Film Portrayal of American Soldiers on Patrol

War film portrayals of American soldiers on patrol, in a combat zone, often seem to show them making as much noise as humanly possible, such as shouting and talking to each other. Obviously such behaviour is likely to give away the patrol's position to any enemy forces in the area :nono: yet so many war films involving American soldiers seem to show this sort of behaviour while they are out on patrol. I am not ex military and I have not really come into much contact with many American ex-soldiers but surely this is not typical of how the American soldier generally behaves while out on patrol?

A movie would be very boring if it followed a group of quiet men walking slowly through the jungle. Think about it. Don't believe everything you see. Depending on the date of the movie, it could also simply be to portray the American soldier in a bad light. Common practice from Vietnam through the beginning of the first Gulf War. The Vietnam war was unpopular and the military got no respect for decades afterward.

I have thought about it and most war films that I have seen involving American soldiers seem to portray them in the same way. Why are British or Canadian soldiers, for example, not portrayed in a similar manner on screen?

You know it’s not real and just Hollywood drama, right?

Maybe because British film makers are trying to appeal to a different audience than American film makers and don't have the same expectations in the two audiences.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vincent

You know it’s not real and just Hollywood drama, right?

---

Yes off course, but why portray American soldiers in a similar manner to this, in what seems like, almost every-time a war film is made involving American soldiers? Is it to portray American soldiers in a bad light as has been suggested in post 2, which sounds plausible?

It might be helpful if you named the movies you are referring too. I expect most of us have seen them. Off the top of my head, I can't think of an instance such as you describe.

Casualties of War (1989), staring Michael J. Fox, made me think of of the question again which was on one of the U.K. T.V. channels last night. I wouldn't say that this film portrays the American soldier any differently to any of the other war films. What I'm asking is if war films generally show a fair reflection of what the average American soldier is actually like? I don't know the answer to this question because I am not ex-military and have not served in or with U.S. forces. That is the reason why I asked the question.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Flying10uk

Casualties of War

---

That was a terrible movie, not really anything real in it at all. It was an example of one with just a made up story trying to show the duality of man...you simply can't take these drivel as anything. Just popcorn chewing entertainers. Better if you take a flat of scotch for your pop...then they're half good, if you can remember them.

Yeah, that's one that just entertains. Can't have boring quiet patrolling happening.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Flying10uk

Yes off course, but why portray American soldiers in a similar manner to this, in what seems like, almost every-time a war film is made involving American soldiers? Is it to portray American soldiers in a bad light as has been suggested in post 2, which sounds plausible?

---

Without going into politics too much, I can only tell you that Hollywood is run by the alt-left and they don’t love the military.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Flying10uk

… What I'm asking is if war films generally show a fair reflection of what the average American soldier is actually like?...

---

No. That is not their goal.

I had enough of TV a long time ago. I took it out and sat it by the side of the road with the rest of the garbage. I have a better life without TV. It’s my life and I don’t have time to waste.

Me I like doco's on development on weapon systems like long range arty but love aircraft especially, I surmise that when the lead starts flying there is no use being quiet, common sense would dictate that in a war zone on patrol one would be as quiet as possible and have all your kit properly stowed to stop noise or glinting from either sunlight or moon light. Going on hand signals but really in todays world sneaking around day or night is fraught with danger given FLIR and other nasty things that take away the shield of darkness.

I take the waries as they are entertainment value only some are just a crock of parrots pi$$ others that stick more to the actual events are more to the taste but it is the movies so go in with an open mind.

I did like the opening scenes on the beach in Saving Private Ryan as they probably got it 60 percent right the other 40% I will leave out because only the poor buggers that were there will really know what it was actually like but in saying that when we exited the cinema it was a very quiet crowd that walked out I for one was really touched by the ending.

I have read quite a few books about Nam lately, just to get more information on that war too.
All those who fought in the jungle, and even more the ones who were on LRRP or similar units, stress that there was no word spoken for days.
All gear taped in order not to klink or make any kind of noise.
Even the radio comms where minimal and mostly just pressing the comm button to acknowledge received info.
Maybe the normal grunt was less careful on small details, but in no way I can believe anyone would have chattered freely in enemy territory without getting beaten to pulp by his mates, NCOs and Officers.
Not even my draftees did that when I was in.
Patrols were the most realistic exercise we ever made and silence was really total, since everybody new that noise was the most likely error for giving away our presence in the woods.
That is actually one of the aspects that irritate me most in war movies, as well as the bunching up on march or the firing from the hip...........
Oh man, why most movies are that bad?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ovidio

the firing from the hip

---

Actually...that's known as marching fire. It existed...don't know about now.

The bunching up however, well you know too that without a bit of control, that can happen. But that's so they can get lots of men in action on the screen shot.

I know, I know, but it's still ugly to see.
We too were taught to shoot from the hip, but I remember awful results throughout the whole Company. Most rounds landed about 10 meters in front of the shooter at the beginning.
And that was only when and if you were attacking and in need to put some lead on the enemy without the possibility of stopping to aim better.

I can see this thread slowly going pear shaped already.................

