Differences

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

--- 329:question:329--week_13_questions_comments-2020 [2020/11/19 14:21] – [III.How does the film’s overall interpretation(s) deviate from scholarly historical sources?] 192.65.245.80
+++ 329:question:329--week_13_questions_comments-2020 [2020/11/19 14:26] (current) – [V. The "So, what?" question] 192.65.245.80
@@ Line 89: / 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
- 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
+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