throughout the book, one of the overriding themes that I picked up on is Spalding Gray's longing and desire to be a better person than he already is. He is constantly searching for his "Perfect Moment" and expresses uncontrollable urges to assert his power and control over situations, even though he rarely does. It is evident that he craves something more.
One recurring scene in the book that demonstrates this idea is Gray's marijuana smoking. Every time that he smokes marijuana, he becomes extremely paranoid and becomes unable to remember what happens to him. He sometimes vomits or curls up on the ground. It is clear that he is unable to handle the experience. However, despite his past run ins with this drug, he voluntarily smokes again and again. This is because of his search for the perfect moment. He feels that if he can try any and everything to give himself a perfect moment he can become a kind of hero and gain a more worldly sense of life and who he is.
Another element in the book that I noticed a few times was Gray's desire to fight back. He accepts the persona of someone who is not overly violent or aggressive, but eventually reaches a breaking point where he feels the urge to "make a stand." As opportunities present themselves, however, Gray continues to think "why rush it?" and put off his stand until another day. He goes on to reach his breaking point and hurls a glass bottle against Renee's loud neighbors' door, but proceeds to run in cowardice. Despite his wanting to stand up for himself and tell the entire world how much of a man he is, he is unable to fully act out his ambitions.
I see the Rolling Stone article as elaborating this theme that the reader finds in Swimming to Cambodia. Gray's piece in the magazine discusses the idea of fame and how he does not like it. While reading his book, I did not ever really think that what he is seeking for is fame, but, looking back, I think that it might just be the perfect word. I felt that Gray wants to become a superhero in Swimming to Cambodia, and it is extremely interesting to see that he acquires a celebrity status later, but goes on to reject it. He does not like feeling out of control of his own personal life, which happens when one becomes a celebrity of any kind. As he discusses his experience of performing on a proscenium stage at the Brattle Theatre in Cambridge, MA (10 minutes from my house, in fact), He relates how exciting it was to feel wanted and desired by the audience, yet he felt the need to pull back from this fame for some reason. Despite the fact that he had expressed his longing to be wanted by other people and to be respected by society for so long in Swimming to Cambodia, Gray finally achieves a bit of this and decides he does not want it. The article acts as a very curious epilogue to Swimming to Cambodia, solving some of the central issues that arose in the book.
One recurring scene in the book that demonstrates this idea is Gray's marijuana smoking. Every time that he smokes marijuana, he becomes extremely paranoid and becomes unable to remember what happens to him. He sometimes vomits or curls up on the ground. It is clear that he is unable to handle the experience. However, despite his past run ins with this drug, he voluntarily smokes again and again. This is because of his search for the perfect moment. He feels that if he can try any and everything to give himself a perfect moment he can become a kind of hero and gain a more worldly sense of life and who he is.
Another element in the book that I noticed a few times was Gray's desire to fight back. He accepts the persona of someone who is not overly violent or aggressive, but eventually reaches a breaking point where he feels the urge to "make a stand." As opportunities present themselves, however, Gray continues to think "why rush it?" and put off his stand until another day. He goes on to reach his breaking point and hurls a glass bottle against Renee's loud neighbors' door, but proceeds to run in cowardice. Despite his wanting to stand up for himself and tell the entire world how much of a man he is, he is unable to fully act out his ambitions.
I see the Rolling Stone article as elaborating this theme that the reader finds in Swimming to Cambodia. Gray's piece in the magazine discusses the idea of fame and how he does not like it. While reading his book, I did not ever really think that what he is seeking for is fame, but, looking back, I think that it might just be the perfect word. I felt that Gray wants to become a superhero in Swimming to Cambodia, and it is extremely interesting to see that he acquires a celebrity status later, but goes on to reject it. He does not like feeling out of control of his own personal life, which happens when one becomes a celebrity of any kind. As he discusses his experience of performing on a proscenium stage at the Brattle Theatre in Cambridge, MA (10 minutes from my house, in fact), He relates how exciting it was to feel wanted and desired by the audience, yet he felt the need to pull back from this fame for some reason. Despite the fact that he had expressed his longing to be wanted by other people and to be respected by society for so long in Swimming to Cambodia, Gray finally achieves a bit of this and decides he does not want it. The article acts as a very curious epilogue to Swimming to Cambodia, solving some of the central issues that arose in the book.
