Talk:In the Valley of Elah

Factual basis
This film is based upon the story of Richard Davis. I don't know particularly what section that information should go under, but his story is documented at --Jbachtel 16:26, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Expanded Summary
Hello,

Hope this plot summary is helpful, it is one of my first here on Wiki. I just watched the movie tonight and went back through to chronicle the synopsis. Please let me know if there's anything I can change, also, I didnt know how to add the spoiler tags, if someone could do that, much appreciated.

142.51.222.187 (talk) 09:08, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I have found some problems in your plot summary (Ie. Identifying the main character as a retired officer and saying he flew the flag from his son's coffin) but I am cleaning it up.

68.48.164.97 (talk) 13:16, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I feel like the summary needs to be expanded. As a summary, this only covers every single scene and detail n the movie, where as I think we need shot by shot descriptions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.9.177.121 (talk) 14:21, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia guidelines state summaries should not exceed 900 words, I'm going to make the chnage on the page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.9.177.121 (talk) 14:38, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Cleanup
I repaired the following inaccuracies in the plot summary:

1. Main character is a retired Sgt, not an officer. Also the murdered son and his squad should not be referred to as fellow officers as the were all enlisted. I was in the army, you can trust me that enlisted men take great offense at being called officers. 2. Main character did not find blood at the crime scene. He told them where they would have found blood judging by the drag marks on the ground. It was a guess based on where the body would have been during the murder. No blood was actually found. 3. He does not fly the flag from his sons coffin. There is a scene right before this where he receives a flag in the mail that his son sent him as a gift. It is this faded flag his son mailed from Iraq that he flies upside down at the end.

68.48.164.97 (talk) 13:39, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about that; I wrote that at like 4AM in the morning. I missed the part about the flag coming in the mail I thought that was the folded flag off of his son's coffin.

THanks for clarifying

142.51.222.187 (talk) 18:37, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

dehumanization of women
Currently under this section it says "However, when questioning one of Mike's fellow soldiers, Bonner, about an altercation with a stripper the night of the murder, Bonner coldly replies, "the woman's a stripper and that's something on your shoe." This is inaccurate. Bonner refuses to repeat what Mike said to the stripper because she was a stripper, not something on your shoe. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.113.63.20 (talk) 00:49, 11 December 2011 (UTC)


 * From Dictionary.com: "Dehumanize - to deprive of human qualities or attributes." Calling any human being "something on your shoe" is the very definition of "dehumanizing," regardless of your opinion of their profession.  I've added a citation for this symptom of PTSD in the reference section from Johnathan Shay's classic book on PTSD Odysseus in America, in which he devotes an entire chapter to the specifics of the dehumanization of certain categories of women that military culture and combat trauma contribute to for returning veterans.  Johnathan Shay has spent over 30 years counseling veterans with PTSD.  He received a B.A. (1963) from Harvard University and an M.D. (1971) and Ph.D. (1972) from the University of Pennsylvania.  Since 1987, he has been a staff psychiatrist at the Department of Veteran Affairs Outpatient Clinic in Boston, Massachusetts.  In 2001, Shay served as Visiting Scholar-at-Large at the U.S. Naval War College, and from 2004 to 2005, he was Chair of Ethics, Leadership, and Personnel Policy in the Office of the U.S. Army Deputy Chief of Staff for Personnel. Also, you removed the entire section, not just the quote you had a problem with.  There was more information in the paragraph on this important issue.  Therefore, the edit was also excessive. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Amyluna13 (talk) 07:07, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

It is very good that the previous post added some useful information that may be relevant in some diagnoses. But no dehumanization took place by Bonner in this particular movie scene because Bonner did not say, "the woman's a stripper which is like something on my shoe." Bonner actually said, "the woman's a stripper, NOT something on your shoe." It can be interpreted that although Bonner knows he is speaking in regards to a conversation Mike had with a stripper, Bonner does not desire to repeat what Mike said because he respects the stripper's HUMANITY and does not see her as a fly on his shoe. If someone had said the first, it would imply he or she does not see strippers as human beings, but that is not the case. If one person said to another, "I see you as a human being, not something on my shoe," they would be acknowledging that person. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2D80:8014:C56E:B1EC:AC63:D552:6520 (talk) 04:16, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Mis-categorizing a factually supported analysis of the film's themes as "emotional"
I recently posted a well-researched and supported analysis of the themes of this film. All of the content was summarily removed by Bullmoosebell, his reasoning being "Such emotional edits warrant discussion in the talk page to defuse emotion BEFORE editing." However, there was no emotion expressed in my analysis of the themes. I was very careful to only quote actual scenes in the film related to the theme I quoted.

