Path to War (2003)

Better Late Then Never

A lot of fun.

As somebody who had not heard any of this before, it became a curious phenomenon to sit and watch a film and slowly have the realities begin to click into place.

The film never slows down or bores, plunging from one harrowing sequence to the next.

This movie is about America getting dragged into the Vietnam war. It's not about the soldiers, but more about the political background that led to the war.The movie itself presents an interesting view of the events, but I fear that the movie is more suited for a history class at school. It just doesn't entertain enough for that rainy sunday afternoon. It's basically a lot of politicians talking.It's hard to rate this movie - the political background of a war is really fascinating material, in that aspect the movie delivers. But a movie should also be entertainment, and unfortunately this particular movie failed to entertain me.

This film is a rather sympathetic overview of the Lyndon Johnson Presidency. It's an "insider" look with an almost documentary feel. It focuses on the turmoil within LBJ as a result of his decision to send combat troops to Vietnam, to begin bombing North Vietnam and to escalate the war in general. His major administration agenda, according to this film, was to implement social changes, push civil rights and build schools. Many of these lofty goals were derailed by the escalating cost and national distraction of the Vietnam war. I have to say that Donald Sutherland was magnificent in this film! Alec Baldwin pretty well nailed Robert McNamara, too! Overall, a pretty doggone good film! It is 164 minutes long, but it doesn't seem that long.

Although I immensely enjoyed & admired this film, I was struck bya curious omission: there is neither an appearance by nor areference to Hubert Humphrey, LBJ's VP at the time. Even hisappearance at the opening inaugural ball would have helped. Ifhis role were insignificant or non-existent, there should have beensome reference to this; if he tried to persuade LBJ to withdraw ourtroops from Vietnam & were shut out of further counselingsessions because of this, that too should have been mentioned. When HH ran as Dem prez candidate in 1968, he was burdenedby the war just as LBJ would have been. If there were a line aboutHumphrey (& 1 or 2 lines might be all that would be necessary), Imissed it. Or were there legal problems that made the director orwriter or producer determine not to allude to him?

Of course, it's a long film as is, but the main defect is not giving more detail in regard to military and political strategies and the "politicking" and real motivations that underlay them. These are touched on, but one supposes within time restrictions they could not have been explored more interestingly. Johnson's character is well presented by the story and by Michael Gambon. The rest of the cast are quite up to his level. Direction is tight, but editing seems chaotic. This may have been intended as hinting at the "chaos" that was "The Vietnam War".