Page locked

This page is currently locked for editing by another user. You have to wait until this user finishes editing or the lock expires.
Currently locked by: 216.73.216.141
Lock expires at: 2025/08/26 16:08 (9 min)
This page is read only. You can view the source, but not change it. Ask your administrator if you think this is wrong.
====== 1 Errors in fact ======
While the film stays true to history and its source material, it does get one thing wrong about the Vietnam War. My dad pointed out that the U.S. Marines did not use the Bell UH-1 Iroquois (Huey) helicopter. That was strictly a U.S. Army helicopter. The Marines used Hueys at the beginning of the war, but they were phased out for the Boeing Vertol CH-46 Sea Knight and the Sikorsky SH-3 Sea King. --- //[[jgaddie@umw.edu|Gaddie, Jason]] 2016/11/30 08:29//

Some of the events that happened are disputed by some of the Marines that were in Kovac’s unit.  Rudy Molina Jr. says he was the one that rescued Kovac, and that the Marines did not all turn tail and run.  Molina also states that there were no black males in the reginement, and states that Kovac’s account, “I came to the conclusion that the book and the movie were written to sell.” Jardine, Jeff. "'Born on the Fourth of July' Vet's Account Disputed by Comrades." The Seattle Times, July 04, 2012. Accessed November 30, 2016. http://www.seattletimes.com/entertainment/born-on-the-fourth-of-july-vets-account-disputed-by-comrades/.

The way in which the VA Hospital was depicted struck me as overdramatized. Granted, I did not experience being a patient there but I felt as though all of the workers were depicted as lazy and incompetent. Was this another slight towards African Americans’ help in the war effort? It bothered me that they cast the entire hospital staff apart from the one doctor as African American but also portrayed them as entirely unsympathetic and utterly incapable when in reality, the Vietnam War involved all races. While Stone may have been attempting to depict the harsh conditions soldiers faced during recovery only to an exaggerated extent. From what we discussed in class, the VA was notorious for being underfunded and unable to meet high expectations but the way it was portrayed in the film seems problematic and offensive.  --- //[[lrainfor@umw.edu|Rainford Lauren E.]] 2016/11/30 23:20//

While the racism was lightly touched on during Ron's talk with Willie as he was going through his physical therapy, I found it hard to believe that there would only be one black man in Ron's platoon, particularly when we learned that the ratio of African-Americans sent to Vietnam was over double that of white Americans.  --- //[[lfrey@umw.edu|Frey Lauren E.]] 2016/11/30 23:45//
====== 2 Things the Movie got right ======

**The film got right that the average age of 19 being the age that the soldiers were through the character of Wilson**. Born on the Fourth of July also accurately depicted that the public (in the film's case, Ronnie's mom) got their news about the war through the nightly news pieces on TV --- //[[afanghel@umw.edu|Fanghella, Amy E.]] 2016/11/29 21:12//

I think the film did a really good job showing the confusion that the soldiers felt in Vietnam. **They did not know who they were shooting and where to shoot because it was completely chaotic. The scene where Ron accidentally shoots one of his own men is shown in a way where the viewer can understand why things like this happened in Vietnam and that the soldiers had to carry guilt with them for the rest of their lives.** It shows that the conflict in Vietnam was complicated and hard on many of these veterans.  --- //[[lkacoyan@umw.edu|Kacoyanis, Leah F.]] 2016/11/29 21:29//

The movie did a pretty good job of showing the **difficult transition many Vietnam veterans faced** when they returned from overseas. Ron had an even more difficult transition due to his paralyzed condition. **The scenes in the VA hospital were also pretty accurate**, especially when they talked about the deficiencies and problems in the VA system. Ron’s family and neighbors’ adjustments to him were also accurate to what many families and friends of veterans would have dealt with when their loved ones returned home. The descent into alcoholism was also a reality for many veterans, as well as addiction to other drugs. --- //[[khaynes3@umw.edu|Haynes, Kelly E.]] 2016/11/29 23:04//

One of the things I noticed was the helplessness Eli (the father) felt about Roy's condition. In class we talked about how the experiences of WWII and Korean War veterans and those of Vietnam were very different. Eli was a WWII veteran but he did not know what to do to help his son. Their experiences were different and thus they could not relate. We saw the same thing in the bar scene, where the WWII Marine called the Vietnam ones basically pansies.  --- //[[jgaddie@umw.edu|Gaddie, Jason]] 2016/11/30 08:29//  

