The Green Berets (1968)

"The Green Berets" has received a lot of flack over the years, a lot of it undeserved. I admit there's a lot about the movie that doesn't work - the tone and attitude of the movie is from the 1940s, not 1969. The subplot about the war orphan is cliched and heavy-handed. The movie was shot in an area that looks nothing like Vietnam. There are some weird attempts at humor. And yes, Wayne didn't have a clear idea as to what the Vietnam conflict was about.

Most of the controversy about this movie comes around this fact. However, looking carefully, one sees that not all of the politics are incorrect. The scene at the beginning, for example, makes clear that soldiers of ANY conflict are just following orders from the government. If you disagree with a conflict, blame the government, not the soldiers.

Also in the beginning, the movie makes a point that the Soviets were giving assistance to the South-East communists - which was true. Wayne's statement suggesting that the Soviets were trying for some kind of world domination actually isn't that far-fetched. Before the Soviet Union fell, there were numerous times when the Soviets gave assistance to other communist countries and forces. (As well, this short beginning scene has most of the politics in the entire movie!)

Some of the protests about the movie are to do with the fact that the North Vietnamese are portrayed as being vicious, and the Americans as a kind of holier-than-thou. While it is true that the Americans committed some atrocities during the conflict, the North Vietnamese committed FAR MORE. The scene in the movie where innocent Vietnamese villagers are killed by the enemy because they accepted help from the Americans has actual basis in fact. Still not convinced, ex-hippies? If the North Vietnamese weren't so bad, why were there thousands of boat people? And take a look at the based-on-true-stories movies "The Hanoi Hilton" and "The Killing Fields" to get an idea of how brutal the South-East Asian communists were to P.O.W.s and ordinary people.

"The Green Berets" also has some excellent battle sequences. In fact, Wayne was so impressed with second-unit director Kellogg's direction of these scenes, he gave him co-directing credit. I will admit that the shot with the toy helicopter did ruin things somewhat. Elsewhere, however, the military hardware and battle techniques are overall very accurate. (Wayne got full cooperation from the U.S. military)

You might think I like this movie. Actually, I don't - I overall didn't like it because it was too slow, and with a lot of boring chat. Still, I don't think it's anywhere near the bomb/laughfest it's been unfairly branded. And I think a lot of people agree: It was the 11th highest grossing movie of 1968, generating $8.7 million in rentals - a HUGE amount in those days! It's also been issued several times on video, and Warner Bros. chose this movie as one of its first "oldies" DVD releases. So clearly a lot of people haven't minded - or didn't care - about its "message".

Fmovies: It's easy to understand why so many viewers hated this movie. It goes against everything the media and entertainment industries (The same thing?) have put forth regarding the Vietnam War since the 1960s. ...Vietnam was a bad war, America was wrong, etc., while the North Vietnamese and VC were just peace/freedom loving folk...

What was so wrong about trying to stem the tide of communism, or to prevent south Vietnam from falling to the communist north? "The Green Berets" made the case that it was a noble goal, and brave Americans worked hard to achieve it.

This is not the best war movie, or even the best Vietnam war movie out there. Mel Gibson's "We Were Soldiers" is far superior in that it is less overtly political, much more realistic, and still shows a positive view of the American effort in southeast Asia. Check it out.

The Green Berets: 5.5 of 10

Although "They Were Expendable" is a better film overall, "Green Berets" is also quite good, and both movies have a lot in common.

• They show the enemy as the enemy - vicious killers.

• And they show Americans as being flawed, but good & brave.

• They were both made *during* the war.

• Which means the outcome was unknown - would we win or lose? - And finally, they show that the Americans are there to HELP - The Americans were helping the Filipinos in WW2's They Were Expendable, and the South Vietnamese in Green Berets. They both treat their Asian allies as equals (no racism here).

.

Given all that, with movies that are nearly identical to one another in plot & purpose (rally the homefront to support the war), it seems odd the Green Berets is so hated, while They Were Expendable is so loved.

Having just watched both movies back-to-back on TCM and AMC, via Memorial Day marathons, I don't see why one is loved & the other hated. I thought John Wayne did an excellent job in both movies, and that both movies should be considered classics.