Monday, March 14, 2011
Responses to Unit 2 Blogs
During the course of Unit 2, I found myself doing a better job of delving a bit deeper than I did in my Unit 1 blogs. For example, I was able to connect the theme of hopelessness that ran rampantly in the New York Times articles to the element of pathos. It was clear from the descriptions of children and other Cambodian citizens that the newspaper was attempting to appeal to the emotions of the reader. I feel that the I have gained this ability to think more broadly about our readings since Unit 1.
The main idea that I focus on in my blogs of Unit 2 is that of hopelessness and pathos that I just detailed. I find and comment on this theme in the New York Times, The Death and Life of Dith Pran, and The Killing Fields. Along with the blatant portrayal of children suffering in all three mediums, I also was apparently struck by the emotional response created by Dith Pran's forced stay in Cambodia as Sidney and the others are able to leave. I feel that the purpose of this scene was also to evoke emotions from the American public, just as the pictures of children crying and descriptions of the destruction in Cambodia did.
After looking at my blogs as a whole, the effect that the media portrayals of the Secret Bombings of Cambodia and the following fighting is clear. I was most struck by the misery and unfortunate circumstances in which the Cambodians lived. It is alarming to me to see the helpless lives that the Cambodians lived at this time. All three mediums evidently did a great job of relaying this to me and other readers.
In the wake of re-reading all of my blog postings, it is clear what I believe the three mediums we viewed are all about (The Life and Death of Dith Pran, The New York Times, The Killing Fields). These three sources are concerned with the horrors and destruction that the Cambodian people experienced. Their story is told through the photos and descriptions of children and others, crying and alone, in the New York Times, and the plight of Dith Pran and Sidney Schanberg in the movie and article. While all three are reporting on the actual facts of the events, I believe that the portrayals of the Khmer Rouge, Cambodians, American response, and individual characters are used to demonstrate the miserable quality of life that the Cambodians had to deal with.
The main idea that I focus on in my blogs of Unit 2 is that of hopelessness and pathos that I just detailed. I find and comment on this theme in the New York Times, The Death and Life of Dith Pran, and The Killing Fields. Along with the blatant portrayal of children suffering in all three mediums, I also was apparently struck by the emotional response created by Dith Pran's forced stay in Cambodia as Sidney and the others are able to leave. I feel that the purpose of this scene was also to evoke emotions from the American public, just as the pictures of children crying and descriptions of the destruction in Cambodia did.
After looking at my blogs as a whole, the effect that the media portrayals of the Secret Bombings of Cambodia and the following fighting is clear. I was most struck by the misery and unfortunate circumstances in which the Cambodians lived. It is alarming to me to see the helpless lives that the Cambodians lived at this time. All three mediums evidently did a great job of relaying this to me and other readers.
In the wake of re-reading all of my blog postings, it is clear what I believe the three mediums we viewed are all about (The Life and Death of Dith Pran, The New York Times, The Killing Fields). These three sources are concerned with the horrors and destruction that the Cambodian people experienced. Their story is told through the photos and descriptions of children and others, crying and alone, in the New York Times, and the plight of Dith Pran and Sidney Schanberg in the movie and article. While all three are reporting on the actual facts of the events, I believe that the portrayals of the Khmer Rouge, Cambodians, American response, and individual characters are used to demonstrate the miserable quality of life that the Cambodians had to deal with.
Monday, February 28, 2011
Film Scene Analysis: The Killing Fields
The scene that I am choosing to analyze is at 1:15:35 and continues for about 5 minutes. It is the segment where Dith Pran hands in his falsified passport and attempts to hide his Cambodian citizenship, only to be caught and forced to stay in Cambodia.
I first listened to the scene without watching it, to get a sense of how the sound and noises of the scene informs me and influences my interpretation of the tone, without actually seeing the actors and their movements. The most striking element of sound in this segment is the Diegetic Sound, especially the thunder and the rain. It creates an ominous and foreboding tone, one in which the audience has to assume that something bad is going to happen. Without even seeing what is occurring between the characters, it is obvious through the diegetic noises that Pran will not successfully pass. It is clear when Pran finds out from Sidney that his passport was discovered to be false, as he optimistically says his fake name to Sidney and Sidney has no response to him. There are violins directly after this moment, which creates an almost serene, defeated sense in my mind, but there is no dialogue. The rain seems to then get heavier, adding to the pessimistic tone. The only noises emitted from humans are stifled cries and shaky voices saying goodbye. The tension in the scene is palpable. All this is created through only the sound, especially the diegetic thunder and rain and the non-diegetic violins playing in the background.
