Wiki for Dr. McClurkens Courses

User Tools

Site Tools

Trace: • 329--week_14_questions_comments • 329--week_2_questions_comments-2022 • 329--week_11_questions_comments-2018 • 329--week_3_questions_comments • 329--introduction_week_questions_comments_meme_posts-2020
329:question:329--week_13_questions_comments-2020

Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

Link to this comparison view

Both sides previous revisionPrevious revision
Next revision		Previous revision
329:question:329--week_13_questions_comments-2020 [2020/11/19 09:35] – mariah_morton329:question:329--week_13_questions_comments-2020 [2020/11/19 14:26] (current) – [V. The "So, what?" question] 192.65.245.80
Line 16: Line 16:
 There were a number of details that the film got right about history.  Blue on blue was not that rare of a tragedy during the war.  Soldiers were in an area totally unfamiliar to them and they were fighting forces who could come out of hiding at any time.  Also, while they showed the poor conditions of the hospitals.  None of the patients seemed to be getting the care they needed.  There is even the scene where the man basically says he is not even a doctor.  The film also does a good job of showing the difficulty in readjusting to life back home and the friction that can have in a family.  Unfortunately, families like Ron's were fairly common where they simply could not handle their kid after the war.  Overall, the film was fairly accurate although it was dramatic and cheesy at times.- Daniel Walker    There were a number of details that the film got right about history.  Blue on blue was not that rare of a tragedy during the war.  Soldiers were in an area totally unfamiliar to them and they were fighting forces who could come out of hiding at any time.  Also, while they showed the poor conditions of the hospitals.  None of the patients seemed to be getting the care they needed.  There is even the scene where the man basically says he is not even a doctor.  The film also does a good job of showing the difficulty in readjusting to life back home and the friction that can have in a family.  Unfortunately, families like Ron's were fairly common where they simply could not handle their kid after the war.  Overall, the film was fairly accurate although it was dramatic and cheesy at times.- Daniel Walker   
  
-I thought the movie did a good job of showing the brutality of war and portraying the struggles of soldiers coming back from Vietnam, facing a community that in the words of Ron's friend Stevie: didn't really care about what was going on abroad. Like we discussed in class, people were not involved in the war effort on the home front, as the economy was booming. Although, unlike other wars, people were more aware of some of the horrors abroad as in the movie Donna brings up the My Lai massacre. I think another thing that was good about the movie was it gave a good amount of nuance to the views of soldiers who had just arrived and the thoughts of protestors. Obviously, Ron was upset that he had lost his ability to walk in a war that was so unpopular at home, he had wanted to be seen as a hero, like the men in WWII, and didn't get that treatment. But as Ron comes to understand the point of view of the protestors, he realizes the horrors of the war, and begins to fight so other young men won't be sent without reason. -- Helen Dhue+I thought the movie did a good job of showing the brutality of war and portraying the struggles of soldiers coming back from Vietnam, **facing a community that in the words of Ron's friend Stevie: didn't really care about what was going on abroad.** Like we discussed in class, people were not involved in the war effort on the home front, as the economy was booming. Although, unlike other wars, people were more aware of some of the horrors abroad as in the movie Donna brings up the My Lai massacre. I think another thing that was good about the movie was it gave a good amount of nuance to the views of soldiers who had just arrived and the thoughts of protestors. Obviously, Ron was upset that he had lost his ability to walk in a war that was so unpopular at home, he had wanted to be seen as a hero, like the men in WWII, and didn't get that treatment. But as Ron comes to understand the point of view of the protestors, he realizes the horrors of the war, and begins to fight so other young men won't be sent without reason. -- Helen Dhue
  
