Band of Birdsong

Recently I borrowed the DVD set of Stephen Spielberg's "Band of Brothers" and it made me think about its treatment of war compared to the texts we have studied. Far from glorifying war his american text escapes the hollywood tradition of sentimental musing about the heroism of the stereotypical US GI. Instead BOB focuses on the human element within war. While depicting battle scenes and the horror that is caused, often in gruesome detail, the focus is on the individual reactions of the human characters to their comrades and the horror the war has inflicted on them. The strength of the series lies in the rounded, very "human", characters. This is mainly dictated by the fact that the concept is drawn from a real regiment ad the screenplay was written after extensive interviews with many of the men that characters in the series are depicting.

This human treatment of the war with a focus on the relationships between men that warfare and shared experience can create is quite different to the other texts concerning war that I have read/viewed in the last two years. Barker's text seems to imply that while these men do have shared experiences thy are all simply part of a much larger political and social problem-being fed to the barbed wire lions. Also "The Ghost Road" has a focus on class which separates the men within the thrall of the first world war which Band of Brothers dismisses. In the first episode "Currahee" all the men seem dislocated within the unit as they all they have different social positions. However after two years of collective training and the experience of warfare they are a collective group with class/race causing almost no issue.

Faulks' "Birdsong" does discuss the concept of collective humanity but her focus seems to lie on the effect of war on the individual, rather than the group or even, as Barker does, early 20th century society as a whole. Her narrative follows Stephen Wraysford from pre-war France through all four years of the first world war all the way through to the research that his Grand daughter put into his war years. Faulks seems to focus on the effect that the war had on every individual, not as a group. Elizabeth is highly affected by the war because her heritage was caught up in it and his has an important bearing on her daily life.

BOB does talk about the effect on the individual but the main theme so far seems to be that the soldiers are what we should remember, not the lines on the maps or the political consequences worldwide, this concept is the absolute opposite of Barker's aim within "The Ghost Road".

Connections

While Barker and O Brien seem to both be critical of the nature of war they both attack it from separate angles. Barker certainly critisices the war but she seems to be more scathing of the society that created the war. Her text "The Ghost Road" is riddled with criticisms of the age of empirical capitalism which perpetuated the British Class system. Barker also seems to argue that the Class system made the first world war the disaster it was. She argues that upper class fops such as Birtwhistle manipulated the lower classes to die for next to no reason- "no one knows what's going on, no one knows how to stop it". She argues the old system of politics had lost it's life force but was still kicking, as shown by the melanesian sub-plot concerning the issue of "Mate" or near death. The idea of son slaughter is epitomised by Barker in her portrayal of the "thin,pale" Hallet. He is eager to support the British empire and fight in the "just war", however he dies completely disfigured and destroyed in the presence of his "solidly bourjois" father. His last words "shotfavet" is translated by Rivers as "it's not worth it". A young boy, "Prior's grandson in trench time" having his life stolen by those who were supposed to protect him.

O Brien seems to be more critical of the treatment of soldiers by both their comrades, commanders, civilians and most of all the landscape of the war. The enemy seems to be the war itself, not the "poor man" that supposedly steps on Tim's grenade. At one stage in the book a character is sucked down into the mud of a "shitfield" until he is drowned. While this section may have many meanings one is that the shitfield is a metaphor for all wars in human history. It is a filthy disaster created by the men who eventually die in it. He is critical of war as a concept, not of the soldiers or the civilians. While he does criticise the public for not listening to the soldiers-"that poor buffalo", he does not blame them. How can they understand when they haven't "tasted shit".

Barker seems to be critical of war but her focus lies more on who was to blame for that particular war and the disasters it caused. Not the overlying concept of war.

While the settings of the two wars, the Great War and the Vietnam War, are on completely opposite sides of the globe the description of the battlefields seem to be similar. Mud is mentioned with high detail in both texts and the sheer boredom of the trenches and dugouts cause insanity in both texts. maybe what this reveals is how altough time has passed and technology changed betwenn the two wars very little changes in the nature of war. This could suggest that war will not change, it will always remain a destructive force that ruins those who survive just as much as those who die.

It's also important to remember that these two texts were published at a similar time, the early 1990's. This could pont towards a late 20th century social value of if not pacifism then a desire for the stop of needless waste. However as we have seen in the past in Korea, Vietnam and the fields of Flanders and Normandy, and in the present in Iraq, the human race seems incapable of learning from it's incredible self harm.

The Apocalyspe theory offered by Kandinsky and Marc in 19th century Germany did not materialise. There was a great purge which destroyed the bourjois society of the time, but 30 years later there was another, then another 30 years. An endless cycle which has operated from the beginning of the stone age. War does not cleanse, like a californian forest burn off, it does not help to build the future. It is a burning inferno which destroys and then leaves embers lurking in the shadows. Which when the world has regrown will once again enflame.

