Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property ApiMain::$mCommit is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/api/ApiMain.php on line 195
Deprecated: Return type of ExplodeIterator::current() should either be compatible with Iterator::current(): mixed, or the #[\ReturnTypeWillChange] attribute should be used to temporarily suppress the notice in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/StringUtils.php on line 571
Deprecated: Return type of ExplodeIterator::next() should either be compatible with Iterator::next(): void, or the #[\ReturnTypeWillChange] attribute should be used to temporarily suppress the notice in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/StringUtils.php on line 585
Deprecated: Return type of ExplodeIterator::key() should either be compatible with Iterator::key(): mixed, or the #[\ReturnTypeWillChange] attribute should be used to temporarily suppress the notice in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/StringUtils.php on line 578
Deprecated: Return type of ExplodeIterator::valid() should either be compatible with Iterator::valid(): bool, or the #[\ReturnTypeWillChange] attribute should be used to temporarily suppress the notice in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/StringUtils.php on line 603
Deprecated: Return type of ExplodeIterator::rewind() should either be compatible with Iterator::rewind(): void, or the #[\ReturnTypeWillChange] attribute should be used to temporarily suppress the notice in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/StringUtils.php on line 553
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property LoadBalancer::$mWriteIndex is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/db/LoadBalancer.php on line 59
Deprecated: Return type of ResultWrapper::current() should either be compatible with Iterator::current(): mixed, or the #[\ReturnTypeWillChange] attribute should be used to temporarily suppress the notice in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/db/DatabaseUtility.php on line 186
Deprecated: Return type of ResultWrapper::next() should either be compatible with Iterator::next(): void, or the #[\ReturnTypeWillChange] attribute should be used to temporarily suppress the notice in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/db/DatabaseUtility.php on line 203
Deprecated: Return type of ResultWrapper::key() should either be compatible with Iterator::key(): mixed, or the #[\ReturnTypeWillChange] attribute should be used to temporarily suppress the notice in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/db/DatabaseUtility.php on line 196
Deprecated: Return type of ResultWrapper::valid() should either be compatible with Iterator::valid(): bool, or the #[\ReturnTypeWillChange] attribute should be used to temporarily suppress the notice in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/db/DatabaseUtility.php on line 212
Deprecated: Return type of ResultWrapper::rewind() should either be compatible with Iterator::rewind(): void, or the #[\ReturnTypeWillChange] attribute should be used to temporarily suppress the notice in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/db/DatabaseUtility.php on line 175
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property MessageCache::$mMemc is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/cache/MessageCache.php on line 135
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property LoadBalancer::$mWriteIndex is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/db/LoadBalancer.php on line 59
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Parser::$mPreprocessorClass is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/parser/Parser.php on line 234
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property RequestContext::$recursion is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/context/RequestContext.php on line 292
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property PPDStack::$accum is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/parser/Preprocessor_DOM.php on line 755
Warning: preg_match(): Compilation failed: subpattern name must start with a non-digit at offset 8 in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/MagicWord.php on line 907
Deprecated: Using ${var} in strings is deprecated, use {$var} instead in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Pager.php on line 908
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property ContribsPager::$contribs is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/specials/SpecialContributions.php on line 627
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property ContribsPager::$tagFilter is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/specials/SpecialContributions.php on line 629
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property ContribsPager::$nsInvert is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/specials/SpecialContributions.php on line 630
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property ContribsPager::$associated is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/specials/SpecialContributions.php on line 631
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property ContribsPager::$deletedOnly is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/specials/SpecialContributions.php on line 633
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property ContribsPager::$topOnly is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/specials/SpecialContributions.php on line 634
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContentHandler::$mModelName is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/ContentHandler.php on line 402
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: header(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($response_code) of type int is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/WebResponse.php on line 38
Deprecated: header(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($response_code) of type int is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/WebResponse.php on line 38
Deprecated: header(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($response_code) of type int is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/WebResponse.php on line 38 https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/api.php?action=feedcontributions&feedformat=atom&user=Jward5zkMcClurken Wiki - User contributions [en]2026-09-18T22:33:24ZUser contributionsMediaWiki 1.22.0https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329--Week_15_Questions/Comments329--Week 15 Questions/Comments2008-12-03T19:22:49Z<p>Jward5zk: /* 5 Other movies/questions of style/framing/storyline */</p>
<hr />
<div>== 1 Movie as secondary source about the past (What did it get right? What did it get wrong?) ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== a Right: ==<br />
<br />
I'm going to assume that all of the video clips and radio broadcasts were the originals, so showing the clips and audio clips of the time brings authenticity to the movie. Seeing as the movie was released only a few years after the scandal dissipated, and two years after Nixon's resignation, it feels real. Nixon's impeachment hearings made history back in the 1970s, and much like 9/11 was to us in 2003, people remember how they felt during that time. It's akin to ''Best Years of Our Lives'' in that it's so close to the event. Unlike in the ''Patriot'' where people were acting as people who lived two hundred years ago, these actors -remember-. -Lauren <br />
<br />
The movie does a good job showing the secrecy of the entire scandal. Everyone involved is afraid to say what they know because of how high up the conspiracy went. The movie did a good job of showing the problems that Woodward and Bernstein faced in getting their information confirmed and finding a legitimate source. Even though Deep Throat had a huge amount of involvement in feeding information to the reporters I was surprised at how little he appeared in the movie. -- Kellye Sorber<br />
<br />
The movie also did a good job with pulling all the important names of those involved in Watergate. While pulling the names out of people they seemed to reconnect everyone back to all of those involved, helping their case. -- Kellye Sorber<br />
<br />
I thought the movie did a good job showing all the intricacies involved in writing a breaking news story. The doubt on behalf of the papers editors. The confirmation and then denial by sources as the story came out. The long hours spent tracking people down to get information. It is surprising they were able to write the story at all.- Christine W.<br />
<br />
In the movie Woodward and Bernstein said CREEP started their electoral sabotage in 1971, with Edmund Muskie being the main target. The dirty tricks worked on Muskie, he wept to the press (in defense of his wife), and his campaign quickly fell apart. This move served up the Democratic nomination to the Liberal George McGovern, who was an easy candidate for Nixon to beat. By adding this into the film, we are able to see how far-reaching and ruthless CREEP was. -Jason Ward<br />
<br />
The film didn't do a ton to explain this in detail, but through the newspaper headlines we see that Eagleton was picked as the original VP but then in other news snippets we see that McGovern is forced to be dropped from the ticket. Then in one of the planning meetings the editors joke over how nobody wants to take the now vacant VP spot, referencing the names mentioned in class. While this was something that fell outside of the focus of the film, it was nice to see that it was subtly worked into the story.- Bryan Mull<br />
<br />
All the women shown working in this movie were doing various types of secretarial work, and not working as say reporters. I'm guessing this is an accurate portrayal of working women of this time, since this movie took place during the woman's rights movement. -Katherine Stinson<br />
<br />
<br />
I wondered for a while why "Woodstein" always introduced themselves as "Hi this is ____ from the Washington Post," and then go on. But then I realized that it was important (at least back then) for reporters to identify themselves. I felt that the "on record" vs "off record" barriers were really clearly defined. Somehow I am a little skeptical that reporters today are so gracious and just, though I haven't been interviewed by the Washington Post recently so how do I really know? - Elle<br />
<br />
In response to Kellye's comment about Deep Throat, I thought his role in the movie was sufficient. In the film, it seemed that Woodward only went to his source when he and Bernstein ran into a road-block during their investigation (which was often). I also wondered why DT only met with Woodward and not Bernstein, but apparently DT was only Woodward's source and DT never met Bernstein at all during the investigation. This was key when Felt (DT) was asked if he ever leaked information to Woodward AND Bernstein. According to the book, Woodward wondered if Felt denied this and got out of it b/c of a technicality (he only leaked info to Woodward). - David F.<br />
<br />
== b Inaccurate/issues: ==<br />
<br />
<br />
Perhaps things have changed since the 70s, but how did Woodstein never get caught in traffic? I mean this is DC we are talking about here. -Bryan Mull<br />
<br />
I am curious as to whether the safety of Woodward and Bernstein was played up for the sake of the film? Certainly they were being spied on, but did they really have to fear their lives? That whole fear aspect seemed a bit awkward in the film and I am curious if it was a real fear or something played up to add tension in the film?- Bryan Mull<br />
<br />
In the book and in the movie, Woodward would put the flag up whenever he wanted to meet w/ Deep Throat, and DT would mark the NY Times in case he wanted to meet w/ Woodward. However, the movie primarily showed Woodward making an effort to meet DT. How often did DT request to meet w/ Woodward? - David F.<br />
<br />
== 3 Movie as primary source about makers/time/setting/genre ==<br />
Would this movie really be a secondary source about the Watergate scandal? Dr. McClurken said that the filmmaker was thinking about making the movie as the scandal was happening and that the rights to make a movie out of the book was bought some time around then.-Lauren<br />
<br />
One revelation that the movie showed through Woodstein's work that I think is important is how the dirty tricks had been going on since long before the Watergate break-in, back at least to the formation of CREEP. At one point, Bradlee told Woodstein that only half the public polled had heard of the name Watergate. We know that by the time Nixon resigned, the whole nation knew about it, but they may not have known just how far back it went. With all Woodstein's investigation and the stated realization of how much larger the issue was than the break-in, this shows that CREEP's workings had been successfully kept secret for a long time. -Whitney Holcomb.<br />
<br />
== 4 Public reaction/impact ==<br />
<br />
I feel the movie definitely helped to republicize the Watergate Scandal, especially since it was released only a few years later. The movie definitely would have had some impact on the 1976 presidential election since it came out months before, resulting in the Democrats winning the presidency. -- Kellye Sorber<br />
<br />
== 5 Other movies/questions of style/framing/storyline ==<br />
In the beginning, there was darkness and it was good; then there was a loud and jolting noise of a typewriter. I wonder if the filmmakers did that to convey how the American were in relation to knowing what was going on with President Nixon? The people were happy because they didn't know what was happening, then Woodstein reported what their investigation had uncovered and since they wrote via the typewriter, that machine woke the population up with a startle.-Lauren <br />
<br />
I liked the way the movie ended with the stream of headlines. It just showed that how once the story came out it snowballed into this big scandal ending with the resignation of Nixon. - Christine W.<br />
<br />
Tagging onto Christine's comment, I think it was a very important preface to the movie that McClurken specified that it was a movie about the Washington Post breaking the story of Watergate. Part of me was like "what? we didn't see what actually happens!" but we did see the Post succeed in cracking the story, and the trial and all those details were irrelevant to the Post story. - Elle<br />
<br />
I like that it shows the half-legitimate ways Woodstein were "confirming" information from sources. They could be very indirect, without making the people being questioned explicitly state an answer, effectively getting information from those who didn't want to talk. My favorite was when Bernstein counted to ten on the phone about Haldeman. Also, there was getting the bookkeeper to nod at the initials L, M, and P. Third, when they got Sloan to finally say that he "would not have a problem" with their accusatory article if they published it. -Whitney Holcomb<br />
<br />
In reference to Dr. M's reference to the Orioles in lecture, I recognized the actor who played Rosenfeld, Jack Warden, as Juror 7 from 12 Angry Men. He was the guy who kept wanting to reach a verdict quickly because he had Yankees tickets and said the line which still resonates for dopes like me who still root for the O's: "Baltimore? That's like being hit in the head with a crow bar once a day. " Ugh. -Bryan Mull<br />
<br />
I too am a Baltimore sports fan! Baltimore Sports teams have been quite successful considering none of their franchises are ancient. The Colts were only in Baltimore for roughly 30 years yet had many championships to boast. They were also involved in some of the most pivotal games in NFL history: the 1958 Championship game versus the New York Giants which ushered in the era of televised football, Super Bowl III where the upstart New York Jets from the Mickey Mouse League (the AFL) beat the Colts in one of the biggest upsets leading to the merger in 1970, and "the ghost to the post" game in 1977 vs. the Raiders. The Orioles were a great team in the late '60s and early '70s and could have won even more championships. Cal Ripken will go down as one of the best and purest players in the game, now if he could just take over the team they could return to prominence. Now to my point, I think this is an important movie because without the Post article (or any other press investigation of the break-in) there is a good chance that the crimes of the Nixon administration would have gone unchecked. Movies like Stone's ''Nixon'' do not place much emphasis on the Post article, but without Woodstein's work would there have been a resignation? - Jason Ward<br />
<br />
== 6 Overall Comments on Movie ==<br />
<br />
This movie is great because it shows the media at its best. The Press is supposed to do what Woodward and Bernstein did. They didn’t let a two-bit break-in fall through the cracks, they saw something more to this story and pursued the truth. What they eventually uncovered was a culture of corruption and cover-up. By revealing the abhorrent nature of Nixonian politics Woodward and Bernstein were able to stop an immoral man from gaining more power at the expense of others. All the President’s Men and the Woodstein story in general is the paragon of journalism.-Jason Ward<br />
<br />
While I completely agree that this type of journalism is vital to preserving democracy, does anyone feel like in the post-Watergate world we are too quick in assuming the worst of our politicians (perhaps this is a bad question in the post Bush era)? This was a sentiment brought up in a book I had to read for another class which addressed declining voter turnout, and I was curious if anyone else felt that the media now perhaps tries too hard to uncover the next Watergate? The book (The Vanishing Voter) argues that the media has taken a "never again" type stance toward political corruption and that this has at times led to overly negative news coverage, which has in turn depressed voters into apathy towards the whole political process. Is this a change in the practices of the media, or has this simply been exacerbated by the 24/7 news hole? This is a tricky situation in that we need to be kept abreast of these types of abuses, but after a while every little lead on political corruption does take its toll.-Bryan Mull<br />
<br />
I have a new favorite film of the semester! It's largely because I like the suspense, that Woodstein is two non-police people working together to solve this huge multi-layered case, skillfully tracking down and extracting information from people, and not letting anything stand in their way. -Whitney Holcomb<br />
<br />
This was more of a lecture thing, but I did not realize how popular Nixon was. “Nixon and the environment”, “Nixon and China”, even “Nixon and Vietnam” seemed to all be pluses for him- and his approval ratings showed it. Nixon was an effective President, but because of Watergate I suppose that effectiveness will always be suspect. Because of the aforementioned reasons I kept asking myself, why would Nixon do this? Why would he utterly destroy his opponents when he had achieved rather impressive political feats?(I guess that begs the question: did he only have successes because of the obliteration of his opponents?) Either way I came to the conclusion, as have many others, that Nixon was a man so fraught with insecurity that he could never be satisfied with his successes. Nixon was so plagued by his past failures that he was determined to have as much power as possible. The Alger Hiss case and The Checkers Speech were our warnings, but alas!-Jason Ward<br />
<br />
I was very glad that the -Gate phenomenon was referenced in lecture. That is something that seriously drives me nuts. Who decides what gets -Gate status anyway? Why is there a Troopergate and Cigargate, but other political scandals get off the -Gate hook, so to speak? Why wasn't John Edwards' cheating scandal called Infidelity-gate, or Dick Cheney's hunting incident a few years back Shot-in-the-face-gate? Is there some unwritten journalist code that determines this naming process? And just last year this practice made its way into the sports world with the Spygate scandal that tainted the Patriots' undefeated regular season. What happens if there is a scandal involving an American spy in the future? Does this theoretical incident then get dubbed Spygate II, or does it get a less cool sounding -Gate name, I mean shouldn't real life spies get first dibs on the -Gate name? What happens when there is a political scandal on the Golden Gate Bridge, is it then called Golden Gate-Gate or is that too stupid? What if there is a scandal literally involving a gate? Does this bother anyone else? Is it sad that I can muster more vitriol over something trivial like a scandal naming process rather than the scandal that supplied the name in the first place? Can I fit any more questions into a wiki-post?- Bryan Mull<br />
<br />
So I did some research and apparently there are 3 (!) Troopergates, 2 Spygates (both of which were sports related, as real spies the world over are no doubt shaking their heads in dismay) and 2 Grannygates. Also, there is an Iguanagate, a Tasergate (Sweet), and even a Bingogate. -Bryan Mull<br />
<br />
Niiiice. Well said. And no, I don't think it's sad that you've mustered this much vitriol about a trivial aspect. I do the same thing sometimes. However, that may mean I'm just a sad case, too. -Whitney Holcomb<br />
<br />
Kind of sad that the name combo has degenerated in much the same way as the -Gate phenomenon. Where Woodstein was a combo of two young journalists on the rise, now we are subjected to Bennifer, Branjelina and others. I blame Nixon.-Bryan Mull<br />
<br />
<br />
== Comments on Reading in ''Reel History'' ==</div>Jward5zkhttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329--Week_15_Questions/Comments329--Week 15 Questions/Comments2008-12-03T19:21:54Z<p>Jward5zk: /* 5 Other movies/questions of style/framing/storyline */</p>
<hr />
<div>== 1 Movie as secondary source about the past (What did it get right? What did it get wrong?) ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== a Right: ==<br />
<br />
I'm going to assume that all of the video clips and radio broadcasts were the originals, so showing the clips and audio clips of the time brings authenticity to the movie. Seeing as the movie was released only a few years after the scandal dissipated, and two years after Nixon's resignation, it feels real. Nixon's impeachment hearings made history back in the 1970s, and much like 9/11 was to us in 2003, people remember how they felt during that time. It's akin to ''Best Years of Our Lives'' in that it's so close to the event. Unlike in the ''Patriot'' where people were acting as people who lived two hundred years ago, these actors -remember-. -Lauren <br />
<br />
The movie does a good job showing the secrecy of the entire scandal. Everyone involved is afraid to say what they know because of how high up the conspiracy went. The movie did a good job of showing the problems that Woodward and Bernstein faced in getting their information confirmed and finding a legitimate source. Even though Deep Throat had a huge amount of involvement in feeding information to the reporters I was surprised at how little he appeared in the movie. -- Kellye Sorber<br />
<br />
The movie also did a good job with pulling all the important names of those involved in Watergate. While pulling the names out of people they seemed to reconnect everyone back to all of those involved, helping their case. -- Kellye Sorber<br />
<br />
I thought the movie did a good job showing all the intricacies involved in writing a breaking news story. The doubt on behalf of the papers editors. The confirmation and then denial by sources as the story came out. The long hours spent tracking people down to get information. It is surprising they were able to write the story at all.- Christine W.<br />
<br />
In the movie Woodward and Bernstein said CREEP started their electoral sabotage in 1971, with Edmund Muskie being the main target. The dirty tricks worked on Muskie, he wept to the press (in defense of his wife), and his campaign quickly fell apart. This move served up the Democratic nomination to the Liberal George McGovern, who was an easy candidate for Nixon to beat. By adding this into the film, we are able to see how far-reaching and ruthless CREEP was. -Jason Ward<br />
<br />
The film didn't do a ton to explain this in detail, but through the newspaper headlines we see that Eagleton was picked as the original VP but then in other news snippets we see that McGovern is forced to be dropped from the ticket. Then in one of the planning meetings the editors joke over how nobody wants to take the now vacant VP spot, referencing the names mentioned in class. While this was something that fell outside of the focus of the film, it was nice to see that it was subtly worked into the story.- Bryan Mull<br />
<br />
All the women shown working in this movie were doing various types of secretarial work, and not working as say reporters. I'm guessing this is an accurate portrayal of working women of this time, since this movie took place during the woman's rights movement. -Katherine Stinson<br />
<br />
<br />
I wondered for a while why "Woodstein" always introduced themselves as "Hi this is ____ from the Washington Post," and then go on. But then I realized that it was important (at least back then) for reporters to identify themselves. I felt that the "on record" vs "off record" barriers were really clearly defined. Somehow I am a little skeptical that reporters today are so gracious and just, though I haven't been interviewed by the Washington Post recently so how do I really know? - Elle<br />
<br />
In response to Kellye's comment about Deep Throat, I thought his role in the movie was sufficient. In the film, it seemed that Woodward only went to his source when he and Bernstein ran into a road-block during their investigation (which was often). I also wondered why DT only met with Woodward and not Bernstein, but apparently DT was only Woodward's source and DT never met Bernstein at all during the investigation. This was key when Felt (DT) was asked if he ever leaked information to Woodward AND Bernstein. According to the book, Woodward wondered if Felt denied this and got out of it b/c of a technicality (he only leaked info to Woodward). - David F.<br />
<br />
== b Inaccurate/issues: ==<br />
<br />
<br />
Perhaps things have changed since the 70s, but how did Woodstein never get caught in traffic? I mean this is DC we are talking about here. -Bryan Mull<br />
<br />
I am curious as to whether the safety of Woodward and Bernstein was played up for the sake of the film? Certainly they were being spied on, but did they really have to fear their lives? That whole fear aspect seemed a bit awkward in the film and I am curious if it was a real fear or something played up to add tension in the film?- Bryan Mull<br />
<br />
In the book and in the movie, Woodward would put the flag up whenever he wanted to meet w/ Deep Throat, and DT would mark the NY Times in case he wanted to meet w/ Woodward. However, the movie primarily showed Woodward making an effort to meet DT. How often did DT request to meet w/ Woodward? - David F.<br />
<br />
== 3 Movie as primary source about makers/time/setting/genre ==<br />
Would this movie really be a secondary source about the Watergate scandal? Dr. McClurken said that the filmmaker was thinking about making the movie as the scandal was happening and that the rights to make a movie out of the book was bought some time around then.-Lauren<br />
<br />
One revelation that the movie showed through Woodstein's work that I think is important is how the dirty tricks had been going on since long before the Watergate break-in, back at least to the formation of CREEP. At one point, Bradlee told Woodstein that only half the public polled had heard of the name Watergate. We know that by the time Nixon resigned, the whole nation knew about it, but they may not have known just how far back it went. With all Woodstein's investigation and the stated realization of how much larger the issue was than the break-in, this shows that CREEP's workings had been successfully kept secret for a long time. -Whitney Holcomb.<br />
<br />
== 4 Public reaction/impact ==<br />
<br />
I feel the movie definitely helped to republicize the Watergate Scandal, especially since it was released only a few years later. The movie definitely would have had some impact on the 1976 presidential election since it came out months before, resulting in the Democrats winning the presidency. -- Kellye Sorber<br />
<br />
== 5 Other movies/questions of style/framing/storyline ==<br />
In the beginning, there was darkness and it was good; then there was a loud and jolting noise of a typewriter. I wonder if the filmmakers did that to convey how the American were in relation to knowing what was going on with President Nixon? The people were happy because they didn't know what was happening, then Woodstein reported what their investigation had uncovered and since they wrote via the typewriter, that machine woke the population up with a startle.-Lauren <br />
<br />
I liked the way the movie ended with the stream of headlines. It just showed that how once the story came out it snowballed into this big scandal ending with the resignation of Nixon. - Christine W.<br />
<br />
Tagging onto Christine's comment, I think it was a very important preface to the movie that McClurken specified that it was a movie about the Washington Post breaking the story of Watergate. Part of me was like "what? we didn't see what actually happens!" but we did see the Post succeed in cracking the story, and the trial and all those details were irrelevant to the Post story. - Elle<br />
<br />
I like that it shows the half-legitimate ways Woodstein were "confirming" information from sources. They could be very indirect, without making the people being questioned explicitly state an answer, effectively getting information from those who didn't want to talk. My favorite was when Bernstein counted to ten on the phone about Haldeman. Also, there was getting the bookkeeper to nod at the initials L, M, and P. Third, when they got Sloan to finally say that he "would not have a problem" with their accusatory article if they published it. -Whitney Holcomb<br />
<br />
In reference to Dr. M's reference to the Orioles in lecture, I recognized the actor who played Rosenfeld, Jack Warden, as Juror 7 from 12 Angry Men. He was the guy who kept wanting to reach a verdict quickly because he had Yankees tickets and said the line which still resonates for dopes like me who still root for the O's: "Baltimore? That's like being hit in the head with a crow bar once a day. " Ugh. -Bryan Mull<br />
<br />
I too am a Baltimore sports fan! Baltimore Sports teams have been quite successful considering none of their franchises are ancient. The Colts were only in Baltimore for roughly 30 years yet had many championships to boast. They were also involved in some of the most pivotal games in NFL history: the 1958 Championship game versus the New York Giants which ushered in the era of televised football, Super Bowl III where the upstart New York Jets from the Mickey Mouse League (the AFL) beat the Colts in one of the biggest upsets leading to the merger in 1970, and "the ghost to the post" game in 1977 vs. the Raiders. The Orioles were a great team in the late '60s and early '70s and could have won even more championships. Cal Ripken will go down as one of the best and purest players in the game, now if he could just take over the team they could return to prominence. Now to my point, I think this is an important movie because without the Post article(or any other press investigation of the break-in) there is a good chance that the crimes of the Nixon administration would have gone unchecked. Movies like Stone's ''Nixon''do not place much emphasis on the Post article, but without Woodstein's work would there have been a resignation? - Jason Ward<br />
<br />
== 6 Overall Comments on Movie ==<br />
<br />
This movie is great because it shows the media at its best. The Press is supposed to do what Woodward and Bernstein did. They didn’t let a two-bit break-in fall through the cracks, they saw something more to this story and pursued the truth. What they eventually uncovered was a culture of corruption and cover-up. By revealing the abhorrent nature of Nixonian politics Woodward and Bernstein were able to stop an immoral man from gaining more power at the expense of others. All the President’s Men and the Woodstein story in general is the paragon of journalism.-Jason Ward<br />
<br />
While I completely agree that this type of journalism is vital to preserving democracy, does anyone feel like in the post-Watergate world we are too quick in assuming the worst of our politicians (perhaps this is a bad question in the post Bush era)? This was a sentiment brought up in a book I had to read for another class which addressed declining voter turnout, and I was curious if anyone else felt that the media now perhaps tries too hard to uncover the next Watergate? The book (The Vanishing Voter) argues that the media has taken a "never again" type stance toward political corruption and that this has at times led to overly negative news coverage, which has in turn depressed voters into apathy towards the whole political process. Is this a change in the practices of the media, or has this simply been exacerbated by the 24/7 news hole? This is a tricky situation in that we need to be kept abreast of these types of abuses, but after a while every little lead on political corruption does take its toll.-Bryan Mull<br />
<br />
I have a new favorite film of the semester! It's largely because I like the suspense, that Woodstein is two non-police people working together to solve this huge multi-layered case, skillfully tracking down and extracting information from people, and not letting anything stand in their way. -Whitney Holcomb<br />
<br />
This was more of a lecture thing, but I did not realize how popular Nixon was. “Nixon and the environment”, “Nixon and China”, even “Nixon and Vietnam” seemed to all be pluses for him- and his approval ratings showed it. Nixon was an effective President, but because of Watergate I suppose that effectiveness will always be suspect. Because of the aforementioned reasons I kept asking myself, why would Nixon do this? Why would he utterly destroy his opponents when he had achieved rather impressive political feats?(I guess that begs the question: did he only have successes because of the obliteration of his opponents?) Either way I came to the conclusion, as have many others, that Nixon was a man so fraught with insecurity that he could never be satisfied with his successes. Nixon was so plagued by his past failures that he was determined to have as much power as possible. The Alger Hiss case and The Checkers Speech were our warnings, but alas!-Jason Ward<br />
<br />
I was very glad that the -Gate phenomenon was referenced in lecture. That is something that seriously drives me nuts. Who decides what gets -Gate status anyway? Why is there a Troopergate and Cigargate, but other political scandals get off the -Gate hook, so to speak? Why wasn't John Edwards' cheating scandal called Infidelity-gate, or Dick Cheney's hunting incident a few years back Shot-in-the-face-gate? Is there some unwritten journalist code that determines this naming process? And just last year this practice made its way into the sports world with the Spygate scandal that tainted the Patriots' undefeated regular season. What happens if there is a scandal involving an American spy in the future? Does this theoretical incident then get dubbed Spygate II, or does it get a less cool sounding -Gate name, I mean shouldn't real life spies get first dibs on the -Gate name? What happens when there is a political scandal on the Golden Gate Bridge, is it then called Golden Gate-Gate or is that too stupid? What if there is a scandal literally involving a gate? Does this bother anyone else? Is it sad that I can muster more vitriol over something trivial like a scandal naming process rather than the scandal that supplied the name in the first place? Can I fit any more questions into a wiki-post?- Bryan Mull<br />
<br />
So I did some research and apparently there are 3 (!) Troopergates, 2 Spygates (both of which were sports related, as real spies the world over are no doubt shaking their heads in dismay) and 2 Grannygates. Also, there is an Iguanagate, a Tasergate (Sweet), and even a Bingogate. -Bryan Mull<br />
<br />
Niiiice. Well said. And no, I don't think it's sad that you've mustered this much vitriol about a trivial aspect. I do the same thing sometimes. However, that may mean I'm just a sad case, too. -Whitney Holcomb<br />
<br />
Kind of sad that the name combo has degenerated in much the same way as the -Gate phenomenon. Where Woodstein was a combo of two young journalists on the rise, now we are subjected to Bennifer, Branjelina and others. I blame Nixon.-Bryan Mull<br />
<br />
<br />
== Comments on Reading in ''Reel History'' ==</div>Jward5zkhttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329--Week_15_Questions/Comments329--Week 15 Questions/Comments2008-12-03T03:43:09Z<p>Jward5zk: /* = 6 Overall */</p>
<hr />
<div>== 1 Movie as secondary source about the past (What did it get right? What did it get wrong?) ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== a Right: ==<br />
<br />
The movie does a good job showing the secrecy of the entire scandal. Everyone involved is afraid to say what they know because of how high up the conspiracy went. The movie did a good job of showing the problems that Woodward and Bernstein faced in getting their information confirmed and finding a legitimate source. Even though Deep Throat had a huge amount of involvement in feeding information to the reporters I was surprised at how little he appeared in the movie. -- Kellye Sorber<br />
<br />
The movie also did a good job with pulling all the important names of those involved in Watergate. While pulling the names out of people they seemed to reconnect everyone back to all of those involved, helping their case. -- Kellye Sorber<br />
<br />
I thought the movie did a good job showing all the intricacies involved in writing a breaking news story. The doubt on behalf of the papers editors. The confirmation and then denial by sources as the story came out. The long hours spent tracking people down to get information. It is surprising they were able to write the story at all.- Christine W.<br />
<br />
In the movie Woodward and Bernstein said CREEP started their electoral sabotage in 1971, with Edmund Muskie being the main target. The dirty tricks worked on Muskie, he wept to the press (in defense of his wife), and his campaign quickly fell apart. This move served up the Democratic nomination to the Liberal George McGovern, who was an easy candidate for Nixon to beat. By adding this into the film, we are able to see how far-reaching and ruthless CREEP was. -Jason Ward<br />
<br />
== b Inaccurate/issues: ==<br />
<br />
== 2 Film's relationship to current scholarship or to primary sources from the time ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== 3 Movie as primary source about makers/time/setting/genre ==<br />
<br />
== 4 Public reaction/impact ==<br />
<br />
I feel the movie definitely helped to republicize the Watergate Scandal, especially since it was released only a few years later. The movie definitely would have had some impact on the 1976 presidential election since it came out months before, resulting in the Democrats winning the presidency. -- Kellye Sorber<br />
<br />
== 5 Other movies/questions of style/framing/storyline ==<br />
I liked the way the movie ended with the stream of headlines. It just showed that how once the story came out it snowballed into this big scandal ending with the resignation of Nixon. - Christine W.<br />
<br />
<br />
== 6 Overall =<br />
<br />
