Call It a Start

8/2/2019 Call It a Start

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/call-it-a-start 1/4

In 1970, my father and some of his Army veteran buddies wentto see the newly released and

hugely successful movie“M*A*S*H,” about an Army mo-bile surgical unit in Korea. They

walked out, outraged at the film’smean-spiritedness and ugly depic-

tion of the men they had servedalongside in the “forgotten war.”

A year later, my father wasdead, and my mother and Imoved to live with her family inIreland. There, my Dublin school-mates offered to introduce me toan American GI, then laughingly

presented me with a tub of rawhamburger. For the first and only

time in my life, I slugged anotherhuman being.

I mention these incidents toillustrate a point. I grew up in ahousehold that revered soldiers ata time when popular culture bothhere and abroad used the disfa-vored Vietnam War as an excuse

to make sport of American ser-vicemen. And while cultural atti-

42 June 2002

The American Legion Magazine

‘We Were Soldiers‘ helps undo Hollywood‘s damaging depiction of American soldiers in Vietnam.

BY SUSAN KATZ KEATING



tudes have improved greatly to-ward American soldiers in gener-al, they remain mired in old prej-udices about U.S. servicemen inVietnam. So it is that I, like myfather before me, have returnedhome deeply offended many

times by what I have witnessedonscreen about Vietnam.

That was before I saw “WeWere Soldiers,” the new RandallWallace film based on the book“We Were Soldiers Once … andYoung,” by retired Lt. Gen. HalMoore and former war correspon-dent Joe Galloway. The bookand film recount the terrorizing1965 battle of the Ia Drang, inwhich soldiers from the 1st Bat-talion of the 7th Cavalry foughtAmerica’s first major ground en-gagement with the NorthVietnamese military.

“We Were Soldiers” is a crack-ing good combat film, with sud-den death, breathtaking heroismand romantic characters; basical-ly, it’s a World War II movie set in

Vietnam. It is sickeningly violent.The storyline is heartbreaking.But in addition to being anabsorbing movie, “We Were Sol-diers” is a socially valuable workof art. It represents a significantturning point in American culture.

Here’s why.The mistreatment of the Viet-

nam serviceman is an oft-told sto-ry. First, the soldiers weredispatched in all their patrioticinnocence to fight a war so gross-

ly mismanaged it’s a wonder allof them didn’t wind up with theirnames etched alongside the58,000 already on the Wall.

Second, the men returnedhome to an ungrateful nation.Civilians openly jeered at soldiers.The intelligentsia mocked themfor not being smart enough toevade the draft. Members of theso-called “peace” movementphysically assaulted them.

Most appalling, though, is the

rarely recognized fact that for thepast 30-plus years, Vietnam vet-

erans have endured the outrageof being miscast as society’sdamaged goods. Despite the factthat Vietnam veterans are fullyintegrated, high-functioningmembers of modern society, theyare the subject of countless ur-

ban myths depicting them asmentally or emotionally disabled,or even as walking time bombswaiting to unleash their pent-upsickness on America.

The myths have been perpetu-ated by Hollywood.

“Apocalypse Now,” while artis-tically entertaining, depicts twoversions of American soldiers inVietnam: crazed violence junkiesand psychologically malformedcreatures of darkness. So, too,does the similarly artsy “TheDeer Hunter.”

In “First Blood,” SylvesterStallone portrays John Rambo, aveteran who becomes almostcomically violent while acting outhis demons from Vietnam. In thecult classic “Billy Jack,” the ex-plosive-tempered title character isa disillusioned former Green Beretwho served in Vietnam. In “TaxiDriver,” the murderous TravisBickle is … guess who? A Viet-nam veteran.

In “Coming Home,” Jane Fonda– who in real life betrayed hercountry by taking up with the ene-my in North Vietnam – finds sexu-al and emotional fulfillmentonscreen in an adulterous relation-ship with a severely disabled Viet-nam veteran. Her discarded soldierhusband eventually does the de-cent thing and drowns himself.

The themes are inescapable,with Miltonian allegories of hell,redemption and resurrection. In

these films, the soldier is a basesinner who finds salvation only atgreat personal cost, such as theuse of his legs. Always, the sol-dier must renounce allegiance tothe gods of war.

