History Buffs: We Were Soldiers

Hello and welcome

history

buffs

, my name is Nick Hoders and today's review will be We Were Soldiers based on the book We Were Soldiers once and Young by leftist general Hal Moore and war journalist Joseph Galloway. This is the story about America's first major battle in Vietnam. War in which 400 American

soldiers

were surrounded by a 4,000-man NVA division in the Central Highlands of Vietnam, unlike its more notable predecessors, although this is a Vietnam War film that focuses more on

history

behind the conflict than in the controversial politics we have reached. What can be expected is that the F-bombs, the nword and the GW will take a backseat and instead the tactics and strategies of the actual battles and the men who fought in them will be brought to the foreground - all the necessary ingredients to make a good historical film, but does it guarantee a good film about the Vietnam War, well, let's find out in We Were Soldiers, so the film begins in 1964, at the height of the Cold War, the eyes of the Western world were fixed on a remote corner of Southeast Asia called Vietnam, gone with the days of its French imperialism and a new question formed in everyone's minds: would Vietnam's future ultimately rest under a regime of capitalism or communism after the end of the Indochina War?

French and Vietnamese forces agreed to a ceasefire at the 1954 Geneva Conference and it was later decided that Vietnam would be temporarily divided at the 17th parallel with a communist North and a capitalist South. This was done under the promise that France would withdraw from the conflict and the country would officially end decades of French imperial rule. Elections would also be held in 1956 for a single Vietnamese government. to reunify the country, however, the United States decided to misinterpret the temporary ceasefire as temporary, much preferring to view it as a permanent division between a communist North and a capitalist South.

The reason behind this thinking was that the North was predicted to win the 1956 election. Due to its larger population, the United States' main fear was that if Vietnam was unified under a single communist government, then communism would eventually spread throughout the country. all of Southeast Asia, so it was no surprise that the reunification elections were canceled and this was probably the biggest one. spark that ignited the Vietnam War and this is where the film begins in 1964 The United States was not officially involved in Vietnam, but had been supporting the south with military aid and advisors for quite some time, however, it did not escape them that this conflict would inevitably escalate and result in their direct military involvement, so they were prepared for this by rethinking their tactics and introducing new technologies, in particular the helicopter, which would give them a huge advantage in being able to commit their forces absolutely anywhere armed with their economic wealth and its position as a superpower the United States was confident of an easy victory in a matter of months when making We Were Soldiers Randall Wallace, the screenwriter and director of the film had one main objective when reading the book on which the film was to be based, he came across a passage that talks about the Vietnam War saying that Hollywood always got it wrong with these words in mind, he focused on trying to get it right and that is certainly a noble task.

I mean, I wish more filmmakers thought this way now about the passage I can write. To understand where that book comes from, the question is that when we think about the Vietnam War, what do we usually think about other than it obviously has the best soundtrack of all time, do we think about the quintessential Vietnam War movie? and our minds generally wonder? a select few from the 70s and 80s, the main ones being Apocalypse Now, the Deer Squad for Full Metal Jackets, and the Casualties of War. All of them, without a doubt, are some of the best films in American cinema, but were they intended to portray accurately?

The Vietnam War is probably not the main goal of those films, but rather to portray the madness of war and the loss of innocence. History takes a backseat in these historical representations and the political and philosophical motifs are in the foreground to be analyzed now even though they are not certainly authentic and captured the chaos and brutality of that conflict. However, these films are so ingrained in pop culture that the scenes that once moved us now make us laugh, the scenes that shocked us now generally entertain and amuse us, and, why not, these characters. and their performances are as crazy and eccentric as the movies themselves, they are a lot of fun to watch, do you stink Nicks, sir no sir, are you a Peter puffer, sir no sir?

I bet you're the kind of person who would screw a person up their ass and not even have the damn polite comment to give them a hand. I'll be seeing you. I mean, even if someone who has never seen any of these movies, they will still recognize them when they are on the screen and because they are over. top, its initial success has somehow led to our interpretation of the Vietnam War becoming slightly stylized. I'm going for the flag, you shouldn't do that, why aren't we deep in enemy territory? You have to choose a moment carefully.

It's crawling with Ace, they're not just in the jungle, they're the jungle, what do you think this is Vietnam? Yes, now I'm saying we were

soldiers

, it's better than those movies of course, not what I'm saying is that it was made. With historical accuracy in mind and for all intents and purposes, it mostly succeeds. Some of the most horrific moments in the film were recreated under the supervision of leftist General Hal Moore and Joseph Galloway, who were in the actual battle, one scene in particular stands out and from the way Joseph Galloway describes it, they definitely did well those scenes and in that flame I could see these two men dancing and shouting and someone shouted, grab this man's feet and I reached down and picked him up and his boots shredded the flesh of his ankles.

