CALIFICACIÓN DE IMDb
6.5/10
1.6 k
TU CALIFICACIÓN
Agrega una trama en tu idiomaDefense worker Daniel Ellsberg seeks to publish a series of classified government documents detailing the true nature of America's involvement in the Vietnam War.Defense worker Daniel Ellsberg seeks to publish a series of classified government documents detailing the true nature of America's involvement in the Vietnam War.Defense worker Daniel Ellsberg seeks to publish a series of classified government documents detailing the true nature of America's involvement in the Vietnam War.
- Dirección
- Guionista
- Elenco
- Nominado a 1 premio Primetime Emmy
- 1 premio ganado y 4 nominaciones en total
George R. Robertson
- Senator Fulbright
- (as George Robertson)
- Dirección
- Guionista
- Todo el elenco y el equipo
- Producción, taquilla y más en IMDbPro
Opiniones destacadas
Not bad. But I file this under the rubric of being yet-another face- saving exercise. It showcases all the horrors of Vietnam, and Elsberg as a kind of redemptive icon. Understand: I'm sure Elsberg had his realization and the work he did to undo the damage is... yes, even heroic. But there's something about producing a consumable media product that dances these elements about on a screen (and throws in a de rigueur love interest) for our delectation that only serves to hint at the fathomless American lostness; American perdition.
The U.S. has yet to stand on a mountaintop and scream it: Vietnam was a war crime. The Vietnam Memorial on the mall is a monument to (more or less) unwitting dupes to planetary deadly gangster hubris. Germany has come to terms with its war crimes; when will the U.S. come to terms with its own?
Sigh: I give it an 7 because, dammit, it's a technically fine product, and it does tell a story, and it's arguably (still) an important story. But it loses points for the same reason that a "Brave New World" "feelie" would lose points among sensible folks. I worry that this flick is yet-another makeover of the corpse of The-U.S.-in-Vietnam.
The U.S. has yet to stand on a mountaintop and scream it: Vietnam was a war crime. The Vietnam Memorial on the mall is a monument to (more or less) unwitting dupes to planetary deadly gangster hubris. Germany has come to terms with its war crimes; when will the U.S. come to terms with its own?
Sigh: I give it an 7 because, dammit, it's a technically fine product, and it does tell a story, and it's arguably (still) an important story. But it loses points for the same reason that a "Brave New World" "feelie" would lose points among sensible folks. I worry that this flick is yet-another makeover of the corpse of The-U.S.-in-Vietnam.
It's a history lesson that many, who did not live through that times, should watch. Like most, I had only a passing understanding of what happened. In fact I listened to those who said Daniel Ellsberg was a traitor, and thought it an acceptable view. Having watched the movie, I now have a better appreciation of the actual story behind the rhetoric. It is a must watch for everybody who thinks history doesn't repeat itself.
James Spader is always good in his films. Sometimes the film is not up to snuf, but the subject matter here elevates everything. It could have been improved if they had a little more money for the Vietnam parts of the movie. Paul Giamatti is also good in this. YOU MUST WATCH THIS.
James Spader is always good in his films. Sometimes the film is not up to snuf, but the subject matter here elevates everything. It could have been improved if they had a little more money for the Vietnam parts of the movie. Paul Giamatti is also good in this. YOU MUST WATCH THIS.
Sometimes the people who have the best perspective on a side of an issue are those who were formerly advocating for the other side. Daniel Ellsberg was employed by the Rand Corporation and then the US Executive Branch at the Pentagon as a mid-level researcher. In the 1960's, Ellsberg advocated for the war in Vietnam. He believed that the cause for democracy around the world was worth the sacrifice of the lives of young men in the South Pacific. After a tour of Vietnam and acquisition of federal documents revealing the history of the war, Ellsberg began to question the morality of the US's Vietnam involvement.
James Spader offers perhaps his best and most important performance as the young and middle-aged Daniel Ellsberg, the man Nixon referred to as a "traitor". The made-for-TV film chronicles Ellsberg's career as a high-level researcher in international affairs. After finishing his doctorate, Ellsberg first worked for the Rand Corporation and then later the Pentagon. He had been completely sold on America's involvement in Vietnam. He is then sent to Vietnam as a researcher to contribute to the Pentagon's internal study of the war.
Upon his return, Ellsberg begins to doubt whether the war in Vietnam is simply a self-perpetuating abattoir with no end in sight, a slaughter-house which keeps feeding upon itself. Were the ends really about spreading the cause of democracy or about some other political ends? Ellsberg sends in his contribution to the study based on his experiences in Vietnam. He then learns that his writing as well as many other researchers were compiled together in a 7000-page internal document chronicling the history of the war in Vietnam.
Ellsberg requests from the Pentagona a copy of the internal study, later dubbed the Pentagon Papers by the Press. Ellsberg reads the entire 7000-page monstrosity only to learn that the Vietnam cause goes as far back as Truman, and the ends for Vietnam were not really about the cause of democracy but more about short-term political gains. In other words, no US President wanted to declare Vietnam a failure on their watch, and passed the buck to the next president. Ellsberg is appalled at the disregard for human life for the purposes of political ends. But what can he do about it? A thoroughly engrossing and underrated film about Daniel Ellsberg and the Pentagon Papers. Spader is completely believable as the man regarded as both hero and villain, depending upon the perspective. Nixon and his cronies regarded Ellsberg as a traitor, compromising their goals in Vietnam. They used the old "threat to national security" argument as the reason that the papers should not be released to the public. Others believed that all the information about the war needed to be exposed to encourage healthy debate. How can we, as a supposed democracy, ever make sound judgments on an issue if we are deprived of all the facts?
