Claudio 1
Ariana Claudio
Mattie Smith
ERH-102
17 April 2015
Rhetorical Analysis of Between Two Fires
Help Received: Works Cited, Rachel Kroner gave comments on clarity,
Mattie Smith on analysis, Haley Scott gave critical comments and read for clarity,
Douglas N. Smith wrote and produced, with the help of Mattie Quesenberry Smith, the
documentary film, Between Two Fires. Mattie Smith holds a Master of Arts in English Literature
and Creative Writing and also a Bachelor of Arts in English Literature (Virginia Military
Institute). Douglas, a graduate of the University of Richmond and also Regent University’s Film
Program, wrote Between Two Fires for the intention to review America’s involvements in World
War I and their actions within. In specific, the purpose/subject of the film is to address the forced
repatriation of the Soviets, which is in “violation of the Geneva Convention agreement, and its
effects” (Smith). Smith provides various ways to give credibility to the audience including: a
collection of writers, chronological order of events, use of real footage, a voiceover who appears
to be an expert, and personal interviews. While using these elements within the film, Smith
predominantly appeals to pathos, adopting a somber tone, in order to reach for audiences
attention to the film’s subject. Smith offers a new view in terms of the Geneva Convention,
trying to inspire further research of the topic.
Smith opens his documentary by introducing the main subject of the film; the subject
being Americans forced repatriation of the prisoners of war. Smith is able to expound his central
Claudio 2
argumentative claim by conducting personal interviews. Smith makes use of four main
individuals for information about the film’s subject; three of the four having been survivors of
the repatriation or of the gulag. He uses these interviews in order to establish an emotional
appeal of how the repatriation was effecting people’s lives. For example, Leonid Mihalap, a
repatriation survivor, began crying in his interview while giving an account of events in his
personal experience. Ernest Lefever, the one of the four who was not a survivor, studied and
presented both sides of the argument on whether or not the United States did the “right” or
“wrong” thing by sending the prisoners back. Smith uses the knowledge of Ernest throughout the
film but places a short portion of his interview towards the end the end of the film. Smith does
this in order to use his words as a summary of the films main purpose. The film discusses how
the soldiers were offered freedom from the Germans in exchange for service in their army. The
reason why the prisoners did not want to return was because if they took this offer, Stalin
declared that they would be considered deserters or traitors if captured. If returned, the
consequences were that they were either shot, faced torture, of subject to 10-25 years in labor
camps. Lefever concludes with his personal view that “we should have not released the Russian
prisoners at Fort Dix to the Soviet Union...they faced an unfortunate death.”
Apart from interviews, Smith includes photos from the National Archives of Columbia
University and places them in the film to depict the narration. The narrator and the pictures
correlated directly with one another. While standard documentaries include a narration that only
presents the story and facts in a subjective tone, the narration of Between Two Fires gives a tone
more relatable to the audience while providing questions throughout. While incorporating
questions into the narration, it allows for the audience to expand their attitudes and beliefs and
Claudio 3
discover the ultimate claim of the film. For example, a question that was asked was why the
group of men hung themselves. This picture was given at the beginning of the film, followed by
a chain of events that would lead back to the answer of the initial question.Through discovery,
the audience could conclude that the group of men who were prisoners of war hung themselves
to escape repatriation because they were aware of the grueling consequences.
In addition to photos and interviews, Smith also uses music in which appeals to the
emotions of the audience. The music would represent the culture in question within the context
of the situation. For example, there would be bleak music in background while the soldiers were
committing suicide. This echoes the narrator’s overall somber tone throughout the film. Also,
Smith presents another form of credibility by adding an original form of historical evidence.
Enhancing the discussion of events surrounding the film’s main subject, Smith uses information
from a classified document. The document held the actual questions and answers from the
prisoners of war and the guards. Because the information given was verbatim, it provides a
substantial amount of credibility to the audience.
With the incorporation of interview, photos, music, and historical evidence, which all
predominantly appeal to pathos, Smith is able to connect all four elements and conclude at the
end of the film his argumentative claim. With the use of Ernest Lefever words, the audience can
assume that the United States decision to repatriate the Russian prisoners of war was not the
correct one.
Claudio 4
Works Cited:
Virginia Military Institute: English, Rhetoric, and Humanistic Studies. Virginia Military
Institute. Web. 11 April 2015.
Smith, Douglas N. Mezh Dvukh Ogneĭ: Between Two Fires. Chicago, IL: Distributed by
International Historic Films, 2002.