It has always stuck in my craw the way that the makers of this film chose the three examples to use in the first segment. A bigot walks out of a bar and into Nazi Germany to experience what it is like to be on the receiving end of hatred, and then escapes to be chased by the KKK as a black man - ok we get the message
and then the third choice is he becomes Vietnamese and is chased by US soldiers...
Um ok - Nazi, KKK, US Marine - see they are all alike...get it
If you ever questioned if US soldiers were really subject to hatred and being spit on upon their return from Vietnam here is the proof.
Sigh. The point of those situations he found himself in were due to HIS racial issues. The point of finding himself in Vietnam and being seen as Vietnamese by other Americans (the soldiers) was to give him insight into the lot of the *beep* he hated (and spoke of in the opening scene); it wasn't to claim the US soldiers were haters of the Asian race. It was to show him that these *beep* are people like him, with the same hopes and fears and value in terms of humanity. Before that, he HIMSELF probably saw the war as 'us Americans handing it to the *beep* In that scene, he found himself as one of the 'them'.
PS: I'm from the South Pacific, so don't have a pony in the race.
sigh - I get the point and object to the example used. There are three groups of bad guys - Nazis, KKK and US military
Subtle eh...
If I recall the scene correctly the character is fleeing among civilians from the US Military - he is not in the black pajamas of the VC or in NVA uniform
You have to look at the climate of the Vietnam war, if they weren't fighting CQC in a jungle, chances are you'd be up against the local militia mixing in with the civilian population AKA Guerilla Warfare. As an occupier, it's a safe bet to think the people coming at you are gonna be looking like the indigenous population, so you hold a prejudice. This is what an ROE or Rules Of Engagement basically is, a prejudice to see what would be the best combat posture for your unit in it's area of operations (The term "With Extreme Prejudice" derives from this). Believe it or not, but some locations are given a no-friendly zone and soldiers are allowed to fire upon unarmed civilians like Marrow's character as the situation appears to them (He could be a suicide bomber trying to get in close). As a person who'd look Vietnamese, your chances of getting lit up in circa 1969 Vietnam are pretty high statistically speaking.
I mean look at the video of the July 12, 2007 Baghdad airstrike, they fire upon a family who shows up trying to help the downed people (Or footmobiles as military folk like to dehumanize their targets with). Why did they fire upon this family? Murdering the father and nearly killing both children in the van? Because of the ROE, because of how the situation appeared to them, did they know for sure that the van was militia oriented or just some people who came along a group of injured people and was trying to help (How many suicide bombings happen in Baghdad? These people may have thought it was a bombing and didn't know it was an Air-to-surface attack)
His comparison is sound, and Vic Marrow died in the incident before they could finish the segment, so whatever perception of the Vietnam soldiers you perceive is an unfinished caricature of a later punchline.
I mean look at the video of the July 12, 2007 Baghdad airstrike, they fire upon a family who shows up trying to help the downed people (Or footmobiles as military folk like to dehumanize their targets with). Why did they fire upon this family? Murdering the father and nearly killing both children in the van? Because of the ROE, because of how the situation appeared to them, did they know for sure that the van was militia oriented or just some people who came along a group of injured people and was trying to help (How many suicide bombings happen in Baghdad? These people may have thought it was a bombing and didn't know it was an Air-to-surface attack)
When did it become acceptable to kill people as a precaution?
When a normal person kills someone without a clear and urgent threat to their life or the lives of others, it's called murder. When soldiers and police do it, they get a pass.
How many people have been shot by the cops because they claimed that the person looked like they were reaching for a weapon? They didn't see a weapon, but they shot the person anyway. In other words, they shot, and probably killed, someone purely as a precaution.
I ask you again; When did this become acceptable?
This is a THREADED message board. Please reply to the proper post! reply share
I don't think I ever said it was acceptable, I was just letting OP know the parallel wasn't unfounded.
Maybe you didn't say it, but the sad fact is that it has become acceptable, at least to the police and to those who think the police can do no wrong.