I like the classic British war film/movie made in the 1940s & 50s where many of the actors had actually served for their country and authentic equipment was still readily available. I tend to watch mainly documentaries on television in the evening but also I don't mind the occasional late night action movie. It hadn't occurred to me of there being any "anti U.S. military feeling" among film makers post Vietnam.

Hollywood has been doing that since the 60's. Very few, if any, current Hollywood types ever served in any military. So they wouldn't know reality if it fell on 'em. Certainly not Fox or Penn.
Very few movies made with Brit or Canadian military portrayed.
"...fair reflection of what the average American soldier..." No. Isn't a conscripted army any more. All volunteer since 1973.
Casualties of War was another American anti-Viet Nam/anti-war fairy tale movie.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sunray

Casualties of War was another American anti-Viet Nam/anti-war fairy tale movie.

---

It did state at the end of the film, on the credits, that it was based on a true story. I am not qualified to judge whether this is correct or not.

Off course the most obvious U.S. director and writer to have served in the Vietnam war, that no-one has mentioned so I will, is Oliver Stone.

Key word is "based". Doesn't mean it's true. The Vietnam War did occur, that is true and the movie is based on that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Peter Laidler

I can see this thread slowly going pear shaped already

---

That's because it's been answered?

I actually like Casualties of War. I don't watch it expecting to see how American Soldiers acted, I just watch it to be entertained for a bit. It is rare that a movie is an actual true telling of the truth about anything. Life in general can be very boring with a few exciting things here and there and the boring parts in film stories are either skipped or modified to appeal to a certain audience. Today's "War Movies" will often have a sideline love story so they can get women to come. Hacksaw Ridge for instance is probably closer to based on fact than many movies but they lumped several days worth of action into one night, changed this or changed that to make the storyline smoother etc. When I watch one of these movies, I tend to look them up afterwards to see how much of what happened is accurate. You can't accept anything as a true and correct version anymore and in a way that is unfortunate as that is what people are going to tend to believe.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aragorn243

Key word is "based". Doesn't mean it's true

---

It did state in the credits that 4 American soldiers went to military prison for the alleged crimes which it went onto say were later reduced on appeal. I don't know if the information that appeared in the credits was complete fiction or if there was an element of truth in what was clearly stated, in the credits, at the end of the film. Normally I would expect the information in the credits to be reasonably truthful and accurate. Is this not the case?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Flying10uk

Normally I would expect the information in the credits to be reasonably truthful and accurate.

---

Its...a movie...

Oliver Stone is in the business, like the rest of Hollywood, to sell a product that will make money.

As far as truth goes many times that is a matter of opinion.
I can show you millions of crying sissies who all claim that nuking Japan was unnecessary and that it was a war crime.
My dad was in 3 major battles in the Pacific in the USMC. There were over 50,000 Japanese killed in the 3 battles that he fought in.

About the nukes he said that he wished they had them sooner and more of them because many of the men that he knew would have still been alive.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Flying10uk

It did state in the credits that 4 American soldiers went to military prison for the alleged crimes which it went onto say were later reduced on appeal. I don't know if the information that appeared in the credits was complete fiction or if there was an element of truth in what was clearly stated, in the credits, at the end of the film. Normally I would expect the information in the credits to be reasonably truthful and accurate. Is this not the case?

---

If the information contained in the credits, at the end of films, is a complete fabrication and a pack of lies why bother having credits at the end of films at all? Wouldn't it be much simpler and easier to just end a film with "The End" and nothing else? I really don't see the point of displaying anything at the end of a film unless it has an element of truth to it.

Propaganda didn't end with the Nazis. Always verify. Some are good some aren't.

The fog of time alters peoples perception

So I guess this is where we leave this thread that's turning as pear shaped as Peter predicted...it's been answered and the answer not accepted once again. Is it to raise post counts? Is it to troll others? Who's to say...I sure get tired of it though.

I don't accept that the information contained in the credits at the end of a film is likely to be made up nonsense, lies and propaganda produced by the film maker for some obscure motive. Likewise I don't accept that a person or persons who have been convicted of a crime are always guilty of that crime. My reading of of the film and the information in the credits at the end of the film is that certain serious allegations were made by one U.S. soldier against the other members of his patrol. The matter was investigated by the U.S. military, a trail held and the men convicted and imprisoned. The men appealed their sentences and were successful in having the sentences reduced. My take on the film is that the film makers took this basic information and made up a film around it. It still doesn't mean that the soldiers actually did what the film portrays them being convicted of.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by browningautorifle

So I guess this is where we leave this thread that's turning as pear shaped as Peter predicted...it's been answered and the answer not accepted once again. Is it to raise post counts? Is it to troll others? Who's to say...I sure get tired of it though.

---

I have no idea of what you, Jim, are trying to say here. I don't really have an opinion one way or the other on the subjects brought up in this thread but you certainly do. The only thing which I don't accept is that the information contained in the credits at the end of films is always a pack of lies, made up to deceive or influence people in a particular way.

I don't know what Peter was trying to say with his "pear shaped" comment, perhaps it was wishful thinking on his part?

