| - The Pentagon
Papers: Reviews - |
| The Plain Dealer - Leaden acting weighs down 'Pentagon Papers' Authenticity
is absolutely crucial in a movie like "The Pentagon Papers."
Remember how wonderfully textured the performances were in "All
the It's
easy to get swept up in that Robert Redford-Dustin Hoffman gem because
everything about it is so downright convincing. The people seem real.
The And it's
a lack of authenticity that ultimately dooms "The Pentagon Papers"
to "nice-try" status. Although loaded with powerful convictions
and worthy That's mainly because the good intentions in writer Jason Horwitch's ambitious script get buried under the leaden lackluster performances. Least convincing and most colorless of all is James Spader's portrayal of Daniel Ellsberg, the former Defense Department official who turned over top-secret documents about the Vietnam War to The New York Times and Washington Post. Spanning 46 volumes, the 7,000-page study leaked by Ellsberg became known as the Pentagon Papers. Commissioned by Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara, it detailed a trail of government lies starting in the Truman administration. The Department of Defense even denied existence of the report. Horwitch clearly sees Ellsberg as an American hero who risked prison and disgrace in order to expose a pattern of coverup and corruption. But there's nothing heroic about Spader's contribution to "The Pentagon Papers," which FX will premiere at 8 tonight. It's not just a case of the "sex, lies and videotape" star being miscast as Ellsberg. It's more a case of Spader hardly seeming to be awake for these incredibly dramatic proceedings. Uninspired is too kind a description for Spader's heavy-lidded approach to the character. Ellsberg is not a detached observer to these events. He is, as Horwitch tells us, a man of great intensity and passion. That's
not to say Ellsberg should come off as particularly charming or likable.
Indeed, the FX film makes no effort to hide the less attractive This is the type of part that would have been ideal for a younger Ron Silver, Richard Dreyfuss or Jeff Goldblum. You want intense and opinionated? These guys could have delivered the dramatic goods. When
we first meet Ellsberg in "The Pentagon Papers," he is working
as a war-games specialist in the Santa Monica, Calif., offices of
the Rand A former Marine, Ellsberg is an unapologetic hawk obsessed with furthering the military's cause. His boss, Harry Rowen (Alan Arkin), gets him a job with the Defense Department, where he'll have "a real voice in shaping policy in Washington." He reports
for work at the Pentagon in August 1964. Ellsberg is given a subbasement
office and the highest possible security clearance, and his Certain
of the strategic, political and moral necessity of the Vietnam conflict,
Ellsberg advises the use of quick action and maximum force. But Reaching a crisis of conscience, he decides that "at any cost," the country needs "to know the truth." Where some saw a traitor who dealt in stolen documents, others saw a hero. Ably directed by Rod Holcomb, "The Pentagon Papers" compensates for Spader's power-drain performance with a degree of style and energy. To its credit, it does not rely on standard-issue dialogue or us-vs.-them cliches. It's far from a bad movie, but it's also far from a great one. So we're left with a whole mess of might-have-been. "The Pentagon Papers" might have been fashioned into a first-rate cautionary tale. It might have been a remarkable history lesson, every bit as thrilling and intriguing as, yes, "All the President's Men." The raw materials were unquestionably there. Like many raw materials, though, they stayed buried. (Cleveland,
OH), March 9, 2003 p2 |
| |
| "The
Pentagon Papers" The
timing couldn't be better for "The Pentagon Papers," FX's
ultraliberal history lesson that labels celebrated tattler Daniel
Ellsberg a hero of epic proportions. As war chatter billows out from
D.C., the cabler has positioned this glossy production as essential
television, a reminder to cherish the Supreme Court decision approving
the publication of classified Vietnam-prep memos. Relevant and rousing,
project showcases a complex period tautly realized by a terrific cast
and crafty technique. Back on the narrative track after "RFK" came and went with a whimper, cabler has taken on an intricate career. A man who devoted a lifetime to the combat effort -- in Washington and on the front lines -- Ellsberg eventually followed a different path, guided by staunch idealism. Both the catalyst for the famed New York Times vs. United States case decided in 1971 and the kickoff name in what became the Watergate conspiracy, the mussy-haired do-gooder was the author of several papers commissioned in 1967 by U.S. Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara that contained an account of our occupation of Indochina. Originally
a steadfast supporter of the operation, Ellsberg (James Spader) switched
sides after reading 7,000 pages that had been doctored. Study -- which
he helped devise -- had revealed, among other things, a considerable
amount of miscalculation and deception on the part of policymakers,
and it found the U.S. government had resisted full disclosure of increasing
military involvement in Southeast Asia. The damning
material actually was given to him in confidence by Harry Rowen (Alan
Arkin), his decent Rand boss who warned Ellsberg of the trouble he'd
face if the documents were leaked. Ellsberg didn't care a bit and
struck up a relationship with Gray Lady reporter Neil Sheehan (Jonas
Chernick). After installment one ran June 13, 1971, a cease-and-desist
order was issued, but the high court, in a 6-3 vote, decided the press
must be allowed a reasonable assurance that it can print actual news.
