329-2012--Week 14 Questions/Comments

Things the movie got right
'''One thing that the film did pretty well was show that the Vietnam conflict was a racially diverse fight. Ron's unit in Vietnam was pretty well integrated and he was rescued by a black soldier after he was wounded'''; in the VA hospital, most of the staff was African American too. --Carrie I think the film did an excellent job portraying the emotions of Vietnam veterans. The anger of them not being treated as well as they should have in the hospitals, and then coming home only to find out that people don’t care for what they fought for. Then finally, the anger at the federal government for lying and not giving them the recognition they felt they deserved. –Paige I thought that the movies portrayal of the soldiers’ ideas of the war before going to Vietnam was accurate. '''The recruiters that came to the school painted a picture of only wanting the best to enlist and serving their country and giving the idea of becoming a war hero. I thought that it showed how they went in thinking they were serving their country and came back thinking something different.''' They also included that the United States had never lost a war until then. –Kayle P '''It’s so difficult when we watch a movie that’s based on a book to critique it as a film. It’s even harder when that book is an autobiography that we haven’t read. Who are we to say what is right and wrong?''' His story was exceptional, and that’s why it’s so popular. '''On top of that, we are looking at multiple layers here. Not just the director and actors’ biases, but also Ron Kovic.''' He wrote his story nearly as it was happening—not years or decades after it happened like many people do. What does that mean then? That means that he did not have a perspective on it when he wrote it, for one. So when the movie comes fourteen or fifteen years later, he gets another chance to shape the story with all that he’s learned since then. Does he change his story? Well, I don’t know because I didn’t read the book, but I’m sure either he or the director took some artistic license in the film—especially given what we’ve learned about the other Vietnam movies leading up to this one in 1989. But anyways, I’ll get off my soapbox and talk about what I can critique. --Brooke After seeing way too many torture-porn movies (“I want to play a game.”) I’m not really shocked when I see guts, bones, and blood on screen. '''My anti-gore friends, however, had a hard time watching those scenes. So I applaud the realism in this film—it wasn’t a pretty war, so this movie wasn’t pretty. The VA hospital scene was definitely one of those scenes. My friend, a Vietnam fanatic, didn’t have much knowledge about the details of a hospital experience, but I imagine that they were that bad. With so little money going to benefit veterans at this time, the hospitals were bound to be disgusting.&#160; I think the movie also got some of the smaller or “minor” details right, as well, such as the following things: mentioning that Kovic was on his second tour, Kovic knowing very little about the Georgia boy, the Georgia boy was from a working-class family, and the practical difficulties of living in the 1970s with a wheelchair.''' --Brooke The movie did show how the youth, especially those in college, were against the war. When Ron Kovic comes home, his brother talks about how he doesn't support Vietnam and doesn't think Ron understands. Then Donna and her friends at Syracuse are really politically active against the war, with signs and posters everywhere around the campus. Police involvement in these protests was also well demonstrated as they would have tried to break them up. (Also, what happened to Donna?) '''The film also demonstrated how regular people weren't that invested in the War. Rather than being absorbed with news of Vietnam, Mrs. Kovic changes the channel to watch some sitcom.''' -Amanda&#160; It seemed to portray the effect the war had on the soldiers coming home, the effect it had on their family, and the problems of reintegrating themselves (or at least the idea that Vietnam vets were unable to return to society). From the drugs and alcohol abuse, to the fight Ron had with his brother about the war, to the ranging effects of PTSD -pmccloy '''I thought the movie did a good job of placing small everyday events into the pre Vietnam War years of the late 1950s. Director Oliver Stone placed so many little details into this time: kids playing army, fireworks, small town parades, Playboy, Mickey Mantle, Catholic family proudly watching Kennedy, and even the spraying of DDT in the neighborhood.''' Oliver Stone created an environment that was innocent and simpler.This romanticization of the 1950s became very popular in the late 1960s and 70s because of all the turmoil and division in the country. As we have learned this semester the 1950s were not a perfect time and many people faced challenges and struggled during the 1950s. So even Oliver Stone’s romanization of the 1950s is correct when viewed through Ron’s memories.'''I felt that the movie captured the division, chaos, and pain of this time period very well. As a viewer you are confronted with many very disturbing images and scenarios. I applaud Stone’s attempt to highlight the absolute worst aspects of the Vietnam era.''' While not every Vet’s experiences were as bad as Ron’s it does illustrate to the audience all the different negative aspects a Vet could have faced. - Jason Milton '''I think the choice to make the war scenes only a small part of the movie emphasized the short tours the soldiers took. Stone's choice to feature Ron's life after the war for most of the movie also emphasized the major issues with the war on the home-front and the soldiers' experiences once they returned home.''' I think the movie also did a good job of comparing the experiences of veterans of World War II and Vietnam and how differently they experienced war and the effects of it. - Kendall As Paige mentioned, the film did an excellent job depicting the emotional turmoil of Vietnam vets and also portrayed the psychological damage they faced upon returning home&#160;well. Given that the film mainly&#160;revolves around Ron's personal story it captures the feelings and experiences of a Vietnam Veteran on an extremely intimate level. --Mary O. '''The film captured the mental disorders that the veterans faced when coming home. I thought that the smallest head jerk when the firecrackers went off, at the beginning and when Ron was in the parade, very moving. The lack of funding for veterans also was accurate. It reminded me of something I learned about my grandfather. When he got back from the war he was looking for somewhere to join for help, but there were no chapters where he lived.''' He started a chapter of the Disabled American Veterans in his town as well as a chapter of Military Order of the Purple Heart. -Emily The PTSD was prevalent in the film. When the baby was crying, the firecrackers that sounded like gunshots, flashbacks, survivor's guilt, friendly fire, and breakdowns were represented well. Soldiers expected honor and glory of the war, but craved for the blood and guts. It was chaotic in Vietnam because they didn't know who or where the enemy was. The health care for vets was almost non-existent. Everyone thought it'd be an easy win. You could see the drug and alcohol addiction. Although I expected more soldiers to be drug addicts than the male nurses at the "hospital." Fears of communism in the US were still circulating. Police violence against protestors was brutal. -Hannah

