Danger Close - A Review

Pic courtesy Sydney Morning Herald

This is my attempt, gentle reader, at a movie review.

Back in the day, we called them “pictures”, but that was a long time ago.

The movie is Danger Close, the recently released account of the Battle of Long Tan on 18th August 1966.

The story resonates with me for a number of reasons.

I went to school at Downlands with Frank Topp, who was killed in the opening few minutes of the battle. He is represented by a few seconds of footage when he is marched into D Company as a reinforcement on the morning of the 18th August. In the movie, he's one of the two diggers given a briefing about the reputation of Harry Smith's crew as he arrives.

I copped a bit of bullying at Downlands in 1961 when I started as a skinny fourteen year-old. I was a schoolies son from North Queensland, not the offspring of a wealthy land holder from the Western Downs, as a fair proportion of my school mates were at the time. Frank, for reasons I’ve never really understood, acted frequently as my protector.

He was well built and burly, so they left me alone. Perhaps the fact that his old man was a small crop farmer from Helidon, rather than a cow cockie from a big holding helped. We were both on the outer.

Frank left Downlands (as I did) at the end of 1962, and joined the army as an apprentice in RAEME. He became fascinated by the warries he began to hear about Vietnam, and transferred to Infantry. He arrived in Vietnam on the 16th July 1966, and was marched into D Coy 6 RAR on the morning of the battle. He didn’t have time to get to know the diggers he died with.

I was first in Long Tan in April 1970, when as a member of B Coy 7 RAR and a Nasho on his second operation in country, we were trucked there and harboured up near that famous rubber plantation until dark. Then we moved on foot through the night into our AO along a dry creek bed called the Suoi Lo O Nho. It was a bugger of a trip.

I also visited the site as a tourist in 2007 with my two sons. That was a much more rewarding experience, But it’s a sombre place.

The movie was well worth watching, irrespective of my experience of the history. It's production is slick, and the cinematography is first class.

The narrative is obviously based on the record, but there were a few incidents written in that, as far as I know, never occurred. There is a short cameo about a VC sniper in a woodcutters hut, as well as another involving two Vietnamese women which I doubt ever happened. It doesn't matter. They don’t detract.

The performances were generally pretty good, especially that of Travis Fimmel who played Harry Smith (OC D Coy) and Daniel Webber who played private Paul Large. There is a back story involving their relationship which may, or may not be accurate. Again, it doesn't matter and provides some diversion from the heavy themes of endurance, courage and loyalty in the face of impossible odds embedded in the narrative. 

The sound and fury of the artillery which was the conclusive element in the outcome is well conveyed, as is the on-the-ground minute by minute ordeal of the diggers.

The production team did a good job of reproducing a rubber plantation (a paulownia plantation at Wooroolin near Kingaroy) and the background landscape captured the Long Tan area pretty well, although I reckon the soil wasn’t quite red enough. Maybe they should have done some shooting on the Atherton Tablelands, where the contrasting red soil and green vegetation mimic Phouc Tuy.

It's very much a Queensland product. Apart from the rubber plantation scenes at Kingaroy, filming was also done in the Gold Coast hinterland near Nerang and at the Village Roadshow studios at Oxenford.

I could carry on about the authenticity and accuracy of representations of kit such as weapons, webbing, packs, but I won't. The weapons were spot on, as far as I could tell, but we never carried F1s. This was set four years before my time, and perhaps they were phased out by then.

The choppers confused me a little. They looked like the UH-1B, shorter than the UH-1H that I was familiar with. Perhaps the B series were replaced by the H series between 1966 and 1970. I'd welcome any guidance from chopper nerds on that. 

Again, it matters not. They made all the right noises. 

Apparently getting the movie going financially was a close-run thing.  It has that in common with the battle, which could have ended in complete disaster.

I'm glad it was made. Kriv Stenders (director) deserves kudos for actually getting it to screen.

It's a story that had to be told.

And that is was made in Australia, by Australians, is gratifying.

Hastings’ Vietnam

I haven’t covered a book review for some time, gentle reader, so will fix that right now.

The book is Max Hasting’s masterful Vietnam, An Epic Tragedy, 1945 – 1975, a hefty read at 680 pages, but it took me about a week to complete. It is riveting.

It was a Christmas gift from one of my sons, who knows I’ve read just about everything published on the conflict, but successfully found something I hadn’t.

