Showing posts with label Vietnam. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Vietnam. Show all posts

Sunday, 7 June 2020

"The Deer Hunter", Forty Years On.

    Although a huge success at the time of its release in 1978, I think it's fair to say that Michael Cimino's film has fallen into a certain amount of neglect in the intervening decades. The first of the really big-canvas cinematic works taking as their starting-point the USA's disastrous involvement in Vietnam, it has suffered by comparison with Francis Ford Coppola's Apocalypse Now, which followed it onto the screen a few months later, and whose epic, philosophical pretensions were manifest in a way The Deer Hunter's underlying motivations weren't. This is unfair, since they are two completely different movies which just happen to have come along within the same year, both feeling tentatively for a handhold on what most would probably still agree was a national trauma that had shaken everyone in America at the time.

    Whereas Coppola's great film largely dispensed with character and backstory in favour of an immersive, multisensory, mythological descent into Hell and madness, with Joseph Conrad's novella Heart of Darkness as a template, Cimino's is far more traditionally novelistic in its approach. The kernel of its narrative was, apparently, a short story about the psychology of gamblers betting on 'games' of Russian Roulette in Las Vegas, and had nothing to do with Vietnam. Cimino and his co-writers took the original text and expanded it into a three-hour saga of three working men from the Pennsylvania steelbelt, who are drafted to fight in Vietnam, taken prisoner, and forced by their captors to play Russian Roulette as a form of torture. They escape just before the end of the War, but the consequences of their experience change everything for them forever.

    Although it won multiple Oscars, The Deer Hunter ran into criticism on several fronts straight away. It was accused of racism for its portrayal of Vietnamese people. The Russian Roulette motif was condemned as inaccurate and ahistorical. And it is a very, very long film - though the cut that finally made the cinemas was half an hour shorter than Cimino's preferred version. The cinematography and sound are generally, and rightly, reckoned to be superb, and the delineation of the principal characters - played by Robert De Niro, Christopher Walken, and John Savage - as well as the supporting cast, including a very sick John Cazale (it was to be his last film) and a very young Meryl Streep, is lovingly done. The background of a very traditional, insular, working-class Russian-American community, is vividly rendered: a flamboyant wedding scene early in the film lasts nearly an hour, but remains compelling throughout.

    Watching the film again, for the first time in maybe thirty years, I understood the reservations that some contemporary commentators expressed, but wonder if these didn't arise from misplaced expectations of a piece of work premissed on US involvement in the divisive, bloody and chaotic war which had only come to an end three years previously. And I think a large part of that is Cimino's own fault, because there is a huge narrative gap in The Deer Hunter - and that is the Vietnam War itself.

    Let me explain. As I've said above, the placing of Mike (De Niro), Nick (Walken) and Steve (Savage) firmly in the context of their community, which takes up the first third of the film, is crucial and well-realised. We see them manifesting all the swagger, bravado, bullshit, egotism, insecurity, brotherliness, banter and solidarity of groups of young male friends everywhere. We see them firmly anchored in their workplace, their favourite bar, their weekend dedication to deer-hunting, their second-generation immigrant community, and their automatic patriotism - which we, as privileged viewers who know this is a film 'about Vietnam' also know is going to come back to bite them. They are ordinary Joes, insignificant and sympathetic in equal measure, whose characters are undoubtedly going to be tested by their experience of war.

    Except that they aren't. Not that we see, anyway. The film cuts from a post-hunt booze-up in Pennsylvania straight to the boys' captivity at the hands of the Viet Cong, with only a vanishingly brief combat scene to suggest they've spent any time at all under fire. We see nothing of how they have responded to the alien environment into which they've been dropped, surrounded by enemies, expected to kill without question or be killed without warning. Having spent an hour establishing what they were like as ordinary blokes in their ordinary home, Cimino fails to develop their characters any further - although in that minuscule combat scene we do see Mike able to use a flamethrower on other human beings, something for which a Pennsylvania steelworks is unlikely to have prepared him.

    All this is important. For a film that has premissed itself on a novelistic portrayal of character and relationships, these are allowed to go by the board for what I would argue is the crucial period of its characters' lives. Consequently, we jump straight from mateship in a midwest bar to trauma and Russian Roulette in a Vietcong prison, with no intervening narrative. It's important also to remember that the film's point of view is largely that of De Niro's Mike, so we need to know where he's coming from and how he got there. It might be understandable that the experience of being thrown into a terrifying environment utterly different from that of his own background has made all Vietnamese look to him like incomprehensible, cruel enemies, but nothing in the film actually shows that. Instead, all the Vietnamese we see simply look like incomprehensible, cruel enemies.

    I don't know that contemporary historians' attestation that Russian Roulette wasn't actually part of Viet Cong torture techniques necessarily matters in the context of the film as a work of art. Apparently, some US Vietnam War veterans have said that as a metaphor for the imminence and unpredictability of sudden death there it is a good one. Certainly, as a dramatic device, particularly towards the end of the film, the desperation of men prepared to stake their lives on odds of 6/1, and the unfathomable cynicism of gamblers prepared to stake and make money on the same, is a terrifying symbol of human perversity and evil.

    In sum, then, it's arguable that The Deer Hunter is no more a film specifically about the Vietnam War than Apocalypse Now is. But as a film about humanity, community, and the capacity of human beings to destroy both, and themselves, for ignoble reasons, it is a flawed masterpiece.

