Overview: Both sober and sobering, producer-director Emile de Antonio’s In the Year of the Pig is a powerful and, no doubt for many, controversial documentary about the Vietnam War.
It’s not that it needed an actor to voice it, but it really would have benefitted from someone with just a little more inflexion and emotion in their voice as this archive-based documentary tries to e...
It’s not that it needed an actor to voice it, but it really would have benefitted from someone with just a little more inflexion and emotion in their voice as this archive-based documentary tries to explain to us just what the Vietnam war was all about. Beginning at the close of the era of French Indo-China, with somewhat idealistic treaties being created between the French and their former colonies, this uses quite an impressive collection of reportage to takes us through a chronology of what happens next. The end of the Vietnamese Empire, fragmentation of all things that were once under European control, the encroachment of the Chinese and/or Soviet-backed communists and, of course, the attempts of the US military to prop up a pro-western government - regardless of the methods or credentials of the people it supported. Editorially, it’s quite interesting in that it at least attempts to strike a balance between those for and against on Capitol Hill. Dark forebodings from the late President Kennedy that large-scale bombings wouldn’t work and would only drive the youngsters into the arms of the Viet-Kong are ignored and appear to be borne out as more tonnage is dropped on this small nation than during the entirety of the Second World War. There are some truly incongruous images here. Paddy farmers using skills passed down from their great-ancestors whilst carrying rifles; young men digging huge holes in the ground so they can shelter from the overhead onslaught. It also doesn’t shy away from showing us the injuries caused to the squaddies on the ground, crawling through the dense jungle and having to fight hand-to-hand (or rifle to rifle) without the overwhelming technological superiority their country undoubtedly possessed. As the conflict entrenches, we are shown that this hitherto agrarian population is getting to grips with modern weaponry and modern combat tactics and with death tolls mounting on both sides the politicians have become just as deeply entrenched. In my own, humble, opinion what this all showed was the ultimate triumph of dogma over humanity, and a shocking disrespect for the prevailing cultures too. Did anyone really care about the indiscriminate bombings killing thousands of civilians? Were they a sacrifice both sides were prepared to make for a greater goal? The USA determined that communism couldn’t get a further foothold in Asia, the Viet-Kong continuing an age-old fight for these people to be free - of Mongols, of Manchu, of French or, of Americans. The narration doesn’t attempt to formulate any ideas nor does it encourage us one way or the other. The quotes from the White House, Congress, the US State Department as well as from journalist and former territorial administrators frequently contradict each other, but there is more than enough comment and imagery here for us to draw our own, quite well informed, conclusions. It’s quite a testament to the courage of the camera operators and shows quite clearly that after a slew of content proving the futilities and abhorrences of WWII, some governments still think war, directed from a room thousands of miles away, can ever provide for a permanent solution.
