Hearts and Minds (1974)

[pro-bassoonist]

PACKAGING PHOTOS FOR HEARTS AND MINDS



Our review will be up immediately after Judex





Pro-B

[Adrock]

Originally Posted by pro-bassoonist

Our review will be up immediately after Judex

Looking forward to it, Pro-B!

[Hubunkey]

Yay 3-Disc plastic cases, death to the crappy cardboard digipacks

[lolwut]

Originally Posted by Hubunkey

Yay 3-Disc plastic cases, death to the crappy cardboard digipacks

Nice!

I'm looking forward to seeing this.

[ZoetMB]

There is too much finger-pointing in it and dangerous half-truths about a war in which the United States was clearly facing multiple enemies.

I haven't seen this yet and I'm not sure if I saw this when originally released, but if I did, I've forgotten it. But just dealing with the actual issues and not the film itself, how were we "clearly facing multiple enemies"? The domino theory has long been completely discredited and the proof that we actually had no enemies (aside from the ones we labeled as enemies) is that after we lost the war (and we did indeed lose that war) and abandoned Vietnam, nothing happened. The Communists took over the country, the country had peace for the first time in decades, and eventually American companies started doing business there and now American tourists visit the place. So we lost 50,000 American boys for what? Vietnam is still Communist today and we don't even think about it. No threat to the U.S. whatsoever. (Having said that, millions did die in Cambodia and Laos, but that would have happened with or without our involvement.)

There isn't always moral equivalency. Sometimes, one side IS more wrong than the other. Boys died because LBJ, who was a great president in other ways, didn't want to be the first President to "lose" a war and it took Congress years to decide to abandon the quagmire, which we finally did during the Nixon administration in August of 1973 with the war itself ending in 1975 when the North captured Saigon. The war was illegal (never declared by Congress), racist and split our country in two.

Just as there weren't two equivalent sides to Hitler's desire to rule the world during WWII, there weren't two equivalent sides in Vietnam. We went in there and destroyed as much of the South, which we were supposedly there to "save", including murdering numerous women and children, as the North.

When it comes down to it, we never won the hearts and minds of the Vietnamese people, who resented their corrupt government that we supported and we had absolutely no idea how to fight a guerrilla war, aside from trying to destroy every inch of the place with Napalm. And having McNamara, a former General Motors executive, running the war was a complete disaster.

[phoenixandrew]

Originally Posted by ZoetMB

There isn't always moral equivalency. Sometimes, one side IS more wrong than the other.

Thank you ZoetMB for your post.

I'm really disappointed in Dr. Svet Atanasov's propaganda-slanted review of "Hearts and Minds." For him to accuse the filmmaker of propaganda and to accuse the filmmaker of not showing fairness to the pro-war people in this movie and to make this moronic statement that the U.S. was "fighting multiple enemies" shows just how ignorant and misinformed Dr. Atanasov is about the Vietnam War in general.

The truth is there are no two sides to American involvement in Vietnam. The side supporting the war was WRONG, plain and simple. The U.S. had no business being in Vietnam in the first place. That's not a political statement, that is a FACT. The Vietnam War was a result of anti-Communist paranoia instigated by Joseph McCarthy. During the Cold War, the U.S. had a foreign policy of supporting right-wing dictatorships as long as they were anti-Communist. All of these right-wing dictatorships had human rights violations far worse than whatever the Soviet Union was guilty of. Yet, the U.S. had the gall to lecture Soviet-bloc countries about human rights. Speaking of human rights, most of the atrocities against Vietnamese civilians including women, children and babies were committed by racist Vietnamese-hating American troops more so than the Viet Cong and Ho Chi Minh combined. I will only agree with the reviewer that William Westmoreland did no justice for his argument supporting the war.

Up until today, I had utmost respect for all reviewers on Blu-ray.com, including Dr. Svet Atanasov. Then I read his review on "Hearts and Minds" and that alone changed my opinion of this reviewer 180 degrees. As far as to who the enemy was, the U.S. is its own worst enemy.

[buffetfroid]

[oildude]

Originally Posted by phoenixandrew

All of these right-wing dictatorships had human rights violations far worse than whatever the Soviet Union was guilty of.

Whatever you think of the issue, you are clearly misinformed and abysmally ignorant if you indeed believe this. Good God, man.