**I think one of the things the movie got right and did very well with was showing of PTSD in different soldiers and how people did not know what was going on. In the parade where Ron is young, if you notice, one of the soldiers in the parade flinches every time a firework or a loud pop happens**. The same thing happens later when Ron in the parade. I think that is significant because you can see on young Ron’s face the confusion of what was happening to the soldier and then you also see that same confusion when he is in the parade.  --- //[[mmcmaken@mail.umw.edu|Mary-Margaret McMaken]] 2016/11/30 10:53// 

The movie did a good job showing why people were opposed it to the war and how they opposed it. For example, even though we did not talk about it in this class, in a class I had taken earlier we learned that there was **resentment for the draft and the war by some African American people because, as the movie says, why should they fight for a war for a country that they didn’t have equal rights in.** **Another was the protest against what had happened at Kent State.** --- //[[mlindse2@umw.edu|Lindsey, Megan E.]] 2016/11/30 18:54//


The movie was able to capture the war in the head idea. Many soldiers who go off to war believe that the war they are entering is going to be the same as the one before. The commanders show and teach of the perilous war. This makes it so the men have an idea of what war will be like before they get there. **In the case of Vietnam and almost every war,they have a wrong idea of what is going to happen. No one knows what the war will actually be like, but by having the war in the head ideal, the soldiers are being set up and lied to. The boys going to Vietnam went into the war thinking it would be like World War II and the Korean War. That there would be a distinct enemy that you could easily tell apart from allies and civilians.** This is really well displayed in the movie. As a kid he wants to be a soldier, he plays war with his friends and looks up to the veterans in the parade. The glorification of war that he sees and the admiration that he has for it only sets him up for disappointment and betrayal. War in the head and his glorification of war make the move ring true to many who went to Vietnam.  --- //[[abrooks6@umw.edu|Brooks Anna R.]] 2016/11/30 19:35//

The movie portrayed the PTSD soldiers had very well. In the parade scenes, The WWII veterans flinched at the sound of fireworks and so did Ron when he came back. Also the treatment of the Vietnam veterans when they got back was accurate because this was one of the first wars where most American citizens did not support it. Unlike in past wars, when soldiers were met appreciation, Vietnam veterans were scene as soldiers who lost the war.
--- //[[nhouff@umw.edu|Houff Nicholas T.]] 2016/11/30 22:16//

The film not only had great character development, it did it in an explosive style. From the small town boy to the struggling war Vet this movie engaged the audience and pushed the envelope. I think from this movie the hardships of transition, and sometimes the lack of ever transitioning, not only show the struggle on the big screen but actually pull to the forefront an often over looked or forgotten aspect to war. At times the movie was difficult to watch but that made it all the more interesting to take in. The tensions at home, at war, and with self also show a side of history many subconsciously ignore.  --- //[[jbaker8@umw.edu|Baker, Jonathon A.]] 2016/11/30 22:38//
 
I thought the scene where Ronnie had the flashback in the middle of his speech was done very well, and very accurate to the way PTSD can be triggered.  The firecrackers were already putting him on edge, and that had already been established earlier in the film with the WWII vets.  Hearing the baby cry suddenly brought him back to the Vietnam village, and I think that was my favorite scene in the movie because of how real and genuine it felt.  --- //[[lfrey@umw.edu|Frey Lauren E.]] 2016/12/01 00:12// 

Since most people have already noted the accuracy of the climate of the time, war, and the film's depiction of vets with PTSD, I want to point out the filmmakers did a great job with most of the historical aesthetics. Some of the hair and makeup was a bit off at times, yes, and the mustaches on some people may have been a little too much, but from the early 60s at the beginning of the film to the late 60s and then the 70s, the vehicles, fashions, music, architecture, interior design, etc. all struck me as very believable and salient. Tom Cruise's transformation from a clean-cut, all-American jock to a grizzled and frustrated veteran to long-haired rebel/hippy was visually great. I can confirm from embarrassing old pictures of my dad that the film followed the trends accurately.
 --- //[[dhawkins@umw.edu|Hawkins Daniel C.]] 2016/12/01 00:27// 
====== 3 Questions about interpretation ======

Was the fact that it was raining on prom night a commentary/larger point to add to the fact that "times, they are a changin'"? Or was it just fancy symbolism the director piped in for funsies? I'm always looking for symbolism in the films, but for the scenes to go straight from prom night to the battlefield, I don't think it was just a coincidence but a mindful choice by the filmmakers. What do you all think? --- //[[afanghel@umw.edu|Fanghella, Amy E.]] 2016/11/28 20:01//

