Vietnam War Movies (Master Thesis) - Bart Van Tricht

Vietnam War Movies
Representations of a Controversial War
From CHINA GATE (1957) to RESCUE DAWN (2006).
Samuel Fuller’s CHINA GATE (1957)
Werner Herzog’s RESCUE DAWN (2006)
Name: Bart van Tricht

Student number: 0162914
Course: Master Thesis
Master: American Studies (AMS)
Advisor: prof. dr. Maarten van Rossem
Date: 10/07/2008.
Table of Contents
Introduction ................................................................................................................. 3
Relevant Facts about the Vietnam War ................................................................... 9
Chapter I: Popular Culture and American Studies.................................................... 11
Chapter II: Representations....................................................................................... 14
Chapter III: Before the Vietnam War Movies........................................................... 22
Chapter IV: The Vietnam War Movies..................................................................... 31

From CHINA GATE (1957) to APOCALYPSE NOW (1979)...................................... 34
From John Rambo to BORN ON THE FOURTH OF JULY (1989) .............................. 47
From the Nineties into the 21st Century ................................................................ 64
WE WERE SOLDIERS (2002) and PATH TO WAR (2002)........................................ 69
Chapter V: RESCUE DAWN (2006), a Short Narrative Analysis ............................... 79
Conclusion................................................................................................................. 87
Bibliography.............................................................................................................. 93
Vietnam War Movies (sorted by year) .................................................................. 97
Documentaries ....................................................................................................... 98
Television Programs.............................................................................................. 98
Internet Sources ..................................................................................................... 99
2
Introduction
A lot of mainstream Hollywood movies have been made about World War II and the Vietnam
War; some were created during, but a whole lot more were made in the many years following
these wars. But whereas World War II has been generally portrayed as ‘a good war’ which
ridded the nation of ‘economic and social ills,’1 the Vietnam War has a different legacy. It left
the US with a national trauma resulting from different factors, most obviously its painful
defeat and many casualties, but also America’s (publicized) war crimes, such as the My Lai
massacre.2 Moreover, this war laid bear some of the internal divisions in American society -
patriarchal, racial, and economic divisions, to name a few- and resulted in a reassessment of
the public’s belief in America as the undefeatable moral leader of the world. Put in stronger
terms, America lost its innocence as well as its ‘heroic self-image’ as a result of this war.3
As Liberal Arts professor Gordon Arnold argued in an article on his book The Afterlife
of America’s War in Vietnam (2006): “[…] the repeated incarnations of the war in politics and
on screen are part of the continuing nation’s efforts to come to terms with disillusionment and
disappointments from the conflict.”4 With that in mind the importance of studying these
movies becomes clear. It is a way to get a better insight into this tumultuous era in American
history; an era which not only gave us a war in the distant land of Vietnam, but also showed
us America’s internal problems, something we can still learn from. The first thing that comes
to mind is America’s current involvement in Iraq, which raises some similar questions. For
example, questions about America’s right to interfere in another country’s affairs; questions
about the tremendous amount of money which America could have used to take care of its
own domestic issues; as well as questions about the many (American) casualties.
1
Michael C.C. Adams, The Best War Ever: America and World War II (Baltimore 1994)
2
Albert Auster and Leonard Quart, How the War Was Remembered (New York 1988) 35.
3
Mitchell K. Hall, “Preface,” in: Crossroads: American popular culture and the Vietnam generation (Lanham
2005)
4
Gordon Arnold, “The Strange afterlife of the Vietnam War” (21-08-2006) on: hnn.us/articles/28641.html
3
Nevertheless, it is also clear that there are some big differences between the Vietnam War and
America’s current endeavor in Iraq. But these dissimilarities put aside, we are left with some
comparable issues, among which are the political negligence concerning returning veterans;5
America’s ever growing deficit; the difficulty to fight against an unconventional enemy; the
role of the press; and the negative public opinion, to name a few. Although the latter is
nothing compared to the anti-war demonstrations in the sixties.
Scholars, like those of the 1988 Boston conference with the title “The War Film:
Contexts and Images,”6 seem to collectively agree that it is important to know more about the
filmic representations of this conflict. This opinion seems to be shared by most of the
essayists in the anthologies From Hanoi to Hollywood. The Vietnam War in American Film
(1990) and Inventing Vietnam. The War in Film and Television (1991), as well as by the
authors of the filmic overviews How the War Was Remembered (1988) and Vietnam at 24
Frames a Second (1999). In one way or another, they generally argue that these movies can
be used to contribute to the “[…] ongoing national effort to retrieve and assimilate this
chapter in […] [America’s] recent history.”7 Overall, filmic representations of this war can be
read in different ways and a new perspective can “[…] result in a fuller understanding of the
past and positive action in the future.”8 This is also one of the main reasons why this thesis
will further address these movies.
When you look at American libraries it becomes very clear that a great deal has been
written about the Vietnam War and the different movies that represent it. Movies are a way
into the war itself, but also a way to find out more about a nation’s collective memory on such
an important issue. Especially in the late eighties and nineties many articles and books have
been published on the subject, apparently by then the time was ripe to delve deeper into this
5
Dan Lohaus (dir.) VPRO’s Import: WHEN I CAME HOME (documentary; USA 2006).
6
Ditmar and Michaud, From Hanoi to Hollywood. The Vietnam War in American Film (New Brunswick 1990)
xi.
7
Ibidem, xi.
8
Ibidem.
4
traumatic ordeal. As a result we are presented with an in-depth view of Vietnam War films
and especially the changes that have occurred in their themes and narrative, their filmic
‘development’ so to speak. This will also be the primary focus of this master thesis. More
accurately put, I will explore the various themes, narratives, characters, and topics, as well as
the way these films represent social circumstances, politics, veterans, the Vietnamese, and
combat, etcetera. Additionally, it is also interesting and important to determine how they
portray the war (e.g. positively or negatively); what kind of things have made an impact on
their narrative; what their cinematic style is; as well as how and why all these things might
have changed over time.9
Unfortunately not every decade has brought many films on the subject, which results
in a bigger focus on specific periods of time. For example, whereas the late seventies and the
eighties have brought us many different filmic representations of the war, not that many films
have been made since the early nineties. Nevertheless, four rather mainstream Hollywood
movies have been released since the start of the 21st century, namely TIGERLAND (2000), WE
WERE SOLDIERS (2002), PATH TO WAR (2002) and RESCUE DAWN (2006). Unfortunately,
most of the research on this topic has been written in the late twentieth century, and as a result
there is not as much scholarly research on these contemporary representations of the conflict.
Therefore, these movies will be addressed in some detail at the end of chapter four: “The
Vietnam War Movies.” Furthermore, the last of these movies, namely Werner Herzog’s
RESCUE DAWN, will be used as a case study in the final chapter. All with the intention to find
out more about contemporary Vietnam War films and if their representation of the conflict is
any different from those made at an earlier time.
In short, I will address some of the major ‘trends’ and ‘changes’ within the narrative,
themes, and style of mainstream Hollywood films that directly represent the Vietnam War.
9
David Bordwell and Kristin Thompson, Film Art: An Introduction (New York 2001)
5
In addition, questions as to how and why specific movies represent the conflict in a particular
way, will be thoroughly dealt with as well. In order to distinguish between the different topics
and decades of filmmaking this thesis is divided into five chapters as well as numerous
paragraphs. The first chapter addresses the importance of popular culture to the discipline of
American Studies. The latter of which is the scholarly perspective from which this master
thesis has been written, and subsequently explains the focus on American society through the
lens of popular culture, more specifically film. The second chapter will deal with
representations and how they shape the way we look at the world in general and Vietnam War
movies in particular. Followed by the third chapter, which will address the Second World War
and its influence on the Vietnam War movies, as well as differences and similarities between
their representations. As mentioned above, the last two chapters concentrate on the Vietnam
War movies and Werner Herzog’s RESCUE DAWN, in that order. Finally, this master thesis
will end with a conclusion, in which my findings on approximately fifty years of Vietnam
films (1957-2006) will be summarized.
But whatever the following chapters might argue about these ‘historical films,’ it must
be clear that they can not be equated with the kind of research historians usually do, though
they are important in their own right. On this note, Robert A. Rosenstone, the writer of
Visions of the Past, most eloquently posed that:
Film changes the rules of the historical game, insisting on its own sort of truths,
truths which arise from a visual and aural realm that is difficult to capture
adequately in words. This new historical past on film is potentially much more
complex than any written text, for on the screen, several things can occur
simultaneously –image, sound, language, even text- elements that support and
work against each other to render a realm of meaning as different from written
6
history as written was from oral history. So different that it allows one to
speculate that the visual media may represent a major shift in consciousness
about how we think about our past.10
In a somewhat broader sense the next chapter will discuss the use of popular culture for
scholarly research from the perspective of American Studies, which will address its value and
importance, though from a different angle than Rosenstone did here.
On a final note, the fact did not elude me that this research has some serious
limitations. First of all, the choice of movies, which are used in this research, is arbitrary.
Although they are primarily chosen because of their popularity and their ‘status’ as (largely)
mainstream Hollywood productions, other (smaller) independent productions could have been
used as well. Nevertheless, because the former have a larger audience, I like to think that they
contributed more to the formation of a collective memory of the war.
A second limitation lies with the difference in interpretation of the medium of film, as
is the case with almost every cultural source we deal with. But it is especially complicated
when dealing with movies which are complex, multi-layered, and might be read in various
ways, also think of their diverging images, sound(s), metaphors, and message(s), etcetera. It is
impossible to remain objective while analyzing these films, you always bring ‘yourself’ –e.g.
your personal experiences- to the table. But obviously this is the case with any cultural
theorist or historian for that matter, it is impossible to find an objective truth. Nevertheless,
being aware of our limitations might help us to come closer to this ultimate goal.
Thirdly, on a similar note, there is the danger of overanalyzing these films, which
might lead to interpretations that sustain your direct argument. In other words, a self-fulfilling
prophecy might occur. Fourthly, this research lacks a more in-depth analysis of outside
10
Robert A. Rosenstone, Visions of the Past. The Challenge of Film to Our Idea of History (Cambridge 1995)
15.
7
influences on the production of these films. Although, some political, societal, and economic
stimuli are taken into account, the restrictions on the length of this thesis made a more
extensive research rather difficult. As a result the main focus lies with analyzing the movies’
narratives and much less with factors like the production or the political context.
Fifthly, when doing this kind of research you risk judging these movies merely on how
accurately they portray the war. However, it is not quite fair to judge filmic representations on
their historical correctness, because “all history is a construction not a reflection.”11
Moreover, it is impossible to know what exactly happened in the past. Consequently, my
research is not focused on this kind of historical accuracy, but it does try to uncover which
aspects of the war are represented, which are absent, and what the main focus of these films
is. When addressing these issues, the (current) discourse on the war is the primary backdrop to
assess its degree of ‘realism’12 against. Differently put, it is more about how ‘complete’ and
multi-layered a certain representation of the war is, without primarily focusing on questions
about historical accuracy. It is more important to what degree they depict both sides of the
conflict; if there is a political context; how the soldiers are portrayed; and finally, what goal
this all serves within the movies themselves, etcetera.
This brings me to the final limitation of this thesis, which is the lack of a description of
the war itself. The fact that most of these films do not represent the history of the war except
for some random facts and situations, has contributed to my choice not to address the war in
this (historical) way. Nevertheless, I acknowledge that some historical facts have to be given
as a sort of context for my analysis. Therefore, a short paragraph will now follow with some
relevant, though arbitrarily chosen, facts about the Vietnam War.
11
Ibidem, 11.
12
But what is realism exactly? It is impossible to give one conclusive definition, because it is all a matter of
conventions and perception. Therefore, the words ‘realism’ and ‘realistic’ will be placed between apostrophes
throughout this master thesis.
8
Relevant Facts about the Vietnam War
The Vietnam War –or Vietnam conflict–13 has no clearly designated starting date, but it is
apparent that, especially since the end of Second World War, the French –with their colonial
aspirations in Indo-China– have interfered in the economic, political, and military affairs of
Vietnam and subsequently stirred up latent hostilities (the First Indochina War). Moreover,
since that time, different Vietnamese groups have been struggling for control over the
country; during this civil war the Vietminh also met the French in battle more than once. But
in 1955, after the Geneva Conference (1954), the French government finally ‘agreed’ to
withdraw all its military troops from South Vietnam. Nevertheless, the situation quickly
deteriorated when the two military zones of North and South Vietnam, respectively lead by
the communist Ho Chi Minh (in Hanoi) and the Roman Catholic Ngo Dinh Diem (in Saigon),
could not come to any agreement about elections or reunification. In 1960 the communist
guerilla group the National Liberation Front (NLF) or Vietcong (VC) was founded, which
opted for total political control over Vietnam. These Vietcong would become America’s most
recognizable enemy in Southern Vietnam.14 15
Successive US governments looked with fear at the rise of communism in Vietnam,
but at first America’s support did not go much farther than sending over a few thousand
military advisors. But everything changed after the alleged attacks on the USS Maddox and
Joy Turner, which resulted in the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution in 1964. Escalation of the
conflict started in the first few months of 1965, when President Lyndon B. Johnson ordered to
dispatch troops to help the Republic of Vietnam fight the communist Democratic Republic of
Vietnam. Arguably this is when ‘the American War’ really started. From that moment on an
increasing number of US troops were sent to the front –up to half a million in 1968- to fight a
13
A.U. “The Vietnam War,” on: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnam_War (2008).
14
A.U. “Vietnam. Geschiedenis,” in: Microsoft Encarta. Winkler Prins Editie (NL) (2002).
15
9
ground war, while other areas of Vietnam were heavily bombed from the air. Even though
America put a lot of effort and resources in this conflict, the war ended in a total disillusion,
with approximately 58.000 US fatalities, many more wounded, and no victory. The US never
seemed to be able to give the North Vietnamese a decisive blow and left the war after a treaty
was signed on January 23, 1973. Nonetheless, Saigon was conquered by communist troops on
April 30, 1975, which emphasized America’s utter defeat.16 17 18

