MovieChat Forums > Platoon (1987) Discussion > Question for Vietnam Vets

Question for Vietnam Vets

posted 7 years ago by DairyHeiress
4 replies | jump to latest

Apologies in advance if this is inappropriate to ask straight out, but does this movie exaggerate the brutality and pervasive ambiguity of this conflict? Watching this is so, what is a word..... Devastating?

As far as the retaliation upon (possible) civilians in the village shortly after seeing your brothers in arms brutally killed gives me pause to pass judgment (except for the child rape-- that unquestionably is sick, IMO). However, I (perhaps naively) would hope that sort of thing was an anomaly, not commonplace. I know about the Mi Lai/Lt Calley incident -- it was clear that this was a severe breach of appropriate conduct (even if one was "following orders") thus it was duly prosecuted, leading me to believe (hope?) that murdering unarmed civilians was not something the military white washed, or turned a blind eye to.

Anyway: is Platoon a realistic depiction, or a hyperbolic dramatization of the few rogue soldiers who "lost" their moral compass from enduring unimaginable brutality, stress and duress.

I can only assume the part about murdering your own guys was just a plot enhancer, can't fathom that was in any way realistic.

Just curious. Thanks in advance for any first-hand insight.

[–] bravomailer 7 years ago

Oliver Stone films take on important issues. But he packs every cliché he can find into them and makes the characters simplistically good and simplistically evil. This was true of Wall Street, Any Given Sunday, and this one as well. This is not a good formula for presenting a balanced view of a subject.

Racial conflict, generational conflict, regional conflict (North vs South, urban vs rural), inexperienced lieutenants, and incompetence were certainly part of the experience of the Vietnam War. I saw them all in my year. However, seeing them all packed into a two-hour movie made me wince, and for that reason I do not think highly of this movie. Maybe a 7/10.

Killing fellow GIs certainly did happen. Pretty sure there were a few dozen cases that were successfully prosecuted. America in Vietnam by Guenter Lewy has some stats on this.

My Lai was an aberration but accidental and "accidental" killings of Vietnamese were not rare. Same with outright murders.

Remember that the army and marines expanded very quickly during the war. That necessitated promoting enlisted personnel and officers to ranks well beyond the level they were prepared for. (I was a buck sergeant when I was nineteen!) The same can be said of WW2. After that war a future general noted, “On the enlisted men’s side the stresses of war and the sudden heady blooming of temporary rank produced sufficient injustices and unnecessary hardships to rankle. . . . Some of them found themselves to be better educated than the leaders assigned to them by the fortunes of war.” R. Ernest Dupuy, “Pass in Review,” The Army Combat Forces Journal 1954, p. 43.

[–] DairyHeiress 7 years ago

Bravo: Thanks for taking the time to report your experience and your impression overall. Certainly I thought that in order to come up with a ticket selling film, Stone would extract and highlight the more salacious experiences. Plus, with most stories the audience needs to have a clear cut good guy versus a bad guy. I didn't notice the racial undertones depicted in Platoon, or simply that took a back-burner due to the other more stark internal conflicts. (Ex.: Barnes seemed to take it pretty hard when he came upon Manny who was strung up to a tree and this was the pre-cursor to his OTT mania at the village.) Honestly I thought there wasn't/isn't much racial conflict among soldiers -- b/c at any given time, you depend upon each other to stay alive, regardless of race, religion, region.

Personally I can't even imagine surviving a week in such horrific conditions. It's one thing to say "Thank you for your service" but I feel like we ought to sometimes say as Americans: "We're sorry we made you sacrifice so much for so little." As far as Vietnam is concerned, my aggravation with that war was the unnecessary extension in order to retreat "with honor" meanwhile thousands of young men died. But that is war. The pawns are expendable. I read McNamarra's remorseful memoir; he certainly went to his grave heavy in regret for his part. Kissinger, on the other hand, doesn't seem the least bit bowed by the indisputable costs caused by his contributions to the face-saving extension. I think any American death after '73 was senseless. And Westmoreland's inflated "body counts" being sent back to the States like it was a game still makes me queasy.

