Path to War

Hire it, buy it or borrow it .... a timely film worth watching especially in our current world situation. This film gives a great insight into the passions, feelings and sometimes great frustrations behind the decisions that are made in times of conflict. I have it on good authority that this particular film is reasonably accurate, although i'm sure some usual Hollywood Cliché's have found their way into the script. What i found particularly sad was to learn that President Lyndon B Johnson, unfortunately passed away just days prior to the announcement of the end of the Vietnam war. I am sure that this film will evoke some pretty extraordinary emotional feelings, mainly due to the current world conflicts, especially in the Middle East.

When I saw this movie yesterday, I was struck by the language and how it echoed the arguments made now about the Iraq War. In fact, I thought certain phrases were inserted into this movie to criticize the Iraq war as they are the EXACT same things said today about the futility of the the US presence in Iraq, given how "liberals" Donald Sutherland and Alec Baldwin were involved in this project.

Then I noticed this movie came out in 2002, BEFORE George Bush decided to invade Iraq.

Path to War covers the period of time in US history from Lyndon Johnson was inaugurated in January, 1965 to March, 1968, when he announced he was not seeking a 2nd term for President. We get to view how LBJ was a champion for voting rights and committed to improving the lot of poor Americans with the Great Society. But the movie focuses on how the United States came to get drawn in and bogged down in the Viet Nam war, to the downfall of Johnson. It illustrates how Clark Clark Clifford went from being opposed to the war to being it's most vocal supporter, and how Robert McNamara went from promoting the war to being forced out as Secretary of Defense for coming to opposing the war. How Johnson was tentative about pursuing the war, micromanaging combat operations and the demoralizing effect the Tet Offensive had on this country. The movie has expertly woven in numerous television broadcasts, cartoons and other historic artifacts of the era to drive the point how the Johnson administration acted in carrying out the Viet Nam war and their effects.

This is the movie to watch if you want to understand how the Viet Nam war came to be a large conflict with it's divisive effects on this country. It's a movie that should be required viewing for any future President ever contemplating a "small" foreign war in the future.

This is a good movie, and includes some very good performances. It is not a great movie, however. While the writer understood that the complexity of the Vietnam "problem" lay in the various individuals involved in "The Path to War," he misunderstood where the contradictions and conflicts of those characters lay.

For example, given the material, and in spite of a peculiar attempt at LBJ's Texas accent, Michael Gambon acquits himself well as LBJ. He has the mannerisms down pat. And the writer does appreciate LBJ's vulgarity (which could be quite offputting, and was for many people). However, in his attempt to lionize LBJ, he misses the point. LBJ was a politician who got himself elected as a populist candidate with the concept of "The Great Society," but was always supportive of the actions in Vietnam. (For example, the writer conveniently places the *pivotal* Gulf of Tonkin incident outside the scope of the movie and it is only mentioned once, briefly, in an aside. As a result, based on this movie's version of events, and without being aware of the consequences of the Gulf of Tonkin, both domestically and in Vietnam, a viewer would think that LBJ was some kind of benevolent monarch, which actually does him a disservice.)

The writer makes LBJ seem like a victim of circumstance, when in fact he was very much of control of events, witnessed by the amount of legislation he put in front of Congress in five-plus years. This is noted in a conversation LBJ has with Lady Bird in the movie, but it is made to seem like LBJ placed the legislation for philosophical and principled reasons, when his primary motivation was based on two things: His best years were as a legislator and he knew that side of the government best, and it was politically advantageous for him to do what he knew best.

One could also say that he was dogged by the memory of JFK. He knew he had been elected on JFK's bootstraps, so to speak, and the writer does pay some lip service to this issue. Yet, the writer does not touch on the shame and guilt LBJ felt about JFK's death, which, while he was not complicit, he knew had been politically motivated within the government. And for all his professed desire for social change, he never once called the Warren Commission to task for their idiotic findings, and he was always conflicted about that, as well. It was politically expedient to let it "die," but it was not the right thing to do, and he knew it.

All through his Presidency, he felt the Kennedys nipping at his heels, so, for example, he knew if he pushed the Voting Rights Act, he'd not only look good next to the Kennedy legacy, but also have a slew more voters to vote for him the next election. (In one kudo to the writer, he does appreciate LBJ's dislike of Bobby Kennedy, who was, ironically, as political an animal as LBJ himself was. In fact LBJ's assessment in the movie of Bobby as not being "One-tenth the person his brother was" is actually considered by many to be true, and also plays on the truism that we tend to dislike in others what we most dislike about ourselves.)

