In the Year of the Porkie
How one of the most controversial films of the 20th century reveals how America Fibbed its Way into Imperialistic Policy
Where America truly failed was in winning the hearts and minds of the Vietnamese people
In the Year of the Pig, a film by radical American director Emilie de Antonio provides not only a synopsis of the origins and history of the Vietnam War, but also a scorching commentary about American intervention, and the counterproductive and detrimental effects of its hawkish foreign policy. The film begins by highlighting the socio-political climate in Vietnam with French colonial influence in the early 20th century all the way to the start and instigation of American intervention in the 1950s. The film was released in 1968 during the Vietnam War, around the time the Anti-War resistance movement started growing. De Antonio, through his almost scrapbook-like, but profoundly engaging production style, was able to compile periodic interviews with generals, soldiers, politicians and journalists, his own interviews and footage as well as archival footage and open-source clips into a caustic criticism of American exceptionalism and controversial intervention in this civil conflict on the other side of the world.
“I wouldn’t trade a single American soldier for fifty of those Chinamen,”
The first telling moments in the film in terms of content were in the introduction, where the Vietnamese animosity towards Western interference and intervention was justified through the portrayal of French colonisation and its negative consequences. This set the precedent for Ho Chi Minh to come along and serve the role of a revolutionary saviour of the Vietnamese people, he was in a sense the “George Washington” of Vietnam as described by Professor Paul Mus, Professor of Buddhism at Yale University.
Vietnamese animosity towards outside intervention, as well as the Anti-War movement developing within the United States around that period can both be seen as countercultures. Both these movements resist the orthodox Western doctrines that are fed to much of the American and South Vietnamese people. De Antonio was able to make these countercultural movements seem extremely justified by portraying the instigators of the Vietnam war in a scathing, albeit objective manner.
Firstly, by dispelling the myth of the now verifiably false Gulf of Tonkin attacks, the American establishment is put in an extremely negative light. The need to lie about a North Vietnamese torpedo attack on two US Destroyers and the misleading speculation of more potential torpedo attacks when the North Vietnamese had no torpedoes shows the administration’s desperate attempts to justify furthering their political agenda at the expense of the Vietnamese people.
Incessant ramblings about the ‘Domino Theory’ reinforce the extent of delusional thinking and the irrational red scare within American political think tanks and institutions at the time. The notion that a populist communist uprising in an impoverished country in South East Asia will somehow lead to the demise of Capitalism in Nebraska had grave consequences on not only the countries that suffered the results of American intervention, but also on the lives of many American soldiers. Furthermore, snippets of American politicians and military officials speaking about the Viet Cong and the National Liberation Front as a threat to World Peace, something that must be eradicated at all costs further strengthens this notion of unjustified fear.
“They’re gooks, you know, slanted eyes and tiny tits!,” it was also a common sentiment that “the only good gook is a dead one.”
De Antonio’s striking usage of a dichotomous structure that jumps back and forth between breathtaking footage of Vietnamese life during this period, and sterile clips of interviews held in quiet, clinical rooms conveys a sense of detachment of the American establishment from the implications of their actions. The lack of a background track throughout most of the film made the footage all the more chilling. The clips selected by De Antonio consisted of striking moments where Vietnamese peasants in rags fearfully begged for mercy as soon as the camera pointed towards them, shots of dead bodies, exploding bombs and artillery fire. Perhaps one of the most iconic moments in this film and this time-period in general was of the monk who set himself on fire. This incident was described to have yielded in massive reactions and coverage throughout the entire world, mostly in favour of the countercultural, antiestablishment fervour that was ever increasing in force.
Footage of the American analysts, politicians, generals and war apologists were presented in stark contrast to the clips set in Vietnam. They were often filmed at awkwardly positions as they uncomfortably tried to justify the American intervention with baseless cliches and platitudes. More jarring moments occurred when there were straight up expletives that conveyed much of the pro-war mindset at the time. When asked about Asian girls at the beach, American soldiers replied “They’re gooks, you know, slanted eyes and tiny tits!,” it was also a common sentiment that “the only good gook is a dead one.” Colonel Patton jokingly referring to American soldiers as a “pretty good bunch of killers.” Military officials nonchalantly justifying the shooting of any Vietnamese person who looks like they may possess a weapon, and the casual instruction to burn over 30 tonnes of valuable rice with little regards as to what the villagers relying on it would do. One of the most poignant demonstrations of the American exceptionalist mindset was displayed when a general said “I wouldn’t trade a single American soldier for fifty of those Chinamen,” shortly after another politician justifying the bombing of innocent people based of a factually false premise, just because the bombings weren’t targeting civilians but rather the soldiers near the civilians.
Where America truly failed was in winning the hearts and minds of the Vietnamese people. Rather than understanding the Vietnamese, America imposed its own value system thinking they knew what was best for Vietnam. This failure was most highlighted in the American orchestrated instantiation of Ngo Dinh Diem as Prime Minister of South Vietnam, an unpopular leader who failed to be anything more than a puppet for American interests. A provoking situation that reinforced this notion was when the fact that the National Liberation Front had armed basically all of Vietnam was noted. The reality that if the Vietnamese people wanted to, they could overthrow the communist movement within a day by sheer numbers shows that the Viet Cong and National Liberation Front had truely won the hearts and minds of the American people, something American politicians have never tried to do.
Throughout this film, Emilie de Antonio uses an array of techniques to present the concerns of the growing countercultural anti-war movement in a justified light. Given the material he had to work with in addition to the track record and baseless rhetoric of the American establishment, it did not take much manipulation of the footage to do so. Ultimately, America failed not only Vietnam but also left it in a far worse political state than when the war began. In the Year of the Pig highlights exactly why and how the Vietnamese animosity towards foreign Western entities began. The film conveys clearly just how out of touch the American establishment is with not only foreign cultures, but also much of its own people, ultimately fanning the flames that fuel these ever growing countercultural movements.