While Barker and O Brien may not be in agreement over the nature of war, or its causes, they seem to be in agreement that it is destructive and self perpetuating. While they may have not realised the common themes between their two chosen conflicts their portrayal of them reveals the senselessnes and pure waste of war.

September the 13th 1999!

While being laid up with a chest infection I found myself watching my aunt's extensive collection 1870's TV DVD's. One of these sets was Space 1999, a programme I thought would be trivial and stupid. But not so. It is an excellent piece of 20th century television and makes far better viewing than any daytime television.

The basic plot is that on September the 13th 1999 the Alpha moon base, with 300 occupants, is blasted out of orbit. However this explosion is not the result of some fantastic science fiction phenomena, ather it is the result of earth's nations dumping all their atomic waste on the moon.

This progranne, made over thirty years ago is addressing similar issues that we are facing today, sustainability and the impact of technology on nature. I was suprised by this and kept watching. In another excellent programme, Stingray, which is set underwater explores the issue of what humanity can do once we have exhausted the natural resources that we have come to take as for granted.

While it is easy to dismiss these programmes because of their warped ideas on what the future may be like, bubble cars and space tourism in 2000, we should also recognise the fact that they often get it right.

White Man's Club

Recently I was accused of beig a memeber of a "white man's club" that dominated Wellington College and that as such oppurtunities were denied to members of other ethnicities. I see this as nothing else but racism. Why should I be accused of dominating the cultural shere of our school, simply because I am commited eneough to constantly audition and turn up to numerous amounts of rehearsals. I beleive very strongly that all ethnicities should be represented in all parts of school life, but it just doesn't happen. The Rugby teams of Coll are often ratioed with far less pakeha, but no one accuses polynesian students of taking places from white players. Racism is present at Wellington College and we must all do what we can to reduce it. But saying that someone is thinking and acting in a certain way simply because of the colour of their skin is in basic tems the prest from of racism.

Textbooks

In the process of doing my Art History research assignment, I went to the library in order to find some text books and was successful. The only issue is that each of these of these books wieghs about as much as an american 12 year old. Why o why do these books need to be so damn massive?? It's becoming ridiculous, my back just can't cope any more....

No Country for Old Men

I saw this movie completely by accident. Intending to go to "Charlie Wilson's War" we discovered the times had been printed incorrectly in paper and the embassy was in fact showing the new Cohen Bros film. Well we were there, so we went to that instead.
One of the best mistakes of my life.

This movie is exceptional on so many levels. Not only does it posses the most ruthless and brilliant of stroylines, it makes interesting comments on the subjects of individual identity and the role of chance in life, and has some of the most beautiful shots I have ever seen. if you haven't seen this and wish to, you may not want to read this.

The title itself comments on the role of the older "retired figures" in society. The sherrif is planning retirementand for all his knowledge and experience is unable to catch Chigurh. lwellen keeps referring to himself as "retired" and has more luck against chigurh beacause he himself is younger, but he still is cut down. Because of his similarity to the sherrif in type.

The ex marine comments at one point that Anton Chirgurh is "nothing like you, Hell he's not even like me." Here the Cohen Bros are revealing that the mexican sadist is nothing but, he is just of a new school, "a set of morals" that are different than those possesed by the 1970's Texan citizens. These morals are displayed when he offers the coin toss to the store clerk, he smiles widely and truly when he realises that luck dictates he need not kill. He is not killing for no reason, he is just killing for a reason that is totally alien to the "old men". In a land dominated by this new set of morals, alien to Tommy Lee Jones' character, there is no place for the old school. As shown by the deaths of all the old school cahracters in the film, even in the stroies told to the sherrif.

The role of luck is also strongly commented on, Lwellen stumbles accross the murders and the money simply because he missed a shot on a deer, had he hit he would have been completely unaffected by the whole saga. Also at the very end of the film Chirgurh would be away completely scott free except that someone runs a red light and destroys his car, thus bringing ambulances and police.

Beginnings

Well Here we go....
I've been an avid reader since a young age and still feel that there is nothing more intrinsically relaxing than a book that sucks you into it's world and won't let you out. Still gives a unique kind of Buzz.

Although in the last year or so I have become more absorbed in movies and media text I am still a huge fan of reading. While I haven't read many classics or "great novels" i will attempt to this year. Although in my opinion the term "gret novel" should be different for evry individual. I have been told, and have told others, that a movie/book is crap while I/they have a completely different opinion.

I'm going to use this blog, mainly, to vent my enthusiasm on the books and movies that I absorb throughout the year.

Enjoy, and tell me if I become too pretentious...