Most works on the war in Vietnam can be classified into one of three groupings – dry military histories, exploitative narratives, or political tomes. This book is none of these. It resembles a journey through events, incidents and personalities, and engages the reader through its use of vivid detail, unique perspective, and thoroughly researched context.

Hastings is aided by the fact that he is about the same age as I am, which means he lived through the events. I think this helps, as they were indeed exceptional times.

The author (an Englishman), has worked as a foreign correspondent for the BBC, editor-in-chief of The Daily Telegraph, and editor of the Evening Standard. He is also the author of numerous other works, chiefly on defence matters, which have won several major awards. He was knighted in 2002.

His approach is to present a series of narratives centred around specific episodes or incidents, starting with the siege of Dien Bien Phu in 1952 and ending with the fall of Saigon in 1975. His attention to detail is spectacular, and the contextualisation it provides brings the work to life. He has obviously researched the topic comprehensively, but the wonderful detail never slows the impact of the narrative.

If there is an underlying theme to this tragedy (and his summary of the title is apt) it is the contrast between the consistent cynicism of the great powers (the USA, the Soviets and the Chinese) and the consistent faith of the North Vietnamese Communists. The great powers never gave up using Vietnam as a plaything; the North Vietnamese never gave up seeking to unify the country under Communism. 

In the end, faith trumped cynicism - but at a terrible cost.

 The Americans saw the conduct of the war (once they had blundered into it) only in the setting of domestic politics, specifically the way in which it would affect Presidential elections. The Soviets and Chinese saw it as an opportunity to influence and manipulate the outcome of the cold war.

Neither the Americans nor the Communist bloc seemed to have any care or understanding of those directly involved – the combatants and the Vietnamese people. They were always collateral.

Hastings seems to divide the Vietnamese into two groups – those who supported the NVA, and those who simply wanted peace and survival. There was never, according to Hastings, a sufficient critical mass of Vietnamese in the south with anti-Communist sentiment strong enough to persevere. There were a few, but often they were sidelined by the Americans, a notable example being Ngo Din Diem, assassinated in 1963 with CIA approval partly because they were worried that he was showing signs of being beyond their control. The South Vietnamese had a dog in the fight, but the Americans wanted to keep it on the leash.  

The NVA, inspired initially by Ho Chi Minh, and after his death by Vo Nguyen Giap, probably one of the twentieth century’s greatest military strategists, never gave up. When asked how long the North was prepared to fight, Giap is quoted as saying -  ''Another twenty years, even a hundred years, as long as it takes to win, regardless of cost." He meant it.

This war was a war of images. You will recall the images of the naked Vietnamese girl fleeing a napalm strike, the footage of a Viet Cong being shot by a South Vietnamese commander during Tet in Saigon, and many images of the siege of Hue. In my experience, the best metaphor contained in an image is presented below, a Zippo lighter that could be bought for a few greenbacks at roadside stalls all over Phuoc Tuy when I was there in 1970.

These things sold well because the inscription tells a symbolic truth as experienced by the GIs and the diggers, and on another level by the Vietnamese people, except that the references to the “unnecessary” and the “ungrateful” have a deeper meaning. The great powers obviously believed that the conflict was necessary. The political leaders were certainly ungrateful in terms of their attitude to their returning soldiers.

The other little piece of symbolism refers to the Zippo lighter itself. Here was a saleable object that provided street vendors with an income. Many pragmatic Southerners used any opportunity to make a living from the war. First they had to survive; then they had to make a living.

The book has a great collection of images, and one illustrated above resonates with me. The shot is in the AWM collection, and depicts an incident involving my rifle section in March 1970. The digger being carried to a dustoff clearing is Gil Green, who had collapsed and become very ill after he reacted badly to camouflage cream we used. Strangely, the shortest man in the section (Bernie Cox - left) is paired with the tallest (Russ Hollings - right) at the front of the litter. I remember the desperation and confusion, and this physical mismatch depicts it clearly - a great shot. I think the bush hat to the left of Bernie Cox is mine, by the way, but the rest of me is hidden by Bernie's pack - probably a good thing. 

