Strangelove

“A group of men haggling over morality and strategy in a "War Room" is gloomily comic enough without an American General and Russian Ambassador wrestling with each other and then being admonished by the President that their behavior violates the room's dignity-("Gentlemenl Such behavior in the War Room!").” This is one of the points that Richardson brings up in his piece. He is talking about how comical it is that people are told to stop fighting in the “War Room”. When watching the film I also thought that it was funny that people were arguing in the “War Room”, and then wrestling each other over issues and then they were persecuted for being too hostile in the “War Room”. Another quote from Richardson is, “As a director of actors, Mr. Kubrick is less able. I had the feeling that each of his performers were allowed to do their bits and were left unedited in any way.” I agree with Richardson in that the actors seemed that they could have rambled on for days about a particular subject and the director would not have edited anything. It seemed as though the film was completely unedited. This was one of the things I did not like about the movie is that the dialogue seemed to carry on forever. So many times there were interactions between characters that were too long and they became annoying because they just rambled on. In Stillman’s article he says, “‘Buck’ Turgidson (George C. Scott) is portrayed as paranoid over the threat of Soviet spying by diplomats with hidden cameras (‘tiny equipment’). In the end it turns out that his fears were not without reason.” I found this to be funny in the film, because the entire time Buck is freaking out about how there is a foreign diplomat in the “War Room”. He keeps fighting with the diplomat, because he is Russian and they are the guys that they are at war with so why would they let him in the “War Room”. In all seriousness though I agree with Buck, and at the end of the movie his suspicions are true. Another line in Stillman’s article says, “So instead of leaving it there looking malignant I gave the arm a life of its own. That arm hated the rest of the body for having made a compromise. That arm was a Nazi.” In the movie I thought that the arm that was alive and doing whatever it wanted was quite annoying. I understand that he was pretty much a Nazi and that he had random outbursts. But at the end when he is trying to explain one of the most important parts of the film and the solution to saving lives, the hand keeps going off and it is quite frustrating. It is frustrating to the viewer because you just want to know the solution and also get to the end of the movie since I did not see it as that good of a movie. I thought that the score in the film was not broad enough. Every scene with the airplane it played the same song and nothing really happened until the end so it was really not climatic. The lighting is hard for me to judges since it is in black and white and I am not use to black and white films, when its dark it just seems to dark and when it is lighter then there seems to be too much light. I thought the Mise en Scene was good in the “War Room”, because I really liked the giant round table and the board with all of the maps and showing where the bombers are going. There really was not that much cinematography in the film. Really only when the camera looked up at General Ripper, the “War Room” when they showed the whole table, and the end with the explosions so they could have worked on better cinematography. All in all I really did not like the film, and I thought it could have been done much better. The dialogue was to annoying to me and I really just do not like older black and white films. I did think the story line was pretty good, and with a few touch ups in the story line, better dialogue, and the movie made with today’s technology, then it could be a pretty good film.

Our Troops Need More Body Armor

Let’s say that you are a soldier in the United States Military and you are deployed to a hostile area of Iraq, such as Fallujah where you know for a fact you will see combat and your life is at risk every day. When you arrive in Fallujah you are told that you will have to wear a flak jacket that is from the Vietnam era and it will not stop most shrapnel, explosions, or the 7.62mm round of the AK-47 a common weapon of your enemy. How would you feel? Do you think that you would be able to perform your job with that in the back of your mind at all times, that you could die because of inadequate gear? I am going to discuss what body armor can protect our troops and what body is being used and not used. I will also share stories with you of how body armor has saved lives and sometimes not saved lives. Also, what is being done to get better equipment and how much it costs. Our troops need modern more efficient body armor that can protect them while in combat and as of right now they do not have sufficient protection and soldiers are dying for no reason. We need to help our troops and do something to get them the proper gear that they need. Part of the problem is that we have to many military members and congressman who believe that our troops gear is sufficient, and they refuse to believe and see what is actually happening. Another problem is that our government and military is spending too much on useless things that they either do not need or could buy for cheaper. Soldier in Iraq, battling with Interceptor vest on.