An interesting point of interpretation** is the way the camera during many of the fighting scenes in the films begining flips between different view points and goes in and out of focus adds to the confusion in those scenes. The purposeful choice to rely on techniques like this further emphasizes the reality of confusion that was a reality.** **The use of shadows also plays into the confusion and general uncertainty that people frequently speak to about Vietnam.** It also helps rationalize both of the incidents of the innocent deaths. Since both occur during the prevailing confusion. --- //[[cliberty@umw.edu|Liberty, Catherine A.]] 2016/11/29 17:57//

I am not sure whether the two sets **of fireworks on the Fourth of July and the Independence Day Parade are in the book, but they are a clever device for showing the transition between awe and inspiration to representing noises of war and triggering PTSD**.  --- //[[nfanning@umw.edu|Fanning Neal R.]] 2016/11/30 09:52//

The way the film interpreted its sources was very artistic, for lack of a better word. The scenes of childhood were bright and glossy and filled with pride -- Ronnie was shaping up to be a real American Hero, one way or another, and his parents knew it. **Then, when we see the war, almost every shot based in Vietnam is orange-tinted. Is this to imply the use of Agent Orange?** We don't hear much about the chemical for the rest of the film. And finally, at the very end when Ron was ready to give his speech at the Democratic Convention, we are politely and deliberately reminded of Ron's mom's dream when he was little. Some of the film choices, such as the flashback at the very end and a lot of the childhood scenes, came off as pretty cheesy, despite the otherwise harrowingly serious material in between. **Why was this idealized childhood added into the film, when everything else looks so gritty?**  --- //[[lmccuist@umw.edu|Lindsey McCuistion]] 2016/11/30 15:54//

The horrors of war are not generally secretive. However, the Vietnam War (conflict) was a very different fight than anybody could’ve know at the time. Young men often perceived previous wars like WWII, **as a responsibility or rite of passage into manhood.** These fantasies were often fueled by propaganda and dress uniforms (Tom Beranger) but when/if they returned home, there were a number of different battles to deal with (literal or metaphorically). Early in the film, Ron’s parents had no problem supporting his wishes to enlist and fight for God & country, but they too learned that this war was different from others fought by previous Kovic generations. In a later, somewhat disturbing scene, Ron comes home very drunk and vulgar, blaming his mother for his current condition. Basically, does anyone else think there is some merit to his accusations?....think about it. --- //[[dblount@mail.umw.edu|Blount, David]] 2016/11/30 16:54//

One interesting thing about interpretation was the **lengths the movie went to portray Ron as an All-American boy.**  He was romantically involved with the girl-next-door, he worked hard and tried his best in wrestling, and he wanted to go to Vietnam in order to help his country.  Another thing that was interesting is that it completely cut out the aspect of boot camp and cuts from high school to Vietnam. --- //[[ctrout@umw.edu|Trout, Christian C.]] 2016/11/30 18:13//

This is more of a comment about directing and structure, but I thought the part where Ron's mother tells him about her dream about him giving a speech to a large crowd and saying "great things" was a little cheesy. It felt very forced and unnatural, and I felt that inserting it in the end before the flashback montage was too much for a movie with as much realism as //Born on the Fourth of July//. --- //[[mcarey@umw.edu|Carey Megan A.]] 2016/11/30 21:17//

So was I the only one weirded out by the kids kissing in the beginning of the film?  Had they even gone through puberty at that point?  I think the entire intro was showing the “quintessential” fifties life with everyone being all-American and of the Christian faith.  I will say for the intro, I appreciated that they showed a few WWII vets in the parade having PTSD effects, especially when that was the point of the movie.  (And as an Air Force vet, I fully admit that the Gunny’s Air Farce comment resulted in an indignant “Hey!”) --- //[[lfrey@umw.edu|Frey Lauren E.]] 2016/11/30 23:06//

Again, we have a movie that was built around a book. In the past we have dismissed the credibility of a film that was based on a fictitious story but Born on the Fourth of July was an autobiography about the man who lived it. However, does this make the story and the film more or less credible? Do we take into account that this is a story written by a man who had an agenda? Could that have influenced the way he remembered or relayed his tale?  --- //[[lrainfor@umw.edu|Rainford Lauren E.]] 2016/11/30 23:21//