Not going to engage you in any debate on this issue, because there is none. As someone who has studied the Soviet Union extensively (from its creation born of blood, through its gangster-like purges, gulags, use of famine and population deportations as social control, its titanic struggle to survive during WWII, its heroic and truly inspiring moments worthy of the best humanity has to offer to its horrific mass murders on a colossal scale, and the Cold War including the control and often ruthless interventions toward its neighbors and satellite states, proxy wars, and direct conflicts involving both political blocs), I sincerely hope you educate yourself more thoroughly before posting more of the same.

I agree with Pro-B completely, Hearts and Minds is a carefully constructed propaganda piece, and despite its strengths (which are pointed out in the review), does indeed present many half-truths.

[TJS_Blu]

Originally Posted by oildude

I agree with Pro-B completely, Hearts and Minds is a carefully constructed propaganda piece, and despite its strengths (which are pointed out in the review), does indeed present many half-truths.

It's been a while since I watched it, why don't you list some of the "half-truths".

So far, I've read that it was somehow unfair to let Gen.Westmoreland characterize the Vietnamese people as he saw fit or not to mention Lt. Coker's imprisonment, neither of which is terribly compelling as an indictment of a polemical film.

Other reviewers have used the P word in describing this film, but as Davis is neither a Government or a powerful economic interest, I think there are probably better words. I mean, Triumph des Willens is an absolutely brilliant piece of Propaganda. If someone said, oh, I've seen that, what else you got? I sure as hell wouldn't turn around and hand them Hearts and Minds.
If you're (generic use of the word, not personal) going to throw that rather loaded term around, you should back it up with specific examples.

[Illy Scorsese]

Originally Posted by ZoetMB

I haven't seen this yet and I'm not sure if I saw this when originally released, but if I did, I've forgotten it. But just dealing with the actual issues and not the film itself, how were we "clearly facing multiple enemies"? The domino theory has long been completely discredited and the proof that we actually had no enemies (aside from the ones we labeled as enemies) is that after we lost the war (and we did indeed lose that war) and abandoned Vietnam, nothing happened. The Communists took over the country, the country had peace for the first time in decades, and eventually American companies started doing business there and now American tourists visit the place. So we lost 50,000 American boys for what? Vietnam is still Communist today and we don't even think about it. No threat to the U.S. whatsoever. (Having said that, millions did die in Cambodia and Laos, but that would have happened with or without our involvement.)

There isn't always moral equivalency. Sometimes, one side IS more wrong than the other. Boys died because LBJ, who was a great president in other ways, didn't want to be the first President to "lose" a war and it took Congress years to decide to abandon the quagmire, which we finally did during the Nixon administration in August of 1973 with the war itself ending in 1975 when the North captured Saigon. The war was illegal (never declared by Congress), racist and split our country in two.

Just as there weren't two equivalent sides to Hitler's desire to rule the world during WWII, there weren't two equivalent sides in Vietnam. We went in there and destroyed as much of the South, which we were supposedly there to "save", including murdering numerous women and children, as the North.

When it comes down to it, we never won the hearts and minds of the Vietnamese people, who resented their corrupt government that we supported and we had absolutely no idea how to fight a guerrilla war, aside from trying to destroy every inch of the place with Napalm. And having McNamara, a former General Motors executive, running the war was a complete disaster.

+1

I found the review problematic to say the least.

[pro-bassoonist]

Originally Posted by phoenixandrew

As far as to who the enemy was, the U.S. is its own worst enemy.

Thank you for your comments. I will leave only one post in this thread because I feel that there are indeed a few things that need to be clarified. (But I have no interest in debating politics on the site).

1. Anyone with a good grasp of world history should be well aware of the fact that the conflict in Vietnam was between two superpowers. If you believe that the Soviet Union was not directly involved there, then your analysis of the war is obviously very flawed.

2. "All of these right-wing dictatorships had human rights violations far worse than whatever the Soviet Union was guilty of. Yet, the U.S. had the gall to lecture Soviet-bloc countries about human rights."

Hardly. Dictatorships are all the same, left or right-wing. The Soviet Union has a far longer record than you might realize. Recent examples: the Hungarian uprising of 1956, the Prague Spring of 1968, the invasion of Afghanistan in late December 1979, recent events in Ukraine (which are fueled by the very same old-fashioned superpower ambitions). Specifically as far as the former Eastern bloc countries are concerned, during the Cold War era the Soviet Union did not lecture them; when there was an 'issue' there, the Soviet leaders sent the tanks in to resolve it.