After only listening to the sound, I then decided to watch the scene without sound, only observing the characters’ actions and seeing the sense that I get from the visuals. After Sidney passes in Pran’s passport, the images of the rain and the Khmer Rouge driving through the streets and unloading dead pigs creates a harrowing image in my mind. Without sound it is unclear what is happening, but the transition from the dead animals to an image of Pran’s stern, concerned face spells doom for his situation to me. Many of the shots in this segment are close ups of Pran and of Sidney. In these close ups they are never smiling, they are always straight faced, seemingly staring off into the distance in worry. The mise-en-scene of this segment adds to the tone. When it is found out that “Mr. Brewer’s” passport will not work, the scene of the man holding his passport in disbelief in the rain is moving. Once Pran finds out his fate, the camera angles shift to a kind of “deep space” which creates a sense of separation from the characters. The audience sees Sidney tell Pran the news from what seems to be down a hallway, instead of directly next to the characters. They seem to exchange no words, only a nod of the head from Sidney and a look of despair from Pran. It is obvious that no words are necessary or appropriate to describe the disappointment. Finally, the acting in the last part of the scene, as Pran leaves and several men are crying and hugging him goodbye, the actors’ emotions are on full display and convey the tone of sadness that prevails.
Finally it is interesting to see the cutting as this scene comes to a close. This segment is the last piece before the movie directors decided to fast forward into the future. The first screen shot after we see Sidney standing in the rain, soaked to the bone, looking in confusion and dismay as his friend is taken back into Cambodia, is one of the Twin Towers of New York and a city skyline, creating a stark contrast between the lawlessness and jungle atmosphere of Cambodia, where we, the audience, were just moments before. It creates the sense that we are removed from this time period, but we then see Sidney still lamenting over Pran as he cuts photographs of his friend to send out to relief agencies.
While all of these observations help to add to this meaningful piece of the film, my favorite part, and the part that had the biggest influence on me as a viewer, was the sound. The thunder and the rain helped create the mood in my mind. In addition, I was particularly struck by the lack of dialogue for much of this scene. Once Pran discovered his fate, there was very little besides the melancholy violins and the pitter-patter of the rain to illustrate the tension in the film. I enjoyed this part, because it simplified a very complex situation in my mind. As I said before, it created the idea that, in this time of utter loss for many of these characters as Pran was leaving, there were no words that could capture the way that these people felt. The looks on their faces and their demeanors were all that was needed to illustrate the importance of the scene.
I first listened to the scene without watching it, to get a sense of how the sound and noises of the scene informs me and influences my interpretation of the tone, without actually seeing the actors and their movements. The most striking element of sound in this segment is the Diegetic Sound, especially the thunder and the rain. It creates an ominous and foreboding tone, one in which the audience has to assume that something bad is going to happen. Without even seeing what is occurring between the characters, it is obvious through the diegetic noises that Pran will not successfully pass. It is clear when Pran finds out from Sidney that his passport was discovered to be false, as he optimistically says his fake name to Sidney and Sidney has no response to him. There are violins directly after this moment, which creates an almost serene, defeated sense in my mind, but there is no dialogue. The rain seems to then get heavier, adding to the pessimistic tone. The only noises emitted from humans are stifled cries and shaky voices saying goodbye. The tension in the scene is palpable. All this is created through only the sound, especially the diegetic thunder and rain and the non-diegetic violins playing in the background.
After only listening to the sound, I then decided to watch the scene without sound, only observing the characters’ actions and seeing the sense that I get from the visuals. After Sidney passes in Pran’s passport, the images of the rain and the Khmer Rouge driving through the streets and unloading dead pigs creates a harrowing image in my mind. Without sound it is unclear what is happening, but the transition from the dead animals to an image of Pran’s stern, concerned face spells doom for his situation to me. Many of the shots in this segment are close ups of Pran and of Sidney. In these close ups they are never smiling, they are always straight faced, seemingly staring off into the distance in worry. The mise-en-scene of this segment adds to the tone. When it is found out that “Mr. Brewer’s” passport will not work, the scene of the man holding his passport in disbelief in the rain is moving. Once Pran finds out his fate, the camera angles shift to a kind of “deep space” which creates a sense of separation from the characters. The audience sees Sidney tell Pran the news from what seems to be down a hallway, instead of directly next to the characters. They seem to exchange no words, only a nod of the head from Sidney and a look of despair from Pran. It is obvious that no words are necessary or appropriate to describe the disappointment. Finally, the acting in the last part of the scene, as Pran leaves and several men are crying and hugging him goodbye, the actors’ emotions are on full display and convey the tone of sadness that prevails.