One of the best ways to win a war is to have better equipment and better technology to outsmart, outperform, and outlive your enemy. If our troops do not have the right protective equipment, then how can they do any of those things? One way that our troops could have an advantage is to have better and more efficient flak jackets. A flak jacket is a form of protective clothing that is designed to help stop shrapnel or bullets. And the flak jacket that our troops need that is the most modern and performs the best is called the Interceptor. According to Jonathan Turley, the author of “Flak Jackets Slim Comfort” a modern Interceptor vest is, “the Interceptor vest is made of layered sheets of Kevlar with pockets in front and back for ceramic plates to protect vital organs. These vests--one-third lighter than the old ones--have stopped machine-gun bullets, shrapnel and other ordnance” (Turley 1). The Interceptor vest sounds like the perfect vest for our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, but most of our troops have Vietnam era vests that do not protect our troops. According to Andrew Gumbel writer of “Families Chip In For Flak Jackets”, “Many - perhaps most - soldiers are wearing Vietnam-era flak jackets, which are heavier and unable to withstand rounds from AK-47 automatic rifles, the most common ammunition in Iraq” (Gumbel 1). Why would we want to be giving our troops a flak jacket that does not even stop the most common round that will be fired at them while in combat? Man describing what an Interceptor vest is and how it works.

According to Andrew Gumbel, “United States soldiers in Iraq are so short of up-to-date flak jackets - often the difference between survivable injury and death in combat - that their families back home have begun buying them out of their own pocket” (Gumbel 1). I feel that this is pathetic and that there is something that the government and U.S. citizens should do to help. There has to be a way to be able to provide our troops with adequate equipment to perform their jobs the best way possible. According to Graydon Carter the editor of Vanity Fair, “in wars past, parents of soldiers sent their kids chocolates, cookies, photos, and other mementos of home. In the wake of the Iraq invasion, parents of American soldiers scoured the Internet looking for Interceptor vests (about $1,500 retail) they could send overseas” (Carter 32). This is also very upsetting in the way that while soldiers are deployed they want to get things that will take their minds off of the war, but now they have to talk to their parents and friends about getting them proper gear to survive. Soldiers want to hear good news from their friends and families and hear about what is going on at home, not that there is not a way to get them protective equipment. Charlie Richardson is the co-founder of a group called Military Families Speak Out. According to the article by Gumbel, “Richardson's group has received numerous stories of mothers spending hundreds of dollars on either jackets or individual protective plates for their sons in Iraq” (Gumbel 1). Parents should provide for their children, but they should not have to when it is the military’s responsibility to provide efficient gear for our troops. I’m sure since parents have to buy the vests for their children that it causes frustration and anger. They are probably angry that their child could die after volunteering to fight for their country and not have been provided the best possible protective armor. They are also probably frustrated because body armor is not cheap. Interceptor vest taking damage, but still being combat ready and efficient.