This juxtaposition of the suffering and privations of those directly involved in the conflict, and the cynicism of those directing it, is clear in Hasting's book. The same juxtaposition is a feature of Spielberg's The Post. The movie begins with footage of a VC ambush, and then switches immediately to Robert McNamara being interviewed after he had been briefed by a victim of the ambush. The reality of the war on the ground was well understood by McNamara, but he was unprepared to admit it. His eye was on the next presidential poll. Given the poetic licence used in the movie (it was actually the New York Times which first exposed the Watergate scandal), the point is valid.

Soldiers and civilians are collateral when politics is involved. Let's face it, the same applied in this country. Menzies commitment of Australian troops in Vietnam was political pragmatism. He needed to keep the DLP on side, to ensure their preferences. Fighting in a war against Communists, even if it was in peacetime on foreign soil, kept them on the leash.

It took until 1972 and cost 520 Australian casualties (200 of them conscripts) before it was over. Forty Vietnamese died for every American, and 4500 for every Australian. That is the real tragedy.

I can thoroughly recommend it, even if you're not, like me, a history tragic.

Warbirds

RAAF C-29J Spartan

And now for something completely different.

Politics is more boring than usual, the media is full of rubbish reporting about some wedding somewhere, and I've had it up to here with the self contradictory drivel routinely emanating from Washington.

Therefore, gentle reader, I'll post about warbirds.

There is an annual event in God's Waiting Room (Toowoomba) called the David Hack meet. It's supported by local Rotary, the earnings go to a range of charities, and is named in honour of David, whose passions were cars and photography, and whose life was cut short in 1998 by Non Hodgkins Lymphoma (Leukaemia).

I have attended for the last few years, and displayed my MX5, but more about that over at MX5 Mutterings. 

This post features some of the warbirds on display. I'm not as au fait with warbirds as I am with motor cars, so forgive me, gentle reader, if I get some of the identifications wrong.

Better still - comment and set me straight if you see an error.

Whatever you do, don't mention Vietnam.........

North American T-6 Texan

Yak - 11

North American T-28 Trojan

Kiwi Harvard

CAC Winjeel

Wirraway motor. Noisy when it's running.

All the details......

And that is what it looks and sounds like in motion.

Not a Review of "The Post"



Pic courtesy variety.com

The following is not, gentle reader, a review of the movie, but of the history. As Mark Twain is alleged to have said - “History doesn't repeat itself but it often rhymes”.

The history we’re living now, with a vulgarian in the White House, has a discordant metre, but it does rhyme. It rhymes with the period 1914 – 1950.

Unfortunately, what we’re seeing in 2018 resonates strongly with the experience of that chunk of the last century.  

The twentieth century saw, sequentially; industrial scale militarism, a global recession, fascism feeding the rise of nationalism (or more correctly, nativism), and two major conflicts which pretty much destroyed Europe and by the end of it, much of Asia.

It saw genocide, mass destruction, the demise of ancient power blocs, and the birth of new ones. I refer (inter alia) to the fall of the Third Reich, the Ottoman and British Empires, the birth of the UN, and the establishment of the state of Israel.

Each of these episodes fed inexorably into the next. A kind of desperate momentum took over, which began with the assassination of the Archduke in Sarajevo, and finished with the Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

That’s a bit black – I hear you say. But observe the rise of nationalism in Europe and the USA, the re-emergence of racist ideology pretty much everywhere. Add a recent experience of market failure (the GFC) to the mix, and the pattern is clear. The appearance of Berlusconi, Farage, Trump and Wilders, could be seen as reincarnations of Mussolini, Mosley, William Dudley Pelley and Mussert. There's a symmetry.

My parents lived the first few stanzas of the poem, and I have lived the last.

I write in retrospective anger, gentle reader.

What infuriates me is the fact that the movie describes a situation in which a democratically elected government hid the truth from its people, inflicting enormous suffering on its own country, and on a country in a different continent, whilst at the same time being completely aware that the whole enterprise was doomed to failure.

And that the reason for this was substantially to uphold the reputation of the USA.

From the Pentagon Papers (rationalising the continuation of the US involvement) –

"70% – To avoid a humiliating U.S. defeat; 20% – To keep [South Vietnam] (and the adjacent) territory from Chinese hands; 10% – To permit the people [of South Vietnam] to enjoy a better, freer way of life₁.

The movie opens with scenes of an ambush during the height of the war in Vietnam. As a cinematic technique, I assume it was used to focus the attention of the audience on the human cost of the conflict.

