Avaliações de usuários

Daniel Ellsberg was an ex-marine and top policy wonk, who became convinced that the Vietnam War was wrong. He was also convinced that the government knew it was wrong, but continued to fight mainly to save face. Considering this a moral abhorrence, he leaked top secret papers to the press. They didn't betray really damaging information, but they were an embarrassment to the government who tried to prosecute Ellsberg. To discredit the leaker, President Nixon ordered his aides to burgle his psychiatrist, starting a chain of events that led to Watergate. Eventually, after Nixon had resigned, the war finally ended, although Ellsberg was disappointed that his publication of the truth has failed to turn public opinion decisively against it at an earlier time. It's a fascinating story, and this documentary re-lives it. Most compelling is the sense that Ellsberg gives of a man motivated by an extraordinarily strong inner moral compass; while the likes of Nixon would do anything to hold onto what they had, Ellsberg risked a life in prison in the hope of ending the war. Today, our politicians seem to some to be making the same mistakes their forebears did; we have also learned something of how they lie to us, but still have not stopped them. Ellsberg is still trying. He emerges from this film as a giant of a man.

In the movie The Most Dangerous Man in America, we see what distinguishes very clearly a man like Daniel Ellsberg from a man like Richard Nixon. Ellsberg, when first presented with the position by the President, Lyndon Johnson, that America had to go into war in Vietnam (and a long-term one of course, despite what Johnson said to the media) he knew it was a lie but one he had to work in. He even got into the swing of things early on to give the first report of a heinous act done on an American soldier to McNamara, which was "just what he wanted to see". But it wasn't long after that, while still being a 'hawk' for the side of the Pentagon and the Rand corporation, that he gripped with what he knew from the start: what he was doing was wrong, and he was helping perpetuate a wrong going back to Truman through Nixon. There's a revelation that comes to Ellsberg, and it's there in the film as well - in order to do the right thing, sometimes, one may have to be prepared (and practically be happy) to go got prison for a just cause.

Nixon, of course, never felt this way about his ties to the Vietnam war, and if anything, as heard in those oh-so cheerful tapes recorded with him and Kissinger, he wanted to go all out and bomb the "SOB's" into oblivion, to "think big" as it were. He didn't have a conscience about it, plain and simple, and it's this that we see makes out the hero/villain in this story in the film. Ellsberg was a key whistleblower of the 20th century, this despite the media latching more onto the persona of Ellsberg as opposed to the full-blown-holy-s*** content of the Pentagon Papers themselves. Nixon saw Ellsberg as a key threat - not ironically perhaps the reason why his administration tumbled down, this almost in spite of his landslide victory in 1972. I had almost forgotten until the film reminded me of a startling fact: the Watergate break-in was not just for the purposes of helping to sway the election, but to find any dirt at all in Ellsberg's psychiatrist's folders. That's just... mean.

Then again, Nixon doesn't become the antagonist in the film until after the halfway point. For the filmmakers, their documentary is poised on Dr. Ellsberg, a very intelligent man who rose up the ranks to become a key player in the Rand Corporation (a place for "free thinkers" to come up with "big ideas" as a think tank), and then into the Pentagon. But we also see how his level of trust and intuition with authority came into large question in his youth, when his father, whom he always trusted as an authority, was behind the wheel in a horrible accident that killed his mother and sister. We don't see how this tragedy of losing those closest to him changed him, per-say (I wondered for a while after the movie ended why this was, until later), but it does serve to show how his bond with his father was broken, how that coupled with the atom bomb drops a year before this left him disillusioned.

And if anything is the focus of this movie, aside of course from its protagonist, its about the way in which a person, in a society such as America's in the late 60s and wasn't 100% corrupted, could make a difference when nudged just a little. What not only Ellsberg but the New York Times and the press did gives us lessons today: sometimes a person who knows right and wrong, and knows the consequences both professional and personal (we see the latter especially in Ellsberg's friendship with his boss, the President of Rand, and a colleague who refused to testify at a grand jury trial), has to stand up and do something to break the mold. It's a stirring documentary, informative and full of sobering moments, seeming longer (in a good way) than 90 minutes. The only downside being a few cheesy 're-enactment' flash-animated scenes of some of the nefarious acts being done like photocopying and meetings at night.

