final english paper
-
Upload
tyler-maher -
Category
Documents
-
view
51 -
download
0
Transcript of final english paper
Tyler Maher
ENG 172: War and American Values
Final Paper
Understanding the Vietnam War through Film
40 years after it ended, the Vietnam War still confounds American society. For a long
time, it baffled Hollywood as well. Though Vietnam was (at the time) the longest war the United
States had ever fought and it coincided with a golden age for American cinema, only one major
motion picture was made about the war while it was going on. Due to the controversial and
unpopular nature of the war, studios feared any movie that addressed it directly would bomb at
the box office. Hollywood was also reluctant to make fictional films about a war that Americans
were seeing every night on their living room televisions. It was assumed that audiences already
inundated with Vietnam news coverage had no desire to see a movie version of their country’s
struggles there. So Hollywood stayed away from the debacle in Southeast Asia, refusing to touch
it until after the war was over (Slocum 28).
Another explanation for the dearth of ‘Nam films prior to 1978 was that Vietnam—an
unconventional war unlike any America had ever previously fought—proved to be an incredibly
challenging topic for Hollywood. The film industry “seemed unable to come up with new
formulas that might make the war intelligible to Americans…Hollywood could neither fit the
Vietnam War into any of its old formulas nor create new ones for it” (Auster and Quart 34).
Hollywood didn’t know how to handle the conflict once it became clear that the tried-and-true,
flag-waving and soldier-worshiping model that worked so well in the 1940’s and ‘50s no longer
applied. Vietnam forced American filmmakers and moviegoers to re-evaluate their perceptions
of war and the people that fight them. Films had previously served to prop up American soldiers
2
and values, but would be used to break them down after Vietnam. “War movies have changed in
a fundamental way” (Aust and Schroeder), a trend evident in several Vietnam War films
throughout the years, from 1968’s The Green Berets through 2002’s We Were Soldiers. Through
their changing and evolving political messages, levels of realism, and interpretations of the war,
these movies have reflected the country’s changing attitudes about Vietnam’s legacy.
Case study 1: The Green Berets
Like America’s military intervention in Vietnam, The Green Berets was well-meaning
but ultimately failed to achieve its goals. At best, both can be seen as misguided attempts at the
wrong place and wrong time. At worst, both have been described as colossal failures. Thus, it is
unsurprising, perhaps even fitting, that The Green Berets was the only major studio combat
picture to be produced during the Vietnam War. Though it raked in a huge box office haul, the
film received such scathing reviews that Hollywood refrained from attempting another Vietnam
picture until the war was over.
There are many problems with The Green Berets’ “unqualified defense of American
military involvement in Vietnam” (Dittmar and Michaud 21), most of which ironically stem from
its good intentions. Wayne, a staunch anti-communist and patriotic American, visited Vietnam in
1966 and came back inspired to make a positive statement about the war in “the best way he
knew how—(with) a pro-American, pro-soldier, guts and glory film, just as he had done so many
times in the past” (Hillstrom and Hillstrom 143). But rather than focus on the average grunt, the
Duke made and starred in a movie about America’s finest soldiers: the Green Berets. As one of
the war’s few successes, they were “The Soldiers at the Heart of the War” (Muse 39), the perfect
vehicle for Wayne to “tell the story of our fighting men in Vietnam with reason, emotion,
characterization, and action…in a manner that will inspire a patriotic attitude on the part of
3
fellow Americans” (Muse 39). The newly-formed, elite Special Forces group was, according to
Staff Sergeant Barry Sadler’s hit song at the time, “America’s best.” If the noble Green Berets
led by John Wayne couldn’t win America over, nobody could.
In the spirit of classic war movies, Wayne’s Green Berets are “recognizable Hollywood
war heroes” that stand as “bastions of camaraderie, honor, decency, and Americanism” (Auster
and Quart 31). They exude values traditionally associated with American soldiers like toughness,
bravery, intelligence, compassion, and dedication to their mission. They’re portrayed as heroic
cavalry riding to the rescue of poor, weak South Vietnam. They also get along exceptionally
well; “The officers in The Green Berets are competent decision-makers… loved and respected
by their men…Similarly, the cast of infantrymen is seemingly lifted from any of Wayne's earlier
war pictures. The soldiers are professional, courteous, respect the officers, and have no vices”
(Butler). Wayne’s idyllic portrait of the military being one big happy family is especially
disturbing in the context of Vietnam, when tensions became so high that soldiers resorted to
killing (known as “fragging”) their officers. Wayne’s flawless, saint-like soldiers—shown to be
in high spirits and getting along splendidly—don’t correspond to reality and come off as
caricatures. “The Green Berets attempts to mythologize its heroes…but the myths are stillborn”
(Adair 45). The movie also makes little effort to develop its characters. While likeable and easy
to root for, they’re merely mouthpieces through which Wayne voices his political messages.
Much of their contrived dialogue feels like it was lifted right out of a Lyndon Johnson speech.
But because the characters are good soldiers and outstanding Americans, their political views are
supposed to be more palatable, if not desirable. Wayne’s friendly and familiar Green Berets are
meant to show audiences the light.
4
It’s important to remember, though, that Americans had a much different view of soldiers
in 1968 than they do today. The movie came out before reports of the My Lai massacre were
leaked, before drug use and desertion ravaged the military, and before the war was lost. The
military was still viewed as a positive American institution, associated with strong fundamental
values such as honor and hard-work. In the vein of World War II films, The Green Berets
reflected this notion of the strong, masculine soldier as a force for good throughout the world.