Furthermore, the impact of
the war on American society was also deeply felt, people even speak of the trauma of
Vietnam. Not only the vast number of casualties, but also America’s political, moral (e.g. US
war crimes), and financial (budget deficit) defeat contributed to this powerful sentiment.
16
Ibidem.
17
18
Mary Beth Norton, David Katz and David Blight (et al.) “Chapter 31: Disaster and Détente: The Cold War,
Vietnam, and The Third World,” in: A People and a Nation. A History of the United States (Boston 2001) 890-
901.
10
Chapter I: Popular Culture and American Studies 19
Since the nineteen fifties and sixties American Studies has encountered a broadening of the
source material used within its scholarly discipline. A ‘shift’ has taken place from mostly
(canonical) literature to the inclusion of popular culture in the broadest sense of the word.
Examples of popular culture are movies, magazines, popular music, comic books, all kinds of
television programs, novels, but also types of poetry and art, etcetera. In the words of
Americanist Paul Lauter, all these sources are considered to be ‘cultural texts’20 and are
therefore worth analyzing. Most Americanists argue that these ‘cultural texts,’ such as the
movies on the Vietnam War, can be used to learn more about American culture in general.
More specifically, they claim that different marginalized groups, such as the Vietnam War
veterans, and current and past issues in American society, like the national trauma resulting
from the war, can be analyzed through them. In this master thesis the main focus lies on
getting a better understanding of these filmic representations of the war and of their narrative
characteristics, from the first (1957) to the last film (2006). The argument that the use of
popular culture within this kind of research can give valuable insights into culture and society
will be more thoroughly explained during the remainder of this chapter.
The ‘Introduction’ of The Greenwood Guide to American Popular Culture, written by
cultural theorist M. Thomas Inge, gives us a very good overview of the advantages of the use
of popular culture when examining American culture. Inge argues that “[…] scholarly study
in this area helps modern society understand itself better and provides new methods of
bringing to bear on contemporary problems […].”21 This clearly collaborates with the idea
19
Based on: Bart van Tricht, “Take-Home Exam; question 3,” essay for: Introduction to American Studies
(Utrecht University 08-11-2006)
20
Paul Lauter, “Reconfiguring Academic Disciplines: The emergence of American Studies” in: From Walden
Pond to Jurassic Park: Activism, Culture & American Studies (Durham 2001) 12.
21
M. Thomas Inge, ‘Introduction,’ in: M. Thomas Inge & Dennis Hall (eds.) The Greenwood Guide to American
Popular Culture. I (London) xvii.
11
that studying Vietnam War films can tell us something about American society, for instance
its willingness to deal with tough questions about the conflict.
Moreover, popular culture is not an exclusive term like ‘high culture’, which is
(sometimes) designated as culture for the social and intellectual elite.22 As a result it can be
described as Ray B. Browne did, namely as “[…] all experiences in life shared by people in
common, generally though not necessarily disseminated by the mass media,”23 or as
Americanist Michael J. Bell argued, that is as a “[…] culture of mass appeal. A creation is
popular when it is created to respond to the experiences and values of the majority […]”,
when they have easy access to it, and it can be understood without any special knowledge.24
Movies, and especially ‘historical films’ like those about the Vietnam War, are good
examples of this. They are primarily made to appeal to the general public by providing
entertainment, but simultaneously they can also reflect certain political currents, the public
opinion, as well as (central) issues within society. But how and whether this is done
intentionally depends on the sort of film, the filmmakers, but also on the studio, the investors,
etcetera.
The conclusion stands, popular culture –which some still designate as ‘low culture’-
can be an interesting and useful source to research the traditions, beliefs, attitudes, issues and
values within society, both of the past and the present. The fact that popular culture does not
exclude groups from participating, like it is embedded in the term ‘high culture,’ makes it a
lot more ‘democratic,’ resulting in a more diverse look on society. Furthermore, both Inge and
Lawrence Levine25 argue that this difference between ‘high’ and ‘low’ culture is artificially
created in the past. In addition, they argue that there is no real distinction, only American
culture. Nonetheless, the distinction was made and for a long time scholars especially used
22
Lawrence Levine, High Brow/Low Brow: The Emergence of Cultural Hierarchy in America (Cambridge 1988)
23
Ibidem, xviii.
24
Ibidem, xix.
25
Lawrence Levine, High Brow/Low Brow: The Emergence of Cultural Hierarchy in America (Cambridge
1988).
12
‘high culture’, with sources like canonical literature and high art. This approach took only
some privileged intellectuals to ‘represent’ and reflect on society, which subsequently meant
that only a small part of the nation was considered.
(New) Americanists on the other hand perceive the US as being pluralistic, diverse,
multicultural, and with many, sometimes excluded voices. Their use of sources by and for the
common person includes the largest part of society and can therefore be very helpful to get to
America’s national identity and everything that is part of it.26 As Inge argues: “Americans in
particular should study popular arts to understand themselves better,”27 which can also be said
about the Vietnam War movies. But bear in mind that these films are merely representations,
which can never totally grasp the reality of what it tries to represent. Therefore the following
chapter will discuss how these representations work.
26
Neil Campbell and Alasdair Kean, American Cultural Studies. An introduction to American culture (New
York 2006).
27
M. Thomas Inge, ‘Introduction,’ in: M. Thomas Inge & Dennis Hall (eds.) The Greenwood Guide to American
Popular Culture. I (London) xviii.
13
Chapter II: Representations 28
Beginning with the ideas and theories of philosophers like Plato and Aristotle representations
have become an important part of understanding communication and language.29 But the
question remains how they really work. First of all, it is important to understand the
significance and theoretical mechanism of representations in general and of filmic
representations in particular. Most people have seen many movies and within them are
cultural representations of social groups, like women, ethnic minorities, or even soldiers and
veterans, as well as ‘situations’ like war. In The Matter of Images, cultural theorist Richard
Dyer describes that these cultural representations are important for the way in which these
groups (and situations) are treated in everyday life. He argues most clearly that how we are
treated comes from how we are seen; and this can also be said in relation to how we treat
others: it all comes from representation.30 For instance, in mainstream Hollywood productions
like THE DEER HUNTER (1978) and APOCALYPSE NOW (1979), where both the war and the
soldiers are represented, their representation largely contributes to how they are perceived and
subsequently how these soldiers are treated by the general public. The same can be said about
the way war itself is represented. It has the involuntary effect of influencing our perception of
the world. This is just one reason why it is relevant to analyze the filmic representations of the
Vietnam War.
Another significant aspect of representation is the fact that it is a way to look at reality,
but it is not reality itself. In other words, while ‘using’ representations, no objectivity is
possible. Dani Cavallaro’s argument in his article “Representation” is that:
28
Based on: Bart van Tricht, “Rendering Whiteness Strange,” essay for: Topics in American Diversity (Utrecht
University 19-02-2007)
29
A.U., “Representation (arts),” on: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Representation_%28arts%29 (2008)
30
Richard Dyer, The Matter of Images: Essays on Representations (London & New York 1993) 1.
14
We do not perceive the world as it is but rather as mediated by various filters
and channels: forms of language and forms of interpretation that do not mirror
the world but actually construct it, thereby perpetuating or challenging its
ideologies.31
In the various movies on the Vietnam War, I argue, it is more about perpetuating society’s
ideologies than it is about challenging them. This means that it appears that these films would
directly address the hardships of the war and the national trauma that resulted from it, and to
some degree they do. Nevertheless, the filmmakers remained rather conservative in their
message; used familiar codes and conventions; and avoided most of the hard questions
coming from the war. As a result the true issues -like what went wrong, who failed, and what
lessons should be learned from it- were never truly addressed and subsequently the nation was
wrongfully reassured that it could go about its business. It is important to uncover these hard
questions in order to move forward as a nation, but obviously Hollywood also thought of the
potential risks to their investments and decided to take a more conservative course of action.
However this is not always a conscious choice of the filmmakers.
Differently put, when looking at representations in these mainstream Hollywood
movies, it is important to consider the fact that most of them, at least to some extent, have
(unintentionally) subscribed to the dominant discourses and the overarching dominant
ideology in society. But although these discourses might be getting closer to a true assessment
of the conflict –whatever that might be– for the most part they still evade the issues that might
open up the nation’s wounds any further, and in this way the status-quo in society is ensured
as well.32
31
Dani Cavallaro, Critical Cultural Theory (London 2001) 48.
32
York 2006) 15-16.
15
In this context, it is important to recognize that we all unconsciously use “[…] codes and
conventions of the available cultural forms of presentation”,33 thereby limiting our perception.
Nevertheless, these cultural expressions can be interpreted in different ways, by different
people, using the cultural codes they have access to.34 In general movies will always have
different voices, but the research of cultural theorists Stuart Hall and Ien Ang adds that its
viewers will most likely have differing interpretations of them as well. Hall came to this
conclusion through the use of his ‘encoding-decoding model’ which explains how people
interpret various media texts,35 while Ang utilized the ‘active audience theory.’ In addition,
especially Ang argues that someone’s interpretation depends on different factors, such as the
social background and current socio-economic situation.36 Resulting from these varying
interpretations, a conclusive statement coming from any media text is hard to be made.
But still, representations cannot mean anything we want them to, because the power
relations of representation are also important. Cultural Studies and American Studies utilize a
theory of power relations, which poses that dominant groups in society –particularly white
affluent males– have ‘control’ over society’s representations, and they benefit the most by
maintaining its status-quo –the culture’s dominant ideology.37 38 As a result the insights these
mainstream films present to the audience generally lack the provocative vigor e.g. cultural
theorists hope for. From this train of thought, we can conclude that multiple readings of the
mainstream films are possible, but that power relations obscure its potential to offer the
audience more complex and arguably more complete representations. Applied to the Vietnam
War movies, we do not see much of America’s political decision making, nor do we see much
of how scandals are dealt with (like the My Lai massacre), or how the Vietnamese deal with
33
34
Ibidem.
35
Stuart Hall, Encoding and Decoding in the Television Discourse (University of Birmingham 1973)
36
Ien Ang, “The nature of the audience,” in: J. Downing, A. Mohammadi and A. Sreberny-Mohammadi (eds.)
Questioning the media. A critical introduction. (Londen 1995) 207-220.
37
38
York 2006) 15-16.
16
the war. In the end it might just be the problem of combining popular culture and politics,
which resulted in the mainstream pictures Hollywood produced so far.39
In the anthology Inventing Vietnam. The War in Film and Television one of the questions
is why this war is so much associated with and represented through the medium of film.40 One
of the answers its editor Michael Anderegg gives is that, up to that moment, it “[…] was the
most visually represented war in history”,41 which subsequently led to a lot of movies on the
subject. This highly televised war was brought to most people as a “video-audio construct”42
and the footage it used gave the American public a sense of “immediacy and intensity.”43 It
was a new way of dealing with this kind of conflicts, which was very different from the way
World War II was represented in the media, but obviously this was a different kind of war
altogether.44
In the ‘Introduction’ of Inventing Vietnam it is made perfectly clear that the films about
the Vietnam War are fictional representations, which attempt to reenact the immediacy, the
‘crazed energy,’ and the ‘stylistic roughness,’45 which could also be found in the televised
newsreels during the conflict. Different reasons are furthermore given to explain why these
filmic representations are more fiction than reality. Besides the previously mentioned fact that
they are visual constructs, it is also important to keep in mind that most of the bigger
productions are made a long time after the war ended, starting at the end of the 1970s but
continuing well into the present. This time to reconcile could have contributed to a completer
image but this is not generally the case here. They are merely ‘mediations,’ ‘explications,’ and
thematic inventions of America’s involvement in the war, again without dealing too much
with a lot of the difficult questions coming from it, such as insights into the complexities of
39
Mitchell K. Hall, Crossroads: American popular culture and the Vietnam generation (Lanham 2005)
40
Michael A. Anderegg (ed.) Inventing Vietnam. The War in Film and Television (Philadelphia 1991) 2.
41
Ibidem.
42
Ibidem.
43
Ibidem.
44
Ibidem 2-3.
45
Ibidem, 2.
17
political and military decisions, or insight into the hearts and minds of the Vietnamese, neither
Southern nor Northern. But this issue will be dealt with more thoroughly in the next chapters.
A third point that is given by Michael Anderegg, as to the complexity of these filmic
representations, is the fact that these films have a so-called ‘art status.’ This does not always
leave enough room for a well informed message about the war and sometimes even puts e.g.
philosophic contemplations ahead of more serious issues. Moreover, Anderegg also goes into
the concept of discourses. He argues that these films represent ‘multiple voices’ reflecting the
different and (ever)changing discourses -or discussions- of the time these films were shot. As
a result of the latter, the writers of Inventing Vietnam make it clear that these Vietnam War
movies can also be seen as “barometers of current attitudes”,46 so they do not necessarily
portray history or memory for that matter.
Furthermore, Thomas J. Slater argues in his essay “Teaching Vietnam: The Politics of
Documentary,”47 that documentary films about the war are no less an invention than their
fictional counterparts. In both cases the actual reality of the war is hard to represent, which is
actually an intrinsic part of representations in general, that is to say you can never get the
entire picture, because reality is much too complex and multi-faceted. Consequently, there can
never be one conclusive or “definitive statement on the war [either].”48 Like Michael
Anderegg concludes in his “Introduction”, this war is represented in very different ways in
various media, such as film; they use very different constructions of the same conflict; and
“[…] no construction of the Vietnam War can be anything more than a highly limited facet of
a many-surfaced object.”49 In other words, these representations only give partial and even
strongly fictionalized accounts of the events that took place. Nevertheless, Anderegg argues
46
Ibidem, 4.
47
Thomas J. Slater, “Teaching Vietnam: The Politics of Documentary,” in: Michael A. Anderegg (ed.) Inventing
Vietnam. The War in Film and Television (Philadelphia 1991) 269-290.
48
Michael A. Anderegg (ed.) “Introduction,” in: Inventing Vietnam. The War in Film and Television
(Philadelphia 1991) 13.
49
Ibidem, 13-14.
18
that the discourses surrounding these various representations, as well as the representations
themselves, can be very interesting when dealing with the reality and myths surrounding this
war.50
Film and history scholar Philip Rosen also states that historical movies generally do not
give an accurate image of historical events. In his book Change Mummified. Cinema,
Historicity, Theory51 it is explained that there is nothing settled among historians. This is
especially true when it comes to portraying historical events in movies, in general, there are
only contradictory claims on what is a true story. As a result, it is also not clear how e.g. the
Vietnam War should be portrayed. In addition, within historical movies itself it is difficult to
maintain the referentiality and indexicality of the images to the historical events without
fictionalizing it too much, which obviously is impossible to avoid entirely. Nevertheless, there
are some ‘tricks’ to increase the historical feel of the movie, for instance by relaying parts of
the film through authentic footage or by stating that it is based on a true story.
When looking at historical films Rosen sees two important elements which seem to be in
continuous conflict, namely the ‘reality-effect’ and the ‘spectacle.’52 The latter of which
typically diminishes the former because it adds a sort of show element to the film, which
contributes to its fictionalization. Examples of this ‘spectacle’ element are excessive action
sequences, huge battle scenes, but also scenes of a smaller scale, all aiming to amaze and
entertain the audience. But although these elements of fiction are an intrinsic part of film, it
does not necessarily mean there is not anything historical about them, because the filmmakers
can also attempt to enhance the ‘reality-effect,’ e.g. with the help of historical advisors.
Furthermore, Rosen makes it clear that historical films can be both indexical as well as adding
to the past, for which he uses the terms ‘preservation’ and ‘restoration,’ in that order.53
50
Ibidem.
51
Philip Rosen, Change Mummified. Cinema, Historicity, Theory (London 2001)
52
Ibidem, 184-196.
53
Ibidem, 43-88.
19
Moreover, he states that they will always have things missing, which he describes as a gap
between likeness and being, diegesis and document. But this is where the spectatorial
knowledge comes in, which Rosen describes as the audience’s ability to understand this gap
between ‘spectacle’ and ‘reality-effect,’ likeness and being, belief and knowledge;54 the image
as diegesis and the image as original document.55 But unfortunately not everyone is as capable
of distinguishing between them. In the case of Vietnam War movies it might even prove to be
especially difficult, because of the many different ways in which the war has been represented
over the years, resulting in the public’s splintered perception of the conflict.
In conclusion, within these representations, there is never one story to be found, not even
in the same year or film for that matter, nor is there a conclusive statement to be made about
the war. With the information of this chapter in mind, the next two chapters will deal with
what led up to the Vietnam War movies and with these movies themselves.
54
Ibidem, 195.
55
Ibidem, 182.
20
Two scenes from SANDS OF IWO JIMA (1949).
D-Day, in THE LONGEST DAY (1962).
The Allied troops, in THE LONGEST DAY (1962).
21
Chapter III: Before the Vietnam War Movies
Ever since the end of the First and Second World War, many movies have been made about
these conflicts. Especially World War II movies have remained incredibly popular all over the
world, and a lot of them have even been elevated to the status of film classic. Think of films
like SANDS OF IWO JIMA (1949), STALAG 17 (1953), THE BRIDGE ON THE RIVER KWAI (1957),
THE LONGEST DAY (1962), THE GREAT ESCAPE (1963), THE BATTLE OF THE BULGE (1965),
PATTON (1970), THE EAGLE HAS LANDED (1976), but also SAVING PRIVATE RYAN (1998),
THE THIN RED LINE (1998), FLAGS OF OUR FATHERS (2006) and LETTERS FROM IWO JIMA
(2006). Obviously filmmakers looked at their success formula(s) when making films about the
Vietnam War; because why would you change something that has proven its value?
With that in mind, this chapter’s primary aim is to uncover the similarities, as well as
the differences, between these mainstream World War II movies and the Vietnam War films
that followed. More specifically, their narrative(structure), characters, themes, and overall
portrayal of these conflicts, will be carefully analyzed and compared.
On the other hand, apart from their representation in films, it is also important to
emphasize the different ways in which these wars are perceived in general, because this
influences these movies just as much as the other way around. Therefore, this more general
issue will be carefully addressed as well. However, the focus will not lie on the more obvious
dissimilarities between the two wars, such as difference in scale, political reasoning, enemies,
and type of warfare. Instead, it will address the issue of mythmaking about World War II and
how this relates to the (representations of) Vietnam War.
The Best War Ever: America and World War II (1993), written by military historian
Michael C.C. Adams, deals with the mythologizing of World War II. Adams tries to show us
that World War II has been depicted as a war which was essentially good versus evil. Good
being the Allied forces, with the United States at its centre, and especially bad being the
22
Nazis, the Italian fascists, and the Japanese aggressor. The Allied forces were saving the
world from this malevolence; they were virtuous, had God on their side, and were victorious
in the end, making the world safe again. This fairytale version of history is obviously
exaggerated and hopefully every clear-thinking person would know not to believe in such a
one-sided and extreme portrayal of the war. Nonetheless, Adams does argue that it has been
portrayed, and subsequently perceived, as ‘a good war’ in popular imagination, especially
catered by different media, such as books, literature, television shows, and of course movies.56
As was argued in the chapter on representation, movies are a very popular way to represent