I’m not sure it was entirely successful with all of the audience, but it worked for me.

It reminded me of what I had seen and experienced in 1970.

It reminded me of Graham Kavanagh, aged 22, who died of heat exhaustion on 21^st April, 1970, after we walked 15 clics down a rocky creek bed overnight in stifling heat carrying 40kgs of kit. Insertion into an AO by this method was unheard of, but it worked, because we struck an occupied bunker system on the next day. Unfortunately this secure insertion killed Kavanagh, a Nasho – a Cabinetmaker from Edwardstown. He died just before the medevac chopper arrived.

It reminded me of Bobby Hughes, aged 19 from Goulburn, who was killed by RPG fire when 4 platoon tried unsuccessfully to assault this same bunker system on 22nd April.

It reminded me of the 60,000 Australians—ground troops, air-force and naval personnel—who served in Vietnam between 1962 and 1972. Of these, 521 died as a result of the war and over 3,000 were wounded.

It reminded me of Paul Ham’s account in Vietnam, the Australian War –

“The personal cost of the war, in terms of personal grief and moral degradation, is immeasurable. In our helplessness, we surrender to statistics. 520 Australian soldiers dead and 3000 wounded. 58193 Americans dead and about 300000 wounded. 220356 South Vietnamese troops dead or missing in action, and 1.17 million wounded. 660000 Viet Cong and North Vietnamese troops dead, with the possibility that a third were civilians mistaken for enemy troops or deemed legitimate targets₂.”

So, on that level, for this cinema patron, the Vietnam sequence did the trick.

Forgetting the history, the rest of the movie worked for me. The performances were complete, the cinematography slick, and the narrative pace, especially towards the end, compelling. Perhaps it was a little slow in gathering momentum.

I carry with me the memory of many good men, who were used so shamefully by the government of the day to help the USA bolster its reputation. 

I also carry the apprehension that the stanza of history I’d just seen represented on the screen has every opportunity of rhyming with something tragically current.

I hope I’m wrong…..

1. A memo from the Defense Department under the Johnson Administration listing the reasons for American persistence, even though both the administration and the military knew that the war was unwinnable.
2. Paul Ham, Vietnam, the Australian War, Harper Collins, 2007, p 663

Bridge of Spies

Image courtesy eonline.com

I've never reviewed a movie on this humble blog, gentle reader.

This post will remedy that omission.

The movie (or "film" as people of my generation call it) is Bridge of Spies, a 2015 American Historical drama-thriller directed by Steven Spielberg and written by Matt Charman from Ethan and Joel Coen's screenplay.

The film stars Tom Hanks, Mark Rylance, Amy Ryan and Alan Alda. 

Here, straight from the Wiki, is the plot. Obviously, don't read on if you're put off by spoilers.

In 1957 Brooklyn, New York, Rudolf Abel retrieves a secret message from a park bench and reads it just before FBI agents burst into his rented room. He prevents discovery of the message, but other evidence in the room leads to his arrest and prosecution as a Soviet spy. James B Donovan, a lawyer who specializes in insurance settlements, is asked by his partners to take on Abel's defense. The United States believe that Abel is a KGB spy, but want him to have a fair trial to reduce the Soviet Union's chance to use it for propaganda. Donovan meets with Abel in prison, where the Russian agrees to accept his help. Abel refuses to cooperate with the US government on any revelations of the intelligence world.

Although Donovan takes his work seriously, no one—including the prosecuting attorneys, the judge, his firm, or his family—expects him to mount a strong defense of Abel. His efforts to seek acquittal are met with shock and anger by the American public; he is deluged with hate mail and his life is threatened, but he continues to fight.

Abel is found guilty of all charges, but Donovan convinces the judge to sentence him to 30 years imprisonment, rather than death, on the grounds that Abel may one day be valuable as a bargaining chip with the USSR. Donovan subsequently appeals to the U.S. Supreme Court that the evidence presented by the prosecution is tainted by an invalid search warrant, but loses 5–4.

In the meantime, Francis Gary Powers goes on a U-2 spy plane sortie over the Soviet Union, where he is shot down and captured.  He is convicted and subjected to interrogation. Frederic Pryor, an American economics graduate student, visits his German girlfriend in East Berlin just as the Berlin Wall is being built. He tries to bring her back into West Berlin, but is stopped by Stasi agents and arrested as a spy.