This movie is great because it shows the media at its best. The Press is supposed to do what Woodward and Bernstein did. They didn’t let a two-bit break-in fall through the cracks, they saw something more to this story and pursued the truth. What they eventually uncovered was a culture of corruption and cover-up. By revealing the abhorrent nature of Nixonian politics Woodward and Bernstein were able to stop an immoral man from gaining more power at the expense of others. All the President’s Men and the Woodstein story in general is the paragon of journalism.-Jason Ward<br />
<br />
I have a new favorite film of the semester! It's largely because I like the suspense, that Woodstein is two non-police people working together to solve this huge multi-layered case, skillfully tracking down and extracting information from people, and not letting anything stand in their way. -Whitney Holcomb<br />
<br />
This was more of a lecture thing, but I did not realize how popular Nixon was. “Nixon and the environment”, “Nixon and China”, even “Nixon and Vietnam” seemed to all be pluses for him- and his approval ratings showed it. Nixon was an effective President, but because of Watergate I suppose that effectiveness will always be suspect. Because of the aforementioned reasons I kept asking myself, why would Nixon do this? Why would he utterly destroy his opponents when he had achieved rather impressive political feats?(I guess that begs the question: did he only have successes because of the obliteration of his opponents?) Either way I came to the conclusion, as have many others, that Nixon was a man so fraught with insecurity that he could never be satisfied with his successes. Nixon was so plagued by his past failures that he was determined to have as much power as possible. The Alger Hiss case and The Checkers Speech were our warnings, but alas!-Jason Ward</div>Jward5zkhttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329--Week_15_Questions/Comments329--Week 15 Questions/Comments2008-12-03T03:10:05Z<p>Jward5zk: /* = 6 Overall */</p>
<hr />
<div>== 1 Movie as secondary source about the past (What did it get right? What did it get wrong?) ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== a Right: ==<br />
<br />
The movie does a good job showing the secrecy of the entire scandal. Everyone involved is afraid to say what they know because of how high up the conspiracy went. The movie did a good job of showing the problems that Woodward and Bernstein faced in getting their information confirmed and finding a legitimate source. Even though Deep Throat had a huge amount of involvement in feeding information to the reporters I was surprised at how little he appeared in the movie. -- Kellye Sorber<br />
<br />
The movie also did a good job with pulling all the important names of those involved in Watergate. While pulling the names out of people they seemed to reconnect everyone back to all of those involved, helping their case. -- Kellye Sorber<br />
<br />
I thought the movie did a good job showing all the intricacies involved in writing a breaking news story. The doubt on behalf of the papers editors. The confirmation and then denial by sources as the story came out. The long hours spent tracking people down to get information. It is surprising they were able to write the story at all.- Christine W.<br />
<br />
In the movie Woodward and Bernstein said CREEP started their electoral sabotage in 1971, with Edmund Muskie being the main target. The dirty tricks worked on Muskie, he wept to the press (in defense of his wife), and his campaign quickly fell apart. This move served up the Democratic nomination to the Liberal George McGovern, who was an easy candidate for Nixon to beat. By adding this into the film, we are able to see how far-reaching and ruthless CREEP was. -Jason Ward<br />
<br />
== b Inaccurate/issues: ==<br />
<br />
== 2 Film's relationship to current scholarship or to primary sources from the time ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== 3 Movie as primary source about makers/time/setting/genre ==<br />
<br />
== 4 Public reaction/impact ==<br />
<br />
I feel the movie definitely helped to republicize the Watergate Scandal, especially since it was released only a few years later. The movie definitely would have had some impact on the 1976 presidential election since it came out months before, resulting in the Democrats winning the presidency. -- Kellye Sorber<br />
<br />
== 5 Other movies/questions of style/framing/storyline ==<br />
I liked the way the movie ended with the stream of headlines. It just showed that how once the story came out it snowballed into this big scandal ending with the resignation of Nixon. - Christine W.<br />
<br />
<br />
== 6 Overall =<br />
<br />
This movie is great because it shows the media at its best. The Press is supposed to do what Woodward and Bernstein did. They didn’t let a two-bit break-in fall through the cracks, they saw something more to this story and pursued the truth. What they eventually uncovered was a culture of corruption and cover-up. By revealing the abhorrent nature of Nixonian politics Woodward and Bernstein were able to stop an immoral man from gaining more power at the expense of others. All the President’s Men and the Woodstein story in general is the paragon of journalism.-Jason Ward</div>Jward5zkhttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329--Week_15_Questions/Comments329--Week 15 Questions/Comments2008-12-03T02:45:57Z<p>Jward5zk: /* a Right: */</p>
<hr />
<div>== 1 Movie as secondary source about the past (What did it get right? What did it get wrong?) ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== a Right: ==<br />
<br />
The movie does a good job showing the secrecy of the entire scandal. Everyone involved is afraid to say what they know because of how high up the conspiracy went. The movie did a good job of showing the problems that Woodward and Bernstein faced in getting their information confirmed and finding a legitimate source. Even though Deep Throat had a huge amount of involvement in feeding information to the reporters I was surprised at how little he appeared in the movie. -- Kellye Sorber<br />
<br />
The movie also did a good job with pulling all the important names of those involved in Watergate. While pulling the names out of people they seemed to reconnect everyone back to all of those involved, helping their case. -- Kellye Sorber<br />
<br />
I thought the movie did a good job showing all the intricacies involved in writing a breaking news story. The doubt on behalf of the papers editors. The confirmation and then denial by sources as the story came out. The long hours spent tracking people down to get information. It is surprising they were able to write the story at all.- Christine W.<br />
<br />
In the movie Woodward and Bernstein said CREEP started their electoral sabotage in 1971, with Edmund Muskie being the main target. The dirty tricks worked on Muskie, he wept to the press (in defense of his wife), and his campaign quickly fell apart. This move served up the Democratic nomination to the Liberal George McGovern, who was an easy candidate for Nixon to beat. By adding this into the film, we are able to see how far-reaching and ruthless CREEP was. -Jason Ward<br />
<br />
== b Inaccurate/issues: ==<br />
<br />
== 2 Film's relationship to current scholarship or to primary sources from the time ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== 3 Movie as primary source about makers/time/setting/genre ==<br />
<br />
== 4 Public reaction/impact ==<br />
<br />
I feel the movie definitely helped to republicize the Watergate Scandal, especially since it was released only a few years later. The movie definitely would have had some impact on the 1976 presidential election since it came out months before, resulting in the Democrats winning the presidency. -- Kellye Sorber<br />
<br />
== 5 Other movies/questions of style/framing/storyline ==<br />
I liked the way the movie ended with the stream of headlines. It just showed that how once the story came out it snowballed into this big scandal ending with the resignation of Nixon. - Christine W.<br />
<br />
<br />
== 6 Overall =</div>Jward5zkhttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329--Week_13_Questions/Comments329--Week 13 Questions/Comments2008-11-19T21:07:29Z<p>Jward5zk: /* 6 Overall */</p>
<hr />
<div>== 1 Movie as secondary source about the past (What did it get right? What did it get wrong?) ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== a Right: ==<br />
<br />
The movie did a great job showing the PTSD of Ron and the other vets. They seemed to have genuine problems dealing with the things that happened during the war. He frequently had flash backs to the critical seen from the war to him in the village. He had a hard time coming to terms with the fact that he killed a member of his unit. Many soldier were killed by friendly fire and this did a good job showing how it could happen in stressful situations. -- Kellye Sorber<br />
<br />
I thought the movie did a good job showing the split reaction of the American people. Those who supported the war and those who protested. I also liked how it showed the change in Ron's character as he realized what was really going on. - Christine W.<br />
<br />
In the hospital when Ron freaks out at the nurses and they don't have the right pump for his leg, the doctor explains to him, "Cutbacks. The government's just not giving us the money we need to take care of you guys." According to what we learned in the lecture, this would have been accurate, and the possibility that someone like Ron could lose his leg because of those cutbacks was real. -Whitney Holcomb<br />
<br />
I was surprised with how much this movie was able to accurately portray. You really see how hard it was for the Vets to return to the states with little to no support from their country and all of the stresses from war. Most of them were druggies or, like Ron, alcoholics. You also see how crappy the hospitals were and how little funding they received from the federal government. I know we learned in class that it was much less than post-WWII America but the movie really made it real how few doctors there were and how just, disgusting the hospitals actually were. I was NOT prepared for the bedpans and the vomit. That was unnecessary. -Kelly Wuyscik<br />
<br />
I also really liked how well the film showed the difficulty discerning guys in your own troops and the members of the Vietcong. It really amplified how stressful and chaotic the setting was over in Vietnam and how frequently new guys were being added or sent home from American troops. -Kelly Wuyscik<br />
<br />
Unfortunately, much of the hospital horror that occurred in the film has happened as recently as last year. Those of us from the DC area will likely remember the extensive coverage of the neglect scandal at Walter Reed Army Medical Center that the Washington Post covered extensively. Red tape, rat and cockroach infestations, mold, all occurring at the US Army's flagship east coast medical center. It was accurate then, it is accurate now. -Cash Nelson<br />
<br />
Whether veterans were disabled or suffering from PTSD, the readjustment to a country at war with itself had to leave any veteran feeling lost in the shuffle (at best). I think this movie conveys the disillusionment of the Vietnam era well. Kovic is a guy who went from “love it or leave” it to “politicians are rapists and thieves”. His story resonates because it was not uncommon, and sadly not unjustified. -Jason Ward<br />
<br />
The difference in the two 4th of July parades accurately displays the differing views of the American people. When the WWII veterans returned home, hundreds of people were lining the streets, cheering, clapping, and holding American flags. When Ron is being driven through the parade the people lining the streets are jeering and giving him the figure. It shows the very different reactions of the American people to these two wars. One war they supported (WWII), the other they did not (Vietnam). Also, during the first parade when the fireworks/gun shots(?) are fired the veteran is startled and flinches and young Ron takes notice of that; this is exactly what happens to Ron during the parade, he flinches when he hears that gun shot sound. These are two examples of the PTSD the soldiers experienced that affected them in their everyday life. --Mallory C.<br />
<br />
This film was the first that hammered home for me how bad it is when the government isn't prepared to take care of wounded veterans. The scenes in the VA hospital make it easy to understand the difficulties associated with a lack of funding, and what it was like for veterans in those hospitals. I guess watching Forest Gump too many times left me thinking VA hospitals were all ping pong and ice cream. - JT Newcomb<br />
<br />
I thought the scene in the bar where Kovic and the WWII Marine get into a scuffle was powerful in that it showed the disconnect between generations and between the views on the different wars. I know that guys like my grandfather who served in the Marines in the Pacific during WWII and in Korea often had little sympathy for perceived "whiners" from Vietnam. Because of the different circumstances surrounding the two wars and the vast differences between the generations, it is no wonder there were such tensions among the veterans.-Bryan Mull<br />
<br />
I also agree on the movie doing a great job with showing how Ron’s view changes towards the war. It shows how society around him affected his thoughts on how the war had a negative impact on America. The film also gave examples of what was happening in America, the Kent State shootings (Donna briefly stated about) and the brutal beatings by police officers at the war rallies. –Ashley Scutari<br />
<br />
== b Inaccurate/issues: ==<br />
In Ron's Vietnam scene, his unit shoots at huts in this village and then go investigate. But when they find the bodies, they freak out because they realize they're just civilians, and actually call medics to help these innocent people. The Lieutenant is hardly able to keep them under control. It seems implausible they would have reacted like that, because at this point in the war, they would have known the villagers they shot at may or may not be VC. Perhaps some of the green soldiers like Wilson might be surprised, but Ron shouldn't have been. -Whitney Holcomb <br />
<br />
Really? I thought the reason they were shocked is that the Americans honestly didn't think there were civilians in the area. The justification for shooting was that the lieutenant saw rifles in the huts, only later did the Americans find out that the VC had used civilians as "Cover". Also I thought the confusion and uncertainty between unarmed civilians and VC was one of the main frustrations American soldiers had fighting in Vietnam. I thought this scene was accurate. - Jason Ward<br />
<br />
When Ron is home after the war, in his room with his parents, the American flag on the bedroom wall behind him is hung backwards! The field of stars should be on the left, not the right. -Whitney Holcomb <br />
<br />
I interpreted the backwards hanging of the flag as a sign of symbolic protest. -Jason Ward<br />
<br />
I felt that overall this movie hit some key points that are accurate, BUT I felt that it was another stereotypical portrayal of a torn up vietnam vet. Maybe I am still living in a fantasy that most of the vets were not drastically screwed up when they returned from the war. I know it was based on a book so this might not have been necessarily a film makers decision. - Elle<br />
<br />
Awe come on, Elle. You didn't like the American Hero story? It's not shown on the silver screen nearly enough. That's not to say it wasn't an impressive life story, but like Elle said, it just seemed to be too much. -Kelly Wuyscik<br />
<br />
Just to offer up some perspective, the screenplay was written by Oliver Stone and Ron Kovic himself, both of which were veterans of this war. Kovic approved the casting of Tom Cruise, and while there were obviously scenes added for dramatic license (most notably, Ron Kovic telling Will's family that he was responsible for their son's murder), most of it was on the up and up. -Cash Nelson<br />
<br />
That being said, Parris Island would have only been eight weeks of hell back then. Not thirteen. -Cash Nelson<br />
<br />
Maybe this is a function of there just not being a whole lot of combat scenes but I was wondering where all the black soldiers were? There was the guy that saved Kovic and carried him to safety, but I don't recall seeing any other black soldiers, which is strange seeing as how something like 60 percent of black males were drafted. Though I guess the protest scenes showed a bit more diversity. -Bryan Mull<br />
<br />
I don’t know much about the book the movie is based off of, but I felt the whole scene in Mexico was inaccurate. If I’m wrong please correct me, but this was something America did not talk about if it were true. Was Mexico a popular retreat place for the Vets, and was it exactly like how it was portrayed in the film? –Ashley Scutari<br />
<br />
I’m not sure, but in the scene Ron and a friend of his were talking about the war and the friend stated “This is a wealthy man’s war.” What does he mean by that? It was not a war for the common soldier because most soldiers who fought were from the lower class. –Ashley Scutari<br />
<br />
I interpreted this quote about "the wealthy man's war" as an acknowledgment of the notion that politicians in Washington "play war", using lower class boys as their playing pieces. In other words, the "fatcats" in Washington make war, but let others do their fightin'. Take a listen to Creedence Clearwater Revival's Fortunate Son. Here is a lyric that makes the hair on the back of my neck stand up every time,<br />
"Some folks are born made to wave the flag,<br />
Ooh, they're red, white and blue.<br />
And when the band plays hail to the chief,<br />
Ooh, they point the cannon at you, lord,It aint me, it aint me, I aint no senators son, son.<br />
It aint me, it aint me; I aint no fortunate one, no,"- Jason Ward<br />
<br />
== 2 Film's relationship to current scholarship or to primary sources from the time ==<br />
In Tim O'Brian's book he talks about the baggage the soldiers. It mentions the intangible as well as the tangible. I thought the movie did a good job showing this baggage especially after Ron killed one of his soldiers. - Christine W.<br />
<br />
In "A Rumor of War," the author discusses how the war appealed to the young generation originally. How most of those who signed up early were teenagers and young adults because they were taught to be proud of their country and wanted to defend it. They answered Kennedy's call of "ask what you can do for your country" and wanted to be like their parents who had fought in previous wars, most notably WWII. You could see this in the movie pretty well, especially when the young Ron is sitting there watching Kennedy's address with his family and gets riled up about how to help and defend his country. -Kelly Wuyscik<br />
<br />
So this wasn't a major part of anything but I wondered about the letters that were sent to and from soldiers. In the film Ron sends love letters to his lady, and it is also mentioned in the readings. Did this communication with home help also to keep the moral high, or no more so than any other war? - Elle<br />
<br />
I was very pleased to see O'Brien's ''The Things They Carried'' selected as a reading for this film. I would highly suggest that anyone who hasn't read O'Brien to pick up ''TTTC'' or ''Going After Cacciato'' as both are extremely powerful books in understanding the psyche of the Vietnam soldier. I found that of any text (be it film, novel, textbook), The Things They Carried was the most formative for me in understanding the impact of Vietnam on a generation (which is notable seeing as how it is a work of fiction). In regards to this film and ''TTTC'', I found that Kovic's despair upon returning and most people not really caring about the war was reflected well in O'Brien's book. Though not in our excerpt, there is a story of a Vietnam vet who returns home and basically drives around his town every night with nothing to do, trying to figure out where he fits in with the world he has returned home to find. In my opinion it is the most heartbreaking part of the book in that all this person wants is basically the occasional pat on the back for a job well done, not a fancy parade, but he never really gets it. Also the issue of returning home to girls that have since moved on in their lives is reflected in the book, as with Kovic and his childhood sweetheart with whom he can no longer really communicate.- Bryan Mull<br />
<br />
I really liked ''A Rumor of War''. I thought Caputo’s discussion of nostalgia offered a new perspective on why the Vietnam conflict was so complicated for Vietnam veterans. Whether veterans supported or protested the war, their time in Vietnam was the most formative experience of their lives. Caputo said his objections to Vietnam were informed by a completely different set of circumstances than that of the homefront protesters- war. “Because I had fought in it, it was not an abstract issue, but a deeply emotional experience, the most significant thing that had happened to me.” I think this is the very sentiment that everyone ought to keep in mind when discussing the Vietnam conflict (and really any hot-button issue). Regardless of where people fall on the issue of Vietnam, everyone’s ''opinion'' is valid. Too often one side accuses the other side of “not getting it” or that “they’re wrong”, but this accusation misses the point. With an issue as personal and emotional as war, there is no right or wrong, just a poignant internalization of a provocative reality.- Jason Ward<br />
<br />
== 3 Movie as primary source about makers/time/setting/genre ==<br />
<br />
The soldiers, including Ron Kovic really thought they were going to beat Communists in Vietnam in the beginning. They were disillusioned. The Cold War was coming to an end around the time this movie was made. The Tienanmen Square Massacre happened on July 4, 1989 and Berlin Wall fell in late 1989. It seems like with the release of this film, the filmmakers were making a comment on Communism or the war on it.- Lauren<br />
<br />
With a father who served in Vietnam from 1969-1970, I can say that this movie was pretty accurate with the stories he told about coming back home. While his story is nowhere near the personal hell that Kovic endured in his time back from the fighting, this movie showed, accurately, that our Vietnam Veterans did not get their ticker-tape parades. They were not congratulated. They were not thanked. By the time 1970 rolled around, free love was over. The Rolling Stones had held a concert at Altamont that led to 3 accidental deaths and one murder. Bobby and Jack Kennedy were dead, as were Dr. King and Malcolm X. Popular music was anti-war, involving everyone from the Doors, to Jefferson Airplane to Country Joe and the Fish. For once, America was losing a war, and with it, America lost its innocence. The homefront was a maelstrom of emotion, and while many were thankful for the service of our men and women, the anger, hatred and disenchantment was there as well. -Cash Nelson<br />
<br />
== 4 Public reaction/impact ==<br />
<br />
In watching the documentary in the special features, it was stated that after winning Best Picture for Platoon, "Oliver Stone could have made any movie he wanted." Born On... was a promise kept to Ron Kovic himself that he would get this movie made. Oliver Stone was not looking for an Oscar with this one, but he got one anyway for Best Director. He wasn't looking to gross $70 million, but it did anyway. This wasn't even meant to be Oliver Stone's baby. He had already done that with Platoon. Born On The 4th was a promise kept to a fellow Vietnam Veteran. Kovic felt very much that his story had been left behind and ignored. Oliver Stone promised to bring it back. Wasn't that enough? -Cash Nelson<br />
<br />
== 5 Other movies/questions of style/framing/storyline ==<br />
<br />
Was the use of the blinking club lights meant to convey a sense of unreality in Ronnie's life after his return home? -Lauren<br />
<br />
How often did soldiers go off to Mexico to avoid what was going on in the US? It seemed that there were a lot of the men, especially those in wheelchairs that were in Mexico trying to recover and avoid the criticism in the states. -- Kellye Sorber<br />
<br />
<br />
I felt that the jarring nature of the film was really unsettling - but I felt that this was a conscious decision by the film makers to portray how unsettling and choppy the experience of the vietnam was was for soldiers. -Elle<br />
<br />
That makes sense for the "Vietnam Section" I guess we can call it, but for the entire movie? It didn't really seem to make sense and I don't know if it was a wise choice on their part (if it was a conscious decision) to try to do that. Something just doesn't seem to add up. But the choppiness really did work with the war scenes because you did get a sense of confusion and chaos of the situations these guys were in. -Kelly Wuyscik<br />
<br />
In response to Kelly's response - I was thinking psychologically it works for the whole movie. I am NOT saying that I enjoyed it as a film viewer, but I can see why it might have been done that way. - Elle<br />
<br />
Kelly and Elle, this is a common technique of Stone's, used in even heavier amounts in Natural Born Killers, U-Turn and Any Given Sunday. Even JFK ran with it. Stone has often said that the stories he tells are filled with an anarchic level of chaos and panic, and the jarring, frantic cuts are his way of showing that panic. -Cash Nelson<br />
<br />
Tangentally, I loved the placement of Johnny Got His Gun in the scene where Kovic learns he will never walk again. For those of you who have never read this (I have two copies, I am willing to let people borrow), there is perhaps no better work of literature that better portrays the agonizing fear that comes with realizing you, as a soldier, will never be understood as a human again. -Cash Nelson<br />
<br />
In terms of ''Born on the Fourth of July'' 's relationship to other Vietnam films, (I guess this is "filmography" as opposed to historiography) I think this movie does a good job of portraying the Vietnam vet. I would categorize this film as a biographical autobiography, that is Stone told Kovic's story with help from Kovic himself. On one hand ''Born on the Fourth of July'' validates the stock characters we see in other films while ultimately moving beyond those characterizations. Dr. McClurken mentioned that other movies about Vietnam depicted the vets as unstable and alienated, and the real Ron Kovic certainly had to deal with his share of instability and alienation in the years following his return home. What made Kovic different from the characters in other movies is that he was able to channel his feelings into activism. Plenty of veterans came home and never quite recovered, but Kovic’s story is important because he did not let Vietnam defeat him personally. - Jason Ward<br />
<br />
Why did Tom Cruise's hair change so drastically? I'm assuming it's suppose to show how much he aged while at war, but I have to say it made me somewhat uncomfortable. --Mallory C.<br />
<br />
I thought most of Ron's childhood scenes were hyper-dramatized and nearly silly. "I had a dream last night Ron. You were talking in front of a whole bunch of people..."? There are the dangers of basing a film on an autobiography. We are all the heroes of our own lives. - JT Newcomb<br />
<br />
== 6 Overall ==<br />
<br />
I really did not like this movie. Most of the time I felt very confused, it seemed to jump around a lot and it made it hard to follow at times. I also had a hard time believing in Tom Cruise as the main character Ron Kovic. Maybe this is because I am so used to seeing him in different roles that this role was just different enough to make it seem strange. -- Kellye Sorber<br />
<br />
As is often difficult for anyone, upon developing bias, it was tough for me to detach from my love for Oliver Stone in watching this. Instead, I watched it from the perspective of a 20 year old kid whose brother is an Iraq vet and whose father is a Vietnam vet. I watched from the perspective of a kid still trying to figure out his own personal politics, while still giving everyone else's, regardless of my agreement/disagreement, a fair day in court. I watch it from the perspective of trying to put myself, a relatively conservative 21-year-old, college-going kid into the perspective of the time, when my politics probably would not have been popular. Finally, I watch it with the knowledge that there is not a single human being alive that WANTS war. With all of these emotions around one simple, three-letter-word, "war," Stone crafted a masterful examination of the human psyche. It was chaotic. To be perfectly honest, the Vietnam era was a pretty terrible time to be American. -Cash Nelson <br />
<br />
I also had a hard time following the movie. I agree with Kellye that it seemed to jump around a lot. I also found it hard to believe Tom Cruise as the main character. - Christine W.<br />
<br />
I don't really care for this. It wasn't very entertaining for me and it's not something I would ever watch again. I didn't have any problems with the film jumping around, but I kept trying to figure out when he'd actually gone away, and therefore how old he was and how long he'd been gone. We see kid Ron watching JFK's speech in 1961, then Ron is a senior in high school, then we are in Vietnam in October 1967. Only after a parade when a speaker says Ron was born in '46 do things come together. I was preoccupied with this on multiple occasions. -Whitney Holcomb<br />
<br />
Tom Cruise pre-Vietnam/during the war > Tom Cruise in the hospital to the end. And, I know that's how the style was in the 1970s, but I couldn't handle it. Everything just seemed to be too over-the-top almost and very very dramatic. And I think abbreviating Kovic's life so much to fit it all in in 2 1/2 hours hurt the movie a great deal. As the others said, it was so fragmented and scattered that I had a hard time keeping up with how old Ron was supposed to be, etc. -Kelly Wuyscik<br />
<br />
One more thing; were those supposed to be New York accents? I know Kovic was from Long Island but come on now. They sounded a bit off to me, but I suppose anything is better than Kevin Costner and a Boston accent. -Kelly Wuyscik<br />
<br />
Try Kevin Costner and a New Orleans accent. -Cash Nelson<br />
<br />
I like that Stone showed the differing views between Ron and Donna. He a Vet and she a war-protester. It reminded me of ''Forrest Gump'' although ''Forrest Gump'' came 8 years after ''Born on the 4th of July''. I'm glad Stone mentioned the protest at Kent State because not only did this horrible event have a big impact on the American public but also college campuses were hubs for protests that held very powerful stances during the Vietnam era. --Mallory C.<br />
<br />
I was expecting something really bad, and really inaccurate from Oliver Stone. He surprised me, I liked the film... a lot. - Jason Ward</div>Jward5zkhttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329--Week_13_Questions/Comments329--Week 13 Questions/Comments2008-11-19T21:03:57Z<p>Jward5zk: /* b Inaccurate/issues: */</p>
<hr />
<div>== 1 Movie as secondary source about the past (What did it get right? What did it get wrong?) ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== a Right: ==<br />
<br />
The movie did a great job showing the PTSD of Ron and the other vets. They seemed to have genuine problems dealing with the things that happened during the war. He frequently had flash backs to the critical seen from the war to him in the village. He had a hard time coming to terms with the fact that he killed a member of his unit. Many soldier were killed by friendly fire and this did a good job showing how it could happen in stressful situations. -- Kellye Sorber<br />
<br />
I thought the movie did a good job showing the split reaction of the American people. Those who supported the war and those who protested. I also liked how it showed the change in Ron's character as he realized what was really going on. - Christine W.<br />
<br />
In the hospital when Ron freaks out at the nurses and they don't have the right pump for his leg, the doctor explains to him, "Cutbacks. The government's just not giving us the money we need to take care of you guys." According to what we learned in the lecture, this would have been accurate, and the possibility that someone like Ron could lose his leg because of those cutbacks was real. -Whitney Holcomb<br />
<br />
I was surprised with how much this movie was able to accurately portray. You really see how hard it was for the Vets to return to the states with little to no support from their country and all of the stresses from war. Most of them were druggies or, like Ron, alcoholics. You also see how crappy the hospitals were and how little funding they received from the federal government. I know we learned in class that it was much less than post-WWII America but the movie really made it real how few doctors there were and how just, disgusting the hospitals actually were. I was NOT prepared for the bedpans and the vomit. That was unnecessary. -Kelly Wuyscik<br />
<br />
I also really liked how well the film showed the difficulty discerning guys in your own troops and the members of the Vietcong. It really amplified how stressful and chaotic the setting was over in Vietnam and how frequently new guys were being added or sent home from American troops. -Kelly Wuyscik<br />
<br />
Unfortunately, much of the hospital horror that occurred in the film has happened as recently as last year. Those of us from the DC area will likely remember the extensive coverage of the neglect scandal at Walter Reed Army Medical Center that the Washington Post covered extensively. Red tape, rat and cockroach infestations, mold, all occurring at the US Army's flagship east coast medical center. It was accurate then, it is accurate now. -Cash Nelson<br />
<br />
Whether veterans were disabled or suffering from PTSD, the readjustment to a country at war with itself had to leave any veteran feeling lost in the shuffle (at best). I think this movie conveys the disillusionment of the Vietnam era well. Kovic is a guy who went from “love it or leave” it to “politicians are rapists and thieves”. His story resonates because it was not uncommon, and sadly not unjustified. -Jason Ward<br />
<br />
The difference in the two 4th of July parades accurately displays the differing views of the American people. When the WWII veterans returned home, hundreds of people were lining the streets, cheering, clapping, and holding American flags. When Ron is being driven through the parade the people lining the streets are jeering and giving him the figure. It shows the very different reactions of the American people to these two wars. One war they supported (WWII), the other they did not (Vietnam). Also, during the first parade when the fireworks/gun shots(?) are fired the veteran is startled and flinches and young Ron takes notice of that; this is exactly what happens to Ron during the parade, he flinches when he hears that gun shot sound. These are two examples of the PTSD the soldiers experienced that affected them in their everyday life. --Mallory C.<br />
<br />
This film was the first that hammered home for me how bad it is when the government isn't prepared to take care of wounded veterans. The scenes in the VA hospital make it easy to understand the difficulties associated with a lack of funding, and what it was like for veterans in those hospitals. I guess watching Forest Gump too many times left me thinking VA hospitals were all ping pong and ice cream. - JT Newcomb<br />
<br />
I thought the scene in the bar where Kovic and the WWII Marine get into a scuffle was powerful in that it showed the disconnect between generations and between the views on the different wars. I know that guys like my grandfather who served in the Marines in the Pacific during WWII and in Korea often had little sympathy for perceived "whiners" from Vietnam. Because of the different circumstances surrounding the two wars and the vast differences between the generations, it is no wonder there were such tensions among the veterans.-Bryan Mull<br />
<br />
I also agree on the movie doing a great job with showing how Ron’s view changes towards the war. It shows how society around him affected his thoughts on how the war had a negative impact on America. The film also gave examples of what was happening in America, the Kent State shootings (Donna briefly stated about) and the brutal beatings by police officers at the war rallies. –Ashley Scutari<br />
<br />
== b Inaccurate/issues: ==<br />
In Ron's Vietnam scene, his unit shoots at huts in this village and then go investigate. But when they find the bodies, they freak out because they realize they're just civilians, and actually call medics to help these innocent people. The Lieutenant is hardly able to keep them under control. It seems implausible they would have reacted like that, because at this point in the war, they would have known the villagers they shot at may or may not be VC. Perhaps some of the green soldiers like Wilson might be surprised, but Ron shouldn't have been. -Whitney Holcomb <br />
<br />
Really? I thought the reason they were shocked is that the Americans honestly didn't think there were civilians in the area. The justification for shooting was that the lieutenant saw rifles in the huts, only later did the Americans find out that the VC had used civilians as "Cover". Also I thought the confusion and uncertainty between unarmed civilians and VC was one of the main frustrations American soldiers had fighting in Vietnam. I thought this scene was accurate. - Jason Ward<br />
<br />
When Ron is home after the war, in his room with his parents, the American flag on the bedroom wall behind him is hung backwards! The field of stars should be on the left, not the right. -Whitney Holcomb <br />
<br />
I interpreted the backwards hanging of the flag as a sign of symbolic protest. -Jason Ward<br />
<br />
I felt that overall this movie hit some key points that are accurate, BUT I felt that it was another stereotypical portrayal of a torn up vietnam vet. Maybe I am still living in a fantasy that most of the vets were not drastically screwed up when they returned from the war. I know it was based on a book so this might not have been necessarily a film makers decision. - Elle<br />
<br />
Awe come on, Elle. You didn't like the American Hero story? It's not shown on the silver screen nearly enough. That's not to say it wasn't an impressive life story, but like Elle said, it just seemed to be too much. -Kelly Wuyscik<br />
<br />
Just to offer up some perspective, the screenplay was written by Oliver Stone and Ron Kovic himself, both of which were veterans of this war. Kovic approved the casting of Tom Cruise, and while there were obviously scenes added for dramatic license (most notably, Ron Kovic telling Will's family that he was responsible for their son's murder), most of it was on the up and up. -Cash Nelson<br />
<br />
That being said, Parris Island would have only been eight weeks of hell back then. Not thirteen. -Cash Nelson<br />
<br />
Maybe this is a function of there just not being a whole lot of combat scenes but I was wondering where all the black soldiers were? There was the guy that saved Kovic and carried him to safety, but I don't recall seeing any other black soldiers, which is strange seeing as how something like 60 percent of black males were drafted. Though I guess the protest scenes showed a bit more diversity. -Bryan Mull<br />
<br />
I don’t know much about the book the movie is based off of, but I felt the whole scene in Mexico was inaccurate. If I’m wrong please correct me, but this was something America did not talk about if it were true. Was Mexico a popular retreat place for the Vets, and was it exactly like how it was portrayed in the film? –Ashley Scutari<br />
<br />
I’m not sure, but in the scene Ron and a friend of his were talking about the war and the friend stated “This is a wealthy man’s war.” What does he mean by that? It was not a war for the common soldier because most soldiers who fought were from the lower class. –Ashley Scutari<br />
<br />