Just taken off I could feel the ankle bone in the palm of my hands and we carried it to where the wounded were. There was a young specialist named Jim Nakayama from Riby Idaho. His married wife had a baby that week. He died two days. Later on, as much as Randa Wallace makes a big deal of wanting to get it right, there is a scene in the film that completely contradicts that goal. Now if you want to make a historically accurate movie then you have to be authentic to the times it's set in and there are scenes like this that piss me off to no end.

Meanwhile, the M Town Laundromat is okay, but they don't let you wash colored things in their machines and a public laundromat didn't make any sense to me either. but I'm telling you they have a big sign right in the window that says whites only honey they mean whites only that's horrible your husband is wearing the uniform of a country that allows a place to say his clothes aren't enough good. when I could die from I'm sorry okay baby movie Are you seriously trying to tell me this woman is so dumb she's just learning about racial segregation now it's 1964 it's the height of the Civil Rights Movement one of the largest and most influential political movements in US history, she should know these things just from being alive, honestly, what was going through her mind when she was watching the march on Washington in 1963.

I have a dream, but one day, oh my god, this guy is so boring. Why is everyone telling me to watch this? There is no racism in this country. It must be some kind of liberal agenda or something. I'm going to change the channel. Oh, cartoons, although We Were Soldiers is predominantly based on the battle of the arrangements. It actually pretty much sums up how the world's greatest superpower was defeated. This particular scene says a lot about America's overconfidence and its unfortunate decision to underestimate its enemy and especially its military victories in the past. The White House anticipates a buildup and once the victory over cavemen and black pajamas we would not be there if they had not already defeated the French army, the French army, what is that?

Now this could be a possible attack on the French but I'm going to give this movie the benefit of the doubt because this kind of arrogance is exactly the mentality of American leaders before the war, if they bothered to take the threat seriously of North Vietnam, they would understand that they were facing an enemy with 20 years of combat experience on their own territory and an enemy that had successfully defeated the Japanese occupation in World War II and the French in the first Indochina war. Yes, the cavemen in black pajamas managed to defeat both the empires of Japan and France, but the United States chose to ignore this because it was convinced that its air power alone would be enough.

They simply bombed North Vietnam into submission at the end of the war, they had dropped more bombs than all the Allied and Axis powers in World War II and in the end they achieved very little once in Vietnam another problem arose where, in addition to the difficulties with its jungle environment. The US troops had no real fixed targets to take, this wouldn't be like World War II where they would take one position and then move on to the next, so they operated under search and destroy missions, the simple LRA will find the enemy and will kill.

It wasn't long before the Vietnamese discovered flaws in its execution, as shown in the film. The Americans typically bombarded an area with artillery or airstrikes to prepare a landing zone for their soldiers. Once they arrived by helicopter, they then combed the surroundings. area to hunt down enemy fighters, however, all it really did was alert the North Vietnamese that the Americans were on their way. They could also have fired a giant flare into the sky to mark their position because they both accomplished virtually the same thing in the end, as any advantage and surprise was lost, it was in this way that the Vietnamese were able to predict exactly when and where the Americans would attack.

Another thing is that this allowed the Vietnamese to choose whether or not they wanted to fight, since many of their bases were built underground, if they decided not to fight they would simply let the Americans walk past them in all the engagements in the Vietnam War. , most were chosen by the North Vietnamese. Another advantage the North Vietnamese had over the Americans was the willingness to fight now. I'm not trying to downplay their importance or courage, but the fact of the matter is that many of the American soldiers were conscripts and the average conscript simply wanted to serve out their years of service and simply return home. alive, while one North Vietnamese soldier absolutely believed that they were fighting for his country and not just for communism, as the United States believed at the time.

There is a supporting character in the film that really helps show the average NVA soldiers' commitment to fighting this war. We see a young man. Writing to his wife on the front line before the second day of the battle. Now there is nothing particularly intimidating about this man. He is quite thin and wears glasses. He generally seems like an average guy and seems even more so the next time we see him. We can tell he's completely terrified by the way he hesitates to shake off the idea that American soldiers are dealing with suicidal fanatics and not genuine human beings who are just as scared as they are simply because we see him directly with his wife. .