Aside from the historic accuracies/inaccuracies: I felt this movie did a fantastic job in allowing the audience to forget about what they 'knew' and take them into the movie. Anyone else forget at any point in the movie that it was a story of a 'specific' individual (Ron Kovic)? --- //[[jbaker8@umw.edu|Baker, Jonathon A.]] 2016/11/30 23:21//

I found the overt "Leave it to Beaver" All-American town that Ron came from to be a bit heavy handed with just how classicly American it was, bordering on the comical. That being said, it serves as an interesting visualization of Ron's own idealism regarding enlisting with the Marines to fight in Vietnam. The almost dream-like quality that many of the outdoors shots had, apparently due to lighting filters used for the express purpose of giving the scene that was shot that dream-like quality. --- //[[ccooney@umw.edu|Cooney, Corey R.]] 2016/12/01 02:35//
====== 4 Movie as a Primary Source about the time in which it was made ======
I think the lack of** women in major roles in this film reflect the time period in which this film was made in. Women in the film where either shown in a maternal way or as sexual objects and there was no complexity to the characters. As we discussed in class, women played important roles in Vietnam such as nurses but none of that is depicted in heroic way in the film.** The film in a way reminds me of Matewan, where female characters mostly served as plot devices and Glory where there were no female characters at all. It seems that the 1980s was a time where female roles were not well developed or complex.  --- //[[lkacoyan@umw.edu|Kacoyanis, Leah F.]] 2016/11/29 21:30//

Can we please talk about the hair and the style and how, especially women’s hair, reflected the 80’s. Donna has the poof up style and as the movie goes on viewers sees how the hair changes, except for Donna, and the evolution of the mullet begins to happen. I just thought this was interesting when it comes to being a primary source for the time period because fashion plays a huge role in how we differentiate time periods.  --- //[[mmcmaken@mail.umw.edu|Mary-Margaret McMaken]] 2016/11/30 10:57//

**Post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) is an anxiety disorder derived in individuals after witnessing and/or experiencing one or more traumatic events….exactly what it sounds like. The department of veterans’ affairs (VA) has made great strides in dealing with this disorder and its symptoms over the years. As seen in the film, this stress can be triggered abruptly without warning (parade fireworks).** Symptoms of PTSD were (and still are) often treated through self-medication like drugs and alcohol (seen frequently throughout the film) which can result in a number of additional issues. Between the lack of response to these issues, and the unsatisfactory conditions of military hospitals via budgetary cutbacks (like the Animal House-ish one seen in the film), these combat veterans were set up for failure. Unfortunately for Ron Kovic, and many other Vietnam vets, PTSD and other subsequent (psychological) combat impairments, were not officially recognized until 1980. VA awareness increase and monetary disability disbursements weren’t generally prevalent until 1987. For this, I consider //Born on the 4th of July// a primary source of its time.
https://report.nih.gov/nihfactsheets/ViewFactSheet.aspx?csid=58
http://www.ptsd.va.gov/professional/PTSD-overview/ptsd-overview.asp
--- //[[dblount@mail.umw.edu|Blount, David]] 2016/11/30 16:20//

Aside from the changing attitudes about the Cold War, Vietnam, race relations, etc. that began around 1990, I thought it was interesting that this film preceded the Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990 by one year. While the issue of having a character with a disability be played by an actor without that disability is a controversial choice, the harsh reality of the disabilities incurred by Kovic as depicted by Tom Cruise would have probably hit audiences hard. The horrifying conditions in the hospital, the trouble Kovic has getting around, and the fact that almost everyone in the film treats him differently because of his disabilities would have been on screen for everyone to see in a major film that got a lot of critical and popular attention. This film would have probably been in the minds of at least some Americans when the ADA was passed a year after its premiere.
 --- //[[dhawkins@umw.edu|Hawkins Daniel C.]] 2016/12/01 00:36//

Considering the film was produced during the end of the 80's, the Cold War would have been coming to an end shortly after. At this time, due to the publicized nature of the Vietnam War via television and the constant anti-war protests, large swathes of the American populace had grown disillusioned with whether or not the United States was "the good guy" in the various active military engagements. Especially with stories of various war crimes or civilians being killed by American soldiers. As a result, the film aims more for human stories of internal conflict rather than acting as ersatz propaganda that paints the United States as liberating heroes. --- //[[ccooney@umw.edu|Cooney, Corey R.]] 2016/12/01 02:47//
====== 5 Comparing the reading to the movie ======
**In the reading Rumor of War Caputo discusses the call his generation felt from Kennedy’s challenge. This was referenced in the film as well.** Both in the initial scene where Ronnie sees the original speech on television as well as the moment where he confronts his father about supporting his military service. Having those two scene emphasizes the ideology of optimism and patriotism people felt in that moment. The fact that it is present between the reading and the film really reminds about how people felt in that moment.  --- //[[cliberty@umw.edu|Liberty, Catherine A.]] 2016/11/29 17:39//