I interpreted this quote about "the wealthy man's war" as an acknowledgment of the notion that politicians in Washington "play war", using lower class boys as their playing pieces. In other words, the "fatcats" in Washington make war, but let others do their fightin'. Take a listen to Creedence Clearwater Revival's Fortunate Son. Here is a lyric that makes the hair on the back of my neck stand up every time,<br />
"Some folks are born made to wave the flag,<br />
Ooh, they're red, white and blue.<br />
And when the band plays hail to the chief,<br />
Ooh, they point the cannon at you, lord,It aint me, it aint me, I aint no senators son, son.<br />
It aint me, it aint me; I aint no fortunate one, no,"- Jason Ward<br />
<br />
== 2 Film's relationship to current scholarship or to primary sources from the time ==<br />
In Tim O'Brian's book he talks about the baggage the soldiers. It mentions the intangible as well as the tangible. I thought the movie did a good job showing this baggage especially after Ron killed one of his soldiers. - Christine W.<br />
<br />
In "A Rumor of War," the author discusses how the war appealed to the young generation originally. How most of those who signed up early were teenagers and young adults because they were taught to be proud of their country and wanted to defend it. They answered Kennedy's call of "ask what you can do for your country" and wanted to be like their parents who had fought in previous wars, most notably WWII. You could see this in the movie pretty well, especially when the young Ron is sitting there watching Kennedy's address with his family and gets riled up about how to help and defend his country. -Kelly Wuyscik<br />
<br />
So this wasn't a major part of anything but I wondered about the letters that were sent to and from soldiers. In the film Ron sends love letters to his lady, and it is also mentioned in the readings. Did this communication with home help also to keep the moral high, or no more so than any other war? - Elle<br />
<br />
I was very pleased to see O'Brien's ''The Things They Carried'' selected as a reading for this film. I would highly suggest that anyone who hasn't read O'Brien to pick up ''TTTC'' or ''Going After Cacciato'' as both are extremely powerful books in understanding the psyche of the Vietnam soldier. I found that of any text (be it film, novel, textbook), The Things They Carried was the most formative for me in understanding the impact of Vietnam on a generation (which is notable seeing as how it is a work of fiction). In regards to this film and ''TTTC'', I found that Kovic's despair upon returning and most people not really caring about the war was reflected well in O'Brien's book. Though not in our excerpt, there is a story of a Vietnam vet who returns home and basically drives around his town every night with nothing to do, trying to figure out where he fits in with the world he has returned home to find. In my opinion it is the most heartbreaking part of the book in that all this person wants is basically the occasional pat on the back for a job well done, not a fancy parade, but he never really gets it. Also the issue of returning home to girls that have since moved on in their lives is reflected in the book, as with Kovic and his childhood sweetheart with whom he can no longer really communicate.- Bryan Mull<br />
<br />
I really liked ''A Rumor of War''. I thought Caputo’s discussion of nostalgia offered a new perspective on why the Vietnam conflict was so complicated for Vietnam veterans. Whether veterans supported or protested the war, their time in Vietnam was the most formative experience of their lives. Caputo said his objections to Vietnam were informed by a completely different set of circumstances than that of the homefront protesters- war. “Because I had fought in it, it was not an abstract issue, but a deeply emotional experience, the most significant thing that had happened to me.” I think this is the very sentiment that everyone ought to keep in mind when discussing the Vietnam conflict (and really any hot-button issue). Regardless of where people fall on the issue of Vietnam, everyone’s ''opinion'' is valid. Too often one side accuses the other side of “not getting it” or that “they’re wrong”, but this accusation misses the point. With an issue as personal and emotional as war, there is no right or wrong, just a poignant internalization of a provocative reality.- Jason Ward<br />
<br />
== 3 Movie as primary source about makers/time/setting/genre ==<br />
<br />
The soldiers, including Ron Kovic really thought they were going to beat Communists in Vietnam in the beginning. They were disillusioned. The Cold War was coming to an end around the time this movie was made. The Tienanmen Square Massacre happened on July 4, 1989 and Berlin Wall fell in late 1989. It seems like with the release of this film, the filmmakers were making a comment on Communism or the war on it.- Lauren<br />
<br />
With a father who served in Vietnam from 1969-1970, I can say that this movie was pretty accurate with the stories he told about coming back home. While his story is nowhere near the personal hell that Kovic endured in his time back from the fighting, this movie showed, accurately, that our Vietnam Veterans did not get their ticker-tape parades. They were not congratulated. They were not thanked. By the time 1970 rolled around, free love was over. The Rolling Stones had held a concert at Altamont that led to 3 accidental deaths and one murder. Bobby and Jack Kennedy were dead, as were Dr. King and Malcolm X. Popular music was anti-war, involving everyone from the Doors, to Jefferson Airplane to Country Joe and the Fish. For once, America was losing a war, and with it, America lost its innocence. The homefront was a maelstrom of emotion, and while many were thankful for the service of our men and women, the anger, hatred and disenchantment was there as well. -Cash Nelson<br />
<br />
== 4 Public reaction/impact ==<br />
<br />
In watching the documentary in the special features, it was stated that after winning Best Picture for Platoon, "Oliver Stone could have made any movie he wanted." Born On... was a promise kept to Ron Kovic himself that he would get this movie made. Oliver Stone was not looking for an Oscar with this one, but he got one anyway for Best Director. He wasn't looking to gross $70 million, but it did anyway. This wasn't even meant to be Oliver Stone's baby. He had already done that with Platoon. Born On The 4th was a promise kept to a fellow Vietnam Veteran. Kovic felt very much that his story had been left behind and ignored. Oliver Stone promised to bring it back. Wasn't that enough? -Cash Nelson<br />
<br />
== 5 Other movies/questions of style/framing/storyline ==<br />
<br />
Was the use of the blinking club lights meant to convey a sense of unreality in Ronnie's life after his return home? -Lauren<br />
<br />
How often did soldiers go off to Mexico to avoid what was going on in the US? It seemed that there were a lot of the men, especially those in wheelchairs that were in Mexico trying to recover and avoid the criticism in the states. -- Kellye Sorber<br />
<br />
<br />
I felt that the jarring nature of the film was really unsettling - but I felt that this was a conscious decision by the film makers to portray how unsettling and choppy the experience of the vietnam was was for soldiers. -Elle<br />
<br />
That makes sense for the "Vietnam Section" I guess we can call it, but for the entire movie? It didn't really seem to make sense and I don't know if it was a wise choice on their part (if it was a conscious decision) to try to do that. Something just doesn't seem to add up. But the choppiness really did work with the war scenes because you did get a sense of confusion and chaos of the situations these guys were in. -Kelly Wuyscik<br />
<br />
In response to Kelly's response - I was thinking psychologically it works for the whole movie. I am NOT saying that I enjoyed it as a film viewer, but I can see why it might have been done that way. - Elle<br />
<br />
Kelly and Elle, this is a common technique of Stone's, used in even heavier amounts in Natural Born Killers, U-Turn and Any Given Sunday. Even JFK ran with it. Stone has often said that the stories he tells are filled with an anarchic level of chaos and panic, and the jarring, frantic cuts are his way of showing that panic. -Cash Nelson<br />
<br />
Tangentally, I loved the placement of Johnny Got His Gun in the scene where Kovic learns he will never walk again. For those of you who have never read this (I have two copies, I am willing to let people borrow), there is perhaps no better work of literature that better portrays the agonizing fear that comes with realizing you, as a soldier, will never be understood as a human again. -Cash Nelson<br />
<br />
In terms of ''Born on the Fourth of July'' 's relationship to other Vietnam films, (I guess this is "filmography" as opposed to historiography) I think this movie does a good job of portraying the Vietnam vet. I would categorize this film as a biographical autobiography, that is Stone told Kovic's story with help from Kovic himself. On one hand ''Born on the Fourth of July'' validates the stock characters we see in other films while ultimately moving beyond those characterizations. Dr. McClurken mentioned that other movies about Vietnam depicted the vets as unstable and alienated, and the real Ron Kovic certainly had to deal with his share of instability and alienation in the years following his return home. What made Kovic different from the characters in other movies is that he was able to channel his feelings into activism. Plenty of veterans came home and never quite recovered, but Kovic’s story is important because he did not let Vietnam defeat him personally. - Jason Ward<br />
<br />
Why did Tom Cruise's hair change so drastically? I'm assuming it's suppose to show how much he aged while at war, but I have to say it made me somewhat uncomfortable. --Mallory C.<br />
<br />
I thought most of Ron's childhood scenes were hyper-dramatized and nearly silly. "I had a dream last night Ron. You were talking in front of a whole bunch of people..."? There are the dangers of basing a film on an autobiography. We are all the heroes of our own lives. - JT Newcomb<br />
<br />
== 6 Overall ==<br />
<br />
I really did not like this movie. Most of the time I felt very confused, it seemed to jump around a lot and it made it hard to follow at times. I also had a hard time believing in Tom Cruise as the main character Ron Kovic. Maybe this is because I am so used to seeing him in different roles that this role was just different enough to make it seem strange. -- Kellye Sorber<br />
<br />
As is often difficult for anyone, upon developing bias, it was tough for me to detach from my love for Oliver Stone in watching this. Instead, I watched it from the perspective of a 20 year old kid whose brother is an Iraq vet and whose father is a Vietnam vet. I watched from the perspective of a kid still trying to figure out his own personal politics, while still giving everyone else's, regardless of my agreement/disagreement, a fair day in court. I watch it from the perspective of trying to put myself, a relatively conservative 21-year-old, college-going kid into the perspective of the time, when my politics probably would not have been popular. Finally, I watch it with the knowledge that there is not a single human being alive that WANTS war. With all of these emotions around one simple, three-letter-word, "war," Stone crafted a masterful examination of the human psyche. It was chaotic. To be perfectly honest, the Vietnam era was a pretty terrible time to be American. -Cash Nelson <br />
<br />
I also had a hard time following the movie. I agree with Kellye that it seemed to jump around a lot. I also found it hard to believe Tom Cruise as the main character. - Christine W.<br />
<br />
I don't really care for this. It wasn't very entertaining for me and it's not something I would ever watch again. I didn't have any problems with the film jumping around, but I kept trying to figure out when he'd actually gone away, and therefore how old he was and how long he'd been gone. We see kid Ron watching JFK's speech in 1961, then Ron is a senior in high school, then we are in Vietnam in October 1967. Only after a parade when a speaker says Ron was born in '46 do things come together. I was preoccupied with this on multiple occasions. -Whitney Holcomb<br />
<br />
Tom Cruise pre-Vietnam/during the war > Tom Cruise in the hospital to the end. And, I know that's how the style was in the 1970s, but I couldn't handle it. Everything just seemed to be too over-the-top almost and very very dramatic. And I think abbreviating Kovic's life so much to fit it all in in 2 1/2 hours hurt the movie a great deal. As the others said, it was so fragmented and scattered that I had a hard time keeping up with how old Ron was supposed to be, etc. -Kelly Wuyscik<br />
<br />
One more thing; were those supposed to be New York accents? I know Kovic was from Long Island but come on now. They sounded a bit off to me, but I suppose anything is better than Kevin Costner and a Boston accent. -Kelly Wuyscik<br />
<br />
Try Kevin Costner and a New Orleans accent. -Cash Nelson<br />
<br />
I like that Stone showed the differing views between Ron and Donna. He a Vet and she a war-protester. It reminded me of ''Forrest Gump'' although ''Forrest Gump'' came 8 years after ''Born on the 4th of July''. I'm glad Stone mentioned the protest at Kent State because not only did this horrible event have a big impact on the American public but also college campuses were hubs for protests that held very powerful stances during the Vietnam era. --Mallory C.</div>Jward5zkhttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329--Week_13_Questions/Comments329--Week 13 Questions/Comments2008-11-19T21:02:39Z<p>Jward5zk: /* b Inaccurate/issues: */</p>
<hr />
<div>== 1 Movie as secondary source about the past (What did it get right? What did it get wrong?) ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== a Right: ==<br />
<br />
The movie did a great job showing the PTSD of Ron and the other vets. They seemed to have genuine problems dealing with the things that happened during the war. He frequently had flash backs to the critical seen from the war to him in the village. He had a hard time coming to terms with the fact that he killed a member of his unit. Many soldier were killed by friendly fire and this did a good job showing how it could happen in stressful situations. -- Kellye Sorber<br />
<br />
I thought the movie did a good job showing the split reaction of the American people. Those who supported the war and those who protested. I also liked how it showed the change in Ron's character as he realized what was really going on. - Christine W.<br />
<br />
In the hospital when Ron freaks out at the nurses and they don't have the right pump for his leg, the doctor explains to him, "Cutbacks. The government's just not giving us the money we need to take care of you guys." According to what we learned in the lecture, this would have been accurate, and the possibility that someone like Ron could lose his leg because of those cutbacks was real. -Whitney Holcomb<br />
<br />
I was surprised with how much this movie was able to accurately portray. You really see how hard it was for the Vets to return to the states with little to no support from their country and all of the stresses from war. Most of them were druggies or, like Ron, alcoholics. You also see how crappy the hospitals were and how little funding they received from the federal government. I know we learned in class that it was much less than post-WWII America but the movie really made it real how few doctors there were and how just, disgusting the hospitals actually were. I was NOT prepared for the bedpans and the vomit. That was unnecessary. -Kelly Wuyscik<br />
<br />
I also really liked how well the film showed the difficulty discerning guys in your own troops and the members of the Vietcong. It really amplified how stressful and chaotic the setting was over in Vietnam and how frequently new guys were being added or sent home from American troops. -Kelly Wuyscik<br />
<br />
Unfortunately, much of the hospital horror that occurred in the film has happened as recently as last year. Those of us from the DC area will likely remember the extensive coverage of the neglect scandal at Walter Reed Army Medical Center that the Washington Post covered extensively. Red tape, rat and cockroach infestations, mold, all occurring at the US Army's flagship east coast medical center. It was accurate then, it is accurate now. -Cash Nelson<br />
<br />
Whether veterans were disabled or suffering from PTSD, the readjustment to a country at war with itself had to leave any veteran feeling lost in the shuffle (at best). I think this movie conveys the disillusionment of the Vietnam era well. Kovic is a guy who went from “love it or leave” it to “politicians are rapists and thieves”. His story resonates because it was not uncommon, and sadly not unjustified. -Jason Ward<br />
<br />
The difference in the two 4th of July parades accurately displays the differing views of the American people. When the WWII veterans returned home, hundreds of people were lining the streets, cheering, clapping, and holding American flags. When Ron is being driven through the parade the people lining the streets are jeering and giving him the figure. It shows the very different reactions of the American people to these two wars. One war they supported (WWII), the other they did not (Vietnam). Also, during the first parade when the fireworks/gun shots(?) are fired the veteran is startled and flinches and young Ron takes notice of that; this is exactly what happens to Ron during the parade, he flinches when he hears that gun shot sound. These are two examples of the PTSD the soldiers experienced that affected them in their everyday life. --Mallory C.<br />
<br />
This film was the first that hammered home for me how bad it is when the government isn't prepared to take care of wounded veterans. The scenes in the VA hospital make it easy to understand the difficulties associated with a lack of funding, and what it was like for veterans in those hospitals. I guess watching Forest Gump too many times left me thinking VA hospitals were all ping pong and ice cream. - JT Newcomb<br />
<br />
I thought the scene in the bar where Kovic and the WWII Marine get into a scuffle was powerful in that it showed the disconnect between generations and between the views on the different wars. I know that guys like my grandfather who served in the Marines in the Pacific during WWII and in Korea often had little sympathy for perceived "whiners" from Vietnam. Because of the different circumstances surrounding the two wars and the vast differences between the generations, it is no wonder there were such tensions among the veterans.-Bryan Mull<br />
<br />
I also agree on the movie doing a great job with showing how Ron’s view changes towards the war. It shows how society around him affected his thoughts on how the war had a negative impact on America. The film also gave examples of what was happening in America, the Kent State shootings (Donna briefly stated about) and the brutal beatings by police officers at the war rallies. –Ashley Scutari<br />
<br />
== b Inaccurate/issues: ==<br />
In Ron's Vietnam scene, his unit shoots at huts in this village and then go investigate. But when they find the bodies, they freak out because they realize they're just civilians, and actually call medics to help these innocent people. The Lieutenant is hardly able to keep them under control. It seems implausible they would have reacted like that, because at this point in the war, they would have known the villagers they shot at may or may not be VC. Perhaps some of the green soldiers like Wilson might be surprised, but Ron shouldn't have been. -Whitney Holcomb <br />
<br />
Really? I thought the reason they were shocked is that the Americans honestly didn't think there were civilians in the area. The justification for shooting was that the lieutenant saw rifles in the huts, only later did the Americans find out that the VC had used civilians as "Cover". Also I thought the confusion and uncertainty between unarmed civilians and VC was one of the main frustrations American soldiers had fighting in Vietnam. I thought this scene was accurate. - Jason Ward<br />
<br />
When Ron is home after the war, in his room with his parents, the American flag on the bedroom wall behind him is hung backwards! The field of stars should be on the left, not the right. -Whitney Holcomb <br />
<br />
I interpreted the backwards hanging of the flag as a sign of symbolic protest. -Jason Ward<br />
<br />
I felt that overall this movie hit some key points that are accurate, BUT I felt that it was another stereotypical portrayal of a torn up vietnam vet. Maybe I am still living in a fantasy that most of the vets were not drastically screwed up when they returned from the war. I know it was based on a book so this might not have been necessarily a film makers decision. - Elle<br />
<br />
Awe come on, Elle. You didn't like the American Hero story? It's not shown on the silver screen nearly enough. That's not to say it wasn't an impressive life story, but like Elle said, it just seemed to be too much. -Kelly Wuyscik<br />
<br />
Just to offer up some perspective, the screenplay was written by Oliver Stone and Ron Kovic himself, both of which were veterans of this war. Kovic approved the casting of Tom Cruise, and while there were obviously scenes added for dramatic license (most notably, Ron Kovic telling Will's family that he was responsible for their son's murder), most of it was on the up and up. -Cash Nelson<br />
<br />
That being said, Parris Island would have only been eight weeks of hell back then. Not thirteen. -Cash Nelson<br />
<br />
Maybe this is a function of there just not being a whole lot of combat scenes but I was wondering where all the black soldiers were? There was the guy that saved Kovic and carried him to safety, but I don't recall seeing any other black soldiers, which is strange seeing as how something like 60 percent of black males were drafted. Though I guess the protest scenes showed a bit more diversity. -Bryan Mull<br />
<br />
I don’t know much about the book the movie is based off of, but I felt the whole scene in Mexico was inaccurate. If I’m wrong please correct me, but this was something America did not talk about if it were true. Was Mexico a popular retreat place for the Vets, and was it exactly like how it was portrayed in the film? –Ashley Scutari<br />
<br />
I’m not sure, but in the scene Ron and a friend of his were talking about the war and the friend stated “This is a wealthy man’s war.” What does he mean by that? It was not a war for the common soldier because most soldiers who fought were from the lower class. –Ashley Scutari<br />
<br />
I interpreted this quote about "the wealthy man's war" as an acknowledgment of the notion that politicians in Washington "play war", using lower class boys as their playing pieces. In other words, the "fatcats" in Washington make war, but let others do their fightin'. Take a listen to Creedence Clearwater Revival's Fortunate Son. Here is a lyric that makes the hair on the back of my neck stand up every time,<br />
"Some folks are born made to wave the flag,<br />
Ooh, they're red, white and blue.<br />
And when the band plays hail to the chief,<br />
Ooh, they point the cannon at you, lord,<br />
<br />
It aint me, it aint me, I aint no senators son, son.<br />
It aint me, it aint me; I aint no fortunate one, no,"- Jason Ward<br />
<br />
== 2 Film's relationship to current scholarship or to primary sources from the time ==<br />
In Tim O'Brian's book he talks about the baggage the soldiers. It mentions the intangible as well as the tangible. I thought the movie did a good job showing this baggage especially after Ron killed one of his soldiers. - Christine W.<br />
<br />
In "A Rumor of War," the author discusses how the war appealed to the young generation originally. How most of those who signed up early were teenagers and young adults because they were taught to be proud of their country and wanted to defend it. They answered Kennedy's call of "ask what you can do for your country" and wanted to be like their parents who had fought in previous wars, most notably WWII. You could see this in the movie pretty well, especially when the young Ron is sitting there watching Kennedy's address with his family and gets riled up about how to help and defend his country. -Kelly Wuyscik<br />
<br />
So this wasn't a major part of anything but I wondered about the letters that were sent to and from soldiers. In the film Ron sends love letters to his lady, and it is also mentioned in the readings. Did this communication with home help also to keep the moral high, or no more so than any other war? - Elle<br />
<br />
I was very pleased to see O'Brien's ''The Things They Carried'' selected as a reading for this film. I would highly suggest that anyone who hasn't read O'Brien to pick up ''TTTC'' or ''Going After Cacciato'' as both are extremely powerful books in understanding the psyche of the Vietnam soldier. I found that of any text (be it film, novel, textbook), The Things They Carried was the most formative for me in understanding the impact of Vietnam on a generation (which is notable seeing as how it is a work of fiction). In regards to this film and ''TTTC'', I found that Kovic's despair upon returning and most people not really caring about the war was reflected well in O'Brien's book. Though not in our excerpt, there is a story of a Vietnam vet who returns home and basically drives around his town every night with nothing to do, trying to figure out where he fits in with the world he has returned home to find. In my opinion it is the most heartbreaking part of the book in that all this person wants is basically the occasional pat on the back for a job well done, not a fancy parade, but he never really gets it. Also the issue of returning home to girls that have since moved on in their lives is reflected in the book, as with Kovic and his childhood sweetheart with whom he can no longer really communicate.- Bryan Mull<br />
<br />
I really liked ''A Rumor of War''. I thought Caputo’s discussion of nostalgia offered a new perspective on why the Vietnam conflict was so complicated for Vietnam veterans. Whether veterans supported or protested the war, their time in Vietnam was the most formative experience of their lives. Caputo said his objections to Vietnam were informed by a completely different set of circumstances than that of the homefront protesters- war. “Because I had fought in it, it was not an abstract issue, but a deeply emotional experience, the most significant thing that had happened to me.” I think this is the very sentiment that everyone ought to keep in mind when discussing the Vietnam conflict (and really any hot-button issue). Regardless of where people fall on the issue of Vietnam, everyone’s ''opinion'' is valid. Too often one side accuses the other side of “not getting it” or that “they’re wrong”, but this accusation misses the point. With an issue as personal and emotional as war, there is no right or wrong, just a poignant internalization of a provocative reality.- Jason Ward<br />
<br />
== 3 Movie as primary source about makers/time/setting/genre ==<br />
<br />
The soldiers, including Ron Kovic really thought they were going to beat Communists in Vietnam in the beginning. They were disillusioned. The Cold War was coming to an end around the time this movie was made. The Tienanmen Square Massacre happened on July 4, 1989 and Berlin Wall fell in late 1989. It seems like with the release of this film, the filmmakers were making a comment on Communism or the war on it.- Lauren<br />
<br />
With a father who served in Vietnam from 1969-1970, I can say that this movie was pretty accurate with the stories he told about coming back home. While his story is nowhere near the personal hell that Kovic endured in his time back from the fighting, this movie showed, accurately, that our Vietnam Veterans did not get their ticker-tape parades. They were not congratulated. They were not thanked. By the time 1970 rolled around, free love was over. The Rolling Stones had held a concert at Altamont that led to 3 accidental deaths and one murder. Bobby and Jack Kennedy were dead, as were Dr. King and Malcolm X. Popular music was anti-war, involving everyone from the Doors, to Jefferson Airplane to Country Joe and the Fish. For once, America was losing a war, and with it, America lost its innocence. The homefront was a maelstrom of emotion, and while many were thankful for the service of our men and women, the anger, hatred and disenchantment was there as well. -Cash Nelson<br />
<br />
== 4 Public reaction/impact ==<br />
<br />
In watching the documentary in the special features, it was stated that after winning Best Picture for Platoon, "Oliver Stone could have made any movie he wanted." Born On... was a promise kept to Ron Kovic himself that he would get this movie made. Oliver Stone was not looking for an Oscar with this one, but he got one anyway for Best Director. He wasn't looking to gross $70 million, but it did anyway. This wasn't even meant to be Oliver Stone's baby. He had already done that with Platoon. Born On The 4th was a promise kept to a fellow Vietnam Veteran. Kovic felt very much that his story had been left behind and ignored. Oliver Stone promised to bring it back. Wasn't that enough? -Cash Nelson<br />
<br />
== 5 Other movies/questions of style/framing/storyline ==<br />
<br />
Was the use of the blinking club lights meant to convey a sense of unreality in Ronnie's life after his return home? -Lauren<br />
<br />
How often did soldiers go off to Mexico to avoid what was going on in the US? It seemed that there were a lot of the men, especially those in wheelchairs that were in Mexico trying to recover and avoid the criticism in the states. -- Kellye Sorber<br />
<br />
<br />
I felt that the jarring nature of the film was really unsettling - but I felt that this was a conscious decision by the film makers to portray how unsettling and choppy the experience of the vietnam was was for soldiers. -Elle<br />
<br />
That makes sense for the "Vietnam Section" I guess we can call it, but for the entire movie? It didn't really seem to make sense and I don't know if it was a wise choice on their part (if it was a conscious decision) to try to do that. Something just doesn't seem to add up. But the choppiness really did work with the war scenes because you did get a sense of confusion and chaos of the situations these guys were in. -Kelly Wuyscik<br />
<br />
In response to Kelly's response - I was thinking psychologically it works for the whole movie. I am NOT saying that I enjoyed it as a film viewer, but I can see why it might have been done that way. - Elle<br />
<br />
Kelly and Elle, this is a common technique of Stone's, used in even heavier amounts in Natural Born Killers, U-Turn and Any Given Sunday. Even JFK ran with it. Stone has often said that the stories he tells are filled with an anarchic level of chaos and panic, and the jarring, frantic cuts are his way of showing that panic. -Cash Nelson<br />
<br />
Tangentally, I loved the placement of Johnny Got His Gun in the scene where Kovic learns he will never walk again. For those of you who have never read this (I have two copies, I am willing to let people borrow), there is perhaps no better work of literature that better portrays the agonizing fear that comes with realizing you, as a soldier, will never be understood as a human again. -Cash Nelson<br />
<br />
In terms of ''Born on the Fourth of July'' 's relationship to other Vietnam films, (I guess this is "filmography" as opposed to historiography) I think this movie does a good job of portraying the Vietnam vet. I would categorize this film as a biographical autobiography, that is Stone told Kovic's story with help from Kovic himself. On one hand ''Born on the Fourth of July'' validates the stock characters we see in other films while ultimately moving beyond those characterizations. Dr. McClurken mentioned that other movies about Vietnam depicted the vets as unstable and alienated, and the real Ron Kovic certainly had to deal with his share of instability and alienation in the years following his return home. What made Kovic different from the characters in other movies is that he was able to channel his feelings into activism. Plenty of veterans came home and never quite recovered, but Kovic’s story is important because he did not let Vietnam defeat him personally. - Jason Ward<br />
<br />
Why did Tom Cruise's hair change so drastically? I'm assuming it's suppose to show how much he aged while at war, but I have to say it made me somewhat uncomfortable. --Mallory C.<br />
<br />
I thought most of Ron's childhood scenes were hyper-dramatized and nearly silly. "I had a dream last night Ron. You were talking in front of a whole bunch of people..."? There are the dangers of basing a film on an autobiography. We are all the heroes of our own lives. - JT Newcomb<br />
<br />
== 6 Overall ==<br />
<br />
I really did not like this movie. Most of the time I felt very confused, it seemed to jump around a lot and it made it hard to follow at times. I also had a hard time believing in Tom Cruise as the main character Ron Kovic. Maybe this is because I am so used to seeing him in different roles that this role was just different enough to make it seem strange. -- Kellye Sorber<br />
<br />
As is often difficult for anyone, upon developing bias, it was tough for me to detach from my love for Oliver Stone in watching this. Instead, I watched it from the perspective of a 20 year old kid whose brother is an Iraq vet and whose father is a Vietnam vet. I watched from the perspective of a kid still trying to figure out his own personal politics, while still giving everyone else's, regardless of my agreement/disagreement, a fair day in court. I watch it from the perspective of trying to put myself, a relatively conservative 21-year-old, college-going kid into the perspective of the time, when my politics probably would not have been popular. Finally, I watch it with the knowledge that there is not a single human being alive that WANTS war. With all of these emotions around one simple, three-letter-word, "war," Stone crafted a masterful examination of the human psyche. It was chaotic. To be perfectly honest, the Vietnam era was a pretty terrible time to be American. -Cash Nelson <br />
<br />
I also had a hard time following the movie. I agree with Kellye that it seemed to jump around a lot. I also found it hard to believe Tom Cruise as the main character. - Christine W.<br />
<br />
I don't really care for this. It wasn't very entertaining for me and it's not something I would ever watch again. I didn't have any problems with the film jumping around, but I kept trying to figure out when he'd actually gone away, and therefore how old he was and how long he'd been gone. We see kid Ron watching JFK's speech in 1961, then Ron is a senior in high school, then we are in Vietnam in October 1967. Only after a parade when a speaker says Ron was born in '46 do things come together. I was preoccupied with this on multiple occasions. -Whitney Holcomb<br />
<br />
Tom Cruise pre-Vietnam/during the war > Tom Cruise in the hospital to the end. And, I know that's how the style was in the 1970s, but I couldn't handle it. Everything just seemed to be too over-the-top almost and very very dramatic. And I think abbreviating Kovic's life so much to fit it all in in 2 1/2 hours hurt the movie a great deal. As the others said, it was so fragmented and scattered that I had a hard time keeping up with how old Ron was supposed to be, etc. -Kelly Wuyscik<br />
<br />
One more thing; were those supposed to be New York accents? I know Kovic was from Long Island but come on now. They sounded a bit off to me, but I suppose anything is better than Kevin Costner and a Boston accent. -Kelly Wuyscik<br />
<br />
Try Kevin Costner and a New Orleans accent. -Cash Nelson<br />
<br />
I like that Stone showed the differing views between Ron and Donna. He a Vet and she a war-protester. It reminded me of ''Forrest Gump'' although ''Forrest Gump'' came 8 years after ''Born on the 4th of July''. I'm glad Stone mentioned the protest at Kent State because not only did this horrible event have a big impact on the American public but also college campuses were hubs for protests that held very powerful stances during the Vietnam era. --Mallory C.</div>Jward5zkhttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329--Week_13_Questions/Comments329--Week 13 Questions/Comments2008-11-19T20:39:16Z<p>Jward5zk: /* 2 Film's relationship to current scholarship or to primary sources from the time */</p>
<hr />
<div>== 1 Movie as secondary source about the past (What did it get right? What did it get wrong?) ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== a Right: ==<br />
<br />
The movie did a great job showing the PTSD of Ron and the other vets. They seemed to have genuine problems dealing with the things that happened during the war. He frequently had flash backs to the critical seen from the war to him in the village. He had a hard time coming to terms with the fact that he killed a member of his unit. Many soldier were killed by friendly fire and this did a good job showing how it could happen in stressful situations. -- Kellye Sorber<br />
<br />
I thought the movie did a good job showing the split reaction of the American people. Those who supported the war and those who protested. I also liked how it showed the change in Ron's character as he realized what was really going on. - Christine W.<br />
<br />
In the hospital when Ron freaks out at the nurses and they don't have the right pump for his leg, the doctor explains to him, "Cutbacks. The government's just not giving us the money we need to take care of you guys." According to what we learned in the lecture, this would have been accurate, and the possibility that someone like Ron could lose his leg because of those cutbacks was real. -Whitney Holcomb<br />
<br />
I was surprised with how much this movie was able to accurately portray. You really see how hard it was for the Vets to return to the states with little to no support from their country and all of the stresses from war. Most of them were druggies or, like Ron, alcoholics. You also see how crappy the hospitals were and how little funding they received from the federal government. I know we learned in class that it was much less than post-WWII America but the movie really made it real how few doctors there were and how just, disgusting the hospitals actually were. I was NOT prepared for the bedpans and the vomit. That was unnecessary. -Kelly Wuyscik<br />
<br />
I also really liked how well the film showed the difficulty discerning guys in your own troops and the members of the Vietcong. It really amplified how stressful and chaotic the setting was over in Vietnam and how frequently new guys were being added or sent home from American troops. -Kelly Wuyscik<br />
<br />
Unfortunately, much of the hospital horror that occurred in the film has happened as recently as last year. Those of us from the DC area will likely remember the extensive coverage of the neglect scandal at Walter Reed Army Medical Center that the Washington Post covered extensively. Red tape, rat and cockroach infestations, mold, all occurring at the US Army's flagship east coast medical center. It was accurate then, it is accurate now. -Cash Nelson<br />
<br />
Whether veterans were disabled or suffering from PTSD, the readjustment to a country at war with itself had to leave any veteran feeling lost in the shuffle (at best). I think this movie conveys the disillusionment of the Vietnam era well. Kovic is a guy who went from “love it or leave” it to “politicians are rapists and thieves”. His story resonates because it was not uncommon, and sadly not unjustified. -Jason Ward<br />
<br />