Admittedly, filmmakers want-ing to depict Vietnam in astraightforward light have had atough sell.

In 1987, producer MichaelLevy made “Gardens of Stone,” afeature film about the Army’s Old

Guard at Arlington NationalCemetery. “Until then, no one had

June 2002 43The American Legion Magazine

commentary

“We Were Soldiers” is acracking good combat

film, with suddendeath, breathtaking

heroism and romanticcharacters; basically,it’s a World War II movie set in Vietnam.

Mel Gibson, left, plays Lt. Col. Harold G.Moore, and Sam Elliott is Sgt. Maj. Basil

Plumley, in Paramount Pictures‘ “We WereSoldiers.” The film is based on Moore'sbook “We Were Soldiers Once ... andYoung,” an account of the 1965 battle of the Ia Drang in Vietnam. Stephen Vaughan



done a homefront movie about themen who take care of the deadfrom Vietnam,” Levy said. At thetime, more than a decade after thelast refugee was plucked from theroof of the American embassy inSaigon, the movie stirred contro-versy. Washington was dividedduring the on-location filmmaking.

When the movie was released,the press and public reacted withcallous disrespect for the fallen

soldiers. “Some people felt thatthe movie took advantage of thesympathy for the men who died,”Levy said.

The Army gave Levy an awardfor patriotism for “Gardens of Stone.” But in that instance, theArmy was an audience of one,alone in its appreciation.Ultimately, the movie flopped atthe box office.

About the same time, anotherVietnam-themed movie was a

smash success: Oliver Stone’s“Platoon,” allegedly based onStone’s own war experience. It isperhaps the single most sociallydamaging film about Vietnam.

The opening scenes of “Platoon” have been termed byveterans as being some of themost realistic on-screendepictions of life in the jungle. Inthe first few frames, Americansoldiers fight mosquitoes, fatigueand harsh conditions in addition

to the unseen enemy. The soldiersengage in a violent firefight. They

return to camp, where they breakout the marijuana. From there thedepiction creeps steadily down-ward, with the men getting high,committing atrocities and tryingto kill one another. In the end, thecompany commander calls in an

air strike on his own position.Critics hailed “Platoon” for itsstunning realism and high artisticmerit. Real soldiers, though, hada far different reaction.

“When I came out of thatmovie, I was so mad, I didn’tknow what to do,” says retiredBrig. Gen. Mike Lynch, who com-manded the 2nd Brigade of the25th Infantry Division during the1968 Tet offensive. “Anyonewatching that movie would thinkwe were all a bunch of animals.”

“We were nothing like that,”combat veteran Robert Hemphillsays. “Our men were nothing likethat, and those things did not hap-pen the way Stone says they did.”

Hemphill is in a unique positionto comment on “Platoon.” He wasOliver Stone’s company command-er in Vietnam. He was particularlyoutraged to see that Stone identi-fied their old Bravo Company, aunit from the 25th Infantry Divi-sion, as the platoon in the movie.

The film’s commander who calledin an airstrike on his own men,then, would have been Hemphill,who says he did no such thing. Hewas appalled.

“The first thing I did was callStone,” Hemphill says. “I asked,‘Where the hell did you get thatstuff you put in the movie?’ I toldhim, ‘It’s not fairto our guys tomisrepresent themin this way.’”

Hemphill saysStone pleadeddramatic license.The filmmakerwent on to maketwo otherVietnam-themedmovies, the rela-tively unknown“Heaven andEarth” and the hit“Born on theFourth of July.”

Again, the maincharacter in the

latter film gains redemption onlyby renouncing his part in theVietnam War.

Veterans have been deeply hurtby the one-sided presentation.

So it was that when I receivedan invitation to attend the Wash-ington screening of “We Were Sol-diers,” I accepted eagerly but witha measure of apprehension. Wouldthe excellent story be mauled, Iwondered, by Hollywood? Andhow would the audience – largelyVietnam veterans and their fami-lies – react?

My first question, thankfully,

was answered in the negative.My second query was resolved

the minute the movie ended. Nor-mally, an audience starts to filterout when the story portion con-cludes. Here, though, the entirecompany-sized audienceremained frozen in their seats inattentive silence until the last

44 June 2002


commentary

Oliver Stone‘s company commander in Vietnam, Capt.

