GORDON'S WAR

US, 1973, 90 minutes, Colour.
Paul Winfield, Carl Lee, David Downey, Tony King, Grace Jones.
Directed by Ossie Davis.

Gordon’s War is interesting insofar as it reflects the early 1970s, the experience of the Vietnam war, African Americans in American society and the growing proliferation of drugs.

Gordon’s War is his postscript to his experience in Vietnam. Gordon (Paul Winfield) returns from Vietnam to find his wife a drug addict and dead. He enlists the help of three of his buddies from Vietnam and they go in search of the drug dealers to destroy them.

This was also the period of the beginning of the blaxploitation action film with such heroes as Fred Williamson and Pam Grier. This film fits into this pattern as well.

The film was directed by veteran actor Ossie Davis who performed for many decades, often with his wife Ruby Dee, right up until his death at the age of eighty-eight in 2005. He was a social activist for African American rights. During the 1970s he directed five films including Cotton Comes to Harlem.

This film belongs to its period – but is interesting to gauge perspectives on the place of African Americans in the cities, in the drug scene, and their experience of the war in Vietnam.

1. The implications of the title of the film? Its connection with the Vietnam background? The vigilante war? The fact that Gordon was a hero and the implication that his war was good?

2. Comment on the impact of the credit sequences: the song and the collage style of Gordon's memories? How did this prepare us for Gordon's War? What emotional response was it expecting from the audience?

3. What do you think would be the impact of this film on a black audience in America? Why? What impact would it have on a white audience in America? Why? How is this different from the impact on an audience outside America? Why? Was the film too American? What was the attitude of the film towards drugs and drug exploiters?

4. What attitudes did it presuppose in its audience? How was this evident? Was Gordon's anger understandable? His grief at what he found? Did this give him the right to vengeance? Why did he not go to the law for vengeance? Why did he go outside the law? Did the film approve of this? Did it suggest a legal alternative? Reactions to vigilante groups? What did the film offer in favour of such a vigilante group?

5. Did the film criticise the vigilante group? What arguments can be offered against such a group? Have they the right to work outside the law, even if they have seeming right on their side? What are the implications of vigilante groups for legal systems

6. Comment on the film technique used for Gordon's getting his friends to join him. Showing the friends in their ordinary situations, his appearing as some kind of angel, messenger of vengeance, and getting them to join him? Why were they so loyal to him?

7. Impressions of them as an army? Their technical know-how? Their organisation? The fact that they had so many weapons at their disposal?

8. Emotional response to watching them in action? response to their destruction of the drug set up and their vengeance on the people concerned? The fact that they were executioners executing violence? What were the audience meant to respond at this particular stage?

9. Was the film too violent? Was the violence necessary for this kind of film? Did you think that the film exploited its violence? Where?

10. As an action film, were the action sequences successful? How do audiences respond to action films? How did the film try to get audience sympathy by showing some of the army being killed? Did this sympathy overflow then to the rest of the army and their campaigns?

11. Is this an honest way or getting audience sympathy? why? What had they achieved by the end of the war? What had they achieved personally? How did the film indicate what they had achieved by Gordon's memories returning?