There are many examples of Interceptor flak jackets outperforming other types of military issued armor. One of those stories comes from the article by Jonathan Turley where he is talking about a soldier who did have a modern Interceptor vest. Turley reports, “they can mean the difference between living and dying, which was made all too clear to Sgt. Zachariah Byrd, a soldier with the 3rd Armored Cavalry Regiment, who was shot four times with AK-47 bullets [twice in the chest and twice in his arms] when his unit was ambushed. The vest protected his chest and he survived. Byrd had been issued a standard flak jacket and, if he had been wearing it during the attack, he'd probably be dead” (Turley 1). I feel that the reason that the author thinks he would have died is because the Interceptor vests have more protection than older vests. Usually when people get shot they can easily die from the wound and that is what the author is probably speculating, that most people die from gunshot wounds but because of the Interceptor, he did not. When you hear a story of how a soldier is shot four times and survives a bullet from and assault rifle and the thing that saved his life is the same thing that most deployed troops do not have issued to them, then there is definitely a problem. Why would we not have more modern vests if they protect our troops? Another story from the same article by Turley talks about an Army Specialist named Richard Murphy who is a military policeman and who was on a 20-month deployment in Iraq. The article states that, “upon their arrival, members of Murphy's unit were shocked to learn that they would be given the old Vietnam War-era vests rather than the modern Interceptor vest. They were also given unarmored Humvees, which are vulnerable to even small-arms fire” (Turley 1). How would you feel if you were deployed for 20 months and when you showed up into a hostile zone you were told that you would be issued a vest that would not even stop the bullet of the enemy you would be fighting on a day-to-day basis? That would be extremely scary and shocking to almost anyone that heard that news. Of course you would scramble to a phone to tell your parents to help you get enough money to be able to pay for the Interceptor vest and ceramic plates so that you would be protected. Murphy’s unit only had 30 Interceptor vests for 120 men (Turley 1). The article goes on to talk about a man names Mike Quinn who is in Murphy’s unit. “Mike Quinn, was killed in Fallujah. Quinn's unit didn't have enough vests, so he gave his to a young soldier. The decision saved the young soldier's life, but resulted in Quinn's death when he was shot” (Turley 1). This is pathetic and very sad to hear. It is pathetic in that the military and government cannot provide something that cost approximately 1,500 dollars when a soldier’s life insurance if they die is around 400,000 dollars paid to whomever they wish. How can the military and government not have enough money to equip our soldiers with proper gear, but have enough to pay for all of the dead soldiers that comes from not having the right gear?
I have been talking about how soldiers are dying and how we need vests. Well how much do these vests actually cost and what else is the government and military spending their money on? How many soldiers are without body armor and how many are actually dying? According to USA Today on January 13^th 2006, “Members of Congress were reacting to a newly reported analysis by the Armed Forces Medical Examiner, which concluded that 80% of the fatal injuries to Marines in the study might have been prevented by additional armor coverage” (USA 10A). The same article also states that as of January 13^th 2006, “To date, 1,510 soldiers and 633 Marines have died in Iraq, many of them killed by rifle shots or explosions in which better armor could have made a difference” (USA 10A). If everyone knows that better armor could save lives and that there is so much proving that our troops need the armor and they are dying because they have insufficient armor, then why isn’t there being more to get enhanced armor? According to Carter the editor of Vanity Fair, “seven months after the end of the war, there were still approximately 40,000 soldiers-nearly one-third of the troops in Iraq-without fully functioning Interceptor vests, which are designed to stop a round from an AK-47, the most common automatic rifle in the world” (Carter 32). Now we wonder where is all of the money going that our troops cannot be provided with modern Interceptor vests. According to the Turley piece the Air Force made a deal with Boeing for some airplane tankers for way too much money then needed to be spent. The article states that, “according to the Congressional Research Service, the Air Force will waste almost $6 billion by leasing the planes rather than buying them. Congress is looking into the deal. By comparison, outfitting all of the 150,000 soldiers in Iraq with Interceptor vest plates would cost less than $97 million at retail prices” (Turley 2). The article goes on to talk about how many of these 150,000 troops have already been outfitted and because of that the cost for getting the vests is cut down drastically. In all actuality we only need to outfit about 40,000 troops that do not have the modern Interceptor vests. Once again this is very sad that our government and military would be so unproductive and cost inefficient when we have soldiers lives at stake. This just sounds to me like negligence and that maybe our congressman and certain military officials in charge of our spending should be tried for negligent homicide. They know that these vests are not fit for duty in the Middle East warzones and that soldier’s are dying because they do not have the right body armor. They also know that if a little bit of money was spent to buy the vests instead of wasted on stupid assets then the troops could be safer and less would die. If they know that the Interceptor is better and needed and they have the power to get our troops the vests then shouldn’t they be held responsible for our troops not having them, seeing how they are keeping the war going by keeping our troops over there?
There is so much evidence pointing in the way that we need the vests right away. Who in the United States would be opposed of our troops having adequate gear while deployed? Why would somebody knowing that the Interceptors save lives be opposed of getting them for our military? Well there are not many who are opposed but there are those who are in denial that we do not have enough armor. According to the article “Northeast Ohio Community Raises Money to Send Soldier Body Armor” written by the Associated Press State and Local Wire, “Capt. David Romley, a Pentagon spokesman, said the oldest flak jackets being used by the military were left over from the 1991 Persian Gulf War and there are just a few of those” (Associated Press 1). Why would Captain Romley be in denial about there not being Vietnam era flak jackets? I am in the United States Coast Guard, and we deploy to Kuwait and Iraq. My unit does not have enough Interceptor vests for my entire unit. We have about 60 and there are 120 members in my unit while on deployment. We do in fact have Vietnam era vests, I know this because some of the older men at my unit were around right after Vietnam and they always talk about the vests that we have and how they are from around the 1970’s. Why would he lie when there is physical evidence and so many people, and soldiers reporting that they do not have modern vests? Since soldiers know that the Interceptor is the most modern and best vest out there why would they complain about getting a new vest if they are going to get the exact same vest? If a soldier has a Vietnam era vest that cannot stop and AK-47 bullet then they are going to want a new vest. If it were true that there were only a few Gulf War vests even around and that the rest are Interceptors then why would deployed troops complain so much about not having proper gear, when they could be asking for something else that they do not have. To me this just does not sound credible since it is the only source that I found that says that there are enough modern flak jackets and only a few older ones. After the countless stories of soldiers dying because they do not have the correct vests and all of the stories of parents having to buy vests and ceramic plates for their son or daughter then maybe the Captain is mistaken. Another idea is that maybe the Interceptor vest is not the best choice and that there needs to be a new, superior to the Interceptor vest made. According to the web site “Olive-Drab” the Interceptor vests are not perfect. The web site states that, “complaints about Interceptor Body Armor accumulated. Soldiers found it to be too heavy, too hot and too cumbersome” (“Olive-Drab”). The Interceptor vests may not be flawless, but at this time they are the best available option for body armor. There is also another argument by military officials of why the modern Interceptor vests are not in Iraq yet. According to David Josar and author of “Equipment System Lulls in Iraq Blamed on Geography, Logistics”, “According to an Associated Press report, nearly 30,000 American troops in Iraq still have not been issued the newest body armor, which has ceramic plates to stop rifle rounds. Delays in funding, production and shipping mean the last of the needed body armor won’t be delivered until December — more than eight months after the war began” (Josar 1). This definitely makes sense that it would be hard to get equipment into a hostile zone and that sometimes shipping and logistics can get behind, especially with 30,000 troops needing the gear. The only thing that I do not understand is how the article talks about how they would have the vests 8 months after the war began, but then I read articles like “For Lack of Body Armor, Troops Die” which was published in 2006 and talks about how the troops do not have the vests yet and this is 3 years after they said the troops would have the gear. They did talk about how logistics and the geographical location slow production and shipment down but by 3 years that is pretty insane. Maybe logistics needs to be investigated and a new way to get supplies to the troops needs to be created and practiced. There is no reason that shipments to troops in a battle zone should be 8 months behind schedule and especially not 3 years behind schedule. U.S. Army soldier equipped with Interceptor vest and parts.

