was this the first movie...
about a disturbed vietnam vet?
shareThe movie doesn't qualify for that category since the antagonist, Bobby, was patterned after the "Texas Tower Sniper" whose shooting spree took place at the University of Texas on August 1, 1966. The murderer, Charles Whitman, was in the Marines from 1959-1960 wherein he had an 18-month tour of duty with the Marines at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba. Whitman was 25 years-old when he committed his killing spree and out of the service for five years. U.S. ground troops didn't arrive in Vietnam until March 8, 1965.
Likewise, Bobby in the movie was about 25 when the events take place in 1967 (when the film was shot). The actor playing Bobby was 26 during filming. While Bobby had presumably been in the service I don't remember any talk of him being in Vietnam or that he was psychologically damaged by the experience.
So why is Bobby so fudged up and why did he 'snap'? His respectable-yet-intimidating father had properly trained him on firearm safety, but he had also inadvertently made him a frustrated weakling -- a bomb just waiting to go off. The disease of legalism is all over his parent's household, where the young couple resides.
Look at the clues: Bobby & his wife are living with his parents, his authoritarian dad calls him "boy," he calls him "sir," the house is sterile, there's order but no love, no life. Bobby feels like a "failure" and thinks his only gift is marksmanship, his wife gets "dolled up" to work the midnight shift at the phone company while he's stuck in a bed alone; he's struggling with disturbing thoughts and has no one to discuss them with whom he thinks will understand.
I realize some summaries of the movie emphasize that Bobby was a Vietnam vet, but I don't remember that in the film (and I just saw it last night). Like the real-life Whitman, he was a Marine vet, but not a Vietnam war vet. Correct me if I'm wrong.
I haven't seen this movie in probably over 10 years (I'm here because Criterion just announced their blu ray release coming up in May) and I don't recall exactly how the movie conveys that Bobby is a Vietnam vet. It's not a documentary about Whitman, it's a fictional story written when Vietnam was a fever-pitch issue and was inspired by what Whitman did. If the writer who created the fictional character Bobby decided he was a 'nam vet, well, then that's what he was. In 1968, if you were watching a brand new movie about a guy who had just recently left US military service, it would have been simply understood that he was almost certainly a Vietnam vet.
>I realize some summaries of the movie emphasize that Bobby was a Vietnam vet
I'm hard pressed to find a single one that ~doesn't~ mention it in the first sentence.
I'm hard pressed to find a single one that ~doesn't~ mention it in the first sentence.
Except that there's no evidence he served in Vietnam that I recall. The film was shot in 1967 (well before the peak of protests) and, since Bobby is obviously in his mid-20s, it's assumed that he's been out of the service for several years, just like the real-life Charles Whitman of whom inspired the movie.
In other words, all of these plot blurbs you speak of got it wrong. He was a vet but not a Vietnam vet, unless you can cite specific details from the movie proving otherwise. share
I don't know when the "peak" occurred, and it doesn't matter. HUGE anti-Vietnam protests in DC were happening by 1965, they were record setting and everyone across the country was well aware. Even if the movie doesn't come out and say "Bobby was in nam," it would have been obvious to any viewer at the time. And you'd have to be a complete moron to not see it now. Or just a contrarian dickhead who claims he can't see it because he gets his jollies having pointless arguments about stupid shit.
shareChill, this isn't anything to go to blows over. I'm asking a legitimate question about the film:
Is there any evidence that Bobby was a Vietnam vet with combat experience or -- like the real-life man he was modeled after -- is he just a veteran of a relatively short tour of duty during peacetime circa 1960-61?
The reason this is important is because it ties into what provokes him to become a psycho mass shooter. If he's a veteran of Vietnam then the reason for his going over the edge could likely be the horrors of war and thus PTSD (which wasn't coined until 1980). If not, what is the root cause of his going mad and shooting random innocent people? My initial post above offers possible answers from evidence in the film, which I shared just after viewing it 9 months ago. (By contrast, you admit that you haven't seen it in over a decade; so you may have just assumed Bobby was in Vietnam).
So this isn't just a pointless argument about stupid stuff. Neither am I a contrarian for asking the question and offering answers from data in the film itself. (Isn't that the core purpose of these boards?) I'd only be a contrarian if I was objecting to what the movie's really about without actual verification from the picture.