This documentary is a must-see for anyone interested in American history. The most important reason to see it is that it illustrates the cozy nature of press-government relations in the 1960s, and how that relationship changed radically, albeit slowly, as a result of Daniel Ellsberg's leak of the Pentagon Papers to the New York Times.

The Pentagon Papers were top secret documents that detailed the real reasons for America's entry into the Vietnam War. They clearly showed that presidents Kennedy and Johnson had lied to the American public and flouted international law in sending troops to Southeast Asia. What was revolutionary was the mainstream press's eventual willingness to publish the classified documents. This had never been done before in America. The story as told in this film is as riveting as any spy caper, and shows how individual acts of courage on the part of several people were crucial to the success of Ellsberg's efforts to reveal the truth.

There is also some black humor in the film, where President Nixon reveals his vengeful anger against Ellsberg on excerpts from his famous tapes. It is no exaggeration to say that Ellsberg almost single-handedly set in motion the events that would bring down the Nixon presidency and end America's involvement in Vietnam.

If now we have Julian Assange and his feared Wikileaks to tells us the truth behind powerful organizations and their secrets we must thank that one day a man named Daniel Ellsberg who saw what's going wrong with another gigantic corporation named United States and its affairs during the Vietnam war and decided to be one of the most important characters in history by leaking to the press the infamous Pentagon Papers, a Top Secret study revealing the whole truth about what was really happening in Vietnam and the U.S. involvement in it since 1945.

In "The Most Dangerous Man in America: Daniel Ellsberg and the Pentagon Papers" directors Judith Ehrlich and Rick Goldsmith interview Ellsberg and other people involved in Dr. Ellsberg's career and life before and after the Pentagon papers affair, from his work on RAND Corporation and his entrance working in the Pentagon under the command of Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara. After seeing how bad things were in Vietnam (and he was there himself), after plans and more plans of increasing conflicts and more attacks in Vietnam, seeing that his work was being perpetrated for wrong things Ellsberg changed his views of what he was doing; and after attending a protest against the war, he decided to do the right thing: show to the American public the truth about the war, what was going on in Vietnam and show that his country had nothing to do in there.

The documentary establishes all the risk this guy went through, how he executed the leaking giving the study to Senators who were opposed to the war and to 17 newsgroups, starting with The New York Times who was censored by Nixon because of the publishing of the papers, and all the medias who tried to publish the papers was censored until the Supreme Court decided that the censorship was wrong.

In less than two hours the movie displays lots of information without being boring or too much extensive, everything is very interesting to follow, very contrived and well put together (but the first minutes are a little bit slow, you have to be persistent to watch it). The most captivating part is when we see all the Ellsberg and his friend Daniel Russo crusade after they were charged of espionage, and the whole controversy about the publishing of the papers and that are still relevant today in a time where secrets can't be revealed otherwise there's always someone who'll try to impeach, to suffocate the freedom of speech, and the freedom of press; in a world where just simply stand for something and to have an opinion still it's too dangerous and might cause a war, and by war is mean not only the armed conflict, but the idealistic conflict, the words conflict.

Here's a film that shows us the man behind the act; a David among thousands of Golias; a man who worked and defended his country and was accused by it at the same time while trying to protect the country interests and lives; a man who changed things and fought for the right thing, taking all the necessary and unnecessary risks for it and even obtained more than he wanted. This is a real story with real persons and it's a great story to be seen. 10/10

The documentary is about a man with a conscience and a love for his country. He experiences an epiphany and realizes the government(s) of his country have been lying to its people for years, specifically about the Vietnam war, and decides to take steps to end the war and bring to light the artifice behind the government's public facade.

He sees the costs incurred, in terms of dollars and lives spent, he experiences the hawkish behaviour driving the war in Southeast Asia and in the end puts his career and life on the line to see the truth brought to life.

