Differences

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

--- 329:question:329--week_13_questions_comments-2022 [2022/11/17 03:44] – [IV.How does this movie work as a primary source about the time period in which it was made or the filmmakers?] 76.78.227.74
+++ 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 22: / Line 22: @@
 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 30: / Line 37: @@
 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 43: / Line 52: @@
 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 67: / Line 80: @@
 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
- I find this film extremely intriguing for the fact
+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