 This movie grabs you right from the very beginning with the first scene in Vietnam. When they approach the village after shooting it and see the women and children lying there it give you the same feeling in your stomach as the picture of the My Lai massacre does. Then the aspect of friendly fire thrown in immediately after. Then his supervisor telling him no to talk about it. It all feels real and it makes you angry. Then as the movie progresses they show the crappy hospital conditions and the mixed reception he receives back home. It is that beginning that appears to work very well as a secondary source that ropes you in immediately. I expected to see a film about living through the war during Vietnam, instead I saw a film about living life after the war in Vietnam.- Dan Dilks This movie grabs you right from the very beginning with the first scene in Vietnam. When they approach the village after shooting it and see the women and children lying there it give you the same feeling in your stomach as the picture of the My Lai massacre does. Then the aspect of friendly fire thrown in immediately after. Then his supervisor telling him no to talk about it. It all feels real and it makes you angry. Then as the movie progresses they show the crappy hospital conditions and the mixed reception he receives back home. It is that beginning that appears to work very well as a secondary source that ropes you in immediately. I expected to see a film about living through the war during Vietnam, instead I saw a film about living life after the war in Vietnam.- Dan Dilks
Line 34: Line 34:
 I also saw that he didn't speak at the fourth of July speech, which I think is important to note, as in class we discussed that Vietnam soldiers often didn't get parades or praise from the community. I think the movie still stays fairly true to the overall disapproval towards the war, as during his speech the audience boos him. --Helen Dhue I also saw that he didn't speak at the fourth of July speech, which I think is important to note, as in class we discussed that Vietnam soldiers often didn't get parades or praise from the community. I think the movie still stays fairly true to the overall disapproval towards the war, as during his speech the audience boos him. --Helen Dhue
  
 +One aspect of the film that I thought was misleading is that it only really showed Kovic as a widely recognized leader in the peace movement after the writing of his book. However, it's important to note that Kovic was a leader in the peace movement not long after he returned home from Vietnam (not just a reluctant, hap-hazard follower as the film shows) - Ethan
 ====== III. How does the film’s overall interpretation(s) deviate from scholarly historical sources? ====== ====== III. How does the film’s overall interpretation(s) deviate from scholarly historical sources? ======
  
Line 40: Line 41:
 I thought the movie was pretty accurate to the scholarly sources. One of the interesting things the sources pointed to was the Kennedy quote "Ask not what your country can do for you.." and discussed how this sentiment was strong in the minds of many young men. In the movie, Ron watches the same speech and is inspired. As well, the sources describe a **nostalgia many men felt towards Vietnam** even though it had been a scarring experience. I think we see a little bit of that in Ron, even though he suffers greatly, upon his arrival at home he seems to have some bit of nostalgia towards his time there. --Helen Dhue I thought the movie was pretty accurate to the scholarly sources. One of the interesting things the sources pointed to was the Kennedy quote "Ask not what your country can do for you.." and discussed how this sentiment was strong in the minds of many young men. In the movie, Ron watches the same speech and is inspired. As well, the sources describe a **nostalgia many men felt towards Vietnam** even though it had been a scarring experience. I think we see a little bit of that in Ron, even though he suffers greatly, upon his arrival at home he seems to have some bit of nostalgia towards his time there. --Helen Dhue
  
-Like Cat, I feel as if I noticed more similarities than differences between the historical sources and the movie Born on the Fourth of July. I particularly enjoyed reading the prologue to Philip Caputo’s Rumor of War because he talked about how the war was a long experience for soldiers during and after the War or even when they had left the combat zone. I feel as if the movie captures that concept by having it span over Ron Kovic’s experience after he was injured. Additionally, the prolog talks about “the pride and overpowering self-assurance” that the young men had at the beginning when they signed up for the war. Additionally, the prologue talks about how the men were disillusioned of war and were partially “seduced” into a uniform by Kennedy. I feel like these are things expressed in the film, however, I feel as if the influence that Kennedy played on these young men's lives was downplayed in the film. -Megan Williams+Like Cat, I feel as if I noticed more similarities than differences between the historical sources and the movie Born on the Fourth of July. I particularly enjoyed reading the prologue to Philip Caputo’s Rumor of War because he talked about how the war was a long experience for soldiers during and after the War or even when they had left the combat zone. I feel as if the movie captures that concept by having it span over Ron Kovic’s experience after he was injured. Additionally, the prolog talks about “the pride and overpowering self-assurance” that the young men had at the beginning when they signed up for the war. Additionally, the prologue talks about how the men were disillusioned of war and were **partially “seduced” into a uniform by Kennedy**. I feel like these are things expressed in the film, however, I feel as if the influence that Kennedy played on these young men's lives was downplayed in the film. -Megan Williams
  