Finally it is interesting to see the cutting as this scene comes to a close. This segment is the last piece before the movie directors decided to fast forward into the future. The first screen shot after we see Sidney standing in the rain, soaked to the bone, looking in confusion and dismay as his friend is taken back into Cambodia, is one of the Twin Towers of New York and a city skyline, creating a stark contrast between the lawlessness and jungle atmosphere of Cambodia, where we, the audience, were just moments before. It creates the sense that we are removed from this time period, but we then see Sidney still lamenting over Pran as he cuts photographs of his friend to send out to relief agencies.
While all of these observations help to add to this meaningful piece of the film, my favorite part, and the part that had the biggest influence on me as a viewer, was the sound. The thunder and the rain helped create the mood in my mind. In addition, I was particularly struck by the lack of dialogue for much of this scene. Once Pran discovered his fate, there was very little besides the melancholy violins and the pitter-patter of the rain to illustrate the tension in the film. I enjoyed this part, because it simplified a very complex situation in my mind. As I said before, it created the idea that, in this time of utter loss for many of these characters as Pran was leaving, there were no words that could capture the way that these people felt. The looks on their faces and their demeanors were all that was needed to illustrate the importance of the scene.
Wednesday, February 23, 2011
The Killing Fields - Reaction
After just finishing The Killing Fields, I feel that the diegesis of the movie is a world that is animalistic by nature. It is violent, spontaneous, and almost post-apocalyptic in a way. The filmmakers and director present the world of Cambodia as one in which there are no true rules of society. One minute, the Khmer Rouge are celebrating in the streets with the Cambodians waving white flags, almost as if it is a parade, and then the next Sid Schanberg and company are being whisked away, arrested, and almost killed by the same group of people. The entire culture is shown in disarray as the city of Phnom Penh is assaulted by the North Vietnamese. The producers of The Killing Fields utilized the same technique as the NBC Evening News did: they employed images of disaster and violence to relate to the audience just how bad the situation in Cambodia was in 1975.
Another tactic that I found both in the film, the NBC Nightly News, and the New York Times was the portrayal of children. At many points throughout the film I found myself grimacing in fear and sadness by images of infants and kids who were trapped in the fighting. Many children are killed. One vision that sticks out in my mind is that of the toddler who sat upon the vehicle with his hands over his ears, crying, as the Khmer Rouge attacked the town. The baby’s cries and wails continued on until about fifteen seconds into the next scene, really providing emphasis to the experience that children went through during this war, as helpless as they may be. Similarly, I found myself constantly reading about the plights and turmoil of Cambodian and Vietnamese children in the New York Times. It seemed to be its way of evoking the audience’s pathos, and it worked very well. Both the newspaper and the movie caused me to empathize and pity the forsaken and helpless in Cambodia, as they were simply bystanders of an extraordinarily violent situation.
We discussed the scene where Sid Schanberg asks Dith Pran if he would like to leave with his family or remain in Cambodia to report. I thought that the movie portrayed this scene in a bit of a different light than the article did. The article showed this encounter as short and quick, one in which Pran came to the conclusion that he would stay in Cambodia quickly and professionally. However, the movie infused much more emotion in to the exchange between Schanberg and Pran. It is really the first time that we, the audience, are able to glimpse into the amazing friendship that these two have created. Until this point, Schanberg often bullied Pran around, more using him as an asset than being his friend. However, Pran’s tears and Schanberg’s obvious emotion over the issue of whether to flee Cambodia or not are illustrated in the movie very effectively. The effect is really felt later on, when Schanberg questions himself. Did he really give Pran a choice to leave Cambodia? Or did he subconsciously force him to stay?
