Le procès de Henry Kissinger

This movie deserves anywhere from 6.5 stars to 7. No more, no less. The editing & narration is done in such a shuffled & boring way that I had to stop the movie 3 times in 2 days. I couldn't finish it in one sitting. The reason why this is important is because I've been watching war documentaries all this week- hoping to compile my own with all I've seen. I've taken notes on SuperPower, Manufacturing Consent, Sicko, Commanding Heights, The Secret Government, 911 Road to Tyranny, Fog of War, and this. This by far as been the most boring movie I've had to take notes on. Not just boring, but depressing as well. How a man like this can assume so much power is beyond me, but then again he is a "Rockefeller" man, so I shouldn't be surprised one bit. As far as I knew he was Rockefeller pawn, in that the evil bastard used him to do his bidding. I know the 2 were in cahoots, so this explains why he gave Nixon & himself so much power, as well as the CIA etc. These evil men acted as a cancer to an already sick democratic society, and it is all but Game Over. I have learned enough to know that a lot of sick men like HK have spread their influence too wide, & too covertly to show any difference. (Too the unaware anyway.)

This movie has good information, and it's about the only documentary I know of that investigates Henry Kissinger solely. As someone mentioned he was involved with the 9/11 commission. More proof in my eyes that it was an inside job carried about by the Masons. Henry even gives a masonic handshake to one of the Vietnamese prime ministers or what not. As shown in the video 10-13 seconds at the very beginning. Don't think of me as a conspiracy theorist, but as a historical analyst. There's lot's of proof showing the plan/steps for a New World Order. Don't underestimate the Free Masonic influence in America & all across the world either. You shall see one day. I'll be working to prove it.

How ironic that a movie that takes its name and basic thesis from the work of Christopher Hitchens and features interviews with Hitchens should go against all that Hitchens represents. I urge anyone who sees Thr Trials of Henry Kissinger to read Hitchens' review of Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11 (http://slate.msn.com/id/2102723/) to get a real sense of what Hitchens believes about propaganda films. What would he make, for example, of the juxtaposition of Kissinger with Hess, Pinochet and other murderous dictators. I would further recommend the superior documentary The Fog of War to shed just a tiny bit of light on the context in which these alleged war crimes occurred. This is not to diminish the excellent work Hitchens did in chronicling U.S. foreign policy, just to make the point that this doc would have been improved if the director stuck with Hitchens and didn't go off on all these tangents. It is telling how enthralled these directors were with their alternative cult of personality that they should try to bring down Kissinger with their own charismatic nutbar — Michael Tigar. Tigar has little to say about Kissinger, but weaves a wonderful, if loaded, story about Pinochet's arrest by a London bobby. You can almost see the spittle forming at the mouth of this man, which kind of gives away all sense of objectivity the filmmakers might have had. We're going after right-wing political figures and we'll use all tools at our disposal to make the case. Never mind that Tigar's story has nothing to do with Kissinger, except to suggest this is the time to nail him. Never mind if we use pop songs (Mr. Bigstuff. No really, very subtle), rapid-fire editing of war images to illustrate points about diplomacy, the whole bag of tricks. I half expected a stuttering Charlton Heston to appear and defend Kissinger, although Alexander Haig is a good substitute. Note to documentarians: leave your agendas at the door. The only people who will be swayed by your pastiche storytelling techniques are the converted and the ignorant, everyone else can see right through you, even if they lack the sophistication to pinpoint their skepticism. Countering propaganda with more propaganda brings your arguments down to the level of propaganda. While I realize telling stories about people who won't co-operate with you is difficult, that does not make it right to sweep their side under the carpet.

If you don't know who the 80 year old Kissinger is, you may want to pass on this film. However, if you watched his career as an intellectual, statesman, Playgirl centerfold, master of doublespeak, and perpetual bad hair day guy, then you may find this documentary compelling. The film is a credible and balanced indictment, given time constraints, which tells of Kissinger's rise to power and ultimate abuse of that power which, hindsight being 20:20, contributed substantially to the killing fields of Cambodia, the horrific war in East Timor, and an assassination in Chile which led to a brutal dictatorship in which American interests were strictly commercial. Directly or Indirectly, the renown Nobel Laureate de faux pas, may have caused the unjustifiable deaths of enough innocents to qualify him as a war criminal and yet today he has sufficient credibility to gain appointment, though short lived, as top cop in the 911 disaster investigation, still serves as CEO of his own consulting firm, and leaves the telltale odor of megaloegomania wherever he goes. An intriguing digest of Hitchens book of the same name. (B)

Though a bit dated, The Trials of Henry Kissinger provides a brief summary of the controversial career of one of America's most (in)famous diplomats.

Based on the book, the film covers both sides of the debates against Kissinger. Presented in a trial format, the film allows the viewers to develop their own opinions. Whether Kissinger was a war criminal or a pragmatic realpolitik apparatchik, we decide.

The film also delves a bit into Kissinger's personal life to help us understand his evolution. Viewers can emphasize why Kissinger adopts his own brand of amoral realpolitik over dogmatic idealism. As the film progresses, we see the adoption of Kissinger's rise to power/fame/infamy.

3.5 or 4/5. A bit dated, but a solid introduction to the career and life of Henry Kissinger.

The movie presents an insightful summary of Kissinger's reign from 1969 to 1974. My curiosity however really lay on understanding the man. Why did the superbrain chose aggression? The movie helped cursorily. I sensed that Kissinger was caught up in a game of power, and that he played by the old rules of the turn of the century leaders he studied.