I'm reposting my themes until someone can tell me what about describing actual scenes in the film and their themes is "emotional." I know the subjects of PTSD, Warrior Mythologies, Standards of Masculinity and Patriotism might push buttons for READERS, but that doesn't make the analysis "emotional." It was factual. I think the censoring of these themes was more about the emotional response of the person who removed them, not the content of the themes themselves.

It sets a dangerous precedent to censor something because it is controversial. The whole point of the movie was to raise these issues. In response to Bullmoosebell, I say the same thing, "Such emotional edits warrant discussion in the talk page to defuse emotion BEFORE editing." Bullmoosebell offered no explanation as to why my edits were emotional. I disagree that they were emotional. I think Bullmoosebell's edit to remove them was emotional. Amyluna13 (talk) 09:41, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Indeed. Emotional or otherwise, such edits &/or additions warrant discussion. Understanding good faith edits, adding such content (in addition to correct grammar and spelling) necessitates discussion on this talk page. The information posted by Amyluna13 may or may-not be substantial, but is it pivotal to the movie or is this "factually supported analysis" actually original content? Be it known that I am in Baker Company TF 1-15 IN (the unit in which the movie is based upon), so do not presume that I don't understand the situation that piqued the interest of the producers & directors to create this movie. Bullmoosebell (talk) 10:02, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Themes discussed for proposition to be added to the article
I am submitting my analysis of the themes of this film in good faith for community discussion. I believe discussing "themes" in a film in-depth IS pivotal to the movie. In fact, the wiki entry for this film ALREADY states "The film explores themes including the Iraq war, abuse of prisoners, and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) following active combat." I merely wish to elaborate on those themes, making this listing more informative and complete. If it's acceptable to mention themes, then it should be acceptable to illustrate them in more detail.

It is not "original content", as these symptoms have been well documented by Johnathan Shay, in Odysseus in America (which I am citing). He received a B.A. (1963) from Harvard University and an M.D. (1971) and Ph.D. (1972) from the University of Pennsylvania. Since 1987, he has been a staff psychiatrist at the Department of Veteran Affairs Outpatient Clinic in Boston, Massachusetts. In 2001, Shay served as Visiting Scholar-at-Large at the U.S. Naval War College, and from 2004 to 2005, he was Chair of Ethics, Leadership, and Personnel Policy in the Office of the U.S. Army Deputy Chief of Staff for Personnel.

Also the field of Men's Studies is twenty years old. We have a ton of research on warrior mythologies and different masculinities. I cite Jackson Katz, the foremost scholar on these issues. I am not making this up. Katz has an extensive resume working with issues of masculinity in the military. From his bio -- "Since 1997 he has been directing MVP-MC, the first worldwide gender violence prevention program in the history of the United States Marine Corps. He and his colleagues have trained thousands of Marines on a dozen bases in the U.S. and Japan. MVP trainings have been held with U.S. Army personnel in Iraq; the U.S. Navy is currently piloting MVP in four sites around the world; and Katz has served as a subject matter expert and consultant for the U.S. Air Force. Katz has spoken at dozens of military conferences, and has addressed cadets at The United States Military Academy at West Point, the Air Force Academy and the Coast Guard Academy.  Dr. Katz was a member of the U.S. Secretary of Defense's Task Force on Domestic Violence in the military from 2000-2003."

Just because ideas may be new to some wikipedians, doesn't mean they are new.

While this edit may warrant discussion before posting, characterizing it as "emotional," "original content" or not posted in "good faith" is completely unwarranted.

My intent is to relay only the events of the film in the context of the themes they illustrate. This film and it's ground-breaking themes were already "censored" by it's limited release despite it's stellar cast and screenwriter. It would be a shame if the same controversial, difficult issues were censored here, as well. Also, thank you to Bullmoosebell for your service to our country and I understand you have a unique and profound relationship to this film. But, with all due respect, if these issues were obvious to those who serve, this tragedy might never have occurred in the first place. And that is the whole point of this film.

Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD)
Deerfield's lack of knowledge about combat PTSD symptoms resulting from modern warfare conditions such as the Iraqi conflict creates blind spots that sabotage his otherwise accurate intuitive detective work.