Presenting American soldiers as “muscular, war-loving cavalrymen” (Auster and Quart
33) was just one of the ways Wayne adheres to the conventions established by World War II and
Korean War combat films. Another is the curious absence of blood and gore. Most onscreen
deaths are quick and painless, and nobody loses limbs to booby traps. So “of course, all the
Green Berets face death with grace and courage” (Auster and Quart 33), meeting their fates in
heroic fashion. Yet another film trope featured in The Green Berets is its black and white
dichotomy of good versus evil, which could be more aptly described as cowboys versus Indians.
This “unthinking use of the Western formula” (Anderegg 58) “depicted the bad guys as
despicable and the good guys as impervious to taint” (Muse 44), going too far in both directions
and creating a stark contrast reminiscent of Westerns and World War II propaganda films. The
movie’s reliance on all these conventions “showed what a difficult time America was having in
disentangling from its World War II self” (Dittmar and Michaud 74). Indeed, during the war’s
early years (and, to belabor the point, LBJ’s “Why We Fight” speech), the United States tried to
frame Vietnam like World War II: a global struggle for democracy against an evil, ruthless
enemy. But as much as America and Hollywood wanted to view Vietnam through that lens, the
conflict was nothing like “The Good War.” It was a complicated civil war that rendered
Hollywood’s “old World War II-film genre conventions and heroics…entirely inadequate to
5
capture the reality of the struggle” (Auster and Quart xiv). But Wayne, old-fashioned in every
sense of the word, paints Vietnam as the World War II-type conflict the politicians were spinning
it as. This was the main reason the movie failed; its “anachronistic dependence upon World War
II film ideas and right wing politics” (Woodman 94) fit neither the new, modern war nor the
cutting-edge forces it portrayed. Despite what Wayne and Hollywood thought, “The Vietnam
War was not a John Wayne war” (Muse 45).
The movie’s clumsy political script can also be attributed to the government’s meddling.
During its production The Green Berets was wholeheartedly supported by the Johnson
administration and received approximately $1,000,000 worth of military assistance, including
over 85 hours of helicopter airtime and 3,800 work days of borrowed military personnel (Muse
39). While the aid allowed the producers to save money and receive cheap top-notch production
value, it did not come without cost. The movie was based on Robin Moore’s bestselling novel, a
book unpopular with the Department of Defense because Moore “insisted that the Special Forces
conducted clandestine missions into North Viet Nam, an activity the military insisted was outside
their current sphere of activity” (Muse 39). In return for its support, the DoD pressured
screenwriter James Lee Barrett into writing what he thought was “‘an inferior version’ of the
script” (Muse 39). Rather than resembling Moore’s explosive book, the movie version shared
virtually no similarities with its riveting source material. Unable to flex his creative muscles,
Barrett penned a dull, safe, formulaic script that was “unashamedly patriotic…(containing) quite
possibly every war film cliché ever conceived” (Lanning 49). By collaborating with the
government, Wayne sacrificed the screenplay’s quality and prevented his movie from reaching
its full potential, allowing his political biases to sabotage its promising story.
6
The trade-off improved production value but surely led to a weaker film. The
government’s influence overwhelmed the movie from start to finish, turning it into “the most
blatantly propagandist contemporaneous American feature film made about the Vietnam War”
(Hillstrom and Hillstrom 139). Smothered with awkward educational lessons about the conflict,
The Green Berets felt more like “a long lecture” (Dittmar 54) than a rousing adventure story.
And because the audience had already made up its mind about the war being a giant mistake, that
lecture fell on deaf ears. This was ultimately the film’s greatest sin, taking a “reprehensible
stance on the war” (Eberwein, The War Film 8) by siding with the government. Thus, the
movie’s reliance on military assistance was as much a hindrance as it was a help, especially since
the film wound up being shockingly unrealistic given its huge budget (an estimated $6 million at
the time) and accurate props (Muse 39). Its portrayal of the war was underwhelming, for “not
once does one get a sense of the lived experience of soldiers at war” (Adair 51). Filmed mostly
in Fort Benning, its scenery looks nothing like its purported setting in South Vietnam. The
actors, Wayne especially, are much too old to be playing commandos, and their deaths are
largely bloodless and melodramatic. The combat is too clean and choreographed. In every
regard, the film fails to “approximate even our imaginative experience of Vietnam. The keynote
throughout is a kind of willed innocence and naïveté…Hence, the film seems more than anything
else an exercise in nostalgia” (Anderegg 24). The movie’s gross simplification of a brutal,
complex war is so far removed from reality that it amounts to a delusional fantasy. Rather than
challenging the realities of the controversial war being fought in Southeast Asia, The Green
Berets was “just another John Wayne adventure story” (Muse 45).
Unsurprisingly, reviews were overwhelmingly negative to Wayne’s politically polarizing
film, leading author Robert Eberwein to dub it “most reviled war film in American history” (The
7
Hollywood War Film 31). Critics, many of whom opposed the war, did not appreciate Wayne’s
strong-handed pro-war messages. Furthermore, the film was rife with “inadvertent humor”
(Adler) due to its numerous goofs and inaccuracies, making it laughable and impossible to take
seriously. “A blundering movie, The Green Berets…is too inept to be effective” (Adair 40).
