White Stone and Sun Were Not a Good Choice

The LBJ Museum kind of tripped me out. First of all I thought it was freaking far away and I didn’t think I could walk there so I felt like a complete idiot when I drove there and it wasn’t even a mile from where I live. I also would like to know who thought using white stone for both the actual structure and the floor was a good idea…it was so bright I couldn’t even really find the entrance haha I also realized that I went there to take pictures outside it when I was in 6^th grade for the Future Problem Solvers (FPS, if your school did this let me know so I don’t feel so weird) state competition, but we didn’t actually go inside… so it was basically just a really weird experience for me.

I finally got in though and was greeted by the lady at the front desk. She was one of the nicest people I’ve met in Austin thus far so I really enjoyed talking with her and she knew where my hometown was so that was kinda nice. Anyways, on to what I saw and liked.

The inside was beautiful and I really enjoyed all the memorabilia displayed in the LBJ timeline. Seeing all the First Lady stuff was cool too. The LBJ Humor thing freaked me out, but other than that I really enjoyed the Museum as a whole. I even bought a shirt, which is probably the most hideous thing ever and I will be wearing it to class tomorrow. One thing I did notice was that the Vietnam section was a lot smaller than I expected it to be. Coincidence? I think not.

Therefore, I propose that for the video we argue that the Vietnam War is the elephant in the room when it comes to U.S. History. Until this class I really didn’t know all that much about it and I think that has a lot to do with the fact that it’s often just shoved in a small corner of a Museum, while the Holocaust, which is not even more awful, just as awful of an event has a whole entire museum dedicated to it alone. Why? Why doesn’t America want to talk about what happened? and What do we really know about it the Vietnam War because of this? and furthermore, will the War in Iraq be the same?

I want to do the interviews and the whole “go find what people know thing”, the whole shebang, but I also want to do something fun… Dress Cristina up like Patton and deliver his speech to showcase rhetoric. Or dress Ron up as McNamara and do a play on what Morris did…I don’t know, just something to spice it up and give the viewer a switch from facts. And Erica, I like your idea of doing it from our prospective and showing our journey. Show where we started from and maybe why we started there and how this class has taught us the true rhetoric of Vietnam.

Welp...

While the LBJ museum was interesting and insightful, a detailed recap does not appear necessary as we all went to see it. That being said, I did find the manuscripts offered a rather unique insight that the opposing documentaries did not offer. War is too complex to have just one side of the story, which is the way the Vietnam War appeared in the museum (but com’on! Of course they wouldn’t show the really bad parts of the war since we are in his, LBJ, museum).

I still hold by my the, well I am not going to take credit for this movie idea because, to be honest, I am not sure where it came from (sorry to whoever came up with the idea), idea of trying to figure out why, in particular, we as high-school students didn’t really learn about the Vietnam War. While I do agree that interviewing vet’s and getting their take on the war and interviewing students and getting their take on the war or somehow documenting our progress as rhetoric students would be interesting, I just don’t see a solid thesis, if you will, behind those ideas. Just my take though.

LBJ

I enjoyed the museum alot, I liked how the exhibit on the main floor showed all of LBJ's life from the good moments and to the bad. At times though some of the information was lacking, but it is just an exhibit its not going to provide all the details. Although the information was lacking, seeing a summary of the time period he lived along with the video helped me at least understand the man just a little more than I did before. The Vietnam war section was also nice to see since we are studying that time period. Along with the emphasis on the year of 1968 showed all the happenings in the world, including the TET offensive, seeing all these other problems going on such as the riots it becomes clear why Johnson just in the end knew he had failed and decided to not run for reelection. The next floor was really interesting to see all the gifts from different heads of state and the letters from children was something I did not expect at all. One in particular was of a 9 year old who wrote to Johnson asking for no more wars and to bring the troops home. The recreation of the oval office when Johnson lived there was also very interesting by it brought the visitors back into the time of his presidency just a little more. All and all i enjoyed going through the museum and looking through everything it had to offer.

The Museum Didn't Surprise Me at All..

I am into history and wars and all that happy stuff so I was looking forward to this. I expected what was dealt. The museum's rhetoric was obviously in his favor and gave off this glow that I ignored. What surprised me at first was the wall of pins that were worn back during his presidency. There were ones that were for his presidency, then there were those few scattered that said, "Johnson for Ex President" and "Do Away with LBJ". I was surprised that they had the negative ones, but that negative feeling left very quickly when I continued on.

The museum started by introducing him through his childhood, good grades, and accomplishments. Childhood is childhood. Then it went into his life as an officer in the U.S. naval reserve union and his silver star form Roosevelt. This is an intelligent way to start off their way of idolizing LBJ. Saying like, "Hes been there in his life and knows what it's like to fight" came into my mind because that's what they wanted us to think, but it simply faded in mine. Then I was noticing how he was constantly contacting the president Truman trying to 'help' him with decisions. He was itching to get in there! I saw it as just trying to start controlling things, but the museum made it look like he was trying to help since he was 'such an amazing president'. The museum includes such small details that puts LBJ on a pedistole.

What surprised me the most was the Gulf of Tonkin section. I knew what was coming before I even started reading. All the images of him shaking hands and smiling told me that this was not going to be what I learned. They wrote that after the Tonkin "only after he is given firm assurance that the attack occured, the president orders retaliatio against N. Vietnam". They make it sound like he had perfect reason to fight. It continued on that they were sent to send economic support and have 'advisors' sent over there to keep an eye on the North. If I had never seen teh documentaries that I have seen, I owuld have belived this. Who wouldn't believe what was written on the walls? Then it went into how they SELECTED targets in N. Vietnam when we know that villages are not targets and poisoning a village is not a target. It made me upset to read this because it makes me question what is written in my history books.

Being that this was a museum already gave off a strong ethos, but the great pictures of him and all the 'facts' that were in his favor just topped it off. No I don't know all the facts, but I'm pretty confident about what I have learned and that the museum was just trying to make him look like the nearly perfect prsident that was "just trying to do right for them [Americans] and thier children. But they couldn't see that". The final section showed that quote trying to give off that last good feeling of LBJ having the best intentions for our country. All I thought of was, "He didn't do what was right for the Vietnamese children and women." This museum does a great job in making LBJ look like an ideal president that had great intentions, intelligent, and just seemed to fit, but there is a lot behind the walls that the museum covers up. We can use this in our film and contrasting truth from the museum's perception somehow.

Field Trip!

Being not a history buff, the LBJ museum was a good experience for me because it was visual representation of that time period. Throughout this class, I have gained a lot of knowledge on the Vietnam War, however, I never put it into perspective to other events like the MLK period. I didn't realize how so much was going on during that time in our history so it was interesting to see it all layed out and linked together. 