Terrific movie, the qualities embodied by Ellsberg should be encouraged in anyone seeking public office. Those who call him a traitor perhaps should not be so quick to judge this man. Would anyone be happy to see a son come home in a flag draped box because a lying politician sent him to war? Ellsberg thought not, and became an enormous figure in US history because he dared speak out.

I did not know much about Daniel Ellsberg before watching this movie. I think Daniel Ellsberg is more remembered because of the fact that the plumbers broke into his psychiatrist's office. The story of the Pentagon Papers is also known, but not as much. As can be seen in the film, the release of them did not have the kind of large impact one would expect.

I never knew that Ellsberg had such a large influence of the implementation of the Vietnam War. I was always under the impression he had just been a pen pusher not making logistical decisions. I would have never guessed that he served in that country as a civilian.

We see some other interesting facts about Ellsberg. I never knew that he was participating in peace rallies with Noam Chomsky and Howard Zinn. I didn't know he had an emotional sea change in his life after he heard about individuals going to prison to protest the war. It is a very interesting story.

Besides that, the documentary is well put together. There aren't any interesting or outlandish cinematographic choices. The film is very basic in this respect. I think subject of the documentary carries more that the people involved in making it.

Documentaries can often be boring if the subject does not relate to our own experiences, but as this one did to mine and still does thus it was a success to me even though it had its faults, not in what it did but what it did not do. New and old footage was interlaced throughout and did a great job of telling the entire sick story up until President(I am a damn good crook)Nixon resigned, but it missed being a complete story in having no follow up about Ellberg's life afterward other than what he now looks like in interviews for this film.......how is he now publicly perceived?... how did he make a living after?... did he ever get his life back to "normal"?... and, most importantly, what does he think of his actions now and would he do it all over again after what money/reputation/street cred it cost him, or made him? These answers needed to be told and would have made it a full and complete story.

We sure needed someone like Ellsberg to expose Bush's Folly in Iraq. The very same lying caused the Iraq war........faked news stated by the President. Maybe that causes all wars? Why don't we learn better from these failures and not repeat them only one or two generations later? I think it is mostly because the people in power later are no longer the same people as earlier, and America is not a country that cares about or learns well/anything from its elder's experiences like some great, long-term societies of the past that were successful over thousands of years as a direct result of elder wisdom.

This is a decent documentary and history lesson, chronicling the evolution of Daniel Ellsberg from Marine Corps company commander and true believer in the Vietnam War to radical anti-war whistle blower. It's told entirely from the perspective of Ellsberg and his fellow travelers so it's likely skewed to the left, but it's still a good portrait of the late war era and how public opinion turned against the war. Of particular interest was the saga of how the press fought for the right to publish the Pentagon Papers, with one paper after another picking up publication of the documents after the courts had stopped other papers from doing so. It was the first time the free press had taken on the government like that. Another interesting sequence was the chronicle of Nixon's increasingly paranoid reactions to the Pentagon Papers' release and the courts reactions thereto, setting him on a course of action that would eventually lead to his downfall. Six stars.

This documentary lets its subject (and hero) speak for himself: Ellsberg is the narrator. You may feel that it can hardly be taken in fully at one go -- that you ought to sneak back to see it more, maybe look up some of the history involved. The twists and turns of events, the turbulent full political context, are complicated indeed. But maybe what you really cannot assimilate is the complexity of the man himself, and the feeling contemplating that complexity gives you of being very small in comparison.

It still seems hard to understand the Pentagon Papers story. 7,000 pages, finally published or written about at the time by a dozen or more big city papers, so it became impossible to suppress them: what are the Pentagon Papers? I was around then, but I never read them. Who did? Why did they turn the tide against the Vietnam War? Did they do that? Ultimately the Nixon administration's "dirty tricks" men, the "plumbers," brought down Nixon for their mission in California of breaking into Ellsberg's psychiatrist's office. It was the last straw. And why was that? Coming after the exposure of the Watergate break-ins, this clumsy, stupid act further showed Nixon's henchmen for for the Keystone-Cop thugs they were, and the game was up for Nixon, though the war was to be pursued by Lyndon B. Johnson, and ultimately take him down, though more honorably.

