"A true war story is never moral. It does not instruct, nor encourage virtue, nor suggest models of proper human behavior, nor restrain men from doing the things men have always done. If a story seems moral, do not believe it. If at the end of a war story you feel uplifted, or if you feel that some small bit of rectitude has been salvaged from the larger waste, then you have been made the victim of a very old and terrible lie" (O'Brien, 65).
Today in class, we debated fiction's duty to stay true to history. Most people agreed that although novels and film-adaptations may stretch the truth about an era or event in history, there is no "requirement" to stay true to the original story or facts. As one student said, many authors write for a living, and their career is based upon their ability to sell books -- therefore, they have every right to stretch the truth if it means their book will appeal to and entertain a large audience. However, by stretching the truth, the truth of the story may be lost completely, especially when it comes to telling war stories. The excerpt above from Tim O'Brien's collection The Things They Carried discusses the problem with stretching the truth when it comes to anecdotes from war. Often times, if the story gets distorted for the amusement of the reader or audience, the story is no longer true. If the ending to a story about war makes you feel "uplifted" (65), then some part of the story is simply untrue. Stretching the truth in war stories serves no purpose other than to appeal to an audience, and can actually result in the glorification of war. This brings us back to the question: does fiction have a duty to stay true to history?
While fiction and film can spread awareness about an event in history and even make the reader feel connected to said event, authors and directors need to be cautious about how they portray their message. In many American war movies, the leader of the company, platoon, squad, or crew is an attractive, masculine, all-American man -- a relatable character, or even someone whom a viewer may perceive as a role-model. The first example that comes to mind is the 2014 film American Sniper featuring Bradley Cooper as Navy S.E.A.L., Chris Kyle. (Disclaimer: I thought it was a great film, and I am not attempting to completely bash it) In American Sniper, although Chris Kyle's struggles with PTSD are shown without restrain with very graphic flashbacks and images of war, there is still an appeal to Bradley Cooper's portrayal of Chris Kyle. He is relatable, very attractive, kind-hearted, but also supposedly has the most "kills" of any soldier in U.S. history. This is an example of war-glorification. Because of his relatable nature, and the fact that we have all seen Bradley Cooper in other movies such as The Hangover and Silver Lining's Playbook, we don't only see Chris Kyle. Although I still enjoy American Sniper and believe that it brings the effects of PTSD in U.S. war veterans to light and think that it is an amazing tribute to the sacrifices of Chris Kyle, I believe that The Things They Carried does a much better job at limiting the "silver linings" when it comes to telling war stories.
No comments:
Post a Comment