You GOTTA see this before Nov. 2!

Running time: 1 hour, 25 minutes (not counting closing credits.)

Directed by George Butler

Going Upriver is a portrait of a man who up until Thursday’s Presidential debate, has been endorsed by supporters like myself not as the person they were necessarily thrilled about voting for, but who represented a more desirable choice simply because he is “not Bush.” If the first debate changed any of this, then Going Up River is the second half of a one-two punch, and those who may have only decided to vote for John Kerry as the lesser of two evils may just hit enter that booth November 2nd and hit that switch next to his name with a little more pride.

Going Upriver traces John Kerry’s early years to his days as a talented and multi-active Yale student, his service in Vietnam, and the disillusionment he experienced that led to his testifying before a Congressional committee on the war, making him an enemy of the Nixon administration.

I don’t want to give away everything in the film, but the film shows us how he came to serve on a swift boat, how he earned the respect of the men who served on that boat with him (as opposed the men in the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth commercials, who did not), who appear on camera to explain what he did to earn a Silver Star and a Bronze Star (the medals that have not been mentioned amid the controversy over his three Purple Hearts), and the atrocities that they witnessed in navigating “Free-Fire Zones.” For a generation of people like myself that knows of Vietnam mostly through Hollywood movies, the Vietnam portion of the film is appalling, as the vets talk about how they were taught to tell the difference between Viet Cong and civilians, the shocking amount of training they were given in the parameters of the Geneva Convention, and how they were treated when they got home and realized from what they had seen that the American people were not being told the truth about what was going on in Vietnam.

The movie illustrates how Kerry led hundreds of Vietnam Veterans Against the War to march non-violently on Washington, how he became an influential force among congressmen who welcomed him into their offices, and how his image as a clean-shaven intellectual who did not scream into a microphone made him a perfect choice to speak to Congress about what he witnessed in Vietnam. The most interesting aspect of this part of the film is how the Nixon administration came to view Kerry as a threat, and of particular delight are tape recordings of Nixon talking about how Kerry looks and sounds like a Kennedy. For those who have heard stories of Kerry throwing away the medals he earned in Vietnam, Going Upriver shows what was done to prevent the VVAW from marching up the steps of Congress, and how that led to that pivotal moment. Possibly the most amusing aspect of Nixon’s response to Kerry and the VVAW is how the President sought to provide a counterbalance to them by creating a pro-war veterans group with what Kerry saw as a deceptively euphemistic name, and how Kerry savaged that group’s representative on an episode of the Dick Cavett show.

The movie is both an eye-opening history lesson for those who may think they know enough about the Vietnam era, and a triumphant vindication of John Kerry as both a man of integrity, and a natural leader deserving of our respect. If you’re voting for Kerry with anything less than earnestness, or even if you’re voting for Bush, this movie is required viewing. Go and see it.

For those who live in or near New York, it is currently playing at the AMC Theater on W42nd ST., where I saw it tonight, as well as other theaters in the area.

Sounds like a perfect propaganda piece.

It would be if it's inaccurate. Is it?

Luigi: Propaganda doesn't have to be false, it just has to be sophistry.

Same thing. Sophistry is argumentation that appears to be cleaver but is actually flawed or dishonest.

And Biggy still didn't answer my question.

Agreed, except the sophist designation is best determined on ends not means. After all, sophists use the facts, but as an means not an ends. If the film was solely for the purpose of electing John Kerry, then the propagnda label is accurate. That's what sophists do, use rhetoric to gain power, and that is the point of propaganda, to persuade someone to your point of view, and they will use the truth when it is useful to them, rather than an end in it's self. If the film was meant to document events in the life of John Kerry, then the propaganda label would be unwarranted. Certianly, making a film about the life of presidential canidate is a legimate venture that requires no political committment. I haven't seen the film, so I am unable to comment.

However, any film touching upon political subject matter produced in an election year is likely to be suspect for propaganda, and to be considered guilty until proven otherwise.

Whether the intent of the film was to provide information on Kerry for those people ignorant of his background in order to help him get elected does not make it propaganda, so long as it is accurate. It is indeed whether it is accurate and balanced in its approach to the subject matter that determines whether it's propaganda.

Matt Pesti: However, any film touching upon political subject matter produced in an election year is likely to be suspect for propaganda, and to be considered guilty until proven otherwise.
Luigi Novi: No, the person is question is presumed innocent until proven otherwise, not guilty.

That's the criminal justice system, pertaining to suspects. Matt was not talking about a person, but a film.

And why would it be any different? The principle remains the same.

Also don't forget that this film was made in partal response to the swift boat liers. One of whom (the leader who wrote "Unfit for Command") as this movie points out was recruted by the Nixion administration to spread lies about Kerry when he did his testified before congress in the 70s about the war.

Yeah, it's funny how a movie made in response to propaganda is somewhow denounced as propaganda, and by someone who didn't even see it.

Luigi: I agree if you are claiming that documentries ideally should be judged by the weight of their facts and merit of their arguments. I'm saying it's not going to happen, during an election year.

We're not talking about documentaries. We're talking about what propaganda is.

But yes, documentaries should obviously be judged in that manner.

Not gonna happen? Really? Didn't you see my examination of the criticisms of Bowling for Columbine, and the manner in which I concluded that it was largely disingenuous in its presentation of its arguments, despite the fact that Michael Moore and I both share the same dislike of Bush, and the desire to have seen him ousted? The attitude you describe is certainly true of people like Brian Weber, who went out of his way to rationalize that film and distort my statements regarding it; that doesn't mean everyone is similarly blind.