The Vietnam War: A Detailed Review and Analysis of Ken Burns’ Monumental Documentary
Ken Burns has directed and produced several acclaimed historical documentaries. No project was as large, however, as The Vietnam War, an 18-hour, 10-part film series originally aired on PBS. Burns and Novick expertly weaved through twenty plus years of narrative, beginning with French Colonization and the French Indochina War and ending with the fall of Saigon. Their story was enhanced and guided by 79 personal interviews with people from both North and South Vietnam, the U.S. military, intelligence officers, anti-war protestors, and journalists. What followed was a comprehensive history presented with a resounding hope that future generations would learn from the mistakes of the past and not dare to repeat them. As with many historical retellings, there are many who disapprove. It is important to look into their claims and to critically assess this film series, as it may very well be how many who have never known of the war come to learn its story. The goal of this review is to do just that, to assess the biases, scope, limitations, style, and overall message of the film for those who are planning to view or share it with others.
Upon first hearing of the film, one must note the sheer volume of the task that faced Burns and Novick. Distilling such a divisive war even to 18-hours must have been a challenge. The directors did well in choosing to cover the full history of the war. The first and last episodes really serve as bookends, introducing the events that occurred before the conflict, and then showing how it all ended at Saigon, years after U.S. involvement had ceased. As an overall history of the events of the war and the twisting and turning story line, Burns succeeded. He really gave a clear picture of the events and time-line in a way that didn’t feel too forced or boring. However, with a title like The Vietnam War, and with a vast cast of participants from all sides, one would expect it to be a telling of all sides, a kind of universal history. In reality, it wasn’t. While there isn’t anything wrong with choosing to mainly tell the story from the perspective of American history, Burns and Novick would have done well to advertise it with that point of view. In reality, it still is a “white man’s film,” and the story of many Vietnamese soldiers and their history in the war has still not been told in full. Again, choosing to hone in on one specific side of the story, with supplements from the various Vietnamese factions, isn’t a poor decision, and was most likely a necessary one due to time constrains, but the film could have announced this perspective better. Many Vietnamese veterans from both the North and the South were frustrated by the film being more distinctly about American history than they had expected.
Being Aware of Bias
In addition to a thorough understanding of the scope and intention of the film, it is important to look for and note any biases that might be present. In an issue as controversial as the Vietnam War, it is difficult to remain fully neutral. While the overall tone of the narrator remained matter-of-fact, and while the film did not push conclusions on its viewers, bias was still present. Instead of being explicit, it is more implicit. For any educator, parent, or even adult viewers of this, or any, film, it is important to look for and recognize bias. While the narrator remains rather neutral, the film-makers still decided how to cut the film, how to frame the events and the stories, and in this putting together of the story, in what they chose to include and what they left out, they were biased. It is important to remember that what is included and what was not included send a strong message. As for the more explicit bias, some veterans felt that their reporting of the atrocities and war crimes perpetrated by a minority of soldiers still held overtones of disdain for U.S. troops. I can agree that it did feel at times that the documentary was disparaging of U.S. troops, but it was a difficult line to walk. I agree with Burns and Novick that it is essential to report these war crimes — and the subsequent cover ups. Unfortunately, the news of a few horrific acts does go a long way to tarnish the reputation of the whole. The documentary did continuously report that these were more minor occurrences, but perhaps they could have done more to focus on those who did not participate. Others felt that the anti-war movement got too much air time in the documentary. But, here, I have to disagree. Of the 79 participants, only 6% were anti-war activists, whereas 53% were U.S. soldiers, family members, or U.S. intelligence officers. Now, many in that 53% did eventually become anti-war activists, making it feel like there was a distinctive slant in that direction. Perhaps the producers could have sought more veterans who never wavered in their support for the war? But then again, how many of them would feel like speaking in this type of film? In the end, the producers had to work with the material and the stories that they were given.
A Documentary Led by Personal Accounts
As for the style of the documentary, the use of film clips and photography along with the narrative and interspersing of participant’s accounts was genius. It kept the documentary from having a cold, detached nature and greatly humanized the supporters of all of the war’s positions and movements. This humanization of the North, the South, the Anti-War movement, and the U.S. troops is a huge win on the road to healing, peace, and acceptance. However, the ratio of those interviews further supports my initial claim that this is really a story about the U.S. side than the others. As I said above, 53% of the participants were active duty military, intelligence officers, or family members of troops. 25% were North Vietnamese veterans, a large number in comparison to the mere 10% who represented the South Vietnamese. The remaining 12% was evenly split between those who belonged to the Anti-war movement and the journalists who covered the war. A common complaint from many South Vietnamese veterans was a lack of representation in the film. After looking at these figures, it seems they are right. Though the film did champion the accomplishments of the ARVN, the number who were able to speak to their side of the war was very small. Unfortunately, this treatment is not new to the South. They were left out of many of the negotiations towards the end of the war, viewed by U.S. troops as useless and incapable, and, as evidenced by this documentary, are being squeezed out of the historical narrative of the war. Again, while the film does give greater weight to their contribution than usual, their actual presence in the narrative is a paltry 10%, versus the combined 78% of participants who were either North Vietnamese or U.S. soldiers.
Concerns of Note
A final concern in the overall style and tenor of the film is how little was mentioned about North Vietnamese brutality. It seems that this film overcompensated for the fact that most Vietnamese war films focus only on the atrocities the NVA committed with little regard to their shared humanity. I do appreciate that in this film, the NVA were given faces, stories, and were seen to be human. But, I do feel like there should have been more mention of their style of warfare, of the booby traps, and of the torturing of countless POWs. In a film that doesn’t hold back in reporting, and rightfully so, American atrocities, it seems they should have included the NVA’s crimes as well. Perhaps that was not the scope of the film, whose message and lessons are primarily aimed at Americans, but I can see why veterans who faced these atrocities may have been frustrated in what they see as an unequal handling of the two sides.
Conclusion: A valuable resource
Overall, the film’s message seems to be two-fold. The first is rather obvious, and is the subtitle to the documentary — “There is no truth in war.” This profound statement was with me throughout my entire time viewing the film. With all of the twists and turns and politics and the difficult decisions, the theorizing and the attempt to justify or even just explain what happened, I can see that the truth is difficult to find. For some reason as a human race, our souls crave black and white, good and evil, right and wrong. War erases those lines, and any depicting of it should not attempt to draw them back. I believe that The Vietnam War does this successfully. Secondly, their goal is for viewers to truly look at the stories and events and derive lessons from it that they will take into the future. Their desperate wish is that by telling this story, they will be able to prevent such a tragedy from ever happening again. Unfortunately, the United States doesn’t seem to have learned these lessons yet. Maybe, though, the next generation will learn history’s lessons and begin leading us on a better path.
As to the next generation, those like me and beyond who did not grow up under the shadow of this long and terrorizing war, I believe they can greatly benefit from this documentary. Again, any viewer should recognize that no single person or film’s idea is the end-all-be-all on a subject. They should also look for the biases I mentioned above, carefully screening and filtering through them to get closer to the illusive truth. Finally, if this film were to come with a surgeon general’s warning, I think it would be this: Caution: The film you are about to watch may cause great distrust in government, frustration at the pride and mistakes of the past, and great consternation and heart ache of the cruelty of human beings. That being said, The Vietnam War is now a part of our national fabric, and we must do something to reconcile it into our narrative, or at least, acknowledger its shocking presence and what it tells us about who we are at our deepest level. And watching this extensive documentary is a good start.