war and to show its characteristics to the general public, but each representation is also just an
interpretative perspective which can be far from ‘the truth.’ So it is clearly erroneous to get
your understanding of a war primarily from these kinds of depictions, especially when they
persist in an act of mythologizing.
This mythologized portrayal of World War II is what Adams tries to debunk. He
argues it is dangerous to think that war cures America’s social ills and subsequently makes the
country stronger, a message often utilized in these films. According to Adams America was
not the perfect force in the war it wants us –especially Americans- to believe. To make his
case he gives us three main reasons to rethink America’s role in World War II.57 First of all,
he brings forth the fact that the US only entered the war after the Japanese attack on Pearl
Harbor (07-12-1941). Before this attack they tried to stay out of the conflict and even dealt
with Hitler through the politics of appeasement; but in their defense, the latter was done by
other nations as well. Nevertheless, this first example shows a less righteous side of the US,
with a much more reluctant posture towards fighting a malevolent threat to the world.
Secondly, the deterrence of Japan failed just as much. Third of all, it was not that much of a
56
It is important to understand that Adams writes primarily about the way Americans perceive World War II, so
it is not about the European perception of it. His argument is relevant because the movies on the subject were
primarily produced by and for Americans and are subsequently invested with the mythologized imagery.
57
Michael C.C. Adams, The Best War Ever: America and World War II (Baltimore 1994) 1-90.
23
heroic or mobile war as often suggested, e.g. in the movies. Fourthly, the US did not win this
war by themselves, even though they sometimes seem to believe they did. Furthermore, the
US army was not the internally coherent force it was generally thought to be. Instead, army
censorship tried to hide its internal segregation (e.g. racial), among other things. Moreover,
many returning veterans had obtained serious physical and mental injuries, which made it
hard for them to reintegrate into society, but this was generally not the image that was shown
to the outside world. Finally, a lot of (military and political) ‘mistakes’ were made as well,
some of which we would now consider to be war crimes. Most significantly, the
(fire)bombings of many major cities in Germany and Japan, which killed countless innocent
civilians; as well as the nuclear bombs dropped on Nagasaki and Hiroshima. Even with only a
few of these examples in mind, it starts to become clear why World War II was not the great
war Americans were made to believe. On this note Adams also states that:
When nostalgia drives us to depict war as a golden age in our cultural
development, a time of unending cheerful production, team spirit, prosperity,
and patriotism, we trivialize the event by slighting the real suffering that took
place. And we lose sight of the fact that war is inherently destructive - wasteful
of human and natural resources, disruptive of normal social development. We
risk initiating human catastrophes in the questionable belief that history shows
wars will cure our social problems and make us feel strong again.58
After demythologizing the depiction of the Second World War it appears to be more
similar to the overall portrayal of the Vietnam War than was clear before hand; for most
Americans that is. In other words, ‘the good war’ and ‘the bad war’ seem really not that
58
24
different from each other, because ‘the good war’ also has some characteristics of ‘a bad war.’
On the other hand, do not all wars look alike in this respect, because which war is all good? Is
it not just ‘reality’ that war is intrinsically horrific? As a result, can we then argue that the
representations of the Vietnam War are less mythologized because they do portray more of
war’s ugly side? Or is the mythologizing just less obvious in their representations? These
particular issues will be dealt with later on; for now the representations of the conflicts will be
compared without paying much attention to mythmaking. As a result both wars will be
analyzed in the form of their -possibly mythologized- filmic representations.
It is a fact that, although these two wars might be similar in some ways, their
representations differ significantly. For example, US soldiers and veterans from the Vietnam
War are generally portrayed with much more ambivalence than their counterparts from World
War II. In addition, they are not necessarily the heroes you might expect when you are used to
the codes and conventions of World War II films. Furthermore, in a fair amount of Vietnam
War movies they do show US atrocities and (war) crimes, although the extent differs from
case to case. Moreover, they also portray the war within a political vacuum, neither depicting
political or military decision making, nor ‘the bigger picture.’ And finally, they generally
reveal more physical plus mental suffering of US soldiers than World War II movies usually
did. On this note, Adams also states the following:
Although we know that many Vietnam War veterans suffer post-traumatic
stress disorder, it is commonly believed that nearly all World War II veterans
adjusted quickly and easily. After all, they fought the Good War. Vietnam was
the bad war, in which American troops caught in an ugly situation, committed
acts that later disturbed them.59
59
Ibidem, xiii-xiv.
25
Again these examples make clear that there are differences between the filmic
representations of these two wars. Nevertheless, the filmmakers also used some codes and
conventions of the World War II movies. They utilized elements like their narrative structure,
stereotypes, and themes, because this was the only way they knew how to successfully
represent a war on the silver screen. Obviously some creativity had to be used to pull this of,
because mainstream Hollywood filmmakers could not produce the same kind of pictures as
they did before, Vietnam seemed to different. They were largely compelled to portray
Vietnam conform its bad war image, which was the dominant discourse and therefore the
public’s main understanding of the conflict. Therefore, they (sometimes) subtly adjusted these
codes and conventions in order to fit the narrative they required. A narrative about a war
which left America with a deeply felt trauma. But which codes and conventions could they
really use? In other words, what was so typical about these World War II movies?
The movies about World War II, that were made during the first couple of decades
after the war, are known to have various characteristics.60 First of all, they generally demonize
the enemy, in this case especially the Nazis and the Japanese. Secondly, they emphasize the
heroics of American soldiers, as was argued before. Thirdly, patriotism is one of the major
elements in most of them; and ‘finally,’ they usually end on a very optimistic note. Clearly
most of these features can be found in films about both wars, although the extent and the way
in which they are utilized are not necessarily the same. Differently put, when representing war
in mainstream films the themes are generally rather similar, only the emphasize on and
explanation of these topics can differ significantly.
In this context, it might not sound coincidental that a great deal of these World War II
movies portray some form of antiwar sentiments or pacifism for that matter. This even goes
60
Auster and Quart, How the War Was Remembered (New York 1988) 1-12.
26
back to films about the First World War, for instance Lewis Milestone’s ALL QUIET ON THE
WESTERN FRONT (1930). Some of them even go further and do not only give us an ambiguous
perspective on the war –such as pacifism versus the heroics and glory of war- but also show
the horrible nature of war itself, without (m)any heroism or glorifying elements. Furthermore,
they painfully portray the helplessness of the soldiers in combat as well as the hardships they
have to endure, which can result in symptoms like battle fatigue and shell shock.61 So, the
Vietnam War movies do not only borrow codes and conventions which focus on glorifying
the war and its heroics. But, to some extent, they could also expand on the already existing,
though a lot less explicit, negative ideas about war.
Now the question remains where particular images of these wars actually come from.
For example, are the images of World War II rooted in something fundamental, such as
American nationalism or even exceptionalism? Moreover, is this really what the average
American believes about the war, or is it the result of propaganda and (the lack of) access to
information orchestrated by the government? But then, how did the true experience of soldiers
get erased? Why and how are the bad sides of the war forgotten? For instance, was the
wartime experience washed out of America’s memory by nostalgia and euphoria? Is it a result
of the victorious ‘culture’ that emerged afterwards; was there no room for it; or where there
other things going on?
Not all these questions can be answered here. However, it is clear that government
propaganda and censorship played an important role in the mythologizing of World War II,62
while the media –especially television- had a significant part in the public’s understanding of
Vietnam. The former carefully regulated every piece of information, while the latter gave a
more in-your-face and open depiction of the conflict, which subsequently implies fuller access
to what was going on. Their respective influences might have resulted in the different ways in
61
Ibidem, 1-4.
62
Michael C.C. Adams, The Best War Ever: America and World War II (Baltimore 1994) 9-10, 73-75, 130.
27
which these wars were portrayed in movies. For instance, blurring public understanding of
what happened on the battlefront during World War II, especially concerning American
soldiers.
On the other hand, Adams also argues that Americans were not so unaware of what
was ‘really’ going on the battlefront during this war. Therefore, understanding was not
directly the problem, but the ‘language’ of the war was. In other words, the adequate tools
were not available to address the Second World War’s peculiarities. Though with the
availability of such a ‘language’ it would become easier to deal with the battlefront
experiences which soldiers brought back to America. However this ‘language’ only came to
overtly emerge and be actively used during and directly after the Vietnam War. At first only
shell shock was part of the vocabulary (World War I), followed by battle fatigue (World War
II), and then finally by post-traumatic stress disorder or PTSD (Vietnam War), which gave a
completer picture of wartime experiences.63 This evolving discourse made it possible to
address different parts of war giving filmmakers new options. So, generally speaking,
Vietnam War movies were able to use a different ‘language’ or vocabulary to address the
specifics of war, such as the hardships on the battlefield. Things that were more difficult to
portray in World War II movies, also because of ‘the good war’ image linked to them.
Moreover, the fact that the victors write the history books and therefore shape our
understanding of the past as they see fit, gives us another reason why the Vietnam War was
represented differently in movies than World War II. Another reason is the fact that a lot of
propaganda could be used during World War II –helped by the lack of independent media–
which made it easier to portray it as ‘a good war.’64 This was especially different during the
Vietnam War. Of course, the major problem concerning the representation of Vietnam was
the fact it was a lost and unconventional war (guerilla tactics), which made it harder to
63
64
Ibidem.
28
represent. Though, the real issue was the fact it was televised nationwide, with all its madness,
which helped to make people aware of everything that was wrong with this war. All of which
was not the case with the Second World War, which seemed to have more positive effects on
the nation (e.g. economically), or at least that is what people want(ed) to believe. The latter
might also have been the reason why many World War II movies could be released during the
sixties and most of the seventies, while the studios did not want to burn their hands on direct
representations of the Vietnam War.65
Maybe the government pressured the studios, but it is more likely that they did not
want to risk losing money over something as controversial. Nevertheless, it is clear that the
codes and conventions from World War II movies were used when Vietnam was dealt with
more directly –starting in the late seventies. But as we will see in the following chapter, this
could not be entirely done in the same way as before. Most movies seem to struggle with a
way to portray this very complex and in many ways eventful conflict. Therefore, the
filmmakers had to come up with some ‘new’ themes and characters or adjust some of the old
ones, such as the frontier myth, captivity story, and the western theme, or the wounded-
veterans, supermen, hunter-heroes and survivors.66 They will all be dealt with more
thoroughly in the next chapter.
65
Ibidem, 22.
66
Ibidem, 23-130.
29
A scene from BRIDGE ON THE RIVER KWAI (1957).
Blowing up the bridge, in BRIDGE ON THE RIVER KWAI (1957).
English POWs in BRIDGE ON THE RIVER KWAI (1957).
30
Chapter IV: The Vietnam War Movies
The first mainstream Vietnam War films were made in a time that the US was in the middle
of a popular culture revolution (1950-1980). Back then films generally addressed and
reflected on American social values and issues, inspired by rock ‘n roll, the sexual revolution,
sports, the counterculture, the Civil Rights movements, riots, feminism, environmentalists,
and naturally the Vietnam War itself. They appeared to break through barriers, but
nevertheless attempted to maintain the status quo in society. The latter means that they
addressed the issues but still generally steered clear of (overtly) challenging society’s
previously established norms and values.67
Also, during this time, the youth became the most important economic market;
suspicion of the government rose as a result of Vietnam and the Watergate scandal (1972);
with the coming of blockbusters in the mid-seventies, the movie industry climbed out of a
recession; and finally, new movie genres became mainstream.68 Subsequently, these particular
developments opened up new options for the production and distribution of more
‘controversial’ films. Though, as it was just argued, this happened neither as abrupt as it
might have seemed, nor were these movies truly that controversial in nature. For example,
when talking about the Vietnam War, they still remained evasive of the war’s ‘true’ content.
Even though its representations did become more upfront overtime, and the American public
became more accepting to depict the war as a major (political) mistake, too much negativity
remained largely undesirable.69 In other words, there was a consensus that it had been a
mistake, but it did not go much deeper than that. There was no (public) consensus on what
really went wrong or how this could have happened; so what should be the content of these
Vietnam War movies? How should they represent this conflict?
67
Mitchell K. Hall, Crossroads: American popular culture and the Vietnam generation (Lanham 2005) 204-206.
68
Ibidem, 142-148.
69
Ibidem, 181.
31
Although these movies were not really made with the goal of educating the public in
mind, the lessons of the war do matter, particularly because these are the issues (themes)
filmmakers generally focus on. This is especially the case in Hollywood where they are
experts on making films with morally tinted messages, ranging from highly critical to
valorizing or even redemptive for that matter.
Scholars seem to agree that there are three main levels from which the lessons of
Vietnam can be learned. First of all, the national level, with the so-called Vietnam Syndrome
influencing public opinion as well as policymaking and more. Secondly, the institutional
level, with different sometimes contradicting lessons, for instance within the US military. The
primary question is how to deal with the legacy of the war, which also involves the power of
the presidency and of Congress. And finally, the personal level; approximately 2.5 million
Americans went there and many of those who came back were extremely traumatized (PTSD)
and unable to reintegrate into society. Moreover, it also influenced the people who stayed at
home, such as their families and friends, as well as the society as a whole.70 But this does not
say anything about what the lessons really are and it even seems that consensus on this part of
the issue is still hard to find. For different reasons Hollywood seems to give its own spin to it,
how and why this was done will be the main focus of the remainder of this chapter.
In his foreword in Jeremy M. Devine’s book Vietnam at 24 Frames a Second, Thomas
Schatz gives us a glimpse of how this spin is given. Here he most eloquently poses that:
The war film is utterly unique among movie genres. No other film formula
adheres so closely to “real” historical conditions and events. No other fictional
form intermingles so freely with news, documentary, and other nonfiction
depictions of those same conditions and events. No other form of popular
70
Beerd Beukenhorst (UvA), Lecture on “The Main Lessons of the Vietnam War.” Sources by Vietnam
researcher M.B. Young (Amerikanistendag 2008 University of Nijmegen).
32
entertainment is so patently political and ideological, underscoring
Hollywood’s role as a “national cinema” in representing the collective
consciousness of a people-tangle of beliefs, values, and attitudes that can
compel a nation to wage war. […] In no other genre, in fact, are the nation’s
history and mythology so dynamically fused [emphasis added].71
To come back to the subject of the first chapter, Schatz’s argument is the main reason
why the study of this form of popular culture is so important. It is clear that these films are
closely related to what is going on in the hearts and minds of Americans as well as in society
in general, which they –according to Schatz- combine with familiar imagery from the nation’s
mythology. In addition, looking at these movies is of importance because this war had a
particularly devastating impact on the country at large, namely: “America’s loss of innocence,
its abuse of power on a global scale, and the social divisions that only grew worse in the face
of a national crisis.”72 By analyzing the different filmic expressions of the war, we might get a
better understanding of how the American people ‘processed’ it. The next paragraph will deal
with these questions, regarding the Vietnam War movies made from the late fifties until the
late seventies.
71
Thomas Schatz, “Foreword: The Vietnam War Film: America’s Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder,” in: Jeremy
M. Devine, Vietnam at 24 Frames a Second (University of Texas 1999) vii.
72
Ibidem.
33
The promotional poster for THE GREEN BERETS (1968).
John Wayne in THE GREEN BERETS (1968).
34
From CHINA GATE (1957) to APOCALYPSE NOW (1979)
The Hollywood war film started with a far more optimistic view of America during wartime,
than the quote about its ‘loss of innocence’ in Vietnam seems to imply. As the previous
chapter explained, the films about the two World Wars gave a much more positive image of
America’s endeavors overseas, than movies about Vietnam generally did. During and directly
after World War II, Hollywood got a lot of support from the US government and it basically
became its propaganda machine or ‘propaganda agency,’ producing many films that dealt
with the war. Subsequently these pictures were rather colored in their depiction. So whatever
aspect of it they portrayed, they generally ‘delivered’ the same message: “the nation was a
social and cultural community with a shared history and destiny, and with a populace utterly
unified in its commitment to the war effort.”73 Though with the earlier mentioned side note
that a number of them also represented some mild ambiguity and critique on the tough
‘reality’ of war.
Early movies on Vietnam, like CHINA GATE (1957) and THE QUIET AMERICAN (1958),
portrayed more of this ambivalence, which would become so characteristic of the depiction of
this conflict. These films generally began as optimistic portrayals of the American and French
efforts in Indochina, but were also increasingly critical of their involvement in that area.
However, the sustained use of World War II narratives and themes kept them from getting too
explicit on the matter. For instance, by depicting the political and military situation from a
Cold War perspective,74 these movies resorted to a clear polarization and stereotyping of the
enemy, similarly done by many war films before them. In this way the Americans and the
French were shown being on the side of liberty and good, while communists were represented
as uncivilized, barbaric, or even plain evil. Moreover, these movies argued heavily in favor of
73
Ibidem.
74
Auster and Quart, How the War Was Remembered (New York 1988) 18.
35
resistance to this communism, and discouraged any neutral attitude towards it. As a result, the
critical note remained mild. Nonetheless, parts of their narratives also seem to argue that
America’s politics regarding Asia was naïve; than again the humanitarianly motivated nature
of it was also frequently emphasized.75 For example, THE QUIET AMERICAN predicted the
failure of American idealism as a result of its misunderstanding of cultures other than their
own. However, it also compliments America on its innocence.76 So again, some ambiguity
about America’s involvement can be found here, but the dominant ideology behind the issue
remained largely untouched.77 Differently put, the filmmakers seemed reluctant to challenge
society’s dominant ideology, which supported America’s fight against communism.
Subsequently, their message was a little bit halfhearted.
Auster and Quart therefore argued in their book How the War Was Remembered that when
these movies had to deal with political acts and ideology, as was likely when dealing directly
with Vietnam, they switched to representations which were “[…] influenced by personal
conflicts, demonstrating the usual Hollywood uneasiness about abstract ideas and explicit
political ideologies.”78 This posture resulted from its fear that any direct portrayal of the latter
could arouse specific groups in American society, which could be bad for business. Moreover,
Hollywood did not believe that any theme or metaphor would be able to depict this war as
they saw fit. Slowly this “inadequacy of any known metaphors”79 to directly represent
Vietnam started to show when practically no film on the subject was produced. But this only
became obvious well after the war had escalated (1965), which is years after the deployment
of American ground troops and the all-out use of the air force.80 Up till that moment,