We know that This character has something to live for, and yet, without hesitation, he throws it all overboard with a bayonet charge. This little character personifies North Vietnam's unwavering will and determination to resist this foreign power. So what was America's response in fighting and defeating such an enemy? sums up perfectly And We Were Soldiers Over the course of the movie, we watch almost non-stop fighting as the Americans take down wave after wave of NVA and Viet Kong soldiers, this movie really captures how horrible and intense this battle was and it can't be said. enough. The bravery it took for both the Americans and the Vietnamese to fight in such dire conditions amidst naal and artillery attacks, machine gun fire, and at times fighting with only their bare hands, it truly must have been hell in Earth, so when the Americans finally prevail and win the battle, the consequences are almost as shocking as the battle itself.

We and the audience are given time to breathe and really think about what we just saw. After all, this is a reenactment of a battle that actually took place and yet. This death and destruction we witnessed what he really achieved in the end. Well, the Americans certainly achieved their original goal of finding their enemy andkill him However, his supposed victory is made even more incredible by the fact that they survived against such terrible odds. Immediately after the battle, when the Americans collect their dead and wounded, they leave and the North Vietnamese return and what follows is without a doubt my favorite scene in the entire movie, this little moment here not only encompasses the harsh reality of this battle, but it also eludes what is to come.

Therefore, this battle would set the precedent for how the United States will fight the rest of this war with no clear objectives to take. The Americans, on the other hand, would claim their victories not by territory gained but by territory gained. Body Count's theory is that this method of attrition would prove to be the decisive point in winning this war. I'm thinking about the mission intent there, all we've fought for in the past has been to gain ground, yes, but you know. The basic mission of any military force is to destroy the enemy or their will to fight and it has been our tradition since we were tied to the ground to translate that in terms of ground objectives, but that was never the true purpose it helped you achieve.

In the end here we can free ourselves from those ground considerations and go more directly towards the enemy wherever they are. It may be what was originally thought to be one in a matter of months, it lasted 8 years for the United States and claimed the lives of more than 58,000 Americans, without telling millions of Vietnamese, in the end it was the American people who lost their will to fight. Tired of an endless cycle of violence and empty promises of victory in sight, in 1973 the United States finally bowed to public pressure and withdrew from the war and within two years South Vietnam was finally annexed by the North.

Overall, I would say We Were Soldiers is a good historical film to watch. Once I started researching the Battle of Dr. Valley, it became clear to me how much the filmmakers respected The Source's material and their attempts to make this battle as as true as possible to real life is shown on screen and I also have to applaud and recognize Randall Wallace's decision to present us with an unbiased film, taking the time and effort to highlight the courage and sacrifice that both the Americans and the Vietnamese made in this tragic battle; however, I can't ignore the key moments here. and that really ruins my viewing experience, it really baffles me why they are there in the first place because I would be enjoying what's going on in the movie and then they would ruin it by going so over the top like this.

Really off scene that is so overflowing with American patriotism it makes my eyes roll. I'm glad I got to die for my country and not many seconds later, I'm slapped in another generic war movie death scene. Tell my wife. Love, come on, I know it sounds like I'm being nitpicky, but this is so cliché. If you have to write a death scene, then do it in an original way. It feels like it's just checking a box of what to include in a war movie. Which is why we make fun of death scenes like this Oh, I gotta sleep, no, Mike, stay with me, so tired, no Mik, so tired, what's up with your friend, no, Mike?

And don't get me started on any scenes with the kids, their performances, and the writing. It feels so forced and artificial that I cringe every time it appears on the screen. The decision to put them there must have been like how do we make the audience care to know more? I know let's make these kids as cute as possible to walk around with. his boots to jump and sing Bingo hey, how about we go back to bingo? What are you saying? And bingo with his name was just stupid. It really takes me out of the movie and that makes it that much harder for me to tell you to watch.

As for this performance, I have no idea why they decided to follow this take; Instead of inspiring empathy, it honestly just makes me laugh anyway, aside from these various mishaps we were, the soldiers' successes outweigh their mistakes in the long run, whether they actually succeeded. The truth is Up For Debate, but any true history buff can see that at least they tried. Brandon Wallace may have ignored the politics we expect from a film about the Vietnam War, but instead he took special care and attention to accurately recreate an important story. battle of a very controversial war and the fact that we were soldiers goes beyond that to summarize that entire conflict and its inevitable outcome shows us the maturity and dedicated research that went into its execution.

My only real complaint is that I wish Randall Wallace would do the same. effort in writing Braveheart, but perhaps it's best left for another review for another day. Well that's it. My name is Nick Hoders and thanks for watching the story. Buffs and remember that if you like the show it helps the channel grow, don't forget to press that. Like and subscribe button and let me know in the comments section too what you think about the WEA soldiers and of course what historical movie I should check out next until then. See you next time.