Benutzerrezensionen

The movie shows the events at Kent State Univeristy between April 30th 1970, when Nixon announced his plans to invade Cambodia, and May 4th, when the National Guard killed 4 students, and wounded several others. Beware…. This is not a documentary, no 100 % true account of what actually happened. This is clearly acknowledged by the filmmakers at the end of the movie.

Just to give one example, I haven't made a deep study of it, but most of the photo's I've seen from the actual protesting students show youngsters with less Easy Rider-looks than those depicted in the movie. It even seems to have been somewhat a surprise that these tragic killings happened in Kent, as this University had a rather slightly "conservative" reputation.

On the positive side, I'd like to underline that this movie is really doing its best to show things from different perspectives. There's room for the student's point of view,but also for that of the Guardsmen, the university staff...

To begin with, not all students were happy with what was taking place, and a certain percentage therefor wasn't protesting, just went on going to the classes. Those who were protesting, didn't seem to care very much for strong debates about international politics. There's not much healthy discussions going on about peace versus Real Politik, or about who could be a good replacement for "dear Henry". I have the impression that f. ex. French students were having much more heated philosophical and political debates. In Kent, it seems most students just repeated somewhat hollow slogans (What do we want ? Peace ! When do we want it ? Now !). They were therefor rather protesting with their heart than relying on good arguments and alternatives. A black student sees the protests against the war and military service as something purely "white",showing there even was a racial side to the protests.

On the other hand, the movie also makes a balanced portrait of the Guardmen. Some try to be friendly towards the students, talking with them, even wearing a flower in their rifle, or romancing. We learn that some of them had no experienced at all, and they look somewhat bewildered, finding themselves in a campus. Most of the Guardsmen are terribly tired, because of earlier confrontations with Teamsters. Only a small number seem to be nasty little sadists, but they aren't very popular within the NG itself.

It will probably remain unclear, whether the Nixon administration was somehow involved in discrediting the student movement. When the ROTC building is set afire, some students are wondering aloud who these guys with their torches are, suggesting they were not known to them. And when the unpopular military wooden building is starting to burn, only a few seem to be singing "Come on baby light my fire". Others shake their head in disbelief, as this act of vandalism seems to be a step too far for them. The movie also shows the differences between the staff members of the University. Some authors suggest that about 10 Guardsmen seem to have been targeting specifically certain students. Historians and researchers haven't come up with absolute proof to make this claim stick. And until now, none of the Guardsmen have been convicted for the death or the wounding of students.

To this European reviewer, this movie therefor seems to do its utmost to give a balanced picture of the events. Not all students are portrayed as crypto-communists, as the Nixon administration depicted them to a shocked public opinion. At the same time, the movie clearly shows the National Guard too wasn't a fascist monolith, as some students seemed to think. To be able to come up with a balanced portrait, the movie makers created a number of fictitious characters. Therefor it is no longer a 100 % true account of the events. For those who prefer the true facts, there are several (good) books available. I have begun reading "The truth about Kent State" by Peter Davies for example.

Many Americans who see themselves as "True patriots" still don't find today -with hindsight- reasons to have at least some sympathy for the 1960's / '70's student's movement. However, maybe they will appreciate how this movie shows the difficult situation in which the NG found itself at the campus. Anyway, whatever one's point of view, it's definitely ALWAYS a sad fact when young people lose their life or get seriously wounded, for whatever reason. Made 10 years after the facts, this relatively prudent movie apparently still couldn't convince many Americans about the solidity of this statement.

This movie does more than shows the atrocities of that day, it shows what led up to these events.

It showed the uncaring attitude of the school and its administrators. It showed the incompetence of the government officials and their poor handling of the situation. It showed the over-zealousness of our own militia, and the seemingly and endless errors in the handling of what otherwise was a peaceful protest.

This should be played annually around this tragic anniversary, as well as played in every civics, political science, and government classes - AT EVERY AGE LEVEL, so we don't repeat this foolishness ever again.

This is a very balanced portrayal and demonstrates the failures on all sides of the event. Yes, those shot and killed were innocent youth, some whom just happened to be at the wrong place at the wrong time. Yes, the SDS was on campus encouraging widespread unrest and violence. Yes, most of the National Guard troops were exhausted kids put in an impossible situation with live ammunition. Yes, the politicians involved were inept boobs who had no clue as to the right way to manage the situation and took actions to violate the students' constitution rights. The only major miss here was they show the burning of the ROTC building but leave out much of the other destruction caused to the city of Kent, which was a key factor in the level of tension in the community and led to extreme reactive actions on all sides.

