Wiki for Dr. McClurkens Courses

You've loaded an old revision of the document! If you save it, you will create a new version with this data.

====== Errors in fact ======

In the film, Ron is beaten up and arrested at an anti-war protest in Syracuse, New York. In real life, the event was peaceful and not broken up by police, and Kovic didn't even attend.  After complaints from the Syracuse Police Department, Oliver Stone sent a letter of apology in March 1990.http://articles.latimes.com/1990-03-28/entertainment/ca-50_1_syracuse-police --Maryanna Stribling

The song "American Pie" plays during the sequence in which Ron is recovering from his wounds in the med ward. The year is meant to be 1969, but the song itself wasn't released until 1971. While the song is played as background music to set the tone of the scene, it's inaccurate in regards to an actual song from that point in time. https://www.songfacts.com/facts/don-mclean/american-pie --Robert Dallas

The film shows Ron accidentally killing Wilson in a friendly fire incident, although this didn't actually happen. There is no record of this occurring, and therefore Ron's visit to Wilson's parents is also fictional. However, it is definitely within the realm of possibility of the film to include, although it didn't happen to the real Ron Kovic. -Jessie Fitzgerald 
https://www.apnews.com/24641c9560b9ef41a68ad34a26874e1f

Oliver Stone likes to put Blue on Blue or 'Friendly Fire' instances in his films.(see: Platoon where Staff Sergeant Barnes character played by Tom Berenger kills the Sergeant Elias character played by Wilem Dafoe. Both by the way are in BOT4TH)   Maybe Stone is dealing with some guilt issues of his own, but even though I read //Born On The Fourth of July// years ago I don't remember Kovic killing one of his own men in the book. -- Andrew M.

Addendum: I went back and read my copy of BOT4TH and in chapter 7, pgs 173-180 Kovic goes over the accounting of how he believes he killed the corporal from Georgia. Interestingly, there are a number of articles written by members of his platoon who dispute the account of the firefight where the corporal gets killed, Namely this one in the //Seattle Times// "'Born on the Fourth of July’ vet’s account disputed by comrades" https://www.seattletimes.com/entertainment/born-on-the-fourth-of-july-vets-account-disputed-by-comrades/ --Andrew M.

Finally, (something that always irks me as it's so easy to check here:http://kepler.pratt.duke.edu/USMCRibbons.html) Kovic's medals are out of order, something no Marine would ever let happen. It should be: Bronze star with V, then the next should be the Purple Heart, instead Kovic is wearing the Purple Heart as the fourth medal after Navy Marine Commendation, and Navy Marine Achievement medals. --Andrew M.

I see that two people have said that Ron Kovic didn’t kill a fellow Marine in combat. Here is a interview of Ron Kovic talking about killing a fellow marine in combat. He even mentions it being in his book. -https://youtu.be/K8gAlxNNiIU?t=397

When Jon was in his room and deciding whether or not to join the marines, the year is 1964. However, the baseball game that Ron is listening to in the background (Mickey Mantle hits 491st homerun) actually happened in 1966. -Lake Wiley http://www.themick.com/mm-home-runs-list.htm

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

====== 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 
https://profiles.nlm.nih.gov/ps/access/nnbcph.pdf

Another thing the movie had correct (small detail but I thought was really cool), was that one night Mr. and Mrs. Kovic were watching TV and the show that was on was "Rowan and Martin's Laugh-in", which was a real show during the late 60's and early 70's! --Caroline Collier 
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0062601/

Does a good job at exploring the effect the Vietnam war had on America and its values. It's also based on true life experiences of Ron Kovic. --Lindsey Sowers

The film depicted how veterans were (and are) affected by PTSD upon returning home. --Maryanna Stribling

Going off of Caroline's point about smoking, the film also portrays how Kovic and other veterans turned to drinking in order to avoid their problems. In the film, Kovic felt that he had nothing to look forward to because of his disability. Alcoholism was one type of addiction that was mentioned in class. -Maddie Shiflett