Investigator: Officer James, why did you shoot this man 29 times?
Officer James: He moved his hand half an inch toward his waistband and I thought he might possibly be planning to pull out a weapon so I feared for my safety.
Investigator: Completely understandable! You did the right thing! No charges will be filed!
Victim's Family: But he was completely unarmed, had his back to you and was holding a gallon of milk in each hand. He couldn't have pulled out a weapon even if he wanted to!
Investigator: Shut up! A police officer's perception of events trumps reality!
This is a THREADED message board. Please reply to the proper post! reply share
Of course it's a sad fact, it's the terrifying truth, but OP was acting like US soldiers acted like brave nobel warriors who did no wrong and what happened in this film is silly for trying to compare nazis to Vietnam soldiers when the story is about prejudice and soldiers in Vietnam prejudged and shot many non-combatants because they were entitled and allowed
If I recall the scene correctly the character is fleeing among civilians from the US Military - he is not in the black pajamas of the VC or in NVA uniform
Which often happened. Your jingoistic, militant whining will not change that fact.
2–3 million Vietnamese refugees fled Vietnam during the late 1970s and 1980s. Up to 155,000 refugees fleeing the final NVA Spring Offensive were killed or abducted on the road to Tuy Hòa in 1975.Sources have estimated that 165,000 South Vietnamese died in the re-education camps out of 1–2.5 million sent, while somewhere between 50,000 and 250,000 were executed. Rummel estimates that slave labor in the "New Economic Zones" caused 50,000 deaths (out of a total 1 million deported). According to the United Nations High Commission for Refugees, between 200,000 and 400,000 Vietnamese boat people died at sea, although Rummel cites estimates ranging from 100,000 to 1,000,000. Including Vietnam's foreign democide, Rummel estimates that a minimum of 400,000 and a maximum of slightly less than 2.5 million people died of political violence from 1975–87 at the hands of Hanoi.
Under the leadership of Pol Pot, the Khmer Rouge killed 1–3 million Cambodians in the killing fields, out of a population of around 8 million. The Pathet Lao killed some 100,000 Hmong people in Laos
When you don't fight to win, all you can do is postpone the inevitable.
reply share
sigh - I get the point and object to the example used. There are three groups of bad guys - Nazis, KKK and US military
Nah. You don't get it at all. By the time Bill Connor (Morrow) encountered the US troops, he'd already been hounded by Nazis and the KKK. He naively figured that American soldiers would provide him refuge. Landis prominently featured 2 or 3 black guys leading the US troops to amplify the absurdity of a white racist begging for help from black men, even if fellow Americans. Even more absurd was the fact that these black men were serving the government of Connor's beloved USA. This absurdity was the whole point. It was the Twilight Zone factor central to the episode. No direct comparison of the American military to the Nazis or the KKK was being made.
I think one important note you're overlooking is that he isn't trying to blatantly write off all US Marines in that segment.
The big detail about the Vietnamese war that gets far too overlooked is the fact we attacked and killed many Vietnamese CIVILIANS who were not the same thing as the Viet Kong. There was south Vietnam and North Vietnam. In the vietnamese war, there were multiple incidents the government tried to cover up, such as the one depicted in the film. When Americans didn't find North Vietnamese soldiers, they would settle for killing and raping South Vietnamese soldiers who were there instead. By no means did every Vietnamese soldier from America try to do this, but a notable group of them looked at all Vietnamese as the same without a second thought. This segment of the film is not calling US marines this, but only referring to the few who did corrupt things in Vietnam which, at the time and even still to this day, was turned a blind eye to.
You missed the point, he was in the twilight zone, he changed races in each of those battles, to Jewish, black then Vietnamese.. Doesn't matter if he was wearing civi's or still looked white.