Hollywood could rest easy with films like CHINA GATE (1957), THE QUIET AMERICAN (1958),
75
Mitchell K. Hall, Crossroads: American popular culture and the Vietnam generation (Lanham 2005) 181.
76
77
Susan Jeffords, “The Vietnam War in American Cinema,” in: Linda Ruth Williams and Michael Hammond
(eds.) Contemporary American Cinema (2006) 281.
78
79
Ibidem, 22.
80
Ibidem, 18-19.
36
and THE UGLY AMERICAN (1963), which, sometimes ambiguously, focused on the
communists versus an innocent America fighting for freedom.81
The only major Hollywood film that came out during the war years (1964-1975) and
directly showed the war itself, was a very conservative John Wayne movie, called THE GREEN
BERETS (1968). It was made with some help from the Pentagon and subsequently shown to
the soldiers in Vietnam as a sort of training video. This film dealt with the problem of directly
representing Vietnam by using a kind of World War II narrative combined with another
familiar plot convention. According to Auster and Quart it utilizes a western theme and is
hence situated at an ‘equivalent’ of the American frontier, in this movie the Vietnamese
jungle. Here the green berets figure as cowboys and the Vietcong as violent Indians; the
villains they face in battle.82 In other words, THE GREEN BERETS portrays the conflict in terms
of good and evil as well, with the American soldiers on the side of good and the Vietcong on
the side of evil. As a result a very patriotic but also one-sided and stereotypical story is told
about America’s struggle for freedom and justice in Vietnam. Americans, for example, are the
ones heroically giving their lives to protect Vietnam’s right to democracy; while the Vietcong,
who are fighting for communist domination, are massacring innocent villagers, raping girls,
and torturing prisoners. It must be said that none of this cruelty is explicitly shown in the film,
and it would still take many years before any mainstream movie would dare to do so. Even
though there were some minor B-films that came out during this time, which especially
focused on returning veterans, M*A*S*H (1970) would be the first Hollywood movie since
THE GREEN BERETS that was at all related to the war.83 However, even M*A*S*H did not
dare to speak its name.84
81
Ibidem, 22.
82
Ibidem, 35.
83
84
37
After 1968, the famous television reporter Walter Cronkite would be one of the people
who helped to make the Vietnam War the first televised war in history.85 Slowly people were
getting the idea that the war was wrong and might not be won at all, resulting in the rise of
anti-war movements. Similar images were then adopted by Hollywood, which changed the
depiction of the war significantly. Although M*A*S*H is said to be about the Korean War, it
is clear that this satire actually targets the war in Vietnam, and more specifically America’s
military bureaucracy. It especially focuses on rules and regulations instead of on people or
casualties for that matter, which are generally portrayed as depersonalized bodies. In addition,
the movie critiques racism and gender discrimination in the American military and asks some
questions on these subjects.86
It seems obvious how a movie like this was influenced by the changing attitudes in
American society. Influences coming from the Civil Rights Movement, the representations in
the media, as well as the counterculture, appear to be likely here. Even more extreme changes
in the war film’s narrative would follow during the second half of the seventies and the early
eighties.
As was stated before, a few minor movies about war veterans would surface during the
early seventies. But movie productions about Vietnam veterans would have a bigger impact
during the second half of the seventies with films like TAXI DRIVER (1976), BLACK SUNDAY
(1976), and HEROES (1977). They portray these veterans as persons with psychological and
physical problems and even show them to be deranged, violent, and dangerous.87 But at times
they are also represented with some sense of social commitment, such as the protagonists in
BILLY JACK (1971) and TAXI DRIVER. The combination of these different psychological traits
85
86
Ibidem, 282.
87
38
especially shows how destructive the impact of the war was on the individual.88 For example,
in Martin Scorsese’s TAXI DRIVER, we follow the mentally unstable and –when triggered-
violent Vietnam War veteran Travis Bickle (Robert De Niro) in his New York taxi cab. In his
own deranged way Bickle wants to better the rotten world he lives in, but with his well
intended actions he accomplishes quite the opposite. Apparently Vietnam has separated him
from American society and it becomes painfully clear that he does not fit there anymore.
Clearly most of these movies struggle with questions about the place of and fear for
these returning veterans. For instance, how should they be perceived, as ‘enemies’ or as
heroes? Could they pose a threat to American society? How should they be dealt with?89
Concerns and questions which directly came from society and were eagerly adapted to fit the
screen. Unfortunately for America, these movies did not come up with any clear answers
either. But what could you expect, the images of what Auster and Quart call the ‘wounded
veteran’ are merely a reflection of American society’s attitude towards these veterans, nothing
more. Moreover, Auster and Quart argue it is created as an early way to portray some socially
visible part of the war, without having to show political or military situations directly related
to the war itself.90 Therefore these ambivalent depictions are also yet another indication of
Hollywood’s own struggle with the war and how to represent it to the public.
Furthermore, this inability to directly represent the war was catered by Hollywood’s
belief that its potential audience was not likely to identify with themes that were more
complex than those about “free world, self-determination, and freedom.”91 However, at the
end of the seventies, when the issue became less controversial to depict and the public
seemingly more willing to deal with it, big Hollywood producers also became less hesitant to
88
89
90
Auster and Quart, How the War Was Remembered (New York 1988)
91
Ibidem, 18.
39
address Vietnam in an openly fashion.92 The year 1978 is thought to be the breakthrough year
for these movies. It was the time that some very powerful films about the war found their way
onto the screen, and changed the way people understood the whole ordeal. The films that
came out that year were BOYS IN COMPANY C, GO TELL THE SPARTANS, WHO’LL STOP THE
RAIN, COMING HOME, and of course THE DEER HUNTER. The latter of which gave “a riveting
portrayal” of the effects of the war on soldiers, their family, wives, and friends.93 It became
painfully clear that no one in America could possibly escape the effects of this conflict. No
matter what your personal views were, everyone’s life would be affected one way or
another.94
In addition, this break with the representations of the past had more implications than
was just hinted upon. As was argued, before 1978 the war was portrayed in a “glancing and
offhand manner,”95 and veterans were generally considered to be villains or at least crazed
and violent. But starting with THE DEER HUNTER and the powerful APOCALYPSE NOW (1979),
filmic representations of the war would follow which showed more about the conflict itself as
well as its meaning for America. From that time on, the productions would have a “sustained
and deeply felt artistic interrogation of that conflict”96 and –like THE DEER HUNTER and
APOCALYPSE NOW– they would represent it as being bad; either because the war was bad to
begin with or because the US did not commit itself enough to its cause.97 Finally, this shift
would bring about a focus on the individual soldier, who was now portrayed as a victim of
war. Instead of raising questions about military strategies, government leadership or politics,
92
93
Susan Jeffords, “The Vietnam War in American Cinema,” in: Contemporary American Cinema (2006) 282.
94
Ibidem.
95
Stephen Prince, “Hollywood in the Age of Reagan,” in: Linda Ruth Williams and Michael Hammond (eds.)
Contemporary American Cinema (2006) 237.
96
Ibidem.
97
40
Michael (Robert De Niro) is forced to play a game of Russian roulette, in THE DEER HUNTER (1978).
The meaning of a hunting changes after Michael comes back from Vietnam, in THE DEER HUNTER (1978).
41
the main focus would be on personal loss, suffering, and pain.98 But even though these filmic
developments took place, their narratives still remained very one-sided and a-political.99
APOCALYPSE NOW perfectly fits this particular profile. It is not about big political
plans, there are no decisive victories, nor are there moral guidelines. The only thing we see is
“[…] the force of individual will in search of meaning in the midst of chaos […]”100 and
insanity. All in all, scholars like Ditmar and Michaud in From Hanoi to Hollywood argue that
these films, as well as Hal Ashby’s COMING HOME (1978), are still more metaphorical than
realistic depictions of the war. Additionally, they pose that these pictures are highly infested
with symbolism of all sorts with the purpose of making it easier for the audience to interpret
them.
The latter is the simplified answer to Hollywood’s reappearing problem with Vietnam,
that is the question how to adequately represent this war without losing the audience’s
attention. In other words, how could they identify themselves with this conflict and everything
surrounding it, while simultaneously steering clear of any political related issues? First of all,
the narratives focused on personal stories, eschewing the bigger picture. Secondly, Hollywood
turned to the codes and conventions of the World War II movies, only to find that they were
not entirely adequate to portray the peculiarities of Vietnam. And as a result, additional
symbols and images had to be found or even ‘invented.’101 They had to be capable of showing
those aspects of Vietnam which filmmakers considered to be typical of it, while playing it
safe at the same time.
During and directly after the war the only recognizable image or symbol was that of
the ‘wounded veteran,’ as the book How the War Was Remembered showed us. In films like
98
Ibidem.
99
100
101
42
THE DEER HUNTER and APOCALYPSE NOW yet another symbol became important, namely the
‘superman character.’102 While the American audience was trying to overcome the national
trauma the war had created, this filmic symbol was used to deal with the war through the
incorporation of its destructiveness and by circumventing the moral defeat of America in both
national and international politics.103 In other words, some ‘real’ aspects of the war were
represented in these films, but tough questions were also carefully circumvented. According
to Auster and Quart this ‘superman character’ (soldier) “preserves the idea of heroism”, is
“accustomed to danger”, and “can ultimately only destroy himself.”104 He is physically and
morally different from the audience105 and seems to be more a symbol of “rage and
alienation” thereby “[…] abstracting the war even further from its social and political
roots.”106
This is clearly the case with Cimino’s THE DEER HUNTER and its ‘superman character’
Michael, played by Robert De Niro. Michael is able to stay focused when tortured, to rescue
his friends under extreme circumstances, and to keep them together as a group. He is the hero
of the story, but unreachable in many ways, which is helped even further along by his
introvert and alienated posture after his return from Vietnam. He tries to give his life meaning
again, only to find that he cannot make everything right. There are things he has to live with,
such as his failure to prevent the death of his friend Nick (Christopher Walken). In the end, it
becomes evident that he can only destroy himself, e.g. through a game of Russian roulette.
His life is literally in his own hands and he can therefore choose to remain estranged or to
rebuild it; decisions which can also be applied to America itself.
From an analytical perspective this sounds like an unrealistic way to deal with the war,
although there are some parts of this film which can be perceived as rather ‘realistic.’ For
102
Ibidem.
103
Ibidem.
104
Ibidem, 58.
105
Ibidem, 71-73.
106
Ibidem, 58.
43
instance, think of the danger, terror, fear, courage, breakdown, and unspeakable violence,107
which soldiers, like Michael, had to go through. Another example would be the
socioeconomic situation of their Russian Orthodox (Polish) community in the Pennsylvania
steel industry district. But even with these examples in mind the fact remains that THE DEER
HUNTER operates “[…] outside political and historical context.”108 The stereotyping of the
Vietnamese ‘Other’ as savage, decadent, demonic, sadistic, evil, and damned, while we are
supposed to identify ourselves with a very loyal group of American friends, does not help to
see it any differently either.109 It only represents the conflict in very simplified and one-sided
terms. Consequently, Auster and Quart describe this film more as a portrayal of the effects the
war had on American soldiers. Again, they argue it is cut of from history and politics,110 with
‘working class supermen’ “[…] to order the war’s madness.”111
APOCALYPSE NOW also uses the ‘superman character’ and, like THE DEER HUNTER,
this movie tries to create its own version of the war. Its director Francis Ford Coppola saw
Vietnam as a “surreal horror show” in which “everyone has become a possible enemy or
victim.”112 Therefore his film shows the chaos, incoherence, pointlessness, absurdity, absolute
craziness, and immorality of this war.113 But it also “[…] universalizes and abstracts the war
by making its terror part of the human condition rather than a result of specific [political] and
social forces [emphasis added].”114 Even more than THE DEER HUNTER tried to do, this
particular representation takes away the responsibility of everything associated with the war
from the military, the politicians, and the American public for that matter. In stead it portrays
the war and all that happened in it as something intrinsically linked to human nature, which
107
Ibidem, 61.
108
Ibidem.
109
Ibidem, 62-63.
110
Ibidem, 64.
111
Ibidem, 65.
112
Ibidem, 67.
113
Ibidem, 66-67.
114
Ibidem, 70.
44
makes its mistakes universal.115 By making the ‘supermen’ in these stories very different from
the audience –both morally and physically- it gave the filmmakers the opportunity to evade
moral and political questions about the war.116 Auster and Quart conclude by arguing that
both the symbols of ‘wounded veterans’ and ‘supermen’ were invented because it is easier to
deal with ‘human corruption’ than with these tough questions.117
Still, this movie had a particularly big influence on the American audience and is
considered the mythmaker about the war.118 On the other hand, my personal opinion on the
matter is that especially the REDUX-version (the 2001 director’s cut) gives us some insight
into the politics and history behind this war. For instance, think about the extended scenes on
the French plantation, as well as the hypocrisy of the US military orders pointed out by col.
Kurtz (Marlon Brando). Therefore, it does not only link the war to the ‘human condition,’ but
also shows some deeper insight into it.
In conclusion, we could argue that although the representation of veterans improved
from these movies onward,119 stereotyping flourished in all facets of them; that even though
the war was now openly addressed, tough questions were still evaded; and that as a result a
‘national catharsis’ remained far from achieved.120 On this note, Auster and Quart uttered the
hope that:
[Future films] would eschew clichés and stereotypes and provide some insights
into the moral and political insignificance of the war, [but unfortunately] it is
precisely clichés, stereotypes, conventions, and evasion and displacement that
are the life and blood of popular culture, particularly the movies.121
115
Ibidem, 71-73.
116
Ibidem, 71-72.
117
Ibidem 72.
118
Ibidem, 71.
119
Ibidem, 77.
120
Ibidem, 78-84.
121
Ibidem, 84.
45
Therefore, the following decades would probably produce similar representations. The next
paragraph will deal with these Vietnam War movies made from the early eighties until the end
of the nineties.
46
The bombing of a Vietnamese village; a scene from APOCALYPSE NOW (1979).
Capt. Willard (Martin Sheen) encounters the madness of the Vietnam War, in APOCALYPSE NOW (1979).
47
From John Rambo to BORN ON THE FOURTH OF JULY (1989)
The 1980s showed an increased polarization in the political discourse between left wing
(liberals) and right wing (conservatives), which also found its way into American cinema.122
Its films “[…] attempt to appeal to a wide political spectrum […]” and therefore address a
large range of this polarization.123 Consequently, this resulted in movies that could have
multiple readings and therefore various interpretations.124 But as always, the personal
preferences of the filmmaker as well as the “historical moment” also define the topics which
can have those various readings.125
The eighties also brought new possibilities and opportunities for the manner in which
movies could be funded and distributed. Moreover, new talent and a better organizational
infrastructure widened the tone and scope of Hollywood films during this time. Within this
changing industry, independent filmmaking also became a greater possibility. Oliver Stone’s
PLATOON (1986), for example, was financed by the independent companies Hemdale and
Vestron, but neither the narrative nor the themes and symbols of these films significantly
changed.126 In other words, the output of movies was rather diverse during the eighties, but
they still did not come up with challenging images of the war, nor did these mainstream
Vietnam War movies subscribe new meaning to the conflict. As a result, the status quo on the
subject was maintained yet again, and subsequently the image of the war remained
‘incomplete.’
One reason why a better understanding of the conflict was obstructed seems to be “the
inability of Americans to conceive of other people as essentially different”127 –both in and
122
A.U., “Introduction,” in: Linda Ruth Williams and Michael Hammond (eds.) Contemporary American
Cinema (2006) 227.
123
Ibidem.
124
Ibidem.
125
Ibidem.
126
Ibidem, 235.
127
48
outside the realm of film. So, while a more nuanced look on and portrayal of both the
Vietnamese people in general, and the Vietcong in particular, could open up new insights into
the war, the early eighties movies seemed to do quite the opposite. They resorted to
stereotyping, familiar themes, myths, and other tested movie conventions, which obscured
‘better’ representations. However, this does not mean that they did not change in comparison
to their filmic predecessors.
Gordon Arnold, the writer of the book The Afterlife of America’s War in Vietnam:
Changing Visions in Politics and on Screen (2006), argues that the Vietnam films of the late
seventies depict the war as nothing more than ‘savage madness.’ But according to him this
depiction changed during the Reagan years when films like RAMBO: FIRST BLOOD (1982),
UNCOMMON VALOR (1983), and MISSING IN ACTION (1984) portrayed the conflict as ‘a noble
cause.’128 In an internet article on his book he stated the following about these early eighties
movies: “They showed a picture of the war in which America’s leaders undermined the U.S.
military’s heroic efforts. [While] [l]ater that decade, more nuanced and conflicted retellings of
the war appeared in movies […]”, followed by even more diverging interpretations in the
decades to come.129
Auster and Quart agree that these Vietnam movies depict the US leaders and military
as disruptive elements for the people fighting on the front. They also determined that yet
another western theme was introduced into their narrative in order to deal with Hollywood’s
new perspective on the war. This so-called ‘captivity story’ is a narrative theme which gives
the US soldiers (e.g. prisoners of war) and their rescuers the opportunity to show (off) their
bravery and heroics. At the same time, the military and political leaders try to ‘sabotage’ their
efforts, arguably because of their corruptness or evil nature.130
128
Gordon Arnold, “The Strange Afterlife of the Vietnam War” (21-08-2006) on: hnn.us/articles/28641.html
129
Ibidem.
130
49
English professor John Hellmann elaborates on this in one of his essays in the
anthology Inventing Vietnam. The War in Film and Television.131 He has a more exhaustive
take on the issue and argues that a reversal of the classic western paradigm takes place here.132
More concretely, Hellmann argues that, in FIRST BLOOD (1982), the Vietnam veteran John
Rambo (‘the cowboy’) almost ironically becomes equated with the victims of America’s
imperialism, for instance the Native Americans (the Indians).133 While its sequel FIRST
BLOOD: PART II (1985) shows us an enemy which is not the expected alien ‘Other’ (the
Vietcong), but instead the American “technocrats and bureaucrats” (the government).134 The
latter betrayed an important part of the nation’s mythology, namely America’s traditional
values, and are therefore the country’s enemy. In both cases the conventional roles of the
western theme are completely reversed, subsequently showing us that this war is primarily
fought from within. That is good patriotic Americans versus greedy characterless ones.
Some seventies and eighties conservatives even believed that the war itself was lost as
a result of a stab in the back –the so-called ‘stab-in-the-back-thesis’. They stated that the
American military was heroic and effective, while the politicians, the media, the anti-war
movement, and the anti-war films, were all hostile and weak, causing America’s defeat in the
war.135 This seems to be a little extreme, but, coincidence or not, this idea can be found in
some of the movies of that time, like the first two Rambo movies.
Besides the fact that these movies depict “[…] the Vietnam veteran as victim of a
corrupt bureaucratic government”,136 they also continue to correct the lingering image of them
as deranged men. The Rambo-character, for instance, is both a ‘superman’ and a ‘wounded
veteran’ with a condition of PTSD. He is shown to be highly skilled and capable of being of
131
John Hellmann, “Rambo’s Vietnam and Kennedy’s New Frontier,” in: Michael A. Anderegg (ed.), Inventing
Vietnam. The War in Film and Television (Philadelphia 1991) 140-152.
132
Michael A. Anderegg (ed.), Inventing Vietnam. The War in Film and Television (Philadelphia 1991) 8.
133
Ibidem.
134
Ibidem, 9.
135
136
Ibidem.
50
value to society. Furthermore, it is clear that especially the second Rambo movie is a
symbolic substitute for an American victory in Vietnam, further illustrated by Rambo’s
question: “Sir, do we get to win this time?” Though in this case, Rambo’s actions say more
than his words: by successfully taking on entire platoons of Vietnamese soldiers, he brings
America victory were others painfully failed. Thus you can argue that this movie attempts to
have a cathartic effect on the nation’s Vietnam trauma. However, it is also a very