Ellsberg was one of those at the Rand Corporation in 1967-68 who contributed to a top-secret study of classified documents related to the conduct of the Vietnam War commissioned by Defense Secretary McNamara, later known as "the Pentagon Papers." Perusing these documents, Ellsberg discovered total cynicism about the war at the highest level all along. Officials knew the war would lead to heavy casualties and not be won, and expressed an indifference to loss of human life and to the outcome of the conflict that totally shocked him. Eventually this shock led to his decision that he couldn't be silent about this, could not be a good soldier and play the game any more; that the only course was ultimately to expose what he had learned.

This came, of course, in the context of a growing anti-war movement at home and abroad and of the post-1968 revolutionary spirit of the times. But Sixties hippies and anti-war activists were one thing, and Ellsberg was another. Ellsberg was an insider. His voice carried a special conviction. A year or so after his initial discovery of the import of the Papers, Ellsberg tried to get them released on the Senate floor, preferably by Senator William Fulbright or George McGovern. When this failed he turned to the New York Times. This led eventually to the Supreme Court case, and to the Nixon effort to block and discredit Ellsberg. Ellsberg, who was on the brink of going to jail for many years, needed enormous courage through all this, and he not only marshaled that courage, but has gone on tirelessly using the moral capital he he earned at the time of the Pentagon papers to oppose illegal and immoral wars in the decades since.

In this documentary, Nixon White House tape excerpts are heard, Nixon with Kissinger especially, the most damning, foul, small-town mafioso voice of evil: "get the son-of-a-bitch!" Nixon cries. These voices are surprising, even now. We have heard such voices in other documentaries, but perhaps never as naked and crude as here.

Ellsberg and his Rand Corporation cohort Anthony Russo, who photocopied the Papers, were absolved by a judge in California who declared a mistrial because of administration misconduct in persecuting the two men. That was nearly forty years ago and Ellsberg, as late, great liberal-left American historian Howard Zinn declares here, has lived his Iife in keeping with the principles he followed in exposing the Pentagon Papers ever since. But only a few visuals in this film cover that life of anti-war activism.

Part of what may move us about him and what may make him important is that Ellsberg's is a conversion story. Elssberg was far inside the establishment in what he originally did, a researcher for the Pentagon and a man who worked for the ultra-right-wing West-Coast-based Rand Corporation. Thus his later-to-be wife of many years Patricia, an anti-war activist when they met, broke off their engagement after he went on a paid trip to Vietnam. On that trip, Ellsberg learned how the Vietcong operated by leading a military operation himself; he was a former Marine. He married another woman. But when he got his teenage son and ten-year-old daughter to help photocopy the Papers, she broke with him, and he married Patricia, after all.

The most powerful sequence is between Ellsberg today and a pacifist of those days among those whose willingness to go to jail to fight the war convinced Ellsberg to become willing to do the same. This man was a turning point in Ellsberg's life, and his voice breaks with emotion sitting with him today and remembering that.

What makes this story so powerful is that it's not only about a First Amendment battle that went to the top -- the resulting Supreme Court decision remains essential in protecting the press from outside pressure -- but about the total transformation of a man from a liberal establishment figure into a voice for independent activism. And the information Ellsberg brought out is a magnifying glass through which to view the post-9/11 world and American hubris as characterized by Chalmers Johnson in his 'Blowback Trilogy.' We might consider the inevitable possibility that there are other Pentagon Papers, millions of pages, about America's other wars and occupations, that similarly expose their futility, brutality, and cynicism.

'The Most Dangerous Man in America' carries off the difficult task of sketching a portrait of a key figure of modern US political history without slighting either him or the complicated context in which he rose to fame.

