Watched this film on video the other night…
Your opinions?
How realistic was it?
The film seemed to be quite “respectful” of the formidable abilities of the Vietcong to fight a potent guerrila form of warfare. Am I reading too much into this, or was the film merely patronising?
Was the film well made or merely a manipulative bit of tripe?
I rather enjoyed it, however, I have no idea how realistic it is or how close to the book.
I think the film was an honest attempt to portray a certain area of the war that was fought in Viet Nam. This one came much closer to “getting it right” than many other films have. The battle at Ia Drang was the first encounter American forces had with the North Vietnamese regular army.
The forces opposed to the U.S. in Viet Nam had been fighting for decades. They were experienced, tough, and dedicated. I don’t think the film was patronizing.
Some good books about that war are: The Thirteenth Valley by John M. Del Vecchio, A Bright Shining Lie by Neil Sheehan, and the book that inspired the flim we’re discussing, We Were Soldiers Once… And Young by Harold G. Moore and Joseph L. Galloway…
I really liked the film, and thought it was very well made. Although the locations in the battle could be hard to follow at times (I don’t think they say where anything is in relation to the main camp), I think they did a very good job of making what was happening clear to the audience.
While I don’t know how realistic the movie was, I don’t think it was patronizing at all. The Viet Cong weren’t portrayed as blood-thirsty animals (as war movies are inclined to do), but as a very well-trained, cohesive fighting force. Their leader is depicted as a strategist who knows how to use the terrain to his advantage, as well as how to quickly adapt to changes mid-battle. The only reason the US forces weren’t overwhelmed in the first few hours of the battle is that Moore was just as saavy and anticipated most of the Viet Cong’s moves.
Also, there are several scenes in the movie that focus solely on the Viet Cong army - the late night pep talk, the soldier writing in the journal, the early morning prayer, the leader musing over what is to become of the future. All of these scenes attempt to humanize an enemy that wasn’t fighting because they were “devils” or “evil incarnate”, but because the Americans had invaded their homeland (and who were really just the latest in a long line of invaders).
I liked the movie a lot. Granted, it had a fair amount of cheesiness in the beginning scenes at the base, but contained some brillantly realized battle sequences and only a modicum of war movie cliches. I also liked the fact that the Viet Cong weren’t demonized as mindless animals like almost all previous Vietnam films, and their general was presented as a thoughtful, dedicated character.
I liked the film. I don’t think the telegrams got home that quickly though. IIRC sometimes you would see a man shot and then cut to the Col.'s wife delivering the bad news. I know she actually did go around telling the wives of the fate of their husbands but I don’t think it was happening as quickly as the film was portraying it. However the film just compressed that to keep the ‘home front’ part of the story. I though it was great the way they went to a VC wife at the end.
Like all dramatic adaptions of true stories, characters and events are conflated and some things are invented for dramatic purposes, but the basic story being told in We Were Soldiers is accurate.
I found the movie dreadful. It was respectful of its subject matter and the men who fought there on both sides, but the cheese was poured on so heavily and in such cliched fashion that it ruined the film for me.
“I just had a baby daughter! Sure hope I live through this attack!” - and, of course, he doesn’t.
“I just married my sweetheart! Look at the charm bracelet she made me! Sure hope I live through this attack!” - and, of course, he doesn’t.
Every lame cliche was trotted out - the dying new father, the dying new husband, the wide-eyed journalist, the savvy Vietnamese general who perfectly predicts the course of the war, the perfect wives, the grizzled drill sergeant. Of course most of these characters were (or are) real people, and it’s hard to portray them as being very flawed even if they were, but as a movie there was just too much cheese.
The final battle was way over-Hollywoodized as compared to reality, and seemed to revel in slo-mo pictures of one Vietnamese kid after another getting blown up real good. The battle scenes were reasonably realistic otherwise, but not any more so than most good modern war movies, and less so than some (e.g. “Saving Private Ryan.”) Overall I lost count of the cliches. I really disliked this film.
