Another Website ("Historical Inaccuracies in Film") points out the same thing, that the final battle scene with Lt. Col. Moore leading the brave charge at the North Vietnamese headquarters did not take place in reality or in the book. There was no helicopter coming to the aid of Moore's assault. In fact the 7th Air Cavalry division was given an airlift out of the area and the next day a different division was brought in fresh and that division was ambushed.
In the Website "Movie Mistakes" a number of small but nonetheless significant inaccuracies are pointed out. In the film Lt. Col. Moore fires his rifle many times; he is shooting at North Vietnamese (NVA) soldiers near the command post that had been set up by the Americans. However, in the book Moore does not fire his weapon and there were no NVA tools within the command post area.
A couple helicopter pilots (characters "Snake" and "Too Tall") are seen in the film piloting their crafts from the right seat in the helicopter. However, "Movie Mistakes" points out correctly that helicopters are piloted from the left seat. It can't be accurate to depict a soldier burned in a large part of his body from napalm; in the film the reporter finds Jimmy burned on the ground but his clothes are not burned and the grass around him is not singed. This can't be how it really was in the war, and of course the film's director Wallace did the best he could given the tools at hand.
Was the Movie Effective? Did it Broaden an Understanding of the War?
Yes the movie was very effective and well done. It was clearly more effective than "Full Metal Jacket," "Platoon" -- and "Green Berets"...
Because director Wallace used techniques that gave the film an almost documentary feel, it came across as very close to what must have actually happened. Moreover, since the movie was intended not just as a "realistic" action film (with gory battle scenes) but as a kind of tribute to the soldiers who fought so bravely yet came home to indifference and even scorn, it did in fact create a more believable version in the mind of Americans who did not serve. The scenes with Madeline Stowe as the wife back home were touching, and the esprit de corps between the soldiers was very warm and reassuring.
The Vietnam conflict was brutally bloody and ugly, and it was significant in a negative way as it was the first
war the United States ever lost. Add to that
drama, there was terrible mistreatment of returning war veterans. Given those issues, a film like this helps to present a far more positive and honest picture of what happened in Vietnam, and as such, it has served a valuable purpose, both historically, socially and artistically.
Works Cited
Freschi, Laura. "Making it Real: 'We Were Soldiers' Strives to Tell it Like it Was."
Military.com. Retrieved May 2, 2012, from http://www.military.com. 2003.
Historical Inaccuracies in Film. "We Were Soldiers." Retrieved May 2, 2012, from http://sites.google.com/site/apusmoviereview/we-were-soldiers.
We Were Soldiers. Paramount Pictures Corp. icon Entertainment International. 2002.
