Differences

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

--- 329:question:329--week_14_questions_comments-2018 [2018/11/29 08:04] – [The movie as a primary source of its time] jcolchad
+++ 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 105: / Line 105: @@
 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
-The film does a remarkable job of portraying the ugliness of war and the aftermath it has on the soldiers. This contrasted with the initial beliefs and sentiments Ron has towards the war only goes to show how fighting in a war can change your perception. It is a good primary source of its time since it captures the challenges vets went through during the war, afterwards, and dealing with society’s treatment.- Johana Colchado
 ====== 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