Differences

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

--- 329:question:329--week_13_questions_comments-2022 [2022/11/16 21:29] – 76.78.226.25
+++ 329:question:329--week_13_questions_comments-2022 [2022/11/17 06:35] (current) – [IV.How does this movie work as a primary source about the time period in which it was made or the filmmakers?] moore_sarah
@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
-You should do a total of 2-3 comments/questions/observations this week.  You do not need to post to all areas. Please do include links to sources, clips, images that are relevant to your point. -- Dr. McClurken
+eYou should do a total of 2-3 comments/questions/observations this week.  You do not need to post to all areas. Please do include links to sources, clips, images that are relevant to your point. -- Dr. McClurken
 ====== I.	How does this movie work as a secondary source? What does the movie get right about history?  ======
@@ Line 8: / Line 8: @@
 This movie was pretty accurate to the history it portrayed, as far as the experiences of Vietnam veterans goes. The disconnect between the Vietnam veterans and their families upon returning home I thought was well-represented through Kovic’s feelings of isolation. I think the film overall did a good job of portraying the hostility that returning Vietnam veterans faced, not just from the American public, but from politicians as well who refused to give them the help they needed. Something I wanted to point out was the scene at the veteran protest, when Kovic is trying to talk to the news reporters, and someone spits on him. I liked this scene because it’s sort of gesturing the most iconic (if untrue) imagery of this time, that of Vietnam veterans being spit on, but showed that the party most hostile towards veterans were not hippies, as is usually assumed, but people in power who did not want the truth of the brutality of the war to be seen. - Maris Tiller
+This movie works very well as a secondary source. It was pretty accurate in its portrayal of Vietnam and its aftereffects on soldiers. I think that especially the post-war emotions that were felt by the soldiers by those around them was well played out. The hostility from many of their fellow Americans was a true hardship for many of these veterans after they returned from some really traumatic experiences. -Margaret Jones
 I believe the film to be an accurate representation of the Vietnam War and the reactions to it as well as the soldiers coming home. The people supporting the war were due to their fear of communism. I think the film did an accurate job portraying that especially in Kovic’s family. I think the film also does a good job portraying what happened to soldiers and what happened when they returned home. People's reactions being both positive and negative. I think it also showed how much the war affected soldiers' mental health. Ron really struggles after the war with his mental health and that is shown well in the film. -Sophie Weber
+I think this film was very historically accurate in its portrayal of veterans and the mistreatment they endured and therefore , the ill feelings that they held towards society. -Erika Lambert
+I think this film worked as a reasonable secondary source. Although it was not a great film (don't cast Tom Cruise), I really enjoyed seeing the post-war effects on the American soldiers and see the damage being done to the soldiers' psyches. It was great to see the movie portray the impact of war and PTSD on the soldiers and their mental health. - Zack Steinbaum
+The portrayal of the veterans hospital was pretty accurate. Being understaffed, and underfunded by the government obviously contributed to the care that the veterans received. - Neonya Garner
+This movie makes a good secondary source. In class, we talked about fragging and how enlisted men killed their officers while in combat zones, even still it was shocking to see this depicted in the movie. Another part of the movie that I believe was portrayed well as the soldiers coming home to a country that scorned them and the war they fought in and the PTSD that they brought home with them. I perfect example is when Ron is drunk and literally telling his Mom that he wished he was dead and she can’t see it. She does nothing and slaps him. Obviously, the situation was very tense, but Ronnie wasn’t getting all the help he should have. -Annika Sypher
+I think that this film would serve well as a secondary source, as it treats a real Vietnam veteran’s story with a realistic approach. Kovic’s story and the PTSD he faces after he returns are all accurately depicted. In addition, the film does a great job of portraying the attitude about the war at the time, and how some began to realize that Americans should not be in Vietnam at all. -Burke Steifman
+Based on what I gathered from the readings, this film did a pretty decent job as a secondary source when it came to the accuracy of the veterans. From the very beginning of the film we notice the results war can have on individuals such as symptoms of ptsd or being disabled. This same concept is carried out throughout the movie when Ron gets paralyzed and the many hospital scenes we are given. Another thing to mention is how many individuals would copes, whether healthy or unhealthy. The movie provides a variety of perspectives from many individuals who believed very different.- Paula Perez