schizophrenic story, with a violent green beret as the ultimate weapon to redeem America’s
defeat. In the words of Auster and Quart, Rambo is a “homage to psychopathic behavior […]
Transforming a Green Beret into a peacemaker and a symbol of benign power.”137 As a result
history is set aside yet again. So, although Rambo’s violence seems to have a therapeutic goal
for the nation itself, this kind of representation does not learn us much about the war itself.138
On another note, these early eighties movies also continue to use common World War
II conventions, as well as classic American myths. Examples of the former are ‘us-against-
them’ narratives and ‘shoot-them-up’ battle scenes. While instances of the latter are the
captivity stories and symbolic figures, which Auster and Quart call the ‘hunter-heroes’ and
‘survivors.’139 The latter two archetypes were clearly not new to the Vietnam War film. We
have already seen similar representations of them in movies like THE DEER HUNTER (Michael)
and APOCALYPSE NOW (Capt. Willard, played by Martin Sheen), only there they were called
‘superman characters.’ Characters which were just as perseverant and capable of surviving in
the wilderness as their ‘successors’ would be, but which were slightly different nonetheless.
Only the real difference does not truly lie in the characters themselves, but in the version of
the captivity narrative that is used. Auster and Quart state that the eighties movies had a
137
138
139
51
‘updated version’ of this particular myth, referring to the previously mentioned narrative
changes.140 Consequently, the characters changed somewhat to fit these adapted stories.
All in all, these reappearing myths and themes remain a very important way to
represent the war, and their use is therefore far from accidental. Of course, fabricating myths
is a way for filmmakers to circumvent the war’s tough questions, although, some myths are
also important in a different way. Like John Hellmann claimed in his essay on the exposure of
the wilderness myth’s failure, they are intrinsically linked to America and its sense of self and
purpose.141 He also stated that America lost its core myths ‘in’ Vietnam, and that they had to
be restored or reinvented in order for the nation to make sense of itself again, and
subsequently for it to move forward.142 Auster and Quart also stress the importance of these
myths, as well as their possible ‘reinvention’ in movies. Arguably the ‘captivity myth’ is one
of them. In short, the original story of this myth and its symbolic figures comes from the time
of the American frontier. An era when its pioneers fought the Native Americans in the
wilderness, supposedly gaining important building blocks for the nation’s identity and
destiny. For example, they argue that the ‘captivity myth’ emphasizes America’s belief in its
“culture’s destiny and virtue”, the expropriation of the wilderness, and the nation’s eventual
“regeneration through violence.”143 In other words, by killing the ‘red man’ the country would
come closer to its manifest destiny. From this ‘red man’ it is only a small step to the ‘Oriental
Other,’ and more specifically the North Vietnamese soldiers or Vietcong.144 In addition,
Auster and Quart pose that the use of this narrative in film had the purpose of reinterpreting
Vietnam’s violence as redemptive for America. Consequently, this helps to give the American
140
Ibidem, 103.
141
John Hellmann, “Vietnam and the Hollywood Genre Film: Inversions of American Mythology in The Deer
Hunter and Apocalypse Now,” in: Michael A. Anderegg (ed.), Inventing Vietnam. The War in Film and
Television (Philadelphia 1991) 56-80.
142
Ibidem.
143
144
Ibidem.
52
audience a more positive feeling about the war, namely as being just and victorious,145 or even
as “a noble cause.”146 Films like UNCOMMON VALOR (1983) and FIRST BLOOD: PART II (1985)
are ideal examples of this kind of narrative.
On a different note, both these movies also perfectly fitted the political plans of the
Reagan administration.147 Reagan even used quotes from Rambo in his speeches. Though the
question is, if there was any preconceived intent from the side of Hollywood? After the
Vietnam debacle it was very hard to find support for military actions on foreign soil.
Therefore Reagan’s plans to commit troops to Central America particularly needed some
support from the public opinion. Something a powerful medium like film could contribute
to.148 149
Knowing the narratives of these movies, it would seem as if Hollywood reacted to
Reagan’s political needs. However, the reality appears to be a little different.
Immediately after Reagan became president in 1981, Hollywood was not planning on
making many more Vietnam War films. The studios were actually afraid of the political
conservatism that would follow; the economic problems the new policies would create; and
they just witnessed the effects of big Hollywood flops, like Michael Cimino’s extremely
expensive HEAVEN’S GATE (1980).150 Therefore they wanted more “entertainment and
escapism” and less “serious social and political themes” in their pictures. Representing a wide
political spectrum was key, and their primary hope was that their new stance would minimize
the financial risks their movies posed.151 So, although there were some smaller productions
that dared to give a more complex image of the war, oversimplified, action-pumped and
‘cartoon-like’ entertainment such as RAMBO: FIRST BLOOD and UNCOMMON VALOR were
most prominent during this time. With these explanations in mind, it seems like a mere
145
Ibidem, 102-103.
146
Ibidem, 103.
147
Ibidem, 102-103.
148
Ibidem.
149
150
151
Ibidem.
53
The promotional poster for PLATOON (1986), with the tagline: “The first casualty of war is innocence.”
The crazed Sgt. Bob Barnes (Tom Berenger) threatening to kill an innocent Vietnamese girl, in PLATOON (1986).
54
coincidence that their images fitted Reagan’s rhetoric, or was it also the result of their shared
simplicity and hard-line attitude? Whatever the answer, it would take until the end of the
decade before ‘different’ and arguably more ‘realistic’ productions would see the light of day.
Nevertheless, these new movies of the late eighties were clearly not a clean break with
the films we just discussed. That is to say, they continue to show the jungle warfare the early
eighties movies started with; as well as valorize the heroism and sacrifice of American
soldiers; and remain highly limited in giving political explanations about the conflict.152 In
addition, they also keep on emphasizing America’s violence and wastefulness in the war, as
can be found in pictures like PLATOON (1986) and FULL METAL JACKET (1987). But even with
all these similarities critics still considered them to be more ‘realistic’ than their precursors.
The real question therefore, is what sort of characteristics set them apart and does this really
make them more ‘realistic’? Differently put, do these representations of the war come any
closer to the ‘true’ historical events? For example by maintaining objectivity, by challenging
the dominant discourses, by addressing its numerous facets, or by dealing with its lessons,
etcetera.
According to Judy Lee Kinney, who wrote about the movies HAMBURGER HILL (1987)
and PLATOON (1987) in her essay “Gardens of Stone, Platoon, and Hamburger Hill”,153
Vietnam films from the late eighties especially try to memorialize the war. For instance, they
follow a group of soldiers in the field and attempt to generate some understanding for the
sacrifices they made for their country, while also using this perspective to define the war
itself. Consequently, any sense of ‘realism’ must come from the depiction of these jungle
battle scenes, with their courageous and tough violence. However, Kinney poses that this is
merely a stylistic technique. She is actually rather critical of these films and argues that they
152
153
Michael A. Anderegg (ed.) Inventing Vietnam. The War in Film and Television (Philadelphia 1991) 153-165.
55
give an incomplete image of the conflict and the experiences of the combatants. She cogently
states that:
[They are inadequately portrayed] as if they took place in a political-cultural
vacuum. This has become one of the primary myths of Vietnam, that the
soldier in the field had no understanding of politics, no sense of why the war
was being fought, no awareness of the complexities the war represented.154
Once more, the hard questions were carefully evaded and no real lessons were presented.155
However, this appears to make these films more comprehensible, identifiable, and familiar to
the audience.
Critical Studies professor Daniel Miller claims this valorizing of a politically innocent
and heroic soldier is “a way of denying or co-opting their “real, full, and complex experience”
[…]”156 Like Kinney, he argues that in these films the war washes away all internal
difficulties American society faces, such as segregation, racism, drug abuse, etcetera. Most of
it is carefully ignored or even turned around to look more optimistic than it truly was. In this
context, the ‘military patriarchy’ supposed to have made the soldiers more heterogeneous,
strengthened their camaraderie, and helped them to act beyond race and ethnicity.157 In all
reality this seems to be similar to the mythmaking in Michael C.C. Adams’ book The Best
War Ever. America and World War II. However, the true reasons behind it remain hard to
find. It could be anything from Hollywood’s tendency to oversimplify complex topics; the
influence of the picture’s historical moment; the filmmaker’s own perspective on the war; or
154
Ibidem, 9.
155
Ibidem.
156
Ibidem, 10.
157
Ibidem.
56
even a combination of these factors, etcetera. Whatever it is, it does not make it very
‘realistic’ in this sense.
William J. Palmer, a specialist in novels and Film Studies, only addresses the film
PLATOON (1986), as a sort of case study. In his essay “Symbolic Nihilism in PLATOON”158 he
poses that it is about confusion in every possible way we can imagine. Moral and existential
confusion, but also “[…] confusion of time, of place, of reality, of sanity, confusion of
intention, confusion of direction […] [etcetera].”159 Palmer argues that every individual action
in it is one of total meaninglessness, which makes PLATOON “[…] a straightforward, slice-of-
life parable of the descent of American optimism into the black hole of utter nihilism and the
destruction of the self.”160 Moreover, it shows us again how America struggled more with
itself than with its communist enemy, the Vietcong. This is epitomized in the scene where
Sgt. Barnes (Tom Berenger) kills Sgt. Elias (Willem Dafoe), who is then killed by the
movie’s protagonist Pvt. Chris Taylor (Charlie Sheen). Palmer sees in this the total
annihilation of meaning, a symbol of the choice for nothingness and nihilism.161 Although the
movie’s ending (Taylor’s voice-over) clearly tries to leave us with the imperative need to
reconstruct meaning in the world,162 Palmer argues that this moralistic message seems rather
forced and out of place with the rest of the film in mind. Moreover, he claims that in general
“[t]he meaning of the Vietnam War is not, like the Viet Cong, merely elusive; in almost every
extant text, it seems to be utterly non-existent.”163 In the end, Palmer appears to agree that
films like this avoid dealing with complex issues; in this particular case, by rendering
everything meaningless.
158
Owen W. Gilman, Jr. and Lorrie Smith (eds.) “Symbolic Nihilism in Platoon,” in: America Rediscovered.
Critical Essays on Literature and Film of the Vietnam War (New York 1990) 256-274.
159
Ibidem, 270.
160
Ibidem, 271.
161
Ibidem.
162
Ibidem, 272
163
Ibidem.
57
English professor Susan White deals with yet another movie from this time, namely
Stanley Kubrick’s FULL METAL JACKET (1988). For her analysis she employed theories that
are commonly used in both Film Studies and Women Studies, such as psycho-analysis.
Consequently, this might give us a more insightful but also different look at films from the
late eighties. However, when she comes to the point, her insights seem not that different from
those of her fellow scholars. For example, she claims that movies like FULL METAL JACKET
are primarily about integrating the individual soldier into a group, such as an army platoon.
She further specifies this claim by arguing that these soldiers were “[…] melting into an
“irrevocably infantilized” group”,164 stripped of their individuality as well as their humanity;
becoming living killing machines as a result. She poses that such a conversion “[…] involves
a form of male bonding that comes about through a repression of homoerotic desire coupled
with a violent ejection of the feminine.”165 It is almost ironic that this negative image of the
feminine is then equated with the ‘Oriental Other,’ and more specifically with the Vietnamese
soldier.166 167
However, in nearly every macho environment –like the military- it is normal to
reject the concept of femininity. It is equated with weakness and in this case even with
perverseness; therefore it is very convenient to assign such qualities to your enemies. But in
the end it only indicates the obvious, namely that movies like FULL METAL JACKET strengthen
the dichotomy of ‘us-against-them.’ The ‘them’ being some stereotyped, entirely rejectable,
enemy; while the ‘us’ is a much more positive representation of the American soldier, or a
group of its soldiers for that matter. Even though, we sometimes catch glimpses of the enemy
as mere casualties of circumstance as well, such images remain exceptional, and thus this kind
of stereotyping continues. Finally, FULL METAL JACKET evades the same questions all the
164
165
Ibidem.
166
Ibidem.
167
Ibidem, 204-230.
58
other movies did, by only focusing on the war’s ambiguity, insanity, and dehumanizing
aspects from an American perspective. In this sense it is really not that ‘realistic’ either.
On the other hand, there are at least some elements that enhance the film’s ‘realism,’
such as the documentary style of particular scenes, as well as Pvt. Joker’s position as a
military journalist. Both of which try to create a degree of authenticity and maybe even
objectivity, but evidently remain part of a fictionalized account. The sequence in which a
camera crew films and later interviews several soldiers also helps to add a sense of validity to
this picture. Though to a lesser extent, this has also been applied to films like APOCALYPSE
NOW and THE DEER HUNTER. For instance, in the former there is also a scene with a camera
crew (prior to the surf sequence with Robert Duvall), while THE DEER HUNTER incorporated
some ostensibly authentic footage of Saigon in its imagery. Therefore, these attempts at
‘realism’ are clearly not new, only somewhat more explicit.
Brian De Palma’s film CASUALTIES OF WAR (1988) is generally considered to be less
‘realistic’ than other films from the late eighties, even though its story is a similar attempt to
depict issues like war crimes and insanity in the US military.168 Like PLATOON it is not much
more than a morality tale about young US soldiers. More specifically, it deals with a squad of
five men, who lose their moral bearings, which results in the kidnapping, rape, and murder of
an innocent Vietnamese girl. One of these five soldiers (PFC. Eriksson, played by Michael J.
Fox) does not want to participate in their preposterous scheme and tries to help the girl.
Though even with his best effort, he cannot compete against four armed men, which are lead
by the uncontrollable and crazy Sgt. Tony Meserve (Sean Penn). Therefore, he files a formal
complaint against them, only to discover that America’s military bureaucracy rather ignores
such incidents within its own ranks. A military trial becomes inevitable and justice prevails in
the end, thereby illustrating that America is capable of dealing with its own problems.
168
Linda Ditmar and Michael Michaud, From Hanoi to Hollywood: the Vietnam War in American Film (New
Brunswick 1990) 9-10.
59
Sgt. Tony Meserve (Sean Penn) in a successful attempt to kidnap an innocent Vietnamese girl;
a scene from CASUALTIES OF WAR (1989).
Sgt. Meserve (Sean Penn) intimidating PFC. Eriksson (Michael J. Fox) to play along in the rape;
another scene from CASUALTIES OF WAR (1989).
Tran Thi Oanh (Thuy Thu Le) totally devastated after being violently abused by US soldiers,
in CASUALTIES OF WAR (1989).
60
On a similar note, this morality tale addresses the issue of group behavior and soldiers’
unquestioned obedience to group dynamics. For example, when the entire group commits a
crime, you do not question their actions, but follow their example instead.
PFC. Eriksson is the only one that dares to stand up for his beliefs, and he hence represents
America’s moral conscious and innocence. He embodies the idea that good responsible people
are needed to deal with the problems coming from the war. In addition, the movie’s final
sequence in which Eriksson sees a well integrated and happy Vietnamese-American girl, who
is the spitting image of the girl that was killed in Vietnam, metaphorically exemplifies
America’s potential to overcome this adversity. It is especially this kind of blatant moralism
and patriotism which weakens any sense of ‘realism’ this narrative might have. Moreover, its
focus on individuals within one small group, and especially on their actions and motivations
-as well as the consequences thereof- downplays the complexities of the conflict yet again.
You can even argue that the war’s mistakes are typified as individual errors resulting from the
lack of moral authority and supervision in the military; consequently exonerating society from
any blame. On the other hand, for the individuals themselves, this lack of supervision makes it
hard to maintain their moral bearings, especially in an unrecognizable and chaotic world like
Vietnam. So the blame should not be solely put on them. In conclusion, this film only gives
halfhearted insights into the war and all its problems. But bear in mind that this is not
exclusive to this particular movie, only very noticeable.
Owen W. Gilman, Jr.’s essay “Vietnam, Chaos, and the Dark Art of Improvisation”169
deals both with the plot of these films and with their actors, scripts, and production
circumstances. But although his focus is a little different than the analysis of films like
CASUALTIES OF WAR, he still comes to the same conclusion. First of all, Gilman states that
most of the Vietnam War movies are “[…] derive[d] from, parallel, comment on, or rework
169
Ibidem, 231-250.
61
themes, motifs, and formal strategies to be found in literary texts inspired by the war.”170 This
points out that these films not only borrow codes and conventions from World War II movies,
but also use literature in a similar way. Secondly, Gilman addresses Barry Levinson’s film
GOOD MORNING VIETNAM (1988). He argues that this picture is primarily about
improvisation, which he perceives as an important aspect of the war itself. According to him
improvisations are made both by the film’s protagonist Adrian Cronauer, during his radio
show “Good Morning Vietnam,” and by the actor playing him (Robin Williams), who the
director gave carte blanche at those moments. This supposedly represents two truths about the
war, namely the idea that this war was fought without much coordination from above,
subsequently resulting in these improvisations. But also the idea that the individual felt lost
within this unrecognizable world, resulting in impulsive and improvised actions.171
Finally, in Thomas Doherty’s essay “Witness to War: Oliver Stone, Ron Kovic, and
BORN ON THE FOURTH OF JULY”172 another analytical observation is repeated. That is the fact
that a lot of Vietnam War movies used the genre conventions of World War II combat movies
and veteran rehabilitation films, but that they could never totally incorporate these
conventions into a narrative about Vietnam. Doherty claims this discrepancy especially comes
from the negative imagery linked to Vietnam, like it was explained in the previous chapter. In
this context Doherty uses the example of Oliver Stone’s PLATOON, which portrays an
equivalent of the My Lai massacre. War crimes like this do not fit the genre conventions of
the World War II films since they clash with concepts like heroics and sacrifice. However, as
argued, borrowing clearly takes place, especially when they represent battle scenes, the
enemy, and the American soldiers in general.173 Thus, soldiers were primarily portrayed like
their counterparts in World War II films, but when it came to the depiction of insanity and
170
Ibidem, 12.
171
Ibidem.
172
Ibidem, 251-268.
173
Ibidem, 12-13.
62
war crimes some creativity was needed. The filmmakers generally circumvented these
difficult issues by ascribing them to the exceptionally extreme circumstances of the war itself,
the weak US government, or mere individual corruption, etcetera.
To conclude, the analysis of these eighties Vietnam films exposes some common
denominators, which can be found in their themes, narratives, and symbols. On the other
hand, the many movies within this genre also show very different images of the war. In his
book Vietnam at 24 Frames a Second,174 the motion picture executive Jeremy M. Devine even
poses that the Vietnam films –especially in the eighties- belong to a genre which is at war
with itself. This is his way of saying that the many mainstream movies have various and
sometimes conflicting ways of representing this conflict. Every film ‘reinvents’ the war to
some extent, therefore you cannot make any general statements about them. Moreover, films
like BORN ON THE FOURTH OF JULY (1989) might seem to give us new insights into the
conflict by “[…] combining combat and protest and in bringing taboo issues to public
attention.”175 But even these filmic representations circumvent “[…] the discourse of meaning
and responsibility.”176 Something most films on the subject have done so far. The next
paragraph will describe what kind of movies the following decades have brought us.
174
Jeremy M. Devine, Vietnam at 24 Frames a Second (University of Texas 1999)
175
Brunswick 1990) 10.
176
Ibidem.
63
Pvt. Pyle (Vincent D’Onofrio) totally lost his mind after being dehumanized in army boot camp;
a scene from FULL METAL JACKET (1987).
American soldiers find a mass grave with (political) enemies of the Vietcong, in FULL METAL JACKET (1987).
64
From the Nineties into the 21st Century
In the nineties and the first years of the 21st century the number of Hollywood movies that
directly addressed the Vietnam War was very slim. Most of the films that did incorporate
Vietnam into their narrative did so without directly representing it. Examples of this are
movies like THE WAR (1994) and THE WAR AT HOME (1996), which both focus on the daily
life of Vietnam veterans in America. Even so, there is a prominent movie that does overtly
portray the war, namely Robert Zemeckis’ Academy Award winning picture, FORREST GUMP
(1994). Although it is only a limited part of its narrative, this picture depicts American boot
camp, jungle warfare, but also the wounded veterans, and American anti-war sentiments.
More specifically these particular scenes focus on the heroics of a totally naïve and innocent
