I'm sure this has been hashed before, but, surprisingly, I can't find much on it. So here goes.
I assume Walter never was in Nam at all. Certainly not in a combat role - at most maybe a postman or cook at a base far behind lines. It's possible, perhaps even probable, that he was never in the service at all. Or if he was, he was posted somewhere else in the world.
(I once had a boss drafted in the Navy and he was on a destroyer in the Mediterranian his whole time, playing cat n' mouse with Soviet subs and screwing whores at every port.)
But if Walter was/had been there, I was wondering what time frame his tour would have been. I can only use his references at Donny's eulogy for a guide, assuming he was contemporay with the battles he named if not a participant in them. So I googled them.
I was only 9 at the time, but I knew of Khe Sanh from my childhood. That was in '68 which was an overly eventful year in my life. Good start on my Walter question. Next I tried to look up Lan Doc or Lang Dok or other phonetic permutations. I came up blank on all of them. So I moved on to Hill 364. Turns out that was a bit outside Da Nang base, but apparently nothing much happened there except coitus. One dude who'd been there at the time referred to it as "the party hill". It's where you took your fucking lady friends.
So I'm left with: if Walter was ever in Nam at all, it was 68-69-ish. I'd be interested to hear what fellows wiser than I can provide.
Mark it eight, Dude
I think it all comes down to Walter's character. That is to ask; was he honest (a bit radical, perhaps even crazy) or just a dreaming wanna bee? I believe he was in Nam because if he was just making up stories I think the Dude, having known him for years, would call him out on stories he knew were bullshit coming from Walter. That is, of course, assuming the Dude knew Walter rather well, which it appears that he did.
The Dude had no problem calling Walter out when he would begin to talk shit......
"Walter, come off it. You're not even fucking Jewish"
Also, at Donny's funeral, Walter seems to go into some detail about the battles he has been in........
"In your wisdom you took him, Lord. As you took so many bright flowering young men, at Khe San and Lan Doc and Hill 364"
And, his famous speech (more like a typical Walter outburst) in the Family Restaurant, indicates that he was there........
"Lady, I got buddies who died face- down in the muck so you and I could enjoy this family restaurant!"
So, yes, it does look like Walter had "some time out in the shit" as dude's who were in Nam often called it.
...the man in the black pajamas.
(http://filmski-likovi.yolasite.com/resources/bscap0035.jpg)
Ipso facto,Walter was born in '49/'50. In '68 he would be 18/19.The average age of the troops. In '91 when the movie is set he is 41/42 which looks about right. I think he has been eating more In 'n' Out burgers than the Dude who is probably about the same age given his life time achievements etc.
And another thing.If you weren't there,how can you challenge someone who was?
Quote from: DigitalBuddha
I think it all comes down to Walter's character. That is to ask; was he honest (a bit radical, perhaps even crazy) or just a dreaming wanna bee?
Indeed it does. In the entire movie we only have his report of his Nam experiences. How much is reasonably accurate and how much has been forgotten, exagerated, embelleshed or fabricated? But the constant references to his time in Nam leads me to the sentiment "he doth protest too much".
Quote from: Zen Dog
And another thing.If you weren't there,how can you challenge someone who was?
Just so. We know the Dude and Smokey didn't go, what with being COs and the Seattle Seven and all. We don't know what Donny's background is. But for what ever reasons, none of the other characters are in a position to challenge Walter and don't.
Walter seems to know his weapons, so he got exposure to that somewhere.
Total aside to hijack my own thread:
Were In 'n' Out burgers kosher? Walter was eating one.
"My Nahm iss Karl. Ich bin Expert."
To keep it simple; I know of no reason to believe that Walter was not in Nam, and never rolled out naked. :D
To keep it simple; I know of no reason to believe that Walter was not in Nam, and never rolled out naked. :D
I have to agree with that,dude...I think Walter was there..maybe he has some shit wrong,but he could have gotten mixed up when he was dabbling in pacifism..
I can't think of any reason he wouldn't have been. Just because Hill 364 was called "Party Hill" or whatever doesn't mean there wasn't any fighting to take it in the first place. And as stated before, I bet The Dude would've called him out if he wasn't there.
You should start by looking at the person who the character was based on.
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0587518/ (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0587518/)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Milius (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Milius)
Milius didn't serve in Nam.
He volunteered and was rejected because of Asthma.
Take that as you will as far as the Walter Character goes.
