Lee Thomas
D block
5/15/19
After
watching the film, Casualties of War, A person can learn about the challenges
the US soldiers faced during this time from the first fifteen minutes of the
movie. The first action scene we see is the unit running away from mortar fire
through a booby trap infested jungle. Pvt. Eriksson falls through the ground
into a Viet Cong tunnel where he is almost killed when his Sergeant saves him.
This is a positive scene in terms of how it displays the US soldiers because it
shows the brotherhood, and bond between them. We see a man risk his life to
save a fellow soldier while everyone else saves their own skin first.
After
the first action scene, they make the audience believe that the unit are the
good guys because they make sacrifices, and help each other. It’s only until
after one of their men is killed that we see that we were misled in our
thoughts. After the death of the Sergeants right hand man, the whole unit with
the exception of Eriksson and a new soldier had gone mad. They make a plan to
kidnap a girl from a village on their operation route. Eriksson believes
they’re not actually going to do it, but the next scene is the unit sneaking
into the village and taking a girl. Now we start to see that who we thought
were the heros, are actually the antagonist of the film. From this part of the
film, a person can learn that while the US was sent to help halt the spread of
Communism and protect civilians, not all of them met this standard. The
kidnapping scene along with the rest of the film after is in reference to the My Lai
massacre, where on March 16th
1968, Charlie Company killed 504 civilians with ages spanning from 3 or younger
to elders in their 70s or 80s. Women of the village were also raped and
mutilated with some having C Company carved into their chest. This massacre was
fueled by the losses the company had received during the Tet Offensive. C
Company was part of the 11th brigade, which claimed that 128 Viet Cong were
killed in the massacre, yet only 3 guns were seized. There were no men in the
village to be of age to be in the Viet Cong.
The Tet offensive played
an important role as to why the My Lai massacre took place. In the film the
civilians in the city are not killed, and only the one girl is taken. Having
not known of the events prior to watching the film, the audience would have no
clue as to what the movie would be referring to. Within the film there is
not talk of the Tet Offensive, while we can see that the killing of the
Sergeants right hand man was a poke at Charlie Companies losses during the
offensive, no one would know that by just watching the film. This is an
important detail because it’s possible that the actions at the massacre could’ve
not happened had Charlie company not lost any men in the Tet Offensive. It’s
also important to note that the My Lai massacre was also hinted at as I’ve said
before, but would not be known by someone who just watched the film with no
knowledge of the actual event. The kidnapping, raping, and killing of the girl
is our hint to the massacre, but it is only one civilian death, meant to
symbolize the killing of 500+ civilians and without prior knowledge the
audience won’t make the connection.
I think if the director
was to add anything more to the movie, he should add more of massacre. The one
girl being taken and killed doesn’t really set the stage for a massacre but had
someone at the village fought back which caused a massacre, it might be easier
to see the connection between the film and the My Lai massacre. I also think
that there could’ve been more than just Eriksson to know about the events that
took place and feel wrong about it. At the My Lai massacre, there was one
soldier who refused to shoot the civilians, even with a gun at his own head he
wouldn’t do it. There was also a helicopter pilot that ordered his gunner to
shoot any US troop who shot any civilians. In the film the newest soldier to
the unit doesn’t want to rape the girl but eventually takes his spot and
doesn’t stand up to the sergeant, which leaves only Eriksson to resist to
Sergeant’s orders, but at the massacre there were many men who didn’t believe
that what was happening was the right. While it’s a historical fact, I feel
like it would be hard to implement more people to go against the idea, and
still have the movie follow the same course. Over all, the movie’s layout was
all done well, while I would’ve changed a little about the massacre the rest
was put in the right spots and I don’t really see how it could’ve been changed
to be a lot better.
Sources:
