Eric Wang Ms.

Scheppach AP US History 2 June 2011 Based off the novel We Were Soldiers once, the Hollywood rendition We Were Soldiers fully utilizes all of main actor Mel Gibsons talents. Through a series of encounters that include an initial slaughtering of French troops in Vietnam to the initial U.S. land engagement of Vietcong aggressors, director Randall Wallace brings life to both the enemy and allied viewpoints of the war, and both the soldiers cluelessness and home fronts nervousness towards the troops wellbeing. Although We Were Soldiers is a Hollywood creation with exaggerated scenes for cinematic effect, its accuracy as a war movie remains unparalleled as it provides a satisfying sequential retelling of the actual events that occurred in the Battle of IaDrang. We Were Soldiers is hailed as one of the most accurate historical films ever made. Indeed, its portrayal of what occurred during the Battle of IaDrang (the first major land engagement in Vietnam) is precise. The movie makers did not skimp on any major event, describing how the U.S. went to war in a series of detailed scenes. The major players in the battle, Colonel Hal Moore and General Nguyen HuuAn, are portrayed lifelike. Unlike other war movies that personify American patriotism and has a very pro-American stance, this movie focuses on both sides of the battle, both enemy and ally, and the enemies are also portrayed as having a sense of morality and duty and care. The skirmishes, according to the historians, are also accurately portrayed. The amount of gore, camaraderie and conflicts, both internal and external, serve to mirror those of what occurred during the Vietnam War. The soldiers, who in real life are a mostly homogenous population (mostly white), are shown to be in a similar ratio in this movie. The home front is also very emotional, which it should be, and the women and men in the war seem to not know what theyre fighting for. When the women hear about their husbands deaths,

they still keep their sense of patriotic duty, showing how the American home front bravely dealt with the consequences of an ever encroaching quagmire.

The film, though accurate, is still in some ways a Hollywood creation. Most of the battle scenes adhere to historically correct tactics, but as the story progresses, they become increasingly unrealistic. Bayonets are no longer a part of warfare by the Korean War, and the story still depicts a bayonet charge by the soldiers against the enemy an effective bayonet charge against automatic machinery. In reality, the battle was considered a huge disadvantage for the Americans, and the movie depicts it so. However, the movie showed that towards the end the Americans eventually gained hold of the battle and seemed almost victorious. In reality, the battle was a tie at best. The focus on the home front may be great, but sometimes it takes away from the tension created in the battle, because we are not able to focus as much on the strategy involved in the battle as the emotions the characters displayed. The Mel Gibson character is definitely larger than life, meaning that he is a caricatured hero. Though he did lead the American troops valiantly against the Vietnamese, he is not as perfect as he seems in the movie. Also, a chopper scene by the Americans in which one aircraft singlehandedly took down dozens of Vietcong seems far too exaggerated a definite Hollywood creation.

If I were to give a recommendation of this film, Id wholeheartedly endorse it. Though there were inaccuracies here and there, the movie generally adheres to historical events. Its portrayal of historical events adheres to chronological order, and makes a seemingly moderate sized battle seem alive. I would, however, warn against following the battle scenes literally. Some of the weapons seem to be out of their place in time and added mainly for cinematic effect. Some

events had no time mentioned making the French killings at the beginning of the movie seem like it happened just before the Battle of IaDrang (France started getting into an engagement with the Vietcong in 1954, not just prior to American intervention). If I were to watch this movie, I would do my historical research so I know what the moviemakers are talking about because some events are hard to understand. The emotion and deep character portrayal stays throughout the movie, and some scenes of death makes the reader have a deep feeling of sympathy. Also, the amount of gore in this movie is unreal limbs, broken bones and blood seem to carry half the movie. Once again, I would recommend this movie; as long as the audience understands a basic background of the events and can swallow some emotional and tough scenes, it will be a welcoming and satisfying experience.