User reviews

'The Trials of Henry Kissinger', directed by Eugene Jarecki and written by Alex Gibney (adapted from Christopher Hitchens' book) is definitely a film that, if it were actually given a wide enough audience, would provoke some fairly strong reactions. Not knowing a lot about Kissinger other than he is a successful and generally well-respected American diplomat, I wasn't sure what to expect, but I knew that the subject matter would be fairly inflammatory.

My assumption was correct, and the film provides some very compelling facts that aren't just food for thought; it is a veritable feast. Essentially, Kissinger is accused of, throughout his career, orchestrating actions and events that not only make him appear to be egotistical and Machiavellian, but basically a war criminal as well. Among the many topics covered in this 80 minute documentary are Kissinger's rise to prominence, the bombing of Cambodia, his involvement with the genocide in East Timor and the coup in Chile. Kissinger's rise hit a crescendo during the Nixon administration, and while Alexander Haig is still staunchly supportive of him, others such as William Safire are calling him a liar and criminal on camera. I have not read Hitchens' book of the same name, (though I am familiar with his work with the publication Vanity Fair) but if the excellent research in 'The Trials of Henry Kissinger' is any indication, the book must be an intelligent and compelling one worth looking at.

I am honestly not remotely familiar enough with the events and topics that were raised to form a solid enough opinion regarding Kissinger himself, but 'The Trials of Henry Kissinger' serves as a well-researched and thorough primer regarding Kissinger's rise and involvement in said events and topics.

The film also gets my greatest stamp of approval – I want to dig deeper into this subject so that I CAN form an opinion, and 'The Trials of Henry Kissinger' is the reason behind this need for further research. Inflammatory, but extremely thought-provoking, 'The Trials of Henry Kissinger' is a film that should be viewed. 8/10

Shelly

If you don't know who the 80 year old Kissinger is, you may want to pass on this film. However, if you watched his career as an intellectual, statesman, Playgirl centerfold, master of doublespeak, and perpetual bad hair day guy, then you may find this documentary compelling. The film is a credible and balanced indictment, given time constraints, which tells of Kissinger's rise to power and ultimate abuse of that power which, hindsight being 20:20, contributed substantially to the killing fields of Cambodia, the horrific war in East Timor, and an assassination in Chile which led to a brutal dictatorship in which American interests were strictly commercial. Directly or Indirectly, the renown Nobel Laureate de faux pas, may have caused the unjustifiable deaths of enough innocents to qualify him as a war criminal and yet today he has sufficient credibility to gain appointment, though short lived, as top cop in the 911 disaster investigation, still serves as CEO of his own consulting firm, and leaves the telltale odor of megaloegomania wherever he goes. An intriguing digest of Hitchens book of the same name. (B)

This is the way a documentary should be done! I like it much more than "Bowling For Columbine," which doesn't fully justify its' positions as well as this film does. The filmmaker here interviews people from all sides of the political spectrum to illustrate why this man who seems so likeable in the public eye is in fact responsible for the most secretive, heinous attrocities in modern American history. The film also offers a disturbing portrait of American foreign policy and is made more poignant by the climate of current events. Clearly, one also has to wonder how we can justify bringing people like Radovan Karadic for heinous war crimes when we have such criminals in our own backyard. And, if we truly are the policemen of the world, then maybe it's time we clean up the force. Very good film. Should be considered the best of 2002, with "The Two Towns of Jasper" a close second.

Based on a book by journalist Christopher Hitchens, The Trials of Henry Kissinger, a documentary by Eugene Jarecki, argues that the former U.S. Secretary of State and Nobel Peace Prize recipient should be tried for war crimes for his role in the overthrow of the democratically elected government in Chile in 1973, the secret bombing of Cambodia in 1969, and U.S. support for Indonesia's 1975 invasion of East Timor, events that led to the slaughter of millions. Applying the same legal standards to which Pinochet and Milosevic have been held, Hitchens branded Dr. Kissinger as a war criminal who should be brought to justice for crimes against humanity. Narrated by actor Brian Cox, the documentary is presented in lively "60 Minutes" fashion using archival footage, background music, and a combination of interviews with Kissinger associates and journalists such as Seymour Hersh, William Safire, and Hitchens himself.