Caputo's Rumor of War is a war story and that is all. As it says in the first line, it wishes to take no political position. It seems that the movie however, might be taking a political side. It shows the harassment of some veterans by the Nixon supporters and Kovic speaking for the Democratic National Convention. I understand these things actually happened but the director could have left them out to focus on the war and its impact on veterans.  --- //[[nfanning@umw.edu|Fanning Neal R.]] 2016/11/30 10:00//

The chapter from //The Things They Carried// relates a great deal to the movie, although the book is more direct about it, naming off what the items were and how much they weighed. The chapter also mentions the mental and emotional burdens and the sacrifices -- the mental and emotional things they dropped -- that they endured throughout the war. We see this more visually than explicitly in the movie, **especially as veterans interacted with one another. They shared the pain, the emotional distress, the almost-bragging-almost-confessing when they discuss who they killed or how much death they saw.** //The Things They Carried// is a work of fiction, but it's one of the most powerful and influential stories about the war, so relating it to the movie gives us another layer of how it has been represented in media as opposed to real-life experiences.
====== 6 The "So, what?" question ======

I think Born on the Fourth of July **can be commended for not portraying the Veterans as the stereotypes that movies like Taxi Driver or Rhambo** showcased but as real men with real experiences, which makes sense since it's based off of Kovic's biography. Even still, I think it's important that this movie exists among its counterparts.  --- //[[afanghel@umw.edu|Fanghella, Amy E.]] 2016/11/29 21:16//

The movie come out a fairly short time after the Vietnam War (or “conflict”), so //Born on the Fourth of July// is a very accurate representation of what a Vietnam soldier would have gone through from going off, to fighting, to returning home and accepting his new reality. It was difficult, as returning from any war would have been, but this was **the first time that there was so much backlash against the government and military from the civilians/citizens and returning veterans. The movie does a great job showing what an emotional toll the Vietnam War had on civilians and veterans alike.**  --- //[[khaynes3@umw.edu|Haynes, Kelly E.]] 2016/11/29 23:05//

I think it is important to look at this movie because, like Amy said, it doesn’t portray Veterans as violent stereotypes, and it shows them getting better through different ways. Usually in movies we either don’t see them get better at all or we see them get better only after killing a bunch of people. Instead in this movie, **we see Kovic get better slowly, learning to deal with what happened and accepting it. We don’t see the healing as a sudden thing, or nonexistent, but as it is happening gradually.** --- //[[mlindse2@umw.edu|Lindsey, Megan E.]] 2016/11/30 19:05//

I really appreciated the way that this film wasn't afraid to be complicated with its message. It never directly stated its message, but instead lets the audience decide their feelings about the war and the effects on veterans and civilians. Vietnam was a complicated war, and the '60s and early '70s were a complicated time. It never implies that all veterans are bad or that the war is good. It's critical of the Vietnam War and of the glorification of war, but it humanizes the veterans, even the ones who defended the America's involvement. In the end, we understand that the people involved on all sides were imperfect human beings, but that we can all learn from mistakes as individuals and as a country.  --- //[[mcarey@umw.edu|Carey Megan A.]] 2016/11/30 21:23//

I really enjoyed the movie and how it portrayed the Vietnam era. I think it is important because it makes you feel terrible and uncomfortable because of all the terrible thinks Ron has to go through. I think its good that it makes you uncomfortable because it does not sugar coat the situation. It shows how terrible the war was and what the veterans had to deal with when they got back home. I think it would have opened some people's eyes at the time and now.
--- //[[nhouff@umw.edu|Houff Nicholas T.]] 2016/11/30 23:14//

This movie came out the same year as another Vietnam film that we did not discuss in class, //Casualties of War//.  I don't know how many of us have seen it, and while I have not seen it in several years, I definitely describe it as "disturbing," and that's putting it very lightly.  It was yet another film to show Vietnam soldiers as evil monsters, so it was nice to see this film show a lot of character development for Ronnie before he goes to the war and after, and show him as a realistic person. --- //[[lfrey@umw.edu|Frey Lauren E.]] 2016/11/30 23:08//