* This blog contains affiliate links. If you choose to click and make a purchase through the link, I make a commission.
With the birth of my daughter, I had an uptick in my movie, documentary, and TV show watching since there’s not much else to do when they are little and you’re holding them. So, on these graveyard shifts, I watched a movie that had been out for a while. It’s called Danger Close: The Battle of Long Tan, which is the most well-known battle the Australian armed forces fought during the Vietnam War. So much so the day of the battle, August 18, became Australia’s day of remembrance for the war.
Now, the Vietnam War has always been an enigma to me. Half of what you learn is anti-war propaganda, and the other half is skewed the other way or just outright Hollywood fiction. The truth is often in the middle between the extremes. The best books I have read on the war include Colonel Hackworth’s About Face: An Odyssey of an American Warrior, which provides Hackworth’s perspective of what went wrong on the ground. In addition, Brian VanDeMark’s Road to Disaster: A New History of America’s Descent into Vietnam looks at the White House during Johnson’s tenure. But that’s just from the US perspective.
In truth, I have not read a ton on Asutrlia’s involvement in the war. What I did read was that they were some of the best jungle fighters during the war. They understood the kind of war that was being fought in Vietnam, unlike many of their American counterparts that wanted to fight it like World War II. So I was interested to see how Hollywood would portray this battle, and to no surprise, it was a mixed bag.
Truth #1: Travis Fimmel is an Australian Playing an Australian
I will give the casting crew credit for getting Australians to play an Australian. Travis Fimmel (known for playing Ragnar Lothbrok in History Channel’s Vikings) is Australian, as well as the rest of the cast (to my knowledge). Why does this matter? The battle is wholly an Australian battle and thus should be honored by casting Australians for the different roles.
I know how it is to watch a movie with a character of a particular nationality played by an actor of a different nationality. For instance, my wife’s family is Scottish, so I can’t tell you how many times we’ve seen Scottish characters in films played by people who aren’t Scottish. For most audiences, they don’t care. But for us, hearing terrible Scottish accents for a Scottish character is a bummer and takes us out of the film. And ironically, it seems Scottish actors are always cast for roles other than the Scottish character (like a Russian during the Cold War or using the accent for a Barbarian leader during the time of Rome). But I digress. Kudos to the casting crew on this aspect of the film.
Truth #2: Much of the Facts of the Battle were Glossed Over
Many of the veterans from the battle took issue with the glossing over of the facts. Most of the time, Hollywood can’t help itself when an archetypal story stares them in the face. The battle of Long Tan is one of a smaller Australian force fighting off a superior enemy, in this case, the Viet Cong. The battle fits into that story mold we’ve seen time and time again (300, Battle of the Bulge, The Seige of Jadotville, Zulu Dawn, We Were Soldiers). As such, the story created tension where there wasn’t, did not use proper weapons (Fimmel’s character using a handgun instead of a rifle in certain scenes) or adhering to standard operational procedures (everyone always wore their boonie hats), taking the story outside the guardrails of what happened.
The Lie: The Armored Personnel Carriers Did Not Come to Rescue
For instance, one of the things that they changed about the story was the nature of the APC unit that was dispatched to support the Australian infantry under attack. In the movie, it was portrayed as a rescue mission. Much like Patton "coming to the rescue" of the surrounded 101st Airborne, this was fiction. In real life, the APC unit was part of a force to reinforce the infantry, not necessarily to “rescue” them, as the veterans disputed.
All in all, the film was what I expected it to be—a solid B war movie. If you’re like me and have exhausted all other options for decent and more accurate war movies (though most are never 100% accurate), this is not a bad choice. However, it will not provide an accurate account of the battle. As you should always do, you should turn to the veterans themselves to learn about past wars. For this battle, one book I am looking at to improve my knowledge Is Harry Smith’s The Battle of Long Tan: The Company Commander’s Story.
Photo Credit: https://pin.it/1RpaW1W
Comments