The film attempts to maintain a balanced tone but Dr. Kissinger's only defenders are former staff members William Shawcross and Alexander Haig and there are no interviews with Dr. Kissinger himself (who refused to be interviewed). A refugee from Nazi Germany, Kissinger. rose to prominence in American politics thanks to his realpolitik approach to improving America's power position in the world relative to Russia and China. One of the main contentions of the film is that Kissinger, as a member of the Johnson team at the Paris Peace Talks, was also a secret advisor to Richard Nixon's presidential campaign of 1968. In that double role, he torpedoed the Paris Peace Talks by persuading South Vietnam Premier Thiéu to back out of the talks in order to prevent the Democratic candidate Hubert Humphrey from taking political advantage of a Vietnam settlement before the election.

Another supporting piece of evidence is that Kissinger bombed Cambodia without the knowledge of Congress, an action that led to the death of 500,000 Cambodians, the destabilization of the country and the rise of the bloody Khmer Rouge regime of Pol Pot. Jarecki also argues that Kissinger's clandestine support of Indonesia President Suharto's invasion of East Timor suppressed an independent movement and led to the deaths of 100,000 Timorese. Jarecki's case is built on a series of recently declassified documents that contradict Kissinger's written memoirs and show that Washington had supported Suharto using American weapons designed only for defensive purposes. They also indicate that Kissinger played a major role in Chile in the kidnapping and murder of General René Schneider and was deeply involved in the overthrow of the government of Salvador Allendé in Chile on September 11, 1973. Jarecki interviews Gen. Schneider's son who reveals that he is considering pressing charges against Kissinger for his part in the murder.

The Trials of Henry Kissinger is timely and the idea that statesman should be held accountable for their actions under International Law is a compelling issue that deserves to be debated in public forums.

Yet to me the real culprit is not the role of one man, nefarious as it may be, but a shortsighted policy that sees third world people only as tools in a U.S. global economic and political power struggle. Assassination of foreign leaders, secret foreign policy decisions, and lying to the American people did not start with Kissinger and, as we see in today's news, did not end when he stepped off the world stage.

The news of Henry Kissinger being selected to head the commission to investigate the Sept. 11 attacks makes seeing the new documentary, `The Trials of Henry Kissinger,' required viewing.

Based on a book by Christopher Hitchins, the film shows many former Kissinger supporters - including Nixon speech-writer, William Safire - calling the former National Security Advisor and Secretary of State secretive, a liar and even a war criminal.

Kissinger's Cold War schemes of bombing Cambodia, the genocidal invasion of East Timor by Indonesia and the coup and related atrocities in Chile are all well researched in this 80 minute film.

One of the many documentary interviewees is René Schneider Jr. His father, Gen. René Schneider, was head of the Chilean military when Allende was first elected. The general was killed during an attempt to kidnap him, as he was staunchly committed to the constitution, and would not bow to a coup against Allende. Evidence points to Kissinger directing that botched kidnapping.

Near the end of the film, Schneider is asked if he planned to press charges against Kissinger for his role. His response was, `we are considering it.' The date when charges finally were first reported in the //New York Times// was Sept. 11, 2001. The $3 million civil suit against Kissinger quickly faded into the background in the wake of the terrorist attacks.

With Kissinger to chair the Sept. 11 probe, things appear to have come full circle now.

This is an indictment. You'll have to read Kissinger's memoirs for the defense. I'm not planning on doing that myself, time constraints and other things to do being what they are.

In this 80-minute documentary, director Eugene Jarecki follows the intent of the book by Christopher Hitchens, which was to put Kissinger on trial before a world court with himself as prosecutor. By the way, note the slight, but perhaps significant difference in the title: the book is The Trial (singular) of Henry Kissinger. In a strange way the plural title of this documentary almost suggests The Struggles of Henry Kissinger, which would be irony number one.

I also thought it strange that Jarecki doesn't include Hitchens in the credits. I would say, one wonders why, but I really don't care.

What I care about here is:

First, the incredible irony of Kissinger being a winner of the Nobel Peace Prize. But then one recalls that Yasser Arafat also won one of those. Maybe I should win the literary prize for writing this review.

Second, the bizarre irony of Kissinger being a German Jew with relatives who died in the concentration camps becoming a man who ends up regarding his fellow human beings with the same sort of cattle to the slaughter mentality that characterized the Nazis. I think Henry called it "realpolitik."

Third, the slippery irony of Kissinger working for Democrat Lyndon Johnson, liberal Republican Nelson Rockefeller, and conservative Republican Richard Nixon, while having loyalty only to his own lust to power and his delight in exercising it.

Fourth, the comedic irony that now in the 21st century, decades after the fact, with Kissinger in his eighties, we get a call for a war crimes trial. Is this some kind of joke?