'''The film did a good job portraying the romantic sort of background that Ron came from and the expactations that he had going to Vietnam; his admiration at the Fourth of July parade in the opening and his drive to be the best, to be a part of history like his father in WWII. I thought playing "Moon River" in the prom scene right before he left was a good choice to kind of end that chapter, with the dreamy line about "...drifters off to see the world, there's such a lot of world to see."''' Ron's friend's comment in the resturaunt that no one on the homefront cared at all about the war was reflective of the way that it didn;t feel like there was a war going on, without the rationing or fixed wages,etc.Mary Quinn

'''The film includes numerous character moments, lines, and images which create a very real atmosphere for the conflict. I think this is due to when the original was written. Did some biases, ideas, and opinions creep in afterward? Sure, but the film captures so many small nuances of the struggle that it really succeeds in its portrayal of the Vietnam conflict'''. I think the film works on a number of levels as a good as a primary source (does that mean I should move this comment down a few sections? ...Nah). It's through these small inclusions that the film covered all the basics: the Vietnam War was controversial, traumatic, disgusting, expensive, and soldiers felt unappreciated. The real conflict was all these things. -- Sam R.

The movie shows two separate veterans flinching after sounds that are similar to gun shots. The feelings of anger, pride, and doubt that Tom Cruize's character experiences after returning from war and his flashbacks. --Olivia

'''I think the movie did a good job capturing the bitter sweetness for veterans and their families when they return home. Their families are happy that they survive but they recognize that they are coming home with both physical and mental scars.''' When Ron came home, people including his family could not help staring at his paralyzed legs. His struggle with alcoholism is also a reflection of survivor's guilt. I think the scene where he experiences PTSD during his parade speech was very well done because it was triggered by the sound of a baby crying in the audience, reminding him of the baby in the hut in Vietnam. -WD

