We Were Soldiers

[legend42]

I watched this movie recently and there is a great example showing exactly what "recon by fire is".The Americans are totally outnumbered by an entire NVA division.An NVA platoon is probing at dawn crawling in tall grass.The Americans hear bodies possibly crawling in the grass but can see anything.Mel Gibson as CO senses the probe and orders everyone to fire 3 shots into the grass.The NVA platoon now feeling they have been fully spotted return fire,panic and give up there position.The Americans in a much better defensive position behind a ridge slaughter the NVA platoon.Check out this movie and that seen, its worth it.

[CMplayer]

In real life they actually fired on full automatic for one or two minutes. They called it the 'mad minute'.

[Sarge Saunders]

Yep. The Mad Minute! I advise you to read the book first as written by Colonel Moore and Joe Galloway. The movie is great and does the book justice.

Fantastic fight scenes. Lots of attention to detail. Like when Gibson (Moore) calls on the radio for alpha company to send a platoon accross the LZ to Charlie coy. Then A few seconds later you see the platoon running in the background from right to left in the distance following his order.

Well done movie all and all!

-Sarge

[YankeeDog]

If you liked the movie, read the book. IMHO it's one of the most detailed, best presentations of an infantry battle out there.

The movie was kind of fun, but there's a lot of "Hollywoodization" of the action. The book doesn't have this problem and was written with the assistance and input from many commanders and soldiers (including some Viet Cong) who actually fought at Ia Drang.

The full title of the book the movie was based upon is "We Were Soldiers Once...and Young: Ia Drang -- The Battle That Changed the War in Vietnam."

I am, btw, very much looking forward to trying recon by fire with MGs in CMBB. Finally all of that ammo HMG teams carry around will have a purpose. . .

Cheers,

YD

[Bruno Weiss]

Can't get into a movie where the lead role is done by someone wearing a US uniform who believes their portraying the enemy.

[ August 30, 2002, 12:09 PM: Message edited by: Bruno Weiss ]

[Sarge Saunders]

Originally posted by Bruno Weiss:

Can't get into a movie where the lead role is done by someone wearing a US uniform who believes their portraying the enemy.

Huh? I was not aware that Mel Gibson had a lefty political agenda. Sure, he is all Hollywood but maybe you know something else?

Just curious.

-Sarge

P.S. This may be one of the only Vietnam films that does NOT show American soldiers A) wearing peace signs, smoking pot, or c) killing non-combatants. Really quite patriotic by Hollywood standards.

[ August 30, 2002, 12:14 PM: Message edited by: Sarge Saunders ]

[Patrick Moore]

They interviewed General Moore (no relation! lol) and the coauther (army reporter?) on NPR after the book was published.

The interviewer asked him to comment on the VC claims that they won the battle. Moore, sounding a bit astonished, told the interviewer that the Americans inflicted heavy casaulties on the VC, forced the VC to retreat, and physically occupied the battlefield. He sounded perplexed that anyone could make that claim based on the facts.

It sounds like the book should be a good read. I will have to pick it up.

[Stormhouse]

I didn't like the movie at all, the fight scenes where good but the rest made it really bad. Like the scenes where the young soldier with the pregnant wife is carrying a wounded friend back to his lines and gets shot in the back. I thought it was a cheap way to get emotions out of the audience. And there where many more instances like that one.

[Michael Dorosh]

The bayonet charge at the end was pure fiction. I didn't mind the emotional statements made; after all they were mostly based on real events. Pregnant wives really do get widowed.

[Sarge Saunders]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

The bayonet charge at the end was pure fiction.

It was. Also, The 1st battalion walked out of there to another LZ for extraction. In fact, there is a whole other fight after this one in the book IIRC.

[Marlow]

Originally posted by Bruno Weiss:

Can't get into a movie where the lead role is done by someone wearing a US uniform who believes their portraying the enemy.

Mel Gibson, Conservative

Not directly related to his pro/anti American stance, but, IIRC he is at odds with the typical Hollywood views on patriotism and the U.S.

[ August 30, 2002, 12:25 PM: Message edited by: Marlow ]

[zee]

Originally posted by YankeeDog:

If you liked the movie, read the book. IMHO it's one of the most detailed, best presentations of an infantry battle out there.

The movie was kind of fun, but there's a lot of "Hollywoodization" of the action. The book doesn't have this problem and was written with the assistance and input from many commanders and soldiers (including some Viet Cong) who actually fought at Ia Drang.

The full title of the book the movie was based upon is "We Were Soldiers Once...and Young: Ia Drang -- The Battle That Changed the War in Vietnam."

I am, btw, very much looking forward to trying recon by fire with MGs in CMBB. Finally all of that ammo HMG teams carry around will have a purpose. . .