The USSR sends a backchannel message to Donovan, via a false letter to Abel from his "family," proposing a prisoner exchange: Abel for Powers. Donovan has heard of Pryor's capture and insists on a 2-for-1 exchange instead. Though the CIA is interested only in Powers' return, it allows Donovan to negotiate for Pryor as well, on condition that the Abel-for-Powers deal is not jeopardized.

The East German government, which is holding Pryor, suddenly pulls out, insulted that Donovan did not inform them that the USSR was a party to the negotiation. The CIA wants to leave Pryor behind and finish the exchange. Donovan threatens East Germany by saying unless Pryor is returned, the entire deal will be scrapped and Abel interrogated, and the USSR will blame East Germany for any damage. East Germany capitulates, and the exchange is conducted, freeing the three men. Donovan gains credit for his achievement.

So it's a great tight narrative, and is based solidly in fact.

As a spectacle, the movie is bereft of special effects (with the possible exception of the depiction of the shooting down of Powers' U2), but it's all the better for that.

The cinematography is first class, and captures the atmospherics of the time with vivid accuracy. There is not a great deal of action, as such, but the dialogue is brilliantly sharp.

The actual historical events have plenty of relevance today. Put the situation of the inmates of Guantanamo Bay beside that of Rudolf Abel, and there is a startling connect. Donovan points out at one stage, when he is vilified for defending Abel, that the right to a fair trial is one of the values that separates the USA from the totalitarian USSR.

Exactly the same principle was shoved aside when Bush and the Neocons sent accused terrorists to Guantanamo Bay.

I was riveted by the narrative and the characterisation of Donovan as a "standing man"*.

The critics apparently liked it as well. Make sure you take the time to see it.

Bridge of Spies is showing right now all over the country.

* You'll have to watch the movie to get this reference.

What a Man

There's been far too much dour political commentary on this humble blog of late, gentle reader.

It's time to lighten the atmosphere.

Nobody is better qualified to do this than Jessica Mauboy and friends.

The clip captures the atmosphere of a Saigon soul bar in 1970 pretty accurately.

Some Mothers Do Have Em (2)*

You catch some weird and wonderful stuff on dash cam.

Here's an example. Explanations are necessary.

I was scooting along in the bride's Focus, minding my own business, when I observed the following.

Elderly gent in front of me driving a Suzuki 4WD runs into the back of a hatchback at an intersection. That's not captured in the video, as it happens a few frames earlier.

Driver of the hatchback pootles around the corner and parks by the side of the road, no doubt with the intent of indulging in some deep and meaningful discourse with the driver of the Suzi, probably beginning with "Why did you drive into the back of my car?"

The answer may have had something to do with the fact that he was watching traffic approaching from his right, so he could pick a gap and drive into it. The gap emerged, but the driver of the hatchback was in it. Basically, he wasn't watching where he was going, never a good idea when driving in traffic.

He hits the hatchback from behind; the bullbar on the Suzi is dislodged by the collision and falls on to the road in front of it.

Elderly gentleman seems completely oblivious to this fact, and makes several unsuccessful attempts to drive over the bullbar (5 - 25 seconds in).

I watch this for a short time, and eventually conclude that someone should tell him that he isn't going anywhere. I put the hazard flashers on, get out of the car, tell him what's going down (the bullbar) and eventually remove it from the road (40 seconds in). He finally gets out of the Suzi and nearly clouts me with the remaining debris as he throws it on the footpath (42 seconds in).

You can see the driver of the hatchback (parked on the left) surveying the damage to the back of her car.

I finally decide that anywhere with a metre or two of this bloke and his Suzi is dangerous, and depart.

My bride, viewing the video later, chides me that I probably took a risk by physically placing myself in front of his car to pick up the bullbar, given what had just happened.

In hindsight, she's right.

*There is another Some Mothers Do Have Em on this blog,

Dash Cams

Now that I'm back on the road, I'll post a sequence from my dash cam.

This is fairly typical of the roads I drive, although at the very Eastern end of my loop (Warrego Highway between Dalby and Toowoomba). The sound track is PM on the ABC. It's the only thing worth listening to out here.

The vehicle is a Territory diesel. They're not a bad piece of kit. It's a pity they will become extinct next year.