Finally, I found the movie to give a very interesting description of the “Year Zero,” or the new regime that took place after the Khmer Rouge gained complete power over the city. This "Year Zero" concept is what gave me the post-apocalyptic tone that I mentioned before. One quote in particular sticks out in my mind. As Dith Pran’s speech is used as a voice over during this specific scene, he laments, “Only the silent survive.” This is a wonderful portrayal of the dangers and perils of the war-torn city in which he resided. The film gave the audience images of intellectuals and those who were seen as a “threat” to the government being led out of the camps. We later find that they are slaughtered in the Killing Fields onto which Pran stumbles. It is this quote of “Only the silent survive” that give me the best picture and interpretation of the time period after the Khmer Rouge took power and truly had an effect on my understanding of the era.
Another tactic that I found both in the film, the NBC Nightly News, and the New York Times was the portrayal of children. At many points throughout the film I found myself grimacing in fear and sadness by images of infants and kids who were trapped in the fighting. Many children are killed. One vision that sticks out in my mind is that of the toddler who sat upon the vehicle with his hands over his ears, crying, as the Khmer Rouge attacked the town. The baby’s cries and wails continued on until about fifteen seconds into the next scene, really providing emphasis to the experience that children went through during this war, as helpless as they may be. Similarly, I found myself constantly reading about the plights and turmoil of Cambodian and Vietnamese children in the New York Times. It seemed to be its way of evoking the audience’s pathos, and it worked very well. Both the newspaper and the movie caused me to empathize and pity the forsaken and helpless in Cambodia, as they were simply bystanders of an extraordinarily violent situation.
We discussed the scene where Sid Schanberg asks Dith Pran if he would like to leave with his family or remain in Cambodia to report. I thought that the movie portrayed this scene in a bit of a different light than the article did. The article showed this encounter as short and quick, one in which Pran came to the conclusion that he would stay in Cambodia quickly and professionally. However, the movie infused much more emotion in to the exchange between Schanberg and Pran. It is really the first time that we, the audience, are able to glimpse into the amazing friendship that these two have created. Until this point, Schanberg often bullied Pran around, more using him as an asset than being his friend. However, Pran’s tears and Schanberg’s obvious emotion over the issue of whether to flee Cambodia or not are illustrated in the movie very effectively. The effect is really felt later on, when Schanberg questions himself. Did he really give Pran a choice to leave Cambodia? Or did he subconsciously force him to stay?
Finally, I found the movie to give a very interesting description of the “Year Zero,” or the new regime that took place after the Khmer Rouge gained complete power over the city. This "Year Zero" concept is what gave me the post-apocalyptic tone that I mentioned before. One quote in particular sticks out in my mind. As Dith Pran’s speech is used as a voice over during this specific scene, he laments, “Only the silent survive.” This is a wonderful portrayal of the dangers and perils of the war-torn city in which he resided. The film gave the audience images of intellectuals and those who were seen as a “threat” to the government being led out of the camps. We later find that they are slaughtered in the Killing Fields onto which Pran stumbles. It is this quote of “Only the silent survive” that give me the best picture and interpretation of the time period after the Khmer Rouge took power and truly had an effect on my understanding of the era.
Monday, February 21, 2011
The Secret Bombings of Cambodia: New York Times and NBC Evening News
After reading both the New York Times account and the NBC News coverage of the five years of fighting and insurgency in Cambodia, I was struck by the difference in approach between the two news sources. The New York Times did not focus nearly as much on the actual political and logistical happenings in the city of Phnom Penh and Cambodia as a whole as NBC News did. Instead, the New York Times detailed many anecdotal accounts and stories about the social unrest and decay of the city. The newspaper seemed to have the goal in mind of appealing to the pathos of the reader, and it did a very effective job. Specifically, the New York Times made a point to demonstrate the death of children and general malnutrition that ran rampant in the country in order to force the American public to see the horrors that were occurring beyond the actual fighting. It is logical to think that the paper’s goal in utilizing this tactic was to create a notion amongst Americans that something needs to be done in Cambodia to help these people. The New York Times details that the United States is airlifting ammunition, but not yet food in February of 1975. This could be seen as a criticism of the government for ignoring the social issues facing the country.