James Spader offers perhaps his best and most important performance as the young and middle-aged Daniel Ellsberg, the man Nixon referred to as a "traitor". The made-for-TV film chronicles Ellsberg's career as a high-level researcher in international affairs. After finishing his doctorate, Ellsberg first worked for the Rand Corporation and then later the Pentagon. He had been completely sold on America's involvement in Vietnam. He is then sent to Vietnam as a researcher to contribute to the Pentagon's internal study of the war.
Upon his return, Ellsberg begins to doubt whether the war in Vietnam is simply a self-perpetuating abattoir with no end in sight, a slaughter-house which keeps feeding upon itself. Were the ends really about spreading the cause of democracy or about some other political ends? Ellsberg sends in his contribution to the study based on his experiences in Vietnam. He then learns that his writing as well as many other researchers were compiled together in a 7000-page internal document chronicling the history of the war in Vietnam.
Ellsberg requests from the Pentagona a copy of the internal study, later dubbed the Pentagon Papers by the Press. Ellsberg reads the entire 7000-page monstrosity only to learn that the Vietnam cause goes as far back as Truman, and the ends for Vietnam were not really about the cause of democracy but more about short-term political gains. In other words, no US President wanted to declare Vietnam a failure on their watch, and passed the buck to the next president. Ellsberg is appalled at the disregard for human life for the purposes of political ends. But what can he do about it? A thoroughly engrossing and underrated film about Daniel Ellsberg and the Pentagon Papers. Spader is completely believable as the man regarded as both hero and villain, depending upon the perspective. Nixon and his cronies regarded Ellsberg as a traitor, compromising their goals in Vietnam. They used the old "threat to national security" argument as the reason that the papers should not be released to the public. Others believed that all the information about the war needed to be exposed to encourage healthy debate. How can we, as a supposed democracy, ever make sound judgments on an issue if we are deprived of all the facts?
Although it places a "black and white" label on today's pro-war vs. anti-war attitudes, this film is an excellent insight into the mechanisms of political maneuvering. It is the truth told by one side - therefore a very good "half truth". Even if it is so authentic, and it refers to Vietnam, the intended analogy with today's issues is very obvious. Definitely a "Must See" for anyone concerned with what's going on with the Iraq war and other political priorities - regardless of one's individual position. (I only wish that the "other side" was intelligent enough to make a case as compelling at this - but that's another issue.)
As a film - it's quite good - maybe an 8 on a scale of 1 to 10. All in all - definitely worth your time, and worth recommending it to friends and kids.
As a film - it's quite good - maybe an 8 on a scale of 1 to 10. All in all - definitely worth your time, and worth recommending it to friends and kids.
This is a wonderful film for anyone who appreciates the craft of film-making. There is a totally consistent vision throughout and it all fits and syncs beautifully. From the direction through to the dialogue, editing and sound. Also some truly inspired performances by the supporting cast. Spader is a little weak, but perhaps that's like saying David Ducovny is weak in the X-Files; when anything else would be camp. By the time you see the end of the film you realise that he has truly studied his character and the resemblance is profound. A brilliant conspiracy film, though as mentioned it's always best to read the book and do your own research before you start quoting facts and figures to your friends. Being a sound guy though, what inspired me most was the overall sound design for the film - the way they blend sound within the film and the musical score and the fact that the use of various instruments is relevant to each sequence in the story - the use of piano during the intimate bedroom scene (he was destined to become a concert pianist) and so forth. In conclusion, I've read above that this was made for TV, which greatly impresses me as I hired it from the video store... made for TV is never like this. And I must mention that the style is perfect - the documentary format of this film is perfect for the subject matter and the creative licence with the editing actually works, I'd be afraid of overdoing it but they throw in fades to itself and layering, throwing white-balance to the wind, it's a flawless production, I'm just so impressed, so inspired to translate this into my own short films and be more daring. 9/10
¿Sabías que…?
- TriviaThe name of the book that Daniel Ellsberg (James Spader) was reading was "The Life of Gandhi" about Mohandas K. Gandhi (aka "Mahatma Gandhi").
- ErroresThe exterior of a bar supposedly located in Saigon clearly displays signs written in the Thai language, and some of the signs are from contemporary times, as evidenced by product logos, rather than from 1965.
- ConexionesFeatured in The 55th Annual Primetime Emmy Awards (2003)
Selecciones populares
Inicia sesión para calificar y agrega a la lista de videos para obtener recomendaciones personalizadas
Detalles
- Fecha de lanzamiento
- País de origen
- Idioma
- También se conoce como
- Pentagon Papers
- Locaciones de filmación
- Productoras
- Ver más créditos de la compañía en IMDbPro
- Tiempo de ejecución1 hora 39 minutos
- Color
- Mezcla de sonido
- Relación de aspecto
- 1.33 : 1
Contribuir a esta página
Sugiere una edición o agrega el contenido que falta
Principales brechas de datos
By what name was The Pentagon Papers (2003) officially released in Canada in English?
Responda