And since no law was broken -- and Nixon's "plumbers" had
begun their Ellsberg smear campaign -- the treason charges against
him were dropped after a mistrial. (He was facing 115 years in jail.)
Supporting players are tops, with Arkin providing a conscience and Giamatti, as always, diving in with humor and complete believability. Less consequential is Forlani, who's solid as the dedicated woman but whose seductress tactics feel a little out of place in such a politically fueled plot. Beautifully
lensed by Michael Mayers, film combines pristine reels of Walter Cronkite
commentary, Dan Rather reports and body-bag footage, blending them
in a framework that makes complete sense. Last scene, which serves
as Ellsberg's final session with Beverly Hills therapist Lewis Fielding,
kicks off what could be an entire other film as Watergate begins with
the stealing of Ellsberg's file. © Review by Michael Speier, Daily Variety, March 5, 2003 (Thank you, Anais!) |
| |
| TV critics are expressing surprise at both the timing and the outlet for The Pentagon Papers, the story of how former government official Daniel Ellsberg leaked classified documents describing how the government had misled the U.S. public about the Vietnam War. (The leak spurred Richard Nixon to form the now-infamous "plumbers" unit, which later broke into Democratic Headquarters at the Watergate Hotel -- an action that eventually led to Nixon's resignation.) The film, which stars James Spader as Ellsberg, is set to air Sunday on the FX network, a sibling of the Fox News channel, which is often viewed as reflecting the conservative leanings of its owner, Rupert Murdoch. Reviewing the program, Daily Variety's Michael Speier calls it, "FX's ultraliberal history lesson that labels celebrated tattler Daniel Ellsberg a hero of epic proportions." Mark Jurkowitz of the Boston Globe, while praising the program, nevertheless observes that "this is an overtly antiwar, antigovernment movie airing on what could be the eve of an American war that is viewed with uncertainty abroad and at home." Alessandra Stanley in the New York Times credits Spader with imbuing "his character with a moral authority that helps shape a complex historical moment into a compelling television drama." And Melanie McFarland, the TV critic for the Seattle Post-Intelligencer, concludes her review by commenting: "The Pentagon Papers is one of those rare films that really gets to you. ... That the tale hits home right now proves that the need for vigilance and skepticism is eternal." Source: imdb.com (Thank you, Sulena) |
| |
| One
Man's Patriotic Act Changed the Course of War I could
see it in the older protestors' eyes two weeks ago, the fear and distrust
of people in power who want to have an immediate war with Iraq. Almost
forty years ago, government officials lied to them about casualty
figures and other matters relating to the Vietnam War. Now they do
not have faith in the White House or Pentagon to deal with them in
a truthful manner about matters in the Middle East or elsewhere. Clarence
Darrow once wrote that "the pursuit of truth will set you free;
even if you never catch up with it." Can you blame them for trying?
Before leaving his post as Secretary of Defense in 1968, Robert McNamara ordered certain staff members to compile a study of U.S. decision-making about Vietnam, a report to be based on facts and testimony from military and political personnel. Known as "The Pentagon Papers", the study proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that many leaders in America had lied for decades to the country in order to continue U.S. involvement with an unstable and corrupt South Vietnamese government. Daniel Ellsberg found out how bad things really were when he went to the battlefields in Vietnam to get accurate counts of citizen and military casualties. He saw how the military counters fudged their reports to make the war more sellable to the folks back home. Thus when a private copy of the 7,000 plus page study was delivered to the company he worked for, RAND, Ellsberg copied the entire 47 volume collection and leaked it to the New York Times and Washington Post. The newspapers were not allowed to print all the messy details until government actions to block publishing were halted by the Supreme Court. When
the vast majority of the American public realized how they had been
duped by their own government, protests against the war escalated
until the military action was finally halted -- halted after over
a million American, Vietnamese, Laotian and Cambodian people lost
their lives. I do
have one complaint about the movie. It is too short. The battle scenes
in Vietnam deserved more attention, as did the political in-fighting
in Washington that almost crippled our nation. The Pentagon Papers
were massive in volume and importance. Covering them with anything
less than a miniseries might have been a mistake.