Besides making the movie an easy target, these errors also called attention to its dishonest
portrayal of the conflict, which drew most of the critics’ ire. “What is so repugnant about The
Green Berets is not its politics (nor even, politics apart, its total ineptitude purely as an adventure
war movie) but the fact that—in spite of overwhelming evidence to the contrary—its makers
were determined to reduce Vietnam to simple-minded antitheses” (Adair 35). Blind to the
realities of the war, it was woefully inadequate as a Vietnam movie. Reviewer Roger Ebert
agreed, writing that “The Green Berets simply will not do as a film about the war in Vietnam. It
is offensive…It is supposed to be about Vietnam, but it isn’t” (“The Green Berets”). These
scathing assessments confirmed the movie’s failure as a political statement and as a war film.
“Widely decried as a trite and breathtakingly misleading portrait of the realities in
Vietnam” (Hillstrom and Hillstrom 139), The Green Berets did not, as Wayne hoped, sway
public opinion back in favor of the war. Even the soldiers ridiculed it. “At one army compound
in Vietnam, where The Green Berets was being shown, troops threw beer cans at the screen”
(McAdams 198). The very people that should have embraced the movie dismissed it, indicating
that Wayne had truly missed his mark.
At least some of the backlash can be explained by the movie’s timing. When The Green
Berets was being made in the second half of 1967, the Johnson administration promised a “light
at the end of the tunnel,” indicating the war would be over soon. Victory seemed to be close at
hand, and the film’s positive take on the war reflected that. But by the time it premiered in the
8
summer of 1968, the war was already believed to be a lost cause. U.S. forces were reeling from
the Tet Offensive, Johnson was not running for re-election, and Walter Cronkite had declared the
war a stalemate on national television. In this context, The Green Berets appeared wildly over-
optimistic and out-of-touch. Had the film been released a few years earlier, when support for the
war was high, it probably would have been a huge hit. But 1968 America was too divided to
embrace “a jingoist war story” (Slocum 240), and so “the first Vietnam combat film ironically
became a metaphor for the war, being in the wrong place” (McAdams 198).
Wayne’s star power sold enough tickets to make The Green Berets one of the ten highest-
grossing films of 1968 (Muse 39), but despite the film’s commercial success it would be awhile
before Hollywood revisited Vietnam. The U.S. began withdrawing its forces one year after
Wayne’s movie came out, and its eventual defeat not only “challenged the tenets of America’s
‘victory culture,’” but also “posed questions as to how the war could or should be represented,
and rendered the paradigms associated with the Second World War combat film at least
temporarily inappropriate” (Slocum 28). America had always been the triumphant victors, but its
scarring defeat in Vietnam shattered Hollywood’s World War II template. Vietnam didn’t fit the
blueprint, forcing Hollywood to formulate a new kind of war movie to properly tell it.
As the first major movie about Vietnam, The Green Berets could and should have been
groundbreaking. With its star-driven cast, giant budget, excellent source material and all the
military equipment it could ask for, it had the ingredients to be an instant classic. Instead, it was
a massive misfire. Rather than the bold statement it could have been, it was “the movie of an old,
old man” (Adair 40). Wayne made the same movie he always made, but the times and audiences
had changed, leaving its star and his old-fashioned ideals in the dust. Hollywood learned a
9
valuable lesson from “the defeat of The Green Berets” (Dittmar and Michaud 56): applying
conventional film tropes and values to the Vietnam War wasn’t going to work.
Case study 2: Apocalypse Now
“By the late seventies Vietnam was no longer an explosive issue” (Slocum 243). Enough
time had passed that America could try to come to terms with its involvement in Vietnam.
Hollywood was ready to address the Vietnam experience more directly, and in the late 1970s
began tackling it with gusto. In 1978 alone, four major motion pictures about the war were
released: Coming Home, The Boys in Company C, Go Tell the Spartans, and most notably The
Deer Hunter, which won five Oscars, including Best Picture. But The Deer Hunter, by the
director’s own admission, was not a “Vietnam film” (Bielakowski). It focused more on the war’s
impact on a small steel-town community than on the actual war itself, and its fleeting portrayal
of Vietnam was criticized for being a “warped, misleading representation of the war” (Hillstrom
79). It was not the end-all, be-all Vietnam War movie.
Apocalypse Now, which came out in 1979, tried to be. A true epic, it was Hollywood’s
biggest attempt at depicting the war onscreen. Directed by Francis Ford Coppola at the peak of
his Godfather fame, acted by an All-Star cast, and inspired by Joseph Conrad’s Heart of
Darkness, Apocalypse Now was Coppola’s attempt “to show Vietnam the way it was” (Muse
153). His intention was to make the Vietnam film against which all others would be measured.
In this regard, Apocalypse Now was a modest failure. Though the film earned two Oscars
and received high marks for its acting and cinematography, it ultimately fell short of
expectations. Critics and audiences weren’t quite sure what to make of its “rather muddy blend
of narrative components and hallucinatory spectacle” (Slocum 298), and “a sizeable percentage
of the film community contended that Coppola’s grandiose work was ultimately a failure, albeit
10
a stunningly filmed one” (Hillstrom 14). Coppola’s visionary film, a “creative interpretation of
reality” (Slocum 293), was too dreamy, surreal, and over-the-top to be taken at face value.
