Analysis Of Michael Paris's The American Film Industry And Vietnam
War has been and continues to be the subject of many American movies. In his article The American Film Industry & Vietnam, Michael Paris explores the various ways and reasons the Vietnam War was often misrepresented through film. His main criticism of Hollywood’s portrayal of the Vietnam War is that due to the political climate surrounding the involvement of American troops in Vietnam at the time, many movies about the Vietnam War tried to cater to what filmmakers thought their audience wanted to see in order to be well received and make a profit: “…what the cinema has done has been to reflect, albeit sometimes dishonestly, America’s changing attitude to the [Vietnam] conflict.” (Paris, M., p.26).
Rather than give accurate accounts of the …show more content…
Paris is right in his evaluation of the movies produced during and shortly after the involvement of American troops in Vietnam. The ‘good versus bad’ approach that had worked in previous conflicts involving the United States could not be viable for the film industry in the midst of the political unrest that surrounded the Vietnam War. Critics and audiences were divided, so far apart that patriotism alienated the cinema’s core audience, which had to be reliable for the industry’s survival: “…62 per cent of regular film-goers were aged under thirty-years; precisely the age group that had been or would be going to Vietnam, and the group most active in the peace movement.” (Paris, M., p. …show more content…
Paris is right about the fact that “…Americans have yet to come to terms with defeat…” (Paris, M., p. 26), it is still unclear to me why any of these movies fail to show the withdrawal of American troops before the end of the war. If so much of the film industry’s audience was convinced that we could not win this war and were involved in the peace movement and wanted our troops out of the conflict, wouldn’t a feature confirming what they were championing be a vindication of their efforts? Wouldn’t the film industry have profited from making such features, both by the peace seekers and by veterans who, in most cases, didn’t know why or what they were fighting for? If the argument is that film producers catered to their audience in order to turn a profit and remain financially viable, why did the trend not continue into stating actual facts that were both accurate and catered to their audience? Paris’ article ends with a listing of several movies that: “…promise a more honest portrayal of the Vietnam experience.” (Paris, M., p. 26), but wouldn’t these have been more appropriate around the time the war ended, or when American troops came home?
Mr. Paris states in his article that: “The film industry’s interpretations of the Vietnam experience have had little impact on public thinking about the war…” (Paris, M., p. 26), but this article was written nearly thirty years ago. It may be that these movies, following the public’s changing attitude, didn’t change
Rather than give accurate accounts of the …show more content…
Paris is right in his evaluation of the movies produced during and shortly after the involvement of American troops in Vietnam. The ‘good versus bad’ approach that had worked in previous conflicts involving the United States could not be viable for the film industry in the midst of the political unrest that surrounded the Vietnam War. Critics and audiences were divided, so far apart that patriotism alienated the cinema’s core audience, which had to be reliable for the industry’s survival: “…62 per cent of regular film-goers were aged under thirty-years; precisely the age group that had been or would be going to Vietnam, and the group most active in the peace movement.” (Paris, M., p. …show more content…
Paris is right about the fact that “…Americans have yet to come to terms with defeat…” (Paris, M., p. 26), it is still unclear to me why any of these movies fail to show the withdrawal of American troops before the end of the war. If so much of the film industry’s audience was convinced that we could not win this war and were involved in the peace movement and wanted our troops out of the conflict, wouldn’t a feature confirming what they were championing be a vindication of their efforts? Wouldn’t the film industry have profited from making such features, both by the peace seekers and by veterans who, in most cases, didn’t know why or what they were fighting for? If the argument is that film producers catered to their audience in order to turn a profit and remain financially viable, why did the trend not continue into stating actual facts that were both accurate and catered to their audience? Paris’ article ends with a listing of several movies that: “…promise a more honest portrayal of the Vietnam experience.” (Paris, M., p. 26), but wouldn’t these have been more appropriate around the time the war ended, or when American troops came home?
Mr. Paris states in his article that: “The film industry’s interpretations of the Vietnam experience have had little impact on public thinking about the war…” (Paris, M., p. 26), but this article was written nearly thirty years ago. It may be that these movies, following the public’s changing attitude, didn’t change