The Pentagon Papers

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?

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.

Daniel Ellsberg is a brilliant and impassioned military analyst who wants nothing more than to serve his country in the most meaningful way he can. However in the end it seems that his greatest act of patriotism is to commit an act of treason.

Sounds like gripping stuff, the kicker is that it is all based on real life events. Now these types of docudramas can go horridly wrong all too easily in so many ways, however "The Pentagon Papers" manages to cleverly avoid most of these. Half of this is down to a solid script and the other primarily to the director for clearly thinking his decisions through to completion and creating a cohesive film on the whole.

Now I have to confess that I am a fan of James Spaders' work and find him to be a very under rated actor over the whole. Now that being said he does do an admirable job of chronicling the characters proverbial decent into madness (if you will forgive the dramatized language) as he goes from being a trusted insider only three steps removed from the president to being branded a traitor and hunted by the F.B.I.

The movie has some shortcomings and most of them I feel are likely due to time constraints placed on made for TV movies. They could, for instance, have easily taken time to develop the gaps in the story some more. Specifically in terms of the inter personal relationships portrayed and in terms of Elsberg's ever increasing sense of disillusionment in the government he believed in so vehemently just a few years before. As it seems at times, though years have passed in the time line, nothing has really changed for the characters.

That having been said I am of the opinion that the film does capture the general feeling of mistrust in the government that was so prevalent during the early seventies, as more and more revelations of the abuse of power at the highest levels and the lies that were being fed to the public to justify even greater lies became known. Although it is all related from very personal perspectives.

One of the strongest elements was the visual style employed by the director. I was constantly reminded of Oliver Stone in that respect. The uses of period news broadcasts are very cleverly deployed throughout the movie.

So do yourself a favor and watch "The Pentagon Papers", it can be both enlightening and entertaining, definitely 90 odd minutes well spent.

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.

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")