Personally I think that Walter was in Nam. He's the real deal.
At least he had the hair to stand up for himself when the chips were down.
If the writers meant him to be a phoney they never showed it in the story line.
A nut yes but he did walk the walk in the end.
The Dude on the other hand was supposed to be something of a pacifist but only showed himself to be a pacifist when confronted by rug pissers and nihilists. Confronted by someone who he was sure he could take he said "cmon fucker". Like the old bald brother shamus.
Confronted by anything more he folded like a piss soaked rug.
Typical hippie pussy. It's a philosophy when it's convenient.
i disagree that the dude folded like a piss soaked rug when confronted by aggression. he was remarkably cool and collected while being attacked by the thugs and until the marmot started clawing at his johnson, he didn't show fear in the face of the nihilists. he talks back to virtually everyone who gives him shit. throwing punches around wouldn't have helped him against the cop or the thugs or the big lebowski or the nihilists.
truth is, most physical fights are best avoided. i dabbled in martial arts for several years (thai boxing, brazilian jiu jitsu, kick boxing, krav maga) and decided to stop because it made me more aggressive. suddenly i found myself nearly getting in fights because i wanted to test my new powers. i was going around wrestling with people who didn't want to be wrestled or thrown into arm-bars. i think if you live in a dangerous neighborhood or in medieval japan then being a "warrior" would come in handy. but even if the dude were adept at anything more aggressive than tai chi, he wouldn't have improved his situation one iota.
moreover if walter had just given a few bucks to the dipshits he wouldn't have gotten stabbed or lost donny. one could argue that the nihilists had been taught a lesson and wouldn't so easily pick on unarmed saps. we had a similar discussion before about this of course. i think the scene is telling because it's not so cut and dry. one definitely feels a sense of pride in walter's dispatching of the dipshits, but one might argue that that emotional reaction (which every action movie preys upon) is a genetic anachronism. remember that before civilization some 50 percent of men died in combat with other tribes because of this testosterone fueled mania. may have been necessary then, but now it's responsible for a shitload of misery and bad decisions.
furthermore, let's not confuse real hippies with fashionista hippies. the real hippies were brave souls who stood up to their government in a way that is sorely lacking today. the dude and his ilk tried to make a difference. the fact that they failed (partially) is not testament to their weakness. it's a testament to the unlimited resources of the powers that be and the seduction of creature comforts and status. which the dude bravely eschews. it is a watered down and weakened form of heroism, but it's the only one within reach. The same conclusion was reached by Voltaire in Candide. You're never going to beat city hall. So tend to your own little garden party.
Nicely put.
Quote from: forumdude on October 29, 2012, 10:37:03 PM
i disagree that the dude folded like a piss soaked rug when confronted by aggression. he was remarkably cool and collected while being attacked by the thugs and until the marmot started clawing at his johnson, he didn't show fear in the face of the nihilists. he talks back to virtually everyone who gives him shit. throwing punches around wouldn't have helped him against the cop or the thugs or the big lebowski or the nihilists.
truth is, most physical fights are best avoided. i dabbled in martial arts for several years (thai boxing, brazilian jiu jitsu, kick boxing, krav maga) and decided to stop because it made me more aggressive. suddenly i found myself nearly getting in fights because i wanted to test my new powers. i was going around wrestling with people who didn't want to be wrestled or thrown into arm-bars. i think if you live in a dangerous neighborhood or in medieval japan then being a "warrior" would come in handy. but even if the dude were adept at anything more aggressive than tai chi, he wouldn't have improved his situation one iota.
moreover if walter had just given a few bucks to the dipshits he wouldn't have gotten stabbed or lost donny. one could argue that the nihilists had been taught a lesson and wouldn't so easily pick on unarmed saps. we had a similar discussion before about this of course. i think the scene is telling because it's not so cut and dry. one definitely feels a sense of pride in walter's dispatching of the dipshits, but one might argue that that emotional reaction (which every action movie preys upon) is a genetic anachronism. remember that before civilization some 50 percent of men died in combat with other tribes because of this testosterone fueled mania. may have been necessary then, but now it's responsible for a shitload of misery and bad decisions.
furthermore, let's not confuse real hippies with fashionista hippies. the real hippies were brave souls who stood up to their government in a way that is sorely lacking today. the dude and his ilk tried to make a difference. the fact that they failed (partially) is not testament to their weakness. it's a testament to the unlimited resources of the powers that be and the seduction of creature comforts and status. which the dude bravely eschews. it is a watered down and weakened form of heroism, but it's the only one within reach. The same conclusion was reached by Voltaire in Candide. You're never going to beat city hall. So tend to your own little garden party.
