Les bérets verts

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.

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.

He was one of the original team that captured the general. He climbed up on the balcony and let the rope down...Does that validate that part of the movie enough....He also said the part of the little boy never existed....He watched with tears in his eyes because some of his team did not return from that mission alive....Be kinda careful when you criticize things. These guys did not ask to be sent over there...They were sent over there....He did not appreciate getting yelled child killer when he returned either. They were basically good soldiers doing all they could to stay alive....He had may years of Viet Nam syndrome after returning to civilian life....Never got anything from the government nor expected anything....He did his duty and returned.....

The only thing wrong with this movie was that John Wayne's character, COL Kirby, was not Ranger qualified.

Forget the trite lines and poor special effects. Viewers who criticize this film for not having a meaning or realism miss its point. This was John Wayne giving support to the troops the best way he knew how- by making a patriotic John Wayne movie. Nobody ever criticized Bob Hope for entertaining the troops, so why pan the Duke for doing the same? This movie was no more borish or weak than the Saturday morning serials we used to cheer in the 30s, 40s and 50s. If you want a deeper message see The Searchers (and if you look closely, you WILL see some parallels...)

North Vietnam and the VC had great PR throughout the war---they managed to dupe most of the world into believing they were peace loving victims of Western imperialism. For some reason, the press never focussed on their use of cold terror and outright mass murder to force their aims on the people of RVN. People forget that we were not in Vietnam to save Vietnam; we were there to stem the tide of world wide communist expansion. We didn't lose in 1975; we won in 1989 when the Wall came down.

So John Wayne's "The Green Berets" was a little schmaltzy. Warm beer tastes flat, but better than no beer. The actors' roles, on both sides, were caricatures of their respective types.

I saw this movie when I was stationed on Okinawa in 1969. Everyone cheered, no one whined. No civilian I ever met liked it. So what? Regardless of politics, most Americans who served in Southeast Asia did so honorably. This is an honorable movie.

No, seriously. "The Green Berets" is about as viable and creditable as "The Boys in Company C" or "Casualties of War". It's hard to find a Vietnam war movie that DOESN'T come full of distortions based on the film makers political agendas; it's just this time "The Green Berets" comes from the pro-involvement side.

We've heard the negatives about this movie, and most of them are basically correct but there are a few things to say that, if not positive, put the movie in a less negative light.

First, this isn't your usual piece about 19 year old conscripts being called up to fight in a war they don't understand. The real Special Forces are career professionals who have very high standards of training and discipline. "The Green Berets" isn't a movie about your average grunt; it's about commandos and a lot of the training, tactics and equipment is accurate for the time. The experience of the special forces in Vietnam was widely different from line conscripts; and they won a lot of victories.

Second, it was a bold move to make a movie about the Vietnam war whilst it was still going on. The movie was made shortly before the Tet Offensive of 1968 when the initiative was still with the US and South Vietnamese forces. This is a Vietnam war movie from the early part of the war...something "Platoon" falls down on is depicting the unit in a state of disorganisation, with the usual drug taking and indiscipline scenes that have become cliché, in 1967 when the reality was that discipline and cohesion in the field in '67 was a lot tighter. Stone depicts events that would not become common in front line troops until '69-'70. Yes, I know he served a tour of duty over there but a number of his fellow veterans have called his depiction of events into question.

Third, the early part of the movie with the relationships between US Special Forces officers and ARVN counterparts is fairly well done. The SF had been present in Vietnam from '62 onwards and by '67-'68 had built up a good working relationship with ARVN Ranger units (the only South Vietnamese army units that were well trained and led).

Now the pine tree issue. Well, I hate to break it to people but not all of Vietnam is palm trees and jungle. In the area of Cochinchina just north of Saigon and into the hilly Montangnard country, there are a lot of deciduous and evergreen trees. I was surprised to find this when doing research on the US 25th Infantry Division and finding a lot of their patrol area wasn't in jungle but hilly woodland. Pine trees maybe stretching things a little bit though but it's not impossible.

The politics. Yes, the Duke is on the right wing campaign trail but other film makers have used the Vietnam war to promote the liberal left agenda so I don't get why that is acceptable and an alternative view that doesn't conform to that is inherently wrong. The scene at the beginning of the movie has Aldo Ray explaining how China, Czechoslovakia and the Soviet Union were sending aid to North Vietnam...so Oliver Stone's assertions that the VC were self-liberating and proudly defiant are deeply wrong. The VC and NVA were tools of a communist regime that were being heavily supplied and subsidised by other Communist regimes. I'm not advocating that the US's involvement in a war in Vietnam was right, just that people understand the involvement of other nations as well.

For those who think this movie is bad because it doesn't depict American atrocities, drug taking and insubordination like other Vietnam war movies have merely bought into another set of falsehoods. This goes back to my original point; "The Green Berets" isn't particularly realistic...but then again, neither are most other movies about that war.