3. The documentary is indeed full of half-truths. One of them is that American soldiers were primarily responsible for the atrocities in Vietnam. The reality is that once the war was underway, the communists also killed a very large number of their own people. (Coincidentally, just as Stalin did after the end of WW2; to this day it is still unknown exactly how many of his own people vanished in GULAGs). This is a fact that isn't at all addressed in the film.

Another half-truth is that the American leaders did not have a clear strategy before they entered Vietnam. They did. Just like they had a strategy for the Korean Peninsula.

The list of half-truths is very long.

4. This film won an Oscar Award for Best Documentary in 1975. It does not work as such because it is clearly constructed to manipulate the viewer's opinion of a number of different events. The end result is this: It only supports the political agenda of its creator.

Pro-B

[thismightbezach]

Originally Posted by phoenixandrew

Thank you ZoetMB for your post.

I'm really disappointed in Dr. Svet Atanasov's propaganda-slanted review of "Hearts and Minds." For him to accuse the filmmaker of propaganda and to accuse the filmmaker of not showing fairness to the pro-war people in this movie and to make this moronic statement that the U.S. was "fighting multiple enemies" shows just how ignorant and misinformed Dr. Atanasov is about the Vietnam War in general.

The truth is there are no two sides to American involvement in Vietnam. The side supporting the war was WRONG, plain and simple. The U.S. had no business being in Vietnam in the first place. That's not a political statement, that is a FACT. The Vietnam War was a result of anti-Communist paranoia instigated by Joseph McCarthy. During the Cold War, the U.S. had a foreign policy of supporting right-wing dictatorships as long as they were anti-Communist. All of these right-wing dictatorships had human rights violations far worse than whatever the Soviet Union was guilty of. Yet, the U.S. had the gall to lecture Soviet-bloc countries about human rights. Speaking of human rights, most of the atrocities against Vietnamese civilians including women, children and babies were committed by racist Vietnamese-hating American troops more so than the Viet Cong and Ho Chi Minh combined. I will only agree with the reviewer that William Westmoreland did no justice for his argument supporting the war.

Up until today, I had utmost respect for all reviewers on Blu-ray.com, including Dr. Svet Atanasov. Then I read his review on "Hearts and Minds" and that alone changed my opinion of this reviewer 180 degrees. As far as to who the enemy was, the U.S. is its own worst enemy.

Even bleeding-heart liberal Roger Ebert said the film sometimes looks like propaganda. It makes the U.S. Army look like a barbaric savages. Meanwhile, Ho Cho Minh is made to look like Jesus Christ. Look at the scene where he's sitting down laughing with a bunch of children. I found that to be completely nauseating considering the millions he killed. He was a monster.

The film also says nothing about the millions of civilians killed by the communists [in Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos] after we left in 1975.

Originally Posted by phoenixandrew

All of these right-wing dictatorships had human rights violations far worse than whatever the Soviet Union was guilty of.

Huh? You really don't know your history. Let's crunch the numbers. Pinochet killed a mere 3,000, a drop in the ocean compared to the communists. Stalin alone killed 40 to 62 million. Mao was responsible for 45 to 75 million deaths.

You were saying?

[The Narrator]

Originally Posted by thismightbezach

The film also says nothing about the millions of civilians killed by the communists [in Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos] after we left in 1975.

Yeah, and while we're at it, why did the movie Three Kings remain silent on the second Iraq War? That's just weak filmmaking there.

[phoenixandrew]

Originally Posted by thismightbezach

Huh? You really don't know your history. Let's crunch the numbers. Pinochet killed a mere 3,000, a drop in the ocean compared to the communists. Stalin alone killed 40 to 62 million. Mao was responsible for 45 to 75 million deaths.

You were saying?

You and Svet can throw whatever numbers you want. The bottom line is that the U.S. has no business lecturing the world about human rights and the U.S. is just as guilty as the Soviets when it comes to invading other countries. All wars orchestrated by the U.S. are corporate-sponsored in which poor people with no corporate interests are sent out to fight their wars and come home in body bags or to substandard health care and no moral support.

[TJS_Blu]

I would like to thank Pro-B for clarifying some of the issues. I particularly found his response to the Soviet Union vs. West to be thoughtful. I think it was Jacabo Timerman who said something like it's a very unfunny joke to ask whether it would be better to be a prisoner of a left or a right dictatorship.