The most common theme I found throughout my reading of the New York Times was that of hopelessness amongst the people of Cambodia and Phnom Penh. It was very interesting to see how much the Cambodian people were looking up to the United States for help and aid of any kind. They felt completely useless as the insurgents continued to surround and choke off the city. This sentiment, coupled with the growing attitude amongst US officials that they did not want to ruin their reputations by becoming more involved in this situation than they already were, led to a bad situation where everyone seemed to be looking to the person next to them to take the first action. While this was happening, the rebels were simply pushing closer and closer to the capital of Cambodia, Phnom Penh.
On the other hand, NBC News delivered an account of the fighting that centered much more on politics and US government controversy. The evening news provided commentary on Henry Kissinger and Richard Nixon’s decision to enter the war in Cambodia without telling anyone in the State Department or Congress in 1970. This is an extraordinary move by Nixon, considering the fact that there was such great sentiment against his move once it was made public. Many wanted soldiers to be leaving Vietnam, not entering.
The Nightly News by NBC also discussed the disclosed information about the Secret Bombings in 1973. I don’t know if we simply did not read any articles concerning this in the New York Times, but I was very surprised to not read anything about this in the newspaper. I would have been interested to see the spin that the Times put on the whole situation. NBC definitely portrayed President Nixon in a bad light as it detailed the circumstances under which the information was withheld from the American people and government for fourteen months.
I thought that the NBC Evening News did a fine job of reporting the facts as they discovered them with regard to the US government’s “falsifying” of information to the American public, but found myself very surprised at the lack of emotion and response that surrounded the topic. Personally, I find it to be a huge deal that the president hid bombings of a country from both those closest to him in his government and Congress as well as the millions of people of the United States for 14 months. That is an extraordinarily long time, and I believe that a bigger deal should have been made of his explanation – that the falsified records were accidentally submitted instead of the real ones. Why were there falsified records even existing in the first place? This subject bothered me, as I am sure it did many Americans in 1973, and I would have liked to see a bit more response by the newscasters and through interviews in the NBC news coverage, as well as commentary by the New York Times.
One of the implications of this is that the fighting in Cambodia between the South Vietnamese/Americans and the North Vietnamese elucidated evidence of political instability not only in Asia but also in the United States. The President, as elected by the American people, should not be able to hide such a large military undertaking (3,630 raids) from the members of his country and those that he hires in his government to help him. The fact that this was possible demonstrates a severe disconnect between the different parties (not political parties, but groups of people) in the United States political system.
The most common theme I found throughout my reading of the New York Times was that of hopelessness amongst the people of Cambodia and Phnom Penh. It was very interesting to see how much the Cambodian people were looking up to the United States for help and aid of any kind. They felt completely useless as the insurgents continued to surround and choke off the city. This sentiment, coupled with the growing attitude amongst US officials that they did not want to ruin their reputations by becoming more involved in this situation than they already were, led to a bad situation where everyone seemed to be looking to the person next to them to take the first action. While this was happening, the rebels were simply pushing closer and closer to the capital of Cambodia, Phnom Penh.
On the other hand, NBC News delivered an account of the fighting that centered much more on politics and US government controversy. The evening news provided commentary on Henry Kissinger and Richard Nixon’s decision to enter the war in Cambodia without telling anyone in the State Department or Congress in 1970. This is an extraordinary move by Nixon, considering the fact that there was such great sentiment against his move once it was made public. Many wanted soldiers to be leaving Vietnam, not entering.
The Nightly News by NBC also discussed the disclosed information about the Secret Bombings in 1973. I don’t know if we simply did not read any articles concerning this in the New York Times, but I was very surprised to not read anything about this in the newspaper. I would have been interested to see the spin that the Times put on the whole situation. NBC definitely portrayed President Nixon in a bad light as it detailed the circumstances under which the information was withheld from the American people and government for fourteen months.
I thought that the NBC Evening News did a fine job of reporting the facts as they discovered them with regard to the US government’s “falsifying” of information to the American public, but found myself very surprised at the lack of emotion and response that surrounded the topic. Personally, I find it to be a huge deal that the president hid bombings of a country from both those closest to him in his government and Congress as well as the millions of people of the United States for 14 months. That is an extraordinarily long time, and I believe that a bigger deal should have been made of his explanation – that the falsified records were accidentally submitted instead of the real ones. Why were there falsified records even existing in the first place? This subject bothered me, as I am sure it did many Americans in 1973, and I would have liked to see a bit more response by the newscasters and through interviews in the NBC news coverage, as well as commentary by the New York Times.