He had his head stuffed into a toilet.
Had his personal living space invaded by Nihilists and his possessions destroyed.
He met with Jackie Treehorn who he knew had ordered the rug pissers and he treated him like a gentleman and he was willing to give his money to the Nihilists. He never once made any effort whatsoever to stand up for himself.
He consistently pussied out over and over.
Call it a philosophy if you like but as far as I'm concerned he's a hypocrite.
When dealing with a 15 year old he didn't shy away from threatening to cut off his Johnson and when dealing with a fat little brother shamus he was willing to fight.
It's only when he is in danger that he does as always. Pussies out.
If they had given money to the Nihilists they would have bled them dry.
they never would have left them alone. Those men are cowards Donnie.
Across this line you do not....
Avoiding a fight in a Bar with some wise ass is much different than taking it up with someone who enters your home and stuffs your face into the toilet.
There is no excuse except cowardice. Not philosophical or practical.
He was to afraid of getting hurt to take a stand for his own person and property.
I have no respect.
yeah, he was a shithead when dealing with little larry. his nadir indeed.
but i disagree that he pussied out. you can't fight a cop, or three nihilists with an attack ferret. or with a sword. plus, it's not cool endangering others by starting a group fight. walter insisted they fight and donny and dude were obliged to do what they saw no need to do. and he couldn't win against the muscular thugs even if he was still holding the bowling ball.
bikerdude, you've got lots of good ideas but i just can't understand this machismo. it betrays your otherwise estimable record of logical, humanistic thinking. doesn't add up. why is it so important to engage in fisticuffs when there is nothing to be gained?
Quote from: forumdude on October 30, 2012, 08:11:50 AM
yeah, he was a shithead when dealing with little larry. his nadir indeed.
but i disagree that he pussied out. you can't fight a cop, or three nihilists with an attack ferret. or with a sword. plus, it's not cool endangering others by starting a group fight. walter insisted they fight and donny and dude were obliged to do what they saw no need to do. and he couldn't win against the muscular thugs even if he was still holding the bowling ball.
bikerdude, you've got lots of good ideas but i just can't understand this machismo. it betrays your otherwise estimable record of logical, humanistic thinking. doesn't add up. why is it so important to engage in fisticuffs when there is nothing to be gained?
Well that's your opinion.
I don't know when he was gonna fight a cop.
But you fight anyone who invades your personal residence. Period end of story.
It's not a question of winning or losing. Maybe one could make a case for giving money to a mugger.
But not the nihilists.
The Nihilists were all show. Anybody could see that.
If the only time a person is willing to fight is when they feel secure in winning they are nothing but a bully.
Just another type of coward.
You have to be willing to get your ass kicked from time to time fighting for yourself. It's the essence of being a man.
It's not just a pair of testicles.
This is not machismo. This is bottom line.
Beyond this point a person abdicates the right to absorb oxygen.
To act like the Dude in the face of danger is shameful.
I deny that this is in any way illogical. It is backed by a good deal of philosophical background.
For instance Socrates and Aristotle. The Greeks are pretty clear about it.
Read the republic.
And even beyond that I find it consistent with an aesthetic principle.
I don't believe that our attitudes about ourselves are arbitrary. Some things are innate. Like our expectations for genders. Yes they are influenced by society but as a general rule they remain pretty consistent. You just don't find societies where the women are the hunters and warriors. Aesthetically I find this kind of cowardice in a man disgusting. I simple find that a willingness to confront injustice is irreplaceable in the male character.
A lack of it is personally disgusting. It simply turns my stomach to see an example of such a "shadow of a man."
I feel that I stand on a long tradition of philosophical discourse when making that stand.
in my opinion the whole movie was calling into question this received widsom of what makes a man. i think in this day and age pragmatism is what makes a man, not idealism.
i guess for me i think the notion of "principles" is an empty imperative unless it's based in reason. the tack you're taking on this seems to be rooted in romantic ideas of honor and identity. nothing wrong with that - your opinion is valued. i'm just trying to empathize here.
nothing wrong with standing your ground - that's exactly what socrates did when asked to repent for corrupting the youth of athens. but i think he would have acted just as the dude did when confronted with similar trifling (or impossible) situations.
the dude is certainly no exemplar of heroism. he's a hero of pragmatism. IMDO.