+This movie was so disturbing to watch. I hate that this happened in US history. I hate all of it. After going over the readings for this week I felt even sicker. It seems like the movie didn’t even exaggerate anything, that’s terrifying. I wish it was just pumped up for show. Vietnam was absolutely hell for these men and they were treated like sub humans when they came back. Sickening behavior. You can be anti war without being anti solider. -Michaela Fontenot
+I think this movie works very well as a secondary source. The portrayal of the chaos of combat, the veterans' hospital, and Kovic's recovery and struggles all seemed very real. The portrayal of Kovic's PTSD seems very realistic. The things that happened to him were triggered by something as simple as a baby crying. I also think the way in which his thoughts developed over the story seemed very realistic. He was originally positive when going into the military, but changes his view to be anti-war. This is because of many things, like his experience and the number of people who were against the war. Sarah Moore
 ====== II.	Problems with historical accuracy? Errors in fact? ======
@@ Line 15: / Line 35: @@
 The film seems to imply that Kovic’s influence was part of what led to an organized anti-war protest movement from Vietnam veterans. Donna’s statement earlier in the movie, saying if he joined up with them he might lend them more credibility, seems to imply that there were not already organized Vietnam veterans also protesting the war. Perhaps this is a flaw in the overall structure of the film; we don’t really see the formation of the veterans’ protest group, we just see the protest itself. Maybe it wasn’t meant to be implied that Kovic had a major role in the formation of this group, but it was nonetheless. - Maris Tiller
+Born on the 4th of July does a really good job showing how easy it was for Vietnam veterans to become disenfranchised with the American governemt +the Vietnam War itself. -Katherine Rayhart
+Interestingly, as I was googling Ron Kovic I came across this article, https://www.seattletimes.com/entertainment/born-on-the-fourth-of-july-vets-account-disputed-by-comrades/. In the article, Rudy Molina Jr. disputes Kovic’s claims in his book (and ultimately the movie). He claims that the account of what happened to Kovic during the attack that left him paralyzed is false in some of its details. Molina had served with Kovic and claims that Marines did not flee, and he was the one that carried Kovic to safety. In fact, Molina states that there were no Black Marines with them. Molina’s claims are backed by Dennis Kleppen, another member of the unit. Kleppen was so upset with Kovic’s account of events that he sent a video to the Marine Corps headquarters to make sure that the true account was in the Marines Historical Archives. Of course, at this point, it is one person’s memory against another's. However, if Molina is correct, it does present some errors in the facts. - Taylor Coleman
 ====== III.	How does the film’s overall interpretation(s) deviate from scholarly historical sources? ======
@@ Line 22: / Line 46: @@
 This film was released in 1989, a little over ten years since the war ended. After a quick Google search, I saw that several films about Vietnam were released within this decade. Full Metal Jacket was released in 1987, Platoon was released in 1986, Casualties of War in 1989, and the comedy film Good Morning, Vietnam was released in 1988. This clearly reflects a trend in American media throughout the late 80’s and 90’s. This film is only able to reflect on the ten or so years following the war, which I feel like limits it in some ways. The director, Oliver Stone, is a Vietnam veteran himself, which I think is incredibly interesting. While this film is based off of a real story, I can only imagine that this was Stone’s way of telling his own experiences as well. Along with this film, Stone has made two other films about the Vietnam War, Heaven & Earth and Platoon. –Olivia Foster
+Personally I feel that during the time period the film was released, there was an interest in the Vietnam War and therefore , the film caught the attention of society. - Erika Lambert
+I also so the trend in Vietnam movies being made, but I have to wonder if a bigger indicator of the time period it was made could have been shown in how PTSD was portrayed. This movie was made basically in the 90s and PTSD was just starting to be excepted which was first given its current name in 1980. Groups were formed during this time to raise awareness. The movie might have been capitalizing on this relative newness for the shock factor or they could just be backing a social justice movement. -Annika S
+The film really shows how perspectives of the Vietnam War changed over time and how anti-war organizations form. The war was still relatively recent in 1989, and most people watching this movie could recall what it was like when the war was going on. The portrayal of a struggling veteran does a lot to help outsiders’ perspectives on the war. The filmmakers do a great job of creating sympathy for men who really did not know what they were getting themselves into, as we discussed in class. -Burke Steifman