The difference in the two 4th of July parades accurately displays the differing views of the American people. When the WWII veterans returned home, hundreds of people were lining the streets, cheering, clapping, and holding American flags. When Ron is being driven through the parade the people lining the streets are jeering and giving him the figure. It shows the very different reactions of the American people to these two wars. One war they supported (WWII), the other they did not (Vietnam). Also, during the first parade when the fireworks/gun shots(?) are fired the veteran is startled and flinches and young Ron takes notice of that; this is exactly what happens to Ron during the parade, he flinches when he hears that gun shot sound. These are two examples of the PTSD the soldiers experienced that affected them in their everyday life. --Mallory C.<br />
<br />
This film was the first that hammered home for me how bad it is when the government isn't prepared to take care of wounded veterans. The scenes in the VA hospital make it easy to understand the difficulties associated with a lack of funding, and what it was like for veterans in those hospitals. I guess watching Forest Gump too many times left me thinking VA hospitals were all ping pong and ice cream. - JT Newcomb<br />
<br />
I thought the scene in the bar where Kovic and the WWII Marine get into a scuffle was powerful in that it showed the disconnect between generations and between the views on the different wars. I know that guys like my grandfather who served in the Marines in the Pacific during WWII and in Korea often had little sympathy for perceived "whiners" from Vietnam. Because of the different circumstances surrounding the two wars and the vast differences between the generations, it is no wonder there were such tensions among the veterans.-Bryan Mull<br />
<br />
I also agree on the movie doing a great job with showing how Ron’s view changes towards the war. It shows how society around him affected his thoughts on how the war had a negative impact on America. The film also gave examples of what was happening in America, the Kent State shootings (Donna briefly stated about) and the brutal beatings by police officers at the war rallies. –Ashley Scutari<br />
<br />
== b Inaccurate/issues: ==<br />
In Ron's Vietnam scene, his unit shoots at huts in this village and then go investigate. But when they find the bodies, they freak out because they realize they're just civilians, and actually call medics to help these innocent people. The Lieutenant is hardly able to keep them under control. It seems implausible they would have reacted like that, because at this point in the war, they would have known the villagers they shot at may or may not be VC. Perhaps some of the green soldiers like Wilson might be surprised, but Ron shouldn't have been. -Whitney Holcomb <br />
<br />
Really? I thought the reason they were shocked is that the Americans honestly didn't think there were civilians in the area. The justification for shooting was that the lieutenant saw rifles in the huts, only later did the Americans find out that the VC had used civilians as "Cover". Also I thought the confusion and uncertainty between unarmed civilians and VC was one of the main frustrations American soldiers had fighting in Vietnam. I thought this scene was accurate. - Jason Ward<br />
<br />
When Ron is home after the war, in his room with his parents, the American flag on the bedroom wall behind him is hung backwards! The field of stars should be on the left, not the right. -Whitney Holcomb <br />
<br />
I interpreted the backwards hanging of the flag as a sign of symbolic protest. -Jason Ward<br />
<br />
I felt that overall this movie hit some key points that are accurate, BUT I felt that it was another stereotypical portrayal of a torn up vietnam vet. Maybe I am still living in a fantasy that most of the vets were not drastically screwed up when they returned from the war. I know it was based on a book so this might not have been necessarily a film makers decision. - Elle<br />
<br />
Awe come on, Elle. You didn't like the American Hero story? It's not shown on the silver screen nearly enough. That's not to say it wasn't an impressive life story, but like Elle said, it just seemed to be too much. -Kelly Wuyscik<br />
<br />
Just to offer up some perspective, the screenplay was written by Oliver Stone and Ron Kovic himself, both of which were veterans of this war. Kovic approved the casting of Tom Cruise, and while there were obviously scenes added for dramatic license (most notably, Ron Kovic telling Will's family that he was responsible for their son's murder), most of it was on the up and up. -Cash Nelson<br />
<br />
That being said, Parris Island would have only been eight weeks of hell back then. Not thirteen. -Cash Nelson<br />
<br />
Maybe this is a function of there just not being a whole lot of combat scenes but I was wondering where all the black soldiers were? There was the guy that saved Kovic and carried him to safety, but I don't recall seeing any other black soldiers, which is strange seeing as how something like 60 percent of black males were drafted. Though I guess the protest scenes showed a bit more diversity. -Bryan Mull<br />
<br />
I don’t know much about the book the movie is based off of, but I felt the whole scene in Mexico was inaccurate. If I’m wrong please correct me, but this was something America did not talk about if it were true. Was Mexico a popular retreat place for the Vets, and was it exactly like how it was portrayed in the film? –Ashley Scutari<br />
<br />
== 2 Film's relationship to current scholarship or to primary sources from the time ==<br />
In Tim O'Brian's book he talks about the baggage the soldiers. It mentions the intangible as well as the tangible. I thought the movie did a good job showing this baggage especially after Ron killed one of his soldiers. - Christine W.<br />
<br />
In "A Rumor of War," the author discusses how the war appealed to the young generation originally. How most of those who signed up early were teenagers and young adults because they were taught to be proud of their country and wanted to defend it. They answered Kennedy's call of "ask what you can do for your country" and wanted to be like their parents who had fought in previous wars, most notably WWII. You could see this in the movie pretty well, especially when the young Ron is sitting there watching Kennedy's address with his family and gets riled up about how to help and defend his country. -Kelly Wuyscik<br />
<br />
So this wasn't a major part of anything but I wondered about the letters that were sent to and from soldiers. In the film Ron sends love letters to his lady, and it is also mentioned in the readings. Did this communication with home help also to keep the moral high, or no more so than any other war? - Elle<br />
<br />
I was very pleased to see O'Brien's ''The Things They Carried'' selected as a reading for this film. I would highly suggest that anyone who hasn't read O'Brien to pick up ''TTTC'' or ''Going After Cacciato'' as both are extremely powerful books in understanding the psyche of the Vietnam soldier. I found that of any text (be it film, novel, textbook), The Things They Carried was the most formative for me in understanding the impact of Vietnam on a generation (which is notable seeing as how it is a work of fiction). In regards to this film and ''TTTC'', I found that Kovic's despair upon returning and most people not really caring about the war was reflected well in O'Brien's book. Though not in our excerpt, there is a story of a Vietnam vet who returns home and basically drives around his town every night with nothing to do, trying to figure out where he fits in with the world he has returned home to find. In my opinion it is the most heartbreaking part of the book in that all this person wants is basically the occasional pat on the back for a job well done, not a fancy parade, but he never really gets it. Also the issue of returning home to girls that have since moved on in their lives is reflected in the book, as with Kovic and his childhood sweetheart with whom he can no longer really communicate.- Bryan Mull<br />
<br />
I really liked ''A Rumor of War''. I thought Caputo’s discussion of nostalgia offered a new perspective on why the Vietnam conflict was so complicated for Vietnam veterans. Whether veterans supported or protested the war, their time in Vietnam was the most formative experience of their lives. Caputo said his objections to Vietnam were informed by a completely different set of circumstances than that of the homefront protesters- war. “Because I had fought in it, it was not an abstract issue, but a deeply emotional experience, the most significant thing that had happened to me.” I think this is the very sentiment that everyone ought to keep in mind when discussing the Vietnam conflict (and really any hot-button issue). Regardless of where people fall on the issue of Vietnam, everyone’s ''opinion'' is valid. Too often one side accuses the other side of “not getting it” or that “they’re wrong”, but this accusation misses the point. With an issue as personal and emotional as war, there is no right or wrong, just a poignant internalization of a provocative reality.- Jason Ward<br />
<br />
== 3 Movie as primary source about makers/time/setting/genre ==<br />
<br />
The soldiers, including Ron Kovic really thought they were going to beat Communists in Vietnam in the beginning. They were disillusioned. The Cold War was coming to an end around the time this movie was made. The Tienanmen Square Massacre happened on July 4, 1989 and Berlin Wall fell in late 1989. It seems like with the release of this film, the filmmakers were making a comment on Communism or the war on it.- Lauren<br />
<br />
With a father who served in Vietnam from 1969-1970, I can say that this movie was pretty accurate with the stories he told about coming back home. While his story is nowhere near the personal hell that Kovic endured in his time back from the fighting, this movie showed, accurately, that our Vietnam Veterans did not get their ticker-tape parades. They were not congratulated. They were not thanked. By the time 1970 rolled around, free love was over. The Rolling Stones had held a concert at Altamont that led to 3 accidental deaths and one murder. Bobby and Jack Kennedy were dead, as were Dr. King and Malcolm X. Popular music was anti-war, involving everyone from the Doors, to Jefferson Airplane to Country Joe and the Fish. For once, America was losing a war, and with it, America lost its innocence. The homefront was a maelstrom of emotion, and while many were thankful for the service of our men and women, the anger, hatred and disenchantment was there as well. -Cash Nelson<br />
<br />
== 4 Public reaction/impact ==<br />
<br />
In watching the documentary in the special features, it was stated that after winning Best Picture for Platoon, "Oliver Stone could have made any movie he wanted." Born On... was a promise kept to Ron Kovic himself that he would get this movie made. Oliver Stone was not looking for an Oscar with this one, but he got one anyway for Best Director. He wasn't looking to gross $70 million, but it did anyway. This wasn't even meant to be Oliver Stone's baby. He had already done that with Platoon. Born On The 4th was a promise kept to a fellow Vietnam Veteran. Kovic felt very much that his story had been left behind and ignored. Oliver Stone promised to bring it back. Wasn't that enough? -Cash Nelson<br />
<br />
== 5 Other movies/questions of style/framing/storyline ==<br />
<br />
Was the use of the blinking club lights meant to convey a sense of unreality in Ronnie's life after his return home? -Lauren<br />
<br />
How often did soldiers go off to Mexico to avoid what was going on in the US? It seemed that there were a lot of the men, especially those in wheelchairs that were in Mexico trying to recover and avoid the criticism in the states. -- Kellye Sorber<br />
<br />
<br />
I felt that the jarring nature of the film was really unsettling - but I felt that this was a conscious decision by the film makers to portray how unsettling and choppy the experience of the vietnam was was for soldiers. -Elle<br />
<br />
That makes sense for the "Vietnam Section" I guess we can call it, but for the entire movie? It didn't really seem to make sense and I don't know if it was a wise choice on their part (if it was a conscious decision) to try to do that. Something just doesn't seem to add up. But the choppiness really did work with the war scenes because you did get a sense of confusion and chaos of the situations these guys were in. -Kelly Wuyscik<br />
<br />
In response to Kelly's response - I was thinking psychologically it works for the whole movie. I am NOT saying that I enjoyed it as a film viewer, but I can see why it might have been done that way. - Elle<br />
<br />
Kelly and Elle, this is a common technique of Stone's, used in even heavier amounts in Natural Born Killers, U-Turn and Any Given Sunday. Even JFK ran with it. Stone has often said that the stories he tells are filled with an anarchic level of chaos and panic, and the jarring, frantic cuts are his way of showing that panic. -Cash Nelson<br />
<br />
Tangentally, I loved the placement of Johnny Got His Gun in the scene where Kovic learns he will never walk again. For those of you who have never read this (I have two copies, I am willing to let people borrow), there is perhaps no better work of literature that better portrays the agonizing fear that comes with realizing you, as a soldier, will never be understood as a human again. -Cash Nelson<br />
<br />
In terms of ''Born on the Fourth of July'' 's relationship to other Vietnam films, (I guess this is "filmography" as opposed to historiography) I think this movie does a good job of portraying the Vietnam vet. I would categorize this film as a biographical autobiography, that is Stone told Kovic's story with help from Kovic himself. On one hand ''Born on the Fourth of July'' validates the stock characters we see in other films while ultimately moving beyond those characterizations. Dr. McClurken mentioned that other movies about Vietnam depicted the vets as unstable and alienated, and the real Ron Kovic certainly had to deal with his share of instability and alienation in the years following his return home. What made Kovic different from the characters in other movies is that he was able to channel his feelings into activism. Plenty of veterans came home and never quite recovered, but Kovic’s story is important because he did not let Vietnam defeat him personally. - Jason Ward<br />
<br />
Why did Tom Cruise's hair change so drastically? I'm assuming it's suppose to show how much he aged while at war, but I have to say it made me somewhat uncomfortable. --Mallory C.<br />
<br />
I thought most of Ron's childhood scenes were hyper-dramatized and nearly silly. "I had a dream last night Ron. You were talking in front of a whole bunch of people..."? There are the dangers of basing a film on an autobiography. We are all the heroes of our own lives. - JT Newcomb<br />
<br />
== 6 Overall ==<br />
<br />
I really did not like this movie. Most of the time I felt very confused, it seemed to jump around a lot and it made it hard to follow at times. I also had a hard time believing in Tom Cruise as the main character Ron Kovic. Maybe this is because I am so used to seeing him in different roles that this role was just different enough to make it seem strange. -- Kellye Sorber<br />
<br />
As is often difficult for anyone, upon developing bias, it was tough for me to detach from my love for Oliver Stone in watching this. Instead, I watched it from the perspective of a 20 year old kid whose brother is an Iraq vet and whose father is a Vietnam vet. I watched from the perspective of a kid still trying to figure out his own personal politics, while still giving everyone else's, regardless of my agreement/disagreement, a fair day in court. I watch it from the perspective of trying to put myself, a relatively conservative 21-year-old, college-going kid into the perspective of the time, when my politics probably would not have been popular. Finally, I watch it with the knowledge that there is not a single human being alive that WANTS war. With all of these emotions around one simple, three-letter-word, "war," Stone crafted a masterful examination of the human psyche. It was chaotic. To be perfectly honest, the Vietnam era was a pretty terrible time to be American. -Cash Nelson <br />
<br />
I also had a hard time following the movie. I agree with Kellye that it seemed to jump around a lot. I also found it hard to believe Tom Cruise as the main character. - Christine W.<br />
<br />
I don't really care for this. It wasn't very entertaining for me and it's not something I would ever watch again. I didn't have any problems with the film jumping around, but I kept trying to figure out when he'd actually gone away, and therefore how old he was and how long he'd been gone. We see kid Ron watching JFK's speech in 1961, then Ron is a senior in high school, then we are in Vietnam in October 1967. Only after a parade when a speaker says Ron was born in '46 do things come together. I was preoccupied with this on multiple occasions. -Whitney Holcomb<br />
<br />
Tom Cruise pre-Vietnam/during the war > Tom Cruise in the hospital to the end. And, I know that's how the style was in the 1970s, but I couldn't handle it. Everything just seemed to be too over-the-top almost and very very dramatic. And I think abbreviating Kovic's life so much to fit it all in in 2 1/2 hours hurt the movie a great deal. As the others said, it was so fragmented and scattered that I had a hard time keeping up with how old Ron was supposed to be, etc. -Kelly Wuyscik<br />
<br />
One more thing; were those supposed to be New York accents? I know Kovic was from Long Island but come on now. They sounded a bit off to me, but I suppose anything is better than Kevin Costner and a Boston accent. -Kelly Wuyscik<br />
<br />
Try Kevin Costner and a New Orleans accent. -Cash Nelson<br />
<br />
I like that Stone showed the differing views between Ron and Donna. He a Vet and she a war-protester. It reminded me of ''Forrest Gump'' although ''Forrest Gump'' came 8 years after ''Born on the 4th of July''. I'm glad Stone mentioned the protest at Kent State because not only did this horrible event have a big impact on the American public but also college campuses were hubs for protests that held very powerful stances during the Vietnam era. --Mallory C.</div>Jward5zkhttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329--Week_13_Questions/Comments329--Week 13 Questions/Comments2008-11-19T20:38:19Z<p>Jward5zk: /* 6 Overall */</p>
<hr />
<div>== 1 Movie as secondary source about the past (What did it get right? What did it get wrong?) ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== a Right: ==<br />
<br />
The movie did a great job showing the PTSD of Ron and the other vets. They seemed to have genuine problems dealing with the things that happened during the war. He frequently had flash backs to the critical seen from the war to him in the village. He had a hard time coming to terms with the fact that he killed a member of his unit. Many soldier were killed by friendly fire and this did a good job showing how it could happen in stressful situations. -- Kellye Sorber<br />
<br />
I thought the movie did a good job showing the split reaction of the American people. Those who supported the war and those who protested. I also liked how it showed the change in Ron's character as he realized what was really going on. - Christine W.<br />
<br />
In the hospital when Ron freaks out at the nurses and they don't have the right pump for his leg, the doctor explains to him, "Cutbacks. The government's just not giving us the money we need to take care of you guys." According to what we learned in the lecture, this would have been accurate, and the possibility that someone like Ron could lose his leg because of those cutbacks was real. -Whitney Holcomb<br />
<br />
I was surprised with how much this movie was able to accurately portray. You really see how hard it was for the Vets to return to the states with little to no support from their country and all of the stresses from war. Most of them were druggies or, like Ron, alcoholics. You also see how crappy the hospitals were and how little funding they received from the federal government. I know we learned in class that it was much less than post-WWII America but the movie really made it real how few doctors there were and how just, disgusting the hospitals actually were. I was NOT prepared for the bedpans and the vomit. That was unnecessary. -Kelly Wuyscik<br />
<br />
I also really liked how well the film showed the difficulty discerning guys in your own troops and the members of the Vietcong. It really amplified how stressful and chaotic the setting was over in Vietnam and how frequently new guys were being added or sent home from American troops. -Kelly Wuyscik<br />
<br />
Unfortunately, much of the hospital horror that occurred in the film has happened as recently as last year. Those of us from the DC area will likely remember the extensive coverage of the neglect scandal at Walter Reed Army Medical Center that the Washington Post covered extensively. Red tape, rat and cockroach infestations, mold, all occurring at the US Army's flagship east coast medical center. It was accurate then, it is accurate now. -Cash Nelson<br />
<br />
Whether veterans were disabled or suffering from PTSD, the readjustment to a country at war with itself had to leave any veteran feeling lost in the shuffle (at best). I think this movie conveys the disillusionment of the Vietnam era well. Kovic is a guy who went from “love it or leave” it to “politicians are rapists and thieves”. His story resonates because it was not uncommon, and sadly not unjustified. -Jason Ward<br />
<br />
The difference in the two 4th of July parades accurately displays the differing views of the American people. When the WWII veterans returned home, hundreds of people were lining the streets, cheering, clapping, and holding American flags. When Ron is being driven through the parade the people lining the streets are jeering and giving him the figure. It shows the very different reactions of the American people to these two wars. One war they supported (WWII), the other they did not (Vietnam). Also, during the first parade when the fireworks/gun shots(?) are fired the veteran is startled and flinches and young Ron takes notice of that; this is exactly what happens to Ron during the parade, he flinches when he hears that gun shot sound. These are two examples of the PTSD the soldiers experienced that affected them in their everyday life. --Mallory C.<br />
<br />
This film was the first that hammered home for me how bad it is when the government isn't prepared to take care of wounded veterans. The scenes in the VA hospital make it easy to understand the difficulties associated with a lack of funding, and what it was like for veterans in those hospitals. I guess watching Forest Gump too many times left me thinking VA hospitals were all ping pong and ice cream. - JT Newcomb<br />
<br />
I thought the scene in the bar where Kovic and the WWII Marine get into a scuffle was powerful in that it showed the disconnect between generations and between the views on the different wars. I know that guys like my grandfather who served in the Marines in the Pacific during WWII and in Korea often had little sympathy for perceived "whiners" from Vietnam. Because of the different circumstances surrounding the two wars and the vast differences between the generations, it is no wonder there were such tensions among the veterans.-Bryan Mull<br />
<br />
I also agree on the movie doing a great job with showing how Ron’s view changes towards the war. It shows how society around him affected his thoughts on how the war had a negative impact on America. The film also gave examples of what was happening in America, the Kent State shootings (Donna briefly stated about) and the brutal beatings by police officers at the war rallies. –Ashley Scutari<br />
<br />
== b Inaccurate/issues: ==<br />
In Ron's Vietnam scene, his unit shoots at huts in this village and then go investigate. But when they find the bodies, they freak out because they realize they're just civilians, and actually call medics to help these innocent people. The Lieutenant is hardly able to keep them under control. It seems implausible they would have reacted like that, because at this point in the war, they would have known the villagers they shot at may or may not be VC. Perhaps some of the green soldiers like Wilson might be surprised, but Ron shouldn't have been. -Whitney Holcomb <br />
<br />
Really? I thought the reason they were shocked is that the Americans honestly didn't think there were civilians in the area. The justification for shooting was that the lieutenant saw rifles in the huts, only later did the Americans find out that the VC had used civilians as "Cover". Also I thought the confusion and uncertainty between unarmed civilians and VC was one of the main frustrations American soldiers had fighting in Vietnam. I thought this scene was accurate. - Jason Ward<br />
<br />
When Ron is home after the war, in his room with his parents, the American flag on the bedroom wall behind him is hung backwards! The field of stars should be on the left, not the right. -Whitney Holcomb <br />
<br />
I interpreted the backwards hanging of the flag as a sign of symbolic protest. -Jason Ward<br />
<br />
I felt that overall this movie hit some key points that are accurate, BUT I felt that it was another stereotypical portrayal of a torn up vietnam vet. Maybe I am still living in a fantasy that most of the vets were not drastically screwed up when they returned from the war. I know it was based on a book so this might not have been necessarily a film makers decision. - Elle<br />
<br />
Awe come on, Elle. You didn't like the American Hero story? It's not shown on the silver screen nearly enough. That's not to say it wasn't an impressive life story, but like Elle said, it just seemed to be too much. -Kelly Wuyscik<br />
<br />
Just to offer up some perspective, the screenplay was written by Oliver Stone and Ron Kovic himself, both of which were veterans of this war. Kovic approved the casting of Tom Cruise, and while there were obviously scenes added for dramatic license (most notably, Ron Kovic telling Will's family that he was responsible for their son's murder), most of it was on the up and up. -Cash Nelson<br />
<br />
That being said, Parris Island would have only been eight weeks of hell back then. Not thirteen. -Cash Nelson<br />
<br />
Maybe this is a function of there just not being a whole lot of combat scenes but I was wondering where all the black soldiers were? There was the guy that saved Kovic and carried him to safety, but I don't recall seeing any other black soldiers, which is strange seeing as how something like 60 percent of black males were drafted. Though I guess the protest scenes showed a bit more diversity. -Bryan Mull<br />
<br />
I don’t know much about the book the movie is based off of, but I felt the whole scene in Mexico was inaccurate. If I’m wrong please correct me, but this was something America did not talk about if it were true. Was Mexico a popular retreat place for the Vets, and was it exactly like how it was portrayed in the film? –Ashley Scutari<br />
<br />
== 2 Film's relationship to current scholarship or to primary sources from the time ==<br />
In Tim O'Brian's book he talks about the baggage the soldiers. It mentions the intangible as well as the tangible. I thought the movie did a good job showing this baggage especially after Ron killed one of his soldiers. - Christine W.<br />
<br />
In "A Rumor of War," the author discusses how the war appealed to the young generation originally. How most of those who signed up early were teenagers and young adults because they were taught to be proud of their country and wanted to defend it. They answered Kennedy's call of "ask what you can do for your country" and wanted to be like their parents who had fought in previous wars, most notably WWII. You could see this in the movie pretty well, especially when the young Ron is sitting there watching Kennedy's address with his family and gets riled up about how to help and defend his country. -Kelly Wuyscik<br />
<br />
So this wasn't a major part of anything but I wondered about the letters that were sent to and from soldiers. In the film Ron sends love letters to his lady, and it is also mentioned in the readings. Did this communication with home help also to keep the moral high, or no more so than any other war? - Elle<br />
<br />
I was very pleased to see O'Brien's ''The Things They Carried'' selected as a reading for this film. I would highly suggest that anyone who hasn't read O'Brien to pick up ''TTTC'' or ''Going After Cacciato'' as both are extremely powerful books in understanding the psyche of the Vietnam soldier. I found that of any text (be it film, novel, textbook), The Things They Carried was the most formative for me in understanding the impact of Vietnam on a generation (which is notable seeing as how it is a work of fiction). In regards to this film and ''TTTC'', I found that Kovic's despair upon returning and most people not really caring about the war was reflected well in O'Brien's book. Though not in our excerpt, there is a story of a Vietnam vet who returns home and basically drives around his town every night with nothing to do, trying to figure out where he fits in with the world he has returned home to find. In my opinion it is the most heartbreaking part of the book in that all this person wants is basically the occasional pat on the back for a job well done, not a fancy parade, but he never really gets it. Also the issue of returning home to girls that have since moved on in their lives is reflected in the book, as with Kovic and his childhood sweetheart with whom he can no longer really communicate.- Bryan Mull<br />
<br />
== 3 Movie as primary source about makers/time/setting/genre ==<br />
<br />
The soldiers, including Ron Kovic really thought they were going to beat Communists in Vietnam in the beginning. They were disillusioned. The Cold War was coming to an end around the time this movie was made. The Tienanmen Square Massacre happened on July 4, 1989 and Berlin Wall fell in late 1989. It seems like with the release of this film, the filmmakers were making a comment on Communism or the war on it.- Lauren<br />
<br />
With a father who served in Vietnam from 1969-1970, I can say that this movie was pretty accurate with the stories he told about coming back home. While his story is nowhere near the personal hell that Kovic endured in his time back from the fighting, this movie showed, accurately, that our Vietnam Veterans did not get their ticker-tape parades. They were not congratulated. They were not thanked. By the time 1970 rolled around, free love was over. The Rolling Stones had held a concert at Altamont that led to 3 accidental deaths and one murder. Bobby and Jack Kennedy were dead, as were Dr. King and Malcolm X. Popular music was anti-war, involving everyone from the Doors, to Jefferson Airplane to Country Joe and the Fish. For once, America was losing a war, and with it, America lost its innocence. The homefront was a maelstrom of emotion, and while many were thankful for the service of our men and women, the anger, hatred and disenchantment was there as well. -Cash Nelson<br />
<br />
== 4 Public reaction/impact ==<br />
<br />
In watching the documentary in the special features, it was stated that after winning Best Picture for Platoon, "Oliver Stone could have made any movie he wanted." Born On... was a promise kept to Ron Kovic himself that he would get this movie made. Oliver Stone was not looking for an Oscar with this one, but he got one anyway for Best Director. He wasn't looking to gross $70 million, but it did anyway. This wasn't even meant to be Oliver Stone's baby. He had already done that with Platoon. Born On The 4th was a promise kept to a fellow Vietnam Veteran. Kovic felt very much that his story had been left behind and ignored. Oliver Stone promised to bring it back. Wasn't that enough? -Cash Nelson<br />
<br />
== 5 Other movies/questions of style/framing/storyline ==<br />
<br />
Was the use of the blinking club lights meant to convey a sense of unreality in Ronnie's life after his return home? -Lauren<br />
<br />
How often did soldiers go off to Mexico to avoid what was going on in the US? It seemed that there were a lot of the men, especially those in wheelchairs that were in Mexico trying to recover and avoid the criticism in the states. -- Kellye Sorber<br />
<br />
<br />
I felt that the jarring nature of the film was really unsettling - but I felt that this was a conscious decision by the film makers to portray how unsettling and choppy the experience of the vietnam was was for soldiers. -Elle<br />
<br />
That makes sense for the "Vietnam Section" I guess we can call it, but for the entire movie? It didn't really seem to make sense and I don't know if it was a wise choice on their part (if it was a conscious decision) to try to do that. Something just doesn't seem to add up. But the choppiness really did work with the war scenes because you did get a sense of confusion and chaos of the situations these guys were in. -Kelly Wuyscik<br />
<br />
In response to Kelly's response - I was thinking psychologically it works for the whole movie. I am NOT saying that I enjoyed it as a film viewer, but I can see why it might have been done that way. - Elle<br />
<br />
Kelly and Elle, this is a common technique of Stone's, used in even heavier amounts in Natural Born Killers, U-Turn and Any Given Sunday. Even JFK ran with it. Stone has often said that the stories he tells are filled with an anarchic level of chaos and panic, and the jarring, frantic cuts are his way of showing that panic. -Cash Nelson<br />
<br />
Tangentally, I loved the placement of Johnny Got His Gun in the scene where Kovic learns he will never walk again. For those of you who have never read this (I have two copies, I am willing to let people borrow), there is perhaps no better work of literature that better portrays the agonizing fear that comes with realizing you, as a soldier, will never be understood as a human again. -Cash Nelson<br />
<br />
In terms of ''Born on the Fourth of July'' 's relationship to other Vietnam films, (I guess this is "filmography" as opposed to historiography) I think this movie does a good job of portraying the Vietnam vet. I would categorize this film as a biographical autobiography, that is Stone told Kovic's story with help from Kovic himself. On one hand ''Born on the Fourth of July'' validates the stock characters we see in other films while ultimately moving beyond those characterizations. Dr. McClurken mentioned that other movies about Vietnam depicted the vets as unstable and alienated, and the real Ron Kovic certainly had to deal with his share of instability and alienation in the years following his return home. What made Kovic different from the characters in other movies is that he was able to channel his feelings into activism. Plenty of veterans came home and never quite recovered, but Kovic’s story is important because he did not let Vietnam defeat him personally. - Jason Ward<br />
<br />
Why did Tom Cruise's hair change so drastically? I'm assuming it's suppose to show how much he aged while at war, but I have to say it made me somewhat uncomfortable. --Mallory C.<br />
<br />
I thought most of Ron's childhood scenes were hyper-dramatized and nearly silly. "I had a dream last night Ron. You were talking in front of a whole bunch of people..."? There are the dangers of basing a film on an autobiography. We are all the heroes of our own lives. - JT Newcomb<br />
<br />
== 6 Overall ==<br />
<br />
I really did not like this movie. Most of the time I felt very confused, it seemed to jump around a lot and it made it hard to follow at times. I also had a hard time believing in Tom Cruise as the main character Ron Kovic. Maybe this is because I am so used to seeing him in different roles that this role was just different enough to make it seem strange. -- Kellye Sorber<br />
<br />
As is often difficult for anyone, upon developing bias, it was tough for me to detach from my love for Oliver Stone in watching this. Instead, I watched it from the perspective of a 20 year old kid whose brother is an Iraq vet and whose father is a Vietnam vet. I watched from the perspective of a kid still trying to figure out his own personal politics, while still giving everyone else's, regardless of my agreement/disagreement, a fair day in court. I watch it from the perspective of trying to put myself, a relatively conservative 21-year-old, college-going kid into the perspective of the time, when my politics probably would not have been popular. Finally, I watch it with the knowledge that there is not a single human being alive that WANTS war. With all of these emotions around one simple, three-letter-word, "war," Stone crafted a masterful examination of the human psyche. It was chaotic. To be perfectly honest, the Vietnam era was a pretty terrible time to be American. -Cash Nelson <br />
<br />
I also had a hard time following the movie. I agree with Kellye that it seemed to jump around a lot. I also found it hard to believe Tom Cruise as the main character. - Christine W.<br />
<br />
I don't really care for this. It wasn't very entertaining for me and it's not something I would ever watch again. I didn't have any problems with the film jumping around, but I kept trying to figure out when he'd actually gone away, and therefore how old he was and how long he'd been gone. We see kid Ron watching JFK's speech in 1961, then Ron is a senior in high school, then we are in Vietnam in October 1967. Only after a parade when a speaker says Ron was born in '46 do things come together. I was preoccupied with this on multiple occasions. -Whitney Holcomb<br />
<br />
Tom Cruise pre-Vietnam/during the war > Tom Cruise in the hospital to the end. And, I know that's how the style was in the 1970s, but I couldn't handle it. Everything just seemed to be too over-the-top almost and very very dramatic. And I think abbreviating Kovic's life so much to fit it all in in 2 1/2 hours hurt the movie a great deal. As the others said, it was so fragmented and scattered that I had a hard time keeping up with how old Ron was supposed to be, etc. -Kelly Wuyscik<br />
<br />
One more thing; were those supposed to be New York accents? I know Kovic was from Long Island but come on now. They sounded a bit off to me, but I suppose anything is better than Kevin Costner and a Boston accent. -Kelly Wuyscik<br />
<br />
Try Kevin Costner and a New Orleans accent. -Cash Nelson<br />
<br />
I like that Stone showed the differing views between Ron and Donna. He a Vet and she a war-protester. It reminded me of ''Forrest Gump'' although ''Forrest Gump'' came 8 years after ''Born on the 4th of July''. I'm glad Stone mentioned the protest at Kent State because not only did this horrible event have a big impact on the American public but also college campuses were hubs for protests that held very powerful stances during the Vietnam era. --Mallory C.</div>Jward5zkhttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329--Week_13_Questions/Comments329--Week 13 Questions/Comments2008-11-19T15:45:20Z<p>Jward5zk: /* b Inaccurate/issues: */</p>
<hr />
<div>== 1 Movie as secondary source about the past (What did it get right? What did it get wrong?) ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== a Right: ==<br />
<br />
The movie did a great job showing the PTSD of Ron and the other vets. They seemed to have genuine problems dealing with the things that happened during the war. He frequently had flash backs to the critical seen from the war to him in the village. He had a hard time coming to terms with the fact that he killed a member of his unit. Many soldier were killed by friendly fire and this did a good job showing how it could happen in stressful situations. -- Kellye Sorber<br />
<br />
I thought the movie did a good job showing the split reaction of the American people. Those who supported the war and those who protested. I also liked how it showed the change in Ron's character as he realized what was really going on. - Christine W.<br />
<br />