 Like mentioned before, I think that this film actually stayed fairly true to the readings. I think that it did a good job of showing the excitement and romanticization people had of war before becoming a part of it; later, it did a good job of showing how those feelings changed. Other issues such as PTSD, life-long injuries, and the death of fellow soldiers, were also bought up in the film as well. I think that it did a good job of portraying the same issues and feelings that were written about in the primary sources. -Mariah Morton Like mentioned before, I think that this film actually stayed fairly true to the readings. I think that it did a good job of showing the excitement and romanticization people had of war before becoming a part of it; later, it did a good job of showing how those feelings changed. Other issues such as PTSD, life-long injuries, and the death of fellow soldiers, were also bought up in the film as well. I think that it did a good job of portraying the same issues and feelings that were written about in the primary sources. -Mariah Morton
Line 88: Line 89:
 Coming out of the Vietnam era many Americans felt they had been cheated and lied to, this is shown in the film quite well, and many Americans felt really negatively about the conflict and the government all together. However, most of these Americans never experienced the war. The film as well as the primary sources explore the relationship veterans had with the war and the disconnect they felt returning to civilian life. I think this film did a great job trying to bridge the gap between the veteran and civilian perspective. Tons of Americans knew the war was wrong, granted many still believed in it even by the end, but the trauma and hardships faced by returning vets was something that was almost impossible to understand for civilians. The film is still relevant today for that same reason; it explores the pain, nuance, and trauma faced by vets who couldn't or wouldn't talk about those things themselves. - Wilson Coming out of the Vietnam era many Americans felt they had been cheated and lied to, this is shown in the film quite well, and many Americans felt really negatively about the conflict and the government all together. However, most of these Americans never experienced the war. The film as well as the primary sources explore the relationship veterans had with the war and the disconnect they felt returning to civilian life. I think this film did a great job trying to bridge the gap between the veteran and civilian perspective. Tons of Americans knew the war was wrong, granted many still believed in it even by the end, but the trauma and hardships faced by returning vets was something that was almost impossible to understand for civilians. The film is still relevant today for that same reason; it explores the pain, nuance, and trauma faced by vets who couldn't or wouldn't talk about those things themselves. - Wilson
  
- I feel like particularly with its focus on the anti-war protests,// Born on the Fourth of July// is still very relevant in discussing police brutality and this very tempestuous period of protest and rising conservatism. The scene with the 1972 Republican National Convention well-established the contrast of Nixon's words about treating Vietnam veterans well at the same time Ronnie and the other veterans were being abused by Republicans, security, and the police. The primary complaint I had of this film was that it still gave a happy ending, that Ronnie was able to be successful and that him going to the Democratic National Convention in 1976 was somehow going to fix everything. Overall, I thought it was a good film on the horrors of war and the aftermath, but I wish they had addressed that some of the veterans never recovered. I don't know that this helped too much about the consistent portrayal of the crazy Vietnam veteran, but this movie at least provided more understanding and context to what could cause that in veterans and the kind of trauma they went through. - Ashley Dimino+ I feel like particularly with its focus on the anti-war protests,// Born on the Fourth of July// is still very relevant in discussing police brutality and this very tempestuous period of protest and rising conservatism. The scene with the 1972 Republican National Convention well-established the contrast of Nixon's words about treating Vietnam veterans well at the same time Ronnie and the other veterans were being abused by Republicans, security, and the police. The primary complaint I had of this film was that it still gave a happy ending, that Ronnie was able to be successful and that him **going to the Democratic National Convention in 1976 was somehow going to fix everything**. Overall, I thought it was a good film on the horrors of war and the aftermath, but I wish they had addressed that some of the veterans never recovered. I don't know that this helped too much about the consistent portrayal of the crazy Vietnam veteran, but this movie at least provided more understanding and context to what could cause that in veterans and the kind of trauma they went through. - Ashley Dimino 
 + 
 +While one could argue that this film still played into certain stereotypes about Vietnam vets, overall it did something arguably important: **it portrayed a disillusioned vet as not as someone who hated his country, but as someone who opposed the war because he loved it.** It seems like many films portray dissenting Vietnam vets as people who are just disillusioned with the US as a whole (whether the viewers are intended to sympathize with that point of view or not), but I think it's important to show the perspective of many soldiers: they loved their //country//, but felt that the //war// was wrong. - Ethan
  
329/question/329--week_13_questions_comments-2020.1605778542.txt.gz · Last modified: 2020/11/19 09:35 by mariah_morton