So many traumatic events occurred on the home front during that most divisive of wars, the Vietnam War, that its effects are continuing to be felt even to this day, including the extreme ideological divides between Republicans and Democrats; war hawks and peaceniks; conservatives and liberals. And one of the most traumatic of these home front events was what took place on the campus of Kent State University in Ohio on May 4, 1970, when, in an attempt to quell an anti-war protest that had erupted on the seemingly conservative blue-collar campus fifty miles south of Cleveland, because of America's expansion of the war into neighboring Cambodia, plus the enormous anger over the My Lai massacre, National Guard troops opened fire on a sizable group of protesters. Thirteen students were wounded in the mêlée, four of them fatally. The outrage that erupted following that horrible tragedy sent the nation into a further spasm of hysteria, paranoia, and hate.

This is the story that gets told in KENT STATE, a made-for-TV movie that first aired on NBC on February 8, 1981. Based on three compelling accounts of the incident, this movie presents a fairly even-handed look at this incident, putting both the National Guard soldiers who had to open by fire, by whatever provocation (there has never been any certainty as to what exactly triggered their actions, and the film wisely doesn't show clearly what it was), and the students themselves inside what amounted to a Ground Zero of the unrest in America that reached almost Civil War conditions during 1970. The students that took the fatal bullets were Allison Krause (here portrayed by Jane Fleiss), Jeffrey Miller (played by Keith Gordon), Sandra Scheuer (Talia Balsam), and William Schroeder (Jeff McCracken). Though clearly a made-for-TV docudrama, and one that does skew the facts a touch, this is nevertheless a remarkable effort to come to an understanding of one of the darkest moments of America's late 20th century past.

Veteran director James Goldstone (who helmed the terribly underrated 1977 suspense thriller Roller-coaster) does a very good job of delineating the events that led up to the shooting, including the burning of the ROTC building that occurred just two days beforehand, and the menacing build-up to the violent nightmare that erupted at 12:24 PM on that fateful day. The cast also does fairly accurate portrayals of the real-life people involved. KENT STATE, even with its TV film production values, is a film well worth watching, particularly in the absence of a feature-length film or a true documentary being done on the incident.

This movie should be required viewing for every student in America. It tells the true story of the murder of 4 students at Kent State University by National Guardsmen. This is America's Tienamin Square.

Any student of American history who is not aware of this dark point in history would do well to watch carefully and understand how this situation got out of hand....

While the acting is not necessarily Oscar material, the movie's appeal is for it's historical value......

Wow.

I remember this movie; another comment on the IMDb pointed out how this should be required viewing for students, and I actually DID see this film in high school, several years ago. It stuck with me, though for some reason it never occurred to me to look it up on the IMDb-- I found it quite by accident.

The movie did a great job of establishing the characters and the time, though kind of tipped its hand as to the fates of these main characters. One scene sticks out in my memory as a professor gives a short speech about Gus Flaubert, to an empty classroom-- I mean, it's not supposed to be empty, the students are supposed to be implied, but it's a TV movie so I guess they couldn't afford extras that day.

Anyway. Things can get pretty crazy in a heated political climate; with all the hate and anger being spewed by Fox News commentators toward Liberal America, this film is still a sobering reminder of the mistrust certain cultures in America have for others, and when that's met with violence, there are terrible consequences. This film isn't the most technically well-made (it was a TV-movie after all), but is still required viewing until someone has the vision, and the courage, to make the film we so desperately need.

This movie is not an accurate depiction of what REALLY occurred at Kent State in May of 1970.

I filled out a review form for more detail, but in short, this movie is pure fantasy from the movie set to the storyline. The only people who should view this movie are history scholars that want an example of self-serving media manipulation of historical facts. This movie, because of theatrical license, pays no respect to Kent State University, the City of Kent, or the students that were killed and wounded.

No student at Kent State deserved the ultimate results, but promoting a phony docu-drama makes a mockery of the whole tragic situation. I was there. The video is a joke.

This movie should be required viewing of every student (and some adults) in America. That would help to remind the entire country of its history. The lack of comments about this movie testify to the fact that this incident has been all but forgotten in a country that is so vocal about Tiananmen Square.

A terrific television movie that deserved the Emmy the director received for best director of the year. Spellbinding and wonderfully acted by a young cast of unknowns, this movie takes us back to 1971 and the impact the Vietnam war was having on college campuses across the country. The war is raging on and many students have had enough of it and are leading protests across college campus. We follow the lives of the 4 students that are killed on the campus on that fateful day of May 4, 1971. The irony of the film is that none of the 4 were radical students and they just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time that day. We also follow the days leading up to the tragedy through the eyes of the professors, politicians, police and young ROTC men. This should be a must see film for high school students studying the Vietnam war as the deaths of the 4 students and many wounded turned the tide of public opinion against the war in America.

Your telling me that the National Guard who had rifles with bayonets, bullets and tear gas, felt threatened by kids running and maybe throwing rocks felt threatened by these kids! I'm sorry I don't buy it any all. Some of those guardsmen could not wait to fire on those kids! They joined the guard to keep from going to Viet man but at the same time wanted to see some "action". Sickening.