Blackouts and Loss of Impulse Control -- Deerfield can sense his son's comrades are lying about something regarding Mike's murder, but says he's sure they are not responsible for the brutal killing because "you do not fight beside a man and then do that to him." Later, during Corporal Steve Penning's confession, he describes the murder saying, "and then I looked down, and I'm stabbin' him." Referring to the arbitrary nature of these episodes, he further states "I liked Mike. We all did. But I think on another night that might have been Mike with the knife and me in the field."

Drug Addiction -- Deerfield is reluctant to believe his son used drugs or that his death may have been drug related because he knows "the army does regular drug tests" until he is told "not when they're in Iraq." (The Iraq conflict is the first war in which U.S. soldiers are regularly medicated during active combat for insomnia, stress, PTSD, etc).

Blunted Affect and Lack of Empathy -- During Penning's confession, he describes the murder and dismemberment of his comrade with matter-of-fact detachment, saying they would have buried the body instead of burning it, but "it was getting late and we hadn't eaten...we were starvin'." While describing how Mike would torture Iraqi prisoners (earning him the nickname "Doc") Penning laughs at the memory saying, "That was pretty funny." The lack of empathic response of several characters throughout the film is contrasted by the visibly empathic responses of Joan, Mike's mother, and Detective Emily Sanders to the horrors they witness.

Difficulty Assimilating Back Into Civilian Life - PV2 Robert Ortiez, a soldier in Mike's unit wrongly accused of being involved in Mike's murder due to racial profiling (he's Mexican and it's assumed he's part of the Mexican drug trade) tells Deerfield of Iraq, "I hated it over there...I couldn't wait to get out. After two weeks here? All I wanna do is go back....how f-cked is that?"

Denial -- When Deerfield questions Ortiez about a photo Mike emailed him of a dead child on the side of the road in Iraq, Ortiez tells him that while driving down range he was in the back of the truck and felt the truck hit something that "thumped around underneath" the truck. "Later some guy says we hit a kid. I don't believe it. If you ask me, we hit a dog. We killed a dog."

Spousal Homicide/Animal Abuse/Re-enacting Traumatic Events - Early in the film, Angie, the wife of a combat veteran, reports to Detective Sanders that her husband choked and drowned the family dog in their bath tub in front of their son, adding, "he loved that dog." Detective Sanders asks Angie if her husband ever threatened her or her son and she replies, "No, he'd never hurt us," and that her fear is that her husband will hurt himself. She is turned away and is later found murdered by her husband in her home, choked and drowned in the bath tub.

Suicide -- Spc. Bonner hangs himself, presumably out of guilt and remorse for his part in the murder. Mike's watch is found in his pocket.

Dehumanization of Women -- During his investigations, Deerfield visits a strip club to question the topless bartender regarding the night of Mike's disappearance. He cannot refrain from referring to her with the respectful designation of "m'am," even after she jokes that he doesn't have to call her that. It is implied that Deerfield raised his sons to have the same respect for women. When a bouncer at another club identifies his son as being forcibly thrown out of the club for throwing things at one of the dancers and shouting obscenities at her, an incredulous Deerfield says "you must have the wrong man." In addition, when questioning one of Mike's fellow soldiers, Bonner, about the same altercation on the night of the murder, Bonner defends Mike by refusing to repeat the specifics of what Mike said to the dancer because "the woman's a stripper and that's something on your shoe."

Warrior Mythologies and Definitions of Masculinity
While dining at Detective Sanders' home, we see Detective Sanders' young fatherless son, David, imitating Deerfield's mannerisms at the dinner table. Deerfield later tells David his name comes from the story of David and Goliath, which takes place in the "Vally of Elah." Deerfield says the boy David won the battle against the giant Goliath because he conquered his own fear, adding "That's how you fight monsters. You lure them in close, you look 'em in the eye, you smack 'em down."

It is implied that Hank raised his own sons on similar stories (his firstborn son was also named David and previously died in an Army helicopter crash 10 years earlier) and that they, too, sought to imitate their father. When informed of Mike's death, his mother makes the bitter observation, "Livin' in this house he never could have felt like a man if he hadn't of gone" to war. And that when Mike wanted to enlist, Deerfield said being a soldier would "build his character." As this is the second of her only two sons to die in the military, she tearfully admonishes Deerfield, "Both of my boys, Hank? You couldn't of left me one?" alluding to the influence Deerfield had in shaping his sons' desire to serve their country in combat.

