B
ENJAMIN DE
C
ARVALHO
| 26
The normative disagreements prevalent during the conflict itself thus disappear in favor of a
conflict which was really about the valor and courage of American soldiers in the face of an
impossible task for which they had no real support. As the debate shows, this narrative made it
possible to “deal” with Vietnam again after wounds left by the antiwar movement. However, in
doing so, this new narrative also displaced questions about the rightness of the war, as well as
viewpoint of the Vietnamese themselves. As noted in The New York Times, “the ‘bottom-line
question, ‘Are we a moral nation?’, has not yet been asked, much less answered.”
91
Vietnam was
no longer about Vietnam; and as Michael Cimino said, the movies could have been shot
anywhere and been about any conflict. The New York Times thus noted that “Certainly, a period
of healing is under way. But the healing is partly self-deception, for it does not acknowledge the
fissures that remain from the war.”
92
As it was noted in the same newspaper a few years later,
the movies were not after an accurate account or representation of the war; what mattered was
the “need to show that we have the will and the character we had before Vietnam. A need to
rethink ourselves to the basic American good guy.”
93
91
Hans Koning, “Films and Plays About Vietnam Treat Everything but the War” The New York Times
May 27, 1979, p. D1
92
Samuel G. Freedman, “The War and the Arts” The New York Times Mar. 31, 1985, p. SM50
93
Quoted in ibid.
Convention