Cheers,

YD

I love how u say it was holywoodization, but if you watch the dvd.. and the makeing of th emovie all the veterans of the battle were there to help make the movie and they tryed as hard as apossible to keep it from another hollywood Bs movie. Ltcol Moore saw to that.

[Nidan1]

I was a decent movie, as historically correct as Hollywierd can make it.

It was a battle against elemensts of the 1st Cavalry Division, and three regiments of North Vietnamese Regular Infantry,who were based in the Chu Pong Massiff, there were no VC around. It was the first major battle of the American version of the Vietnam War, between American troops and NVA Regulars. The North Vietnamese discovered that the overwhelming power of American artillery and close air support would force them to limit major attacks, and to stick as close as they could to American units to negate that power. Gen Giap called it "grabbing the enemy by the belt" The next major battles between Americans and NVA took place the following year, when two full divisions of NVA crossed the DMZ and dispersed in the northern provinces, the summer of 1966 saw major battles across the DMZ between the Marines and elements of the 324B and 324C North Vietnamese Divisions. The NVA had refined their "by the belt" tactics by then, and there were a series of vicious close in battles throughout that summer.

As for Mel Gibson, he's a good actor, whatever his politics are.

[Shep]

I didn't like the movie at all, the fight scenes where good but the rest made it really bad. Like the scenes where the young soldier with the pregnant wife is carrying a wounded friend back to his lines and gets shot in the back. I thought it was a cheap way to get emotions out of the audience. And there where many more instances like that one.

Lt. John "Lance" Geoghehan died while trying to rescue mortally wounded Pvt. Willie Godboldt of his platoon. Their names are side by side on the wall. Lt. Geoghehan's wife had already given birth their daughter Cammie at the time.

The Virtual Wall

A perfectly legitimate and historical inclusion for the movie, in my opinion. Poignant but true, right?

I possess one impression from the Wall. It is Lt. Geoghehan's.

[PiggDogg]

I didn't like the movie at all, the fight scenes where good but the rest made it really bad. Like the scenes where the young soldier with the pregnant wife is carrying a wounded friend back to his lines and gets shot in the back. I thought it was a cheap way to get emotions out of the audience. And there where many more instances like that one.

One is certainly entitled to one's opinion to not like WWS at all. All of the following is my opinion.

Just as Saving Private Ryan so successfully and emotionally accomplilshed, all of the 'cheap way to get emotions out of the audience' ploys and scenes were great.

First, such cheaps raises the movie above a shoot all fest, John Waynish (no slight to Mr. Wayne who I like) action movie.

Second, such cheaps allows the movie to appeal to a larger audience, which allows more profits, and thus,which allows more such movies.

Third, in real life, war is utterably awful and stupid, it sucks, and it sucks big time. In real life, people really suffer, really get maimed, and really die, sometimes horrible deaths. Such suffering applies to participants, bystanders (nearby civilians etc.), and those left behind at home on all sides. Such cheaps exemplify such suffering and stupidity.

Fourth, unfortunately, on occasion, war is required to defend one's self (for this post, ignore the controversy regarding the Vietnam war).

Fifth, WWS pays homage to the participants on both sides and those left behind. Indeed, WWS accomoplishes this extremely well.

Cheers, Richard

[ August 30, 2002, 12:46 PM: Message edited by: PiggDogg ]

[YankeeDog]

Originally posted by zee:

I love how u say it was holywoodization, but if you watch the dvd.. and the makeing of th emovie all the veterans of the battle were there to help make the movie and they tryed as hard as apossible to keep it from another hollywood Bs movie. Ltcol Moore saw to that.

I agree that the "Hollywood Bs" was not as bad in We Were Soldiers as many other movies, but IMHO it still pales when compared to the book as far as giving a realistic impression of how the battle actually went down.

The fact of the matter is, real battles are only occasionally photogenic, and even assuming that the action being filmed as an absolutely 100% realistic recreation of the real action (an actual impossibility), good feature film directors cut and splice, compress time in one place and extend it in others, pick and choose frame, etc. in order to control the pace of the movie and create an overall work of art. This is just the nature of feature film as art.

Overall, I liked the film and overall I think Col. Moore should be proud of the general impression it paints of the battle and the men who fought in it.

If you really want to get into the nuts and bolts of what really happened, though, the book is much better. A good non-fiction book certainly isn't completely without artifice, but IMHO it generally allows the author(s) more opportunities to present a fuller telling of history.

Cheers,

YD

[Shep]

If nothing else, Sam Elliot's portrayal of SGM Plumley is worth your money. But I believe the movie did a fine job of evoking the book.

The bayonet charge at the end was certainly not a part of the Ia Drang, but did anyone else feel it had a haunting similarity to Col. Chamberlain's charge at Little Round Top?