Victimized by its own stylistic and philosophical excesses, Apocalypse Now failed to get across
the basic truth of what being a soldier in Vietnam was like. “The film’s dependence on myth and
symbolism to communicate the insanity of the war hindered audiences from believing that they
were seeing Vietnam ‘the way it really was’” (Woodman 103). Coppola’s film was more
allegory than truth. His vivid version of Vietnam was beyond belief and defied explanation.
However, Apocalypse Now did manage to accurately portray some aspects of the
Vietnam experience. Trippy and violent as it was, it did “capture something of the war’s chaos,
incoherence, and sheer uncontrolled murderousness” (Auster and Quart 66), effectively
conveying the madness, absurdity, and ultimate futility of the war. And while its excess erased
any semblance of realism, it nevertheless succeeded in evoking the war’s mood and atmosphere.
“Apocalypse Now captures as no other film has done the unprecedented obscenity of the Vietnam
War…The very real sense of hopelessness that permeates the movie, the sense that things are
getting out of hand” (Adair 166). As Willard travels down the river, the situation spirals out of
control and becomes increasingly desperate. The war becomes more hellish and takes a greater
psychological toll on him and his men. When he finally arrives at Kurtz’s Cambodia compound,
his internal debate over whether he should kill Kurtz epitomizes “the moral dilemma of the
Vietnam war” (Adair 161). As a Vietnam War film, Apocalypse Now still has value in conveying
the essence of the conflict, even if it relies on hyperbole to do so. It gets the point across that “the
war in Vietnam was simply nightmarish, a dream gone insane” (Keeton and Scheckner 47).
Francis Ford Coppola’s controversial masterpiece succeeded as a landmark piece of
cinema and as the perfect metaphor for the Vietnam War. As an anti-Vietnam War film, it also
11
succeeded thanks to its many scenes that “depict the absurdity and outright lunacy of America’s
Vietnam policies, as well as the machinations of high- level military commanders” (Slocum 297).
But as a film about the war it fell short because of its lack of historical context and realism.
Accordingly, it was not embraced as the definitive Vietnam movie Coppola hoped it would be.
“Though a grand and beautiful film, Apocalypse Now failed to capture the popular imagination
or instigate the kind of communal remembrance that Platoon did almost ten years later”
(Anderegg 156). As spectacular and awesome as it was, its authenticity left too much to be
desired. Coppola’s movie had an abundance of style, but lacked substance.
Apocalypse Now is very much reflective of a confused, traumatized nation still trying to
make sense of the war, sifting through crazy experiences and powerful imagery that don’t add up
to a traditional, cohesive narrative. This uncertainty is evident in the film’s “double binds and
mixed messages” (Slocum 298). Its contradictions and incongruities embody a nation still
grappling its first defeat--“a national humiliation” (Mendible)—and unsure of how to overcome
its crisis of spirit. Conclusions were still being drawn about the war and its legacy was very
much in doubt. Apocalypse Now, which offers neither answers nor explanations, echoes this
“sentiment of unease” (Adair 143). It reflects “something amiss in the country’s prevailing
conception of itself. The need…to repudiate the war…a sense of shame” (Slocum 246).
Case study 3: Platoon Almost 20 years after The Green Berets, Hollywood had still not come out with a combat
picture about the Vietnam War. “Hollywood’s difficulty in producing a successful combat film
for Vietnam was unprecedented in the industry…and not until 1986’s Platoon would the combat
film become a popular form for reproduction of the War. The missing combat films reflect a
missing consensus about the War itself” (Muse 101). Vietnam had become a popular movie topic
12
following the end of the war in 1975, but the majority of those films focused on returning
veterans or dealt with the war in evasive ways. No filmmaker had attempted to give an authentic
portrayal of front-line combat in Vietnam because nobody knew how to do it justice. Thus,
nobody really bothered to try. “Until Platoon in 1986…these films did not even aim at the
realistic evocation of how it felt to be a GI on the war’s front lines” (Auster and Quart xv).
Movies that showed Americans in combat, like The Deer Hunter and Apocalypse Now, were
highly fictionalized and stylized versions of the war. They were better films than The Green
Berets, to be sure (with Academy Awards to prove it), but like John Wayne’s film still failed to
paint an accurate picture of the grunt’s experience. Hollywood’s version of Vietnam was still
lacking the most crucial component, and was thus incomplete.
Platoon rectified that. It “left American moviegoers with the impression that this was
really what it was like to experience combat in Vietnam” (McAdams 241). Written and directed
by Oliver Stone, who dropped out of Yale and served in Vietnam as an Army foot-soldier from
1967 to 1968, the film was a fictionalized memoir that drew heavily from his war experiences
(Bielakowski). Stone was the perfect candidate to tell the common infantryman’s tale, for his
“background and career provided almost ideal preparation for writing and directing Platoon…his
experiences were representative of many young men of his generation” (Auster and Quart 131).
He had the intimate knowledge and experience of Vietnam needed to accurately capture the war
on the big screen. More importantly, Stone was committed to telling his story, which took 15
years to realize (Auster and Quart 131). He burned with the “passionate desire to evoke the
details of Vietnam as a lived experience…to bring the repressed memory of the G.I.’s experience
of Vietnam back to consciousness” (Dittmar and Michaud 234). By the mid-1980s, with the war
more than a decade in the past, America was moving on from Vietnam and embracing the
13
Reagan era. Thanks to the president’s national infusion of confidence and pride, “the Vietnam
syndrome had been at least partially overcome” (Slocum 247). As the country distanced itself
from the war, “Vietnam…haunted only the veterans” (Muse 131). The nation was healing, but
the veterans were still recovering, and Stone’s harrowing depiction of war showed why.