Fifth, the theoretical irony of realizing that it is Kissinger himself who believed that heads of state (and their top lieutenants) operate according to laws different than those imposed on private citizens because people in such elevated positions are often faced with only "a choice of evils," and so inevitably end up doing evil themselves.

Sixth, the media circus irony of Henry Kissinger being thought of as sexy and a Playgirl kind of centerfold because "power is the ultimate aphrodisiac," an image that delighted Kissinger who was quoted in the New York Times (Jan 19, 1971) as saying "Power is the great aphrodisiac."

Seventh, the judicial irony of Kissinger being put on trial for war crimes when it was his boss, the President of the United States, Richard Nixon, who had the ultimate responsibility for what happened in, for example, Cambodia.

Finally, it may be a kind of historical irony that it is George W. Bush who is most adamant that the US not give authority to a World Court that might try American government officials.

This is an easy documentary to view, done according to the "Sixty Minutes" formula. We are shown official documents with blacked out lines, archival footage, and interviews with some of the people who are still alive. There's Nixon's one time Chief of Staff Alexander Haig who sticks up for Kissinger (his old boss), but there is also the son of Chilean General Schneider who was assassinated in order to bring the horrific Pinochet to power and to protect American interests. And of course, the documentary reports that the principal indictee himself, Henry Kissinger, refused to be interviewed.

However I think the emphasis in any documentary that covers the material that this one covered should have been on our Cold War foreign policy itself (hardly original or unique to Kissinger), a policy that led the United States to commit and support the most amazing atrocities in the name of anti-communism, atrocities for which we are still paying the cost in world opinion, especially in the Middle East.

I should note that there's something wrong with the DVD in that it gives great close ups of the talking heads, but truncates their names and titles.

I also didn't care much about that.

(Note: Over 500 of my movie reviews are now available in my book "Cut to the Chaise Lounge or I Can't Believe I Swallowed the Remote!" Get it at Amazon!)

Though a bit dated, The Trials of Henry Kissinger provides a brief summary of the controversial career of one of America's most (in)famous diplomats.

Based on the book, the film covers both sides of the debates against Kissinger. Presented in a trial format, the film allows the viewers to develop their own opinions. Whether Kissinger was a war criminal or a pragmatic realpolitik apparatchik, we decide.

The film also delves a bit into Kissinger's personal life to help us understand his evolution. Viewers can emphasize why Kissinger adopts his own brand of amoral realpolitik over dogmatic idealism. As the film progresses, we see the adoption of Kissinger's rise to power/fame/infamy.

3.5 or 4/5. A bit dated, but a solid introduction to the career and life of Henry Kissinger.

How ironic that a movie that takes its name and basic thesis from the work of Christopher Hitchens and features interviews with Hitchens should go against all that Hitchens represents. I urge anyone who sees Thr Trials of Henry Kissinger to read Hitchens' review of Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11 (http://slate.msn.com/id/2102723/) to get a real sense of what Hitchens believes about propaganda films. What would he make, for example, of the juxtaposition of Kissinger with Hess, Pinochet and other murderous dictators. I would further recommend the superior documentary The Fog of War to shed just a tiny bit of light on the context in which these alleged war crimes occurred. This is not to diminish the excellent work Hitchens did in chronicling U.S. foreign policy, just to make the point that this doc would have been improved if the director stuck with Hitchens and didn't go off on all these tangents. It is telling how enthralled these directors were with their alternative cult of personality that they should try to bring down Kissinger with their own charismatic nutbar — Michael Tigar. Tigar has little to say about Kissinger, but weaves a wonderful, if loaded, story about Pinochet's arrest by a London bobby. You can almost see the spittle forming at the mouth of this man, which kind of gives away all sense of objectivity the filmmakers might have had. We're going after right-wing political figures and we'll use all tools at our disposal to make the case. Never mind that Tigar's story has nothing to do with Kissinger, except to suggest this is the time to nail him. Never mind if we use pop songs (Mr. Bigstuff. No really, very subtle), rapid-fire editing of war images to illustrate points about diplomacy, the whole bag of tricks. I half expected a stuttering Charlton Heston to appear and defend Kissinger, although Alexander Haig is a good substitute. Note to documentarians: leave your agendas at the door. The only people who will be swayed by your pastiche storytelling techniques are the converted and the ignorant, everyone else can see right through you, even if they lack the sophistication to pinpoint their skepticism. Countering propaganda with more propaganda brings your arguments down to the level of propaganda. While I realize telling stories about people who won't co-operate with you is difficult, that does not make it right to sweep their side under the carpet.