[Leeo]

A bit OT, but I recently read "Blood on the Risers," by John Leppleman. He was in the 173rd Airborne in '66, then in the big river transports as a gunner, and finally a ranger on hunter-killer teams.

Seemed a good (though with the authors slant), straight forward narrative of what it was like in Vietnam. I'd recommend it.

[Bruno Weiss]

Posted by Marlow:

Not directly related to his pro/anti American stance, but, IIRC he is at odds with the typical Hollywood views on patriotism and the U.S.

Not exactly how I would characterize it. The short interview I saw with Gibson on the Today Show just prior to the movie's release and which was not widely shown elsewhere (probably for good reason), had Gibson explaining how he really wanted to show the North Vietnamese as honorable soldiers fighting for their cause, but more troubling to me anyway, was his statement that they (the NVA), were fighting an honorable war since we had "invaded" their country.

Eeeennnnntt, wrongo Mel. The NVA invaded the South, and we were defending South Vietnam. Whether nor not one thinks in hindsight that was all together well and proper, the statement that "we" invaded Vietnam and that they (the NVA), were defending themselves demonstrated to me that (a), Mel needs a lesson in the history of the war, and (, could use a dictionary to look up the defination of "invaded", and that his sentiments went far beyond Hollywood views as you put it, save for possibly Jane Fonda.

[tar]

I love how u say it was holywoodization, but if you watch the dvd.. and the makeing of th emovie all the veterans of the battle were there to help make the movie and they tryed as hard as apossible to keep it from another hollywood Bs movie. Ltcol Moore saw to that.

But that, unfortunately, doesn't really mean anything. All of these sorts of movies hire historical and military/technical advisors. But in the final analysis, the director will do what he wants. He is free to ignore the advice of the technical/military advisor, and often does so -- if he thinks the resulting deviation will make for a better story or movie (note: story, not history!)

[Jotte]

To the NVA the US were invaders don't you think? That's their view of things. Might have been that Mel Gibson was refering to?

[Nidan1]

We have to understand how the Vietnam situation fell into the USA's lap in the first place.

After WWII Ho Chi Minh was looking to create a unified state governed by the Vietnamese people.

Instead of allowing the Vietnamese to develop their own country, the Americans allowed the French to re-occupy their former colonial holdings in SE Asia.

Once the Vietnamese Nationalists realized that America and the West had allowed the former colonizers to come back in, they aligned themselves with the Chinese (whom they truly hated) and the Russians, because they saw that as a way to offset the Western powers. Because Ho Chi Minh was now seen to be a communist, America and the West could do nothing more than support France. (Remember the Domino Theory).

When the French were defeated by the Viet Minh in 1954, the Western Powers stepped in again and called for a partition of Vietnam between the Communist North and the Democratic South. Thousands of Northerners were allowed to go to the South, if they didnt want to live under the Communist rule. Among those thousands were people that would soon create the Viet Cong.

Eisenhower and then Kennedy continued to prop up regimes in the South, and an ever increasing number of American advisors flooded the country to train the South Vietnamese Army.

After the Gulf of Tonkin incident widespread powers were given to Lyndon Johnson allowing him to deploy ever increasing amounts of American troops to S Vietnam, until finally the North Vietnamese sent regular troops to the South to prop up the Viet Cong.

So here is the rub about who "invaded" who. The Vietnamese communists, both North and South considered their military action to be a war of unification and to rid their country of foreigners. America was so afraid of the "Domino Theory" that it would do anything to block communist wars of liberation anywhere on the globe. So actually America was the foreign Army preventing the unification of a sovereign country.

We can go on and on here. This issue has consumed an entire generation, and it contiues to do so to this day. Hence these posts.

I am a Vietnam Veteran and looking back on it now through the eyes of maturity and history, I feel that America should have stayed out of Vietnam, or at least withdrawn earlier before more lives were lost. I think America at the time thought it a noble cause, but I too think that the NVA thought they were doing the right thing as well. Its all in the history books now.

[ August 30, 2002, 04:40 PM: Message edited by: Nidan1 ]

[CMplayer]

Originally posted by Bruno Weiss:

Gibson explaining how he really wanted to show the North Vietnamese as honorable soldiers fighting for their cause,

You oughtn't to have a problem with that since that's Hal Moore's and Joe Galloway's stance in the book. Filming it any other way would be very disrespectful.

[CMplayer]

A funny thing they reversed in the film.:

In the Ia Drang, Hal Moore was a wiry, slim guy, and Galloway was big and stocky. The movie did the opposite, with a pudgy Mel Gibson as Moore, and that skinny sharpshooter guy from SPR as Galloway.

[CMplayer]

Originally posted by Nidan1:

I too think that the NVA thought they were doing the right thing as well.

They must have, considering how they fought.

Good post, btw.