Platoon’s realism is best exemplified by its combat scenes, which were hailed for
accurately representing the hectic nature of jungle war. It was “the first Vietnam War film to
represent extensive combat” (Dittmar and Michaud 92), and Stone got it right, delivering “the
most disorienting battle photography thus far” (Eberwein, The Hollywood War Film 99). His
firefights are fierce, dark, and chaotic, conveying the omnipresent danger and lack of front lines
that characterized jungle combat. Vietnam vet Michael Lanning praised the film in his book
Vietnam at the Movies for delivering “some of the most accurate Vietnam War footage yet
created” that showed “what a grunt’s life in combat was really like” (95). In his four-star review
of Platoon, which he lauded as “the best film of 1986,” Roger Ebert explained how Stone
captured combat’s disorienting chaos:
He abandoned the choreography that is standard in almost all war movies. He abandoned
any attempt to make it clear where the various forces were in relation to each other, so
that we never know where ‘our’ side stands and where ‘they’ are. Instead of battle scenes
in which lines are clearly drawn, his combat scenes involve 360 degrees: Any shot might
be aimed at friend or enemy, and in the desperate rush of combat, many of his soldiers
never have a clear idea of exactly who they are shooting at, or why. (“Platoon”)
Stone’s presentation of combat was unlike any that came before it and pulled off what was
previously thought to be impossible: it avoided glorifying combat. Platoon “does not make war
look fun” (Ebert, “Platoon”).
14
Accordingly, the soldiers in Stone’s movie do not enjoy war and are terrified of fighting.
In this regard, Platoon deviates from “American cinema’s almost slavish devotion to the soldier”
(Muse 182). Unlike Wayne, Stone makes no attempt to lionize his soldiers, who are depicted as
scared, disobedient, profane, and apathetic to their mission. Stone’s portrayal of American
soldiers is just as one-sided as Wayne’s, but negatively so. “The GIs in (Platoon) are neither
given to self-indulgent heroics nor to patriotic rhetoric. In fact, most of them merely try to numb
themselves to their surroundings and get out of Vietnam…even mutilating themselves to do it”
(Auster and Quart 137). Their main objective is not to win the war, but to merely survive, and
they do so by any means necessary, such as running away from battle and even killing their
fellow soldiers. Such selfishness splinters a platoon already divided by “antagonisms of race,
region, and class” (Woodman 104), resulting in a group that looks nothing like tight-knit unit
seen in The Green Berets. This friction climaxes when Sgt. Barnes guns down Sgt. Elias to save
himself from a court-martial, and resurfaces at the end when Chris revenge-kills Barnes in a
scene that was truly unprecedented in American cinema; “before Platoon no sane American
soldier ever knowingly killed his superior in a combat film” (Keeton and Scheckner 110). Such a
scene would have been inconceivable in a previous war film, but in the context of Vietnam it
made sense. “Fraggings” such as these were common and reflected the erosion of morale and
camaraderie experienced by draftees fighting for a cause they didn’t believe in. This breakdown
is one way in which Platoon “offers probing analyses of the impact of war on men, complete
with harrowing violence and disturbing depictions of evil” (Eberwein, The War Film 34-35). All
of Stone’s soldiers react differently to the war, which exposes them as flawed, sometimes evil
human beings that make mistakes, commit atrocities, and kill in cold blood. Thus, Stone shows
how difficult it was to “adhere to a moral code of conduct in a frighteningly corrosive
15
environment” (Hillstrom 227). He does not condone or make excuses for their actions (much less
redeem them), but rather shows their abhorrent behavior as understandable responses to the
stressful nature of war. Still, Platoon gives the overall impression that American soldiers in
Vietnam were incompetent and nihilistic. Though Stone dedicates his movie to the men that
fought and died in Vietnam, his tribute is not a flattering one.
Despite the film’s negative portrayal of American soldiers, critical response was almost
unanimously positive, especially from those that had observed the war up close. Author and
historian David Halberstam, a reporter with The New York Times in Vietnam, praised the film as
“the first real Viet Nam film…and one of the greatest war movies of all time…The other
Hollywood Viet Nam films have been a rape of history. But Platoon is historically and
politically accurate” (Woodman 103). Monte Newcombe, who served with Stone in Vietnam,
agreed, noting that Platoon conveyed the “waste, corruption, filth, napalm, blood, and guts, the
destruction and absolute craziness of that war” (Auster and Quart 140). Many critics were
awestruck by the film’s powerful realism and considered it the best Vietnam War film ever made
(Bielakowski). Their extensive praise helped Platoon become the third-highest grossing film of
1986 and secure four Academy Awards, including Best Picture and Best Director for Stone
(Auster and Quart 134). Platoon’s was a victory for Vietnam vets and for Hollywood, which had
finally done the war justice with its “first real cinematic step taken…in coming to terms with the
truth about Vietnam” (Auster and Quart 137).