As far as Johnson and his role in Vietnam was perceived in the museum, it definitely talked about how great he was and his accomplishments rather than pointing out the negative aspects. But what could we really expect? We are in Texas, where he is from and he was the President of the United States, not to mention it is called the "LBJ Museum." Although it didn't show both sides it was still interesting to "walk" through his life and see everything he had to deal with. I loved seeing physical evidence because it is one thing to read about something but another to see, hear, observe things first handed. I love field trips like this and thats why I'm excited to make a documentary, to be able to participate in something. I'm eager to see how our class, who just started learning and interpreting rhetoric and Vietnam, can create a documentary that portrays both! :)

Excuses, Excuses

The LBJ Museum announced its prominence before I ever entered the building simply because of its massive size. I assumed the inside of the building would not be much different and would build LBJ up as a remarkable president. This was actually far from the case. As I walked through the main level from right to left (chronological order), I felt like the museum was making excuses as to why LBJ’s presidency, especially the Vietnam aspect, was not extremely successful rather than putting him above everyone else.
I noticed this trend when I stepped inside a small room with solid black walls. Lady Bird Johnson’s quotes from the day John F. Kennedy was assassinated stood out against the wall. The font was fairly small, finally leading to a large quotation reading: “The President is dead.” Directly opposite of that quote was a picture of LBJ taking the Oath of Office in Air Force One just hours after JFK was announced dead. Finally, I turned to a painting of the Kennedy family over John’s casket. All of these images combined to make me think to myself: “Damn, LBJ became president by default in the midst of a pretty shitty situation.” It got worse. The next phase of the museum highlighted nationwide problems LBJ faced in the 1960s such as poverty and racism.When I finally reached the 1964 portion, I was blown away by the Gulf of Tonkin exhibit. Not only was there a small model of a ship in a huge glass case, but the description of the event was far from thorough. After discussing the attacks of the Gulf of Tonkin incident, the description reads: “Later there was some debate over whether the second attack actually occurred.” Yeah, no shit. It fails to explain why this led to the expansion of the war. The Gulf of Tonkin Resolution was not given the proper display to show its importance to the Vietnam War. The boat was too small, the text was too small, and the description was too short. This is quite the contrast from the bold letters “The President is Dead” that I saw at the beginning of my viewing. The museum does not highlight the Gulf of Tonkin resolution as it does the death of JFK because it was a huge blemish on President Johnson’s record. After all, museums are built to honor a particular thing, not bash it.
As I moved along to the portion solely dedicated to Vietnam, I noticed that the museum heavily emphasized how concerned LBJ was with the war. There were pictures of him watching the news from the oval office and personal quotes that showed his sympathy towards the soldiers…especially those who were drafted. This display does a decent job of displaying how destructive the war was, but it did not exactly hit my emotions hard. Burning buildings, soldier statues, I’ve seen those images plenty of times. What the museum lacked was the sense of agony and brutality that came with the war. There was one big picture of a dead soldier on a dirt road, but otherwise nothing jumped out and said “Look how awful the Vietnam War was for everyone involved.” Instead we are just told how hard it was on Johnson. Yeah he was concerned, yeah he felt bad for all the soldiers and their families, so why not get them out of there?
I found a quote by LBJ on the wall that quite interesting, it read: I can’t get out. I can’t finish with what I have. So what the hell can I do?” LBJ said this to his wife, and it reemphasizes the theme of excuses. It is as if to say he does not have the correct tools to end the war in Vietnam. This is why events like the Civil Rights movement and Cold War are found throughout the display. The museum provides the idea that LBJ simply had too much on his plate. I am not saying ending the war would have been easy because it obviously was not. However, LBJ just seemed to quit in my opinion. The exhibit continued by showing how shocked the nation was when President Johnson announced in 1968 that he would not seek reelection. The next thing I saw when I turned was the words “I tried” in bold letters. This was Johnson’s theme during his farewell address. Yeah, he tried hard, but what was the outcome? The outcome was a war that lasted far too long and a big stain on America in general. However, the museum never shows this. Instead, LBJ is displayed as a hardworking President who truly cared for his country. I am not saying this is incorrect. His accomplishments in fields like the Cold War and Civil Rights prove that he was an effective president, and these are highlighted throughout the museum. However, the LBJ museum did not choose to portray the former president as a national hero when it comes to Vietnam. That is because they have no argument, they only have excuses.

LBJ Museum and Additional Movie Idea

To start, wow I never really have gone through a museum and felt like when I left I had learned a good deal of information. First to start, like Tim mentions, when we started with the 20 minute introduction video before entering the museum I thought LBJ is a good man. The video pointed out all the high point in LBJ's career and life, which leads us to believe up until Vietnam he really was a good, driven guy. The only thing I really noticed about the film is that it didn't really seem to want to address the Vietnam issues. Of course those other than us going through the museum probably aren't looking for the same things to be pointed out to them like we are waiting for them to be pointed out to us, but still I felt the video tried to cover his Vietnam influence.

As I walked further and saw the museum up close I noticed other side notes that made me feel like again the museum itself was rhetorically covering up the incidents in Vietnam, or maybe I only notice this because I know prior to this class I would have never noticed this stuff before. When the timeline referred to the military sent over to South Vietnam as military "advisors," literally in quotation marks on the wall, I couldn't help but feel that itself was an attempt to persuade viewers of the exhibit that we were helping in all ways by being over there. Something all of us know is not true. Along with that it was pointed out to me by Allen, I'm sure he will go into detail therefore I will not take credit for this observation, that LBJ's ability to persuade was even mentioned along the timeline. Upon this being pointed out, I couldn't help but think of the rhetorical strategies he must have used, especially in the Tonkin Resolution, to get people to further back him even after his mistakes.

I also found it rhetorically persuasive how when discussing the Tonkin attacks in the timeline, it was never addressed that these attacks did not occur. I felt we saw one side of things with this part of the exhibit, but still could learn from the evidence it presented. Further in the exhibit I did enjoy and learn about LBJ's life and legacy, but these small notices were ones that made me curious as to the museum's content since it was merely one sided to me, but I guess it should be.

Switching gears to a movie idea, after visiting the LBJ museum and seeing his experience cast out for all to see, I felt making a movie about our own rhetorical experience in learning Vietnam would make for a great documentary. This may be way out in right field, but I think seeing things from our prospective and putting that out there in making the argument that although all our life we have seen it one perspective, through our studies we are able to see the other side and our learning has development about Vietnam. This could make no sense at all, but it was a thought that came to me after visiting the Museum where LBJ's journey was on display, so I thought I would put it out there. I haven't thought it all through but why not put our journey on display too?

Retracing history

Talk about taking a real walk through history. Providing a physical
timeline from the start of LBJ’s life through the end of his
presidency, the LBJ museum is an accurate and thorough reflection of an epic time in America’s past.

