Thursday, August 26, 2021

A BRIGHT SHINING LIE (1998)

 

       With the recent events in Afghanistan, many have rekindled memories of the fall of Saigon and America’s chaotic exit from South Vietnam.  This reminded me of the movie “A Bright Shining Lie”.  HBO produced this version of the book by Neil Sheehan.  Sheehan won a Pulitzer for “A Bright Shining Lie:  John Paul Vann and America in Vietnam”.  The acclaimed book came out in 1989.  Sheehan had known Vann in South Vietnam and used him as a proxy for the American effort in Vietnam.  The movie was written and directed by Terry George (“Hotel Rwanda”).  It was well received and was nominated for an Emmy.  Bill Paxton was nominated for a Golden Globe.

                The movie opens strong with the Jefferson Airplane’s “Somebody to Love” over the credits with footage of napalm and white phosphorus exploding.  “When the truth is found to be lies.”  This will be one of the themes of the movie.  John Vann (Paxton) is a Lt. Col. who is excited to go to Vietnam because he wants a taste of war and he realizes fast promotions come with combat.  The movie advances the motivation by career soldiers early in the war that “it’s the only war we’ve got”.  Vann leaves his wife and kids thus firmly establishing the war before women cliché.  When he arrives in Saigon in 1962, he befriends Steve Burnett (Donal Logue).  (Burnett is based on David Halberstam.)   It will be a reciprocal relationship as Paxton uses Burnett to criticize policies and Burnett gets confirmation of his belief that the war is not going well.  Vann is the rare American who falls in love with South Vietnam.  He shacks up with a Vietnamese woman, but that is typical for a man who takes his marital vows loosely. 

                Vann has a theory that the key to defeating communism in Vietnam is to boost the peasants.  This of course contradicts the plans of Diem’s government.  Diem has no intention of treating the peasants with respect.  Vann is assigned as military adviser to a Gen. Cao.  When he arrives at the camp, he learns that the ARVN (S. Vietnam’s army) is faking the body count.  He also learns that the ARVN are not interested in confronting the Viet Cong in battle.  He participates in battles where the reluctance of the ARVN soldiers to duke it out is very frustrating.  Vann is not the type to take frustration stoically.  He makes enemies of ARVN generals and his superiors.  But he is eventually allowed to try his “hearts and minds” strategy out.   There is a sequence where he and Doug Elders (based on Daniel Ellsburg) help improve a school with disastrous results. Even when America is altruistic, it hurts the South Vietnamese peasansts.  He is there for the Tet Offensive and for Vietnamization under Nixon.  At the end, he is attempting to prove that if properly trained and led (by him), the ARVN can defeat the Viet Cong and North Vietnamese Army.  Kind of like the belief by some that the Afghan army would be able to beat the Taliban.

                “A Bright Shining Lie” is a biopic of a fascinating individual.  This is how Burnett eulogizes him:  “John Paul Vann was America’s warrior.  He personifies our good intentions, our arrogance, our courage, and ultimately, our folly”.  Paxton is great as this complex man.  He comes off less as a hero than as a Don Quixote.  There is enough of his personal life to prove he is a cad and a poor father.  Burnett makes a good foil as his pessimistic views of the war are contrasted with Vann, who goes from pissing into the tent to pissing from in the tent. 

                The movie has some fairly high production values for a made-for-TV movie.  Saigon is recreated nicely.  Unfortunately, the battle scenes are low rent.  The two battles (Ap Bac and Kontum) are very simplified.  But the emphasis is on Vann and he is allowed to participate in the action.  In one scene, he snipes two Viet Cong who are on the run from his chopper.  He acts as a one man blocking force after the Vietnamese commander refuses to put his men in that position.  This dude walks the walk and talks the talk.  That talking means he does not shy from telling off his Vietnamese superiors.  Or slapping them. 

                The problem with the movie is it has two hours to cover ten years.  We get the greatest hits of Vann’s career and two of his affairs.    This leaves little time for his training of ARVN soldiers and his tactic of aggressive patrolling.  There is a taste of his attempts to win over the peasants (with disastrous results that Afghan War veterans can relate to).  We also get an idea of the military incompetence and corruption of ARVN leadership and the poor morale of the men.  Sound familiar?

                If you want to see analogies to the Afghan War, “A Bright Shining Lie” is better for the beginning of the war than for the end of it.  Vann’s attempts to build up a viable fighting force ring a bell, but the movie concludes with a battle that seems to confirm that Vietnamization might work.  It does not get to the chaotic withdrawal from Saigon because Vann did not make it that far.  He certainly would have been one of the last to leave.  I would hope that the book was required reading in the Pentagon before and during the Afghan War.  The movie was also available for the nonreaders.  If so, the lessons were not learned.  It is incredible that the military thought that Afghanistanization would work.  We had no Vann and the conditions were much more challenging.

GRADE  =  B   

2 comments:

  1. I would like to remind anyone who is not familiar with the end of the Vietnam Conflict that South Vietnam was stable enough to stand on its own at the end - it did not fall to the Viet Cong or to its own people, but to regular army units when North Vietnam invaded the South in violation of its peace treaty. Could South Vietnam have recovered from the attack and held out with American aid? We will never know, as the party in control of Congress (including a very vocal Senator Joseph Biden) prevented aid from being sent.

    North Vietnam was smart to attack when it did. If the South had been given ten years of peace (while the people of the North had had ten years to watch their government in action) things would have been much different.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. We sold SV down the river when we agreed that NVA forces could stay in SV, but our forces would leave. No amount of bombing could have prevented the inevitable. I do agree that we should have tried, but Nixon's Watergate scandal removed him from office and Ford had no incentive to buck the tide to intervene. It was politics, pure and simple. I think it is highly unlikely that SV would be an independent nation today no matter what we would have done.

      Delete

Please fell free to comment. I would love to hear what you think and will respond.