Platoon “brought out emotional and divided feelings about the Vietnam War” (McAdams
239), shedding new light on the conflict and sparking nation-wide discussion. By making the war
relevant again, Platoon “broke the film barrier that released the next flood of wartime films”
(Muse 159), spearheading a golden age of Vietnam War films. Platoon was followed in rapid
16
succession by Full Metal Jacket, Hamburger Hill, Platoon Leader, Casualties of War, and Born
on the Fourth of July, similar-themed movies that mimicked Platoon’s desire to capture the
war’s ugliness. So whereas The Green Berets effectively discouraged Hollywood from
undertaking Vietnam combat pictures for almost two decades, Platoon produced the opposite
effect. Its critical and commercial success marked “Hollywood’s total acceptance of the Vietnam
War as a fit subject for film” (Auster and Quart 140). What followed was a wave of long-
overdue combat films about the conflict, with more being made in the three years following
Platoon than the total produced in the years that preceded it (Lanning 96). If The Green Berets
was looked upon as the end of the era and the death of a genre, Platoon “revived and modified
the conventions of the combat film” (Slocum 29), giving birth to a new era of war movies that
showed American atrocities and criticized the war. Like Platoon, they featured harsh, critical
portrayals of American soldiers that “ demythologized the war hero, and his mission…In the
Vietnam War films, soldiers were often the source of the destruction of the values of civilization
rather than the forces necessary to save it” (Keeton and Scheckner 123). Always the hero, the
American soldier was transformed into the murderous villain. Thus, the Hollywood archetype of
the evil Vietnam soldier was born.
While numerous Vietnam films have been made since Platoon, none of them have been
able to redefine the genre the way Stone’s film did. Platoon “offered a Vietnam never before
seen—or heard—on screen” (Howell) and its “success established the conventions of reality for
Vietnam” (Muse 169). Platoon raised the bar not just for Vietnam movies, but all war movies. In
addition to providing the most realistic depiction of combat yet seen, Stone went “further than
anyone in demonstrating the full extent of the evil results of war” (Eberwein, The Hollywood
War Film 101). His gut-wrenching movie fully realized the visceral horrors of war in a way no
17
previous film had accomplished. Stone brought Vietnam to life, succeeding in making the
definitive Vietnam War film that Coppola attempted with Apocalypse Now. Of course, the
constraints of film prohibit a movie from capturing every aspect of the war-time experience. It’s
impossible to represent what every soldier went through, especially in Vietnam, where “the daily
ground and nature of the war shifted too often to be encapsulated by any one work of art”
(Auster and Quart 137). But Platoon came closest to capturing the common grunt’s experience,
which is why it’s become a touchstone of sorts for anyone looking to revisit the war. Almost
three decades after it was made, Platoon “remains the most influential Vietnam War film” (Muse
164) and “still lingers with us as no previous Vietnam film ever could” (Bowen 232). Like the
Vietnam Memorial in Washington, it has stood, and continues to stand, the test of time.
Case study 4: We Were Soldiers
In the aftermath of its victories in the Cold War and the first Gulf War, the United States
seemed ready to bury Vietnam for good. President Bush proclaimed the nation had “kicked the
Vietnam syndrome once and for all” (Mendible). As the world’s lone remaining superpower,
America reclaimed its title as the most powerful nation on earth driven by its mighty military, the
successes of which “lifted the burden of the Vietnam War from the American military and
permitted a much more positive representation of the U.S. armed forces in film” (Auster 206).
With Vietnam receding into the past, Hollywood moved away from the tragedy of Vietnam and
churned out a wave of war films that “revisit a number of earlier wars retrospectively, many of
them positively” (Eberwein, The War Film 40-41). The majority of these movies, like Saving
Private Ryan and Band of Brothers, recalled America’s triumphs in World War II. “Attempting
to resurrect the ‘good war’” (Keeton and Scheckner 34), they showed wholesome, clean-cut
Americans saving the world while also highlighting the brotherhood of war. The failure of The
18
Green Berets appeared to prove this model didn’t apply to Vietnam, but We Were Soldiers
demonstrated that it was, in fact, possible to frame Vietnam as a “good war” after all.
A modern take on the Vietnam War, We Were Soldiers “has been called the first
‘straightforwardly pro-Vietnam war film’ since John Wayne’s” (Slocum 7). Like The Green
Berets, it is shockingly old fashioned. Though updated with state-of-the-art special effects, We
Were Soldiers is, at its core, “a reprise of the conventional patriotic war film…flag-waving, war-
fought- in-the-name-of-God movie” (Keeton and Scheckner 14). In many ways We Were Soldiers
is the anti-Platoon, portraying American soldiers as family men that went to Vietnam to fulfill
their duty to God and country. “Gone is the resentment of authority the Vietnam movies of the
late 1980s expressed; in this Vietnam…no one gets left behind” (Slocum 321). Here, the soldiers
are loyal fighters devoted to their commanders, their president, their country, and most
importantly, each other. Unlike earlier films that exposed the disunity within American ranks and
general incompetency of American military command, We Were Soldiers “is Hollywood’s first
major Vietnam War film to portray American soldiers more concerned with killing the enemy
than killing each other” (Eberwein, The War Film 218). The leaders are depicted as intelligent,
highly capable strategists sensitive to the needs of their men. The soldiers possess a strong
fighting spirit and camaraderie; in the words of the movie’s narrator, they “fought for each
other.” Therefore, because the film is essentially a “band-of-brothers movie” (Keeton and
Scheckner 15) that “has very, very patriotic American values” (Slocum 320), it succeeds in
making “Vietnam safe for the World War II combat film” (Eberwein, The War Film 218).