The start of the film, where Ron and his friends were playing war in the woods, juxtaposes well with the actual fighting that Ron later took part in. For the young boys, they were proud of their fathers' roles in World War Two. The movie's reference to World War Two's legacy on the generation of men who volunteered to fight in Vietnam shows how Americans were extremely unprepared for the type of war they would face in Vietnam, because of past wars that were still present in the minds of Americans. -Maddie Shiflett

The film parallels what we discussed in class, that working class communities were disproportionately effected by the war. The little town of Massapequa was ravaged by the loss of boys in the war. Almost all of Ron's friend group died or was injured. --Jessica Lynch

During Ron's 2nd tour, he accidentally gets caught in a friendly fire incident, killing one of his comrades in a moment of panic. Friendly fire is an unfortunately common occurrence in American history, and Vietnam was no exception. While there was a steady flow of reported incidents during the Vietnam conflict, veterans and reporters apparently claim there were dozens of unreported incidents of  friendly fire that came due to very similar circumstances of panic and adrenaline depicted in this film. --Robert Dallas

I think the movie does a great job of showing the effects PTSD has on the returning soldiers and how it affected their lives and how those they knew before reacted to it.  – Courtlyn Plunkett

The juxtaposition of the parade scenes showing how WWII veterans were treated in the 50s when Ron was a kid at the beginning of the film versus how he himself was largely treated is largely true and was also very powerful. The returning soldiers were facing the same difficulties and problems but their public reception was totally different. While Ron was treated with a range of hostility and dislike, the WWII veterans were treated with much more honor during the parades. -Jessie Fitzgerald

Another accuracy I noticed was the ways in which they showed the effects PTSD had on soldiers after they had returned home from war and how much it affected their everyday lives with the people around them. -- Lindsey Sowers

The movie got multiple things right. One example being the way veterans were treated in and outside of the hospital as well as the effects of PTSD that veterans go through because of the war. The film is also correct on the fact that John F. Kennedy's speech inspired Kovic to join the war in the first place. --Alyx Wilson

The film showed the status of the V.A. hospitals from Kovic's perspective and his experience. The hospitals were very understaffed and underfunded. The movie did show the bad conditions of the hospitals but it showed the staff as more supportive than Kovic had experienced in the beginning of his time in the V.A. hospital. Then later the film shows how bad the V.A. really was to these veterans as Cruise shouts "I just wanna be treated like a human being". --Jack Hagn https://historyengine.richmond.edu/episodes/view/6476

I did some searching around on Youtube and found some footage of the 1972 Republican National Convention and you can see Kovic protesting during Nixons speech. https://youtu.be/3fXkuyWBF8Y?t=395

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
====== 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)

Kovic volunteered for service while his friend, Steve, chose to attend college instead of enlisting like all of his friends. Yet, there is no representation of those who were drafted into the war, or those who dodged the draft. I think that the use of the draft during the Vietnam War was a major point of contention, and something that came to define the conflict and the protest movement against it. -Maddie Shiflett

Like Maddie mentioned, no character directly said they were drafted. However, there are several veterans like Charlie that Kovic meets throughout the movie who could potentially have been drafted. What interests me about this movie is that Ron Kovic was also one of the screenwriters. There were points in the film that made me ask "why include this?" such as the scene where Tom Cruise yells "penis" over and over again, and the sex scenes. I wonder if these were included to make the audience more uncomfortable and feel Kovic's frustration and pain. This film works in a way that it should make the viewer uncomfortable, and at times sickened, so the inclusion of these scenes makes sense. I'll never forget Tom Cruise screaming "penis". --Erin Shaw

I’m with Erin here. Oliver Stone and Ron Kovic are both Vietnam war veterans. There are plenty of ways to convey troubles soldiers faced when coming back from the war. I want to know why they included that scene. Rambo, Platoon, and now Penis. -William Roszell

The 'Penis' scenes I believe are from Kovic's book, and speak to the real sacrifice that Kovic made: He was a virgin who never got to experience sex before enlisting and due to the T6 paralysis his junk didn't work and therefore he never would be able to have sex, or a family. No matter how many hookers he sleeps with. Another Stone metaphor...? --Andrew M.