_________________

This movie is excellent in its execution. There are definitely some facts revealed that I did not know of. I did not know how high level he was, which makes his crimes even more offensive. He is trying to apologize for his past. It is narrated by Ellsberg himself, which definitely compromises its credibility, since he is a criminal. However, it is still about a man that should have been executed for treason. Now, unfortunately, he is considered a hero by left wing anti-Americans. That is really sad. Anyone who actually approves of him is not an American. I agree that the war on Viet Nam was wrong, but do NOT agree that a high-level government official should betray his country.

Let us all be eternally thankful that Daniel Ellsberg,a decorated Marine,working for the Rand Corporation in the 1960's had the inner vision to question the dangerous mindset of President Lyndon B. Johnson when he sent troops to South East Asia,in a country (at the time)nobody had even heard of before,the People's republic of Viet Nam to liberate the country from the (so called)Godless Communists that threatened our existence (or better,threatened Johnson's so called existence,despite the fact that Viet Nam had never even fired a shot at us). The war in Viet Nam was a war that was predicted America would never win,and did not,not however,before thousands of American troops were killed or maimed in various battles with the Viet Cong. In 1969,Ellsberg decided to take a calculated risk & make photo copies of top secret documents of the (then)Pentagon reports on America's involvement in Viet Nam. The papers were finally brought to attention to aspects of the mainstream media in 1971,and the flood gates opened (and opened up wide),at a time when Richard Nixon,who when elected a scant three years earlier,promised to bring American troops home (and not surprisingly,lied through his teeth,and did not,extending our involvement in Viet Nam for another seven years). All of this makes for one powder keg of a political thriller,for those who expect more from film. Judith Ehrlich & Rick Goldsmith co direct this well documented film,with testimony from those who were there,both currently still living,as well as those who have passed away over the years,from a script written by Judith Ehrlich & Michael Chandler. Cinematography by Vicente Franco & Dan Krauss,with editing by Michael Chandler,Rick Goldsmith & Lawrence Lerew. Featuring:Daniel Ellsberg,John Dean,Patrica Ellsberg,Bud Krogh, Tony Russo & Hendrick Smith,as well as the voices of Richard Nixon,Henry Kissinger,and others involved in the dirty dealings of war. Not rated by the MPAA,but contains horrific images & testimonies of the horrors of war,as well as some undeleted expletives from the mouth of Richard Nixon & others that some parents may,or may not want very young children to hear

The leaking of 'the Pentagon papers' about the Vietnam War in 1971 by Daniel Ellsberg, and their publication in the New York Times, was an epochal event in modern American history. At the time, Ellsberg was widely reviled as a traitor, and many still say that about him. This begs the question as to whether one can be a traitor for informing the public of one's own country about what their leaders are doing in their name and with their money. The story of the 'Pentagon Papers' is complicated by the revelations a year later, in 1972, by Colonel L. Fletcher Prouty, in his book THE SECRET TEAM. Prouty, who was an even more important whistleblower than Ellsberg, states unequivocally that the 'Pentagon Papers', were fabricated by the CIA as a means of shifting the blame for the unsuccessful Vietnam War onto the US military, whereas the Vietnam War was started by and entirely run by the CIA themselves, and all those generals like Maxwell Taylor who were involved were really CIA employees in uniform; as for the Army, Navy, and Air Force, they supplied men and machines when required, but it was the CIA who ran the whole show. Prouty is at pains to differentiate between the intelligence division of the CIA (of which he apparently approves), which merely collects information, and the special ops part of the CIA, which he claims went out of control in 1955 and became a state within a state which manipulated presidents, cabinet members, and members of Congress with skewed briefings and kept the truth under wraps by unjustifiable secrecy classifications, whose sole purpose was to conceal from Americans what their own secret service was doing and spending. Prouty states that Daniel Ellsberg was a CIA man, despite the many other posts he subsequently held. This is highly likely, because he probably could not have entered the Rand Corporation in 1958 or had so many 'higher than top secret' clearances subsequently if he had not been CIA. In this film, Ellsberg states that he had signed more than a dozen secrecy agreements. Since Ellsberg narrowly missed being jailed for 75 years on one charge, he has clearly never been in any position to state that he was a CIA man, because that would mean breaking a secrecy agreement, and would give his enemies the opportunity to take him back to court again on another charge. Prouty believed that Ellsberg was a knowing participant in a CIA disinformation campaign, and that his being a whistleblower was phoney. It is not really possible to believe that, however, after seeing this revealing documentary film. Yes, he was probably a CIA man, but no, he was probably not a conscious member of a disinformation conspiracy. In other words, he was probably manipulated. But in 'the Shadow World' everyone is manipulated, and even the manipulators themselves are being manipulated by their own insane delusions. That would explain why Ellsberg's phone calls were being monitored for two years before he leaked the documents, and yet the security people just sat back and waited for him to leak them rather than taking pre-emptive steps to stop him doing so. It was all too easy. It was all a setup. I wonder if even Ellsberg knows.