'''Kovic's loss of faith in God and confrontation with his parents over his behavior mirrors the general breaking off of generations in culture and beliefs. Stone does a good job of expressing the culture of America in the 50s. Kovic's wrestling coach talks about the sacrifice and hard work that is needed to win. His mother talks about how hard Ron works and that with hard work, anything is achievable. Ron really does believe this, even after he is shot. He is determined to prove the doctors wrong by trying to walk on crutches as well refusing to amputate his legs. But he can't reconcile that his feelings increasing uselessness.''' He says to his mother: " I would give up all of my beliefs to have a working body again." '''Not even a fellow marine from WWII understands the disillusionment of Vietnam veterans. The older marine could only see the question as either win or lose, loyal or traitorous.''' For Kovic, the lines have blurred and he can't think in such absolutes as he did earlier in the film: "love it or leave it." He's killed innocent women and children as well as one of his own troops. His shifts in beliefs is a small scale example of America's loss of innocence that Stone uses repeated as a motif in many of his films. - Zhen Chen

Things the movie got wrong
The Mexican prostitute got the wheelchair up the stairs. One of the oddest quotes in the film was "this was a rich white man's war," spoken by one of the workers in the VA hospital. Perhaps the war was steered by rich white men, but it wasn't fought by them. The characters that we learned about in the film, Ron, his friend Timmy, were middle class at worst, and not representative of the majority of enlisted men, who were largely working class. --Stef L. First off,I didn't think that the film did a very good job of showing the role women played in Vietnam; Army and Navy nurses worked in MASH units like the ones Ron ended up in, and flew med evac runs throughout the war, but the film doesn't show them until after Ron is back in the crappy VA hospital. I also didn't think that the film did justice to the rapid re-integration problems that many veterans faced;'''one minute the movie is in a field hospital in Vietnam, the next it's 6 months later in a New York VA hospital. I felt the viewer really lost that sense of abrupt transition back to civilian life, even though the scenes in the hospital were pretty shocking.''' --Carrie '''A couple things in the film confused me from what we discussed in class. First off, from the way the film made it seem, Ron was the center attention when he came back from the war. People came to visit with him when he got home and there was a parade and got an entire car to himself! I thought from what we talked about in class everyone would have acted like nothing had happened. Also, in the film, it seemed like a large number of paraplegics went to a single town in Mexico to escape their problems. How did they all know to go to the same place?'''--Paige I agree with you Paige! I was so confused about the parade and Ron coming back. I thought it was because the neighborhood wanted to come and see what happened to him after the war rather than welcoming him back. With the parade I think that it was because it was on his birthday? Also…..when he was talking to the kid from Georgia,'''he mentioned it was his second tour so did he go on 2 tours back to back? Or was there a break in between?''' -Kayle

'''Let me start by saying I respect the decision to condense Kovic’s experiences in the war into like 10 minutes. However, my friend (who loves the history of Vietnam and Civil Rights more than I think is healthy) and I felt that it was too condensed.''' It’s not a huge problem, but I think it deserves mention. Anyways,for all the African Americans in the VA hospital, there weren’t an awful lot in the war scenes or the veteran scenes. --Brooke '''Although it is not necessarily wrong, I think that Ron Kovic's experience was different than a lot of others, that it was not the average experience. He was from a middle class family and volunteered to go to war rather than being drafter from the working class and forced to go. He also had time to decompress in the VA hospital, where a lot of veterans did not, so he had a chance to get accustomed to being back in the states. Then he joins VVAW, which Vets joined, but not in great numbers. Obviously since this was someone's experience, it isn't wrong, but I think it gives the audience a more individualistic and specific perspective rather than representing the typical veteran.''' -Amanda &#160;

I found it curious. In class we talked breifly about how the soldiers and the fighting in Vietnam were merged into one unit, unlike the fighting going on today (people might not agree with the cause, but they wont punish the soldiers).It seemed like there were characters that had our current view, even those who should be the most angry, like the family of the man Ron shot, or those that were protesting against the war like his high school sweetheart. pmccloy

There were not many things I felt that movie got wrong while the movie may not have addressed all the issues going on during this time I feel that the movie covered so many different aspects of this tumultuous era that it would have been impossible to cover everything in two and a half hours. One of the big questions I had after watching the film: Was it true that Vets would go to places like Mexico to escape the turmoil in America and if true how common was this? - Jason Milton

The main issue with this film in my opinion,&#160;was the fact that some things were over romanticized such as the little boys playing "army" or the treatment of Ron when he returned home as a few of you have already mentioned. --Mary O.