There are too many professionals and critics that I respect, including Pro-B (and I am assuming this is his position), that don't believe the POV/polemical documentary is a legit documentary form for me to dismiss out of hand. But I do disagree vigorously. All docs have a POV, some are obviously more personalized than others (only supports the political agenda of its creator). But it is an argument (presumably, not one they feel is adequately covered in the media), and, so long as they stand by that argument and do not fabricate their evidence, I don't have a problem with the form. I can see disputes about the evidence, etc., but that does not invalidate the form in my opinion.

As I stated earlier its been some time since I last saw H&M (several years) with many other Vietnam themed docs seen before and since. So I rewatched it to see if I had somehow forgotten some element that would impact my evaluation of it (paying particular attention to the issues raised by Pro-B).

Originally Posted by pro-bassoonist

One of them is that American soldiers were primarily responsible for the atrocities in Vietnam. ...

Another half-truth is that the American leaders did not have a clear strategy before they entered Vietnam.

Neither is explicitly stated as far as I can tell. Daniel Ellsburg comes kind of close to it saying that none of the combat and civilian deaths would have occured in the absence of the US intervention. Not sure that is quite the same thing. The film does show and tell about atrocities committed by the US and South Vietnam and does not mention those committed by the Viet Cong, but of course in 1974 those had been publicized and propagandized for many years, ie., common knowledge.

I have no idea where the charge of a lack of strategic vision among American leaders before they entered the War comes from, precious little is said about Tonkin Gulf, LBJ announces his decision, later RFK talks about the constant presence of Victory round the Corner, Clark Clifford talks about the lack of obtainable objectives with the request for more troops and is sort of semi-rebutted by Westmoreland. There are several times that soldiers indicate they don't know what they are fighting for, a US truck driver doesn't know who our allies are, but from what I can tell, nothing is implied that there was no strategic vision. From other docs, I know that there was a 2-3 year life cycle for strategy and none of them achieved victory.

In 1983, PBS aired a 13 part series that has since been edited down to 11 hours. Presumably, there were issues with editorial content or accuracy which necessitated these edits. I am quite sure that one could find "half-truths" even in this edited version if they were determined to do so. With slightly less than a two-hour run time, I'm not sure that a "fair and balanced" representation of the Vietnam war is possible. In the case of H&M, I don't think its required.

One of our members lamented the portrayal of Ho Chi Minh looking like Jesus Christ, and I'm pretty sure that "Uncle Ho" was more popular than Jesus Christ. In the PBS series mentioned above, an American related a conversation with a South Vietnamese woman (paraphrasing here) where he asked if the South now had a leader that could be an effective leader and she said the man was a great man, probably the second greatest man in Vietnam, when he asked who the greatest was, she said Ho Ch Minh, of course. The same member regretted the lack of mention of 'the millions of civilians killed by the communists [in Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos] after we left in 1975'. It would be passing strange for a film released in 74 to do so, no?

That's all I have to say.

[Chabrolesque]

I'm just surprised that there's still someone out there who thinks that a film having an opinion/viewpoint somehow precludes it from being a "true" documentary.

Hint: There is no such thing as an objective documentary.

[thismightbezach]

Originally Posted by The Narrator

Yeah, and while we're at it, why did the movie Three Kings remain silent on the second Iraq War? That's just weak filmmaking there.

Sorry, I thought this was made in '84, not '74. Makes no difference though. If you made a piece of propaganda promoting a guy who later turned out to be a mass murderer, wouldn't you disown the film or at least go back and say, "oops, sorry." Peter Davis remains unapologetic, as do people like Jane Fonda.

It was also well known before the film came out that the North Vietnamese routinely tortured American POWs and kept them locked in cages. These were the people Davis called "liberators" in his Oscars acceptance speech. These were the people Davis wanted audiences in 1974 to believe were the good guys fighting the big bad Americans.

[AUS1969]

H&M is propaganda, of course and beautifully done. The sequence involving the National Cemetery and Westmoreland's stupid statement about how the Orientals value human life is just...perfect. Apocalypse Now is magnificent in the complete strangeness of a war without front lines. Platoon is another well-done piece of propaganda that is at its best in portraying the soldiers who fought it, at platoon level at least.

It's a pity that we didn't learn anything from the Viet Nam experience, and to a large degree repeated it in Iraq.

[bookcase]

This documentary sounds fascinating. Vietnam has always been controversial (as evidenced in this thread), and one I've always been drawn to. I'll definitely have to check it out.