American soldier named Forrest Gump (Tom Hanks); his combat injuries and those of his
superior Lt. Dan Taylor (Gary Sinise); as well as their ‘journey’ back into American society.
All of which is extremely successful as a result of Forrest’s ‘can do’ optimism, which is the
ultimate portrayal of the American Dream. On the other hand, you can hardly argue that this
is anything more than a caricature of the conflict and earlier representations of it. In other
words, this kind of narrative evidently does not give us anything more than a highly
romanticized, overtly optimistic, and somewhat humoristic version of events, seen through the
eyes of the very naïve Forrest Gump. Therefore, it does not add much to the discourse on
Vietnam, but it does attempt to provide a redemptive kind of innocence, projected on America
through its protagonist.
There is only one other nineties movie that needs to be mentioned in this context, that
is Oliver Stone’s third film on Vietnam, called HEAVEN AND EARTH (1993). A motion picture
that appears to be largely overlooked by the American public, the explanation for which might
become clear from its content. HEAVEN AND EARTH is based on two memoirs of a Vietnamese
girl named Le Ly Hayslip, and deals with her life before, during, and directly after the
65
Vietnam War. It portrays some of her childhood in a peaceful rural village in Vietnam,
followed by the violence and despair resulting from the war. Moreover, it illustrates that none
of its participants can be considered to be ‘the good guys,’ neither the French, the Americans,
and the South Vietnamese Army, nor the Vietcong and the North Vietnamese Army. All of
them have done their part to devastate the country in general, and Le Ly in particular;
consequently they are all guilty and thus responsible for the tragedies that occurred. This
particular message could be the main reason for the movie’s unpopularity, because most
Americans seem to prefer a more recognizable and optimistic story that is less confronting.
On the other hand, what really makes this film different is the fact that, for the first
time in a mainstream Hollywood movie, the impact of the war is shown from a Vietnamese
perspective. This point of view creates possibilities to hold up a mirror to America and
uncover some of the tough questions about Vietnam. However, this opportunity is only
partially taken by director Oliver Stone. On the positive side, he shows us America through
the eyes of the Vietnamese protagonist, who perceives it as extremely shallow, materialistic,
and even decadent. In contrast, Vietnam is portrayed as a devastated country, which the war
hit so hard that materialism and decadence would almost seem surreal to it. Vietnam clearly
had to cope with a lot, while America lingered on in greed and self-doubt. Under these
circumstances the Vietnamese spirit was shown to be much tougher, especially illustrated by
all the adversity Le Ly overcame. Hence, it could be argued that America could never have
defeated them.
In the end, we could conclude that HEAVEN AND EARTH presents a ‘new’ and arguably
better perspective on the conflict. It exemplifies that America is essentially different from
Vietnam, that its involvement did not (really) help, nor that it was much appreciated by the
rural population. However, one of these issues is never fully addressed, namely the question:
is America to blame for the war’s tragedies? Besides this, there are more critical notes
66
possible. For example, you could argue that the film’s narrative perspective is too narrow and
should have incorporated more than it actually did. More precisely, it remains at the level of
the individual or the village; it does not give us any insight into politics; nor does it explain
much of the (political) beliefs of the different groups involved, etcetera. Another possible
critique is that, although it uses authentic memoirs, the film still portrays an American’s view
on the issue, particularly the vision of its director.177 Even so, it is better to deal with some of
the war’s tough questions than dodging them altogether, as was mostly done in previous
films. Unfortunately, it would take until the next century before new pictures would address
the conflict.
There are a number of explanations for this lack of mainstream Vietnam films during the
nineties. First of all, by that time, a new generation of people was going to the movies; and
this new generation had new interests, new preoccupations, and therefore new film topics
became prominent. Secondly, from Hollywood’s point of view, Vietnam was more than
exhaustively dealt with, from the 1970s until 1989. In addition, new conflicts had taken place
in which America played a part. For instance, its intervention in Somalia (1993), the
conflict(s) on the Balkan (1990s), and of course the Second Gulf War (1991). These media
covered conflicts helped to make Vietnam of less interest to Hollywood as well, even though
they were totally incomparable to it and had far less impact on the nation. Moreover, the
successfully won Gulf War might have been the biggest catharsis for America’s Vietnam
trauma, bringing back its confidence in the military and in its role in the world. Consequently,
films like COURAGE UNDER FIRE (1996) and THREE KINGS (1999) –both about the Gulf War–
became very appealing; while movies dealing with the lessons behind and the meaning of the
Vietnam War seemed not that compelling anymore. Nevertheless, it would take until the 21st
century before we would see more of these kinds of conflicts on the silver screen as well; and
177
Ralph Benner, Review of “Heaven and Earth (1993)” (1995), on: http://www.imdb.com/Reviews/41/4121
67
of course then there would be 9/11 and George W. Bush’s venture into Iraq, which also gave
filmmakers interesting ‘new’ options.
Some recently made movies about these conflicts are WELCOME TO SARAJEVO (1997) and
BEHIND ENEMY LINES (2000), which are both about the conflicts on the Balkan; followed by
BLACK HAWK DOWN (2001), which shows the intervention of American troops in Mogadishu,
Somalia; and finally, THE MANCHURIAN CANDIDATE (2004), JARHEAD (2005), HOME OF THE
BRAVE (2006), IN THE VALLEY OF ELAH (2007), REDACTED (2007), and STOP-LOSS (2008).
The first two of which deal with the Gulf War (1990-1991), while the last four are about the
Iraq War and its consequences (2003-present).
On the other hand, there are also a number of movies from the late nineties and early 21st
century that directly represent World War II, such as SAVING PRIVATE RYAN (1998), THE
THIN RED LINE (1998), PEARL HARBOR (2001), ENEMY AT THE GATES (2001), HART’S WAR
(2002), WINDTALKERS (2002), THE GREAT RAID (2005), FLAGS OF OUR FATHERS (2006), and
LETTERS FROM IWO JIMA (2006). So, the more recent conflicts did not necessarily get the
upper hand. That being said, at almost the same time, new Vietnam films were released as
well, for example TIGERLAND (2000), WE WERE SOLDIERS (2002), PATH TO WAR (2002), and
RESCUE DAWN (2006).
Although it is tempting, it remains very difficult to make any conclusions about the kind
of war movies that were produced and the moment they were released at. Especially, because
there are so many complex factors that have to be taken into consideration. However, when
dealing with Vietnam films, you could argue that after a short period of overkill Hollywood
considered the public to be ready for a new dose of it. But are these pictures truly about
Vietnam or is it just a backdrop for more general themes and narratives, such as heroism and
patriotism? Additionally, does the passing of time make it easier to give a more insightful and
complex look at Vietnam? In other words, do these films dare to ask the tough questions that
68
were avoided for so long or do they merely continue with the use of recognizable myths,
symbols, themes, and stereotypes? Finally, when they do address difficult issues, are they not
actually about current events? For instance, how big is the influence of 9/11 on a film like WE
WERE SOLDIERS (2002)? And what was the impact of the Iraq War (2003-present) on PATH TO
WAR (2002) and RESCUE DAWN (2006)? In theory, they might be even less about the Vietnam
War than the highly fictionalized Rambo movies. On the other hand, which cultural product is
not in some way influenced by the time and ‘environment’ it is produced in? Most of these
questions will be touched upon in the next paragraph and the final chapter.
69
The Promotional poster for HEAVEN AND EARTH (1993).
The war totally changed the idealistic rural live of Le Ly Hayslip (Hiep Thi Le), in HEAVEN AND EARTH (1993).
70
WE WERE SOLDIERS (2002) and PATH TO WAR (2002)
Two movies about Vietnam were released in 2002, one of which was Randall Wallace’s
WE WERE SOLDIERS. This picture tells the story of the war’s first big battle between US and
North Vietnamese troops, which took place in the la Drang Valley, between the fourteenth
and eighteenth of November, 1965.178 More specifically:
In a place soon to be known as The Valley of Death, in a small clearing called
landing zone X-Ray, Lt. Colonel Hal Moore (Mel Gibson) and 400 young
fathers, husbands, brothers, and sons, all troopers from an elite American
combat division, were surrounded by 2,000 North Vietnamese soldiers. The
ensuing battle was one of the most savage in U.S. history. We Were Soldiers
[…] is a tribute to the nobility of those men under fire, their common acts of
uncommon valor, and their loyalty to […] one another.179
In addition, the film is a memorial or tribute to both sides fighting this battle. It
portrays the American soldiers as well as the North Vietnamese forces, with their superior
officers and a few of their families. We discover a little bit more about the North Vietnamese
fighting ethics, their combat tactics, and unwavering determination. In other words, they are
made more human to us. As was argued in the study Asia in Europe, Europe in Asia: “For the
first time in the Hollywood tradition, we see fading shots of dying ‘VC’ and of their widows
reading loved ones’ diaries.”180 But still the main focus clearly remains on the American
soldiers and their families: how they live, train, practice religion, and deal with leaving their
178
A.U. “Battle of la Drang.” On: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Ia_Drang_Valley (2008)
179
John Willis, “Plot Summary for: We Were Soldiers (2002),” on:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0277434/plotsummary
180
Srilata Ravi, Mario Rutten and Beng-Lan Goh (eds.) Asia in Europe, Europe in Asia (2004) 267-268.
71
families to fight a war in a far away land. First and foremost the movie portrays how these US
soldiers, led by their superior Lt. Col. Hal Moore (Mel Gibson), heroically deal with the
difficult combat situation they find themselves in. However, this is frequently interrupted by
scenes from the home front. More specifically, these are sequences of their wives, who are
waiting, praying, hoping, and finally dealing with a lot of bad news. In contrast, the soldiers’
Vietnamese counterparts are only briefly shown, without much more than a short and simple
glance. Even though there is some cross cutting between the battlefield tactics of Lt. Col. Hal
Moore and his Vietnamese counterpart Lt. Col. Nguyen Huu An (Duong Don), the
American perspective still encompasses more than 95 percent of the film.
On account of its (valorizing) portrayal of the enemy, which was missing in almost
every mainstream Vietnam War film so far, you could argue that this movie adds a new layer
of complexity to the conflict. However, its incomplete depiction of what these soldiers are all
about, as well as the fleeting look at their families, leave the distinct impression of yet another
missed opportunity. A chance to represent a more complex image of the war. On the bright
side, this picture does articulate a very interesting fact about the Vietnamese people and their
perception of the war. It states that they saw the Americans as yet another foreign invader, a
colonial aggressor that needed to be driven out of their homeland, like the Chinese, the
Japanese, and the French before them. A clear lesson from the war, which is also addressed by
Robert Strange McNamara in Errol Norris’ documentary THE FOG OF WAR:
ELEVEN LESSONS FROM THE LIFE OF ROBERT S. MCNAMARA (2003).
This somewhat ambiguous view on the ‘innovativeness’ of WE WERE SOLDIERS can be
additionally clarified by further analyzing the way in which it represents its soldiers. To begin
with, like the eighties movies that gave us the first depictions of jungle warfare in Vietnam, it
valorizes the American soldiers through their sacrifice and heroism, both on and off the
battlefield. It primarily focuses on the individual soldier and how they deal with the war. This
72
means that it shows a very one-sided picture of warfare, which generally lacks any political
insight into the conflict.181 As David Denby wrote in his review of the movie:
The writer-director Randall Wallace stages much of the combat at very close
range, with masses of North Vietnamese infantry hurling themselves against
American riflemen. Recapitulating the many pictures made in the forties and
fifties which portrayed the Americans as good and simple people fighting for a
just cause, Wallace and Gibson have taken Vietnam out of history-essentially,
they have assimilated it into the Second World War.182
Although this particular statement seems to be a little strong, it does bring up some interesting
questions about the sense of patriotism among these soldiers. Traditionally this patriotism is
thought to be about a sentimental and ideological belief in one’s country and culture, which is
then put ahead of the life of the individual, so that the nation can prevail. According to Frank
Joseph Wetta and Martin A. Novelli the war movies of the last decade portray a different sort
of patriotism. In their article “"Now a Major Motion Picture": War Films and Hollywood’s
New Patriotism” they argue that this so-called ‘New Patriotism’ is about the commemoration
of the battle experience, devotion, and survival instinct which these soldiers share with each
other. In essence, the individual motivations of the soldiers are now put ahead of the nation
and its goals. Consequently, this ‘New Patriotism’ perfectly fits the picture of a movie genre
which primarily focuses on the individual soldier, instead of on a wider national or political
perspective.183 In other words, this ‘New Patriotism’ in WE WERE SOLDIERS does not give us
a much better or more insightful view of the Vietnam War either; the big picture remains
181
Contemporary American Cinema (2006) 239-240.
182
David Denby, “We Were Soldiers (director: Randall Wallace; 2002)” in: The New Yorker (March 18, 2002).
On: http://www.newyorker.com/arts/reviews/film/we_were_soldiers_wallace
183
Frank Joseph Wetta and Martin A. Novelli, “"Now a Major Motion Picture": War Films and Hollywood’s
New Patriotism,” in: The Journal of Military History. Vol. 67-3 (July 2003) 861-882.
73
unrepresented. However, the other film that came out that year did focus on the political
context of the war. That movie is HBO’s PATH TO WAR (2002).
This television film, directed by John Frankenheimer, does not directly portray the war
on the frontlines, but it does show the politics behind the war from the perspective of
President Lyndon Baines Johnson and his political staff, most significantly Secretary of
Defense Robert S. McNamara. As a result, it gives an interesting and arguably accurate
depiction of the complex decision making process during the war, with all the controversy
involved. The human element is also extensively addressed, especially through the very
intense, and at times emotional, way Johnson and McNamara deal with some impossible
decisions. They seem to know the possibly far reaching implications of their decisions, but
they still have to make them.
In this context, we are made to believe that Johnson was sort of an innocent bystander,
who was forced into the war; subsequently losing the fight for his ‘Great Society,’ which lost
most of its political and financial support. According to various critics, some degree of
fictionalization and simplification can be found in these accounts as well. But even though not
everything this film shows is necessarily true, it does give an interesting look at the political
side of the conflict, from the time LBJ won the elections (1964) until the end of his term in
January 1969.
On the other hand, by only focusing on this short timeframe, this movie neither
portrays the war’s history beyond those years –e.g. what happened under Presidents
Eisenhower and JFK- nor does it give an in-depth look at Hanoi’s politics, their political
history, or convictions. In its defense, you can argue, this is the first mainstream Hollywood
movie that attempts to represent what happened from a White House point of view, while
utilizing historical data. Knowledge of Vietnam’s history, a Vietnamese perspective, or
anything related to it, might actually be the main thing these policymakers missed when
74
making their decisions. In that sense, it would even be historically inaccurate to show both
political perspectives; unless it is done merely to compare both sides, without implying any
understanding from the White House of the Vietnamese people. The latter is also one of the
lessons McNamara addresses in THE FOG OF WAR: ELEVEN LESSONS FROM THE LIFE OF
ROBERT S. MCNAMARA. In this documentary he poses that you always have to “empathize
with your enemy” in order to make well informed decisions; something they neglected to do
during the Vietnam War. On this note, he uttered another interesting lesson from the war:
What makes us omniscient? Have we a record of omniscience? We are the
strongest nation in the world today. I do not believe we should ever apply that
economic, political, or military power unilaterally. If we had followed that rule
in Vietnam, we wouldn’t have been there! None of our allies supported us; not
Japan, not Germany, not Britain or France. If we can’t persuade nations with
comparable values of the merit of our cause, we’d better re-examine our
reasoning.
To conclude, it is clear that PATH TO WAR (2002) does not give us all the answers to
questions generally evaded in the Vietnam War movies, but it does provide a partially better
understanding of America’s political decisions. When this is combined with an insightful
documentary like THE FOG OF WAR (2003) and with films like APOCALYPSE NOW REDUX
(1979), PLATOON (1986), HAMBURGER HILL (1987), and HEAVEN AND EARTH (1993), we
might still get some basic sense of what this war was really about.
Like Susan Jeffords argued in “The Vietnam War in American Cinema”, it is
important to think of all of these movies as shapers of public thinking and understanding,
75
especially in America.184 But even though they deal with the war, they can also tell us
something about the cultural moment of production.185 For example, they might actually
address (1) feminism or gender related stereotyping, in the seventies and eighties; (2) racial
tensions in the military and the society at large; (3) American nationalism; (4) economic and
social divides within America; (5) sexuality; (6) perceptions of the government; and (7) fear
of ‘the Other,’ which can be either racial, ethnic, social, or sexual in nature.186 Unfortunately,
this does not necessarily mean that these films try to challenge the status quo concerning these
issues. As was argued before, most of them only reinforce the existing social situation in
America in stead of directly addressing the problems.187
We can also conclude that there is clearly no single story about the war, neither in
motion pictures nor otherwise. Apparently every mainstream Hollywood movie has a slightly
different and mostly lacking take on the conflict. Even so, there are some common
denominators to be found, among which the idea that America primarily fought itself is
frequently reappearing. Like Thomas Schatz mentioned:
What coalesced in Hollywood’s on-screen representation of the Vietnam War,
whether on the “home front” or “in country,” was a portrait of a nation at war
not with a common enemy but with itself.188
As it was mentioned throughout this chapter, most of these movies also utilize codes and
conventions from older war movies, as well as traditional myths and symbols, which are an
184
185
Ibidem.
186
Ibidem.
187
188
Thomas Schatz, “Foreword: The Vietnam War Film: America’s Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder,” in: Jeremy
M. Devine, Vietnam at 24 Frames a Second (University of Texas 1999) ix.
76
intrinsic part of American mythology. These are the most apparent reoccurring features,
unless the next chapter adds something significant to the list.
The final chapter is a short narrative analysis of the last Vietnam War movie that has been
released, namely Werner Herzog’s RESCUE DAWN (2006). The goal of this analysis is to
evaluate if the film is yet another ‘shortsighted’ representation, using the same narrative
devices that have been discussed throughout this chapter, or if it gives a more complete
-and maybe even ‘new’- perspective on the war. In other words, does it continue in the same
promising direction as HEAVEN AND EARTH (1993) and PATH TO WAR (2002)?
77
The Vietnam Veterans Memorial in Washington D.C.; a promotional poster for WE WERE SOLDIERS (2002).
Lt. Col. Hal Moore (Mel Gibson) during the Battle of la Drang; a scene from WE WERE SOLDIERS (2002).
78
Chapter V: RESCUE DAWN (2006), a Short Narrative Analysis
Werner Herzog’s RESCUE DAWN is based on a true story. It tells the tale of a German-
American Air Force pilot named Dieter Dengler (Christian Bale), who was shot down just
over Vietnam’s border with Laos, during the very early stages of the escalation of the
Vietnam War, in 1966. He was captured by the Laotian communists, the so-called Pathēt Lao,
who tortured him, tried to make him officially reject America’s actions in Indochina, and
finally brought him to a prisoner camp in the middle of the jungle. In this desolate place, he
shared a small wooden cabin with a few Americans, Chinese, and Thai civilians, some of
whom had been captured almost two years earlier. We witness their deteriorating physical and
mental state resulting from their prolonged imprisonment, mistreatment, and especially their
extreme malnourishment.
From the beginning it is clear that Dengler does not intend to wait until they are
released or rescued. Even though his fellow prisoners remain skeptic, he conceives of a plan
to escape, fully aware of the even more formidable enemy that would await thereafter: the
jungle. Dengler seems to never lose hope; he shows a relentless determination to take matters
into his own hands throughout the film. However, after outsmarting and killing most of their
guards, Dengler and another American named Duane Martin (Steve Zahn) have been
abandoned by their fellow escapees. In order to survive, they now have to defy the mental and
physical hardships of the jungle on their own. Under these circumstances, Dieter shows a lot
of strength, resolve, bravery, comradeship, and even optimism, but all of this cannot prevent
his friend Duane from dying of utter exhaustion.189 190