Since we all had the opportunity to see the exhibit for ourselves,
I’ll avoid giving an in-depth recap; though, I would like to point out
a few things that made it captivating for me personally. Firstly, the
setup of the timeline makes it so anyone over the age of 10 could
comprehend and follow the president’s life regardless of previous
knowledge. With clear signs and photos that indicate the years, the
many components of LBJ’s life that are covered appear to transition
smoothly from one to the next.

We also have the opportunity to witness snapshots from not only just
his life but also the era that surrounded it. This helped bring that
time in history to life with evidence such as background music,
original clothing, LBJ’s car, various newspapers, etc. An audience
will feel as if they are actually being transported back in time with
life-size statues and audio recordings that accurately reflect what
someone who was living during that time witnessed. Especially for a
generation that is often unaware of any of these happenings, it is
helpful to have tangible facts in the memorable forms like pictures
and displays to really put us in the right mindset.

Overall, I left the museum feeling like I gained understanding of much
more than just LBJ’s life. Reflecting back on the many images it
provided, the museum truly put much of the texts and films we have
been analyzing from class in to perspective.

LBJ's Achille's Heel: Vietnam

When visiting the LBJ museum, I wasn't really aware of what I was going to learn or what I was going to take from it, but I actually gained more than I thought. To start, when we all watched the 20 minute biopic over LBJ, everything he did seemed to be amazing, until Vietnam happened. His education, civil rights, and health care bills were greatly stressed, and were constantly brought up throughout the short film. Before then, I didn't really know that he had done all of those things, I really just knew him for the Gulf of Tonkin incident and being Kennedy's vice president. I think that was the reason why all the bills he passed were so heavily stressed, because most people, in my opinion, had the same association with LBJ, and the film was definitely trying to put him in a better light than had been cast on him. Though the short film did mention Vietnam, it just seemed to have a bad impact on everything, as I watched the film, there was a quote about LBJ being a pioneer in reform but at the wrong time, as everything he did was shadowed by the war, and I believe that is highly true, but it made it seem as though it wasn't his fault, almost like a victim. It played it off as him being in the wrong place at the wrong time, but I don't really know how much of that I bought into because he had the power to stop the war, but he didn't, and I know it is much more complicated than that but in a simplistic view that is how I felt.

In regards to the museum itself, I think it was really smart that they placed things in sections. As you walked through, it was as if you were living through each major part of LBJ's presidency at each exhibit; you went from JFK's assassination, to the civil rights movement, to LBJ's bills, and finally to the Vietnam War. One part of the JFK section of the mueseum that really struck me, was both the quotes from Lady Bird Johnson and the exhibit showing the clothes that vice presdient LBJ and his wife were wearing on the day of the assassination. For the quotes, theywere out of Lady Bird Johnson's diary and they were written in small paragraphs across the walls, but it was her voice overs, reading aloud the quotes that were really moving, the subtle differences in her tone, slight influctions of her voice, just made the words on the wall come alive as if she were talking to you, I really felt like I could feel what she was saying. The clothes was such a symbolic message and at the same time, it was almost surreal to see it because I kept wondering, are those clothes real? Were they really wearing them? The clothes themselves were not as significant, as we all wear clothes everyday and don't really rememeber what we wear a certain day, but by wearing those clothes on that day, they had forever carried another memory. It was weird to see that that was what they were wearing the day our presdient was assassinated because I guess of all things, you would think that clothes would be such a minor aspect to think about on such a tragic event, but yet when I was looking at them, it was a subtle image that evoked a deeper connection for me.

The Vietnam War portion of the museum, of course it was the most fascinating aspect for me since we are learning about it, but I felt like it gave me yet another perspective through which I could view the war. The photos of dozens of soldiers on a wall at the beginning of the exhibit ellicited a response that I didn't really expect. I looked at the wall and just looked at all the different soldiers, some were women, some were old, and some looked as old as I was. Seeing all the different faces and matching their photos with their small biographies, I couldn't help thinking, their families did this for them, no one would take the time to let people see more than just a picture than their loved ones, and I think with that, it made me feel so bad for those families that had to write "Killed in action ..." while others didn't have to write that. What differentiated the two biogrpahies? One person is still alive, and one person died 30 years ago, and it was all random, war didn't target sons over fathers, or blacks over whites, it was all by chance that the person in this photo can still take photos today, and that this photo was the last photo of this person. One last aspect of the museum I liked was the life-size sculptures of the marines and viet cong. When you look at the marines, they look huge, I was trying to see how tall they were compared to me and they were easily 4 or 5 inches taller. The uniform was something I noticed to be taken into great detail, making sure each one had a US Army tag or pockets here and etc, and the gunwas very intimidating, even as a sculpture I kind of worried some Night of the Museum magic was going to happen and I'd be next to a 6'4 soldier with a gun in my face. It was a stark contrast with the Viet Cong soldier, crouched over, he looked shorter than me already, and his clothes looked like the clothes I would see people wear to the market or around the house whenever I visited Vietnam, and he was wearing sandals "Viet Cong Sandals", a huge difference compared to the U.S. rugged combat boots. Though they were separated by a wall, you could still kind of scoot back and be able to look at both in the same perspective and it was powerful. You have the U.S. army soldier, looking like a hero from a war movie, standing tall straight and proud, with a rifle and uniform that was as intimidating as it was detailed, and you have the Viet Cong soldier, hunched over like a rat, with shabby sleepwear and sandals. It makes you seem like the U.S. are our heroes, and the Viet Cong are the villains only by the way their body stance is. I think had they put the sculptures side by side, no one would comprehend how the Viet Cong could ever beat the U.S. so it was smart to put them apart from one another.

I've always been a fan of museums, mostly for the science exhibits and the animal exhibits but never really ventured off into the political exhibits but I equally enjoyed it. I think the same effect in regards to cinema is happening to me in museum interest (not that I am an avid museum goer), in that I didn't like documentaries before beause I didn't have a background knowledge of the subject, and I didn't really like political exhibits about like war, and history, for the same reason. This really plays back with the audience and context argument in rhetoric I feel like because context to me before that I as an audience didn't really care for, has more meaning to me now that I have a new background.

Do you want us to love him or hate him?

Due to my minimal documentary watching experience, I started out, and ended, watching this movie wondering if Errol Morris wanted me to hate Mcnamera or love him. I just could not figure it out. Probably because the director would, one minute, make the implications that Mcnamera is an honest and loyal person, and then would go on to imply that he was just another politician. So which one is it?

I came to the conclusion that it was none of the above. In my opinion, the director wanted his audience to see that Mcnamera was the epitome of the phrase “fog of war” (Also the name of the documentary). He was complicated, and what he had to deal with was complicated. Not one citizen can understand what position he was in. I could be wrong, but I could also be very correct. Either way, I know the director went about this persuasion by stressing Mcnamera’s positive attributes rather than his negative.