'''This film only showed the story of the one type of soldier. My grandfather was a Colonel during the war and had a completely different experience then Ron’s, both in action and when he returned home. I feel like we only saw one of the point of views and not the complete picture'''. -Emily

One man returning wouldn't have received a welcome home banner with his name on it. He then said that morale was high over there (Vietnam). I didn't see high morale. Those boys were scared to death. The black, male nurse was saying that it was a white man's war. There were black troops, but they weren't shown (except for the random guy out of nowhere that carries Tom Cruise to safety after he's shot).How did Tom Cruise have all that money to travel Mexico and back in the US? -Hannah

I was also confused by the line about Vietnam being a rich man's war, since it didn't reflect anything about the statistics of who actually fought. The only explanation that I could think of was that the speaker was trying to make a point about how racial tensions were running hot at the same time as the war and that it was more difficult for an African American to get a job, so therefore people at home had more pressing concerns than the far-off war. But even so, it did't reflect the numbers of African Americans who served.---Mary Quinn

The movie as a primary source about the time/people who made it
I felt that this film worked well as a primary source, especially because the screen play was written by two Vietnam veterans: Ron Kovic and Oliver Stone. Additionally, many who were watching the film were also Vietnam veterans. Seeing how the film received high reviews and stayed near the top of the box office for more than a month, the film must have gotten something right. –Paige

'''This film was made by a Vietnam Veteran to tell one side of a story about War. That has to be taken into consideration because this is not everyone's Vietnam Experience. This says a lot about Stone, and a lot about what he felt about the war. This is a brilliant film that says so much... in two and a half hours. Vietnam is painful, its confusing''' and it's "hell... where is the devil?" That's a great question. It's hell.

And we think violence and gore is bad now…'''I went through the 50 most popular films from 1985 until 1989. My reaction: My generation is not the only generation that was desensitized to violence and gore.''' Let me just give a short summary of what I found. Be mindful that none of these movies are horror films.&#160; 1985: Commando (“nearly every scene contains violence;” a man is scalped; another man is axed in his groin); 1986: Aliens (okay, nearing horror, but really, I don’t even need to go onto IMDb to remember psychologically scarring it was to see aliens bursting out of peoples’ bodies); Platoon (also Oliver Stone, children get blown up. Enough said.) 1987: Full Metal Jacket (okay, not necessarily gore, but DAMN there’s a lot of blood); Predator (IMDb’s violence and gore score: 10/10 and that’s well-deserved. This is probably the goriest in my opinion) My first thought when I saw this movie was that it must have been shocking to people to see blood and gore in this film. With what I found on IMDb, however, I doubt that was the case for the people who went to see this movie. --Brooke

I also want to comment on a post-9/11 viewpoint. As we talked about in class, the public during the war could not separate the war from the troops. If you supported the troops, you were supporting the war, etc. Living in Hampton Roads near one of the largest naval bases in the world, I grew up around soldiers and sailors. I’ve been on the USS Wisconsin more times than I am willing to admit, and Camp Allen used to be a weekend hang-out. So '''to try and imagine a world where soldiers and veterans were treated so cruelly and with such contempt was incredibly difficult for me. While watching this movie, my friend (the Vietnam/Civil Rights history fanatic) and I nearly turned it off numerous times.''' We could barely watch the scenes near the end, for example. When they took Kovic out of his wheelchair and tried to arrest him on the ground, my friend and I were yelling at the TV. Not only was he disabled, he was a veteran. You just don’t do that. '''It’s part of culture now to treat soldiers with respect and dignity. My question is if the people who watched this in 1989 felt as outraged as we do now.''' -- Brooke

'''This film works well as a primary source, particularly because it shows a limited view of the war and the issues of returning to civilian life. While Vietnam certainly met with a more negative public response than other wars America has been involved in, not everyone looks at it in the same light'''. As always, Oliver Stone did a good job showing his viewpoint, and as many people share that viewpoint, it is a good representation of widely held ideas.It is certainly not a panoramic look at experiences in and responses to the Vietnam War, but those it does convey, it conveys well. ~ Laura-Michal

I think this might be the most heavy-handed agenda-laden film we've watched all semester, unless you count Reefer Madness. There are so many layers to peel back, it's self-defeating to approach this as anything but a primary source. It's a movie, by a very opinionated guy, based on a book, by a vet who wants his story told his way. --Stef L.