This movie deserves anywhere from 6.5 stars to 7. No more, no less. The editing & narration is done in such a shuffled & boring way that I had to stop the movie 3 times in 2 days. I couldn't finish it in one sitting. The reason why this is important is because I've been watching war documentaries all this week- hoping to compile my own with all I've seen. I've taken notes on SuperPower, Manufacturing Consent, Sicko, Commanding Heights, The Secret Government, 911 Road to Tyranny, Fog of War, and this. This by far as been the most boring movie I've had to take notes on. Not just boring, but depressing as well. How a man like this can assume so much power is beyond me, but then again he is a "Rockefeller" man, so I shouldn't be surprised one bit. As far as I knew he was Rockefeller pawn, in that the evil bastard used him to do his bidding. I know the 2 were in cahoots, so this explains why he gave Nixon & himself so much power, as well as the CIA etc. These evil men acted as a cancer to an already sick democratic society, and it is all but Game Over. I have learned enough to know that a lot of sick men like HK have spread their influence too wide, & too covertly to show any difference. (Too the unaware anyway.)

This movie has good information, and it's about the only documentary I know of that investigates Henry Kissinger solely. As someone mentioned he was involved with the 9/11 commission. More proof in my eyes that it was an inside job carried about by the Masons. Henry even gives a masonic handshake to one of the Vietnamese prime ministers or what not. As shown in the video 10-13 seconds at the very beginning. Don't think of me as a conspiracy theorist, but as a historical analyst. There's lot's of proof showing the plan/steps for a New World Order. Don't underestimate the Free Masonic influence in America & all across the world either. You shall see one day. I'll be working to prove it.

I am not a fan of Kissinger & I'm sure he has done quite a many disreputable things. However this is so one-sided that it shouldn't be called a documentary at all. A lot of this is interesting but how much is truth? This does nothing but say how horrible the man is & all the bad things he has done especially during the Vietnam War. The one thing that is for sure is that Kissinger didn't seem to have any sort of scruples or loyalty towards anyone but himself. I'm not sure if that is good or bad, but as far as his Foreign Policy issues are concerned, he would do whatever he had to or follow whoever he thought would win an election so he could stay in power. This is mildly interesting but again you only get one side. Everyone attacks him & it seems no one stands up for him at all. I must say that his wiretapping of his own people is quite unforgivable no matter who you are. He reminds me a lot of J. Edgar Hoover & I bet he had all sorts of blackmailing files just like Hoover did which is probably part of the reason he was so powerful. If you attacked him, well he could really hurt you.

The movie presents an insightful summary of Kissinger's reign from 1969 to 1974. My curiosity however really lay on understanding the man. Why did the superbrain chose aggression? The movie helped cursorily. I sensed that Kissinger was caught up in a game of power, and that he played by the old rules of the turn of the century leaders he studied.

Here is a documentary that outright accuses Henry Kissinger of being a war criminal and mass murderer. The film itself is a mix of historical footage and interviews with famous journalists/commentators. It could have been more nuanced, and only Alexander Haig comes to the statesman's defense, but Kissinger certainly comes across as duplicitous and very interested in promoting himself.

Henry Kissinger died last tear and finally got round to watch this 2002 film which was made about 25 years after the height of his prominence. After watching this in many respects it's perhaps not surprising that Henry Kissinger would still receive criticism in his obituary in 2023. Yet his record needs to be reexamined in the light of the disastrous three decades of US foreign policy (much of it promoted by 21stC internationalists including Christopher Hitchens) nearly 25 years after this documentary was made.

However, any historical event around the Nixon years isn't just a nostalgic trip down memory lane, moreover it's because the US media regard Watergate as the blue-ribbon event of journalism as the scrutiny and investigation of the Nixon administration eventually led to the criminal prosecution of government official's impeachment hearings and the eventual resignation of a sitting President. Henry Kissinger was around during that turbulent period, so it's perhaps one last opportunity to revisit those times as everybody else that was in Nixon's inner circle has long since gone.

Ardent critics who were Kissinger's contemporaries never accused him of being involved in Watergate, but it was his role in shaping US foreign policy, particularly the later years of the Vietnam war that they were concerned with, so Kissinger's presence over the next 50 years or so only served to encapsulate a feeling that he alone tiptoed away accountability for an administration that many historians have argued was secretive and corrupt.