|
| |
| THE PENTAGON PAPERS When
I was a senior at the University of California, I took a course called
"Alternate History of the United States Government" taught
by a guy named Daniel Ellsberg. After listening to this guy for a
couple days, it became fairly apparent what the class should have
been called: "Intro to Conspiracy." By the sixth week, the
sessions had built up to a mammoth scenario in which the Kennedy assassination
was linked to members of the CIA, Cuban nationals, the Mafia and Lyndon
Johnson, and included such delightful details along the way as the
dozens of JFK witnesses who died mysterious deaths, all the way up
to the CIA's MK ULTRA program, which tested the limits of mind control
on American citizens, and which, by the way, accounts for the rash
of supposed UFO abductions in the 1960s and '70s. James Spader stars as Ellsberg, and delivers a first-rate performance: the unruly shock of hair, the crazed intensity in the eyes and that unwavering belief that he's right. He's got Ellsberg down. Also starring are hottie Claire Forlani as Patricia Marx, Ellsberg's girlfriend and eventual wife, the always good Alan Arkin as Harry Rowen, Ellsberg's boss at the Rand Corporation, and Paul Giamatti delivering as only he can as Ellsberg's partner in crime Tony Russo. The film
tracks Ellsberg's progress from researcher at Rand, a military think
tank, to the highest-ranking civilian analyst position at the Pentagon.
After a factfinding mission to Vietnam in which he confronts the realities
of the war, Ellsberg returns to Rand, where he helps author the classified
"History of the United States' Involvement in Vietnam."
Upon reading the finished report, Ellsberg is horrified at the level
of deception perpetrated by the government, and is determined to find
a way to bring the truth to light. A few flaws aside, THE PENTAGON PAPERS is a solid, compelling and fresh look at one of the most explored time periods in American history. If you ever wanted proof that one man can make a difference, this is it. © Mooviepoopshoot.com by By Scott Tipton |
| |
| You
Can't Escape Dark streets, running feet, thriller music. The start of FX's The Pentagon Papers sets up for intrigue and danger. As a crew of shadowy men shuffle their way toward an office break-in, the screen breaks up repeatedly, showing U.S. troops in Vietnam and bits of typed-out text that layer onto each other so as to become quickly unreadable: "patriotism," "Saigon," "national security," "ammo," "freedom," "explosion," "deceit," "Vietnam." It's not surprising that "Vietnam" -- the soldiers, rain, weapons and choppers -- is so instantly recognizable. It is disappointing that so many particulars of "Vietnam" -- the nation and people as well its looming presence in U.S. history -- are forgotten. The Pentagon Papers recalls these particulars in a specific framework, namely, by emphasizing the heroism of Daniel Ellsberg (played by James Spader in a curly, mod-style wig), the Harvard Law graduate and ex-Marine who leaked the Pentagon Papers in 1971. While the film doesn't neglect some of Ellsberg's vexing traits (say, his self-righteousness), it clearly celebrates his most courageous act. Ellsberg appears conventionally heroic in the film's opening sequence, as one of the troops in country. Not to worry: The Pentagon Papers doesn't rewrite Dan Ellsberg as an action hero, but uses his time as an increasingly distraught "observer" for the Pentagon to accentuate the sense of horror that will, in time, lead him to leak the Papers. Following this glimpse of Young Soldier Dan, Ellsberg appears again, older, somber, and harshly shadowed, filmed in black and white. He sits against a black background and gazes directly into the camera, and describes what it feels like to be caught in quicksand. "It's too late and you can't escape," he says. "That's how we found ourselves in Vietnam." This notable phrasing allows for at least two readings: "we found ourselves" horribly trapped, and also, "we found ourselves" in being so trapped. The latter would, of course, be optimistic, implying that "we" learned something from the Vietnam War and the release of the Pentagon Papers. The film makes this lesson explicit when it ends with footage of the real Ellsberg, interviewed by Walter Cronkite in 1971. He asserts, "I think the lesson is that the people of this country can't afford to let the President run the country by himself, the foreign affairs any more than domestic affairs, without the help of the Congress, without the help of the public." The Pentagon Papers repeatedly underlines, at times subtly and others more plainly, the responsibility of living in a democracy. Dan is its prime example -- for what not to do as well as what to do. His initial efforts are