Vietnam was seen as a mistake and it's consequences are still in effect. The biggest impact was on the soldiers who fought the war and their sacrifice. I feel like the vet telling his story could agree with other vets who share similar stories. There are so many aspects of the movie that can be used as a primary source, like treatment of returning soldiers, protesting, and coverups. - Hannah

As I mentioned earlier, '''this film works well as a primary source. This is due to several factors. First, the span of time between the conflict, the original writing, and the film. Second, the authorship of the story. The original writing worked as a primary source because the authors experienced it themselves and wrote about it at the time. However, this extended to Oliver Stone and the other filmmakers/writers/artists. The conflict was still relatively fresh in peoples' minds. In addition, many of the people who worked on the film never went to Vietnam'''. This gives the film an interesting non-Veteran (I'll call it a "public") layer to the storytelling. Yes, they were following a story penned by Veterans, but the filmmakers had their own memory of the events from a different perspective. This could be a double-edged primary source. -- Sam R.

I agree with the other comments about how heavily biased and one-sided the movie was. Though in the end, Ron starts to challenge the legitimacy of the war, all the other arguments against the war before his change of heart were pretty much glossed over. When Ron's little brother left the dinner table because he didn't agree with what Ron was saying about the war, he didn't go into much detail on why exactly he didn't support the war. -WD

'''As Roger Ebert's review said, "This movie is an apology for Vietnam." The way that this movie was presented was to show a dark truth that Americans couldn't accept.''' We couldn't accept for a long time that we made an error in judgment, and in a way we as a country still haven't fully come to terms with that. Hollywood, in this case, attempted to make America's apology. --NJenn

Comments on the reading versus the movie
'''In his prologue, Philip Caputo expresses feelings of nostalgia for the war and how he could never be as angry as some of his fellow activists because he lived through it. I think Ron Korvic has some of those feelings, especially when he first gets back and defends the war, then changes his mind as he goes through his adjustment to being a civilian again. Caputo's book gives a slightly different emotional journey about the war than Kovic, but I think they are both represented in the film.''' -Amanda&#160;

'''While the film was pretty exclusively negative in its portrayal of soldiers’ experiences in Vietnam, the readings showed a much more complex range of emotions in these soldiers. The Caputo prologue expressed nostalgia for the war, as well as anger. Caputo said he could never reconcile those two emotions, while in the film Ron seems to simply move from pride in his service to a resentment of the war. The O’Brien reading painted a picture of monotony, everything accounted for by weight, with little or no emotion attached to the soldiers’ lives. The film shows only a brief section of Ron’s service, but everything it includes in this is action. We never see him marching, packing, reading letters.''' Instead of long and numbing, we see a quick and traumatic event, throughout which he is terrified. Overall, the movie presents a very limited view of the experience soldiers had in Vietnam, instead focusing on the issues encountered in the aftermath of service. ~ Laura-Michal

'''I thought the readings and the movie matched up really well, especially the Caputo reading. Ron's feelings before going off to war echoed Caputos' feelings of patriotism and going off to war to fight the good fight. Post war Ron and Caputo realize they don't fit in to society anymore because their experiences with war have changed them so much.''' Ron has his childhood friend Timmy to commiserate and reminisce about their experiences in Vietnam. Also, they both realize how disillusioned they had been about the war itself and reasons for going overseas. -Kendall

Both in the movie and one of the readings war is glamorized in the eyes of "young men who knew nothing about It." Young men see fighting in the war as heroic and the right way to support their country and women see it as impressive and manly. --Olivia

'''Caputo actually mentions JFK's inauguration speech as a motivation for naive soldiers, which is exactly what happens in the movie. However unlike Kovic, Caputo doesn't blame the government for incompetence, but blames the nature of the problem.''' He doesn't even consider himself a protestor because he's resigned to the belief that nothing will change about Vietnam or future conflicts. Tim O'Brien's piece helps explain why Kovic didn't just lie down after getting shot in the foot. '''O'Brien explains that soldiers were afraid of appearing like cowards. They would show needless bravado to prove their squad and themselves that they were men.''' - Zhen Chen