Global Media Project group shot
Global Media Seminar with James Der Derian, John Santos, and chihuahuas

Global Media Project group shot
The 2007 Global Media class prepares for its psycho-geographic drift to the Providence Mall to see The 300

Global Media Project group shot
John Phillip Santos, James Der Derian and Eugene Jarecki with the inaugural 2006 Global Media class (and Che T-shirts)

« The (S)pace of International Relations | Main | Helvetica VBlog »

Documentary Review of 13 Days

Rosalinda Pascual
INTL 1800
Film Review
3/5/2008

“Was it a 20 mm or 40 mm sparrow?”

Watching 13 Days was a strange experience. As I sat down and watched the movie, I kept thinking about my grandfather, Dario Prohias Bello. Although I’m sure you’re wondering why this is relevant, I promise I have a point. My grandfather was a Cuban-American who had received the Purple Heart after being injured during World War II. After this, he had returned to Cuba and was asked by his half-sister to help get her son (who was at the age for military draft) get out of Cuba. My grandfather told her that he could not bring upon himself that kind of attention because there were circumstances out of his hands. Although I’m hesitant to believe the family rumor that he was a spy, his secrecy is still intriguing. My grandfather’s story reminded me of the political (war) games present in 13 Days, along with other films such as 3 Days of the Condor. Certain actions must be sacrificed in order to protect the the possibility of greater actions.

The movie 13 Days signifies the crucial secrecy and manipulation of information during the Cuban Missile Crisis. The film starts with a scene of an Air Force U-2 spy plane. This plane was developed for surveillance purposes during the Cold War, and in the movie is used to capture still photographs of Cuba. Before completely revealing what the pictures are, we are introduced to the character, Kenny O’Donnell (Kevin Costner), the special assistant to the President. After leaving his wife and kids, which resembles the traditional 50’s family, he goes to work at the White House. When Kenny is in the Oval Office with President Kennedy (Bruce Greenwood), the pictures show USSR missiles being stationed in amongst the island greenery of Cuba.

The pictures taken by U-2 planes become essential to the political interpretations that unfold the Cuban Missile Crisis. In War and Cinema, Paul Virilio writes “There is no war, then, without representation, no sophisticated weaponry without psychological mystification. Weapons are tools not just of destruction but also of perception” (Virilio, 6). 13 Days relates how political action and the presence of weaponry can instill enough fear of a potential war that, in the case of the Crisis, causes the Soviet Union to pull out.

After much debate, JFK, his brother Robert (Steven Culp), and the Executive Committee plan out the possibility of airstrikes on USSR missiles sites in Cuba, as well as, an invasion of the island. At the suggestion of Secretary of Defense, Robert McNamara (Dylan Baker), the President decides to put a blockade on Cuba. In fact, McNamara plays a key role in defining the importance of language. During a heated discussion with Admiral George Anderson (Madison Mason), McNamara argues “This is not a blockade. This is language. A new vocabulary, the likes of which the world has never seen! This is President Kennedy communicating with Secretary Khrushchev!” This line expresses the foundation of the movie and of the crisis. The Cuban Missile Crisis, as displayed by the film, is about the interpretation of actions made by the two superpowers, USA and Soviet Union.

The plot is driven by the fear of White House officials that the Soviet Union will interpret actions poorly and choose to enter a nuclear war. Throughout the film, they sit on the edge of their seats to watch how US officials deliver the political messages of the White House. When Adlai Stevenson (Michael Fairman), the ambassador to the UN, goes to speak to the Russian ambassador and explain why the US is placing force upon them. The President and his advisory staff fear that Adlai is too old to present their case with strength; he surprises everyone when he says “Sir, I am prepared to wait for your answer ‘til Hell freezes over, if that is your decision.” The tensions calm down in the White House as the Executive Committee see his force in challenging the Ambassador’s lies about the presence of USSR missiles in Cuba.