I think at least Stone did touch upon the ad hoc promotions (o'Neill at the end) and how the Lt. in this film was woefully unfit to properly command (or even garner respect) under real (not theoretical) conditions.

I didn't realize killing within the ranks (as depicted in this film) was not something uncommon. I will add your book suggestions to my Amazon list. I appreciate you responding. Not many want to speak of their time. That's why I took this opportunity to post a question like this on an anonymous board that will be wiped clean soon.

Gratitude for your service and appreciation for your willingness to share. I hope your time since then has made up for what you had to endure on our behalf.

[–] bravomailer 7 years ago

Thanks for the thoughtful reply and your heartfelt expression of gratitude. I don't sense that often when I hear "Thanks for your service". It's usually no more significant than "Have a nice day".

There was a character named Junior who conveyed, if only obliquely, the racial tensions of the period, but you're right it wasn't a theme in the film. I once saw stats indicating that combat units had less racial tension than rear-echelon ones did. Probably for reasons you outlined. Think of the depiction of the marine unit in Full Metal Jacket. No one cares about race or even slurs as they are all detached from civilian orientations and engaging a common ordeal.

My recollection is that whites and blacks served together, ate chow together, bunked together, and faced the same authority figures and dangers. They didn't much socialize together behind the lines or back in the states but tensions were not high and out-and-out conflict was relatively rare. All in all, I'd say that back then the US military was far better integrated than any other part of American society.

Oriana Fallaci, an Italian journalist, asked N Vietnamese general Giap about the US estimates of NVA and VC casualties. Giap said they were essentially true. This may have been PR but there's not much else to go on, except assumptions from an intemperate time. The kill ratios in Vietnam were about the same as in the Pacific theater of WW2, where American advantages in numbers and firepower overwhelmed the Japanese. I think they were about 9:1 at Okinawa.

I have more disdain for McNamara than for Kissinger. The former started the war, the latter did his best to extricate us from it. Look at the troops levels and US casualties once Nixon and Kissinger took over in January. Both plunged as Nixon forced the S Vietnamese to take up more of the combat and withdrew GIs. When the terms "fake news" and "alternate facts" became popular recently, I immediately thought of Robert McNamara's presentation on the Gulf of Tonkin Incidents. So did a few friends.

[–] DairyHeiress 7 years ago

Hi Bravo: It is a distinct "pleasure" to capture an experience/perception based on first hand knowledge. You're welcome about my take on truly acknowledging the 1% (which, only is accurate in terms of active duty personnel present day, but I don't know our vet stats). It's awkward, especially if you see a film like Platoon and realize that there are co-workers, neighbors, family whom experienced such mind-bending horrors, and they can't seem to communicate these scenes to anyone other than those that shared that theater (my perception). So, I am very pleased you understood my sentiments to be genuine.
-----------

"I have more disdain for McNamara than for Kissinger. The former started the war, the latter did his best to extricate us from it. Look at the troops levels and US casualties once Nixon and Kissinger took over in January. Both plunged as Nixon forced the S Vietnamese to take up more of the combat and withdrew GIs. When the terms "fake news" and "alternate facts" became popular recently, I immediately thought of Robert McNamara's presentation on the Gulf of Tonkin Incidents. So did a few friends."
----------------
Right! The Gulf of Tonkin! I've been thinking of that as well lately! Those stakes were high then -- now what? Fortunately, the Bowling Green Massacre was given a tad more scrutiny.

I didn't know it was MacNamarras decision to exploit/deflect from our little nautical embarrassment. I thought it was concocted by Johnson, spin-master-in-chief. Clearly he was surrounded with advisors, but it is a surprise to me that Mac was the strongest advocate (maybe I ought re-read that bio...). Still, I think Kiss played a no-win hand as best he could for his own legacy/legitimacy. Perhaps another person in that role would have screwed it up even worse. There are no Mulligans.