Robert Hemphill, was outraged at the depiction of his unit inStone‘s film “Platoon.” Courtesy Robert Hemphill

Vietnam veterans …have been the subject of countless urban mythsdepicting them as

mentally or emotionallydisabled, or even aswalking time bombswaiting to unleashtheir pent-up sicknesson America.Combat veteran Sgt . C lel l Hazard,

played by James Caan, prepares to buryanother young soldier in Michael Levy‘s“Gardens of Stone.” Though the Armypraised its patriotism, the film was not abox-office success. Tri-Star Pictures



closing credit vanished from thescreen. Then the group rose inunison for an emotional ovation.Many were visibly shaken. Somewere in tears. Afterwards, theyfell into a receiving line to meetauthor Galloway and thank him,

repeatedly, for helping create thistreasure of a film.What, then, is so curative

about “We Were Soldiers”?First, its realism. The film ex-

amines genuine issues thatcaused problems for the troopsboth during and after their timein Vietnam.

In “We Were Soldiers,” Com-mander Moore – as portrayed byMel Gibson – works mightily toprepare his men for their upcom-ing rendezvous with combat. Yetwhen it comes time to go to war,Moore loses more than a third of his highly trained men becausetheir term of service has expired.The enemy, by contrast, consistsof seasoned troops fighting onhome turf. A high-school footballcoach would not make such anelemental mistake with his gameroster; however, it happened withAmerican soldiers in Vietnam.

The film also underscores arefrain long repeated by American

military leaders: when you go towar, you must commit to win. Todo less is a grave sin, against boththe nation and our soldiers.

Additionally, the movie pres-ents Moore’s gut-wrenching guiltat surviving the battle while oth-

ers died. This issue resonates formany veterans – not just thosefrom Vietnam, but from otherwars as well. My own father, acombat-hardened master sergeantat age 19, spent many long hoursstaring into the woods behind ourhouse, wondering why he wasable to walk off the battlefield inKorea when others did not.

Even the movie’s asidesresonate authenticity. Former CBSwar correspondent Jed Duvall re-calls episodes like those in thefilm, when a gaggle of squeaky-clean, well-fed journalists de-scends on the still-smoking battle-ground, swarming the shell-shocked troops.

The most important aspect of “We Were Soldiers,” though, is itspresentation of the American GI.

In real life, Lynch says, the mostremarkable thing about Americantroops in Vietnam is that most werenot professional warriors. “Thesewere the kids next door forced to

play war, and they did it,” he says.“They did it magnificently.”

Wallace makes this clear. In hishands, the soldiers are neitherdope-toking goof-offs nor crazedkillers nor irreparably damagedpsycho-victims. Rather, they arebrave, loyal, honest and patrioticAmerican men. They are heroes,every one.

Former Navy pilot Everett Al-varez, who spent nearly nine yearsas an unwilling “guest” at the infa-mous Hoa Lo “Hanoi Hilton”prison in North Vietnam, said,“These were the men I knew.”

These are the men our countryneeds to know. “We WereSoldiers” introduces them.

I wish my father could havejoined me at the screening of “WeWere Soldiers.” He wouldn’t have

walked out. He would havestayed through to the end andshaken Joe Galloway’s hand. AndI bet he would have agreed withAlvarez, who told me, “This isthe first Vietnam war movie Ihave seen without the Hollywoodpolitical baggage, and without themyth of what a soldier fighting inVietnam was.”

In 1989, film critic Roger Ebertwrote of the anti-war “Born on theFourth of July,” “They could sim-

ply hold a screening of this movieon Capitol Hill and call it a day.”I have a better idea. Let’s gath-

er the motion-picture industry fora showing of “We Were Soldiers”and call it a start. I

Susan Katz Keating is author of the book “Prisoners of Hope: Ex- ploiting the POW/MIA Myth in America.” She also is director of special programs for the Freedom Museum in Manassas, Va.

Article design: King Doxsee

46 June 2002


commentary

The film also under-scores a refrain long repeated by Americanmilitary leaders: when

you go to war, you must commit to win.

Director, writer and producer Randall Wallace, left, discusses a scene with actor MelGibson during the filming of “We Were Soldiers.” Stephen Vaughan/Paramount Pictures

Documents

Call It a Start