Sunday, 10 March 2013

Barry N. Malzberg: the science-fiction of inner space



Barry N. Malzberg
 
                It’s standard practice when considering the literary claims of ‘genre’ fiction to point out that some of the canonical works of Eng. Lit. could easily be so ghettoised if they hadn’t long since been accepted as ‘proper’ literature. Where science-fiction is concerned, this usually involves the invocation of Frankenstein, Nineteen Eighty-Four, The Handmaid’s Tale, and the collected works of JG Ballard. So consider this done. As Oscar Wilde nearly-but-not-quite said:  “There is no such thing as genre fiction or literary fiction, only good books and bad books.”

                Barry Nathaniel Malzberg has written some very good books. Between 1970 and 1985 he was almost bewilderingly prolific. More than 30 novels on a SF theme appeared in that time, of which the best-known is probably Beyond Apollo (1972), winner of the 1973 John W. Campbell book award. Described by one commentator as “2001: a Space Odyssey written by Samuel Beckett”, it is a series of short, obsessive monologues by one Evans, an astronaut confined in some kind of psychiatric institution,  attempting to piece together a coherent narrative of an abortive space mission during which his crewmate, The Captain, mysteriously disappeared. His accounts to himself and his interrogators are hallucinatory, fragmented, and contradictory. Did he murder the other man ? Was it suicide ? What was the precise nature of their relationship ? Why were they sent into space at all ? 

Typically garish 70s SF cover nevertheless hints at something more than space-opera

Evans’s accounts are highly sexualised, both in terms of his homoerotic attraction to the missing man and memories of his failing marriage. This sexuality is swamped by technological metaphor, highly reminiscent of Ballard (particularly Crash, which Apollo predates by a year), counterpointed ironically by the mission’s putative destination, Venus. The mystery unfolded through Evans’s ravings is never resolved, but the real question is not what happened to The Captain as an individual, but what has happened to the human race since we began to apprehend the true vastness of space and our inability to understand it definitively: “Everything is blind chance, happenstance, occurrence; in an infinite universe anything can happen. After the fact we find reasons.”

                The identity of outer space with an existential ‘inner space’ is further explored in On A Planet Alien (1974): “Lying on the bleak earth of this blasted planet, listening to the wind filter through the trees, it is possible for one moment in the clinging darkness to believe that it is not impossibly removed, that it is not at the far edge of the universe but that it is Earth itself and this has not been a voyage outward but a voyage in, to some other aspect of familiar terrain…” 

Folsom, leader of an ostensibly peaceful embassy to a distant, tribal society, is another narrator whose grip on reality is rapidly loosening. The ‘natives’ do not react with the expected compliance, and appear to have more sophisticated philosophical ideas than they should. The paranoia this engenders in Folsom rapidly develops into megalomania, and is then turned murderously on his supposedly treacherous colleagues, possibly on the whole planet.  Given the date of composition, I don’t think it is fanciful to see this as Malzberg’s Vietnam novel, and it certainly has relevant political content. As Folsom recalls one bureaucrat saying :  “Some of the opposition of course were referring to the program not as one of amalgamation but of ‘conquest,’ the brutalisation of innocent worlds to bring them into the hands of the Federation, render their natives hostage, their resources as plunder. Although everyone connected with the Bureau knew that this was untrue… [A]ll that the Federation was trying to do was make the universe a safe and agreeable place in which all of the races could live equably and without fear…”  We have heard this throughout the history of colonial exploitation.

Still from 1974 movie of "Phase IV", so far the only BNM novel to have been filmed.

 Malzberg is extremely interested in contemporary phenomena and the ways in which they might play out in the future. Like Ballard’s Atrocity Exhibition (1970), The Destruction of the Temple (1974) explores continuing public fascination with the John F. Kennedy assassination (with walk-on parts for Malcolm X and Martin Luther King), positing a repetitive, obsessive reconstruction of the event against the background of a decayed New York City – whose nomadic, semi-feral inhabitants also strangely recall those of Ballard’s later High Rise (1975.)



TNew York in a more recognisable form is the backdrop for two other novels. Overlay (1972) is a blackly comic account of the attempt by an alien interloper to precipitate Armageddon by manipulating the human tendency to irrational belief: “We have to approach them from the edges, concentrate on mysticism, spirituality, the occult… That’s the only way to topple them.”  His choice of a social group to influence is neither ideological nor religious, but a ragbag of small-time compulsive horseracing gamblers – although the combination of illogical metaphysics, all-consuming resentment and a final scene of suicidal terrorism make this tale seem strangely prescient and familiar.

Herovit’s World (1973) satirises the science-fiction milieu itself, the protagonist Jonathan Herovit a hack writer increasingly frustrated not only by the disjuncture between his own chaotic life and the heroism of his creations, but also envious of the character and lifestyle he has attributed to his own pseudonym, ‘Kirk Poland’: “Kirk was a good first name. Nothing insoluble could happen to a man named Kirk once he put his mind to things.” There are no conventional SF elements in this novel, although there are various Malzberg trademarks – emotional and psychological disintegration, sexual anxiety, strange voices. I have no idea if there is anything autobiographical here, but some of the characters – Herovit himself and his monstrously egotistical colleague Mitchell Wilk, for example  – are vividly grotesque.

It is also extremely funny, and illustrates brilliantly the range of Malzberg’s  abilities, both thematic and stylistic. His lack of general recognition in the UK is probably not helped by his books – in their garish, inappropriately spaceship-festooned covers – having been out of print for years. Is it too much to hope that a recently-announced film adaptation of Beyond Apollo might change this ?


This article was originally written in June 2012 for the online magazine "Big Eyes".