From that moment on he does show
some signs of mental and physical breakdown, but still he knows to find his way to freedom.
189
A.U. “Rescue Dawn,” on: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0462504/synopsis (2008)
190
Kaj Zoelen, “Rescue Dawn,” in: Film Totaal (2007). On:
http://www.filmtotaal.nl/module.php?section=newsDetails&newsID=9601&titel=Rescue_Dawn_%5Brecensie%
5D (22-08-2007)
79
It appears as if this narrative makes similar use of the ‘captivity story’ as movies like
THE DEER HUNTER (1978) and FIRST BLOOD: PART II (1985) did. In other words, its narrative
structure is not that different from earlier mainstream Hollywood films about Vietnam.
Though, there are some differences with these earlier filmic representations. But do they
figure more prominently than the similarities? Or does this picture primarily utilize the same
codes and conventions? In more popular words, how ‘inventive’ and ‘refreshing’ is this
narrative in face of its predecessors?
First of all, when looking at its main character, we already get the sense that this film
reaches back to some very recognizable Hollywood stereotypes. For instance, the movie’s
protagonist Dieter Dengler is portrayed as a soldier who represents America’s innocence,
bravery, resourcefulness, good intentions, and especially its determination in the face of
extreme adversity. All of which are stereotypical qualities that define numerous Hollywood
heroes, and especially those in World War II movies. As argued in previous chapters, the
Vietnam War film uses similar –though sometimes more twisted- characters as well. Dengler
seems to continue this tradition of strong men, fighting for survival in the Vietnam jungle.
Even though, he does not directly appear to be a kind of ‘superman character’ like Michael
(Robert De Niro) in Cimino’s THE DEER HUNTER (1978) or Captain Willard (Martin Sheen)
in Coppola’s surreal APOCALYPSE NOW (1979), his characteristics appear to be stereotypical
in nature.
One of the main differences with his captured ‘predecessors’ is Dengler’s more
rational and human(e) appearance, which are in contrast with some of the violent and at times
even ‘superhuman’ qualities of characters like Michael and John Rambo. In addition, the
more positive characteristics of his personality are emphasized through the actions and
personalities of his fellow captives, especially during the event of their escape. They appear to
be more violent, unreliable, treacherous, and even deranged; although this might also be
80
ascribed to their prolonged incarceration. But whatever the reason, the fact remains that these
particular human qualities are set up perfectly to contrast Dengler’s character against. As a
result, Dengler is similar to the stereotypical hero from earlier war films and subsequently
more identifiable to the audience. From this angle RESCUE DAWN is yet another movie which
does not break with standard Hollywood conventions.
Secondly, although fictionalized, this film claims to be a true story about Dieter
Dengler. Thereby, it once again focuses on the individual (or a small group of individuals),
without showing the big picture. Like the previous argument, this makes it easier to identify
with the events and its protagonist, but it also depoliticizes the conflict. On the other hand, the
lack of a broader perspective can also be ascribed to the somewhat convenient fact (for the
filmmakers) that the story is situated during the early stages of the escalation of the war,
which is in 1966. This is a plausible but rather simple justification for the avoidance of a
larger context.
Thirdly, RESCUE DAWN also applies the much utilized and recognizable convention of
‘us-against-them.’ In its narrative, the ‘Us’ are the prisoners of war (POWs), consisting of
Americans such as Duane Martin and Eugene DeBruin, as well as some Asian civilians.
However, it becomes clear during their shared confinement that this is not a very coherent
group. As the time to escape draws closer, conflict –embodied in Eugene DeBruin- arises
from Dieter’s decisions about food conservation and his way of handling things. Only Duane
and Dengler seem to really bond, and are even abandoned by the rest during their escape
attempt. For that reason, they appear to be the genuine ‘Us’ of this narrative, whereas their
fellow prisoners could also be perceived as ‘Them.’ Even so, the Laotian communists that
captured and guarded them are the more evident examples of ‘Them’ within this dichotomy.
Then again, the enemies that figure most prominently within this story are not people, but the
extremely harsh conditions during their incarceration as well as the jungle itself.
81
In all reality, we do not see much of the communists, their politics, their way of life, or
of their beliefs for that matter. We only parade through one of their peaceful villages and are
presented with a short scene in which Dengler is kindly offered his release. In exchange a
local government official wants him to sign a confession about America’s criminal actions in
Indochina, which he obviously turned down. Additionally, most of the prison guards are
extremely stereotyped as either insane, plain evil or somewhat helpful but retarded. The only
real motivation they seem to have is not that different from their prisoners, they also want to
get food to last another day. This shows us nothing but the fact that they are human beings as
well, though generally immoral human beings. This is nothing more than we have already
seen in most of the mainstream movies about the war, namely a negative representation of the
enemy (the ‘Oriental Other’). Hence, although there are examples that prove otherwise, the
fact remains that the oriental enemy is negatively stereotyped yet again. What makes it less
apparent is the movie’s continuous focus on Dengler’s actions, which does not leave much
room for a direct representation of his enemy.
Fourthly, on a personal and therefore rather subjective note, RESCUE DAWN appears to
be a more ‘realistic’ representation of POWs during their incarceration and directly after their
escape. At least, more ‘realistic’ than movies like THE DEER HUNTER and FIRST BLOOD: PART
II, which also use the ‘captivity story.’ The reason for this seems to lie in the lack of
over-the-top action sequences, extreme violence, obscenity, and even of overly dramatized
moments. The main goal of which is to provide ‘spectacle’ and baffle the audience by
bombarding their senses. So, although RESCUE DAWN uses Hollywood clichés and
fictionalizations like its predecessors, it also proves to be somewhat different. The simple
heroic story of bravery and the fight for survival, for example, appears to be rather basic and
cliché. But instead of being a point of weakness, you could also argue that it makes the
narrative more believable and even ‘realistic.’ By focusing primarily on the main character
82
and his journey to survive, without involving too much narrative complexity, and by
combining this with a naturalistic way of acting, it becomes easier to accept it as a true story.
Then again, stripping a story of its complexities can also be perceived as a negative sign,
because simplifying a very complex thing is also a common strategy to circumvent difficult
questions about it.
Philip Rosen addresses the issue of ‘realism,’ ‘reality-effect,’ and ‘spectacle’ in
historical movies, in his book Change Mummified. Cinema, Historicity, Theory.191 As it was
described in the chapter about representations, historical movies utilize both this ‘reality-
effect’ and ‘spectacle’ in varying degrees. In this way they attempt to approach a measure of
indexicality (of the image) and referentiality (of the object) to the historical event, while
providing visual entertainment (‘spectacle’) at the same time. In other words, a close
resemblance to the historical event is aimed at, but ‘spectacle’ is also strived after. A lavish
stream of bombastic scenes is very common in action movies and can be found in most war
movies as well. However, too much of this ‘spectacle’ can make a movie appear to be less
‘referential’ to the events it represents. To compensate for this effect, Rosen argues that the
knowledge-ability of the audience is pivotal.192 When the audience has a better sense of
history and film conventions, they are more likely to separate spectacular scenes from the
(true) historical events. Thereby assessing the former (e.g. action sequences, explosions, and
thrilling escape attempts) as mere entertainment, rather than as an integral part of the latter.
All in all, the question what is truly ‘realistic’ or referential is almost impossible to answer.
Even so, the actors Christian Bale and Steve Zahn convincingly bring the basic human
survival instincts and determination to the foreground, which at least adds to the film’s
believability.
191
Philip Rosen, Change Mummified. Cinema, Historicity, Theory (London 2001)
192
Ibidem, 195.
83
In a way my personal opinion about the ‘realism’ or ‘reality-effect’ of this film is
supported by the director’s personal view on its content. On the official website of RESCUE
DAWN Herzog tells us the following:
Dieter Dengler embodies everything that I love about America: courage,
perseverance, optimism, self-reliance, frontier spirit, loyalty and joy of life.
[…] [He] came to represent the best of the American spirit.193
On that same website is argued that the film “[…] is ultimately neither about war nor politics.
Dengler […] represented the best of what humanity can be under extreme pressure.”194 In
other words, RESCUE DAWN is primarily about humanity’s ability to overcome extreme
adversity, and more specifically about an American who demonstrates this capability –in this
case even a German born American immigrant.
This is basically part of a very recognizable topic within American culture, which is
epitomized by the question: what defines an American? This issue is addressed in several
national myths, such as the frontier myth, which states that the nation’s spirit was forged on
the American frontier. In short, characteristics like the capability to overcome hardship, and
the ability to gain strength as a result of it, were believed to come from American pioneers,
struggling for their survival in the wilderness. Even though RESCUE DAWN does not blatantly
link this concept of resilience to America, it still appears to refer to its people. In addition,
with the moment of production in mind, we can clearly fit this movie within the discourse
about 9/11 and the war in Iraq. In this context, Dieter Dengler is also the personification of the
American nation, showing similar resilience in the face of extremely difficult events. This
193
A.U. “About the Film,” on: http://rescuedawn.mgm.com/ (2006)
194
Ibidem.
84
valorization of the American spirit is an often recurring aspect of Vietnam War films, which
once again helps to mystify its ‘true’ story.
In summary, the film uses Vietnam merely as a backdrop for its homage to the
American spirit in the light of contemporary events; thereby making it all about America.
Moreover, it reinscribes the dominant ideology about its conflicts instead of challenging it,
seemingly hinting to America’s ability to triumph over anything, even when things get rough.
85
POW Dieter Dengler (Christian Bale) in a heroic attempt to escape from his captors, in RESCUE DAWN (2006).
Duane Martin (Steve Zahn) and Dieter Dengler (Christian Bale) during their escape, in RESCUE DAWN (2006).
86
Conclusion
It is clear that there have been many different mainstream screen versions of the war,
representing a wide scope of ‘interpretative perspectives,’ all of which were a continuous
“battle for the hearts and minds” of the American people.195 Losing the war was a deeply felt
trauma, and different filmmakers wanted to capture its essence even long after it was over.
Though, none of them have come up with a definitive answer as to what this war really was,
for as far as this is possible at all. From CHINA GATE (1957) to RESCUE DAWN (2006) too
many aspects of the war have been left out of the equation; too many times were tough
questions about meaning and responsibility evaded; too often these films reinforced the
existing discourse about the war instead of directly addressing or even challenging it.196 The
filmmakers have clearly found it challenging to represent such a controversial episode in
American history and seemingly decided not to engage in too much controversy themselves.
Not estranging their audience appeared to be the main objective, resulting in very diverse but
recognizable narratives, with which the audience would be able to identify itself. Even though
there is evidently no single representation (image) of the war -which would be almost
impossible when taking its complexity into account- there are still some aspects that most of
these movies share.
First of all, they appear to have a common goal. Like Michael Adams argued, when
discussing the issue of mythmaking: all societies reinvent their past; they use things and
portray it as useful, interesting, and even exciting.197 In the case of World War II, sociologists
would probably argue that this is done to increase a feeling of national pride and boost social
cohesion within society. The mainstream Vietnam War movies are really not that different.
They play an important role in the construction of a collective memory on the conflict, to
195
Ibidem.
196
197
87
make this traumatic event easier to accept for the American public.198 In their attempt to make
this happen, they generally ignore the tough questions of the war, and use familiar American
myths, codes, and conventions to represent it instead. They try to recapture the essence of
those recognizable images and symbols that are enshrined in American mythology, and
project them on the war;199 all with the intention to boost confidence in the nation. In other
words, as Ditmar and Michaud most eloquently stated:
Applied to the specific case of Vietnam War films, […] [it can be argued that]
most of the films […] work to reaffirm those same beliefs that the war threw
into doubt, and that they do so by obscuring, not illuminating, the painfully
unresolved feelings Americans still have about the war.200
Consequently, combined with the use of familiar myths, codes, and conventions, you could
argue that Vietnam is just as mythologized in film as World War II is to Americans, at least
according to Michael Adams.
Second of all, the Vietnamese in these films are generally portrayed in “stereotyped
roles as villains or victims.”201 For instance, Gordon Arnold argues that “[…] they serve as
foils against which American characters can act out their heroism or cowardice. We learn
little of them as individuals or as a people.”202 The role of the villain in these movies is a little
bit more complex than in an average World War II movie. One of the reasons for this is the
repeated use of corrupt government officials, and “[…] misguided, cowardly, or simply evil
Americans”, which make clear that the Vietcong and North Vietnamese Army are not
198
Ibidem, 179.
199
200
Brunswick 1990) 7.
201
202
Ibidem.
88
necessarily “the official enemy.”203 This conclusion is shared by the writers of How the War
Was Remembered, as well as by some of the essayists from Inventing Vietnam and From
Hanoi to Hollywood.
It becomes clear that the war in these filmic representations is not only fought between
Americans and the Vietnamese communists, but also between Americans themselves, hinting
to its internal conflict –domestic issues concerning civil rights, poverty, education, and of
course the anti-war movement, to name a few. In this sense the ‘alien’ or the enemy was not
foreign but familiar instead, that is to say: “[…] an internal rather than external version of the
other.”204
The main reason for this particular representation of the war is explained by Gordon
Arnold. He claims that “[i]t was more comforting to believe that the United States had
defeated itself than to believe a small communist nation could inflict such pain on its
superpower adversary.”205 Nevertheless, the filmic representations of the Vietnam War still
try to combine this kind of narrative with the threat of Asian communists (e.g. the Vietcong or
the Pathēt Lao), which makes these movies so ambiguous to begin with.
Besides these particular characteristics, most mainstream Vietnam War films also use
other forms of “narrative and mythic patterns,” such as: the Bildungsroman,206 the captivity
narrative, the feminization of the enemy, the demonizing of the media, the valorization of
patriarchy, and finally Vietnam as a ‘foreign Other’ versus a protagonist with whom the
audience can identify itself.207 This identification with the main character remains important
in most Hollywood films. On the other hand, the protagonist in these movies can also be
intrinsically different from the audience, emphasized by the use of symbols like ‘the wounded
203
Ibidem.
204
205
206
The Bildungsroman mostly deals with the moral, intellectual, and emotional development of its protagonist.
207
89
veteran’ and ‘the superman character,’ which help to distance the spectator from this painful
conflict.208
The use of this personal perspective on the war –down to the level of the individual
soldier– also takes the war out of its wider social, political, and military context. In other
words, it merely shows the ‘micro narrative’ of the war, without any of its ‘grand narrative.’
This also results in the evasion of tough questions about the conflict, though it complicates it
as well, because the actions of the individual cannot always be controlled or accounted for.209
In conclusion, it seems like most Hollywood studios and financers do not want to take a risk
with (controversial) political statements, which could cost them their audience and therefore
their money. Consequently, they rather portray the war by using recognizable codes,
conventions, myths, and symbols, while explaining it through images of human corruption
and total chaos or insanity. According to John Hellmann, this is sometimes done with the
intention to ‘repair’ the core myths that define America.210
In spite of everything, as it is the case with pretty much all historical research, it is
almost impossible to make overarching conclusions or show any trends that have general
value. There are too many films; too many issues they represent; and too many different
filmmakers with their own interpretation of the conflict. Subsequently, when you add an ever-
changing production context and diverse socio-economic circumstances, you can understand
the analytical difficulties it poses. The fact that the interpretation of these films differs from
person to person, and is also influenced by time and circumstance(s), complicates it even
further.
Moreover, these films will never give a true representation of the war –assuming that
this is even possible- not even when they deal with all the critique on their shortsightedness.
208
209
Willem Wagenaar (memory expert), on: “The Memory of Conflicts,” in: Pauw & Witteman (Ned.3 20/03/08)
210
John Hellmann, “Vietnam and the Hollywood Genre Film: Inversions of American Mythology in The Deer
Hunter and Apocalypse Now,” in: Michael A. Anderegg (ed.), Inventing Vietnam. The War in Film and
Television (Philadelphia 1991) 56-80.
90
As was argued in the essay “Teaching Vietnam: The Politics of Documentary,”211 there is a
current and past filmic representation of the war, but also a reality of the conflict. There
remains an unclosable gap between the two, even though you would expect that the time is
ripe to come up with a more definitive statement on the war. In essence, all representations of
Vietnam are just “[…] a highly limited facet of a many surfaced object.”212
If anything, the latter also implies that a good depiction of the war is one of versatility,
including multiple perspectives, images, and meanings within its narrative. It should be a
filmic representation with political and psychological imagination; a painful reality,
portraying both the good and the bad; giving us a detailed history of, and look at, both sides of
the conflict; showing their beliefs and attitudes; and asking questions about mistakes,
responsibility, and the lessons coming from it. However, even when Vietnam films do not
show such a detailed or accurate picture of the war, they still have a lot to say about American
society through its symbols and metaphors, which suggest “[…] a great deal about the
American ethos”213 and the moment of production. Therefore, analyzing them will never be a
total waste of time.
In summary, many different Hollywood movies appear to say something about the
Vietnam War and its meaning. However, after close reading, most of their messages could
either apply to war in general –e.g. that it is extremely complex– or they are overtly symbolic,
encompassing the kind of (subtle) optimism Hollywood considers to be appropriate. We
almost never get a direct and plain portrayal, separated from the customary Hollywood codes
and conventions. On the other hand, we might be asking for something that just does not
belong in the realm of mainstream Hollywood, but more within the art house scene. Once
more the main issue seems to be ideological directly linked to a financial factor. In other
211
Thomas J. Slater, “Teaching Vietnam: The Politics of Documentary,” in: Michael A. Anderegg (ed.)
Inventing Vietnam. The War in Film and Television (Philadelphia 1991) 269-290.
212
213
91
words, the Hollywood studios put a lot of money in these movies and are therefore very
reluctant to risk alienating the audience as a result of controversial narratives. So, playing it
safe –by reinscribing society’s dominant ideology- remains their motto.
With this in mind, hoping for better mainstream Hollywood films is probably idle,
consequently leaving us the more alternative and independent American films, and of course
world cinema. Both of which are more likely to challenge the status quo, because of the more
autonomous position of their filmmakers. But whatever cinema might bring, America’s
current involvement in Iraq makes it painfully clear that there is still enough to be learned
from the Vietnam War, and future films can help to do that.
92
Bibliography
Adair, Gilbert. Vietnam on film : from The Green Berets to Apocalypse Now (London 1981)
Adair, Gilbert. Hollywood's Vietnam : from The Green Berets to Full Metal Jacket (London
1989)
Adams, Michael C.C. The Best War Ever: America and World War II (Baltimore 1994)
Anderegg Michael A. (ed.) Inventing Vietnam. The War in Film and Television (Philadelphia
1991)
Ang, Ien. “The nature of the audience.” In: J. Downing, A. Mohammadi and A. Sreberny-
Mohammadi (eds.) Questioning the Media. A Critical Introduction. (Londen 1995) 207-220.
A.U. “Introduction.” In: Williams, Linda Ruth and Michael Hammond (eds.) Contemporary
American Cinema (New York 2006) 223-228.
A.U. “Vietnam: Geschiedenis.” In: Microsoft Encarta. Winkler Prins Editie (NL) (2002)
Auster, Albert and Leonard Quart. How the War Was Remembered (New York 1988)
Beukenhorst, Beerd (UvA). Lecture on “The Main Lessons of the Vietnam War.” Sources by
Vietnam researcher M.B. Young (Amerikanistendag 2008 University of Nijmegen)
93
Bordwell, David and Kristin Thompson. Film Art: An Introduction (New York 2001)
Campbell, Neil and Alasdair Kean. American Cultural Studies. An introduction to American
culture (New York 2006)
Cavallaro, Dani. Critical Cultural Theory (London 2001)
Devine, Jeremy M. Vietnam at 24 Frames a Second : A Critical and Thematic Analysis of
over 400 Films about the Vietnam (Austin, TX 1999)
Ditmar, Linda and Michael Michaud. From Hanoi to Hollywood: the Vietnam War in
American Film (New Brunswick 1990)
Dyer, Richard. The Matter of Images: Essays on Representations (London 1993)
Gilman, Jr. Owen J. and Lorrie Smith (eds.) “Symbolic Nihilism in Platoon.” In: America
Rediscovered. Critical Essays on Literature and Film of the Vietnam War (New York 1990)
Hall, Mitchell K. Crossroads: American Popular Culture and the Vietnam Generation
(Lanham 2005)
Hall, Stuart. Encoding and Decoding in the Television Discourse (University of Birmingham
1973)
94
Inge, M. Thomas. “Introduction.” In: M. Thomas Inge and Dennis Hall (eds.) The Greenwood
Guide to American Popular Culture (Westport, CO) xv-xxv.
Jeffords, Susan. “The Vietnam War in American Cinema.” In: Linda Ruth Williams and
Michael Hammond (eds.) Contemporary American Cinema (New York 2006) 280-288.
Lauter, Paul. “Reconfiguring Academic Disciplines: The emergence of American Studies.”
In: From Walden Pond to Jurassic Park: Activism, Culture & American Studies (Durham
2001)
Levine, Lawrence. High Brow/Low Brow: The Emergence of Cultural Hierarchy in America
(Cambridge, MA: Harvard UP 1988)
Miller, Mark Crispin (ed.) Seeing through movies (New York 1990)
Muse, Eben J. The land of Nam : the Vietnam war in American film (London 1996)
Norton, Mary Beth, David Katz and David Blight (et al.) “Chapter 31: Disaster and Détente:
The Cold War, Vietnam, and The Third World.” In: A People and a Nation. A History of the
United States (Boston 2001)
Prince, Stephen. “Hollywood in the Age of Reagan.” In: Linda Ruth Williams and Michael
Hammond (eds.) Contemporary American Cinema (New York 2006) 229-246.
Ravi, Srilata, Mario Rutten, and Beng-Lan Goh (eds.) Asia in Europe, Europe in Asia (2004)
95
Rosen, Philip. Change Mummified. Cinema, Historicity, Theory (London 2001)
Rosenstone, Robert A. Visions of the Past. The Challenge of Film to Our Idea of History
(Cambridge 1995)
Tricht, Bart van. “Rendering Whiteness Strange.” Essay for: Topics in American Diversity
(Utrecht University 19-02-2007)
Tricht, Bart van. “Take-Home Exam; question 3.” Essay for: Introduction to American
Studies (Utrecht University 08-11-2006)
Wetta, Frank Joseph and Martin A. Novelli. “"Now a Major Motion Picture": War Films and
Hollywood’s New Patriotism.” In: The Journal of Military History. Vol. 67-3 (July 2003)
861-882.
96
Vietnam War Movies (sorted by year)
Fuller, Samuel. CHINA GATE (1957)
Logan, Joshua. SOUTH PACIFIC (1958)
Mankiewicz, Joseph L. THE QUIET AMERICAN (1958)
Englund, George. THE UGLY AMERICAN (1963)
Wayne, John and Ray Kellogg. THE GREEN BERETS (1968)
Altman, Robert. M*A*S*H (1970)
Laughlin, Tom. BILLY JACK (1971)
Compton, Richard. WELCOME HOME, SOLDIER BOYS (1972)
Jaglom, Henry. TRACKS (1976)
Scorsese, Martin. TAXI DRIVER (1976)
Frankenheim, John. BLACK SUNDAY (1977)
Kagan, Jeremy. HEROES (1977)
Reisz, Karel. WHO’LL STOP THE RAIN (1978)
Cimino, Michael. THE DEER HUNTER (1978)
Ashby, Hal. COMING HOME (1978)
Furie, Sydney J. THE BOYS IN COMPANY C (1978)
Post, Ted. GO TELL THE SPARTANS (1978)
Coppola, Francis Ford. APOCALYPSE NOW (1979) (2001: REDUX version)
Kotcheff, Ted. RAMBO: FIRST BLOOD (1982)
Kotcheff, Ted. UNCOMMON VALOR (1983)
Zito, Joseph. MISSING IN ACTION (1984)
Cosmatos, George P. RAMBO: FIRST BLOOD PART II (1985)
Stone, Oliver. PLATOON (1986)
97
Irvin, John. HAMBURGER HILL (1987)
Kubrick, Stanley. FULL METAL JACKET (1987)
Levinson, Barry. GOOD MORNING VIETNAM (1988)
Stone, Oliver. BORN ON THE FOURTH OF JULY (1989)
De Palma, Brian. CASUALTIES OF WAR (1989)
Stone, Oliver. HEAVEN AND EARTH (1993)
Zemeckis, Robert. FORREST GUMP (1994)
Schumacher, Joel. TIGERLAND (2000)
Wallace, Randall. WE WERE SOLDIERS (2002)
Frankenheimer, John. PATH TO WAR (2002)
Herzog, Werner. RESCUE DAWN (2006)
Documentaries
Lohaus, Dan (dir.) VPRO’s Import: WHEN I CAME HOME (documentary; USA 2006)
Norris, Errol (dir.) THE FOG OF WAR: ELEVEN LESSONS FROM THE LIFE OF ROBERT S.
MCNAMARA (2003)
Television Programs
Wagenaar, Willem (memory expert). On: “The Memory of Conflicts.” In: PAUW &
WITTEMAN (Ned.3 Thursday 20/03/08)
98
Internet Sources
A.U. “About the Film.” On: http://rescuedawn.mgm.com/ (2006)
A.U. “Battle of la Drang.” On: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Ia_Drang_Valley
(2008)
A.U. “Internet Movie Database.” On: http://www.imdb.com (2008)
A.U., “Representation (arts).” On: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Representation_%28arts%29
(2008)
A.U. “Rescue Dawn.” On: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0462504/synopsis (2008)
A.U. “The Vietnam War.” On: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnam_War (2008)
Arnold, Gordon. “The Strange Afterlife of the Vietnam War” (21-08-2006). On:
hnn.us/articles/28641.html
Benner, Ralph. Review of “Heaven and Earth (1993)” (1995). On:
http://www.imdb.com/Reviews/41/4121
Denby, David. “We Were Soldiers (director: Randall Wallace; 2002).” In: The New Yorker
(March 18, 2002). On:
http://www.newyorker.com/arts/reviews/film/we_were_soldiers_wallace
99
Willis, John. “Plot Summary for: We Were Soldiers (2002).” On:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0277434/plotsummary
Zoelen, Kaj. “Rescue Dawn.” In: Film Totaal (2007). On:
http://www.filmtotaal.nl/module.php?section=newsDetails&newsID=9601&titel=Rescue_Da
wn_%5Brecensie%5D (22-08-2007)
The images that are used in this master thesis are screenshots and posters from various websites.©
100