The tragedy, if we look on LBJ as a tragic hero, is that there was no next election for him because of Vietnam. The problem is that the real LBJ had the tragic hero's fatal flaw (in his case, a problematic mixture of indecisiveness and arrogance, which led to poor leadership skills), so when the tragedy comes, it does not bear the poignancy it should. The only time we actually get a glimpse of LBJ's character defects is during one conversation with one member of his staff. (Some might argue that his questions of his cabinet would also demonstrate this deficit, but that was actually one of his strengths: When he did not know something, he was not afraid to admit it and go to the person who did know. This "consensus-building" aspect of his personality was one of the things that made him an excellent legislator.)

Did LBJ have some commitment to social change? He did, and it was best demonstrated during his tenure in Congress, representing the people of Texas, not during his tenure as President. The writer does make a brief pass at this when he refers to his regrets at ever associating himself with the Kennedy Presidency, that it was his political undoing. (And many historians do, in fact, believe this is true.)

Another character the writer fails to fully grasp is McNamara. McNamara was always full of conflict regarding Vietnam, and yet we don't start to see this in the character until the very end of the movie. Alec Baldwin plays the writer's version of McNamara well, but it was not an accurate portrayal of McNamara, at least not in the eyes of his contemporaries. That is not Baldwin's fault, but the writer and director's fault.

Another lost opportunity is Felicity Huffman's portrayal of Lady Bird Johnson. This is an excellent actress who has done the best with what she's given, but she's given so little, when there was so much more to Lady Bird's character at this period in history. The only hint we see is when she reminds LBJ that the footsteps she's following "didn't die." In fact, the offset between Lady Bird's presence as First Lady and LBJ's as President is contradiction that is not even explored - while Lady Bird continued in her desire to see social change (she is rightly credited for having a strong, positive impact on the growing environmental movement, for example), something she had shared with her husband for many years - LBJ is buffeted by political forces that actually pull him away from some of the social idealism that many saw in him in Congress, including his friend Clark Clifford. That juxtaposition would have not only made a stronger movie, but would have been more historically accurate.

As for Clifford, that is the one character that comes through fully realized, convincing and true: Donald Sutherland's portrayal of Clark Clifford. (Who was a family friend to our family as well.) The writer has presented his character, and his contradictions, very well, and, as a result, Donald Sutherland, always an able actor, is able to not just make the best of the material, but take it to the award-winning level he achieved.

Frankenheimer's direction, as always, is good. But this is not his best movie. It has pacing issues, some throwaway scenes, and some scenes that should have been included and weren't. As a result this is not the best political movie you will ever see. Although, if you consider that the brush used is broad, it does show how complex and political our slippery slope into Vietnam generally was.

It is hard to watch 'Path to War' and avoid remarking the similarity between historic and present circumstances. Although dedicated to the presidency of Lyndon Johnson, the film brings to mind the situations the current US President had to face - after being elected on an internal social agenda, he has to face an external conflict and runs down on a spiral towards an external war costly in American and other peoples human lives. The film is interesting by itself, although there may be many comments to be made on the accuracy of the historical details. 'Path to War' also succeeds better than other films in bringing to screen historical characters and giving them a life of their own - Johnson, Clark Clifford, Bob McNamara are well built film characters in the film. I recommend this film, and not only to the history fans - 8 out of 10 on my personal scale.

I expected little from this 'movie' but was pleasantly surprised. After all, it was a made for television mini series originally, it was about politics and U.S. ones at that, it was very long (both episodes were played as one cohesive piece in Queensland). On the plus side, it seemed to have an ideal cast, I like most of Alec Baldwin's work very much, I greatly admire Michael Gambon's work, Donald Sutherland needs no explanation as someone to watch, and that was just the beginning. Furthermore, I had seen the political drama "Nixon" not long ago and was greatly impressed by that (how could you not be with Anthony Hopkins at the helm); so things could have gone either way.

Thankfully, my doubts were not realised and I can safely recommend this saga to any thinking person, particularly those of us like myself who actually experienced those times. I suspect to those born later it might seem somewhat like a 'boring' history lesson unless that moment in history bears any particular fascination.

For Australians particularly it may be interesting as, just like with previous conflicts (World Wars I and II as well as Korea) and all wars since including Desert Storm and Iraqi Freedom and currently Afghanistan, we stood shoulder to shoulder with our American brothers in Vietnam, fighting and dying in battle. We knew why we as a nation were there in the thick of it, so it was very interesting indeed to see why America was there in the first place, and this docu-drama provided some of the answers.