In the hospital when Ron freaks out at the nurses and they don't have the right pump for his leg, the doctor explains to him, "Cutbacks. The government's just not giving us the money we need to take care of you guys." According to what we learned in the lecture, this would have been accurate, and the possibility that someone like Ron could lose his leg because of those cutbacks was real. -Whitney Holcomb<br />
<br />
I was surprised with how much this movie was able to accurately portray. You really see how hard it was for the Vets to return to the states with little to no support from their country and all of the stresses from war. Most of them were druggies or, like Ron, alcoholics. You also see how crappy the hospitals were and how little funding they received from the federal government. I know we learned in class that it was much less than post-WWII America but the movie really made it real how few doctors there were and how just, disgusting the hospitals actually were. I was NOT prepared for the bedpans and the vomit. That was unnecessary. -Kelly Wuyscik<br />
<br />
I also really liked how well the film showed the difficulty discerning guys in your own troops and the members of the Vietcong. It really amplified how stressful and chaotic the setting was over in Vietnam and how frequently new guys were being added or sent home from American troops. -Kelly Wuyscik<br />
<br />
Unfortunately, much of the hospital horror that occurred in the film has happened as recently as last year. Those of us from the DC area will likely remember the extensive coverage of the neglect scandal at Walter Reed Army Medical Center that the Washington Post covered extensively. Red tape, rat and cockroach infestations, mold, all occurring at the US Army's flagship east coast medical center. It was accurate then, it is accurate now. -Cash Nelson<br />
<br />
Whether veterans were disabled or suffering from PTSD, the readjustment to a country at war with itself had to leave any veteran feeling lost in the shuffle (at best). I think this movie conveys the disillusionment of the Vietnam era well. Kovic is a guy who went from “love it or leave” it to “politicians are rapists and thieves”. His story resonates because it was not uncommon, and sadly not unjustified. -Jason Ward<br />
<br />
== b Inaccurate/issues: ==<br />
In Ron's Vietnam scene, his unit shoots at huts in this village and then go investigate. But when they find the bodies, they freak out because they realize they're just civilians, and actually call medics to help these innocent people. The Lieutenant is hardly able to keep them under control. It seems implausible they would have reacted like that, because at this point in the war, they would have known the villagers they shot at may or may not be VC. Perhaps some of the green soldiers like Wilson might be surprised, but Ron shouldn't have been. -Whitney Holcomb <br />
<br />
Really? I thought the reason they were shocked is that the Americans honestly didn't think there were civilians in the area. The justification for shooting was that the lieutenant saw rifles in the huts, only later did the Americans find out that the VC had used civilians as "Cover". Also I thought the confusion and uncertainty between unarmed civilians and VC was one of the main frustrations American soldiers had fighting in Vietnam. I thought this scene was accurate. - Jason Ward<br />
<br />
When Ron is home after the war, in his room with his parents, the American flag on the bedroom wall behind him is hung backwards! The field of stars should be on the left, not the right. -Whitney Holcomb <br />
<br />
I interpreted the backwards hanging of the flag as a sign of symbolic protest. -Jason Ward<br />
<br />
I felt that overall this movie hit some key points that are accurate, BUT I felt that it was another stereotypical portrayal of a torn up vietnam vet. Maybe I am still living in a fantasy that most of the vets were not drastically screwed up when they returned from the war. I know it was based on a book so this might not have been necessarily a film makers decision. - Elle<br />
<br />
Awe come on, Elle. You didn't like the American Hero story? It's not shown on the silver screen nearly enough. That's not to say it wasn't an impressive life story, but like Elle said, it just seemed to be too much. -Kelly Wuyscik<br />
<br />
Just to offer up some perspective, the screenplay was written by Oliver Stone and Ron Kovic himself, both of which were veterans of this war. Kovic approved the casting of Tom Cruise, and while there were obviously scenes added for dramatic license (most notably, Ron Kovic telling Will's family that he was responsible for their son's murder), most of it was on the up and up. -Cash Nelson<br />
<br />
That being said, Parris Island would have only been eight weeks of hell back then. Not thirteen. -Cash Nelson<br />
<br />
== 2 Film's relationship to current scholarship or to primary sources from the time ==<br />
In Tim O'Brian's book he talks about the baggage the soldiers. It mentions the intangible as well as the tangible. I thought the movie did a good job showing this baggage especially after Ron killed one of his soldiers. - Christine W.<br />
<br />
In "A Rumor of War," the author discusses how the war appealed to the young generation originally. How most of those who signed up early were teenagers and young adults because they were taught to be proud of their country and wanted to defend it. They answered Kennedy's call of "ask what you can do for your country" and wanted to be like their parents who had fought in previous wars, most notably WWII. You could see this in the movie pretty well, especially when the young Ron is sitting there watching Kennedy's address with his family and gets riled up about how to help and defend his country. -Kelly Wuyscik<br />
<br />
So this wasn't a major part of anything but I wondered about the letters that were sent to and from soldiers. In the film Ron sends love letters to his lady, and it is also mentioned in the readings. Did this communication with home help also to keep the moral high, or no more so than any other war? - Elle<br />
<br />
== 3 Movie as primary source about makers/time/setting/genre ==<br />
<br />
With a father who served in Vietnam from 1969-1970, I can say that this movie was pretty accurate with the stories he told about coming back home. While his story is nowhere near the personal hell that Kovic endured in his time back from the fighting, this movie showed, accurately, that our Vietnam Veterans did not get their ticker-tape parades. They were not congratulated. They were not thanked. By the time 1970 rolled around, free love was over. The Rolling Stones had held a concert at Altamont that led to 3 accidental deaths and one murder. Bobby and Jack Kennedy were dead, as were Dr. King and Malcolm X. Popular music was anti-war, involving everyone from the Doors, to Jefferson Airplane to Country Joe and the Fish. For once, America was losing a war, and with it, America lost its innocence. The homefront was a maelstrom of emotion, and while many were thankful for the service of our men and women, the anger, hatred and disenchantment was there as well. -Cash Nelson<br />
<br />
== 4 Public reaction/impact ==<br />
<br />
In watching the documentary in the special features, it was stated that after winning Best Picture for Platoon, "Oliver Stone could have made any movie he wanted." Born On... was a promise kept to Ron Kovic himself that he would get this movie made. Oliver Stone was not looking for an Oscar with this one, but he got one anyway for Best Director. He wasn't looking to gross $70 million, but it did anyway. This wasn't even meant to be Oliver Stone's baby. He had already done that with Platoon. Born On The 4th was a promise kept to a fellow Vietnam Veteran. Kovic felt very much that his story had been left behind and ignored. Oliver Stone promised to bring it back. Wasn't that enough? -Cash Nelson<br />
<br />
== 5 Other movies/questions of style/framing/storyline ==<br />
<br />
How often did soldiers go off to Mexico to avoid what was going on in the US? It seemed that there were a lot of the men, especially those in wheelchairs that were in Mexico trying to recover and avoid the criticism in the states. -- Kellye Sorber<br />
<br />
<br />
I felt that the jarring nature of the film was really unsettling - but I felt that this was a conscious decision by the film makers to portray how unsettling and choppy the experience of the vietnam was was for soldiers. -Elle<br />
<br />
That makes sense for the "Vietnam Section" I guess we can call it, but for the entire movie? It didn't really seem to make sense and I don't know if it was a wise choice on their part (if it was a conscious decision) to try to do that. Something just doesn't seem to add up. But the choppiness really did work with the war scenes because you did get a sense of confusion and chaos of the situations these guys were in. -Kelly Wuyscik<br />
<br />
In response to Kelly's response - I was thinking psychologically it works for the whole movie. I am NOT saying that I enjoyed it as a film viewer, but I can see why it might have been done that way. - Elle<br />
<br />
Kelly and Elle, this is a common technique of Stone's, used in even heavier amounts in Natural Born Killers, U-Turn and Any Given Sunday. Even JFK ran with it. Stone has often said that the stories he tells are filled with an anarchic level of chaos and panic, and the jarring, frantic cuts are his way of showing that panic. -Cash Nelson<br />
<br />
Tangentally, I loved the placement of Johnny Got His Gun in the scene where Kovic learns he will never walk again. For those of you who have never read this (I have two copies, I am willing to let people borrow), there is perhaps no better work of literature that better portrays the agonizing fear that comes with realizing you, as a soldier, will never be understood as a human again. -Cash Nelson<br />
<br />
In terms of ''Born on the Fourth of July'' 's relationship to other Vietnam films, (I guess this is "filmography" as opposed to historiography) I think this movie does a good job of portraying the Vietnam vet. I would categorize this film as a biographical autobiography, that is Stone told Kovic's story with help from Kovic himself. On one hand ''Born on the Fourth of July'' validates the stock characters we see in other films while ultimately moving beyond those characterizations. Dr. McClurken mentioned that other movies about Vietnam depicted the vets as unstable and alienated, and the real Ron Kovic certainly had to deal with his share of instability and alienation in the years following his return home. What made Kovic different from the characters in other movies is that he was able to channel his feelings into activism. Plenty of veterans came home and never quite recovered, but Kovic’s story is important because he did not let Vietnam defeat him personally. - Jason Ward<br />
<br />
== 6 Overall ==<br />
<br />
I really did not like this movie. Most of the time I felt very confused, it seemed to jump around a lot and it made it hard to follow at times. I also had a hard time believing in Tom Cruise as the main character Ron Kovic. Maybe this is because I am so used to seeing him in different roles that this role was just different enough to make it seem strange. -- Kellye Sorber<br />
<br />
As is often difficult for anyone, upon developing bias, it was tough for me to detach from my love for Oliver Stone in watching this. Instead, I watched it from the perspective of a 20 year old kid whose brother is an Iraq vet and whose father is a Vietnam vet. I watched from the perspective of a kid still trying to figure out his own personal politics, while still giving everyone else's, regardless of my agreement/disagreement, a fair day in court. I watch it from the perspective of trying to put myself, a relatively conservative 21-year-old, college-going kid into the perspective of the time, when my politics probably would not have been popular. Finally, I watch it with the knowledge that there is not a single human being alive that WANTS war. With all of these emotions around one simple, three-letter-word, "war," Stone crafted a masterful examination of the human psyche. It was chaotic. To be perfectly honest, the Vietnam era was a pretty terrible time to be American. -Cash Nelson<br />
<br />
I also had a hard time following the movie. I agree with Kellye that it seemed to jump around a lot. I also found it hard to believe Tom Cruise as the main character. - Christine W.<br />
<br />
I don't really care for this. It wasn't very entertaining for me and it's not something I would ever watch again. I didn't have any problems with the film jumping around, but I kept trying to figure out when he'd actually gone away, and therefore how old he was and how long he'd been gone. We see kid Ron watching JFK's speech in 1961, then Ron is a senior in high school, then we are in Vietnam in October 1967. Only after a parade when a speaker says Ron was born in '46 do things come together. I was preoccupied with this on multiple occasions. -Whitney Holcomb<br />
<br />
Tom Cruise pre-Vietnam/during the war > Tom Cruise in the hospital to the end. And, I know that's how the style was in the 1970s, but I couldn't handle it. Everything just seemed to be too over-the-top almost and very very dramatic. And I think abbreviating Kovic's life so much to fit it all in in 2 1/2 hours hurt the movie a great deal. As the others said, it was so fragmented and scattered that I had a hard time keeping up with how old Ron was supposed to be, etc. -Kelly Wuyscik<br />
<br />
One more thing; were those supposed to be New York accents? I know Kovic was from Long Island but come on now. They sounded a bit off to me, but I suppose anything is better than Kevin Costner and a Boston accent. -Kelly Wuyscik<br />
<br />
Try Kevin Costner and a New Orleans accent. -Cash Nelson</div>Jward5zkhttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329--Week_13_Questions/Comments329--Week 13 Questions/Comments2008-11-19T15:29:01Z<p>Jward5zk: /* a Right: */</p>
<hr />
<div>== 1 Movie as secondary source about the past (What did it get right? What did it get wrong?) ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== a Right: ==<br />
<br />
The movie did a great job showing the PTSD of Ron and the other vets. They seemed to have genuine problems dealing with the things that happened during the war. He frequently had flash backs to the critical seen from the war to him in the village. He had a hard time coming to terms with the fact that he killed a member of his unit. Many soldier were killed by friendly fire and this did a good job showing how it could happen in stressful situations. -- Kellye Sorber<br />
<br />
I thought the movie did a good job showing the split reaction of the American people. Those who supported the war and those who protested. I also liked how it showed the change in Ron's character as he realized what was really going on. - Christine W.<br />
<br />
In the hospital when Ron freaks out at the nurses and they don't have the right pump for his leg, the doctor explains to him, "Cutbacks. The government's just not giving us the money we need to take care of you guys." According to what we learned in the lecture, this would have been accurate, and the possibility that someone like Ron could lose his leg because of those cutbacks was real. -Whitney Holcomb<br />
<br />
I was surprised with how much this movie was able to accurately portray. You really see how hard it was for the Vets to return to the states with little to no support from their country and all of the stresses from war. Most of them were druggies or, like Ron, alcoholics. You also see how crappy the hospitals were and how little funding they received from the federal government. I know we learned in class that it was much less than post-WWII America but the movie really made it real how few doctors there were and how just, disgusting the hospitals actually were. I was NOT prepared for the bedpans and the vomit. That was unnecessary. -Kelly Wuyscik<br />
<br />
I also really liked how well the film showed the difficulty discerning guys in your own troops and the members of the Vietcong. It really amplified how stressful and chaotic the setting was over in Vietnam and how frequently new guys were being added or sent home from American troops. -Kelly Wuyscik<br />
<br />
Unfortunately, much of the hospital horror that occurred in the film has happened as recently as last year. Those of us from the DC area will likely remember the extensive coverage of the neglect scandal at Walter Reed Army Medical Center that the Washington Post covered extensively. Red tape, rat and cockroach infestations, mold, all occurring at the US Army's flagship east coast medical center. It was accurate then, it is accurate now. -Cash Nelson<br />
<br />
Whether veterans were disabled or suffering from PTSD, the readjustment to a country at war with itself had to leave any veteran feeling lost in the shuffle (at best). I think this movie conveys the disillusionment of the Vietnam era well. Kovic is a guy who went from “love it or leave” it to “politicians are rapists and thieves”. His story resonates because it was not uncommon, and sadly not unjustified. -Jason Ward<br />
<br />
== b Inaccurate/issues: ==<br />
In Ron's Vietnam scene, his unit shoots at huts in this village and then go investigate. But when they find the bodies, they freak out because they realize they're just civilians, and actually call medics to help these innocent people. The Lieutenant is hardly able to keep them under control. It seems implausible they would have reacted like that, because at this point in the war, they would have known the villagers they shot at may or may not be VC. Perhaps some of the green soldiers like Wilson might be surprised, but Ron shouldn't have been. -Whitney Holcomb<br />
<br />
When Ron is home after the war, in his room with his parents, the American flag on the bedroom wall behind him is hung backwards! The field of stars should be on the left, not the right. -Whitney Holcomb<br />
<br />
I felt that overall this movie hit some key points that are accurate, BUT I felt that it was another stereotypical portrayal of a torn up vietnam vet. Maybe I am still living in a fantasy that most of the vets were not drastically screwed up when they returned from the war. I know it was based on a book so this might not have been necessarily a film makers decision. - Elle<br />
<br />
Awe come on, Elle. You didn't like the American Hero story? It's not shown on the silver screen nearly enough. That's not to say it wasn't an impressive life story, but like Elle said, it just seemed to be too much. -Kelly Wuyscik<br />
<br />
Just to offer up some perspective, the screenplay was written by Oliver Stone and Ron Kovic himself, both of which were veterans of this war. Kovic approved the casting of Tom Cruise, and while there were obviously scenes added for dramatic license (most notably, Ron Kovic telling Will's family that he was responsible for their son's murder), most of it was on the up and up. -Cash Nelson<br />
<br />
That being said, Parris Island would have only been eight weeks of hell back then. Not thirteen. -Cash Nelson<br />
<br />
== 2 Film's relationship to current scholarship or to primary sources from the time ==<br />
In Tim O'Brian's book he talks about the baggage the soldiers. It mentions the intangible as well as the tangible. I thought the movie did a good job showing this baggage especially after Ron killed one of his soldiers. - Christine W.<br />
<br />
In "A Rumor of War," the author discusses how the war appealed to the young generation originally. How most of those who signed up early were teenagers and young adults because they were taught to be proud of their country and wanted to defend it. They answered Kennedy's call of "ask what you can do for your country" and wanted to be like their parents who had fought in previous wars, most notably WWII. You could see this in the movie pretty well, especially when the young Ron is sitting there watching Kennedy's address with his family and gets riled up about how to help and defend his country. -Kelly Wuyscik<br />
<br />
So this wasn't a major part of anything but I wondered about the letters that were sent to and from soldiers. In the film Ron sends love letters to his lady, and it is also mentioned in the readings. Did this communication with home help also to keep the moral high, or no more so than any other war? - Elle<br />
<br />
== 3 Movie as primary source about makers/time/setting/genre ==<br />
<br />
With a father who served in Vietnam from 1969-1970, I can say that this movie was pretty accurate with the stories he told about coming back home. While his story is nowhere near the personal hell that Kovic endured in his time back from the fighting, this movie showed, accurately, that our Vietnam Veterans did not get their ticker-tape parades. They were not congratulated. They were not thanked. By the time 1970 rolled around, free love was over. The Rolling Stones had held a concert at Altamont that led to 3 accidental deaths and one murder. Bobby and Jack Kennedy were dead, as were Dr. King and Malcolm X. Popular music was anti-war, involving everyone from the Doors, to Jefferson Airplane to Country Joe and the Fish. For once, America was losing a war, and with it, America lost its innocence. The homefront was a maelstrom of emotion, and while many were thankful for the service of our men and women, the anger, hatred and disenchantment was there as well. -Cash Nelson<br />
<br />
== 4 Public reaction/impact ==<br />
<br />
In watching the documentary in the special features, it was stated that after winning Best Picture for Platoon, "Oliver Stone could have made any movie he wanted." Born On... was a promise kept to Ron Kovic himself that he would get this movie made. Oliver Stone was not looking for an Oscar with this one, but he got one anyway for Best Director. He wasn't looking to gross $70 million, but it did anyway. This wasn't even meant to be Oliver Stone's baby. He had already done that with Platoon. Born On The 4th was a promise kept to a fellow Vietnam Veteran. Kovic felt very much that his story had been left behind and ignored. Oliver Stone promised to bring it back. Wasn't that enough? -Cash Nelson<br />
<br />
== 5 Other movies/questions of style/framing/storyline ==<br />
<br />
How often did soldiers go off to Mexico to avoid what was going on in the US? It seemed that there were a lot of the men, especially those in wheelchairs that were in Mexico trying to recover and avoid the criticism in the states. -- Kellye Sorber<br />
<br />
<br />
I felt that the jarring nature of the film was really unsettling - but I felt that this was a conscious decision by the film makers to portray how unsettling and choppy the experience of the vietnam was was for soldiers. -Elle<br />
<br />
That makes sense for the "Vietnam Section" I guess we can call it, but for the entire movie? It didn't really seem to make sense and I don't know if it was a wise choice on their part (if it was a conscious decision) to try to do that. Something just doesn't seem to add up. But the choppiness really did work with the war scenes because you did get a sense of confusion and chaos of the situations these guys were in. -Kelly Wuyscik<br />
<br />
In response to Kelly's response - I was thinking psychologically it works for the whole movie. I am NOT saying that I enjoyed it as a film viewer, but I can see why it might have been done that way. - Elle<br />
<br />
Kelly and Elle, this is a common technique of Stone's, used in even heavier amounts in Natural Born Killers, U-Turn and Any Given Sunday. Even JFK ran with it. Stone has often said that the stories he tells are filled with an anarchic level of chaos and panic, and the jarring, frantic cuts are his way of showing that panic. -Cash Nelson<br />
<br />
Tangentally, I loved the placement of Johnny Got His Gun in the scene where Kovic learns he will never walk again. For those of you who have never read this (I have two copies, I am willing to let people borrow), there is perhaps no better work of literature that better portrays the agonizing fear that comes with realizing you, as a soldier, will never be understood as a human again. -Cash Nelson<br />
<br />
In terms of ''Born on the Fourth of July'' 's relationship to other Vietnam films, (I guess this is "filmography" as opposed to historiography) I think this movie does a good job of portraying the Vietnam vet. I would categorize this film as a biographical autobiography, that is Stone told Kovic's story with help from Kovic himself. On one hand ''Born on the Fourth of July'' validates the stock characters we see in other films while ultimately moving beyond those characterizations. Dr. McClurken mentioned that other movies about Vietnam depicted the vets as unstable and alienated, and the real Ron Kovic certainly had to deal with his share of instability and alienation in the years following his return home. What made Kovic different from the characters in other movies is that he was able to channel his feelings into activism. Plenty of veterans came home and never quite recovered, but Kovic’s story is important because he did not let Vietnam defeat him personally. - Jason Ward<br />
<br />
== 6 Overall ==<br />
<br />
I really did not like this movie. Most of the time I felt very confused, it seemed to jump around a lot and it made it hard to follow at times. I also had a hard time believing in Tom Cruise as the main character Ron Kovic. Maybe this is because I am so used to seeing him in different roles that this role was just different enough to make it seem strange. -- Kellye Sorber<br />
<br />
As is often difficult for anyone, upon developing bias, it was tough for me to detach from my love for Oliver Stone in watching this. Instead, I watched it from the perspective of a 20 year old kid whose brother is an Iraq vet and whose father is a Vietnam vet. I watched from the perspective of a kid still trying to figure out his own personal politics, while still giving everyone else's, regardless of my agreement/disagreement, a fair day in court. I watch it from the perspective of trying to put myself, a relatively conservative 21-year-old, college-going kid into the perspective of the time, when my politics probably would not have been popular. Finally, I watch it with the knowledge that there is not a single human being alive that WANTS war. With all of these emotions around one simple, three-letter-word, "war," Stone crafted a masterful examination of the human psyche. It was chaotic. To be perfectly honest, the Vietnam era was a pretty terrible time to be American. -Cash Nelson<br />
<br />
I also had a hard time following the movie. I agree with Kellye that it seemed to jump around a lot. I also found it hard to believe Tom Cruise as the main character. - Christine W.<br />
<br />
I don't really care for this. It wasn't very entertaining for me and it's not something I would ever watch again. I didn't have any problems with the film jumping around, but I kept trying to figure out when he'd actually gone away, and therefore how old he was and how long he'd been gone. We see kid Ron watching JFK's speech in 1961, then Ron is a senior in high school, then we are in Vietnam in October 1967. Only after a parade when a speaker says Ron was born in '46 do things come together. I was preoccupied with this on multiple occasions. -Whitney Holcomb<br />
<br />
Tom Cruise pre-Vietnam/during the war > Tom Cruise in the hospital to the end. And, I know that's how the style was in the 1970s, but I couldn't handle it. Everything just seemed to be too over-the-top almost and very very dramatic. And I think abbreviating Kovic's life so much to fit it all in in 2 1/2 hours hurt the movie a great deal. As the others said, it was so fragmented and scattered that I had a hard time keeping up with how old Ron was supposed to be, etc. -Kelly Wuyscik<br />
<br />
One more thing; were those supposed to be New York accents? I know Kovic was from Long Island but come on now. They sounded a bit off to me, but I suppose anything is better than Kevin Costner and a Boston accent. -Kelly Wuyscik<br />
<br />
Try Kevin Costner and a New Orleans accent. -Cash Nelson</div>Jward5zkhttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329--Week_13_Questions/Comments329--Week 13 Questions/Comments2008-11-19T15:28:18Z<p>Jward5zk: /* 5 Other movies/questions of style/framing/storyline */</p>
<hr />
<div>== 1 Movie as secondary source about the past (What did it get right? What did it get wrong?) ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== a Right: ==<br />
<br />
The movie did a great job showing the PTSD of Ron and the other vets. They seemed to have genuine problems dealing with the things that happened during the war. He frequently had flash backs to the critical seen from the war to him in the village. He had a hard time coming to terms with the fact that he killed a member of his unit. Many soldier were killed by friendly fire and this did a good job showing how it could happen in stressful situations. -- Kellye Sorber<br />
<br />
I thought the movie did a good job showing the split reaction of the American people. Those who supported the war and those who protested. I also liked how it showed the change in Ron's character as he realized what was really going on. - Christine W.<br />
<br />
In the hospital when Ron freaks out at the nurses and they don't have the right pump for his leg, the doctor explains to him, "Cutbacks. The government's just not giving us the money we need to take care of you guys." According to what we learned in the lecture, this would have been accurate, and the possibility that someone like Ron could lose his leg because of those cutbacks was real. -Whitney Holcomb<br />
<br />
I was surprised with how much this movie was able to accurately portray. You really see how hard it was for the Vets to return to the states with little to no support from their country and all of the stresses from war. Most of them were druggies or, like Ron, alcoholics. You also see how crappy the hospitals were and how little funding they received from the federal government. I know we learned in class that it was much less than post-WWII America but the movie really made it real how few doctors there were and how just, disgusting the hospitals actually were. I was NOT prepared for the bedpans and the vomit. That was unnecessary. -Kelly Wuyscik<br />
<br />
I also really liked how well the film showed the difficulty discerning guys in your own troops and the members of the Vietcong. It really amplified how stressful and chaotic the setting was over in Vietnam and how frequently new guys were being added or sent home from American troops. -Kelly Wuyscik<br />
<br />
Unfortunately, much of the hospital horror that occurred in the film has happened as recently as last year. Those of us from the DC area will likely remember the extensive coverage of the neglect scandal at Walter Reed Army Medical Center that the Washington Post covered extensively. Red tape, rat and cockroach infestations, mold, all occurring at the US Army's flagship east coast medical center. It was accurate then, it is accurate now. -Cash Nelson<br />
<br />
== b Inaccurate/issues: ==<br />
In Ron's Vietnam scene, his unit shoots at huts in this village and then go investigate. But when they find the bodies, they freak out because they realize they're just civilians, and actually call medics to help these innocent people. The Lieutenant is hardly able to keep them under control. It seems implausible they would have reacted like that, because at this point in the war, they would have known the villagers they shot at may or may not be VC. Perhaps some of the green soldiers like Wilson might be surprised, but Ron shouldn't have been. -Whitney Holcomb<br />
<br />
When Ron is home after the war, in his room with his parents, the American flag on the bedroom wall behind him is hung backwards! The field of stars should be on the left, not the right. -Whitney Holcomb<br />
<br />
I felt that overall this movie hit some key points that are accurate, BUT I felt that it was another stereotypical portrayal of a torn up vietnam vet. Maybe I am still living in a fantasy that most of the vets were not drastically screwed up when they returned from the war. I know it was based on a book so this might not have been necessarily a film makers decision. - Elle<br />
<br />
Awe come on, Elle. You didn't like the American Hero story? It's not shown on the silver screen nearly enough. That's not to say it wasn't an impressive life story, but like Elle said, it just seemed to be too much. -Kelly Wuyscik<br />
<br />
Just to offer up some perspective, the screenplay was written by Oliver Stone and Ron Kovic himself, both of which were veterans of this war. Kovic approved the casting of Tom Cruise, and while there were obviously scenes added for dramatic license (most notably, Ron Kovic telling Will's family that he was responsible for their son's murder), most of it was on the up and up. -Cash Nelson<br />
<br />
That being said, Parris Island would have only been eight weeks of hell back then. Not thirteen. -Cash Nelson<br />
<br />
== 2 Film's relationship to current scholarship or to primary sources from the time ==<br />
In Tim O'Brian's book he talks about the baggage the soldiers. It mentions the intangible as well as the tangible. I thought the movie did a good job showing this baggage especially after Ron killed one of his soldiers. - Christine W.<br />
<br />
In "A Rumor of War," the author discusses how the war appealed to the young generation originally. How most of those who signed up early were teenagers and young adults because they were taught to be proud of their country and wanted to defend it. They answered Kennedy's call of "ask what you can do for your country" and wanted to be like their parents who had fought in previous wars, most notably WWII. You could see this in the movie pretty well, especially when the young Ron is sitting there watching Kennedy's address with his family and gets riled up about how to help and defend his country. -Kelly Wuyscik<br />
<br />
So this wasn't a major part of anything but I wondered about the letters that were sent to and from soldiers. In the film Ron sends love letters to his lady, and it is also mentioned in the readings. Did this communication with home help also to keep the moral high, or no more so than any other war? - Elle<br />
<br />
== 3 Movie as primary source about makers/time/setting/genre ==<br />
<br />
With a father who served in Vietnam from 1969-1970, I can say that this movie was pretty accurate with the stories he told about coming back home. While his story is nowhere near the personal hell that Kovic endured in his time back from the fighting, this movie showed, accurately, that our Vietnam Veterans did not get their ticker-tape parades. They were not congratulated. They were not thanked. By the time 1970 rolled around, free love was over. The Rolling Stones had held a concert at Altamont that led to 3 accidental deaths and one murder. Bobby and Jack Kennedy were dead, as were Dr. King and Malcolm X. Popular music was anti-war, involving everyone from the Doors, to Jefferson Airplane to Country Joe and the Fish. For once, America was losing a war, and with it, America lost its innocence. The homefront was a maelstrom of emotion, and while many were thankful for the service of our men and women, the anger, hatred and disenchantment was there as well. -Cash Nelson<br />
<br />
== 4 Public reaction/impact ==<br />
<br />
In watching the documentary in the special features, it was stated that after winning Best Picture for Platoon, "Oliver Stone could have made any movie he wanted." Born On... was a promise kept to Ron Kovic himself that he would get this movie made. Oliver Stone was not looking for an Oscar with this one, but he got one anyway for Best Director. He wasn't looking to gross $70 million, but it did anyway. This wasn't even meant to be Oliver Stone's baby. He had already done that with Platoon. Born On The 4th was a promise kept to a fellow Vietnam Veteran. Kovic felt very much that his story had been left behind and ignored. Oliver Stone promised to bring it back. Wasn't that enough? -Cash Nelson<br />
<br />
== 5 Other movies/questions of style/framing/storyline ==<br />
<br />
How often did soldiers go off to Mexico to avoid what was going on in the US? It seemed that there were a lot of the men, especially those in wheelchairs that were in Mexico trying to recover and avoid the criticism in the states. -- Kellye Sorber<br />
<br />
<br />
I felt that the jarring nature of the film was really unsettling - but I felt that this was a conscious decision by the film makers to portray how unsettling and choppy the experience of the vietnam was was for soldiers. -Elle<br />
<br />
That makes sense for the "Vietnam Section" I guess we can call it, but for the entire movie? It didn't really seem to make sense and I don't know if it was a wise choice on their part (if it was a conscious decision) to try to do that. Something just doesn't seem to add up. But the choppiness really did work with the war scenes because you did get a sense of confusion and chaos of the situations these guys were in. -Kelly Wuyscik<br />
<br />
In response to Kelly's response - I was thinking psychologically it works for the whole movie. I am NOT saying that I enjoyed it as a film viewer, but I can see why it might have been done that way. - Elle<br />
<br />
Kelly and Elle, this is a common technique of Stone's, used in even heavier amounts in Natural Born Killers, U-Turn and Any Given Sunday. Even JFK ran with it. Stone has often said that the stories he tells are filled with an anarchic level of chaos and panic, and the jarring, frantic cuts are his way of showing that panic. -Cash Nelson<br />
<br />
Tangentally, I loved the placement of Johnny Got His Gun in the scene where Kovic learns he will never walk again. For those of you who have never read this (I have two copies, I am willing to let people borrow), there is perhaps no better work of literature that better portrays the agonizing fear that comes with realizing you, as a soldier, will never be understood as a human again. -Cash Nelson<br />
<br />
In terms of ''Born on the Fourth of July'' 's relationship to other Vietnam films, (I guess this is "filmography" as opposed to historiography) I think this movie does a good job of portraying the Vietnam vet. I would categorize this film as a biographical autobiography, that is Stone told Kovic's story with help from Kovic himself. On one hand ''Born on the Fourth of July'' validates the stock characters we see in other films while ultimately moving beyond those characterizations. Dr. McClurken mentioned that other movies about Vietnam depicted the vets as unstable and alienated, and the real Ron Kovic certainly had to deal with his share of instability and alienation in the years following his return home. What made Kovic different from the characters in other movies is that he was able to channel his feelings into activism. Plenty of veterans came home and never quite recovered, but Kovic’s story is important because he did not let Vietnam defeat him personally. - Jason Ward<br />
<br />
== 6 Overall ==<br />
<br />
I really did not like this movie. Most of the time I felt very confused, it seemed to jump around a lot and it made it hard to follow at times. I also had a hard time believing in Tom Cruise as the main character Ron Kovic. Maybe this is because I am so used to seeing him in different roles that this role was just different enough to make it seem strange. -- Kellye Sorber<br />
<br />
As is often difficult for anyone, upon developing bias, it was tough for me to detach from my love for Oliver Stone in watching this. Instead, I watched it from the perspective of a 20 year old kid whose brother is an Iraq vet and whose father is a Vietnam vet. I watched from the perspective of a kid still trying to figure out his own personal politics, while still giving everyone else's, regardless of my agreement/disagreement, a fair day in court. I watch it from the perspective of trying to put myself, a relatively conservative 21-year-old, college-going kid into the perspective of the time, when my politics probably would not have been popular. Finally, I watch it with the knowledge that there is not a single human being alive that WANTS war. With all of these emotions around one simple, three-letter-word, "war," Stone crafted a masterful examination of the human psyche. It was chaotic. To be perfectly honest, the Vietnam era was a pretty terrible time to be American. -Cash Nelson<br />