straightforward. Young Dan believes in the system, and as the film has it, his initially unquestioning belief leads to disaster. He puts it this way in voiceover: "What I wanted most of all was to serve my country, to be one of the President's Men." Dan's dedication here provides a deceptively simple timeline for the United States' descent into what George C. Herring has called "America's Longest War." He begins, in 1963, as an eager young policy planner working for the Rand Corporation, under the patient direction of Harry Rowen (Alan Arkin). Part of a group running war games, Dan is keenly aggressive: "Use risk, use threat, use coercion," he pronounces. "That's the peculiarity of thermonuclear threats, they make cowards of virtually everyone." When his game-mates, including Tony Russo (Paul Giamatti), look skeptical, he pushes the point, quoting John Foster Dulles to make his point that "blackmail is good." It's not long before Dan, so clever, moves on. After writing a "provocative" paper entitled "The Political Uses of Madness" (essentially arguing in favor of playing the "mad bomber" to scare your enemies into retreating, much like Captain Kirk used to do in Star Trek), Dan is hired away from Rand by the Assistant Secretary of Defense, John McNaughton (Kenneth Welsh). Dan is elated. His wife, Carol (Maria Del Mar), is not. Still, when she informs him that she and their two children will not be coming with him to DC (she's tired of feeling abandoned by her workaholic husband), for half a minute, he protests: "I can change." She knows otherwise. Next shot: Dan in his office in the Pentagon basement. His voiceover declares that toiling all hours in this cramped space is exactly what he's always wanted to do. He's slumped on his desk, passed out, suggesting otherwise. As the film will go on to show, he doesn't know the half of it: as he slumbers, hundreds and thousands of kids, U.S. and Vietnamese, are, as the contemporary cliché had it, being "turned into cannon fodder." It's
only 16 minutes into the film when Dan becomes aware of the extent
of his calamity: he notes that certain numbers don't correspond with
others. A lot of certain numbers. For instance, the figures on DBs
(dead bodies) supposedly counted in Vietnam are spectacularly untrue,
ranging widely from report to report, obviously trumped up to make
U.S. actions look successful or enemy actions look fruitless. At first,
Dan thinks he's spotted a series of terrible errors ("The inefficiency
was crippling"). But the truth he must eventually realize (and
come to believe, for really, the extent of the lies is nearly unbelievable)
is that the mistakes are purposeful, both careless and considered,
and often malevolent. On his return to the States, Ellsberg frets, knowing that "our situation was dire and that we had to admit our mistakes and change our strategy." He also knows this will never happen. He gets hold of the Papers, and as he puts it, "The experience of reading those pages altered my anatomy." Despite this drama, however, Dan doesn't act until after the 1969 Tet Offensive, which reveals to many that the War was "unwinnable." Once he devises a theory for what's gone wrong, he tells to everyone who will listen (as has the real Ellsberg, who has since gone on to become an anti-nuclear activist, and more recently, a speaker against the Bush Administration's Iraq policy). As Dan sees it, state leaders tend to develop self-interested domestic politics (that is, reelection) and to design foreign policies to uphold that agenda. In the film, his ostensible introduction to U.S. fallibility comes (rather ridiculously) in the form of the woman who will become his second wife, an heiress named Patricia Marx (Claire Forlani). On their first encounter at a DC party, she calls out his faulty "domino theory" reasoning regarding The Communists and Vietnam. He's intrigued but knows he's right. They meet again in Saigon, where she's working as a radio reporter (and how lovely she looks as she makes her way through grimy bars and daunting streets!). Their affair is short-lived, however, as she leaves him in a fury when he refuses to act on his knowledge that U.S. policy in Vietnam is failing miserably. And so, Patricia plays Ellsberg's conscience, a tedious role at best. She comes equipped with a nameless "boyfriend" who appears on occasion to suggest... well, who knows? That she's a loose sort of '70s chick? That she's drawn against her will to the stubborn Ellsberg? That he (or the film) needs an embodied emblem of his awakening? Rich, beautiful, and apparently unbothered by regular people's concerns, she swoops in and out of Dan's life when the script calls for it. She's absent when he's dim-witted, returns when he starts questioning his assumptions, leaves again