I am well aware of the facts as they happened. I have watched the movie based on this drama and "enjoyed" is not quite the word for it but felt sorry for the US population in general.

It is really unfortunate that there doe snot exist another Daniel Ellsberg from the regime of Bush Jr. It is about time the US government comes up with something like an Ombudsman - universally trusted would be the first requirement - who has unimpeded access to everything under the sky - within US, of course, to verify the truth as handed out by the people in power. They also need to take away the power of "presidential pardon" in the current form. It should be available only when a person is accused, tried and convicted.

Going off on a tangent I watched Avatar with great interest. Apart from the technology and special effects one message came through very clearly. What US wants they will get by hook or by crook. When any one else has what it wants simply make them your enemies and under the guise of preemptive action against terrorist attack destroy them and take over!

Steven Spielberg's 2017 movie "The Post" looked at the Washington Post's efforts to publish Daniel Ellsberg's expose of the lies about the Vietnam War, which makes the Academy Award-nominated documentary "The Most Dangerous Man in America: Daniel Ellsberg and the Pentagon Papers" all the more interesting. It was impossible not to see links to the present. Indeed, Ellsberg has voiced support for Chelsea Manning and Edward Snowden. There's no doubt that, much like how the Pentagon Papers forced the US to get out of Vietnam, Manning's expose forced the US to get out of Iraq.

Definitely see it.

Seen at Sydney Film Festival June 2010 in a giant picture palace from 1929, the State Theatre in Market St in Sydney centre. The director was present and gained much applause.

All above comments are correct as to the content of the film. Great stuff.

But further, the film is beautiful visually and aurally. No matter the absurdity or wickedness being discussed, the cinematographer and recordist have captured it with style and distinction.

The cartoon moments are admittedly unnecessary, but everything else is top-rate, unlike so many current documentaries based on cheap video -- yes, Michael Moore's and dozens of others' -- so ugly as film in themselves.

The documentary The Most Dangerous Man in America: Daniel Ellsberg, narrated by Ellsberg himself, gives insight into the life and reasoning behind his actions. Ellsberg released the pentagon papers during the 1960's and changed history. His actions are still relevant in the world today, and the film carries a message that would be good for any American to hear.

The film takes you inside the government and unveils secrets about what went on during the Vietnam war. The documentary shows the contrast between Ellsberg and the political leaders of the Vietnam war, including the blatant lies they told. Ellsberg is shown as a National Hero which is convincing due to the many interviews within the film. His attempt to educate the American public about the government's real agenda during the Vietnam is compared to Nixon's view that Ellsberg is a threat to our national security. This movie created an emotional appeal to Ellsberg by showing his growth and development from a hawk to a dove. The film carries the important message that Ellsberg calls Americans to be active citizens, and always keep the government in check by demanding more of our representatives. The message was hard to spot at first but by the end was really clear.

The Vietnam War was the singular defining era of our history in which the trust that we had held for so long in our governmental institutions began to crumble. The longer that war went on, and the greater the number of American soldiers coming home in body bags and boxes, the more we realized that our trust was being abused. But the war had a further embittering effect on American society itself, one that divided us in a way not seen since the Civil War, and whose differences are even more corrosive now in the Age of Trump than they ever were back in the late 1960s and early 1970s.