If you don't accept it, look it up for yourself instead of asking us here. I don't accept any credits at the end of a movie because I've been burned too many times trying to believe it. YES, there IS propaganda in credits, movies, etc because Hollywood producers do indeed have obscure and not so obscure motives. Doesn't mean they are all bad, most aren't but some are.

As for Casualties of War, I haven't seen that in years so I don't even recall what the plot of the movie was. I know it was an unusual role for one actor (Fox) and a role for another that got a serious career started (Penn). It is based on a true story but how closely it follows the actual truth I do not know.

After reading the synopsis and the story of the actual event, about the only things in common are there are 5 individuals, 4 who kidnap and rape a girl, the 5th who does not go along with it. After that, looks like Hollywood glamorization.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aragorn243

After reading the synopsis and the story of the actual event, about the only things in common are there are 5 individuals, 4 who kidnap and rape a girl, the 5th who does not go along with it. After that, looks like Hollywood glamorization.

---

Which is pretty much what I stated in post 30.

My original question in post 1 was really a very simple question and really required just a simple answer. Where have I stated that I don't accept the long drawn out answer to the question that I asked in post 1?

Do you know about the girl from Oyle who was raped and murdered by British soldiers shortly after WW2? It’s similar to the story portrayed in Casualties of War.

Rape during the occupation of Germany - Wikipedia

You were given simple answers many times by many individuals but it is apparent to this day that you haven't accepted any of them because you keep persisting in asking the same thing over and over. It is Hollywood, it is entertainment, it is most likely not very accurate, it is glamorized, many in Hollywood are anti-war, anti-US soldier and they have an agenda. All of it wrapped up in one simple short answer.

I reckon thats about it then........!

Oh! by the way I have a question do you really think Oddball brought that Tiger tank from the Germans in Kelly's Heroes!:p

Kelly's Heroes was my favorite movie of all time until Star Wars came out. Still ranks fairly high on my list. Showed it to my kids and they didn't really get it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CINDERS

do you really think Oddball brought that Tiger tank from the Germans

---

Yes, despite Moriarty's negative waves.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aragorn243

You were given simple answers many times by many individuals but it is apparent to this day that you haven't accepted any of them because you keep persisting in asking the same thing over and over.

---

I haven't, show me where I haven't accepted a simple answer to a simple question, please? You and others keep bringing new topics into this thread which I
feel justified in responding to.

Why do feel that you have a monopoly in being right in what ever you say or think?

Ah, yes. Closing statements at credit time. Has anyone seen That Thing You Do? It is the story of the rise and fall of an early '60s pop band. At closing time we have the epilogue statements, including the "fact" that the bass player, known only as T.B. Player, was wounded in the siege of Khe Sahn and received the purple heart.

Seeing how T.B. never existed...

Bob

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Flying10uk

Why do feel that you have a monopoly in being right in what ever you say or think?

---

Really, you want to go down that road? You asked a series of questions, you were answered and you asked the same questions again. The answers aren't goring to change and were given by many.

Well come on then, which questions do I keep asking and not accepting the answers to??? You must know or you wouldn't keep making the allegation.

He WON'T let up Aragorm........... You should see the PM's that are flying around. Reminds me of ....Oh, never mind

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CINDERS

do you really think Oddball brought that Tiger tank from the Germans in Kelly's Heroes!

---

I don't think he blew all his gold on it....... But if you think of what it would be worth now, probably a good investment.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Peter Laidler

He WON'T let up Aragorm........... You should see the PM's that are flying around. Reminds me of ....Oh, never mind

---

I am not going to bullied by you or anyone else, Peter. You are not going to upset and you going to have to put up with me indefinitely.

Flying10uk, No one else here has any difficulty seeing you asking the same questions over and over so I suggest you go back and re-read the thread because I have lost patience and am wasting time on this. I like exchanging ideas, I like discussing things but there comes a point where it becomes pointless. Your questions have reached that point.

It's known as "Internet trolling" and "Baiting"...and a classic example.

or as others have said, '.....voting with their keyboards.......'!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aragorn243

Flying10uk, No one else here has any difficulty seeing you asking the same questions over and over so I suggest you go back and re-read the thread because I have lost patience and am wasting time on this. I like exchanging ideas, I like discussing things but there comes a point where it becomes pointless. Your questions have reached that point.

---

If you go back to post 1 and reread the thread again you will see that I have not asked the same question again. You and others have raised new points which I am entitled to reply to.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by browningautorifle

It's known as "Internet trolling" and "Baiting"...and a classic example.

---

If you believe this, Jim, you must have a warped mind.

Oddly enough, I now have an urge to watch Kelly's Heroes. One thing to remember, the Division band is always there for a reserve if you need it. "They're beautiful people"

"It's a wasted trip baby. Nobody said nothing about locking horns with no Tigers"

I think we'll left this lie. Folks, we prefer that these personal bicker fights be left at the door.

Bob

Reminder ... :nono:

Some folks still need to read about our forum etiquette policy they agreed to under our Terms of Service Agreement" they electronically signed when they joined. ;)

Regards,
Doug