As crooked as the some of the lines behind Mcnamera’s head during the interview were, there were just as many straight lines. As many negative characteristics of his were shown, just as many, if not more, positive characteristics were shown.

Starting out with the shot of the interview where he is talking about how every military official has made mistakes and that we should admit them in order to better himself, shows us that Mcnamera was an honest man. He admits all of his mistakes, and for the most part said the word “we” when he was pointing out all that went wrong in the Vietnam War.

The audience is forced to take Mcnamera’s side in the movie at 1:01:30 in his recording with President Johnson. This is done by turning the audience against Johnson. The President will not even let Mcnamera finish his sentences on his opinion of why we should take our troops out of the unwinnable war.

When given two people that have two different opinions, the audience feels compelled to pick ones side. In this scene, the audience has no choice but to pick the man’s side opposite of the man that does not listen to what is to be said. In this case, the audience takes Mcnamera’s side. Even though he was the Secretary of Defense, and therefore in charge of many of the murders that happened in Vietnam, this recording makes the audience believe that it was not his fault.

Mcnamera’s soft side (the side that no one sees in politicians, especially in the Secretary of Defense) is seen at 1:00:00. He talks of Kennedy’s death. The Secretary of Defense starts crying. How can the audience not feel sympathy for this man? I sure could not help myself, especially after that scene, to feel like this politician was actually a human being who felt bad for what he had done, and knows that he made mistakes.

This was no Tiger Wood’s apology. Honestly, it was no apology at all. It was an acceptance that he, along with the rest of the officials, had made mistakes. But it was authentic. It was real, and that is what made me realize what Errol Morris was trying to convince us all along. That war is complicated, and before calling someone a “son of a bitch” you have try to learn what went on behind the scenes. I learned to empathize (Mcnamera’s number one lesson).

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Anchor Management
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Health Care Reform

You Go On Ahead Maya. Do Your Thing.

I went to the inauguration this past January and I get to see the Vietnam Memorial. It was absolutely beautiful. It’s most definitely one of my favorites, so I enjoyed this documentary a lot. Seeing Maya Lin and her passion for her monument was such a refreshing turn from the other movies we have watched. So far the others have focused on the suffering and damage caused by Vietnam. This focused on the healing of a county and I really just thought it was wonderful.

Seeing her first sketch of the monument and it being transformed to the structure it is today is just mind blowing. It really tells a story of its own.

I never thought inanimate objects could have rhetoric, but this one definitely does. It tells of the people, not the politics. It shows the sorrow, pain, and acceptance of the Vietnam War and how our Country can look back and remember, but still move forward into healing. It answers the question of making a monument to honor so many different and diverse men.

As far as the one veteran saying he felt that the monument was a “black scar”, I feel he is incorrect. Many had a problem with the chronological listing of the names, but I agree with Maya Lin- taking the time to find the name and seeing it stand alone, and not in a sea of Smiths is so powerful. The design is beautiful and it really tells the story of the Vietnam War from start to finish. This monument has an argument and it makes it loud and clear. The Vietnam War may be a scar, but it is a scar to be remembered and honored and I think Maya Lin did just that through her idea for the monument. It allows us to remember and move forward.

Calmly Agree With Me

Multitudes of feelings come to mind when the word emotion is mentioned. The feeling that is emphasized the most when watching a documentary about war, is the feeling of anger. When dealing with these types of films, many of the clips are composed of real shots from the war filled with blood, bombs, and tears. Since this takes up most of the duration of the film, it is also what the audience remembers the most. The feeling of anger.

But that is exactly what Freida Lee Mock does not do in his/her documentary Maya Lin: A Strong Clear Vision Instead, they use the feeling that goes unappreciated. The feeling of calm and relaxation. When Maya Lin is talking into the camera in her “present” state, she is calm and seems unaffected by the fact that they are doing a documentary on her. This rhetoric captures the audience in a different way than the rhetoric used in most war documentaries. This is probably, because in the other war films that we saw, the director was trying to convince us that the war was a horrible thing that happened, and that the politics behind it was messy and dishonest. The director had to instill a feeling of resentment in the viewer’s mind in order to get them to believe what he/she believes.

Maya Lin: A Strong Clear Vision has more to do with the remembrance of the heroic figures. It is more about bringing the people of the country back together after tragic events. It is supposed to give the viewer a feeling of reflection and thought. The director is trying to convince the audience that sometimes it is not about the politics and the messiness. Sometimes it is just about remembering, honoring, and appreciating. These verbs give off a peaceful feeling, and do not involve anger at all.

An example of how the calm feeling of the documentary does just as good of a job as a documentary that instills anger in the viewers mind is when the camera zooms in on the years engraved in the memorial. The year when the first death occurred, and then the year when the last death occurred. Maya Lin’s soothing voice is talking about the significance of these dates, and the point is made. The 12 year span between the first death and the last gives the audience the feeling of shock, but a calming shock. A different shock than when you see a bomb destroy a whole village. This shock lets the viewer realize that this unnecessary war lasted so long killing so many people that did not need to be killed. But since the shock is a calming shock, it leads the viewer to remember the veterans, instead of worry about the mistakes made.

This is also what happens when the camera spans over the names on the wall. A long wall on which the names all become blurred together. Without attacking the government or the politics, the large number of names on the wall emphasizes the importance of each individual, and makes the viewer realize that each person was very important and meant a lot.

When the documentary first started, I thought that the bland way that Maya Lin spoke to the camera made the documentary boring, but in the middle of the film, I realized how it added to her innocence and her thoughtful insight. It made me want to listen to every word that was coming out of her mouth and put a lot of thought into it. If she had spoken any faster or louder, I would not have taken her as seriously.

To highlight the relaxing tone in Maya Lin’s voice, Freida Lee Mock places a character in the documentary that is essential to the story itself, but has a second function too. That function is to be a complete opposite of what Maya Lin is. This loud veteran completely opposes the memorial, and feels the need to bellow it out to the world. Instead of calmly explaining why he is hurt by this, he screams insignificant phrases. He does the complete opposite of what he wants to, and the viewer now likes Maya Lin even more. The audience likes the relaxing feeling that she gives out, and feels like the veteran is so out of place, which he is. In this documentary with soft music and soft voices, the veteran is different, which makes him wrong.

I love that we watched a documentary that was the complete opposite of previously watched documentaries. Up until now, I did not think that there could be an honest film made about war without implanting anger in me.

Making the Memorial

For someone who had very little knowledge about the Vietnam War memorial, this piece seems like the perfect place to begin. Not only does it talk about exactly what led Lin to create the memorial design, but it also addresses the various hurdles she had to get through in order to have it made. We see Lin's entire journey chronicled through her eyes, something I LOVED. It's always interesting to see things from the creator's point of view, mostly because it's like delving into someone's mind and taking a little peek inside. This piece also stuck out to me mainly because it was so straightforward, something that really made the biggest impact. For example how she argues against her critics so simply and plainly: she states their claim, and provides her reasoning against it. It's so effective because it gets to the point fast. And that's what makes it stick out more. Arguing is never easy. But she makes it seem that way.