Probably the biggest way we learned about our government's dissembling about that war occurred in June 1971, when a secret 47-volume, 7000-page study of the war commissioned in 1967 by then-Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara was leaked to the press, first to the New York Times, and then to as many as seventeen other major newspapers throughout America. The man who blew the whistle on this was a former Defense Department analyst who had worked at the Rand Corporation in Santa Monica, California by the name of Daniel Ellsberg. Ellsberg became, in the words of then-National Security advisor Henry Kissinger, "the most dangerous man in America", a man who, to his mind and, of course, that of his boss Richard Nixon, had to be stopped at all costs. And in 2009, that Kissinger phrase became the title of an Oscar-winning documentary about perhaps the greatest case of whistle blowing in U.S. history, both then and now, eventually leading to future whistleblowers like Edward Snowden and Chelsea Manning.

Co-directed by Judith Ehlrich and Rick Goldsmith and narrated by none other than the man Daniel Ellsberg himself, THE MOST DANGEROUS MAN IN AMERICA details how Ellsberg went from a war hawk working inside the Pentagon at the time of the Gulf of Tonkin "incident" in August 1964 to feeling more and more culpable for the deaths of American soldiers and innocent Vietnamese civilians, and coming to that moment in October 1969, when he began sneaking out of his Rand Corporation office at night with copies of the Pentagon Papers in his briefcase to start the process of photocopying all the pages, an act that took many months; and what's more important, each one of those 7,000 pages was marked TOP SECRET, in big, bold, and unmistakable letters. He took the risk of prosecution and even conviction by giving them to the New York Times in the late winter of 1971; and after three months of intensive debate among the Times' staff, they made that monumental decision that put them and the rest of the American press on a collision course with the Nixon Administration. While the press and Ellsberg eventually won their fight with Nixon in the highest court in the land, it also had the effect of paving the way to the formation inside the Nixon White House of "The Plumbers", a self-contained dirty tricks unit whose extreme malfeasance, egged on as it were by a naturally paranoid president, would eventually lead to Nixon's cataclysmic downfall.

Ehlrich and Goldsmith, besides interviewing Ellsberg himself, interview members of Nixon's inner circle, including John Dean and Egil "Bud" Krough, who lend a great deal of insight as to how Ellsberg's revelations made Nixon, a man prone to fits of paranoia and viciousness, even more so. And through mountains of film and TV footage, the film depicts what the Pentagon Papers revealed: that five successive administrations-Truman; Eisenhower; Kennedy; Johnson; and Nixon-had so completely lied to the American people about Vietnam, and helped to collapse the whole idea of the Domino Theory of containing Communism. The whole film cannot help but bring out a huge torrent of memories, stimulate intense thinking (which any really good film, documentary or otherwise, does), and make us question the values we had been taught for so long to uphold, when those people who gave us those values betrayed them in the name of stamping out a system that most of them hated with a purple passion, but at the same time none of them ever understood.

Without question, THE MOST DANGEROUS MAN IN AMERICA is a '10'-worthy film.

I knew he got into trouble for exposing the Pentagon Papers. This was a huge deal and brouhaha in the 1970's. What I didn't know was he was a Republican, he worked for the Rand Corporation, a think tank that did secret government work, like how to avoid nuclear annihilation. A Phd from Harvard, he thought the only way to know what is going on in the Vietnam war was to put on an army uniform and hit the ground. That took brass aggots. Upon his return and with the help of his wife-to-be, he changed from a hawk to a dove, which eventually led him to leak the Pentagon Papers, which led to the Nixon administration trying to discredit Elsberg, which led to the Watergate Burglary, which lead to Nixon's resignation. The rest is history. For additional context, watch Citizenfour (2014) about Edward Snowden's leak about mass surveillance by the US government. There's some uncanny parallels to both of these events in American history.