Such conventional framework fits We Were Soldiers because it’s one of the few Vietnam
films to revisit the early part of the war, when optimism ran high and victory in the conflict
seemed assured. Based on the well-received nonfiction book We Were Soldiers Once…And
19
Young by retired Lieutenant General Hal Moore and former UPI reporter Joe Galloway, We
Were Soldiers depicts the vicious Battle of the Ia Drang Valley that took place in November,
1965—one of the first major battles of the Vietnam War. At the time, the war was still popular
back home and the military was mostly comprised of volunteers that believed in the mission and
were eager to serve. The United States had never lost a war and expected to prevail over the
Vietnamese cavemen in black pajamas, especially after winning the war’s first major
engagement against the North Vietnamese. The battle was a resounding success for the
Americans, who wiped out an NVA division while losing only 79 men (Slocum 320).A World
War II movie was the perfect medium to tell this triumphant story. And yet, “the Wallace movie
did not conceal the complexities and brutalities of a war gone very badly” (Keeton and
Scheckner 15). Unlike The Green Berets, it does not present a delusional, fairytale version of
Vietnam for the sake of its pro-soldier and pro-America agenda. We Were Soldiers hints at
several issues that would lead to America’s eventual downfall in Vietnam, such as the media’s
role, the military’s overconfidence, and the challenges of fighting a technological war in tough
terrain. The Americans win, but “die in great numbers” (Slocum 321) and “do not automatically
prevail in the style of traditional Hollywood war movies” (Ebert, “We Were Soldiers”). Their
victory is costly and hard-earned, setting the stage for what ultimately became America’s
misadventure in Vietnam.
Despite relying on standard war movie clichés and heroics, We Were Soldiers still
manages to break new ground. One of the longstanding criticisms regarding Hollywood’s
treatment of the Vietnam War was that the films tended to take an ethnocentric view of the war,
seeing it only from the American perspective and portraying the United States as the victims in a
war it chose to escalate. Whereas most Vietnam films hardly utilized the Vietnamese perspective
20
(or, if they did, portrayed the enemy as fanatical, cruel, tortuous, and even suicidal), We Were
Soldiers shows the battle from the North Vietnamese Army’s point of view. Though the movie is
told primarily from the American perspective, it devotes numerous scenes to the enemy and
gives him a fair, nuanced treatment. “The North Vietnamese forces are neither demonized nor
glamorized, but, something rarer, humanized… as worthy and honorable opponents” (Eberwein,
The War Film 219). We Were Soldiers honors the NVA by portraying them as a tough, smart,
and determined enemy. Like their American counterparts they’re shown fulfilling their duties as
soldiers, and in this way the audience can sympathize with them as victims of circumstances
beyond their control. By telling the enemy’s side of the story and giving a more complete picture
of the war, We Were Soldiers reflects a great level of maturity about America’s desire to
understand the Vietnam experience in depth. Critics were impressed with the movie’s balance,
even if the film’s disproportionate attention to American soldiers left them wanting more.
We Were Soldiers reflects an idea that would have seemed unthinkable 40 years ago;
“Vietnam has become a war of which Americans can feel proud. The pride derives from the
demonstration of courage and the memory of suffering, irrespective of the cause in which the one
is displayed and the other is endured” (Slocum 321). Vietnam may not have been “The Good
War,” but that doesn’t change the fact that the men who fought it were brave and honorable.
They did their duty, and “by definition doing one’s duty is good” (Slocum 16). Thus, Americans
reserve the right to feel proud of how well their soldiers fought. They can feel good about the
fact that their military never lost a battle during the war, even if the war itself was ultimately lost.
We Were Soldiers is a long-overdue celebration of the soldiers that took part in the war (on both
sides). Unlike the majority of Vietnam movies, it properly honors America’s fallen heroes and
gives them the respect they deserve.
21
To date, a big budget Vietnam film has not been made since We Were Soldiers came out
in 2002. Hollywood, along with the nation, has shifted its attention to America’s recent conflicts
in the Middle East. No longer at the forefront of the American psyche, Vietnam is now a distant
memory. The need for films about the conflict, as well as the desire to re-visit it, has faded
considerably. But the war, which still haunts the nation to this day, can never be completely
erased. “The gaping wound is closed, but not healed” (Anderegg 164).
Conclusion:
These movies demonstrate how the changing nature of Vietnam War films reflects
America’s gradually shifting views about the war and how it has since been remembered. They
show that “what the cinema has done has been to reflect…America's changing attitudes to that
conflict” (Paris). First there was total denial, as the absence of films about the war while it was
being waged and immediately afterward can be attributed to the war’s controversial nature. Sure
enough, when films began to appear in the late ‘70s and ‘80s, they reflected the war’s
unpopularity and were highly critical of the conflict. The movies of this period “condemned the
human costs, bureaucratic incompetence, and even absurdity of war that had surfaced in
Southeast Asia” (Slocum 14), a complete reversal of how The Green Berets covered Vietnam ten
years earlier. These films released a lot of built up resentment about the war, about how it ruined
the men who fought it and the nation as a whole. That immeasurable sense of loss is evident in
their “focus on the negative impact the war had on individual American soldiers… American
suffering is dramatized and mourned” (Keeton and Scheckner 66). Now, with America’s pride
and sense of greatness restored, Hollywood has been able to take a more clear-headed, objective
look at Vietnam and even find some redeeming qualities about it. So “while the politics of the
films differed, the changes in cinematic depictions of war and of soldiers is obvious” (Hughes).