You know very well that critics/journalists -- professional or amateur -- make mistakes all the time when commenting on films, including plot descriptions. Sometimes they lazily borrow info from another writer and put it in their own words without verifying it. Monkey see, monkey do. I suspect this is what happened with "Targets," unless someone can offer evidence from the movie itself that Bobby was definitely a Vietnam vet with combat experience.
[deleted]
[deleted]
After having watched it again the other day now that the blu-ray released, it seemed like the main point of underlining his military service was to explain why he was such a crackshot. Nothing to do with him becoming a murderous psychopath, necessarily.
But that doesn't change the fact that a 1968 movie showing a character as a recent military veteran would obviously imply that they'd been in Vietnam. There was a huge draft and everyone knew it. They weren't drafting guys so they could send them to Germany or Italy or Japan or Korea or Amsterdam. They were sending them all to nam. Where the war was.
Is it possible he didn't go to nam? Of course. But it would be silly to assume that, whereas it's completely reasonable to assume nam.
The critics obviously assumed he was a veteran of Vietnam, but they were in error based on evidence in the film itself, not to mention it's origins.
The events in the movie take place in 1967 when it was written/shot. Bobby was in his mid-20s (the actor was 26) with the impression that he was in the military several years before Vietnam, patterned after the "Texas Tower Sniper" whose shooting spree took place in August, 1966. The psycho-killer, Whitman, was a 25 year-old ex-Marine, who had an 18-month tour of duty at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, 6-7 years earlier.
As with Whitman, there's no indication in the film that Bobby was in Vietnam or that he was psychologically damaged by combat experience.
The movie reveals why Bobby 'snapped' if you consider the clues: The disease of legalism is all over his parent's household, where the young couple resides. His respectable-yet-intimidating father had properly trained him on firearm safety, but he had also inadvertently made him a frustrated weakling -- a bomb just waiting to go off. The evidence can be observed in:
- Bobby & his wife living with his parents,
- the authoritarian father calling him "boy," Bobby calling him "sir,"
- the utterly sterile household,
- there's order/respect but no love, no life.
- Bobby feeling like a "failure" and thinking his only talent is marksmanship,
- his wife getting "dolled up" to work the midnight shift while he's stuck in a bed alone;
- his struggling with disturbing thoughts and no one to discuss them with whom he thinks will understand.
The critic summaries of the movie detailing that Bobby was a Vietnam vet are simply a wrong assumption (although I'm sure it would spark interest in the flick at the time). Like the real-life Whitman, Bobby was a Marine vet, but not a Vietnam war vet.
But, if you still want to assume he was in Vietnam, that's your call. I have zero problem with people interpreting flicks (or any art) as they see fit. Isn't that one of the purposes of art -- getting what you want out of it? Myself, I go by the evidence presented in the piece, as well as the intentions of the creator.
At the end of the day it's a worthwhile cult movie from the mid-60s, regardless of our disagreement.
It's an assumption either way, since the movie doesn't state whether he was or wasn't in Vietnam. But going by the period the movie was made and what was happening in the world at that time, one assumption is far more safe/obvious/reasonable/sensible than the other. As opposed to all of the mental gymnastics and math required to convince yourself he wasn't in nam.
EDIT:
http://www.culturecourt.com/F/Hollywood/Targets.htm
"In the DVD director's commentary Bogdanovich tells us that Bobby Thompson was in Vietnam"
Will try to confirm, pretty sure the new blu-ray includes the old DVD commentary track. Not sure I should even bother though, you'd probably just write another full page post attempting to prove even the man who wrote the screenplay is wrong.
wiki says he was a vietnam veteran
Bobby Thompson is a young, quiet, clean-cut insurance agent and Vietnam War veteran who lives in the suburban San Fernando Valley area with his wife and his parents. Thompson is also deeply disturbed and an obsessive gun collector, but his family takes little notice. One morning, after his father leaves for work, Thompson murders his wife, his mother, and a delivery boy at his home.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Targets
You do realize that Wikipedia entries are written by the collective public, right? In other words, anyone who sets up an account and volunteers data.
