The Trials of Henry Kissinger

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.

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 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!)

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.

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.