I found this movie to be quite interesting. I would rate it an 8/10 as documentaries go. The file footage added greatly to the commentary. The problem with that is that film makers do not always use footage actually shot with the action being discussed. That can distort the viewer's image of what actually occurred.
This is not my favorite style of documentary (I prefer those shot in real time such as "Hoop Dreams" because I know the film maker at least had the opportunity to shoot the scenes as they actually occurred. That doesn't mean the director will use the film honestly, however.), but in this case that was not an option. It was, however, a real documentary as opposed to the current crop of movies that are shot in documentary style and, not only get released as true documentaries, but receive awards as well. Oliver Stone's movie, "JFK", was fiction, but at least he didn't call it a documentary. End of Rant!!!
I believe that McNamara was being pretty open. The 11 lessons (Supplied by Morris) issue troubles me, because it makes me wonder what else might have come from the director rather than McNamara. However, since I lived through most of what was shown in the movie, I know that it was pretty faithful to the facts, at least as we know them.
McNamara seemed almost to be viewing two parallel wars in the WW2 segment. He said that he agreed with Curtis LeMay that the war had to be won and, in a war that killed tens of millions of people, it had to be ended as quickly as possible and that meant killing a lot of people. And yet, when LeMay faced up to the reality of such a war and killed 100,000 people in Tokyo, McNamara starts talking about proportionality. In a war that kills tens of millions of people all over the world, what can proportionality possibly mean? McNamara seemed quite proud of his role in improving the efficiency of the military but then tries to distance himself from the resulting deaths.
Again, referring to Vietnam, McNamara is very conflicted. He criticizes the war, but at the end says Johnson did what he had to do. He seems to distance himself from the brutality even though he was Sec. of Defense for almost two full terms. McNamara is a man who never lived up to his potential and seems to be trying to make up for it by advising current leaders to do what he did not do when it counted. That's pretty chicken. He cannot seem to come to grips with the fact that it's the decisions we make when they count, not the ones we make in retrospect, that we have to live with.
Comments inspired by other reviewers:
The 11 lessons: I viewed the DVD and in the supplementary scenes McNamara says that the 11 lessons were not his. They were imposed by the director. He then gave his own 10 lessons that fit what he said much better. So, it appeared that the director made some unapproved changes, but tried to make up for it by letting McNamara respond in supplementary. Theater viewers would not have seen that.
Would Kennedy have pulled out? He said that Kennedy intended to pull out of Vietnam before Diem was assassinated. That changed everything. Most 'experts' on JFK say that there was no evidence that he would have pulled out.
The fact the domino effect was not seen in the late '70s does not mean it would not have in the '60s had we not intervened. Communism was expanding all over the world in the '60s. By the time we left Vietnam it was not.
This is not my favorite style of documentary (I prefer those shot in real time such as "Hoop Dreams" because I know the film maker at least had the opportunity to shoot the scenes as they actually occurred. That doesn't mean the director will use the film honestly, however.), but in this case that was not an option. It was, however, a real documentary as opposed to the current crop of movies that are shot in documentary style and, not only get released as true documentaries, but receive awards as well. Oliver Stone's movie, "JFK", was fiction, but at least he didn't call it a documentary. End of Rant!!!
I believe that McNamara was being pretty open. The 11 lessons (Supplied by Morris) issue troubles me, because it makes me wonder what else might have come from the director rather than McNamara. However, since I lived through most of what was shown in the movie, I know that it was pretty faithful to the facts, at least as we know them.
McNamara seemed almost to be viewing two parallel wars in the WW2 segment. He said that he agreed with Curtis LeMay that the war had to be won and, in a war that killed tens of millions of people, it had to be ended as quickly as possible and that meant killing a lot of people. And yet, when LeMay faced up to the reality of such a war and killed 100,000 people in Tokyo, McNamara starts talking about proportionality. In a war that kills tens of millions of people all over the world, what can proportionality possibly mean? McNamara seemed quite proud of his role in improving the efficiency of the military but then tries to distance himself from the resulting deaths.
Again, referring to Vietnam, McNamara is very conflicted. He criticizes the war, but at the end says Johnson did what he had to do. He seems to distance himself from the brutality even though he was Sec. of Defense for almost two full terms. McNamara is a man who never lived up to his potential and seems to be trying to make up for it by advising current leaders to do what he did not do when it counted. That's pretty chicken. He cannot seem to come to grips with the fact that it's the decisions we make when they count, not the ones we make in retrospect, that we have to live with.
Comments inspired by other reviewers:
The 11 lessons: I viewed the DVD and in the supplementary scenes McNamara says that the 11 lessons were not his. They were imposed by the director. He then gave his own 10 lessons that fit what he said much better. So, it appeared that the director made some unapproved changes, but tried to make up for it by letting McNamara respond in supplementary. Theater viewers would not have seen that.
Would Kennedy have pulled out? He said that Kennedy intended to pull out of Vietnam before Diem was assassinated. That changed everything. Most 'experts' on JFK say that there was no evidence that he would have pulled out.
The fact the domino effect was not seen in the late '70s does not mean it would not have in the '60s had we not intervened. Communism was expanding all over the world in the '60s. By the time we left Vietnam it was not.