In conclusion, we obviously need our military and government to step up and spend the money that needs to be spent on our deployed soldiers. It is sad that our government and military cannot find the money to buy the Interceptor vests that they need. Why hasn’t the President or legislators pushed for this to happen? Together we need to let our congressmen know that we care about our troops and that they need these vests. We need to get the word out so that way something can be done. If we do not let our congressman know that we care, and that we do not want more soldiers to die because of gear that is obsolete, then they will never do anything about it and countless soldiers will die when they never had to. Our troops need modern more efficient gear and it is time that we give it to them. According to Turley, “for many GIs, Iraq appears to be a strictly BYOB war – Bring Your Own Bulletproofs” (Turley 2). Only we can change this, and it is time that we write our congressman and let them know that we will not stand by and let our troops die, and that we want to win this war.

Attack of the Alien!

Analysis of Authors

"There stands first the alien's motive for inflicting violence upon the human beings who encounter it. For it harbours no general or specific malice against the human race such as, or against the crew of the Nostromo" (Mulhall 4). This is what Mulhall talks about in his article and it is something that I thought about while watching the movie. I did not really understand why the alien was just murdering the crew. It never talks about or shows the alien eating them or using them for any food source or resource. It just shows the alien massacring the crew one at a time. "In such narratives, a group of character is introduced, usually in a limited locale, and then killed, one by one or in small groups, by a hostile force" (Thompson 1). This is Thompson talking about the shooting-gallery plot. I definitely thought that Alien was a shooting-gallery plot, the crew was introduced with almost no character development and before you know it there are getting killed by the alien. "The casting is quite ingenious, in that it avoids using stars who would be obviously expected to survive to the end" (Thompson 2). I also thought this while watching the movie, at first you think that the main character is Captain Dallas, but then he gets killed. You also think that it is either between Ash or Parker because they play such big roles in the film too, but Parker gets killed close to the end and Ash is more of a villain and he is also killed in a way since he is a robot. I knew that Ripley was going to be one of the main characters but was not sure that she would be the main and only surviving crew member. I knew that she would be one of the main members, because she was the most hardcore, outspoken member. She was also a good leader but an antagonist at the same time. Her leadership abilities and ability to act well in stressful, hostile situations help to keep her survive and kill the alien.

