"I had a simple impulse to cut into the earth". This is probably my favorite line from the entire piece. It's so strong and powerful, and it literally moves the reader. It's effective mostly because its on its own, in a separate paragraph, multiplying its effect by like a million times. She preludes the sentence by saying "The site was a beautiful park surrounded by trees, with traffic and noise coming from one side-Constitution Avenue". She then creates a separate paragraph for just that one line: "I had a simple impule to cut into the earth". The isolation of this key emotion makes it memorable and powerful: you can feel that almost animalistic impulse, and the sudden shift from a relatively peaceful paragraph to a strong and somewhat violent impulse makes the reader feel the impulse. I know it sounds ridiculous, but I swear I has an impulse to go outside and touch the "earth". It wasn't just what Lin said, but how she said it that had the biggest effect.

My grandma once told me a story about her cousin in East Texas. He only got to go to town once a year, and this particular year there was a man selling oranges at a fruit stand: 50 cents apiece. The cousin took two, spending all the money he came with, and on his way home contentedly bit into one. It was sweet, delicious, exactly as he expected. He then bit into the other. It was sour, and a strange pink color on the inside. The merchant had given him a grapefruit and an orange.

That's how these two movies struck me; they were similar enough to see they were citrus, but tasted completely different once you bit into them. Both Strong Clear Vision and Fog are meant to inform the audience -one about the architect behind the 'Nam Memorial and the other about the architect behind the 'Nam War- and both succeed. Where the difference comes in is that while SCV presents its facts in an impartial way (I guess you could argue it was pro-Maya Lin or pro-original design, but there's not a whole lot of debate as to whether Maya or her monument are "good"), Fog presents them in such a way that it makes the audience question the truth behind McNamara's statements.

SCV, as Ron pointed out, uses many long, uninterrupted shots. Much like in writing, long shots by a director usually try to present a lot of information (as opposed to short cuts/sentences that make a point), and Mock uses them to let the audience soak up as much detail as they can. There doesn't seem to be a duplicitous agenda, just a legitimate desire to inform the audience about the Memorial and how it came to be (the latter half of the movie also deals with other pieces Maya Lin has done, but I won't go into those here).

The long cuts also serve a second purpose: they are a video reflection of Maya's artistic style. The mirroring of her long, natural lines by the camera's long pan shots draws the audience closer to Maya and her works and evokes empathy when she faces opposition. These long cuts make us part of the artistic experience, so when it is threatened by a mustachioed vet we too feel threatened. It makes us actively engaged in a rather passive movie. Mock doesn't use many rhetorical devices, but when she does they're subtly felt by the audience.

In Fog, on the other hand, Morris is very overt with his rhetorical stylings. His short, disorienting cuts and angles make the audience uneasy about trusting anything that has been said. He makes us want to believe McNamara through tearful confessionals, candid moments, and looking down the barrel of the camera, but simultaneously questions those very sentiments with a skewed camera angle. Morris doesn't try to say "all this is true/false" (perpendicular lines in the background during the interview), but rather "this is what he says is true, I'm just reporting it" (slanted nature of aforementioned perpendicular lines). He stays away from the heavier handed tactics that flooded H&M, and comes out looking more honest and forthcoming because of it. We trust Morris because he doesn't say something is clear cut black or white, even if we don't trust what his subject is saying.

As much as Fog treats the trust of its subject differently than SCV, they do share a similarity in how they are structured around said subject (after all, the introductory anecdote talked about grapefruits and oranges, not apples and oranges). Much like SCV's long cuts mirrored Maya's artistic stylings and drew the audience closer because of it, Fog's numbered parts (1-11) reflect McNamara's strong analytical thinking and makes us part of said rationale. Instead of creating empathy, as SCV does, this structuring instead reinforces the aforementioned feeling of the truth being twisted in some way. While we're inclined to trust McNamara because he's a primary source, we're also wary of said trust because all of his anecdotes and digressions are artificially arranged to support these 11 points. It forces us to delve deeper into the film so that we can try to figure out who we can trust (something I still haven't figured out).

In Making the Memorial, I felt truly sympathetic toward Maya Lin and the situation she had to go through for creating the monument. The reasons she gave for her idea of the memorial and the medium really made sense to me after reading the article.
I have been to the Vietnam War Memorial in Washington D.C and I have always felt curious to why she chose to use black granite rather than something more traditional like white marble. Her goal was to make the surface reflective and peaceful and create a mirrored effect. Indeed, she did create the illusion of two world, "one we are a part of and one we cannot enter." The black granite was pretty subtle and somehow creates the idea that it is part of the earth.
The idea that she described as "taking a knife and cutting into the earth, opening it up and initial violence and pain that in time would heal. The grass would grow back, but the initial cut would remain a pure flat surface..." Her description makes you think that its a brilliant idea that could not have done any better. The Vietnam War was not a very proud moment in our history and there are still veterans out there that continue to feel the pain. All the violence was uncalled for and gone but the wounds still remain. It just makes sense that the granite would give the illusion as if it were part of the ground because the war did leave wounds and pain...but in time that would heal, leaving a scar and a memory behind.
Maya Lin did an excellent job in emphasizing the names of everyone who served in the war. So many precious, innocent lives were lost during this war and it would only be appropriate to remember them, individually. "The ability of a name to bring back every single memory you have of that person is far more realistic and specific and much more comprehensive than a still photograph..." It is true, there is something meaningful about seeing and hearing a person's name. I've heard it described in many different occasions by people who have lost loved ones that hearing a person's name really hits home.
I understand that such a monument would cause controversy because it was an unpopular war but it was wrong for it to be judged as "too Asian". When I read this, I became really upset. I couldn't believe that this piece that was meant to unite, would be judged just because it was created by a certain person. Great ideas should never be discarded because of the person who thought of it, that doesn't take away from the fact that it is still a great idea.
One example that came to mind was of Albert Einstein. No one discarded his great ideas and contributions to World War II just because he was from the enemy country. I understand that ignorance still exists in the world but judging her monument, which was meant to be neutral, was wrong.
Knowing the meaning behind the monument really helped me better understand it and I can't wait to see it again.

Maya Lin

In comparison to Fog of War, I found Maya Lin to be more interesting. I guess Maya Lin was more effective to me because her interviews were taken in a more casual, normal setting instead of a gray room with the background all weird and tilted. Her interviews were also taken at different times so you could see how much she had changed and how much she stayed the same. The use of actual footage of the press conferences and televised interview were also effective in that you know what you were seeing was real.

