MovieChat Forums > Casualties of War (1989) Discussion > "What would you have done?"

"What would you have done?"

posted 9 years ago by andyk888
3 replies | jump to latest

I've scoured through the topics on this board and have found a severely minimal discussion on tackling this horrific question. Eriksson asks this of his friend after the event, and to me it is THE question that the director unconsciously asks of his audience.

Whilst I was watching the scenes unfold, I felt severely for Eriksson and his struggles with duty, law, and moral right. But if you believe what I believe in, then Eriksson was the ONLY protection this poor lady had. HE was her guardian angel, and was given many opportunities and resources to protect her. The pre-rape scenes were obviously disturbing, but when it was obvious that this was only going one way, Michael J Fox's character chooses to sit out completely. As a 26 yr old man, I couldn't help but think if I was Eriksson. Yes a bad mess he found himself in, but I felt he was given the opportunity to protect her spirit and her life. It would not have been murder - and I believe in the legal system that it would've protected Eriksson had he shown that women grace and compassion and killed Meserve.

What are your thoughts? Does rape constitute deadly self defence? I am of the belief that rape is the worst of all crimes, and so morally, killing Meserve was the right thing to do (and Clarke if it came to it). I don't know exactly how I would have acted, but I think the moment when he walks away and she begins to struggle, that would have been the right time to begin shooting. Thoughts?

[–] tlw013-1 9 years ago

I think it would've been justified

[–] cara-stone 9 years ago

I think it would've been justified - no doubt - but if he had done that, he never would've made it out of the jungle alive and the girl still would've been killed. He would've had to kill at least 3 ppl (Diaz would've relented, I think). No way would he have been able to do that single-handedly. Men who tried to do the right thing in these types of circumstances were killed by 'friendly fire,' probably more than we'll ever know.

[–] SealordJohn 8 years ago

When I was growing up, I was brainwashed by American war movies that only the enemy committed atrocities, not our side. As a result, when my country needed me (the draft), I volunteered instead of waiting until I was drafted. And because I was naive, gullible and believed in our government, I even volunteered for Vietnam.
So if I ever got involved in a situation like that that was depicted in this movie, I believe I would have tried to do something to protect this girl. Even if she was a confirmed enemy, unless she tried to kill one of us, I would have tried to protect her as a prisoner.
If I believed her to be an innocent civilian, it would be better to either hide her or help her escape and make it look unintentional. If I believed her to be an enemy, I would try to convince my squad that she would be a good source of information for our interrogators. Therefore, she would be more valuable alive than dead. And I would remind the squad that if she tried to file charges about the rape, with her being an enemy, she would not be believed.
But if I did not have support from my squad, that would put me in danger of being fragged just like what happened in this movie to Eriksson. That would make things uncomfortable for me since I would now have to protect myself from my own squad as well as the enemy.
Sad to say this, but I would hate to be a female civilian during a war.