Richard Nixon the only sitting president forced to resign in the 20th century was not somebody who fell from the lofty heights of popularity within the media. He wasn't particularly liked by them and made no secret of his disdain for the press. It might go some way to explain why the Vietnam war is today hung around his neck when it was first President Kennedy (1961-1963) and later President Johnson (1963-1969) that got the United States firmly enmeshed in Vietnam. By the time Richard Nixon and then national security adviser Henry Kissinger inherited the war there were over 500,000 US military personnel in the region. Kissinger is accused of being at the very heart of the decision making that expanded and unnecessarily prolonged the war in Indochina and embarked on a balance of power foreign policy that took little consideration of human rights.

Amongst some of grievances is that in 1973 Kissinger was behind a military coup in Chile that resulted in an elected government being ousted as well as providing aid to Argentina's military government in 1976. They were an anti-Marxist Junta that took a heavy-handed approach to their political opponents which was known as "the dirty war" which led to the disappearance of thousands of people. Foreign policy in the Nixon and Ford administrations under Kissinger's stewardship were purely for the benefit of the USA, "the ends justify the means", which is something the American left despised. Kissinger laid the groundwork for the overture to China which was known as "triangulation". Critics on the left viewed this as a cynical maneuver purely for domestic political gain, that only took advantage of the tensions between China and the USSR, and the conservatives saw it as abandoning its anti-communist policy.

There is a charge that Nixon while a candidate tried to sabotage a peace deal in Vietnam seems on the surface weak. It's unclear what this would have entailed and how as a candidate what he could have been done. Nevertheless, it was reported that this happened and if it did, Henry Kissinger wouldn't have been far behind. Although it is only fair to point out that any peace proposals by Johnson were running on a timeline for the presidential election in November of that year. As a candidate for that election there was every justification to be concerned at what the landscape would have looked like with a rushed peace deal or even a bad one had been offered. Not only for Richard Nixon but for Hubert Humphry Johnsons vice president who was the democratic party nomination.

What is overlooked was that any peace overtures by the USA via South Vietnam were meaningless. The war was unpopular at home and the and the North Vietnamese were in a much stronger bargaining position. The USA knew this, as so did the North Vietnamese. One of the biggest crimes he was accused of was the secret bombing of Cambodia that critics point out violated its neutrality. If North Vietnam and the Viet Cong were using it as a staging area for attacks on ARVN and US forces, the USA and South Vietnam could regard Cambodia as a legitimate target. If a country is unwilling or unable to repel combatants that are operating in a state that has declared its neutrality, then under international law neutrality becomes null and void.

However, Kissinger should get top grades for his efforts during the Yon Kippur war, he's credited for helping Israel from being overwhelmed and then restraining Israel as they turned tables on Egypt and Syria. This "shuttle diplomacy" stopped the conflict from escalating and kept the soviet union's influence at bay and led to a peace agreement between Egypt and Israel in 1977.

After the Carter administration (1977-1981) a new republican presidency led by President Reagan embarked on the theme of national renewal which among other things involved a massive military buildup after the malaise of the post-Vietnam years and a determination to confront the USSR and communism at every opportunity. The doctrine of being able to fight two major conflicts, Korea, Europe and a smaller conflict in the middle east was as much as a reemphasis of the Truman doctrine after the democratic party abandoned it in 1972. Also, there was a more proactive and aggressive assertion of the Monroe doctrine in Latin America with particular emphasis on confronting the Sandinistas in Nicaragua. Reagan administration, while also very anticommunist regarded the USSR as the evil empire and pursued a different approach to Kissinger on global affairs. This was a decisive break from Kissinger's balance of power politics and co-existence with the USSR. Therefore, it's no accident that during the republican presidencies of the 1980's under both Reagan and Bush, Kissinger played no active role. Although often courted by presidents and other secretary of state's, his most influential days were well behind him.

Henry Kissinger first as national security advisor then as the higher profiled position of secretary of state nobody comes under greater criticism decades after leaving office.m Warren Christopher doesn't get called out over his failures to prevent the Rwanda genocide or the massacres in Bosnia, neither do Colin Powell or Condoleezza Rice for their initial roles in the decisions about Afghanistan and Iraq any more than Hillary Clintons pushing for the war in Libya and Syria that destabilized that region. Millions of people have been killed, maimed and displaced over the last two decades. It exposes the fact that if your face fits, any mistakes or shortcomings can be overlooked. I wonder what historians and journalists will be saying about some of the officials I've named 30 years from now. In a way it's ironic that he outlived all his contemporaries, reaching 100 in a way only reinforces the view that in some respects he had the last word on them, much to the chagrin of hostile Journalists, many of them who are now deceased.