Another thing I noticed about the location of the interviews were those of the two war veterans and the jury chairman. The veterans were interviewed in offices while the jury chairman was interviewed in what looked like to be a home. This surprised me because I would've expected that it would be the other way around. When I think of a war veteran, I think of people like the men shown in Hearts and Minds. These men were interviewed in casual settings but these two veterans in Maya Lin were in offices. I forget sometimes that veterans in general are more than just former soldiers - they are also men in the workforce. I guess I just had that image of a war veteran sitting on his house porch reminiscing about Vietnam.

Rhetorically speaking, I found it interesting that the director chose to show Lin's perspective and description of her background and upbringing during the second half of the documentary. It was different than the chronological structure that I think others would've done. When the issue of her nationality and ethnic background was brought up at the first half, I wondered myself if Lin was Vietnamese or Chinese. My curiosity wasn't satisfied until she said she was Chinese but that wasn't until much later.

I was very impressed with Lin's work and passion for art. I admire her for her artistic gift and how she views the environment and uses this to create beautiful structures. The Civil Rights memorial to me was especially creative and powerful and I liked how water was used to connect to Martin Luther King Jr.'s quote.

When I was 16, I attended a health care conference in Washington, D.C. and actually visited the Vietnam memorial. I really didn't appreciate the memorial like I should have, but I feel this was due to my lack of knowledge about the Vietnam war. I did not know what the memorial meant and what it stood for. Now after learning about the war and watching this documentary, I appreciate all the work and hardship that Maya Lin went through.

Baby Maya

Maya Lin was definately different than the other documentaries that we have watched in this class. I sat down expecting some action and emotion. Yes, there was emotion and controversey, but the way this director presented the situation lessened the intensity. The feelings that I got, were sympathy for her, but that went away rather quickly.

I did feel really bad for Maya when she was called a 'gook' that was designing the Vietnam memorial. People honestly just try to make things difficult to find conflict. It's insane. She was an innocent American that wanted to use her talent to benefit America and America was not welcoming. America means diversity and this movie showed judgement. The director did not focus on that as much as they did on the verterans opposing the memorial. The documentary spent the most time on this, but the intensity was not there. This was very different than Hearts and Minds in that sense and felt like it was just a story about Maya Lin starting her career that lend into a successful one. It was somewhat inspiring, but did not grab me like the other documenteries. I honestly got bored and it lost my attention. I truly enjoyed seeing her final products, but it felt like they were dragging it out. After Hearts and Minds, I was trying to pull out the rhetorical strategies, but I had such a hard time. Yes, some shots of her face were memorable and made us feel sympathy for her, but the power was not there. There were close ups of the conflicting men that made some of an impact, but I never got that emotional reaction that other directors were able to do. Between the dark lighting and the sensitivity of her voice, the documentary was just passive.

Even though I felt it wasn't as strong, I did enjoy learning about her and her story. She was a strong person and I was inspired. I felt I was learning about Maya more than the Vietnam memorial.

Maya Lin

            Is the Vietnam War remembered as a strong clear plan, with definite intentions and victory? No. But I believe that was the point of Maya Lin’s monument, she wanted it to be simple to contrast the chaos of that time. Similarly the documentary had this same stark feel. Although I did learn from this documentary there were no surprises, no special effects, not even voice inflection, which left me uninterested and unenthused.

            I have been to the Vietnam Memorial yet I never looked into who designed it. I can’t believe that Maya Lin was practically my age and was such a source of national debate. The documentary showed how dedicated she was to her architecture, her original design and her poise in handling dissenting opinions.

I thought it was very telling in the beginning of the documentary when Scruggs explained that, “it was obvious the government was not going to build a monument”.  I could sense the tension in his words about this issue. This was a red flag that there would be controversy over the monument, and from then on I could predict pretty much everything to come in the rest of the documentary. 

The addition of the civil rights monument displays her precision and importance of detail, with a meaning to everything. Maya Lin puts great emphasis on psychologically and emotionally capturing viewers. I only wished that the director of Maya Lin: A Strong Clear Vision, Frieda Lee Mock, had done the same. 

Black Art

Black Art
What’s my reason for this title? It’s simple, Maya Lin’s art was black, so were the directors’ intentions on this documentary. Throughout of the entire documentary, when Maya Lin was being interviewed, she was in her room (assuming that it was her room) and it was dark with little light from the outside. Compared to McNamara in Fog of War, McNamara was talking directly into the camera, but in the light. He portrayed and kept up with Maya’s ideal intentions of the Vietnam War memorial very well because he played with the black theme/concept and played with her words through the technicality of filming making. When the others were being interviewed, they were in the light, probably to a difference in mood and feelings. Every time Maya was being interviewed I felt a sense of seriousness and meaning because her voice was non-playful. Every time she spoke I felt like she had something very important to say just by her choice of words and how she spoke them. Many of Maya Lin’s work revolved around names, time, and choice of material. Another thing interesting that plays with the black theme is how Maya was shown working and drawing a lot, in the dark with little light. It’s pretty ironic because an artist usually needs light to see, and she was always designing or reading something with minimal lighting in the room. Proof that the director played with the black theme until the very end was at the very end, how everything took a while to fade into blackness, but it was fading nonetheless. The choice of choosing black as the color for the wall of the Vietnam War Memorial was interesting because of how it strong it was. I’ve been to the actual memorial myself. Although I wasn’t around when the Vietnam War happened, just looking at the names on the wall was breath-taking. I stood there on the sidewalks of the memorial, just thinking really deep about how I was looking at a persons’ name that served in the Vietnam War, and died. I had mixed feelings about the wall because at one point, I was extremely sad that I was looking at names of ones that passed away, but I felt patriotic because I felt honored that these soldiers sacrificed their lives for the country I live in. One thing that stood out to me when looking at the wall was that, I could see myself. This was extremely interesting to me because if you notice and take a look at the title, it says, “A Strong Clear Vision,” under Maya Lin. The wall was clear! I could see myself in the wall! It might sound silly but it makes so much sense when analyzing this because the wall has so much meaning to it. I hadn’t realized it until now because I see the two put together, the documentary and the actual wall. Although the documentary spoke of other designs Maya built, I felt that the Vietnam War Memorial was stressed the most in the documentary just because that’s what jump started her career as an architect. Even though other designs were mentioned, the setting was still the same; not so much light, dark, serious when Maya was presented/interviewed and just casual for the most part. I think the color black is portrayed very powerfully in this film because it could have so many deep meanings, one of which Maya said, “If we can't face death, we'll never overcome it. You have to look it straight in the eye. Then you can turn around and walk back out into the light.” Looking into the black wall, I saw death, I couldn’t believe the amount of deaths there were, but I see and feel the truth to it, those looking into the wall, had to come to the realization of death.