Bottom Line: If you have a chance to see either of these two movies, don't hesitate to sit down & enjoy them. They're definitely worth your time.

troy

The Green Berets fmovies. "The Green Berets" clearly follows the genre of war movies for which John Wayne is famous. While the movie is purely an action adventure it nevertheless has its merits. It does not depict the horrors and suffering of war but it does inspire through the heroism of its characters. It makes the same kind of social and political statement that John Wayne's World War II movies make. Many people pan the picture as simply a piece of propaganda but there is always a place for such films. We forget that stories and movies such as this inspire a sense of courage, duty and patriotism. When the movie was released the green beret had taken a seat next to the coon skin cap and cowboy hat. Perhaps it wouldn't hurt us as a society to have more heroes like those depicted in The Green Berets.

What was Vietnam truly like? I personally do not know but have learned that it always depends on who you ask. I have met a number of Vietnam veterans and each has a different story to tell. The Vietnamese soldier I am told was no better or worse than the American soldier. Those that look down on the Vietnamese soldiers probably looked down on the Vietnamese people as a whole. One former army ranger who served two tours of duty in Vietnam said they were some of the toughest soldiers he had ever seen. I have also read accounts that the elite units of the Army of the Republic of Vietnam (rangers, paratroopers, marines) were indeed very courageous and fierce soldiers. As for the Vietcong and North Vietnamese, they were without a doubt brutal and cold blooded. As one posted comment noted "The Killing Fields" depicts the kind of cruelty that the Vietcong practiced. They were no different than the Khmer Rouge as a few Vietnamese I have met have told me.

One thing all Vietnam veterans have in common is a sense of frustration about how the war was fought. Why did we lose the Vietnam war? Perhaps because we never really fought to win.

While I like this movie for all the wrong reasons, it doesn't come close to doing justice to the Robin Moore book on which it was very loosely based. It's pretty obvious that much of it was filmed stateside, but in that it was one of the few - if not the only - Vietnam War movies made in the 60's it's historically significant. I also know that The Duke visited several US Army SF camps in SE Asia in preparation for this film - as well as to show his support for our service men.

If you're interested in the subject matter, however, READ THE BOOK! It's very gritty and much of it is from a unique first-person perspective.

It is probably impossible to assess the content of this film in other than the context in which it was developed and presented. My own first viewing was in 1968 a matter of mere weeks before having to report for duty in the US Armed Forces. At that time I did not know whether or not I would have to go to Viet Nam as many of my friends already had. Some had already been killed or wounded in action. In this context, the film is one I will never forget.

John Wayne made this as a political film in an attempt to counter the rising tide of what he and others like him saw as treasonous protests against the government and the military over the conflict in Viet Nam. This horrid almost-war was tearing many families apart in controversy. Wayne wanted to make a patriotic statement of support for the Armed Forces who had been so good to him. He was denied several attempts at enlistment in WWII and was classified 4F. He made films to support the allied war effort then and hoped to show support again even though this was never a real war. Instead he was widely ridiculed by a rabid leftist press.

Yes, the film was definitely not accurate in the way we have come to demand of today's films. Such accuracy may have been impossible in the political climate of the day. There was deep seated anger in the upper military echelon for not being allowed to wage an actual war. Every engagement between forces was won by the Americans, but they were forbidden from the beginning to the end from pressing an attack. The result was perhaps history's worst military "Catch 22"; fight and then wait for the enemy to regroup, rearm and reattack. I still know military people who hate the entire media for the brow-beating they gave the military and Congress, who - in turn - forbade the military from pressing more aggressive action.

Wayne was also attempting to counter people in the entertainment industry whom he and others considered traitors (then and still) such as Jane Fonda, who visited and spoke in support of North Viet Nam.

It was this climate Wayne stepped into. His effort was genuine but it resulted in a cameo of the war rather than something palpable. Something that good has yet to be made. Much of what went on, real high drama and touching personal stories, has been almost entirely ignored by Hollywood. Thus, this also remains one of the few films of the hugely controversial era.