when he won't face the truth, then comes back again when he's stolen the Papers and is cooking up a way to use them against the very government he's been so zealously defending. Eventually, Dan does deliver the Pentagon Papers to the New York Times' Neil Sheehan (Jonas Chernick), determined to "get in the way of the bombing and the killing" despite the risk that he will be charged with treason. Some hell breaks loose. To be accurate, the effect of the Papers' publication at the time was not so immediate for the War, which went on for another four years. But the fight waged against Ellsberg by the Nixon Administration was momentous, for at least a couple of reasons. One, H.R. Haldeman (James Downing) devised the infamous "plumbers" (to "plug leaks") in part to bring down Ellsberg (they are the burglars breaking into Ellsberg's psychiatrist's office at film's beginning). Two, the Supreme Court upheld the right of the free press to publish documents that the government would repress. The film
grants this episode suitable weight and screen time. Consisting of
over 7,000 pages of top-secret documents, the Papers traced policy,
deceit, and cover-ups over 23 years. That is, the Papers revealed
the multifarious ways that five administrations lied about what was
going on in Vietnam, from Truman and Eisenhower through Kennedy, Johnson,
and Nixon. Ellsberg here calls them "a chronology of our damnation."
Also
adding to the drama are Dan's occasional bad decisions (these aside
from and after his gung-ho early period); for instance, he gets his
two barely teenaged kids to help with the xeroxing of the Papers (understandably
alarming the ex-wife). In real life, his personal "faults"
have been pointed out often enough: not only has he suffered emotionally,
he's also developed a reputation as a difficult personality (noted
in the film by Harry, who calls him "an obnoxious, egomaniacal
pain in the ass"). And he has never managed a "second act
of much significance," as Michael Kazin puts it in his review
of Ellsberg's Secrets: A Memoir of Vietnam and the Pentagon Papers
(Chicago Sun-Times, 1 December 2001). The film raises many of these issues (as when Dan tells Patricia, "Everybody always thought I was destined to do something great with my life, to make a mark"). But it doesn't dwell on them. In The Pentagon Papers, written by Jason Horwitch (Joe and Max) and directed by Rod Holcomb (The Education of Max Bickford, China Beach), Ellsberg is mostly admirable and his enemies are wholly odious, from the faceless Nixon to the creepy John Mitchell (Sean McCann), Haldeman, and Erlichman (Richard Fitzpatrick). Even Senator J. William Fulbright, who spoke against the War for years before Ellsberg found his conscience and his cause, is depicted here as unwilling to do anything "illegal," the very risk that Ellsberg will, ultimately and valiantly, take. Though the film doesn't acknowledge specific sources for its story, FX's website includes a selected bibliography (under a "Teaching Guide"), which lists Wells' book, as well as Ellsberg's Secrets (2002), Neil Sheehan's A Bright Shining Lie: John Paul Vann and America in Vietnam (1989), and McNamara's mea culpa, In Retrospect (1996), as well as histories of the Vietnam War, like David Halberstam's The Best and the Brightest (1972) and Herring's seminal America's Longest War: The United States and Vietnam, 1950-1975 (1986), and David Rudenstine's The Day the Presses Stopped (1998), about the legal battles over the Pentagon Papers. These sources range from celebratory to derogatory, and include much surrounding material as well. Whatever criticisms can be made against Ellsberg's motives, or even the means by which he exposed the decades of lies told by the Pentagon, the Presidency, and members of Congress, the fact is that he did it. That doesn't let him off long-term moral hooks, and neither does the work by the Court and the press make these institutions guiltless. But their work together in this instance supports Ellsberg's recurring argument, which he made again in an interview with Fred Branfman last year. The Constitution, he asserts, has provisions to deal with wrongheaded policies toward Vietnam and now, Iraq. The Constitution, he says, is written "to prevent any one man from making the decision on war and peace on his own. Because that gives him the war power that makes him a king. A king in foreign policy is close to what we've had in the past 50 years. And it's what we have now" (Salon, 19 November 2002). What
we have now. As Herring noted in the Los Angeles Times last October,
"The publication of Daniel Ellsberg's memoir, Secrets, at this
particular moment is undoubtedly coincidental, but there is an eerie
timeliness about it. Rumors of war abound, this time perhaps for a