My statements on this thread are not based on what critics & viewers of "Targets" say about the film, but rather on evidence from the movie itself, as well as the fact that the character of Bobby was patterned after the real-life "Texas Tower Sniper," who wasn't a Vietnam vet.
Also, do the math, Bobby was obviously in his mid-20s (Whitman was 25 in real-life while the actor who plays Bobby was 26 during shooting). Bobby's tour of duty would've been right after high school when he was 18-19 (just like Whitman). Since the events in the movie take place in 1967, when the film was written/shot, that means Bobby served in the Marines around 1960-1962, which was prior to the Vietnam War since Combat troops didn't arrive until March 8, 1965.
It is true, however, that Bobby could have had a tour of duty in Vietnam before combat troops arrived (since America had a presence there going back to the mid-40s). Yet this wasn't the case with Whitman in real-life; he served in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.
Confirmed- Peter Bogdonavich's DVD commentary track is on the new blu-ray, and he comes right out and says Bobby was in Vietnam. It's right after Bobby's service photo is shown.
share...except that it's never stated in the film itself and the real-life person Bobby was modeled after was not a Vietnam combat vet. Whitman served in 1959-1960, Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, and committed the murders six years later in 1966. In other words, his crime had zero to do with the post-trauma of military combat.
You yourself have freshly viewed the movie and could mysteriously find no evidence to support the idea that Bobby was a Vietnam combat vet. So how do we explain Bogdanovich's comments on the commentary track?
This is assuming Bogdanovich wasn't fibbing to support the reoccurring synopsis blurb. To explain, creators will lie about their works when it's in their best interest. In this case, more people will be interested in "Targets" -- then or now -- if, indeed, it's about a mentally disturbed man just back from Vietnam, not to mention Bogdanovich could boast that his obscure lil' flick was the first to address the topic a full decade before it became popular with films like "Coming Home" (1978). Let's face it, this would be quite the boast and corresponds to the saying "When the legend becomes fact, print the legend."
IF Bogdanovich wasn't fibbing, the obvious answer is detailed in my response to Hownos above: Bobby had a tour of duty in Vietnam well before combat troops arrived on March 8, 1965.
One thing I can tell you and everyone else interested in this 60's cult film: It's not about a Vietnam combat vet suffering PTSD. For that see "The Ballad of Andy Crocker" (1969) with Lee Majors (https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0064061/?ref_=tt_urv). While "Coming Home" and "Jackknife" (1989) are the far better choices, the Lee Majors flick was arguably the first to breach the topic; unfortunately, it's a TV movie with the limitations thereof.
roflmao XD
Exactly the response predicted in my previous post 13 days ago. The mental gymnastics required to protect your delicate ego from the painful injury of simply being wrong about a minor common sense factoid. It's almost impressive, in a sad way.
- You're interested in what people say about "Targets."
- I'm interested in what the movie itself says as a piece of art. Does it say anything about Post-Traumatic Stress of a combat veteran of the Vietnam War. No, because Bobby didn't fight in Vietnam (even if he was stationed their before the combat started for Americans in 1965). Nor did the real-life person he's patterned after since Whitman's tour of duty was at Guantánamo Bay, 1959-1960.
Bottom line: "Targets" is not about a person who becomes a psycho mass shooter due to PTSD from military combat. As detailed above, Bobby flipped out due to the disease of legalism in his family and the frustration & emasculation of his wife working while he couldn't find a job, not to mention they had to live with his parents.
Targets makes virtually no attempt whatsoever to delve into the 'why' of Bobby's behavior. PTSD (or shellshock, or whatever they called it decades before "PTSD" became a household term) was not a big topic in those days and if anything it was thought to be crippling and debilitating, not motivating. Whitman donated his brain to science and was supposedly found to have had a brain tumor. Bobby's constant eating of candy was probably meant to be a possible clue, the whole "junkfood is rotting people's brains" narrative had been gaining steam for about 20 years before Dan White's lawyers used it to defend him in the 1978 Harvey Milk murder trial.
Bobby was in Vietnam and he was disturbed, but there wasn't an implied correlation between those two things. The fact that the Bobby was in Vietnam is purely incidental and merely down to the time and place in history when Targets was produced. If it was made a few years earlier, he would be assumed to be a Korean War vet. 10 years before that, a WWII vet.