+This movie says a lot about the time period it was made. It was made close enough to the war that almost every adult watching had been alive during it, and had a personal frame of reference for it. I think the late 80s/early 90s was a big period of change and recognition for vets, and I think this movie is a prime example of this change within society. -Michaela Fontenot
+I think that this film shows the memory and impacts of the people who experienced the Vietnam War. This film was made about 15 years post-Vietnam War when the thoughts around it had changed and settled. It being an anti-war film is not surprising, as many people in the United States thought there was no place for us in that war. By showing the atrocities of the war and the horrible things veterans experienced upon their return, //Born on the Fourth of July// captures the sentiments of the US people at the time. Sarah Moore
@@ Line 37: / Line 71: @@
 I feel like a majority of the films made about Vietnam are incredibly more violent than other war movies. It may be a skewed perspective on my part, but I feel as though movies about Vietnam appear more violent to mirror both the realities and the public feelings about the war. Movies about the war have been made relatively close to the end of the war, while a majority of veterans were still alive and young. As I mentioned beforehand, I feel like making these films so close to the actual events limits the time and perspective to tell an impactful story about the effects of coming home from Vietnam. I think the difference is that the media has always been a crucial part of the Vietnam War, it was one of the first American-fought wars that was highly publicized to the public, and that is why we see so many movies about it. –Olivia Foster
+Tom Cruise's abysmal acting made it really hard to care about anything shown on screen. This is a very important story to tell and I can't focus on it because Tom Cruise is incredibly annoying. His portrayal as Kovic comes across as a whiny, excessively vulgar (and that's coming from a person who swears a lot), man-child who lashes out at everyone around him. - Katherine Rayhart
+I thought that this film was really effective and impactful in the way that it portrayed the Vietnam War and its impact. What stood out to me the most was the hardship and emotion faced by Kovic in his experience. He had a really interesting story, and I think that it’s really important for these stories to be told to the broader US audience. Things such as these are very important in shaping our perceptions and culture. -Margaret Jones
+Overall, I thought this movie really captured the time period it was written about , especially with the veterans and was an overall interesting story that explained to me the hardships that veterans faced after the war. - Erika Lambert
+I thought the film worked very well in the way it showed the impact of trauma and hardships on the Vietnam veterans. I really saw this in Kovic's aggression towards others, habit of over-drinking, and swearing; all these were used as coping mechanisms to deal with the war. - Zack Steinbaum
+I find this film extremely intriguing because it is the first film that I have seen that does not depict an American War as a great American feat. I know it's because of how this war is remembered in history, but it still is important that we depict realistic stories that don't show America in an amazing light. - Neonya Garner
+The mechanics of the film really weren’t great, but the message gets across well and the idea itself is unique. It is interesting to see a war film that treats the war as a mistake, not a glorious battle. -Burke Steifman
+At first I didn’t quite understand the constant yelling in the film, but when I thought about it more I think it shows just how much frustration individuals had because of how others would try to silence there opinions about the war or just how much Ron for example was conflicted because he grew up on this notion on how America was so great to the point where it was invincible. All he knew ended up being put to dust and questioned. Don’t get me wrong his character could have been depicted differently and way better but at least from this standpoint I think I understand him better.- Paula Perez
+One thing about the movie that I kept noticing was how Kovic kept popping wheelies and I spent a long time debating if the actual Kovic did that himself or if Tom Cruise just wanted to do that. But on a more serious note, the film’s time jumps made the movie a little confusing to follow. When the film jumped to the Kent State shootings I thought we were still in 1969 so it made it a little hard to follow at times. However, I found the portrayal of PTSD and overall soldiers' health and mental health intriguing. I thought it was an interesting touch that every time you heard a baby cry in the background, you knew Kovic was going to go to a dark place. The hospital was heartbreaking, especially the scene where Kovic begged to be treated as a human being. Much like Best Years of Our Lives, the transition of soldiers coming home I think was done really well. The war was not glorious, but in fact a very different reaction that was captured well in the film (as it should have been, with the film being made relatively close to the actual war.) - Taylor Coleman