unilateral preemptive full-scale attack unprecedented in American
history." How awful that this timeliness has become even more
eerie, and more acute, with FX's airing of The Pentagon Papers. Maybe
this time, history will read differently. © by Cynthia Fuchs, PopMatters Film and TV Editor |
| |
| 'Pentagon Papers' timely now "The Pentagon Papers" really shouldn't work as well as it does. Its only real "star" -- other than the rather un-Affleckish James Spader -- is a 7,000-plus-page document. It's essentially an anti-war movie at a time when patriotic fervor is running high. And the Vietnam War ended more than a quarter-century ago. Strike three, it would appear. But things are not always as they appear, as Defense Department official Daniel Ellsberg (Spader) first suspects in circa-1966 Vietnam, when he can't square the optimistic official body counts he's been reading with his firsthand observations. It will take several more years for the hawkish ex-Marine to change his mind so completely about America's conduct in Vietnam -- and the public's right to know about it -- that he commits an allegedly treasonous act. It will also take viewers awhile to realize that there's a richer, more complex story buried within "The Pentagon Papers" than initially appears. For all its climactic court scenes, this dramatized true story is really about moral law. What Ellsberg does by leaking a top-secret Pentagon document to the press may well be illegal. Morally, though, given his understanding of the rights and responsibilities of American citizenship, it's the only thing he can do. "Democracy is sacred," Ellsberg says after a federal judge drops all charges against him because, ironically, President Richard Nixon's White House "plumbers" unit broke into Ellsberg's psychiatrist's office and stole Ellsberg's private file. "It's something worth fighting for, and if my greatest act of patriotism was treason, so be it." Some viewers may disagree. But it would be a pity if that kept anyone from watching a movie that, by raising questions about what constitutes patriotism in time of war or other national crisis, feels remarkably relevant and vital to our national interest. All that, and it's a thriller too. Well before the race for control of the classified documents begins, "The Pentagon Papers" depicts a clandestine nighttime break-in. Only later will we realize that the target is the shrink's office and that, when Spader (who's excellent at capturing Ellsberg's internal war of emotions) periodically addresses the camera, he's actually in "session." His story really begins in 1964, when Ellsberg descends on Washington, unswervingly certain that the United States is right on course in the fight against communism in Southeast Asia. Yet after several years of fact-finding and seeing casualties relentlessly mount, he's no longer certain of anything. At the Rand Corp., a think tank under contract to the Defense Department, Ellsberg contributes to a top-secret history of the U.S. role in Vietnam. When he finally reads the completed 47 volumes locked in a Rand safe, he knows why their contents are classified. "There were two histories of the war, one for the president and one for the rest of us," is the conclusion Ellsberg reaches about the secrets of four administrations. "And I was part of the lie." He agonizes over his decision to secretly photocopy the report and leak it to The New York Times. "It's treason," he worriedly confides to a friend. That's not treason in the sense the word is hurled with such reckless ease these days at everyone from war protesters to sport utility vehicle drivers. Ellsberg is arrested and put on trial, facing a possible 115 years in prison. By then, though, the cat is well out of the bag, largely thanks to the clumsy efforts of Nixon's men to stuff it back in. When Attorney General John Mitchell and White House Chief of Staff H.R. Haldeman get an unprecedented court order stopping the Times in mid-run, the Supreme Court rules for freedom of the press. The president's men (including domestic affairs adviser John Erlichman) come off here as dangerous zealots, meeting in parking garages as they plot to fight (stolen) file with file and "neutralize" Ellsberg. It's entertaining to watch -- especially from 30 years' remove -- but having them alone represent Ellsberg's "opposition" is also the one major flaw in "The Pentagon Papers." Surely there were reasonable, responsible people who disagreed with the anti-war forces or with Ellsberg's action. But they're largely MIA here, just as reasonable, responsible dialogue on the rights and responsibilities of U.S. citizenship is in short supply right now. Such a balanced civil debate might not be quite as entertaining. But to paraphrase Ellsberg, it's definitely worth fighting for. ©