<br />
I also had a hard time following the movie. I agree with Kellye that it seemed to jump around a lot. I also found it hard to believe Tom Cruise as the main character. - Christine W.<br />
<br />
I don't really care for this. It wasn't very entertaining for me and it's not something I would ever watch again. I didn't have any problems with the film jumping around, but I kept trying to figure out when he'd actually gone away, and therefore how old he was and how long he'd been gone. We see kid Ron watching JFK's speech in 1961, then Ron is a senior in high school, then we are in Vietnam in October 1967. Only after a parade when a speaker says Ron was born in '46 do things come together. I was preoccupied with this on multiple occasions. -Whitney Holcomb<br />
<br />
Tom Cruise pre-Vietnam/during the war > Tom Cruise in the hospital to the end. And, I know that's how the style was in the 1970s, but I couldn't handle it. Everything just seemed to be too over-the-top almost and very very dramatic. And I think abbreviating Kovic's life so much to fit it all in in 2 1/2 hours hurt the movie a great deal. As the others said, it was so fragmented and scattered that I had a hard time keeping up with how old Ron was supposed to be, etc. -Kelly Wuyscik<br />
<br />
One more thing; were those supposed to be New York accents? I know Kovic was from Long Island but come on now. They sounded a bit off to me, but I suppose anything is better than Kevin Costner and a Boston accent. -Kelly Wuyscik<br />
<br />
Try Kevin Costner and a New Orleans accent. -Cash Nelson</div>Jward5zkhttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329--Week_13_Questions/Comments329--Week 13 Questions/Comments2008-11-19T15:26:41Z<p>Jward5zk: /* 5 Other movies/questions of style/framing/storyline */</p>
<hr />
<div>== 1 Movie as secondary source about the past (What did it get right? What did it get wrong?) ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== a Right: ==<br />
<br />
The movie did a great job showing the PTSD of Ron and the other vets. They seemed to have genuine problems dealing with the things that happened during the war. He frequently had flash backs to the critical seen from the war to him in the village. He had a hard time coming to terms with the fact that he killed a member of his unit. Many soldier were killed by friendly fire and this did a good job showing how it could happen in stressful situations. -- Kellye Sorber<br />
<br />
I thought the movie did a good job showing the split reaction of the American people. Those who supported the war and those who protested. I also liked how it showed the change in Ron's character as he realized what was really going on. - Christine W.<br />
<br />
In the hospital when Ron freaks out at the nurses and they don't have the right pump for his leg, the doctor explains to him, "Cutbacks. The government's just not giving us the money we need to take care of you guys." According to what we learned in the lecture, this would have been accurate, and the possibility that someone like Ron could lose his leg because of those cutbacks was real. -Whitney Holcomb<br />
<br />
I was surprised with how much this movie was able to accurately portray. You really see how hard it was for the Vets to return to the states with little to no support from their country and all of the stresses from war. Most of them were druggies or, like Ron, alcoholics. You also see how crappy the hospitals were and how little funding they received from the federal government. I know we learned in class that it was much less than post-WWII America but the movie really made it real how few doctors there were and how just, disgusting the hospitals actually were. I was NOT prepared for the bedpans and the vomit. That was unnecessary. -Kelly Wuyscik<br />
<br />
I also really liked how well the film showed the difficulty discerning guys in your own troops and the members of the Vietcong. It really amplified how stressful and chaotic the setting was over in Vietnam and how frequently new guys were being added or sent home from American troops. -Kelly Wuyscik<br />
<br />
Unfortunately, much of the hospital horror that occurred in the film has happened as recently as last year. Those of us from the DC area will likely remember the extensive coverage of the neglect scandal at Walter Reed Army Medical Center that the Washington Post covered extensively. Red tape, rat and cockroach infestations, mold, all occurring at the US Army's flagship east coast medical center. It was accurate then, it is accurate now. -Cash Nelson<br />
<br />
== b Inaccurate/issues: ==<br />
In Ron's Vietnam scene, his unit shoots at huts in this village and then go investigate. But when they find the bodies, they freak out because they realize they're just civilians, and actually call medics to help these innocent people. The Lieutenant is hardly able to keep them under control. It seems implausible they would have reacted like that, because at this point in the war, they would have known the villagers they shot at may or may not be VC. Perhaps some of the green soldiers like Wilson might be surprised, but Ron shouldn't have been. -Whitney Holcomb<br />
<br />
When Ron is home after the war, in his room with his parents, the American flag on the bedroom wall behind him is hung backwards! The field of stars should be on the left, not the right. -Whitney Holcomb<br />
<br />
I felt that overall this movie hit some key points that are accurate, BUT I felt that it was another stereotypical portrayal of a torn up vietnam vet. Maybe I am still living in a fantasy that most of the vets were not drastically screwed up when they returned from the war. I know it was based on a book so this might not have been necessarily a film makers decision. - Elle<br />
<br />
Awe come on, Elle. You didn't like the American Hero story? It's not shown on the silver screen nearly enough. That's not to say it wasn't an impressive life story, but like Elle said, it just seemed to be too much. -Kelly Wuyscik<br />
<br />
Just to offer up some perspective, the screenplay was written by Oliver Stone and Ron Kovic himself, both of which were veterans of this war. Kovic approved the casting of Tom Cruise, and while there were obviously scenes added for dramatic license (most notably, Ron Kovic telling Will's family that he was responsible for their son's murder), most of it was on the up and up. -Cash Nelson<br />
<br />
That being said, Parris Island would have only been eight weeks of hell back then. Not thirteen. -Cash Nelson<br />
<br />
== 2 Film's relationship to current scholarship or to primary sources from the time ==<br />
In Tim O'Brian's book he talks about the baggage the soldiers. It mentions the intangible as well as the tangible. I thought the movie did a good job showing this baggage especially after Ron killed one of his soldiers. - Christine W.<br />
<br />
In "A Rumor of War," the author discusses how the war appealed to the young generation originally. How most of those who signed up early were teenagers and young adults because they were taught to be proud of their country and wanted to defend it. They answered Kennedy's call of "ask what you can do for your country" and wanted to be like their parents who had fought in previous wars, most notably WWII. You could see this in the movie pretty well, especially when the young Ron is sitting there watching Kennedy's address with his family and gets riled up about how to help and defend his country. -Kelly Wuyscik<br />
<br />
So this wasn't a major part of anything but I wondered about the letters that were sent to and from soldiers. In the film Ron sends love letters to his lady, and it is also mentioned in the readings. Did this communication with home help also to keep the moral high, or no more so than any other war? - Elle<br />
<br />
== 3 Movie as primary source about makers/time/setting/genre ==<br />
<br />
With a father who served in Vietnam from 1969-1970, I can say that this movie was pretty accurate with the stories he told about coming back home. While his story is nowhere near the personal hell that Kovic endured in his time back from the fighting, this movie showed, accurately, that our Vietnam Veterans did not get their ticker-tape parades. They were not congratulated. They were not thanked. By the time 1970 rolled around, free love was over. The Rolling Stones had held a concert at Altamont that led to 3 accidental deaths and one murder. Bobby and Jack Kennedy were dead, as were Dr. King and Malcolm X. Popular music was anti-war, involving everyone from the Doors, to Jefferson Airplane to Country Joe and the Fish. For once, America was losing a war, and with it, America lost its innocence. The homefront was a maelstrom of emotion, and while many were thankful for the service of our men and women, the anger, hatred and disenchantment was there as well. -Cash Nelson<br />
<br />
== 4 Public reaction/impact ==<br />
<br />
In watching the documentary in the special features, it was stated that after winning Best Picture for Platoon, "Oliver Stone could have made any movie he wanted." Born On... was a promise kept to Ron Kovic himself that he would get this movie made. Oliver Stone was not looking for an Oscar with this one, but he got one anyway for Best Director. He wasn't looking to gross $70 million, but it did anyway. This wasn't even meant to be Oliver Stone's baby. He had already done that with Platoon. Born On The 4th was a promise kept to a fellow Vietnam Veteran. Kovic felt very much that his story had been left behind and ignored. Oliver Stone promised to bring it back. Wasn't that enough? -Cash Nelson<br />
<br />
== 5 Other movies/questions of style/framing/storyline ==<br />
<br />
How often did soldiers go off to Mexico to avoid what was going on in the US? It seemed that there were a lot of the men, especially those in wheelchairs that were in Mexico trying to recover and avoid the criticism in the states. -- Kellye Sorber<br />
<br />
<br />
I felt that the jarring nature of the film was really unsettling - but I felt that this was a conscious decision by the film makers to portray how unsettling and choppy the experience of the vietnam was was for soldiers. -Elle<br />
<br />
That makes sense for the "Vietnam Section" I guess we can call it, but for the entire movie? It didn't really seem to make sense and I don't know if it was a wise choice on their part (if it was a conscious decision) to try to do that. Something just doesn't seem to add up. But the choppiness really did work with the war scenes because you did get a sense of confusion and chaos of the situations these guys were in. -Kelly Wuyscik<br />
<br />
In response to Kelly's response - I was thinking psychologically it works for the whole movie. I am NOT saying that I enjoyed it as a film viewer, but I can see why it might have been done that way. - Elle<br />
<br />
Kelly and Elle, this is a common technique of Stone's, used in even heavier amounts in Natural Born Killers, U-Turn and Any Given Sunday. Even JFK ran with it. Stone has often said that the stories he tells are filled with an anarchic level of chaos and panic, and the jarring, frantic cuts are his way of showing that panic. -Cash Nelson<br />
<br />
Tangentally, I loved the placement of Johnny Got His Gun in the scene where Kovic learns he will never walk again. For those of you who have never read this (I have two copies, I am willing to let people borrow), there is perhaps no better work of literature that better portrays the agonizing fear that comes with realizing you, as a soldier, will never be understood as a human again. -Cash Nelson<br />
<br />
In terms of ''Born on the Fourth of July'' 's relationship to other Vietnam films, (I guess this is "filmography" as opposed to historiography) I think this movie does a good job of portraying the Vietnam vet. I would categorize this film as a biographical autobiography, that is Stone told Kovic's story with help from Kovic himself. On one hand ''Born on the Fourth of July'' validates the stock characters we see in other films while ultimately moving beyond those characterizations. Dr. McClurken mentioned that other movies about Vietnam depicted the vets as unstable and alienated, and the real Ron Kovic certainly had to deal with his share of instability and alienation in the years following his return home, but he was able to channel those feelings into activism. Plenty of veterans came home and never quite recovered, but Kovic’s story is important because he did not let Vietnam defeat him personally. - Jason Ward<br />
<br />
== 6 Overall ==<br />
<br />
I really did not like this movie. Most of the time I felt very confused, it seemed to jump around a lot and it made it hard to follow at times. I also had a hard time believing in Tom Cruise as the main character Ron Kovic. Maybe this is because I am so used to seeing him in different roles that this role was just different enough to make it seem strange. -- Kellye Sorber<br />
<br />
As is often difficult for anyone, upon developing bias, it was tough for me to detach from my love for Oliver Stone in watching this. Instead, I watched it from the perspective of a 20 year old kid whose brother is an Iraq vet and whose father is a Vietnam vet. I watched from the perspective of a kid still trying to figure out his own personal politics, while still giving everyone else's, regardless of my agreement/disagreement, a fair day in court. I watch it from the perspective of trying to put myself, a relatively conservative 21-year-old, college-going kid into the perspective of the time, when my politics probably would not have been popular. Finally, I watch it with the knowledge that there is not a single human being alive that WANTS war. With all of these emotions around one simple, three-letter-word, "war," Stone crafted a masterful examination of the human psyche. It was chaotic. To be perfectly honest, the Vietnam era was a pretty terrible time to be American. -Cash Nelson<br />
<br />
I also had a hard time following the movie. I agree with Kellye that it seemed to jump around a lot. I also found it hard to believe Tom Cruise as the main character. - Christine W.<br />
<br />
I don't really care for this. It wasn't very entertaining for me and it's not something I would ever watch again. I didn't have any problems with the film jumping around, but I kept trying to figure out when he'd actually gone away, and therefore how old he was and how long he'd been gone. We see kid Ron watching JFK's speech in 1961, then Ron is a senior in high school, then we are in Vietnam in October 1967. Only after a parade when a speaker says Ron was born in '46 do things come together. I was preoccupied with this on multiple occasions. -Whitney Holcomb<br />
<br />
Tom Cruise pre-Vietnam/during the war > Tom Cruise in the hospital to the end. And, I know that's how the style was in the 1970s, but I couldn't handle it. Everything just seemed to be too over-the-top almost and very very dramatic. And I think abbreviating Kovic's life so much to fit it all in in 2 1/2 hours hurt the movie a great deal. As the others said, it was so fragmented and scattered that I had a hard time keeping up with how old Ron was supposed to be, etc. -Kelly Wuyscik<br />
<br />
One more thing; were those supposed to be New York accents? I know Kovic was from Long Island but come on now. They sounded a bit off to me, but I suppose anything is better than Kevin Costner and a Boston accent. -Kelly Wuyscik<br />
<br />
Try Kevin Costner and a New Orleans accent. -Cash Nelson</div>Jward5zkhttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329--Project_List329--Project List2008-11-13T06:45:58Z<p>Jward5zk: /* 329--Project List */</p>
<hr />
<div>== 329--Project List ==<br />
<br />
'''Place your name and the link to the start of your project below.'''<br />
<br />
<br />
James Drury: [http://jwdrury.umwblogs.org/] jwdrury.umwblogs.org/<br />
<br />
Kellye Sorber: http://ksorb2yv.umwblogs.org/apollo-13-study/<br />
<br />
Ashley Wilkins: http://awilkins.umwblogs.org/ (Its a variety of pages on the Side Links, 5 to be exact)<br />
<br />
Elle Weaver: http://eweaver.umwblogs.org/bonnieandclyde/<br />
<br />
Mary Beth Conrad: http://embea.umwblogs.org/<br />
<br />
Cash Nelson: http://nickn87.umwblogs.org/2008/11/06/jfk-project-page-one/ (the blog directly after this one chronologically is part two, and then the biblio)<br />
<br />
Whitney Holcomb: http://wholcomb.umwblogs.org/sounder/<br />
<br />
Jonathan Bell: http://jbell2ja.umwblogs.org/history-in-film-patton/ Mine is all in one page with two columns read the left side first.<br />
<br />
Lauren: [http://pyrgress.umwblogs.org] I have the main article and a "works cited" post. Be sure to look at both.<br />
<br />
Kelly Wuyscik: http://kwuyscik.umwblogs.org/thirteen-days/<br />
<br />
David Flores: http://daflo05.umwblogs.org/cinderella-man-introduction/<br />
<br />
Bryan Mull: http://bmull.umwblogs.org/introduction-to-the-searchers/ (Follow right side page links)<br />
<br />
Christine W.: http://cwueb5yr.umwblogs.org/pearl-harbor-project/<br />
<br />
Katherine Stinson: http://kstinson88.umwblogs.org/<br />
<br />
Amanda Russell: http://agrussell.umwblogs.org/wall-street-the-project/<br />
<br />
Sarah Richardson: http://serichardson.umwblogs.org/the-scarlet-letter/<br />
<br />
Mallory Cruise: http://mcrui2mq.umwblogs.org/2008/11/10/41/<br />
<br />
Wesley Weeks: http://wweeks.umwblogs.org/guess-who%E2%80%99s-coming-to-dinner/<br />
<br />
Ashley Scutari: http://ascutari.umwblogs.org/introduction-to-malcolm-x/<br />
<br />
JT Newcomb: http://jnewcomb.umwblogs.org/<br />
<br />
Matt DeMarr: http://mdemarr.umwblogs.org/zodiac-does-th…y-have-historyzodiac-does-the-mystery-have-history/ <br />
<br />
Aliza Jackie Reed: http://areed.umwblogs.org/us-history-in-film-in-blog-project/<br />
<br />
Taylor Brann: http://kokoro.umwblogs.org/<br />
<br />
Shannon Hauser: http://grapesofwrath.umwblogs.org/<br />
<br />
Juliann Boyles: http://julibean.umwblogs.org/about/<br />
<br />
Jason Ward: http://jasonward.umwblogs.org/1776-2/</div>Jward5zkhttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329--Week_12_Questions/Comments329--Week 12 Questions/Comments2008-11-12T03:37:58Z<p>Jward5zk: /* 6 Overall */</p>
<hr />
<div>== 1 Movie as secondary source about the past (What did it get right? What did it get wrong?) ==<br />
<br />
This movie got a lot of aspects of the 1950s South correct. For instance, the movie showed in the beginning Odessa's sons bringing home from school fliers about the bus boycott, and how Selma had to pay her bus fare, and then get off to go through the back door of the bus. ~Katherine Stinson~<br />
<br />
== a Right: ==<br />
<br />
As Dr. McClurken mentions, blacks had to pay in the front then get off only to get back on in the back of the bus. I believe that the filmmakers' choice to use that as part of the beginning scene sends a strong emotion through the audience, especially if they didn't know what was going on. -Lauren<br />
<br />
The church has always played an integral role in the black community. I think the movie did a nice job of portraying black churches as the epicenters for the emotional and spiritual struggle through segregation. - Jason Ward<br />
<br />
== b Inaccurate/issues: ==<br />
<br />
I found Miriam's revelation of the importance of Odessa and her desire to help out with the boycott more than slightly unlikely. True, Miriam has a good heart before her revelation, but the fact that she's willing to risk her safety and reputation to help out without too much thought is troubling. When I hear my older Southern relatives speak of blacks or watch their behavior around blacks, I hear the word "nigger" a few times or see them act differently around blacks. Old habits die hard. I don't doubt that some Southern white women did help, ''but'' that they were hesitant and a bit nervous in some layer of their being. Northern women would be more likely to be quicker to help than Southern white women. -Lauren<br />
<br />
I am in no way doubting or disagreeing with your general interpretation Lauren, but I will say that according to the ''Rosa Parks and Virginia Durr'' reading from this week that it was likely for Southern women to help with the boycott. In that reading Durr said, "Then the policemen began giving tickets to the white women who were taking black women home."(225)Regardless of their motives, e.g. wanting their maids to be "fresh and alert" during work, or "I want my maid to be on time", Southern white women were helping with the boycott. As it pertains to the movie, although Miriam starts with the attitude of "I want you to be awake!", the directors give her a biography that explains her sympathy towards the boycotters. Miriam tells the story about traveling with her family to Portland in the 1930s and how the white children stayed in the pool even when the black boys had gotten in. What makes this story believable to me is that Miriam's character was given a broader array of experiences, but not a sanctimonious "I stayed in the pool" mentality. Miriam was definitely a take charge type, with a missionary's zeal, but her actions were sincere. - Jason Ward<br />
<br />
<br />
Lauren, I didn't find what Miriam did to be very unlikely, as this was one opportunity for the caring housewives with no money of their own to make a difference for the blacks. I don't think Miriam rushed into it, although we didn't see much hesitation on her part during the film. First of all, she had always treated her maids well, although she also always knew her husband didn't agree with it. She knew from the start that her husband didn't approve of her even driving Odessa, and she stopped when he found out and made her do so. She didn't want to, but she did spend time thinking it over and finally determined that what her husband did was the final straw, the culmination of her long-held feelings that blacks deserved better treatment. By making up her mind she was rebelling against her husband and the whites' sense of right or wrong, and she was aware of what consequences might be if the blacks won--she was in support of them. -Whitney Holcomb<br />
<br />
Where were all of the real characters from the ''Rosa Parks'' reading?- Jason Ward<br />
<br />
Wow, sorry if I sound redundant there, but apparently Jason and I were apparently writing that at exactly the same time! -Whitney<br />
<br />
== 2 Film's relationship to current scholarship or to primary sources from the time ==<br />
This is an accuracy detail that I noticed: When Odessa and Miriam are driving in town and Miriam they notice the policeman closely following them, Odessa says to just slow down some and they should leave her alone, which is what happened. In Mrs. Durr's statements on page 224 she tells that police were cracking down on carpool drivers for going two miles over the speed limit. Odessa was very aware that this was what was happening, not just that the police wee being suspicious. -Whitney Holcomb<br />
<br />
I really liked the ''Testimony of Thomas Williams''. I felt the main idea of the testimony was to convey the ''de facto'' laws of the South, and how those laws were rooted in white supremacist tradition rather than American jurisprudence. It was the small but powerful phrase uttered by the bus driver that justified everything that happened to Williams and thousands of blacks in the Jim Crow era- "Your in the South now". Whites were able to get away with this behavior because they had the power to do so, and until the late 1950s no one made them do any differently. I think Williams exposed the crucial factor that would change life in the South- enforcement. "...Supreme Court decisions just are not enough. It is necessary to have a law to prevent them from doing these things." In the movie we see whites dominating and intimidating blacks because they could. The policemen were actively orchestrating that domination and intimidation. As was proven with the integration of schools in the decades to follow, enforcement of law would be the only way to ensure tangible change. - Jason Ward<br />
<br />
== 3 Movie as primary source about makers/time/setting/genre ==<br />
<br />
== 4 Public reaction/impact ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== 5 Other movies/questions of style/framing/storyline ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== 6 Overall ==<br />
<br />
I thought this movie was kind of short, seeing how much there was to the whole bus boycotts, and Civil Rights Movements. However, I do think the movie was still good, and I was impressed with how much was fit into such a short movie. ~Katherine Stinson~<br />
<br />
I cried. -Jason Ward</div>Jward5zkhttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329--Week_12_Questions/Comments329--Week 12 Questions/Comments2008-11-12T03:37:25Z<p>Jward5zk: /* 2 Film's relationship to current scholarship or to primary sources from the time */</p>
<hr />
<div>== 1 Movie as secondary source about the past (What did it get right? What did it get wrong?) ==<br />
<br />
This movie got a lot of aspects of the 1950s South correct. For instance, the movie showed in the beginning Odessa's sons bringing home from school fliers about the bus boycott, and how Selma had to pay her bus fare, and then get off to go through the back door of the bus. ~Katherine Stinson~<br />
<br />
== a Right: ==<br />
<br />
As Dr. McClurken mentions, blacks had to pay in the front then get off only to get back on in the back of the bus. I believe that the filmmakers' choice to use that as part of the beginning scene sends a strong emotion through the audience, especially if they didn't know what was going on. -Lauren<br />
<br />
The church has always played an integral role in the black community. I think the movie did a nice job of portraying black churches as the epicenters for the emotional and spiritual struggle through segregation. - Jason Ward<br />
<br />
== b Inaccurate/issues: ==<br />
<br />
I found Miriam's revelation of the importance of Odessa and her desire to help out with the boycott more than slightly unlikely. True, Miriam has a good heart before her revelation, but the fact that she's willing to risk her safety and reputation to help out without too much thought is troubling. When I hear my older Southern relatives speak of blacks or watch their behavior around blacks, I hear the word "nigger" a few times or see them act differently around blacks. Old habits die hard. I don't doubt that some Southern white women did help, ''but'' that they were hesitant and a bit nervous in some layer of their being. Northern women would be more likely to be quicker to help than Southern white women. -Lauren<br />
<br />
I am in no way doubting or disagreeing with your general interpretation Lauren, but I will say that according to the ''Rosa Parks and Virginia Durr'' reading from this week that it was likely for Southern women to help with the boycott. In that reading Durr said, "Then the policemen began giving tickets to the white women who were taking black women home."(225)Regardless of their motives, e.g. wanting their maids to be "fresh and alert" during work, or "I want my maid to be on time", Southern white women were helping with the boycott. As it pertains to the movie, although Miriam starts with the attitude of "I want you to be awake!", the directors give her a biography that explains her sympathy towards the boycotters. Miriam tells the story about traveling with her family to Portland in the 1930s and how the white children stayed in the pool even when the black boys had gotten in. What makes this story believable to me is that Miriam's character was given a broader array of experiences, but not a sanctimonious "I stayed in the pool" mentality. Miriam was definitely a take charge type, with a missionary's zeal, but her actions were sincere. - Jason Ward<br />
<br />
<br />
Lauren, I didn't find what Miriam did to be very unlikely, as this was one opportunity for the caring housewives with no money of their own to make a difference for the blacks. I don't think Miriam rushed into it, although we didn't see much hesitation on her part during the film. First of all, she had always treated her maids well, although she also always knew her husband didn't agree with it. She knew from the start that her husband didn't approve of her even driving Odessa, and she stopped when he found out and made her do so. She didn't want to, but she did spend time thinking it over and finally determined that what her husband did was the final straw, the culmination of her long-held feelings that blacks deserved better treatment. By making up her mind she was rebelling against her husband and the whites' sense of right or wrong, and she was aware of what consequences might be if the blacks won--she was in support of them. -Whitney Holcomb<br />
<br />
Where were all of the real characters from the ''Rosa Parks'' reading?- Jason Ward<br />
<br />
Wow, sorry if I sound redundant there, but apparently Jason and I were apparently writing that at exactly the same time! -Whitney<br />
<br />
== 2 Film's relationship to current scholarship or to primary sources from the time ==<br />
This is an accuracy detail that I noticed: When Odessa and Miriam are driving in town and Miriam they notice the policeman closely following them, Odessa says to just slow down some and they should leave her alone, which is what happened. In Mrs. Durr's statements on page 224 she tells that police were cracking down on carpool drivers for going two miles over the speed limit. Odessa was very aware that this was what was happening, not just that the police wee being suspicious. -Whitney Holcomb<br />
<br />
I really liked the ''Testimony of Thomas Williams''. I felt the main idea of the testimony was to convey the ''de facto'' laws of the South, and how those laws were rooted in white supremacist tradition rather than American jurisprudence. It was the small but powerful phrase uttered by the bus driver that justified everything that happened to Williams and thousands of blacks in the Jim Crow era- "Your in the South now". Whites were able to get away with this behavior because they had the power to do so, and until the late 1950s no one made them do any differently. I think Williams exposed the crucial factor that would change life in the South- enforcement. "...Supreme Court decisions just are not enough. It is necessary to have a law to prevent them from doing these things." In the movie we see whites dominating and intimidating blacks because they could. The policemen were actively orchestrating that domination and intimidation. As was proven with the integration of schools in the decades to follow, enforcement of law would be the only way to ensure tangible change. - Jason Ward<br />
<br />
== 3 Movie as primary source about makers/time/setting/genre ==<br />
<br />
== 4 Public reaction/impact ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== 5 Other movies/questions of style/framing/storyline ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== 6 Overall ==<br />
<br />
I thought this movie was kind of short, seeing how much there was to the whole bus boycotts, and Civil Rights Movements. However, I do think the movie was still good, and I was impressed with how much was fit into such a short movie. ~Katherine Stinson~</div>Jward5zkhttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329--Week_12_Questions/Comments329--Week 12 Questions/Comments2008-11-12T03:32:52Z<p>Jward5zk: /* 2 Film's relationship to current scholarship or to primary sources from the time */</p>
<hr />
<div>== 1 Movie as secondary source about the past (What did it get right? What did it get wrong?) ==<br />
<br />
This movie got a lot of aspects of the 1950s South correct. For instance, the movie showed in the beginning Odessa's sons bringing home from school fliers about the bus boycott, and how Selma had to pay her bus fare, and then get off to go through the back door of the bus. ~Katherine Stinson~<br />
<br />
== a Right: ==<br />
<br />
As Dr. McClurken mentions, blacks had to pay in the front then get off only to get back on in the back of the bus. I believe that the filmmakers' choice to use that as part of the beginning scene sends a strong emotion through the audience, especially if they didn't know what was going on. -Lauren<br />
<br />
The church has always played an integral role in the black community. I think the movie did a nice job of portraying black churches as the epicenters for the emotional and spiritual struggle through segregation. - Jason Ward<br />
<br />
== b Inaccurate/issues: ==<br />
<br />
I found Miriam's revelation of the importance of Odessa and her desire to help out with the boycott more than slightly unlikely. True, Miriam has a good heart before her revelation, but the fact that she's willing to risk her safety and reputation to help out without too much thought is troubling. When I hear my older Southern relatives speak of blacks or watch their behavior around blacks, I hear the word "nigger" a few times or see them act differently around blacks. Old habits die hard. I don't doubt that some Southern white women did help, ''but'' that they were hesitant and a bit nervous in some layer of their being. Northern women would be more likely to be quicker to help than Southern white women. -Lauren<br />
<br />
I am in no way doubting or disagreeing with your general interpretation Lauren, but I will say that according to the ''Rosa Parks and Virginia Durr'' reading from this week that it was likely for Southern women to help with the boycott. In that reading Durr said, "Then the policemen began giving tickets to the white women who were taking black women home."(225)Regardless of their motives, e.g. wanting their maids to be "fresh and alert" during work, or "I want my maid to be on time", Southern white women were helping with the boycott. As it pertains to the movie, although Miriam starts with the attitude of "I want you to be awake!", the directors give her a biography that explains her sympathy towards the boycotters. Miriam tells the story about traveling with her family to Portland in the 1930s and how the white children stayed in the pool even when the black boys had gotten in. What makes this story believable to me is that Miriam's character was given a broader array of experiences, but not a sanctimonious "I stayed in the pool" mentality. Miriam was definitely a take charge type, with a missionary's zeal, but her actions were sincere. - Jason Ward<br />
<br />
<br />
Lauren, I didn't find what Miriam did to be very unlikely, as this was one opportunity for the caring housewives with no money of their own to make a difference for the blacks. I don't think Miriam rushed into it, although we didn't see much hesitation on her part during the film. First of all, she had always treated her maids well, although she also always knew her husband didn't agree with it. She knew from the start that her husband didn't approve of her even driving Odessa, and she stopped when he found out and made her do so. She didn't want to, but she did spend time thinking it over and finally determined that what her husband did was the final straw, the culmination of her long-held feelings that blacks deserved better treatment. By making up her mind she was rebelling against her husband and the whites' sense of right or wrong, and she was aware of what consequences might be if the blacks won--she was in support of them. -Whitney Holcomb<br />
<br />
Where were all of the real characters from the ''Rosa Parks'' reading?- Jason Ward<br />
<br />
Wow, sorry if I sound redundant there, but apparently Jason and I were apparently writing that at exactly the same time! -Whitney<br />
<br />
== 2 Film's relationship to current scholarship or to primary sources from the time ==<br />
This is an accuracy detail that I noticed: When Odessa and Miriam are driving in town and Miriam they notice the policeman closely following them, Odessa says to just slow down some and they should leave her alone, which is what happened. In Mrs. Durr's statements on page 224 she tells that police were cracking down on carpool drivers for going two miles over the speed limit. Odessa was very aware that this was what was happening, not just that the police wee being suspicious. -Whitney Holcomb<br />
<br />
I really liked the ''Testimony of Thomas Williams''. I felt the main idea of the article was to convey the de facto laws they had in the South, and that those laws were rooted in white supremacist tradition rather than American jurisprudence. When the bus driver said "Your in the South now". It was that small phrase that justified everything that happened to Williams- and thousands of blacks in the Jim Crow era. Whites were able to get away with this behavior because they had the power to do so, and until the late 1950s no one made them do any differently. I think Williams exposed the crucial factor that would change life in the South- enforcement. "...Supreme Court decisions just are not enough. It is necessary to have a law to prevent them from doing these things." In the movie we see whites dominating and intimidating blacks because they could. The policemen were actively orchestrating the domination and intimidation. As was proven with the integration of schools in the decades to follow, enforcement of law would be the only way to ensure tangible change. - Jason Ward<br />
<br />
== 3 Movie as primary source about makers/time/setting/genre ==<br />
<br />
== 4 Public reaction/impact ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== 5 Other movies/questions of style/framing/storyline ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== 6 Overall ==<br />
<br />
I thought this movie was kind of short, seeing how much there was to the whole bus boycotts, and Civil Rights Movements. However, I do think the movie was still good, and I was impressed with how much was fit into such a short movie. ~Katherine Stinson~</div>Jward5zkhttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329--Week_12_Questions/Comments329--Week 12 Questions/Comments2008-11-12T03:13:52Z<p>Jward5zk: /* b Inaccurate/issues: */</p>
<hr />
<div>== 1 Movie as secondary source about the past (What did it get right? What did it get wrong?) ==<br />
<br />
This movie got a lot of aspects of the 1950s South correct. For instance, the movie showed in the beginning Odessa's sons bringing home from school fliers about the bus boycott, and how Selma had to pay her bus fare, and then get off to go through the back door of the bus. ~Katherine Stinson~<br />
<br />
== a Right: ==<br />
<br />
As Dr. McClurken mentions, blacks had to pay in the front then get off only to get back on in the back of the bus. I believe that the filmmakers' choice to use that as part of the beginning scene sends a strong emotion through the audience, especially if they didn't know what was going on. -Lauren<br />
<br />
The church has always played an integral role in the black community. I think the movie did a nice job of portraying black churches as the epicenters for the emotional and spiritual struggle through segregation. - Jason Ward<br />
<br />
== b Inaccurate/issues: ==<br />
<br />
I found Miriam's revelation of the importance of Odessa and her desire to help out with the boycott more than slightly unlikely. True, Miriam has a good heart before her revelation, but the fact that she's willing to risk her safety and reputation to help out without too much thought is troubling. When I hear my older Southern relatives speak of blacks or watch their behavior around blacks, I hear the word "nigger" a few times or see them act differently around blacks. Old habits die hard. I don't doubt that some Southern white women did help, ''but'' that they were hesitant and a bit nervous in some layer of their being. Northern women would be more likely to be quicker to help than Southern white women. -Lauren<br />
<br />