Between all extremes lies the middle path. The edges of the middle path are quite blurry and the path is not a straight line. More like ripples in waving rhythms. The trajectory of all beings are spread across this spectrum. But for any middle to exist, there must always be two sides. Each a part of the same whole. Yin and Yang. When we recognize that we are all acting our parts and embrace each other without perpetuating reactionary thinking, we are in accordance with the Dao. We go with the flow and taking 'er easy becomes natural. This is the center of Dudeism to me.
Yes, sometimes we enter the darkness. It's scary to have to take one on the chin. Innocent people suffer unimaginable horror. We get our rugs pissed without recompense. But grasping to the fading light behind us only puts us deeper into despair and anxiety, further pushing on the wheel of fear. Fairness is not a option dude.
So what do we do? I can't say for anybody else besides myself. I only see the universe pouring into my own eyes. But running around telling people "No, No, No listen to me!" "This is the real reality" sounds pointless and exhausting. To change the world for the better is a mistake. At the end of the day all we can really do is choose to make better ripples around ourselves. The universe will take of itself anyway. What's that? I'm a pacifist pussy who doesn't stand for any ideals? Well I am that I am. And so are you.
Good discussion. Neither of you are backing down, which is cool. But you're both right...
QuoteI don't believe that our attitudes about ourselves are arbitrary. Some things are innate. Like our expectations for genders.
The reason for their innateness is understandable because of the necessary biological superiority required to hunt and gather. You know, upper body strength... That need no longer exists; the "innateness" of something only serves as a justification if the reason for its existence is still relevant.
But further than that, the arguments each of us put forth on this topic of heroism and bravado have a lot to do with our own inner personalities and tendencies, which do become more refined as we get older, but in the end I truly think it's all various shades of grey. Depending on the situation where we're threatened. sometimes a 12-gauge is the only answer, and other times a lively debate over tea serves much better. There's no "right" way to resolve conflict; only that the less harm done to all parties, the better.
Quote
Aristotle explores the connection of courage to friendship and loyalty to comrades. The man of good character, according to Aristotle, "does many acts for the sake of his friends and his country, and if necessary dies for them; for he will throw away both wealth and honors and in general the goods that are objects competition, gaining for himself nobility."18. Aristotle sees in the soldier's courage an active risk taking for the sake of the good. Action and choice are distinguishing marks of good character.
Quote from: Hominid on October 30, 2012, 10:35:57 AM
Good discussion. Neither of you are backing down, which is cool. But you're both right...
QuoteI don't believe that our attitudes about ourselves are arbitrary. Some things are innate. Like our expectations for genders.
The reason for their innateness is understandable because of the necessary biological superiority required to hunt and gather. You know, upper body strength... That need no longer exists; the "innateness" of something only serves as a justification if the reason for its existence is still relevant.
But further than that, the arguments each of us put forth on this topic of heroism and bravado have a lot to do with our own inner personalities and tendencies, which do become more refined as we get older, but in the end I truly think it's all various shades of grey. Depending on the situation where we're threatened. sometimes a 12-gauge is the only answer, and other times a lively debate over tea serves much better. There's no "right" way to resolve conflict; only that the less harm done to all parties, the better.
But without question SOME action is required.
A person doesn't need to be Arnold Swartzenpecker but he has to have some sign of backbone.
Sure if you find honor in it take the typical path.
Take it up with the authorities.
Better yet you and Walter roll out with the Uzi and Jackie and the rug pissers will never fuck with the wrong guy again.
But the Dude went into Jackies place after knowing that he had sent the rug pissers and had a grand old time slapping each other on the back. If I was alone in the room with him I'd have been looking for the heaviest object.
As someone said above, it's about balance and people come out different. But both extremes are undesireable.
My lunacy is closer the a big ass mountain of Walter.
Perhaps Walter and the Dude are precisely those extremes.
Quote from: BikerDude on October 30, 2012, 12:07:43 PM
Quote
Aristotle explores the connection of courage to friendship and loyalty to comrades. The man of good character, according to Aristotle, "does many acts for the sake of his friends and his country, and if necessary dies for them; for he will throw away both wealth and honors and in general the goods that are objects competition, gaining for himself nobility."18. Aristotle sees in the soldier's courage an active risk taking for the sake of the good. Action and choice are distinguishing marks of good character.