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, review by JILL VEJNOSKA |
| |
| Spader
shines bright in "The Pentagon Papers"
The Pentagon Papers,'' starring James Spader, Sunday, at 8 p.m. on FX Whatever you do this weekend, don't miss ``The Pentagon Papers.'' This historically-important film, based on a true story about whistleblower Daniel Ellsberg (James Spader), chronicles his incredible battle to reveal top secret information about the buildup and continuation of the Vietnam War through four presidential administrations, dating as far back as Harry S. Truman. Similar to Alan J. Pakula's thrilling 1976 film ``All the President's Men,'' this FX original movie directed by Rod Holcomb (``ER'' and ``The District'') is just as suspenseful and dramatic. But while Pakula's landmark film dealt directly with the infamous break in at The Watergate Hotel during the Nixon Administration, ``The Pentagon Papers'' is a fascinating account of one man's dogged effort to dig through countless lies and reveal the cover-up by the U.S. government during the Vietnam War era. Spader's performance is stellar. Last seen in the critically-acclaimed film ``Secretary,'' Spader artfully portrays the complex character of Ellsberg, who in the early 1960s rose from a corporate think tank at Rand Corporation to his position of prominence in the Pentagon under then-Assistant Secretary of Defense John McNaughton. In the film, Ellsberg convinces McNaughton to send him on a fact-finding mission to Vietnam to gain a better understanding of the conflict. What he discovers, much to the chagrin of his new employers, is the abject horror of war and an utter lack of morale within the U.S. military. For a made-for-television film with a modest budget, Holcomb does an excellent job delivering the chaos of the Vietnam War that Ellsberg experienced during his lengthy two-year sojourn ``in country.'' Instead of staying safely behind the line of enemy fire as a passive observer, the film portrays Ellsberg as an intrepid State Department official, patrolling the jungles of Southeast Asia with other ``grunts'' and carrying an M-16 rifle. Ellsberg is even shown participating in a firefight against the Viet Cong and assisting wounded American GIs. The film does an excellent job detailing the importance of Ellsberg's decision to leak the report to New York Times reporter Neil Sheehan (Jonas Chernick. It also shows the battle the Times and the Washington Post endured in light of national security concerns -- a battle that heightened Ellsberg's determination to bring the news to light. It is a fascinating quest on all fronts. The film's only drawback is the needless time spent on the relationship between Ellsberg and Patricia Marx, played by Claire Forlani (``Meet Joe Black''). The story would be better focused on Ellsberg and Sheehan. Ultimately,
``The Pentagon Papers'' underscores why historians consider the turning
point in the anti-war movement to be the release of the classified
papers to the press and why Ellsberg's heroism certainly started a
watershed event in bringing home American troops from Vietnam once
and for all. |
| |
| TV
Reviews: 'The Pentagon Papers' TV critics are expressing surprise at both the timing and the outlet for The Pentagon Papers, the story of how former government official Daniel Ellsberg leaked classified documents describing how the government had misled the U.S. public about the Vietnam War. (The leak spurred Richard Nixon to form the now-infamous "plumbers" unit, which later broke into Democratic Headquarters at the Watergate Hotel -- an action that eventually led to Nixon's resignation.) The film, which stars James Spader as Ellsberg, is set to air Sunday on the FX network, a sibling of the Fox News channel, which is often viewed as reflecting the conservative leanings of its owner, Rupert Murdoch. Reviewing the program, Daily Variety's Michael Speier calls it, "FX's ultraliberal history lesson that labels celebrated tattler Daniel Ellsberg a hero of epic proportions." Mark Jurkowitz of the Boston Globe, while praising the program, nevertheless observes that "this is an overtly antiwar, antigovernment movie airing on what could be the eve of an American war that is viewed with uncertainty abroad and at home." Alessandra Stanley in the New York Times credits Spader with imbuing "his character with a moral authority that helps shape a complex historical moment into a compelling television drama." And Melanie McFarland, the TV critic for the Seattle Post-Intelligencer, concludes her review by commenting: "The Pentagon Papers is one of those rare films that really gets to you. ... That the tale hits home right now proves that the need for vigilance and skepticism is eternal." |
| |