I am in no way doubting or disagreeing with your general interpretation Lauren, but I will say that according to the ''Rosa Parks and Virginia Durr'' reading from this week that it was likely for Southern women to help with the boycott. In that reading Durr said, "Then the policemen began giving tickets to the white women who were taking black women home."(225)Regardless of their motives, e.g. wanting their maids to be "fresh and alert" during work, or "I want my maid to be on time", Southern white women were helping with the boycott. As it pertains to the movie, although Miriam starts with the attitude of "I want you to be awake!", the directors give her a biography that explains her sympathy towards the boycotters. Miriam tells the story about traveling with her family to Portland in the 1930s and how the white children stayed in the pool even when the black boys had gotten in. What makes this story believable to me is that Miriam's character was given a broader array of experiences, but not a sanctimonious "I stayed in the pool" mentality. Miriam was definitely a take charge type, with a missionary's zeal, but her actions were sincere. - Jason Ward<br />
<br />
Where were all of the real characters from the ''Rosa Parks'' reading?- Jason Ward<br />
<br />
== 2 Film's relationship to current scholarship or to primary sources from the time ==<br />
This is an accuracy detail that I noticed: When Odessa and Miriam are driving in town and Miriam they notice the policeman closely following them, Odessa says to just slow down some and they should leave her alone, which is what happened. In Mrs. Durr's statements on page 224 she tells that police were cracking down on carpool drivers for going two miles over the speed limit. Odessa was very aware that this was what was happening, not just that the police wee being suspicious. -Whitney Holcomb<br />
<br />
== 3 Movie as primary source about makers/time/setting/genre ==<br />
<br />
== 4 Public reaction/impact ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== 5 Other movies/questions of style/framing/storyline ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== 6 Overall ==<br />
<br />
I thought this movie was kind of short, seeing how much there was to the whole bus boycotts, and Civil Rights Movements. However, I do think the movie was still good, and I was impressed with how much was fit into such a short movie. ~Katherine Stinson~</div>Jward5zkhttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329--Week_12_Questions/Comments329--Week 12 Questions/Comments2008-11-12T03:09:56Z<p>Jward5zk: /* b Inaccurate/issues: */</p>
<hr />
<div>== 1 Movie as secondary source about the past (What did it get right? What did it get wrong?) ==<br />
<br />
This movie got a lot of aspects of the 1950s South correct. For instance, the movie showed in the beginning Odessa's sons bringing home from school fliers about the bus boycott, and how Selma had to pay her bus fare, and then get off to go through the back door of the bus. ~Katherine Stinson~<br />
<br />
== a Right: ==<br />
<br />
As Dr. McClurken mentions, blacks had to pay in the front then get off only to get back on in the back of the bus. I believe that the filmmakers' choice to use that as part of the beginning scene sends a strong emotion through the audience, especially if they didn't know what was going on. -Lauren<br />
<br />
The church has always played an integral role in the black community. I think the movie did a nice job of portraying black churches as the epicenters for the emotional and spiritual struggle through segregation. - Jason Ward<br />
<br />
== b Inaccurate/issues: ==<br />
<br />
I found Miriam's revelation of the importance of Odessa and her desire to help out with the boycott more than slightly unlikely. True, Miriam has a good heart before her revelation, but the fact that she's willing to risk her safety and reputation to help out without too much thought is troubling. When I hear my older Southern relatives speak of blacks or watch their behavior around blacks, I hear the word "nigger" a few times or see them act differently around blacks. Old habits die hard. I don't doubt that some Southern white women did help, ''but'' that they were hesitant and a bit nervous in some layer of their being. Northern women would be more likely to be quicker to help than Southern white women. -Lauren<br />
<br />
I am in no way doubting or disagreeing with your general interpretation Lauren, but I will say that according to the ''Rosa Parks and Virginia Durr'' reading from this week that it was likely for Southern women to help with the boycott. In that reading Durr said, "Then the policemen began giving tickets to the white women who were taking black women home."(225)Regardless of their motives, e.g. wanting their maids to be "fresh and alert" during work, or "I want my maid to be on time", Southern white women were helping with the boycott. As it pertains to the movie, although Miriam starts with the attitude of "I want you to be awake!", the directors give her a biography that explains her sympathy towards the boycotters. Miriam tells the story about traveling with her family to Portland in the 1930s and how the white children stayed in the pool even when the black boys had gotten in. What makes this story believable to me is that Miriam's character was given a broader array of experiences, but not a sanctimonious "I stayed in the pool" mentality. Miriam was definitely a take charge type, with a missionary's zeal, but her actions were sincere. - Jason Ward<br />
<br />
== 2 Film's relationship to current scholarship or to primary sources from the time ==<br />
This is an accuracy detail that I noticed: When Odessa and Miriam are driving in town and Miriam they notice the policeman closely following them, Odessa says to just slow down some and they should leave her alone, which is what happened. In Mrs. Durr's statements on page 224 she tells that police were cracking down on carpool drivers for going two miles over the speed limit. Odessa was very aware that this was what was happening, not just that the police wee being suspicious. -Whitney Holcomb<br />
<br />
== 3 Movie as primary source about makers/time/setting/genre ==<br />
<br />
== 4 Public reaction/impact ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== 5 Other movies/questions of style/framing/storyline ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== 6 Overall ==<br />
<br />
I thought this movie was kind of short, seeing how much there was to the whole bus boycotts, and Civil Rights Movements. However, I do think the movie was still good, and I was impressed with how much was fit into such a short movie. ~Katherine Stinson~</div>Jward5zkhttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329--Week_12_Questions/Comments329--Week 12 Questions/Comments2008-11-12T03:08:55Z<p>Jward5zk: /* b Inaccurate/issues: */</p>
<hr />
<div>== 1 Movie as secondary source about the past (What did it get right? What did it get wrong?) ==<br />
<br />
This movie got a lot of aspects of the 1950s South correct. For instance, the movie showed in the beginning Odessa's sons bringing home from school fliers about the bus boycott, and how Selma had to pay her bus fare, and then get off to go through the back door of the bus. ~Katherine Stinson~<br />
<br />
== a Right: ==<br />
<br />
As Dr. McClurken mentions, blacks had to pay in the front then get off only to get back on in the back of the bus. I believe that the filmmakers' choice to use that as part of the beginning scene sends a strong emotion through the audience, especially if they didn't know what was going on. -Lauren<br />
<br />
The church has always played an integral role in the black community. I think the movie did a nice job of portraying black churches as the epicenters for the emotional and spiritual struggle through segregation. - Jason Ward<br />
<br />
== b Inaccurate/issues: ==<br />
<br />
I found Miriam's revelation of the importance of Odessa and her desire to help out with the boycott more than slightly unlikely. True, Miriam has a good heart before her revelation, but the fact that she's willing to risk her safety and reputation to help out without too much thought is troubling. When I hear my older Southern relatives speak of blacks or watch their behavior around blacks, I hear the word "nigger" a few times or see them act differently around blacks. Old habits die hard. I don't doubt that some Southern white women did help, ''but'' that they were hesitant and a bit nervous in some layer of their being. Northern women would be more likely to be quicker to help than Southern white women. -Lauren<br />
<br />
I am in no way doubting or disagreeing with your general interpretation Lauren, but I will say that according to the ''Rosa Parks and Virginia Durr'' reading from this week that it was likely that Southern women would help with the boycott. In that reading Durr said, "Then the policemen began giving tickets to the white women who were taking black women home."(225)Regardless of their motives, e.g. wanting their maids to be "fresh and alert" during work, or "I want my maid to be on time", Southern white women were helping with the boycott. As it pertains to the movie, although Miriam starts with the attitude of "I want you to be awake!", the directors give her a biography that explains her sympathy towards the boycotters. Miriam tells the story about traveling with her family to Portland in the 1930s and how the white children stayed in the pool even when the black boys had gotten in. What makes this story believable to me is that Miriam's character was given a broader array of experiences, but not a sanctimonious "I stayed in the pool" mentality. Miriam was definitely a take charge type, with a missionary's zeal, but her actions were sincere. - Jason Ward<br />
<br />
== 2 Film's relationship to current scholarship or to primary sources from the time ==<br />
This is an accuracy detail that I noticed: When Odessa and Miriam are driving in town and Miriam they notice the policeman closely following them, Odessa says to just slow down some and they should leave her alone, which is what happened. In Mrs. Durr's statements on page 224 she tells that police were cracking down on carpool drivers for going two miles over the speed limit. Odessa was very aware that this was what was happening, not just that the police wee being suspicious. -Whitney Holcomb<br />
<br />
== 3 Movie as primary source about makers/time/setting/genre ==<br />
<br />
== 4 Public reaction/impact ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== 5 Other movies/questions of style/framing/storyline ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== 6 Overall ==<br />
<br />
I thought this movie was kind of short, seeing how much there was to the whole bus boycotts, and Civil Rights Movements. However, I do think the movie was still good, and I was impressed with how much was fit into such a short movie. ~Katherine Stinson~</div>Jward5zkhttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329--Week_12_Questions/Comments329--Week 12 Questions/Comments2008-11-12T02:37:54Z<p>Jward5zk: /* a Right: */</p>
<hr />
<div>== 1 Movie as secondary source about the past (What did it get right? What did it get wrong?) ==<br />
<br />
This movie got a lot of aspects of the 1950s South correct. For instance, the movie showed in the beginning Odessa's sons bringing home from school fliers about the bus boycott, and how Selma had to pay her bus fare, and then get off to go through the back door of the bus. ~Katherine Stinson~<br />
<br />
== a Right: ==<br />
<br />
As Dr. McClurken mentions, blacks had to pay in the front then get off only to get back on in the back of the bus. I believe that the filmmakers' choice to use that as part of the beginning scene sends a strong emotion through the audience, especially if they didn't know what was going on. -Lauren<br />
<br />
The church has always played an integral role in the black community. I think the movie did a nice job of portraying black churches as the epicenters for the emotional and spiritual struggle through segregation. - Jason Ward<br />
<br />
== b Inaccurate/issues: ==<br />
<br />
I found Miriam's revelation of the importance of Odessa and her desire to help out with the boycott more than slightly unlikely. True, Miriam has a good heart before her revelation, but the fact that she's willing to risk her safety and reputation to help out without too much thought is troubling. When I hear my older Southern relatives speak of blacks or watch their behavior around blacks, I hear the word "nigger" a few times or see them act differently around blacks. Old habits die hard. I don't doubt that some Southern white women did help, ''but'' that they were hesitant and a bit nervous in some layer of their being. Northern women would be more likely to be quicker to help than Southern white women. -Lauren<br />
<br />
== 2 Film's relationship to current scholarship or to primary sources from the time ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== 3 Movie as primary source about makers/time/setting/genre ==<br />
<br />
== 4 Public reaction/impact ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== 5 Other movies/questions of style/framing/storyline ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== 6 Overall ==<br />
<br />
I thought this movie was kind of short, seeing how much there was to the whole bus boycotts, and Civil Rights Movements. However, I do think the movie was still good, and I was impressed with how much was fit into such a short movie. ~Katherine Stinson~</div>Jward5zkhttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329--Week_11_Questions/Comments329--Week 11 Questions/Comments2008-11-05T20:51:45Z<p>Jward5zk: /* 2 Film's relationship to current scholarship or to primary sources from the time */</p>
<hr />
<div>== 1 Movie as source about the mid-1940s US (What did it get right? What did it get wrong?) ==<br />
<br />
== a Right: ==<br />
Homer's sense of helplessness because he lost both of his hands in the war felt extremely real to me. The fact that the independence he had with his hands is tied to his masculinity is a reality for men then and now. Dependence is a feminine trait, not a masculine trait. -Lauren<br />
<br />
You can see the Post Traumatic Stress with Fred's nightmares. He seems fine for the most part but has repeated nightmares. And you can see that Al has become an alcoholic since returning home. The three men seem to be experience many of the problems that soldiers typically faced upon returning.-- Kellye Sorber<br />
<br />
<br />
I thought the movie did a good job showing the different ways different soldiers reacted to returning home. Al who came back as an alcoholic but got a job probably equivilant to the one he would of had if he never left. Fred who has nightmares and comes home thinking he's a hot shot but then can't find a job or at least a job he wants. Homer who is diabled but doesn't want anyone to look at him differently but the real problem is the way he views himself. - Christine W.<br />
<br />
The movie also showed how not all marriages survived the war. Many soldiers came home to find their families very different from when they had left. Fred's wife Marie is so upset with how different he has become that their marriage ends in divorce. Did many soldiers, like Homer, return home to girlfriends and were able to keep the relationship going? How many worked out nicely in the end? -- Kellye Sorber<br />
<br />
Kellye, 31% of all marriages existing in the US in 1946 ended in divorce that year. This would have been due to a variety of causes, primarily from the readjusting to family or friends. People can change a lot in three years, and remember there were quick marriages like Fred's before deployment, women becoming independent, veterans having mental problems, but also the new marriages like Homer coming home to marry his girl, though I don't know numbers for that, and, of course, the baby boom. I think this film pretty well represents different marriage situations resulting from war. Al kept his marriage and loved his family, but now he drank more. However, I believe that his wife Milly still being the sweetest, most selfless person in the movie is just that image of the ideal wife to a returning husband. -Whitney Holcomb<br />
<br />
According to what we learned in class, the film did a good job showing what returning servicemen had to deal with, in both relationships and in terms of getting back on their feet financially, and I'm glad to be seeing this after the lecture. Most particularly, we see about the provisions in the GI bill for loans, including the 50% explanation, and what that means for men like Mr. Novak; the 52/20 that Homer was able to benefit from; and also the Selective Service Act provision for men to get their old jobs back, with how that works for Al but doesn't help Fred much. One key thing that we can get from this is how the legislation passed in anticipation of after the war was able to benefit some veterans more than others, in different ways, depending on their situations, their readjustments to family life, their dreams, and their past experiences. -Whitney Holcomb<br />
<br />
I liked the way the movie adds little factual tidbits throughout the movie. The instance of Fred going back to the place he worked and being told that he couldn't just get his job back because the Selective Service act technicality that if the business changed ownership he was excluded was a good example of the nice little historical touches in this movie. - Jonathan Bell<br />
<br />
We didn't discuss this in class, but the I think it was common for soldiers fighting in Japan to take items such as samurai swords as souvenirs, like what Al brought home. I interviewed my great-uncle, about his WWII experiences for my oral history project, and he talked about souvenirs he got from Japan, including a samurai sword, which he still has. ~Katherine Stinson~<br />
<br />
The women represented in the film were all very independent. I felt that this was accurate to the time because they were forced to be autonomous while their men were away. This can be demonstrated in Marie taking a job at the nightclub, etc. <br />
In addition - the film portrayed how the workforce had moved on without the soldiers. There were several grumbles about jobs not being safe due to the returning veterans, and it was obviously a source of tension for both sides of the conflict. Finally, in regards to war time production - the scene where they fly in and see all the unused airplanes that will be scrapped is pretty accurate as well. - Elle W.<br />
<br />
The movie does well at showing what soldiers returning from overseas had to face when they came back home. Freddy comes home to learn that his wife has found a new job and moved in with herself, Mr. Stevenson(AL) finds that he is entitled to an even better job (unlike Fred) and Homer faces the tough task of adjusting to life in general with artificial hands. Although it may seem that Homer faces the most psychological challenge, Freddy also faces challenges of confronting his past, as war memories seem to haunt him sporadically throughout the movie. The wives of the soldiers also seem to be portrayed in extremes; Homer's wife supports him and shows her love for him more than the other two and Freddy's wife gave him a hard as they end up divorcing. I would talk more about Al, but he just seems to have no problems at all at adjusting with the exception of maybe an acute fondness of drinking. -James Drury<br />
<br />
Got a few notes on the economic issues portrayed in the film. The movie shows Mr. Cameron making predictions that there will be a depression because of all the soldiers returning home, a widespread thought at the time. Also, I thought other servicemen were guaranteed loans, however Al seems overly hesitant to give a loan to another serviceman because he has no collateral. The movie also makes reference to and shows soldiers receiving unemployment. <br />
<br />
War time savings put a lot of soldiers at an advantage, or at least helped make their transition home a lot easier. Fred mentions he saved 1000 or received it from the treasury somehow. That seems like a lot of money in an economy when groceries might have been a few cents and the most expensive of perfumes were a few bucks. How did he go through all that money so fast?--Especially since the time span of the movie looks to only be a few months if that.--James Drury<br />
<br />
I thought it was interesting that the returning soldiers didn't let Homers lose of hands effect the relationship. they are initially thrown off but accept it in a considerably short time. But his family take a long time to accept his situation. I feel this is a good description of how families had a hard time dealing with returning soldiers, and how they often assumed that soldier was psychologically changed.-- Matt DeMarr<br />
<br />
I felt that the depiction of the mental state of all three men was an accurate account of how some people were after the war. Homer mostly fit right back in no problem, but he had his disability to work through, which many families had to deal with after the war. Fred had the marriage right before the war, that in ended in divorce after the war. Al was the example of the returning veteran who had been married long before the war, and dealt with a drinking problem after the war. I felt the movie accurately depicted at least three varieties of people's experiences after the war. --Ashley Wilkins<br />
<br />
== b Inaccurate/issues: ==<br />
The depiction of Peggy and Marie was very problematic and propaganda-ish. Peggy is the good girl who is patriotic and works as a nurse, helping others, while Marie is a vain and flirtatious woman who works at a nightclub for a time and resents Fred for making her quit her job. All Marie wants to do is to go out while Peggy is more than happy staying at home shucking peas and cooking dinner for Fred and her family. Not ''all'' women were either extreme! It's the virgin/whore scenario. Oh, and the guy will always end up with the virgin (ie Fred and Peggy "the homewrecker"). This is only typecasting women in one of two parties while the male characters were much more complex.-Lauren<br />
<br />
I thought it was kind of a problem that the only minorities shown were in minor servant like positions. Also it was troubling that they didn't really show the roles women had taken during the war, it just showed their post war roles. - Christine W.<br />
<br />
The representation of minorities in this movie would have bothered me more if they were showing a city or other type of diverse community. For a small town during this period in time it was quite possible depending on the location that there was little to know racial or ethnic diversity. This fact, however is also the most troubling feature of the movie because it is representing soldiers experiences, but soldiers experiences would be different depending on where they went back too. The whole movie is from this romantic small town cliche. - Jonathan Bell<br />
<br />
Agreeing with Jonathan, the movie is limited to three experiences in one town. There's no broad sense of understanding how many troops actually came back and how they would have impacted societal, economic, and political realms of small towns, states, and the nation. -JamesD<br />
<br />
The minority issue was a HUGE issue for me too as I watched the film, those of us who watched it at the regular screening actually started counting at one point - I believe that there were only three black people that I remember in the film.<br />
<br />
The issue I had might not be one at all. In the unemployment line there were women. I thought the scene was depicting the unemployment checks being handed out to veterans, I thought women didn't get veterans pay for many years. Or was it just unemployment in general? --Ashley Wilkins<br />
<br />
== 2 Film's relationship to current scholarship or to primary sources from the time ==<br />
<br />
The soldiers in this movie are really broader symbols of the various types of problems soldiers faced returning home. The navy man represented returning soldiers dealing with a debilitating injury also noted he was taking payments for the GI Bill. The army man represented the soldiers who returned home, but had questions about their family life, but he is also represented as the men who returned home to be successful (the success meant not taking the payments from the GI bill). The air force men represents men who returned home to face marriage problems resulting in divorce and had trouble adjusting to society in relation to the GI bill he represents those not taking payments due to issues of pride. All of these attributes are characteristics discussed about soldiers in the class lecture. - Jonathan Bell<br />
<br />
<br />
Something that struck me from a portion of the reading was how hard it must have been on loved ones who were awaiting their sons, brothers, husbands or boyfriends return home. In the reading it mentions that letters are sent to wounded soldiers family members. The letters weren't specific - just a "seriously injured" category and a forwarding address. I can't even imagine having that little information about a loved one. All in all, I think that the film primarily focuses its attention on how it would have been to be a veteran returning to home, and somewhat avoided the situation of how life really was for those who had been left behind. - Elle Weaver<br />
<br />
When Fred is packing up to leave Boone City, he lets his parents keep the citations for his medals. He tells them they just came with his K-rations, and they don't mean much to him. Does this mean that his citation was like a fill-in-the-blank that lots of people in his situation (whatever exactly that may have been) got, something that they were all issued? Or that the citation was just so insignificant that it merely came with rations? Paul Fussell reveals the dishonesty behind writing medal citations, and Fred's attitude toward his is that it is also essentially meaningless. Whatever it may be, his parents take pride in it, so that's one mission accomplished. -Whitney Holcomb<br />
<br />
Ah, the ubiquitous ''Gone with the Wind''! Fussell talks about his arrival at the field hospital by saying, “It was like the scene of the aftermath of the Battle of Atlanta in ''Gone with the Wind''”. Whether it was an exaggeration or not, Fussell uses this comparison to show the carnage of war (and everyone would have gotten it!). The other part of the reading that struck me as ''Gone with the Wind''-esque was his discussion of the roles of nurses. Obviously, WWII nurses had the job of mending and dealing with soldiers in a very medical way, but they still seemed to serve the same kind of comforting role as Scarlet did in the Civil War. Fussell wrote about the nurse’s “freshness, affection, and good cheer” and how they shared “inside jokes”. It seems that the intangible qualities of nurses were just as important to a soldier’s psychological condition as their medical services were to a soldier’s physical well-being. – Jason Ward<br />
<br />
== 3 Movie as primary source about makers/time/setting/genre ==<br />
<br />
<br />
Since the movie was made during the time it represents, I feel that most of the sentiments were fairly accurate. Many soldiers were facing similar problems to those of Al, Fred and Homer. It is also somewhat of a propaganda film because it shows all the relationships and problems being solved and ending happily, when in reality this did not happen. Many of the returning soldiers were never the same and faced life long problems as a result of the war. At the same time they wanted the movie to be encouraging to all of these men that returned to find life different, they wanted to give them hope and everyone else that they had a chance to make things happy again. -- Kellye Sorber<br />
<br />
I agree with Kellye I think the movie does a good job showing the opptimism the country had for its future as well as the fear of more war or depression. It was trying to be positive while dealing with very real fears. - Christine W.<br />
<br />
== 4 Public reaction/impact ==<br />
<br />
Mr. Stevenson was surprised that his maid had vanished and his daughter had taken her place. Peggy then makes a comment about taking a class in domestic science, an interesting title. Was this a common course in most school's curriculum during the World War 2 years? -James Drury<br />
<br />
== 5 Other movies/questions of style/framing/storyline ==<br />
<br />
This movies use of the romantic small town seems to be a greater symbol of what the creators are portraying as American. Additionally the lack of racial or ethnic diversity in the town is also a part of this symbolic message. In the end everyone also lives happily ever after making this movie follow a cliche story line. - Jonathan Bell<br />
<br />
There were a lot of generational tensions going on in the movie… about twenty years before generational tensions were “in”. The scene in Butch’s pub where Al pressures Fred into abandoning his feelings and intentions with Peggy reminded me of the scene in ''The Graduate'' when Mr. Robinson said to Ben, “I want you to stay away from Elaine”. In both examples we see a traditionally strong father figure dissuading a “drifting”/ unconventional suitor from pursuing a girl who deserves nothing but the best. Even though the mid-1940s and the late-1960s were radically different for many reasons, the uncertainty and optimism that existed in those two eras made the storyline of ‘love conquering all’ very appealing. It seems as though “Father Knows Best” was a notion reserved for the 1950s! - Jason Ward<br />
<br />
I thought that the story was and interesting concept. They took three men who returned and all are of different ranks. On their way home Fred is the man of power and is looked up to by the other two men but as the story continues he is the one who has the hardest fall. Al is of a lower rank but has rising power through out the story. Homer has a difficult time just like the other two but it has more to with psychology. His adjustment is considerably better at least with money then that of Fred. The story is well written and very compelling.-- Matt DeMarr<br />
<br />
== 6 Overall ==<br />
<br />
I really loved this movie, I kept cheering on the love story the entire time and was happy that Fred's marriage ended in divorce. - Kellye Sorber<br />
<br />
I like this movie better than any that we've seen so far. It was more engaging and had good suspense. I found myself rooting for Fred and Peggy and disliking Marie (which we're supposed to do), and cheers even erupted as we watched Peggy say that she would break up Fred's marriage. I liked Homer and really wanted him to ask Wilma to marry him.... I felt the connections that I think a viewer is supposed to feel and the characters they want to succeed. I didn't get that from any of the other movies. That may have something to do with the fact that the characters are all made up and not to be compared with true figures and facts. In sum, I guess I liked it because it was meant to be fiction, rather than history. I wasn't judging it like I judge historical movies. -Whitney Holcomb<br />
<br />
I think this movie did such a good job portraying the time period accurately because the movie was made during the time period it depicts. For a movie such as this, not a whole lot of research would have been necessary since the people involved with the movie are living in the time period the movie is supposed to portray. I also think that this movie is very relevant to audiences today, just as it was when it first came out in 1946. Today, we have soldiers returning home from Iraq, and some of them are facing problems similar to those of the WWII veterans, such as post traumatic stress disorder, combat related injuries and disabilities, etc. -Katherine Stinson<br />
<br />
It would have been really cool to see a post- WWII movie done with the same type of concept as ''Crash''. You know, have five to eight different storylines representing different racial and socioeconomic backgrounds from different parts of the country. To a certain extent, filmmakers have to rely on stereotypes in order to connect with the audience, but by widening the scope of post- war situations, the viewer could gain a deeper understanding of what the time was like. I think ''Best Years of Our Lives'' does a remarkable job of depicting the realities of post-war, white, small town America.– Jason Ward<br />
<br />
Overall, I really liked the film. The film was longer, yes, but that didn't hamper it at all! I meant to only watch 1/2 on Tuesday and the other half on Wednesday, but I ended up watching about 130 minutes of it the first day because I wasn't paying attention and was enjoying the film! The only thing that made me stop watching was my husband texting me saying "I just got off the train be by the house in 5 minutes to get you to go vote" and I was like "Eep!" So I liked the movie overall and would most definitely recommend it to other people! -- Ashley Wilkins</div>Jward5zkhttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329--Week_11_Questions/Comments329--Week 11 Questions/Comments2008-11-05T20:26:02Z<p>Jward5zk: /* 6 Overall */</p>
<hr />
<div>== 1 Movie as source about the mid-1940s US (What did it get right? What did it get wrong?) ==<br />
<br />
== a Right: ==<br />
Homer's sense of helplessness because he lost both of his hands in the war felt extremely real to me. The fact that the independence he had with his hands is tied to his masculinity is a reality for men then and now. Dependence is a feminine trait, not a masculine trait. -Lauren<br />
<br />
You can see the Post Traumatic Stress with Fred's nightmares. He seems fine for the most part but has repeated nightmares. And you can see that Al has become an alcoholic since returning home. The three men seem to be experience many of the problems that soldiers typically faced upon returning.-- Kellye Sorber<br />
<br />
<br />
I thought the movie did a good job showing the different ways different soldiers reacted to returning home. Al who came back as an alcoholic but got a job probably equivilant to the one he would of had if he never left. Fred who has nightmares and comes home thinking he's a hot shot but then can't find a job or at least a job he wants. Homer who is diabled but doesn't want anyone to look at him differently but the real problem is the way he views himself. - Christine W.<br />
<br />
The movie also showed how not all marriages survived the war. Many soldiers came home to find their families very different from when they had left. Fred's wife Marie is so upset with how different he has become that their marriage ends in divorce. Did many soldiers, like Homer, return home to girlfriends and were able to keep the relationship going? How many worked out nicely in the end? -- Kellye Sorber<br />
<br />
Kellye, 31% of all marriages existing in the US in 1946 ended in divorce that year. This would have been due to a variety of causes, primarily from the readjusting to family or friends. People can change a lot in three years, and remember there were quick marriages like Fred's before deployment, women becoming independent, veterans having mental problems, but also the new marriages like Homer coming home to marry his girl, though I don't know numbers for that, and, of course, the baby boom. I think this film pretty well represents different marriage situations resulting from war. Al kept his marriage and loved his family, but now he drank more. However, I believe that his wife Milly still being the sweetest, most selfless person in the movie is just that image of the ideal wife to a returning husband. -Whitney Holcomb<br />
<br />
According to what we learned in class, the film did a good job showing what returning servicemen had to deal with, in both relationships and in terms of getting back on their feet financially, and I'm glad to be seeing this after the lecture. Most particularly, we see about the provisions in the GI bill for loans, including the 50% explanation, and what that means for men like Mr. Novak; the 52/20 that Homer was able to benefit from; and also the Selective Service Act provision for men to get their old jobs back, with how that works for Al but doesn't help Fred much. One key thing that we can get from this is how the legislation passed in anticipation of after the war was able to benefit some veterans more than others, in different ways, depending on their situations, their readjustments to family life, their dreams, and their past experiences. -Whitney Holcomb<br />
<br />
I liked the way the movie adds little factual tidbits throughout the movie. The instance of Fred going back to the place he worked and being told that he couldn't just get his job back because the Selective Service act technicality that if the business changed ownership he was excluded was a good example of the nice little historical touches in this movie. - Jonathan Bell<br />
<br />
We didn't discuss this in class, but the I think it was common for soldiers fighting in Japan to take items such as samurai swords as souvenirs, like what Al brought home. I interviewed my great-uncle, about his WWII experiences for my oral history project, and he talked about souvenirs he got from Japan, including a samurai sword, which he still has. ~Katherine Stinson~<br />
<br />
The women represented in the film were all very independent. I felt that this was accurate to the time because they were forced to be autonomous while their men were away. This can be demonstrated in Marie taking a job at the nightclub, etc. <br />
In addition - the film portrayed how the workforce had moved on without the soldiers. There were several grumbles about jobs not being safe due to the returning veterans, and it was obviously a source of tension for both sides of the conflict. Finally, in regards to war time production - the scene where they fly in and see all the unused airplanes that will be scrapped is pretty accurate as well. - Elle W.<br />
<br />
The movie does well at showing what soldiers returning from overseas had to face when they came back home. Freddy comes home to learn that his wife has found a new job and moved in with herself, Mr. Stevenson(AL) finds that he is entitled to an even better job (unlike Fred) and Homer faces the tough task of adjusting to life in general with artificial hands. Although it may seem that Homer faces the most psychological challenge, Freddy also faces challenges of confronting his past, as war memories seem to haunt him sporadically throughout the movie. The wives of the soldiers also seem to be portrayed in extremes; Homer's wife supports him and shows her love for him more than the other two and Freddy's wife gave him a hard as they end up divorcing. I would talk more about Al, but he just seems to have no problems at all at adjusting with the exception of maybe an acute fondness of drinking. -James Drury<br />
<br />
Got a few notes on the economic issues portrayed in the film. The movie shows Mr. Cameron making predictions that there will be a depression because of all the soldiers returning home, a widespread thought at the time. Also, I thought other servicemen were guaranteed loans, however Al seems overly hesitant to give a loan to another serviceman because he has no collateral. The movie also makes reference to and shows soldiers receiving unemployment. <br />
<br />
War time savings put a lot of soldiers at an advantage, or at least helped make their transition home a lot easier. Fred mentions he saved 1000 or received it from the treasury somehow. That seems like a lot of money in an economy when groceries might have been a few cents and the most expensive of perfumes were a few bucks. How did he go through all that money so fast?--Especially since the time span of the movie looks to only be a few months if that.--James Drury<br />
<br />
== b Inaccurate/issues: ==<br />
The depiction of Peggy and Marie was very problematic and propaganda-ish. Peggy is the good girl who is patriotic and works as a nurse, helping others, while Marie is a vain and flirtatious woman who works at a nightclub for a time and resents Fred for making her quit her job. All Marie wants to do is to go out while Peggy is more than happy staying at home shucking peas and cooking dinner for Fred and her family. Not ''all'' women were either extreme! It's the virgin/whore scenario. Oh, and the guy will always end up with the virgin (ie Fred and Peggy "the homewrecker"). This is only typecasting women in one of two parties while the male characters were much more complex.-Lauren<br />