You are not a stupid person and I am not trying to treat you as such. However, one thing you are missing here is not that American troops were mean, hateful or anything like that. One thing to think about is that in the other cases, the KKK and Nazi, there was a distinction made between the victim and victimizer. With the KKK it was being a different ethnic group, Black and the victimizeres were all white, a bit distinction there. In Nazi Germany. there was a process that was subtle historically, but in the film, any Jew would be wearing the star of David which brought attention to the fact that they are Jewish and considered "lesser people" not even human, so there is that distinction in the two. If I am not mistaken, and I might be, Morrow's character speaks English and the Germans ask him what he is doing here (Germany) it is not clear if America was involved with the war at that point so it could be that they thought he was a spy or something. But the difference in language is there too in that case.
During the Vietnam war, there was none of these distinctions. My twin uncles were Marines in Vietnam, one in actual combat and the other on a ship waiting to invade Cambodia. The draft was also in effect and also think that the average 18 year old American kid did not know anything about Vietnam or most Asian countries. There was no "uniform" that was different, no language, no physical distinction such as hair or eye color and they spoke the same language. I do think most platoons or units had one guy who did learn at least some Vietnamese, but the small villages were caught right in the middle of the US and North Vietnam and sometimes had to hide "enemy" combatants. If the Americans came, they did not know unless they were told by someone who was friendly and who was not and mistakes were made. One thing that the Vietcong tried to do was to infiltrate orphanages and monasteries that were declared "safe" from takeover or fighting of any kind. In the film, Morrow's character is mistaken for an enemy combatant. The Americans did not hate the Vietnamese and really did try to help them but I know from talking to other vets that there were times when they worried and wondered who was who. That is all that part was trying to portray. In that case, I have to back up Landis in what he was trying to do with the segment about the show being on the other foot. Now, do not mistake any of this for me defending him regarding the accident because that is different.
We just got out of a similar situation in the Middle East, they all spoke Arabic except Iranians speak Farsi, and unless you are trained, which takes about a year and a half because I did go to DLI which is the language school for the military in 89, and that is how I know that. I have heard fellow vets who are also friends of mine and when they would talk about it, they would tell me (some *beep* that I knew off the bat) but true stories of some of the things that they had to do and it was horrible.
I'm sorry. I don't mean to go on about that. It was a bad time because it is true that there were times when American troops did not know who was who. So, I do not believe it was a statement about Americans so much as a statement about making assumptions that not be accurate. I hope this clears up some things for you or at least gives you a "because" scenario. Thank you for your time.
It's funny. Without it ever really being acknowledged in the movie I always just naturally assumed that the 'enemies' for want of a better term actually saw him as the race in question. As in if there had been a shot where he had been seen in a mirror (I don't think there is one but it's been a while) he would have looked like a different person. It's weird otherwise that the klan call him racial slurs and when in Vietnam he shouts to a group of soldiers 'I'M AN AMERICAN!!' they then shoot at him? He has an American accent.....
I always just naturally assumed that the 'enemies' for want of a better term actually saw him as the race in question.
You assume correctly. It was the same concept as in "Quantum Leap" whenever Sam leaped into someone else. Sam was seen by everyone except Al as the person he leaped into.
I always got the impression that the opening segment of Twilight Zone: The Movie was more about putting Vic Morrow's character in the shoes of various victims or the racial groups he had been berating in the bar, rather than to necessarily attack any particular group of oppressors, so to speak. Of course no one is directly comparing the KKK and the Nazis to US soldiers serving in Vietnam, although it is true that many atrocities were perpetuated by some soldiers as is the case in all wars; the comparison is between the victimisation of various racial groups.
In the Nazi segment, he was not in Germany, he was in Nazi occupied France. You can tell by the signs in the background and the lady cooking dinner. She was shouting in French, not German.
Vietnam dont know if its hatred, but if people are trying to kill you it feels the same it doesnt matter if its because they hate you, your country, your shirt. IT STIL FEELS THE SAME.
For most soldiers its also a case of you must hate and dehumanise the enemy so that you have a reason to kill them. This is shown in the illegal invasion of iraq and how easily people murdered innocent people (eg kyles own account) as they where terrorist (this being young boys and old men and people who never left iraq)
reply share