In addition to what Maddie said about a lack of representation of the draft, the film also did not address issues faced by African American soldiers in Vietnam. This was one of the first times there were integrated units in the military and that caused significant conflict, but none of this conflict was represented in the film. -- Carolyn Stough

I noticed and thought the same thing as Carolyn S. about the African American soldiers. I wonder as to why this wasn't seen at all in the film? -- Lindsey Sowers

In Errors in Fact it was mentioned how Kovic going to visit Wilson's parents was never something that happened in the Kovics autobiography. Was this a choice from the director to address PTSD and coming to terms with the war? It was an interesting scene that was important to the movie, but I wanted to know why the director made this choice. -- Ellora Larsen

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 ======

The movie portrayed veterans coming home from Vietnam having symptoms that came across as PTSD. This was surprising to me because this movie came out only 9 years after PTSD was discovered as a disorder. I think it was a good primary source of its time, because even for this late 80's movie it was unusual that the movie portrayed PTSD so prominently. Oliver Stone was just ahead of his time. --Caroline Collier
https://report.nih.gov/NIHfactsheets/ViewFactSheet.aspx?csid=58

I thought it was interesting that they focused so much on PTSD as well, but notice that they never named it. They showed symptoms, like flinching at firecrackers, nightmares, flashbacks, and panic attacks, but they never label this as a mental disorder/PTSD. It's focus on mental health and disability is also interesting, given that Tom Cruise converted to Scientology a year after this film was released. Scientology discredits psychology and claims that any disorder or disability can be fixed through their teachings. Tom Cruise has openly discredited other celebrities who have discussed their mental health conditions (https://people.com/parents/tom_cruise_crit/), and claims himself that Scientology cured his dyslexia (https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/11/how-tom-cruise-introduced-scientology_n_1664934.html). It was very interesting to see him in a film that is so frank with mental health when he would soon advocate against it. --Erin Shaw

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

One of Ron's motivations and justifications for his military service was John F Kennedy's influential speech he watched as a young boy. In Philip Caputo's prologue, he also cites Kennedy as perpetuating the "fight for one's country" sentiment. Caputo asserts that everyone was affected by a "missionary idealism he [Kennedy] had awaken in us." --Jessica Lynch

In the reading, A Rumor of War, the author discusses how when he hears thunder he hears the roar of artillery as well as when walks through the woods he instinctively searches for a trip wire or ambush. This can relate to the scenes in the film when Ronnie hears a baby cry during the Fourth of July parade when he returns home from war. It brings back flashbacks that he will always remember. – Courtlyn Plunkett

I read "The Things they Carried" for a class in high school, and I was thinking about it the whole time during this film. That book has stuck with me for the past four years because it graphically depicted the brutality of Vietnam and its impact on the soldiers. I was reminded of it during the film in the scene with the baby, because there are several instances in that book that describe similar situations. Caputo's prologue was also very similar to this film, particularly because he was also a Marine that went into combat early and witnessed many people die. He mentioned that he was told by a superior that any dead Vietnamese person counted as Viet Cong, which reminded me of the scene where they leave the house with all the dead people and the baby. They all counted as the enemy in that moment. --Erin Shaw

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 ======

This movie is about war and the realities of it.  What happened to Kovic has happened to men in every war in history. They all start out as patriots and believe in the cause, then hate war after experiencing it. 
Vietnam is no different. This movie is about the realities of just how shitty the way the government starting with John F. Kennedy, and Lyndon Johnson lied to everyone and abandoned their veterans medically and socially upon their return. Thank goodness the current administration has fired the imbeciles who have been running the VA the last eight years, and is holding people accountable.  The brotherhood of War is glorious.  Rehab as we see through Kovic lasts the rest of your life. -- Andrew M.

Born on the Fourth of July does not play up the glory of war or of being a soldier. Ron Kovic starts out as a patriotic soldier that would die for his country, like the main characters in other movies we have watched like The Patriot and Glory. By the end, he ends up utterly disillusioned by the war and becomes a pacifist activist against the cause he once believed in. -Kyle Moore

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

Edit summary

Note: By editing this page you agree to license your content under the following license: CC Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International