<br />
I thought it was kind of a problem that the only minorities shown were in minor servant like positions. Also it was troubling that they didn't really show the roles women had taken during the war, it just showed their post war roles. - Christine W.<br />
<br />
The representation of minorities in this movie would have bothered me more if they were showing a city or other type of diverse community. For a small town during this period in time it was quite possible depending on the location that there was little to know racial or ethnic diversity. This fact, however is also the most troubling feature of the movie because it is representing soldiers experiences, but soldiers experiences would be different depending on where they went back too. The whole movie is from this romantic small town cliche. - Jonathan Bell<br />
<br />
Agreeing with Jonathan, the movie is limited to three experiences in one town. There's no broad sense of understanding how many troops actually came back and how they would have impacted societal, economic, and political realms of small towns, states, and the nation. -JamesD<br />
<br />
The minority issue was a HUGE issue for me too as I watched the film, those of us who watched it at the regular screening actually started counting at one point - I believe that there were only three black people that I remember in the film.<br />
<br />
== 2 Film's relationship to current scholarship or to primary sources from the time ==<br />
<br />
The soldiers in this movie are really broader symbols of the various types of problems soldiers faced returning home. The navy man represented returning soldiers dealing with a debilitating injury also noted he was taking payments for the GI Bill. The army man represented the soldiers who returned home, but had questions about their family life, but he is also represented as the men who returned home to be successful (the success meant not taking the payments from the GI bill). The air force men represents men who returned home to face marriage problems resulting in divorce and had trouble adjusting to society in relation to the GI bill he represents those not taking payments due to issues of pride. All of these attributes are characteristics discussed about soldiers in the class lecture. - Jonathan Bell<br />
<br />
<br />
Something that struck me from a portion of the reading was how hard it must have been on loved ones who were awaiting their sons, brothers, husbands or boyfriends return home. In the reading it mentions that letters are sent to wounded soldiers family members. The letters weren't specific - just a "seriously injured" category and a forwarding address. I can't even imagine having that little information about a loved one. All in all, I think that the film primarily focuses its attention on how it would have been to be a veteran returning to home, and somewhat avoided the situation of how life really was for those who had been left behind. - Elle Weaver<br />
<br />
When Fred is packing up to leave Boone City, he lets his parents keep the citations for his medals. He tells them they just came with his K-rations, and they don't mean much to him. Does this mean that his citation was like a fill-in-the-blank that lots of people in his situation (whatever exactly that may have been) got, something that they were all issued? Or that the citation was just so insignificant that it merely came with rations? Paul Fussell reveals the dishonesty behind writing medal citations, and Fred's attitude toward his is that it is also essentially meaningless. Whatever it may be, his parents take pride in it, so that's one mission accomplished. -Whitney Holcomb<br />
<br />
== 3 Movie as primary source about makers/time/setting/genre ==<br />
<br />
<br />
Since the movie was made during the time it represents, I feel that most of the sentiments were fairly accurate. Many soldiers were facing similar problems to those of Al, Fred and Homer. It is also somewhat of a propaganda film because it shows all the relationships and problems being solved and ending happily, when in reality this did not happen. Many of the returning soldiers were never the same and faced life long problems as a result of the war. At the same time they wanted the movie to be encouraging to all of these men that returned to find life different, they wanted to give them hope and everyone else that they had a chance to make things happy again. -- Kellye Sorber<br />
<br />
I agree with Kellye I think the movie does a good job showing the opptimism the country had for its future as well as the fear of more war or depression. It was trying to be positive while dealing with very real fears. - Christine W.<br />
<br />
== 4 Public reaction/impact ==<br />
<br />
Mr. Stevenson was surprised that his maid had vanished and his daughter had taken her place. Peggy then makes a comment about taking a class in domestic science, an interesting title. Was this a common course in most school's curriculum during the World War 2 years? -James Drury<br />
<br />
== 5 Other movies/questions of style/framing/storyline ==<br />
<br />
This movies use of the romantic small town seems to be a greater symbol of what the creators are portraying as American. Additionally the lack of racial or ethnic diversity in the town is also a part of this symbolic message. In the end everyone also lives happily ever after making this movie follow a cliche story line. - Jonathan Bell<br />
<br />
There were a lot of generational tensions going on in the movie… about twenty years before generational tensions were “in”. The scene in Butch’s pub where Al pressures Fred into abandoning his feelings and intentions with Peggy reminded me of the scene in ''The Graduate'' when Mr. Robinson said to Ben, “I want you to stay away from Elaine”. In both examples we see a traditionally strong father figure dissuading a “drifting”/ unconventional suitor from pursuing a girl who deserves nothing but the best. Even though the mid-1940s and the late-1960s were radically different for many reasons, the uncertainty and optimism that existed in those two eras made the storyline of ‘love conquering all’ very appealing. It seems as though “Father Knows Best” was a notion reserved for the 1950s! - Jason Ward<br />
<br />
== 6 Overall ==<br />
<br />
I really loved this movie, I kept cheering on the love story the entire time and was happy that Fred's marriage ended in divorce. - Kellye Sorber<br />
<br />
I like this movie better than any that we've seen so far. It was more engaging and had good suspense. I found myself rooting for Fred and Peggy and disliking Marie (which we're supposed to do), and cheers even erupted as we watched Peggy say that she would break up Fred's marriage. I liked Homer and really wanted him to ask Wilma to marry him.... I felt the connections that I think a viewer is supposed to feel and the characters they want to succeed. I didn't get that from any of the other movies. That may have something to do with the fact that the characters are all made up and not to be compared with true figures and facts. In sum, I guess I liked it because it was meant to be fiction, rather than history. I wasn't judging it like I judge historical movies. -Whitney Holcomb<br />
<br />
I think this movie did such a good job portraying the time period accurately because the movie was made during the time period it depicts. For a movie such as this, not a whole lot of research would have been necessary since the people involved with the movie are living in the time period the movie is supposed to portray. I also think that this movie is very relevant to audiences today, just as it was when it first came out in 1946. Today, we have soldiers returning home from Iraq, and some of them are facing problems similar to those of the WWII veterans, such as post traumatic stress disorder, combat related injuries and disabilities, etc. -Katherine Stinson<br />
<br />
It would have been really cool to see a post- WWII movie done with the same type of concept as ''Crash''. You know, have five to eight different storylines representing different racial and socioeconomic backgrounds from different parts of the country. To a certain extent, filmmakers have to rely on stereotypes in order to connect with the audience, but by widening the scope of post- war situations, the viewer could gain a deeper understanding of what the time was like. I think ''Best Years of Our Lives'' does a remarkable job of depicting the realities of post-war, white, small town America.– Jason Ward</div>Jward5zkhttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329--Week_11_Questions/Comments329--Week 11 Questions/Comments2008-11-05T20:25:40Z<p>Jward5zk: /* 6 Overall */</p>
<hr />
<div>== 1 Movie as source about the mid-1940s US (What did it get right? What did it get wrong?) ==<br />
<br />
== a Right: ==<br />
Homer's sense of helplessness because he lost both of his hands in the war felt extremely real to me. The fact that the independence he had with his hands is tied to his masculinity is a reality for men then and now. Dependence is a feminine trait, not a masculine trait. -Lauren<br />
<br />
You can see the Post Traumatic Stress with Fred's nightmares. He seems fine for the most part but has repeated nightmares. And you can see that Al has become an alcoholic since returning home. The three men seem to be experience many of the problems that soldiers typically faced upon returning.-- Kellye Sorber<br />
<br />
<br />
I thought the movie did a good job showing the different ways different soldiers reacted to returning home. Al who came back as an alcoholic but got a job probably equivilant to the one he would of had if he never left. Fred who has nightmares and comes home thinking he's a hot shot but then can't find a job or at least a job he wants. Homer who is diabled but doesn't want anyone to look at him differently but the real problem is the way he views himself. - Christine W.<br />
<br />
The movie also showed how not all marriages survived the war. Many soldiers came home to find their families very different from when they had left. Fred's wife Marie is so upset with how different he has become that their marriage ends in divorce. Did many soldiers, like Homer, return home to girlfriends and were able to keep the relationship going? How many worked out nicely in the end? -- Kellye Sorber<br />
<br />
Kellye, 31% of all marriages existing in the US in 1946 ended in divorce that year. This would have been due to a variety of causes, primarily from the readjusting to family or friends. People can change a lot in three years, and remember there were quick marriages like Fred's before deployment, women becoming independent, veterans having mental problems, but also the new marriages like Homer coming home to marry his girl, though I don't know numbers for that, and, of course, the baby boom. I think this film pretty well represents different marriage situations resulting from war. Al kept his marriage and loved his family, but now he drank more. However, I believe that his wife Milly still being the sweetest, most selfless person in the movie is just that image of the ideal wife to a returning husband. -Whitney Holcomb<br />
<br />
According to what we learned in class, the film did a good job showing what returning servicemen had to deal with, in both relationships and in terms of getting back on their feet financially, and I'm glad to be seeing this after the lecture. Most particularly, we see about the provisions in the GI bill for loans, including the 50% explanation, and what that means for men like Mr. Novak; the 52/20 that Homer was able to benefit from; and also the Selective Service Act provision for men to get their old jobs back, with how that works for Al but doesn't help Fred much. One key thing that we can get from this is how the legislation passed in anticipation of after the war was able to benefit some veterans more than others, in different ways, depending on their situations, their readjustments to family life, their dreams, and their past experiences. -Whitney Holcomb<br />
<br />
I liked the way the movie adds little factual tidbits throughout the movie. The instance of Fred going back to the place he worked and being told that he couldn't just get his job back because the Selective Service act technicality that if the business changed ownership he was excluded was a good example of the nice little historical touches in this movie. - Jonathan Bell<br />
<br />
We didn't discuss this in class, but the I think it was common for soldiers fighting in Japan to take items such as samurai swords as souvenirs, like what Al brought home. I interviewed my great-uncle, about his WWII experiences for my oral history project, and he talked about souvenirs he got from Japan, including a samurai sword, which he still has. ~Katherine Stinson~<br />
<br />
The women represented in the film were all very independent. I felt that this was accurate to the time because they were forced to be autonomous while their men were away. This can be demonstrated in Marie taking a job at the nightclub, etc. <br />
In addition - the film portrayed how the workforce had moved on without the soldiers. There were several grumbles about jobs not being safe due to the returning veterans, and it was obviously a source of tension for both sides of the conflict. Finally, in regards to war time production - the scene where they fly in and see all the unused airplanes that will be scrapped is pretty accurate as well. - Elle W.<br />
<br />
The movie does well at showing what soldiers returning from overseas had to face when they came back home. Freddy comes home to learn that his wife has found a new job and moved in with herself, Mr. Stevenson(AL) finds that he is entitled to an even better job (unlike Fred) and Homer faces the tough task of adjusting to life in general with artificial hands. Although it may seem that Homer faces the most psychological challenge, Freddy also faces challenges of confronting his past, as war memories seem to haunt him sporadically throughout the movie. The wives of the soldiers also seem to be portrayed in extremes; Homer's wife supports him and shows her love for him more than the other two and Freddy's wife gave him a hard as they end up divorcing. I would talk more about Al, but he just seems to have no problems at all at adjusting with the exception of maybe an acute fondness of drinking. -James Drury<br />
<br />
Got a few notes on the economic issues portrayed in the film. The movie shows Mr. Cameron making predictions that there will be a depression because of all the soldiers returning home, a widespread thought at the time. Also, I thought other servicemen were guaranteed loans, however Al seems overly hesitant to give a loan to another serviceman because he has no collateral. The movie also makes reference to and shows soldiers receiving unemployment. <br />
<br />
War time savings put a lot of soldiers at an advantage, or at least helped make their transition home a lot easier. Fred mentions he saved 1000 or received it from the treasury somehow. That seems like a lot of money in an economy when groceries might have been a few cents and the most expensive of perfumes were a few bucks. How did he go through all that money so fast?--Especially since the time span of the movie looks to only be a few months if that.--James Drury<br />
<br />
== b Inaccurate/issues: ==<br />
The depiction of Peggy and Marie was very problematic and propaganda-ish. Peggy is the good girl who is patriotic and works as a nurse, helping others, while Marie is a vain and flirtatious woman who works at a nightclub for a time and resents Fred for making her quit her job. All Marie wants to do is to go out while Peggy is more than happy staying at home shucking peas and cooking dinner for Fred and her family. Not ''all'' women were either extreme! It's the virgin/whore scenario. Oh, and the guy will always end up with the virgin (ie Fred and Peggy "the homewrecker"). This is only typecasting women in one of two parties while the male characters were much more complex.-Lauren<br />
<br />
I thought it was kind of a problem that the only minorities shown were in minor servant like positions. Also it was troubling that they didn't really show the roles women had taken during the war, it just showed their post war roles. - Christine W.<br />
<br />
The representation of minorities in this movie would have bothered me more if they were showing a city or other type of diverse community. For a small town during this period in time it was quite possible depending on the location that there was little to know racial or ethnic diversity. This fact, however is also the most troubling feature of the movie because it is representing soldiers experiences, but soldiers experiences would be different depending on where they went back too. The whole movie is from this romantic small town cliche. - Jonathan Bell<br />
<br />
Agreeing with Jonathan, the movie is limited to three experiences in one town. There's no broad sense of understanding how many troops actually came back and how they would have impacted societal, economic, and political realms of small towns, states, and the nation. -JamesD<br />
<br />
The minority issue was a HUGE issue for me too as I watched the film, those of us who watched it at the regular screening actually started counting at one point - I believe that there were only three black people that I remember in the film.<br />
<br />
== 2 Film's relationship to current scholarship or to primary sources from the time ==<br />
<br />
The soldiers in this movie are really broader symbols of the various types of problems soldiers faced returning home. The navy man represented returning soldiers dealing with a debilitating injury also noted he was taking payments for the GI Bill. The army man represented the soldiers who returned home, but had questions about their family life, but he is also represented as the men who returned home to be successful (the success meant not taking the payments from the GI bill). The air force men represents men who returned home to face marriage problems resulting in divorce and had trouble adjusting to society in relation to the GI bill he represents those not taking payments due to issues of pride. All of these attributes are characteristics discussed about soldiers in the class lecture. - Jonathan Bell<br />
<br />
<br />
Something that struck me from a portion of the reading was how hard it must have been on loved ones who were awaiting their sons, brothers, husbands or boyfriends return home. In the reading it mentions that letters are sent to wounded soldiers family members. The letters weren't specific - just a "seriously injured" category and a forwarding address. I can't even imagine having that little information about a loved one. All in all, I think that the film primarily focuses its attention on how it would have been to be a veteran returning to home, and somewhat avoided the situation of how life really was for those who had been left behind. - Elle Weaver<br />
<br />
When Fred is packing up to leave Boone City, he lets his parents keep the citations for his medals. He tells them they just came with his K-rations, and they don't mean much to him. Does this mean that his citation was like a fill-in-the-blank that lots of people in his situation (whatever exactly that may have been) got, something that they were all issued? Or that the citation was just so insignificant that it merely came with rations? Paul Fussell reveals the dishonesty behind writing medal citations, and Fred's attitude toward his is that it is also essentially meaningless. Whatever it may be, his parents take pride in it, so that's one mission accomplished. -Whitney Holcomb<br />
<br />
== 3 Movie as primary source about makers/time/setting/genre ==<br />
<br />
<br />
Since the movie was made during the time it represents, I feel that most of the sentiments were fairly accurate. Many soldiers were facing similar problems to those of Al, Fred and Homer. It is also somewhat of a propaganda film because it shows all the relationships and problems being solved and ending happily, when in reality this did not happen. Many of the returning soldiers were never the same and faced life long problems as a result of the war. At the same time they wanted the movie to be encouraging to all of these men that returned to find life different, they wanted to give them hope and everyone else that they had a chance to make things happy again. -- Kellye Sorber<br />
<br />
I agree with Kellye I think the movie does a good job showing the opptimism the country had for its future as well as the fear of more war or depression. It was trying to be positive while dealing with very real fears. - Christine W.<br />
<br />
== 4 Public reaction/impact ==<br />
<br />
Mr. Stevenson was surprised that his maid had vanished and his daughter had taken her place. Peggy then makes a comment about taking a class in domestic science, an interesting title. Was this a common course in most school's curriculum during the World War 2 years? -James Drury<br />
<br />
== 5 Other movies/questions of style/framing/storyline ==<br />
<br />
This movies use of the romantic small town seems to be a greater symbol of what the creators are portraying as American. Additionally the lack of racial or ethnic diversity in the town is also a part of this symbolic message. In the end everyone also lives happily ever after making this movie follow a cliche story line. - Jonathan Bell<br />
<br />
There were a lot of generational tensions going on in the movie… about twenty years before generational tensions were “in”. The scene in Butch’s pub where Al pressures Fred into abandoning his feelings and intentions with Peggy reminded me of the scene in ''The Graduate'' when Mr. Robinson said to Ben, “I want you to stay away from Elaine”. In both examples we see a traditionally strong father figure dissuading a “drifting”/ unconventional suitor from pursuing a girl who deserves nothing but the best. Even though the mid-1940s and the late-1960s were radically different for many reasons, the uncertainty and optimism that existed in those two eras made the storyline of ‘love conquering all’ very appealing. It seems as though “Father Knows Best” was a notion reserved for the 1950s! - Jason Ward<br />
<br />
== 6 Overall ==<br />
<br />
I really loved this movie, I kept cheering on the love story the entire time and was happy that Fred's marriage ended in divorce. - Kellye Sorber<br />
<br />
I like this movie better than any that we've seen so far. It was more engaging and had good suspense. I found myself rooting for Fred and Peggy and disliking Marie (which we're supposed to do), and cheers even erupted as we watched Peggy say that she would break up Fred's marriage. I liked Homer and really wanted him to ask Wilma to marry him.... I felt the connections that I think a viewer is supposed to feel and the characters they want to succeed. I didn't get that from any of the other movies. That may have something to do with the fact that the characters are all made up and not to be compared with true figures and facts. In sum, I guess I liked it because it was meant to be fiction, rather than history. I wasn't judging it like I judge historical movies. -Whitney Holcomb<br />
<br />
I think this movie did such a good job portraying the time period accurately because the movie was made during the time period it depicts. For a movie such as this, not a whole lot of research would have been necessary since the people involved with the movie are living in the time period the movie is supposed to portray. I also think that this movie is very relevant to audiences today, just as it was when it first came out in 1946. Today, we have soldiers returning home from Iraq, and some of them are facing problems similar to those of the WWII veterans, such as post traumatic stress disorder, combat related injuries and disabilities, etc. -Katherine Stinson<br />
<br />
It would have been really cool to see a post- WWII movie done with the same type of concept as Crash. You know, have five to eight different storylines representing different racial and socioeconomic backgrounds from different parts of the country. To a certain extent, filmmakers have to rely on stereotypes in order to connect with the audience, but by widening the scope of post- war situations, the viewer could gain a deeper understanding of what the time was like. I think ''Best Years of Our Lives'' does a remarkable job of depicting the realities of post-war, white, small town America.– Jason Ward</div>Jward5zkhttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329--Week_11_Questions/Comments329--Week 11 Questions/Comments2008-11-05T19:59:58Z<p>Jward5zk: /* 5 Other movies/questions of style/framing/storyline */</p>
<hr />
<div>== 1 Movie as source about the mid-1940s US (What did it get right? What did it get wrong?) ==<br />
<br />
== a Right: ==<br />
Homer's sense of helplessness because he lost both of his hands in the war felt extremely real to me. The fact that the independence he had with his hands is tied to his masculinity is a reality for men then and now. Dependence is a feminine trait, not a masculine trait. -Lauren<br />
<br />
You can see the Post Traumatic Stress with Fred's nightmares. He seems fine for the most part but has repeated nightmares. And you can see that Al has become an alcoholic since returning home. The three men seem to be experience many of the problems that soldiers typically faced upon returning.-- Kellye Sorber<br />
<br />
<br />
I thought the movie did a good job showing the different ways different soldiers reacted to returning home. Al who came back as an alcoholic but got a job probably equivilant to the one he would of had if he never left. Fred who has nightmares and comes home thinking he's a hot shot but then can't find a job or at least a job he wants. Homer who is diabled but doesn't want anyone to look at him differently but the real problem is the way he views himself. - Christine W.<br />
<br />
The movie also showed how not all marriages survived the war. Many soldiers came home to find their families very different from when they had left. Fred's wife Marie is so upset with how different he has become that their marriage ends in divorce. Did many soldiers, like Homer, return home to girlfriends and were able to keep the relationship going? How many worked out nicely in the end? -- Kellye Sorber<br />
<br />
Kellye, 31% of all marriages existing in the US in 1946 ended in divorce that year. This would have been due to a variety of causes, primarily from the readjusting to family or friends. People can change a lot in three years, and remember there were quick marriages like Fred's before deployment, women becoming independent, veterans having mental problems, but also the new marriages like Homer coming home to marry his girl, though I don't know numbers for that, and, of course, the baby boom. I think this film pretty well represents different marriage situations resulting from war. Al kept his marriage and loved his family, but now he drank more. However, I believe that his wife Milly still being the sweetest, most selfless person in the movie is just that image of the ideal wife to a returning husband. -Whitney Holcomb<br />
<br />
According to what we learned in class, the film did a good job showing what returning servicemen had to deal with, in both relationships and in terms of getting back on their feet financially, and I'm glad to be seeing this after the lecture. Most particularly, we see about the provisions in the GI bill for loans, including the 50% explanation, and what that means for men like Mr. Novak; the 52/20 that Homer was able to benefit from; and also the Selective Service Act provision for men to get their old jobs back, with how that works for Al but doesn't help Fred much. One key thing that we can get from this is how the legislation passed in anticipation of after the war was able to benefit some veterans more than others, in different ways, depending on their situations, their readjustments to family life, their dreams, and their past experiences. -Whitney Holcomb<br />
<br />
I liked the way the movie adds little factual tidbits throughout the movie. The instance of Fred going back to the place he worked and being told that he couldn't just get his job back because the Selective Service act technicality that if the business changed ownership he was excluded was a good example of the nice little historical touches in this movie. - Jonathan Bell<br />
<br />
We didn't discuss this in class, but the I think it was common for soldiers fighting in Japan to take items such as samurai swords as souvenirs, like what Al brought home. I interviewed my great-uncle, about his WWII experiences for my oral history project, and he talked about souvenirs he got from Japan, including a samurai sword, which he still has. ~Katherine Stinson~<br />
<br />
The women represented in the film were all very independent. I felt that this was accurate to the time because they were forced to be autonomous while their men were away. This can be demonstrated in Marie taking a job at the nightclub, etc. <br />
In addition - the film portrayed how the workforce had moved on without the soldiers. There were several grumbles about jobs not being safe due to the returning veterans, and it was obviously a source of tension for both sides of the conflict. Finally, in regards to war time production - the scene where they fly in and see all the unused airplanes that will be scrapped is pretty accurate as well. - Elle W.<br />
<br />
The movie does well at showing what soldiers returning from overseas had to face when they came back home. Freddy comes home to learn that his wife has found a new job and moved in with herself, Mr. Stevenson(AL) finds that he is entitled to an even better job (unlike Fred) and Homer faces the tough task of adjusting to life in general with artificial hands. Although it may seem that Homer faces the most psychological challenge, Freddy also faces challenges of confronting his past, as war memories seem to haunt him sporadically throughout the movie. The wives of the soldiers also seem to be portrayed in extremes; Homer's wife supports him and shows her love for him more than the other two and Freddy's wife gave him a hard as they end up divorcing. I would talk more about Al, but he just seems to have no problems at all at adjusting with the exception of maybe an acute fondness of drinking. -James Drury<br />
<br />
Got a few notes on the economic issues portrayed in the film. The movie shows Mr. Cameron making predictions that there will be a depression because of all the soldiers returning home, a widespread thought at the time. Also, I thought other servicemen were guaranteed loans, however Al seems overly hesitant to give a loan to another serviceman because he has no collateral. The movie also makes reference to and shows soldiers receiving unemployment. <br />
<br />
War time savings put a lot of soldiers at an advantage, or at least helped make their transition home a lot easier. Fred mentions he saved 1000 or received it from the treasury somehow. That seems like a lot of money in an economy when groceries might have been a few cents and the most expensive of perfumes were a few bucks. How did he go through all that money so fast?--Especially since the time span of the movie looks to only be a few months if that.--James Drury<br />
<br />
== b Inaccurate/issues: ==<br />
The depiction of Peggy and Marie was very problematic and propaganda-ish. Peggy is the good girl who is patriotic and works as a nurse, helping others, while Marie is a vain and flirtatious woman who works at a nightclub for a time and resents Fred for making her quit her job. All Marie wants to do is to go out while Peggy is more than happy staying at home shucking peas and cooking dinner for Fred and her family. Not ''all'' women were either extreme! It's the virgin/whore scenario. Oh, and the guy will always end up with the virgin (ie Fred and Peggy "the homewrecker"). This is only typecasting women in one of two parties while the male characters were much more complex.-Lauren<br />
<br />
I thought it was kind of a problem that the only minorities shown were in minor servant like positions. Also it was troubling that they didn't really show the roles women had taken during the war, it just showed their post war roles. - Christine W.<br />
<br />
The representation of minorities in this movie would have bothered me more if they were showing a city or other type of diverse community. For a small town during this period in time it was quite possible depending on the location that there was little to know racial or ethnic diversity. This fact, however is also the most troubling feature of the movie because it is representing soldiers experiences, but soldiers experiences would be different depending on where they went back too. The whole movie is from this romantic small town cliche. - Jonathan Bell<br />
<br />
Agreeing with Jonathan, the movie is limited to three experiences in one town. There's no broad sense of understanding how many troops actually came back and how they would have impacted societal, economic, and political realms of small towns, states, and the nation. -JamesD<br />
<br />
The minority issue was a HUGE issue for me too as I watched the film, those of us who watched it at the regular screening actually started counting at one point - I believe that there were only three black people that I remember in the film.<br />
<br />
== 2 Film's relationship to current scholarship or to primary sources from the time ==<br />
<br />
The soldiers in this movie are really broader symbols of the various types of problems soldiers faced returning home. The navy man represented returning soldiers dealing with a debilitating injury also noted he was taking payments for the GI Bill. The army man represented the soldiers who returned home, but had questions about their family life, but he is also represented as the men who returned home to be successful (the success meant not taking the payments from the GI bill). The air force men represents men who returned home to face marriage problems resulting in divorce and had trouble adjusting to society in relation to the GI bill he represents those not taking payments due to issues of pride. All of these attributes are characteristics discussed about soldiers in the class lecture. - Jonathan Bell<br />
<br />
<br />
Something that struck me from a portion of the reading was how hard it must have been on loved ones who were awaiting their sons, brothers, husbands or boyfriends return home. In the reading it mentions that letters are sent to wounded soldiers family members. The letters weren't specific - just a "seriously injured" category and a forwarding address. I can't even imagine having that little information about a loved one. All in all, I think that the film primarily focuses its attention on how it would have been to be a veteran returning to home, and somewhat avoided the situation of how life really was for those who had been left behind. - Elle Weaver<br />
<br />
When Fred is packing up to leave Boone City, he lets his parents keep the citations for his medals. He tells them they just came with his K-rations, and they don't mean much to him. Does this mean that his citation was like a fill-in-the-blank that lots of people in his situation (whatever exactly that may have been) got, something that they were all issued? Or that the citation was just so insignificant that it merely came with rations? Paul Fussell reveals the dishonesty behind writing medal citations, and Fred's attitude toward his is that it is also essentially meaningless. Whatever it may be, his parents take pride in it, so that's one mission accomplished. -Whitney Holcomb<br />
<br />
== 3 Movie as primary source about makers/time/setting/genre ==<br />
<br />
<br />
Since the movie was made during the time it represents, I feel that most of the sentiments were fairly accurate. Many soldiers were facing similar problems to those of Al, Fred and Homer. It is also somewhat of a propaganda film because it shows all the relationships and problems being solved and ending happily, when in reality this did not happen. Many of the returning soldiers were never the same and faced life long problems as a result of the war. At the same time they wanted the movie to be encouraging to all of these men that returned to find life different, they wanted to give them hope and everyone else that they had a chance to make things happy again. -- Kellye Sorber<br />
<br />
I agree with Kellye I think the movie does a good job showing the opptimism the country had for its future as well as the fear of more war or depression. It was trying to be positive while dealing with very real fears. - Christine W.<br />
<br />
== 4 Public reaction/impact ==<br />
<br />
Mr. Stevenson was surprised that his maid had vanished and his daughter had taken her place. Peggy then makes a comment about taking a class in domestic science, an interesting title. Was this a common course in most school's curriculum during the World War 2 years? -James Drury<br />
<br />
== 5 Other movies/questions of style/framing/storyline ==<br />
<br />
This movies use of the romantic small town seems to be a greater symbol of what the creators are portraying as American. Additionally the lack of racial or ethnic diversity in the town is also a part of this symbolic message. In the end everyone also lives happily ever after making this movie follow a cliche story line. - Jonathan Bell<br />
<br />
There were a lot of generational tensions going on in the movie… about twenty years before generational tensions were “in”. The scene in Butch’s pub where Al pressures Fred into abandoning his feelings and intentions with Peggy reminded me of the scene in ''The Graduate'' when Mr. Robinson said to Ben, “I want you to stay away from Elaine”. In both examples we see a traditionally strong father figure dissuading a “drifting”/ unconventional suitor from pursuing a girl who deserves nothing but the best. Even though the mid-1940s and the late-1960s were radically different for many reasons, the uncertainty and optimism that existed in those two eras made the storyline of ‘love conquering all’ very appealing. It seems as though “Father Knows Best” was a notion reserved for the 1950s! - Jason Ward<br />
<br />
== 6 Overall ==<br />
<br />
I really loved this movie, I kept cheering on the love story the entire time and was happy that Fred's marriage ended in divorce. - Kellye Sorber<br />
<br />
I like this movie better than any that we've seen so far. It was more engaging and had good suspense. I found myself rooting for Fred and Peggy and disliking Marie (which we're supposed to do), and cheers even erupted as we watched Peggy say that she would break up Fred's marriage. I liked Homer and really wanted him to ask Wilma to marry him.... I felt the connections that I think a viewer is supposed to feel and the characters they want to succeed. I didn't get that from any of the other movies. That may have something to do with the fact that the characters are all made up and not to be compared with true figures and facts. In sum, I guess I liked it because it was meant to be fiction, rather than history. I wasn't judging it like I judge historical movies. -Whitney Holcomb<br />
<br />
I think this movie did such a good job portraying the time period accurately because the movie was made during the time period it depicts. For a movie such as this, not a whole lot of research would have been necessary since the people involved with the movie are living in the time period the movie is supposed to portray. I also think that this movie is very relevant to audiences today, just as it was when it first came out in 1946. Today, we have soldiers returning home from Iraq, and some of them are facing problems similar to those of the WWII veterans, such as post traumatic stress disorder, combat related injuries and disabilities, etc. -Katherine Stinson</div>Jward5zk Deprecated: header(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($response_code) of type int is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/WebResponse.php on line 38