Vietnam War Movies (Master Thesis) - Bart Van Tricht

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Vietnam War Movies (Master Thesis) - Bart Van Tricht

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Vietnam War Movies

Representations of a Controversial War

From CHINA GATE (1957) to RESCUE DAWN (2006).

Samuel Fuller’s CHINA GATE (1957)

Werner Herzog’s RESCUE DAWN (2006)

Name: Bart van Tricht

Chapter I: Popular Culture and American Studies.................................................... 11

Chapter II: Representations....................................................................................... 14

Chapter III: Before the Vietnam War Movies........................................................... 22

Chapter IV: The Vietnam War Movies..................................................................... 31

Chapter V: RESCUE DAWN (2006), a Short Narrative Analysis ............................... 79

nothing compared to the anti-war demonstrations in the sixties.

will further address these movies.

have changed over time.9

any different from those made at an earlier time.

films (1957-2006) will be summarized.

Visions of the Past, most eloquently posed that:

about how we think about our past.10

importance, though from a different angle than Rosenstone did here.

contributed more to the formation of a collective memory of the war.

their historical correctness, because “all history is a construction not a reflection.”11

Moreover, it is impossible to know what exactly happened in the past. Consequently, my

this all serves within the movies themselves, etcetera.

relevant, though arbitrarily chosen, facts about the Vietnam War.

recognizable enemy in Southern Vietnam.14 15

Successive US governments looked with fear at the rise of communism in Vietnam,

April 30, 1975, which emphasized America’s utter defeat.16 17 18

will be more thoroughly explained during the remainder of this chapter.

The ‘Introduction’ of The Greenwood Guide to American Popular Culture, written by

its willingness to deal with tough questions about the conflict.

common, generally though not necessarily disseminated by the mass media,”23 or as

that only a small part of the nation was considered.

chapter will discuss how these representations work.

significance and theoretical mechanism of representations in general and of filmic

possible. Dani Cavallaro’s argument in his article “Representation” is that:

However this is not always a conscious choice of the filmmakers.

Differently put, when looking at representations in these mainstream Hollywood

(unintentionally) subscribed to the dominant discourses and the overarching dominant

Nevertheless, these cultural expressions can be interpreted in different ways, by different

which resulted in the mainstream pictures Hollywood produced so far.39

portray history or memory for that matter.

D-Day, in THE LONGEST DAY (1962).

The Allied troops, in THE LONGEST DAY (1962).

portrayal of these conflicts, will be carefully analyzed and compared.

how this relates to the (representations of) Vietnam War.

portrayed, and subsequently perceived, as ‘a good war’ in popular imagination, especially

persist in an act of mythologizing.

This mythologized portrayal of World War II is what Adams tries to debunk. He

When nostalgia drives us to depict war as a golden age in our cultural

development, a time of unending cheerful production, team spirit, prosperity,

of human and natural resources, disruptive of normal social development. We

analyzed in the form of their -possibly mythologized- filmic representations.

did. On this note, Adams also states the following:

Although we know that many Vietnam War veterans suffer post-traumatic

acts that later disturbed them.59

explanation of these topics can differ significantly.

though a lot less explicit, negative ideas about war.

other things going on?

completer picture of wartime experiences.63 This evolving discourse made it possible to

representations of the Vietnam War.65

thoroughly in the next chapter.

Blowing up the bridge, in BRIDGE ON THE RIVER KWAI (1957).

English POWs in BRIDGE ON THE RIVER KWAI (1957).