One of the implications of this is that the fighting in Cambodia between the South Vietnamese/Americans and the North Vietnamese elucidated evidence of political instability not only in Asia but also in the United States. The President, as elected by the American people, should not be able to hide such a large military undertaking (3,630 raids) from the members of his country and those that he hires in his government to help him. The fact that this was possible demonstrates a severe disconnect between the different parties (not political parties, but groups of people) in the United States political system.
Tuesday, February 15, 2011
Commentary on Previous Blog Postings
I feel that, as a reader, I have done a good job of avoiding summary in my blog posting. I try my best to assume that the reader of my blog knows what I am talking about and instead to analyze my own interpretations of the reading. One aspect of my blogging that I don’t feel I have done a good enough job of is incorporating the technical definitions that we talked about in the first few classes, such as the biases (commercial, bad news, temporal, narrative, etc.) and other terms such as syllogism, induction, and pathos, logos, and ethos. I feel that, in the future, I should utilize these terms in order to establish a more concrete analysis instead of simply commenting on what I see when I am reading.
I would like to delve a bit deeper into the broader issues that I am discussing in my blog postings. I feel that I often can point out interesting or intriguing pieces of writing or information and comment on them, but I don’t see too many instances in my own work where I tie together these little examples and point out a big theme out of it. For example, in my recent paper that I wrote, I illustrated that emotions did not play a role in the decision of the first Rodney King Trial. However, the Federal Trial took a different path. The Federal Trial and conviction of two of the four accused officers seemed to be decided based on some serious emotions and predispositions of the jurors. I feel this is a valid point, but I did not continue to go a layer further. In the future, I would like to discuss the broader, global impact and cultural implication of my own assessment. I feel that I can then comment on Cannon’s own thought process and the tone and argument that he is taking more ably.
I found it much easier to blog about Anna Deavere Smith’s Twilight: Los Angeles, 1992 than Lou Cannon’s work, Official Negligence because of the difference in genres. While Smith’s Twilight is an account of the context of the time surrounding the Rodney King beatings and riots in L.A., I feel that her writing is much more of a story and a narrative than Cannon’s. Cannon’s work is very dry to me, and I find it difficult to effectively extract his own personal ideas, interpretations, and argument in the midst of all of his facts and chronological details. Smith, on the other hand, exhibits her own view of the event much more clearly by allowing the reader to connect with each of the characters that she employs in her play. Each individual tells his or her own personal story, which forces the reader to step into the shoes of the speaker for five or ten minute intervals, before moving on to the next. By feeling more engaged with the writing, I find that I am able to connect more with Smith’s point in her book, and therefore blog more easily about it.
I would like to delve a bit deeper into the broader issues that I am discussing in my blog postings. I feel that I often can point out interesting or intriguing pieces of writing or information and comment on them, but I don’t see too many instances in my own work where I tie together these little examples and point out a big theme out of it. For example, in my recent paper that I wrote, I illustrated that emotions did not play a role in the decision of the first Rodney King Trial. However, the Federal Trial took a different path. The Federal Trial and conviction of two of the four accused officers seemed to be decided based on some serious emotions and predispositions of the jurors. I feel this is a valid point, but I did not continue to go a layer further. In the future, I would like to discuss the broader, global impact and cultural implication of my own assessment. I feel that I can then comment on Cannon’s own thought process and the tone and argument that he is taking more ably.
I found it much easier to blog about Anna Deavere Smith’s Twilight: Los Angeles, 1992 than Lou Cannon’s work, Official Negligence because of the difference in genres. While Smith’s Twilight is an account of the context of the time surrounding the Rodney King beatings and riots in L.A., I feel that her writing is much more of a story and a narrative than Cannon’s. Cannon’s work is very dry to me, and I find it difficult to effectively extract his own personal ideas, interpretations, and argument in the midst of all of his facts and chronological details. Smith, on the other hand, exhibits her own view of the event much more clearly by allowing the reader to connect with each of the characters that she employs in her play. Each individual tells his or her own personal story, which forces the reader to step into the shoes of the speaker for five or ten minute intervals, before moving on to the next. By feeling more engaged with the writing, I find that I am able to connect more with Smith’s point in her book, and therefore blog more easily about it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)