"Viet Cong" and “VC” is incorrect in referring to the Vietnamese forces in this movie. Those were not VC. They were North Vietnamese Army soldiers.
Dang it, I knew there was something wrong with my post, but I just couldn’t figure out what it is. Thanks for pointing that out.
So who were the “Vietcong” then?
Apologies for getting that wrong.
In Vietnam, the Viet Cong, or V.C. or “Charlie,” were communist insurgents in South Vietnam who fought on the side of the North Vietnamese with varying levels of cooperation. The USA and South Vietnam simultaneously fought both the Viet Cong and the North Vietnamese armed forces. The NVA was a properly constituted armed forces; the Viet Cong were an irregular militia.
If I remember correctly, the North Vietnamese Army (or the People’s Army of Vietnam) was the North Vietnam regular army. Regular training, good organization, all the stuff you’d expect from a standing army.
The Viet Cong, on the other hand, was the North Vietnamese guerilla army. They relied more on ambush and sabotage - a wholly effective tactic when you’re surrounded by forest.
Did the US (and Australia for that matter because we also fought alongside US forces as part of our defence treaty with you) well, did the US learn or invent a way to effectively fight guerilla tactics?
I know a policy of deforestation with Agent Orage was implemented, but since those days, has the US worked out a way (thru technology) to effectively counter the guerilla tactics used by the Vietcong?
For example, if the US knew back then what it knows now, how much more effective would the US have been in the Vietnam War, and how much less effective would the NVA have been?
Well, with modern night-vision and thermal scopes, it would be a lot harder for the guerillas to hide. Modern satellite surveillance would have helped on a larger scale. Stealth fighters would have pretty much free run of Vietnam, and could reduce the presence of SAM sites. Our military is also better trained in guerilla tactics themselves, as well, and I think some of our special forces weren’t around back then, or at least weren’t as developed.
I haven’t seen the movie. I probably will not simply because for Gentlemen of a Certain Age there are too many bad dreams and lost friends involved. Men of my father’s generation avoid Saving Private Ryan for the same sorts of reasons. General (then Lieutenant Colonel) Moore’s BOOK is as good a piece of first person military writing as I have run into.
It is important to remember that the book covers two engagements–one involving Moore’s First Battalion, Seventh Cavalry, the Second Battalion, Fifth Cavalry, and two companies of the Second Battalion, Seventh Cavalry, at the X-ray Landing Zone on November 14, 15 and 16, 1965, and a second engagement on November 17, 1965, in which the Second Battalion, Seventh Cavalry and one company of the First Battalion, Fifth Cavalry, were ambushed during a foot march to LZ Albany and badly cut up and overrun in the course of a half-hour. General Moore’s book deals extensively with both engagements but the movie only deals with the first of the two fights.
Read the book!
Of course, the fact is that each and every one of those “cliches” actually happened in the real battle. That’s why they were put in the movie.
What role would the current “unmanned drone surveillance” aircraft have been able to play back then in Vietnam?
I ask these questions because I still find it remarkable that the NVA were able to chip away at the US forces with the degree of success that they did.
Would the US adopt different tactics now? In terms of shutting North Vietnam down and preventing it’s ability to be restocked from China and Russia?
The U.S. knew how to fight them THEN. Jungle warfare and guerrila warfare weren’t invented in Vietnam. Generally speaking, American soldiers did very well in Vietnam, and won almost every significant engagement.
The U.S., I would argue, did BETTER against the guerrilla VC, who were more or less over and done with after 1968, than they did against the North Vietnamese Army. The U.S. air campaign against North Vietnam was remarkable for the LACK of U.S. dominance, in fact - the North Vietnamese inflicted pretty heavy losses on the USAF and Navy air assets. At one point the “kill ratio” between NV and USAF fighters was damn near one to one. By way of comparison, in the Gulf War it was infinity - no Iraqi fighter jet shot down an American airplane, so far as I am aware.