Differences

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

--- 329:question:329--week_14_questions_comments-2018 [2018/11/29 04:27] – [Things the Movie got right] gcorkran
+++ 329:question:329--week_14_questions_comments-2018 [2021/04/09 06:45] (current) – old revision restored (2018/11/29 08:02) 40.77.167.99
@@ Line 21: / Line 21: @@
 When the soldiers come to the school and describe the boot camp as "13 weeks of hell," this is in conflict with the 8 weeks the movie sets for the boot camp in the time line sequence. https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0096969/goofs
 --Grace Corkran
+I was beginning to think that the use of uniforms in films was strictly regulated so an actor could not wear a uniform that looks exactly like an armed force member. I found out that actors can wear uniforms exactly like the real ones.
+ Title 10 US Code 772: (f) While portraying a member of the Army, Navy, Air Force, or Marine Corps, an actor in a theatrical or motion-picture production may wear the uniform of that armed force if the portrayal does not tend to discredit that armed force.
+https://www.hangar30.com/actors-in-military-uniform/
+- Johana Colchado
 ====== Things the Movie got right ======
+The real Abbie Hoffman plays himself as the strike organizer at the Syracuse demonstration. Also, there is a truism in the Military: //Friendly Fire Isn't Friendly//--Andrew M.
 The movie portrayed many of the characters as religious smokers and this was spot on. Smoking was a very big part of many peoples lives during the 50's and 60's (and even 70's but the number of people who smoked went down). The movie showed soldiers, vets, women and men, all smoking and it was very accurate for the time. --Caroline Collier
@@ Line 56: / Line 63: @@
 The movie did a good job allowing the audience to feel immersed in the setting of the war. Graphic scenes were avenues for the film to explore the horror of war. The scene in which the family was killed in their home was extremely powerful because it allowed for the audience to get a sense of the total warfare lodged in Vietnam. It connects ideas about the horrors of war and the effects it has on those who witness its brutality. --Grace Corkran
+Dr. McClurken had mentioned last class how vets had formed a group called VVAW. It was good to see that this important part was included accurately in the film.
+- Johana
 ====== Questions about interpretation ======
 I am wondering about the prevalence of cartwheels going on in the background of the high school scenes. Were the 1960s just a time when people cartwheeled a lot? Because this movie has at least two cartwheels per tracking shot of the high school. (Justin Curtis)
@@ Line 75: / Line 87: @@
 The film portrays the dismal as well as terrifying factors of staying in a hospital in Vietnam. Viewing feces, vomit, and blood in a movie is awful, but the movie obviously did not want to sugarcoat what soldiers and medical teams went through. Going through battle is hard enough and having to return to a ill-equipped hospital does not help very much. -Lake Wiley
+I want to go off of Lake's comment and say that because this was a theatrical release and the scenes in Vietnam and in the hospital are very vivid and strong. But this seems to be a lot for people who sat down in a theater. There is no skipping and much like Amistad, the intense scene is supposed to feel uncomfortable and show the raw experience. These scenes seemed like they were trying to truly show how bad it was in Vietnam, but what extent of the experiences would have already been shown to the public from news broadcasts.--Jack Hagn
+I noticed at the end of the movie the lack of classic historical movie ending with the words that explain the the audience what happened to end the war or what happened to Ron after this moment.  I was really expecting this ending and then it did not come and I'm not really sure why. Maybe I have just been conditioned to expect this and it's not really necessary but also to leave this out was a decision that the movie makers had to make so why go with that ending. -Erin Andrewlevich
+Also to go along with the ending of the movie, the beginning and end of the movie are so completely different from the whole middle part of the movie. The first scene with Ron as a kid is rather playful and then the end is patriotic and uplifting but the whole narrative of the movie is extremely violent and angry and sad. Why position the story like this? Was it just a film-making, entertainment choice? -Erin Andrewlevich
+I agree with the earlier comments about a lack of representation, but I would amend it slightly, to say that there is very little depiction of African-Americans in this film in a way that portrays them as being on equal footing to their white counterparts--both in the anti-war movement and in Vietnam. Did anyone else notice that both times that Kovic was carried from the "battlefield" (after being wounded in Vietnam and after being rescued from police in Miami), a black man was carrying him? This seems to suggest a narrative of a white savior--that someone like Kovic is so essential to the plot of the film that token people of color should risk their own lives and freedom for his--all during a time when, as the male orderly put it earlier in the film, people of color were still fighting for their own freedoms. ~Will Everett
 ====== The movie as a primary source of its time ======
@@ Line 83: / Line 103: @@