However, there is a constant struggle with communication. Whether generals disagree with the President or certain actions are misinterpreted (such as the flares shot above a Russian ship that McNamara confuses for bombs), the White House officials must constantly seek open contact with other US officials or with Soviet officials. Kenny O’Donnell says, at one point, “Communicate with the Soviets? We can't even communicate with the Pentagon. And they're just across the goddamn river.” These circumstances show the advanced technology created during the Cold War, as well as, the inefficiency of their methods that would not be resolved until times passes.

Communication is often kept between a limited number of people and done without the permission of many people. O’Donnell, himself, calls soldiers flying U-2 planes to capture images of Cuba. The first one he calls is a commander whom he informs, must not get shot because the government will protect him, but that involves starting a war. He basically asks Commander William B Ecker (Christopher Lawford) to not give the White House any reason to defend this commander. When the commander’s plane is shot (it was just the wing which did not prevent the plane form being flown back), he says he was it by sparrows. He calls it a “bird strike.” The title of this review is a line from this scene, asked by an Air Force crewmember that clearly sees they are bullet holes. The commander even tells his generals that he was not shot at.

This way, the Generals and the Kennedy’s can focus on the actual pictures he, and the other pilot who assisted him, captured. The use of photography in this movie is essential to the plot, as well as, the importance of media in political stand-offs. Stevenson, the Ambassador who embarrasses the Soviet ambassador, uses the photographs to prove that the Soviets are lying. There really are offensive missiles in Cuba that are near complete operational use.

Although there are so many aspects to politics in this movie, only so much can be entertained. The importance of this film is the connection between photography (and media as a whole) and political communication. The images in the photographs and throughout the film support the threats that President Kennedy is willing to make against the Soviets. At a suspenseful moment towards the end of the crisis, O’Donnell tells his wife “If the sun comes up tomorrow, it is only because of men of good will. That is all there is between us and the devil.” This line sums up the fear that war implements in our lives. All we can hope for is a strong political figure who can convince the ‘other side’ that we are better; we are stronger (even if we are just as scared as they are).

______________________________________________________________________________
References
-13 Days Directed by Roger Donaldson. New Line Cinema, 2000.
- Virilio, Paul. War and Cinema. Published by Verso books, 1989.

Comments

Rosaline

A fine intertext of the personal, political, and the literary. You do the film justice, and add your own voice to the mix with real eloquence and empathy: a reminder that everyone has their story, and just how close we came to never hearing the next generation's reaction to those 13 Days.


VTY
JDD

Rosalinda,

I think that it was important for you to bring forth the constant struggle in communication within the United States administration, embodied in O’Donnell’s frustration: “Communicate with the Soviets? We can't even communicate with the Pentagon. And they're just across the goddamn river.” I had not really paid attention to the dichotomy that existed with the U.S. trying to communicate with the Soviets, and, on the other hand, with the lack of understanding and communication within the U.S. administration.

But I wanted to add, when thinking about the end, that I found O’Donnell’s following quote very clumsy: “If the sun comes up tomorrow, it is only because of men of good will.” I would suggest that the same men he refers to also are men who have used their power negatively in the world. After all, the Bay of Pigs Invasion was commandeered under Kennedy’s presidency, and the Vietnam War did not cease under his helm. If it were not for these men to begin with, there might have never been danger of war, and this sounded just too “Hollywood” for me.

Marie,

You make a very good point. And, in fact, I used that line because I didn't want to label the men as good or bad. In my opinion, all these men of power tend to be a bit of both. But simply, I was addressing that major events, such as the Cuban Missile Crisis, Bay of Pigs invasion, or the Vietnam war, are controlled by these men. It doesn't matter if they use their power for good or evil, as long as the idea of "good will" would keep them from destroying something or someone.
I was also approaching the use of the term "good will" as subject to these men's personal whims. In other words, I didn't use that quote because I thought these political figures were actually 'men of good will.' I meant that as long as they act like they are and they make decisions based on that epithet, then that is our only chance for politically endorsed violence (well, in respect to a full-blown war) to be prevented or at least, restricted from becoming more destructive.

A WATSONBLOG, hosted by THE WATSON INSTITUTE FOR INTERNATIONAL STUDIES at BROWN UNIVERSITY