A Strong Clear Vision… Literally

After watching both Hearts and Minds and Fog of War, I was anxious to crack open the Netflix envelope and see what Maya Lin had in store. I’ll admit I have never usually been an avid documentary fan, though the assignments in this class have exposed me to a unique take on images and events that are ordinarily portrayed by actors. I have been able to stray from any “history is boring” stereotypes by seeing Vietnam illustrated in a creative and eye-opening manner. Espe

Unfortunately, Maya Lin strayed from my high expectations. I was taken back to the days in high school when your teacher resorted to playing a VCR-recorded History Channel documentary after a test during which classmates either doodled, did homework or slept. Not to say that the material wasn’t respectable, but the way it was filmed was quite literally a strong, clear vision of Maya Lin’s story… and nothing else.

The story progressed as a conventional documentary would, gluing interviews in between narrated scene shots. We were given the timeline exactly as it occurred: Maya Lin entering contest, winning contest, and moving forward to future endeavors. Although there was a slightly unpredictable time in which people opposed her piece getting selected for the memorial, there wasn’t enough emotion for me personally to truly feel the significance of the film-especially having visited the life-changing structure myself.

Perhaps there were different motives with this film. Maybe filmmaker, Freida Lee Mock, wanted it to be a simple reflection of the story without any potentially interpretive elements.For me personally though, there could have been more passion involved to portray such an important monument displaying such a memorable time in history.

Maya Lin

When I went to Washington DC for the first time and saw the Vietnam War Memorial I felt different than I had the entire trip. There was just something about it, something so…personal. In the essay Making the Memorial, Maya Lin explains that she thought the actual name of a soldier that died or went missing in battle was most moving for a memorial. I find this perspective very similar to that of the one I (along with most of the class) had about the documentary Hearts and Minds. The actual footage seemed to make everyone realize just how real and horrific the Vietnam War was, and I think Maya Lin’s design of the Vietnam War Memorial does the same.
I thoroughly enjoyed this essay because Maya Lin firmly stayed separated from the political mess surrounding Vietnam and focused solely on the lives lost. “This apolitical approach became the essential aim of my design; I did not want to civilize war by glorifying it or by forgetting the sacrifices involved. The price of human life in war should always be remembered,” Maya explains. I believe Lin’s unconventional approach to creating the memorial was perfect because the Vietnam War was unlike any conflict the United States participated in until that time. A typical war memorial probably consists of a few statues of soldiers, an inspiring message, or maybe an American flag. However, none of these grab the emotions of its viewers like the Vietnam Memorial.
So why did it take so long for a memorial such as this one to exist in the United States? It is because we do not want to accept the truth. Think about how many discussions we have had in class where most of us agree a particular book or film was bias towards the US. If you recall, Jim Shepard believed movies like Saving Private Ryan left Americans feeling invulnerable because of its prideful story and ending. The same can be said about many memorials. The majority of them are beaming with pride and elegance. However, those same memorials probably do not cause people to cry when they view it. Many people did not want to accept the fact that we were not accomplishing much in Vietnam, just like they do not want to accept death, as Maya Lin points out in her essay. The Vietnam Memorial leaves its viewers with no choice but to accept death, which is what makes it so personal. I have been to the World War II memorial and I cannot remember exactly what my initial thoughts were, but I know I did not immediately think of all the lives lost in the war. Maya Lin created something that was real, and it is reality that hits us the hardest.

The Black Scar

We are privileged to gain insight as to Maya Lin’s monuments, the reasons behind these creations, and the specifics as to why the designs and monuments look as they do today. Although she is a very skilled architect and creates very moving sculptures, I don’t think that her there was anything rhetorical to be deducted from the movie (we don’t have to look very hard to figure out how she connected with the audience, etc.). She comes out right and says why she made the sculpture the way she did and why certain elements were used or not; she specifically mentioned the purpose and what she hoped for people to take away from her artwork.

However, this is not to down play Maya’s intelligence. It is actually the opposite. By telling us all of her thoughts on the sculptures she made she is reinforcing her knowledge of rhetoric—the rhetoric of images rather than spoken or written word. Rhetoric is about the relationship the author has with the audience. Maya took the time and effort to research these particular groups and try to understand their cause thereby allowing here to appeal to their emotions. With the Martin Luther King memorial, Maya attempted to understand the pressure and pain the people who would visit the memorial, at least initially, would feel. Part of rhetoric is connecting with the audience through personal experiences (i.e. Jon Stewart’s Rock ‘n’ Roll Hall of Fame speech) and Maya, going through the pain, doubt, and pressures she experienced while building the Vietnam Memorial, was able to relate, in a way, with the family members at the memorial—not in a physical way mind you, but rather in an emotional way; the way the water moved around the ellipse and how it tied into the words inscribed into the marble.

I, like Ron, could not find a rhetorical message in the film. It appeared as if the director was just highlighting Maya's life centered around architecture. Unlike the previous films which, due to political context I assume, had a clear and defined message, this one seemed blank, as if it was a simple biography.

Maya Lin

This documentary to me was for the most part boring at times by how slowed it seemed and how calm of a tone it was at times. However I enjoyed the scene discussing the Vietnam Memorial and the controversy that surrounded the design. Being able to hear Maya Lin's vision of the memorial and why she designed it really brought light to why it was just a wall with names. Her idea that the wall was to be a place for Veterans to make their own and bring whatever they want to honor their fellow comrades helped to make sense to me why a simple wall with names would be a perfect memorial. The final scene helped to show this by how you see scenes of veterans bringing flowers and other items to the wall to honor their friends and family they lost to the war. Besides this seeing how the opposition was so strong against the wall was something I had never seen or heard before so that helped to tell me that the wall was not something that came about so easily. One aspect I really enjoyed was watching Maya Lin develop as an architect however though these different scenes were too me just very boring, but it was still interesting to hear her thoughts and what went on her head to come up with the designs. All and all though I found this documentary to be my least favorite because of how slow and boring it was at times, I just could not really get that into it. Hearts and Minds and Fog of War kept my focus throughout the movies while this one I found myself losing my focus and interest at times.

Maya Lin

Maya Lin. Undergraduate student at Yale University. Chinese American. 21 years old. Designer of the Vietnam War Memorial.

Who would have guessed that the Vietnam Memorial was designed by an architecture student at Yale? Who would have guessed that the time and work she put into creating a monument would leave visitors in such silence and grief of all the innocent lives lost?

I found Maya Lin truly amazing. Her design beat out nearly 1400 other competitors. Although her design was plain and simple, it impacts viewers emotionally on a personal level. Of course, like any other good deed that tries to be done, there were the news articles shunning Lin for being an Asian, designing an Asian Memorial. It was simply ironic that she was Chinese when she was chosen anonymously. She received many criticism and harassment because of her ethnicity but she still stood strong. I think she was able to stay strong throughout this phase and move on to create the most remarkable memorial that has yet been created.