So do people do these things because they have "good character?" Hardly! Every action can be traced to either wanting pleasure, avoiding pain, or enduring pain for a greater pleasure. Does one die for a friend because of a "virtue" or because of the pleasure it gives them to sacrifice themselves for the beloved friend? Do soldiers sacrifice themselves for a "virtue" or because they know they are protecting thier country? Only dishonest fools hide behind made-up virtues to make themselves a barrier against their true motives. There is no vice and virtue... no good or evil... only pleasure and pain... and these are the unconscious informants of our behavior... dude...
Quote from: Rev. Marcus on October 30, 2012, 02:51:02 PM
Quote from: BikerDude on October 30, 2012, 12:07:43 PM
Quote
Aristotle explores the connection of courage to friendship and loyalty to comrades. The man of good character, according to Aristotle, "does many acts for the sake of his friends and his country, and if necessary dies for them; for he will throw away both wealth and honors and in general the goods that are objects competition, gaining for himself nobility."18. Aristotle sees in the soldier's courage an active risk taking for the sake of the good. Action and choice are distinguishing marks of good character.
So do people do these things because they have "good character?" Hardly! Every action can be traced to either wanting pleasure, avoiding pain, or enduring pain for a greater pleasure. Does one die for a friend because of a "virtue" or because of the pleasure it gives them to sacrifice themselves for the beloved friend? Do soldiers sacrifice themselves for a "virtue" or because they know they are protecting thier country? Only dishonest fools hide behind made-up virtues to make themselves a barrier against their true motives. There is no vice and virtue... no good or evil... only pleasure and pain... and these are the unconscious informants of our behavior... dude...
True, many of our motivations have their root in those biological prime directives: survival, avoidance of pain, reproduction. But if you study Maslow, you know that once we have shelter, food, clothing, sex... all the basics, we naturally evolve past living for our stomachs and crotches, and move on to higher reasons such as love, joy, peace, and even enlightenment. To reduce our existence to simply pleasure and pain is a very narrow and restrictive model of our modus operandi; it means that we can only ever be demanding, competitive, antagonistic, etc. I don't see it dude...
I didn't mean everything is reduced to pleasure and pain... just that pleasure and pain inform us about what is right and wrong and not the other way around. Pleasure and pain inform us on our path to love, joy, peace, and even enlightenment. Which came first? The feeling of love and peace as pleasure causing activities or some abstract reasoning on what love and peace are?
Quote from: Rev. Marcus on October 30, 2012, 03:38:06 PM
I didn't mean everything is reduced to pleasure and pain... just that pleasure and pain inform us about what is right and wrong and not the other way around. Pleasure and pain inform us on our path to love, joy, peace, and even enlightenment. Which came first? The feeling of love and peace as pleasure causing activities or some abstract reasoning on what love and peace are?
I see what you're saying, and agree for the most part, but what comes to mind is the undying love a parent has for their offspring. That is one (...probably the best) example that doesn't jive with the idea that pleasure and pain are the initial motivators. A parent will indeed sacrifice themselves to save their baby. I didn't know what that kind of love felt like till I became a parent myself. One thing you don't do is fuck with anyone's kids... Totally selfless, sacrificial love rises to the top pretty quick!
You know dudes,this whole story is a parable.What does the Yin Yang of you do when presented with unjustified aggression? Of course,the unjustified aggression needs a reason but this just serves to develop the story and allow the Yin Yang to explore all the perspectives.The Dude and Walter are the extremes of everyman.Most of us of course fall somewhere in between.The Dude is an appeaser,Walter shoots first and asks questions later.This parable has served me well and I have taken great comfort from it.
Zen Dog, I'll drink to that man... 8)
Thats some deep shit,dude...you are a wise man!
Dudes, Youtube the Lawn Chair Drill Team.How to be a Walter and a Dude at the same time.Due to the fact I'm too lazy to learn,I can't do the technical link stuff.
I do agree that the dude made me wince when he folded like a house of cards when his property was invaded..I do believe in picking your battles,but that sort of aggression will not stand,even if you do have a marmot!
True,he did make plenty of smart-ass comments,but still..his head got jammed into a toilet,dude ,in his own place!
A bit too passive for my liking,but thats just my opinion,man..