After hearing Penning's confession, Deerfield recalls a phone call he received from Mike begging his father to get him out of Iraq. Deerfield tells him, it's "just nerves" and when Mike starts to cry, his father says disapprovingly, "for Chrissake...anybody with you?" When Mike lies and says, "no, I'm alone," Deerfield replies, "that's good." Deerfield now realizes that this call must have been made soon after Mike ran over the young boy, killing him. Recalling his response to his son's cry for help, he is visibly agitated.

Later, after Deerfield realizes that inhuman combat conditions had turned his son into a sadistic torturer and drug addict and his fellow soldiers into cold-blooded murderers, the film revisits the David and Goliath story. Detective Sanders tells Deerfield her son, David, has been "driving her crazy," asking for a "sling shot," the weapon used by David to defeat Goliath in the Biblical story. Later Detective Sanders' young son asks his mother why the King would "let David fight a giant" since "he was just a boy" as we see an anguished Deerfield replacing Mike's photo in a picture frame in their home.

Patriotism
Thoughout the film, we see Deerfield as a methodical man of protocol and honor. Early in the film, while on his way to search for his missing son, he drives past an American flag flying upside down outside a school. Although he is in a hurry to reach his son's base as soon as possible, he is compelled to stop and find the janitor of the building to correct the situation. The janitor is an immigrant from El Salvador who is ignorant of the protocols of handling and displaying the American flag. Deerfield patiently educates the man never to let the flag touch the ground and to remember to take it down every night. He then tells the janitor that hanging a flag upside down is the "international distress signal" and that it means "we're in a whole lot of trouble...so come save our a*s...because we don't have a prayer in hell of saving ourselves."

In the last scenes of the film, Deerfield opens a package Mike had sent him from Iraq containing an American flag and a photo of his infantry squad in Iraq beneath the same flag. Deerfield now knows that three of those comrades were involved in his son's murder. Deerfield takes the flag to the school and we see him run the flag up the flag pole with the same janitor. He takes a roll of duct tape and tapes the rope to the flag pole, instructing the janitor to leave it flying 24/7, contrary to his previous instruction that it is proper protocol to take the flag down at night. As Deerfield drives away in his truck, the camera pans up the flag pole and we see Mike's flag flying upside down.

Amyluna13 (talk) 10:37, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Original research concerns and the actual problem with this theme section
While User:Bullmoosebell did a rather poor job of explaining the issue, since he just said the Themes section was too emotional when he reverted its addition, there actually is a problem here. Specifically, User:Amyluna13, you need sources for this section not just proving that PTSD, patriotism, and warrior culture exist, but connecting those topics to this specific movie. Things like academic analysis of the film, "heavier" reviews that dig into its themes, director commentary, a study on PTSD that mentions it as a good example of the disorder... with sources like these, you can establish that these particular themes are notable and relevant to the realm of this particular film. From there, more general information on the subject can be brought in as appropriate and necessary for context. Without that crucial link, though, claiming those as the themes would be a new assertion on the part of Wikipedia, and Wikipedia's goal in articles is to collect and arrange thoughts, but not to introduce new ones to the equation. --erachima talk 04:53, 13 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks, that won't be hard. There's plenty of sources (interviews, reviews, etc.) connecting this film to PTSD. However, the article itself already cites PTSD as a theme in the first section...is that appropriate? Amyluna13 (talk) 05:03, 13 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Don't confuse brief with poor, Erachima. Amyluna13, as we've previously discussed, to make your desired edits; cleanup the language, streamline the information, cite sources, and present it accordingly. Bullmoosebell (talk) 15:12, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Iraq war films
Interesting that The Hurt Locker won so many Academy Awards because this movie is much, much better. Is there anything to suggest that this was because this plot is far less "heroic" than the Bigelow film??? 31.52.210.84 (talk) 17:12, 14 December 2011

What does this movie have to do with the Valley of Elah?
The biblical story of David and Goliath, which, as no coincidence, comes right after David's annointing,are both stories of how God does not evaluate/judge by outward appearences but through what is in a person's heart. David is victorious, in the biblical narrative, not because of his strength or stature, but because he has a heart for God. "The Valley of Elah" movie seems to be about making us wary of sending young men into battle because of the enduring destruction it brings, even after military service. Other then the David of the movie perhaps being within a few years of his biblical namesake, I don't see the connection. Anyone care to explain the title? Was there something in the movie I don't recall? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.126.137.85 (talk) 19:23, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on In the Valley of Elah. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071013052613/http://www.playboy.com/magazine/features/death-and-dishonor/death-and-dishonor-p1.html to http://www.playboy.com/magazine/features/death-and-dishonor/death-and-dishonor-p1.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 18:17, 12 November 2017 (UTC)