Les hommes du Pentagone

In the 70s, the ambitious and brilliant Daniel Ellsberg (James Spader) aims to work in the Defense Department of the USA. His ambition destroys his marriage and he goes to Vietnam to fight. He meets Patricia Marx (Claire Forlani), the daughter of a wealthy manufacturer of toys, and they have a brief affair. Once back in the USA, he works as analyst for the Rand Corporation and he finds secret Defense Department documents showing that the American population was being deceived along four successive governments about the Vietnam War. With the support of Patricia and his close friend Anthony Russo (Paul Giamatti), he decides to disclose the documents to the American people, being accused of treason by the government of Richard Nixon.

"Pentagon Papers" is a surprisingly good political film about the history of lies of the Vietnam War. I did not expect such a good movie, indeed very recommended for students. The direction is excellent, the true story is very tense, and the conclusion, with the statement of the real Daniel Ellsberg is fantastic. James Spader and Claire Forlani show great chemistry in this good TV movie. My vote is eight.

Title (Brazil): "Segredos do Pentágono" ("Secrets of the Pentagon")

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.

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?

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.

I agree completely with jmuckian (above). I've just finished reading "Secrets", the memoir that this movie is based on. Did they do an okay job for a TV movie? Yes. Does it *begin* to convey the flavour of the book, and the creeping disenchantment that Ellsberg experiences over the course of his years spent at the Pentagon, in the Marines, and at Rand? No, and that's what makes the book an absolutely riveting page-turner. I think the most glaring error in the movie is the reduction of his time in-country to a gunfight or two and the surveying of a decimated village in the middle of a monsoon. In reality, his time on the ground and insistence on really seeing what was going on in villages that others only saw from the air made for the best parts of the story. So in balance, I think that if you were willing to sit through this movie, and find the story at all compelling, you really owe it to yourself to read the book.