22
The nation has come a long way, from complete disagreement over the war to ultimate
acceptance, and the movies addressing Vietnam have mirrored this progression.
“In American culture, film representations of military prowess seem inseparable from
national self-esteem” (Slocum 239). This has certainly been true with Vietnam, arguably the
most damaging and traumatic experience in American history. The Green Berets reflected a
fractured society, divided politically and torn between holding onto its past and moving forward
into the future. Apocalypse Now represented a stunned, wounded nation that had lost its way,
struggling to cope with Post-Vietnam syndrome and a “lesion in the sense of national prestige”
(Slocum 240). It “attests no longer to a united nation on the move, but to a senseless destructive
movement without unity” (Bronfen 105). Platoon channeled America’s bitter coming to terms
with Vietnam and recognition of failure there. It was “a vehicle for mourning, for empathy, for
guilt” (Dittmar and Michaud 9), epitomizing a scarred nation in the process of healing. We Were
Soldiers embodied a proud, resurgent America that had finally come to grips with its Vietnam
experience and even mined some good from it. The paucity of Vietnam-themed films in the last
20 years seems to suggest, however, that the lengthy healing process and reparation of national
self-esteem is finally complete.
Over time, the United States has achieved a greater understanding of its Vietnam
experience. Films have stimulated that growth by confronting American audiences with a dark
chapter of their history, one most simply wanted to forget. In addition to giving the average
viewer a sense of the war, movies have encouraged him to question and re-evaluate the war as
well as extract some meaningful lessons from it. More than entertainment, Vietnam War films
have re-affirmed not only the power of cinema, but also its intrinsic value as an accessible
method of education, and perhaps even therapy.
23
Works Cited
Adair, Gilbert. Vietnam on Film. New York, NY: Proteus Books, 1981. Print.
Adler, Renata. “‘Green Berets’ as Viewed by John Wayne.” Dated 20 June 1968. Viewed 24 April 2014. http://www.nytimes.com/books/97/03/23/reviews/wayne-movie.html.
Anderegg, Michael, ed. Inventing Vietnam. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press, 1991.
Print.
Aust, Jerold and John Ross Schroeder. “World News and Trends: How Hollywood’s war movies
have changed.” Viewed 13 April 2014.
http://www.ucg.org/christian- living/world-news-and-trends-how-hollywoods-war-movies-
Auster, Albert and Leonard Quart. How the War was Remembered. New York, NY: Praeger
Publishers, 1988. Print.
Bielakowski, Dr. Alexander. “Green Berets and ‘Born Killers’: Myth-Making and the Vietnam
War in American Film.” Dated 2001. Viewed 13 April 2014. http://www.academia.edu/1915982/Green_Berets_and_Born_Killers_Myth-Making.
Bronfen, Elisabeth. Specters of War. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press, 2012. Print.
Butler, Dan B. “Film-Made Man, Man-Made Film.” Viewed 18 April 2014.
http://virtuousempire.com/paper.html.
Dittmar, Linda and Gene Michaud, eds. From Hanoi to Hollywood. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press, 1990. Print.
Ebert, Roger. “The Green Berets.” Dated 26 June 1968. Viewed 11 April 2014.
http://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/the-green-berets-1968.
Ebert, Roger. “Platoon.” Dated 30 Dec. 1986. Viewed 24 April 2014.
http://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/platoon-1986.
24
Ebert, Roger. “We Were Soldiers.” Dated 1 March 2002. Viewed 28 April 2014.
http://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/we-were-soldiers-2002.
Eberwein, Robert. The Hollywood War Film. West Sussex, UK: Wiley-Blackwell Publishing, 2010. Print.
Eberwein, Robert, ed. The War Film. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press, 2005. Print.
Hillstrom, Kevin and Laurie Collier Hillstrom. The Vietnam Experience. Westport, CT:
Greenwood Press, 1998. Print.
Hughes, Mark. “Memorial Day and How War Films Have Changed.” Dated 31 May 2011. Viewed 13 April 2014. http://www.forbes.com/sites/markhughes/2011/05/31/memorial-day-.
Keeton, Patricia and Peter Scheckner. American War Cinema and Media Since Vietnam. New
York, NY: Palgrave MacMillan, 2013. Print.
Lanning, Michael Lee. Vietnam at the Movies. New York: Ballantine Books, 1994. Print.
McAdams, Frank. The American War Film. Westport, CT: Praegar Publishers, 2002. Print. Mendible, Myra. “Post Vietnam Syndrome: National Identity, War, and the Politics of
Humiliation.” Viewed 1 May 2014. http://www.radicalpsychology.org/vol7-1/mendible.html.
Muse, Eben J. The Land of Nam. Lanham, Maryland: Scarecrow Press, 1995. Print.
Paris, Michael. “The American Film Industry and Vietnam.” Dated 1987. Viewed 11 April 2014.
http://www.historytoday.com/michael-paris/american-film-industry-vietnam. Selig, Michael. “What We Won’t Learn From the Hollywood-Style Vietnam Film.” Dated
March 1994. Viewed 12 April 2014.
http://www2.iath.virginia.edu/sixties/HTML_docs/Texts/Scholarly/Selig_Hollywood_01.html.
Slocum, J. David, ed. Hollywood and War; The Film Reader. New York, NY: Routledge, 2006.
Print.