The dash cam is a Uniden 800. It's OK, but does eat up SD cards at a rapid rate. It's best to replace the original with a high capacity card. They last longer than six months.

I know it's boring video. It's generally a boring drive............

Those Russkies Again

Apparently dash cameras are common in Russia.

As result, we have an avalanche of You-Tube clips of Russians doing crazy things on the road.

Here is an example. I wish I'd had that presence of mind when I was subjected to something similar a few years ago...

Made in Dagenham

I haven't  reviewed a movie in yonks - so it's time to change that.

Made in Dagenham is a fictionalised account of an industrial dispute that took place in 1968 on the Dagenham UK assembly line of the Ford factory.

187 women machinists were employed to assemble and stitch the upholstery for the popular Ford Cortina. Without the finished and upholstered seats being available, the assembly line would grind to a halt, which was the best weapon the women had in their armoury.

They were paid much less than the men working in the factory, partly because they were classified as "unskilled", despite the fact that the work was intricate and complex. Their conditions were poor, and the section of the factory that they worked in was unbearably hot in summer, and it leaked when it rained, a fairly frequent event in that part of the world.

The union that represented them didn't take their claims seriously because they were, after all, women, and tried to fob them off.

The women, led by Rita O'Grady (played by Sally Hawkins) were supported by a sympathetic shop steward (Albert Passsingham; played by Bob Hoskins) who generally stayed in the background and offered advice at crucial stages.

They called a strike, which eventually brought the plant to a standstill. Ford tried to discredit the union, but this strategy failed when the women broke ranks with their own union, and refused to knuckle under to a meaningless compromise. Eventually, Barbara Castle, the Labor cabinet minister at time, came to their support. Despite threats from Ford that the UK factories would be shut down, she introduced legislation which guaranteed them 92% of the male wage, and led to a series of equal opportunity reforms that changed the status of women in the workforce in both the UK and Europe.

The team that produced Calendar Girls is also responsible for this one and the same gentle genius in terms of screenplay, character development and cinematography is evident,

It also provides an interesting insight into the values of the time, a time that I can remember pretty clearly. I can certainly remember the small Fords of the time.

Back then, my Polish next door neighbour owned one as her first car, and she was silly enough to let me behind the wheel occasionally. It was enjoyable to drive, and had a sweet direct gearshift and light and accurate steering.

I can't remember the upholstery.

Go see it - it's down to earth, reflects the times, and is well crafted - a bit like the Ford's British cars back then..

Frost/Nixon

I've reviewed a book or two on this blog, so will attempt the same with a movie.

The film is Ron Howard's "Frost/Nixon", a dramatic retelling of the post-Watergate television interviews between British talk-show host David Frost and former president Richard Nixon.

I remember the original interviews, and watching them on a small black and white TV in our newly-purchased home, the first year of our marriage. It seems a long time ago.

The screenplay is excellent, and despite the limited opportunity for visual impact, (the interview situation) it engages and entertains from beginning to end. The characterisations of both Frost and Nixon are also engaging. I felt that I understood the motivations and actions of both very well, and was gently led into this understanding as a viewer by a thorough and careful preparation, which the storyline neatly paralleled with its lead-up narrative.

Howard also used an interesting in-camera interview technique as a device to provide the audience with the background it needed to understand exactly what was going on. Because I've always been interested in this time in American political history, I didn't need the backgrounding, but didn't find it intrusive.

Nixon's decisions leading to the bombing of Cambodia were covered in the narrative of the interviews, and this held particular resonance for me, as I was in the north of Phuoc Tuy in March/April 1970; close enough to the B-52 bombing to hear it. There is a school of thought that his decisions back then led to the savagery of the Killing Fields, as it effectively radicalised Cambodians behind Pol Pot.

What was new to me in all of this was an interpretation of Richard Nixon, the man. I left the movie feeling a vague sense of sympathy for Nixon. He was obviously a deeply-flawed individual, but he had an enormous drive and determination, and a master of the art of the application of political power. In this, he resembled Mao Zedong, and it appears the two understood and respected each other.

The detail touches add impact to the screenplay, and it seems that the production was researched very carefully. I'm one of those annoying people who watches very closely for anachronistic bloopers and didn't see any in this offering.

I'd recommend it strongly, even if you have no interest in political history. If you do, it's a must-see.