 While there are a lot of correct things portrayed in this movie that indeed happened to soldiers who fought in Vietnam, I wouldn't solely depend on this movie or even the book it is based off of as a primary source. I did some more research about Ron Kovic and found an article from The Seattle Times from 2012. The article is an interview with two soldiers who fought with Kovic. While they agree with some things that Kovic wrote in his book, both soldiers also say that a lot that was in his book was "movie material" and was not true, like for example how he was rescued after being shot (https://www.seattletimes.com/entertainment/born-on-the-fourth-of-july-vets-account-disputed-by-comrades/). --Alyx Wilson
+The movie represents the end of the 80s as a time when people were becoming more and more fed up with wars that the people felt had little to do with them or the way the government supported and promoted conflict within communist countries.  The way that the young boys are told about the dangers of communism can be comparted to the way Reagan pushed against communism during the 80s. The portrayal of African Americans in the film also says a lot about the age the movie was made in as they are given only a few lines about how little rights they have, yet are still expected to go fight. However, after this line, they are really not present for most of the movie in any major way. –Sky Horne
 ====== Comparing the reading to the movie ======
 In //The Things They Carried//, O'Brien mentions that soldiers had to attack and burn villages without ever knowing what the purpose was, which became an endless cycle. The film shows this aspect of soldiers' involvement in Vietnam. Kovic and his comrades are sent into a village thinking that enemy soldiers are present, but civilians get caught up in the fight instead. -Maddie Shiflett
@@ Line 95: / Line 117: @@
 In Philip Caputo’s prologue explains how most soldiers that volunteered for Vietnam were to some extent sold an expectation that they would play “cop to the communists’ robber”. He expresses the sentiment that people like Ron Kovic had, that there was an obligation to serve in this war and that the Vietnam War was going to be like all the other past wars America fought in. -Kyle Moore
+In the Rumor of War, Philip Caputo talks about how “war is always attractive to young men” and the way that soldiers were fed the idea of how righteous the war was against the communists. The film shows this mentality with the way that Ron throws himself into the war and staunchly defends the war upon his return to the US. The movie also portrayed how the soldiers lost the “convictions” that they went into the war with, as Ron eventually become disillusioned with the war effort. –Sky Horne
+Decisive combat is the best high in the world.  Caputo speaks about something that is unique to war and that is despite how horrific it can be, you get strangely attached to it and want to return.  I was usually only good for about 30 days at home before I became nostalgic and as Caputo says, felt out of place back in the states. After about 4-6 weeks of Taco Bell and drinking every night, I felt like I couldn't relate to anyone back in the States and had to get back to the Sand Box. Where everything was under control. I worked out better, I ate and slept better and I got to win almost every night we went out. I felt a happiness and  comaraderie that doesn't exist anywhere else. -- Andrew m.
 ====== The "So, what?" question ======
@@ Line 103: / Line 129: @@
 So the Director, Oliver Stone, and the orignial book and screenplay for the movie by Ron Kovic, were both men who enlisted to fight in Vietnam and then were both wounded in action. I wonder if the reasons there were differences in the movie from the book were Stone adding his own personal life experiances from Vietnam into the movie. Either way, Stone is making choices to push a specific message on what it was like for soldiers in Vietnam for viewers who did not experiance war. -- Ellora Larsen
+This movie showcases the anger that some veterans felt in their day-to-day lives after the war. Multiple veterans (not just Ron) are shown lashing out against their friends, family members, or complete strangers. Compare this to Best Years of Our Lives, which rarely ever depicts any anger on the part of the main characters and has exactly one scene in which a character loses their temper. It shows an evolution in the way that veterans are represented as less emotionally stable. (Justin Curtis)
+To go along with what a lot of people are saying about the director, I can see exactly why Oliver Stone wanted to work on this project, not only were they both in Vietnam and were wounded but they are the same age as well so I am sure Stone could really see himself in Kovic. -Erin Andrewlevich
+This movie highlights the refusal to hide the harsh truth about the war that many Vietnam veterans displayed after their return home. In that sense, the film is a reminder of a reminder--a call to remember those still-living members of a generation of Americans ravaged by a war whose purpose was unclear, even for those who fought in it. (However, despite the film's realistic depictions of brutality against Vietnamese civilians, no mention was made of the horrific figures of the total human cost of the war for the Vietnamese people, which was certainly a misstep on the part of the filmmakers.) ~Will Everett
+The focus on this movie as being after the war rather than during the war is important. In a similar fashion to the “Best Years of Our Lives”, the focus is on reintegrating to society, but in a much more visceral manner. The scene at the veterans hospital in particular is incredibly moving, and the continued portrayal of PTSD throughout the movie as something that could happen at any time and be triggered by anything helps the audience start to understand what life was for returning veterans. –Sky Horne