Maya Lin had many people to convince from changing her design, because everything had a meaning behind it. Her design was first controversial because it was a non-traditional design for a war memorial. One contradicting issue I found was keeping the granite black. I have personally visited the Vietnam Memorial, and the granite does leave behind a feeling of sadness and loss from all the lives taken during bravery. It is a huge difference in the atmosphere when you visit the Lincoln Memorial and right when you step into the Vietnam Memorial surroundings. Silence breaks amongst and sadness begins to fill your heart. Lin spoke the truth on how a memorial should really be about the reality of war, loss of life in war, and remembering those who served and especially those who died. Designing the memorial to where all the men who served were listed on the wall brought out the memorial even more. Knowing the history behind the Vietnam Memorial development makes me want to go back and visit the Vietnam Memorial again.

A Vietnam Memorial: Maya Lin's Simple Mesasge

After I watched Maya Lin, I had to write about it right away because I had so many different thoughts about the movie. I really liked the beginning scenes about the Vietnam War Memorial Wall, I was effortlessly captivated by everything I was watching. To know how strongly people opposed it, how it came about, who supported it, all of the background knowledge you don't get from just looking at pictures was information I found really interesting. For me, the first half of the movie was amazing, but the second half of the movie was more or less not as interesting. I think the transition of her work from the memorial to her later works were necessary in the documentary's progress through her work as an architect but had it been solely based on the Vietnam War Memorial I would've liked it a lot more. Not that I wasn't a fan of the latter half of the movie, I just felt disconnected because I hadn't been studying and researching civil rights, or women at Yale, we had been focused on the Vietnam War and reading about it and in turn becoming apart of its history with our progress through our class. I think it was with this connection with what the author had written, in this case what Maya Lin had designed, that I became enveloped in her cause. I could feel the pain and emotion as I looked at the wall and saw all the names on the screen. In its vastness is where the emotion was provoked, in its vastness and simplicity was where Maya Lin engraved the sacrifice of these countless people so it would forever be remembered that they fought for our country.
In many ways Maya Lin is an amazing rhetorician. On the surface her design is simple, but on a deeper level, its connection and message to the author is undoubtedly breathtaking. This message however, was not recognized by all audiences right away, i.e. those who opted to add a statue and flag, which I thought were completely unnecessary and like Maya Lin said took away from the memorial rather than add. In her design, it was so simple compared to the ones shown in the contest but it held so much power. I think this was due to the fact that she knew that those who would visit the memorial would be those who had family or friends who died in the war, so there was already an emotional attachment that the audience was coming with and need not be created by the piece itself. In this way, Maya Lin understood who this memorial was for and why it would work the way she designed it, she understood her audience. As we are reminded time and time again, rhetoric is very much based on your relationship with your audience and I think in this instance, Maya Lin nailed it. For a loved one to scroll through and look through a sea of Smiths would make them feel as though their loved one was just another Smith, but by chronologically placing the names their loved one had a place in history to call their. I think the simple placement of names was such a powerful symbol to use. Had she used sculptures or pictures, she could not have expressed the number of soldiers killed but by using names, she was able to solidify each and every sacrifice in memory forever; and because we know each name belong to a son, a father, a brother, or a friend, its emotional power is immense once we see how many names are on the wall.
I know I focused heavily on the subject matter of the Vietnam War Memorial Wall aspect of the movie, but I feel all of us would have generally geared towards this side of the movie because we have a connection with the Vietnam War. Not having a connection with the latter half of the movie indefinitely swayed my interest for the bad, as I became increasingly disinterested as time progressed and even became sleepy. Overall I believe the movie was more than just the memorial as it showed the strength and courage of Maya Lin's designs and how even without a voice, everyone could hear their message, but it was the Vietnam War Memorial that I connected the closest with and therefore was most attracted to.

Maya Lin's dedication to her vision!

Maya Lin the documentary really showed the strength in Maya Lin's dedication to her work. The memorial she designed was strong in her eyes and her defending of it was something that stood out to me while watching the film. When addressing groups of people about her vision, I noticed her rhetorical strategy of stating that she was not good at addressing people in order to draw people into the amazing things she was about to say about her work. Also, through the film I was amazed by her words that described her vision. She says straight out in the beginning of the film that she wanted people to cry when seeing her memorial. This to me is a rhetorical strategy, pulling out all human emotion upon touching and seeing names of loved ones that are not forever gone in these loved ones hearts. She also says that these loved ones need to accept and admit pain, again pulling at not just the viewers of the memorial's emotions but also at the viewers of the film. The way she strategically described the cutting of the earth and pointing one end to Lincoln and another to Washington was interesting to me and also was a way to draw viewers in as if they were viewing the memorial itself rather than a film. She focused on death as a private matter all through out the film which makes viewers of the film, or at least me, recall deaths of loved ones and tugged at emotions that made viewers like us feel involved in her process.

Much like in the film in the article "Making of the Memorial" Maya Lin uses some of the same phrases and techniques to make us feel like she is presenting the memorial to us individually. When she used the evidence of the tally of Smiths that had died in the war it made me completely agree to her chronological order of the names, I agreed it was "key to the experience." She also draws us in because of her innocence when she admits that it never occurred to her that she would win. This makes us feel she was an extreme underdog, which technically she was, and makes us root for her. I also loved how she addressed the fact that all the names on her design were presented as equals, all names that served no matter what race, creed, or sex which makes us again agree to her memorial.

All in all I loved hearing Maya Lin's story both through the documentary presentation that showed her view and hard work and through her story in the "Making the Memorial" article. Her color choice, simplicity and hard work all made me glad she was the one who created such a great memorial.

Maya Lin's Strong and Clear Vision

Maya Lin is a gifted architecture and it was awesome to hear her story and process of the Vietnam Memorial. Being such a young student competing with thousands of entries from some of the most well known architectures in the U.S. put her at a long shot at winning. Her design was not elaborate compared to some of the others; I think the panel of judges should get a lot of credit for not dismissing it because it seemed so simple, even though it was far from it. It is an incredible design that is so complex but at the same time is not. It is so inspiring that she is so far from being a veteran but she was still able to wrap her mind around what happened and was able to capture everything that needed to be and display it in such a way. 

It was interesting to think about why some of the veterans were so opposed to the design, was it her race, gender, age, or did they really not think the piece was the best design? She had to encounter a lot of negative critics but she handled herself very well and I liked how she was strong and didn't budge in her design because it would mess up the entire meaning of the art. I also liked how the director focused mainly on the Memorial and how it affected Maya Lin rather than how Maya Lin affected the Memorial; she didn't need to say much because she explained that it's the audiences job to interpret the Memorial instead of her explaining every step of her process. 

I agree with Ron when he the Vietnam Memorial was the most interesting. Although it was interesting seeing her other pieces of architecture (especially the glass one), the Vietnam Memorial seemed to be the only relevant thing to us, I'm sure it is only because that is what we are studying. If we were in an architecture class the whole documentary would be relevant.