Ripley leading the charge against the alien.

Movie Breakdown

The only real criticism I have about the movie is that there are too many times of complete silence and nothing going on at all. There should have been a better editing job in the movie. Though there were times that the silence made the movie good. Though sometimes the silence help to make the movie more creep and suspenseful, the score of the film when used I thought was used very well. It helped to make the movie scarier and darker, and you knew when something bad was going to happen like someone getting killed by the alien. The lighting of the film was also very effective in that it set the mood for a darker, scarier, and outer space horror film. In the film the cinematography was done very well. Every shot of the long dark hallways on the ship also made the movie such a good movie. It created suspense in that you felt like you might see the alien or that if they walk down the hallway then they could be killed by the alien or anything could be down there. The long hallway scenes made the movie mysterious in a way too in that you had no idea what could happen down that hallway if you dare to go down it. Overall the film was put together very well especially for the technology they had at the time the film was released. I give the movie two thumbs up!











Long dark hallway on the Nostromo.

Mulhall, Stephen. “Kane's Son, Cain's Daughter.” On Film. London:

Routledge, 2002. 12-32. Print.

Scott, Ridley, dir. Alien. 1979. Twentieth Century Fox, 2009.

Thompson, Kristin. "Alien." Storytelling in the New Hollywood.

Cambridge: Harvard UP, 1999. 283-306. Print.

Pans Labyrinth

The movie Pans Labyrinth is a very well made movie. The setting of the movie is great; I noticed how it is always raining in the movie when something is going wrong. For example, when Ofelia gets the really nice dress from her mom and she leaves to go to perform the first task of putting the magic stones in the fogs mouth. It rains and storms and her really nice dress blows away and gets completely muddy. Also, all of the costumes and character were great. I thought the faun and the other bad guy that put his eyeballs in his hands were great costumes.

The set design throughout the entire movie was amazing. The way that the Labyrinth looked and the way that the mill was set up was very captivating and made the movie great. The set design helped to show the mood of the movie and show how artistic the movie really is. I also thought that the sound of the movie was great. The set score went along with the movie very well and when something bad was about to occur for example the torture of the man who stuttered the music played a very appropriate tune. The editing and cutting of the film was also very good. I did not think that the movie was too short or too long, nor did I think that there was anything missing or anything that needed to be cut from the film. The cinematography in the movie was also done very well. When Ofelia and her mom first arrive at the mill, the low angle that the camera makes and how it rises up to meet the Captain just starts you out thinking that the Captain is very important. It shows that everyone is below him and that he is in charge and that whatever he says will go. I usually do not like movies that are very dark all of the time, but I thought that Pans was very good about the lighting. Even though it was very dark, it was never too dark and the fact that it was dark really went along with the movie. Some movies make it way to dark, but Pans I think did it right for a darker lighted movie. When Edwards says, “Ofelia's magic quest object becomes her final test when she rejects the knife, and the pain and self-interest it represents, thus proving her purity of soul and allowing her to transcend death and return home.” (Edwards) I also found this part of the movie very amazing. As much as Ofelia wanted to obey the faun and become a queen she become very selfless and wanted to save her brother, because I feel that it was the only family that she had left. So not letting the faun have her little brother really made Ofelia’s character even better than it was throughout the movie. It showed how much she cared about family and how selfless she was. When Smith says, “The intricate parallel plotting, by del Toro himself of course, heightens or tightens this tense and intense connection. Ofelia must retrieve a key from a viscous ball vomited by the toad, just as Mercedes must guard, in real life, a secret key to the storeroom.” (Smith) He is also talking about in the article about the parallel between characters and the different story lines going on in the movie. I guess I really did not think of that while watching the movie. Then after reading the articles I now see all of the imagery and symbolism in the movie and I think that it just makes the movie more amazing. The movie has so much depth to it, and it would take someone a couple times of watching and studying the movie to really capture everything that del Toro is trying to convey in the movie.