Sir! No Sir! Documentary Review

“Sir! No Sir!” Daivd Zeiger’s newly released documentary, presents an engaging and cogent investigation to resistance against the Vietnam War. Using a combination of historic footage, print media, and interviews, Zeiger addresses one of the most contentious aspects of the anti-war resistance: the GI Movement. Through the film Zeiger dissects how GI opposition to the war was reported and understood by the government and the public. While technically a standard interview/ historical footage documentary, this format serves the film well; its only weaknesses come in attempts to give the film “edge” through frantic montages and rapid cuts. Well timed with the growing upset perceived amongst U.S. soldiers in Iraq, “Sir! No Sir!” is a successful investigation of a forgotten part of American history.

Zeiger’s thesis centers on the simultaneous importance of the GI Movement and how the public and history overlooked it. The GI Movement was a part of the Vietnam War that has not only been forgotten by history, but was attacked by the government when it occurred. By profiling various parts of the GI Movement, from riots at federal stockades, to the off-base GI Coffee houses, to Jane Fonda’s anti-war USO style FTA show, Zeiger creates a narrative that guides the viewer through the life of the movement.

To do this, Zeiger uses the tried and true combination of interviews and historic footage to support and illustrate the monologue of the interviewee. Through the interviews with mostly former GI Movement participants --soldiers who chose to oppose and subvert the war—Zeiger covers a large spectrum of individuals involved. By interviewing the leaders of the movement --the soldiers that ran the coffee shops, the GI Presses and served the jail time-- Zeiger creates a foundation of the obvious types of soldiers that would have been involved. But then by bringing in a former Colonel as well as other officers that “were doing it [their orders] right, but not doing right” Zeiger underscores the importance of the movement by showing that even the most patriotic and steadfast of soldiers were involved.

With the GI Movement being as large as Zeiger portrays it as having been, it is still a forgotten affair, and one must ask, why? Zeiger’s answer focuses primarily on the way the media and the Department of Defense dealt with the movement. In the “The First Casualty,” author Phillip Knightley details how in-country news media was put under intense pressure and even threat from the U.S. government to “get on side” and support the war. (Knightley, 419) Zeiger argues that domestically in the U.S. this was just as much the case. While for the history of news media there has been influence on the part of government during times of conflict, Vietnam was different; it represented the first time that there was a clear divide between the media and government. Vietnam represented a war of ideas one of “no front line, no easily identifiable enemy, no simply explained cause, no menace to the homeland…and, therefore, no nationwide fervor of patriotism.” (Knightley, 418) Vietnam was the first true war that focused on control of ideas, not just the ideological opposition of communism, but the control of information on the successes, failures, and rational of the war. By showing how large the GI Movement was, while at the same time how uninformed the public is and was about it, Zeiger is able to show how the government marginalized it through limited media coverage.

With this understanding of the governments tactics during the war in mind, Zeiger then examines how the anti-war movement as a whole was demonized. Demonized through both its subversive connotations as well as the idea that anti-war protesters did not “support the troops” and were un-patriotic. The infamous idea of protestors spitting on returning troops in San Francisco is the pinnacle of this myth machine as “Sir! No Sir!” exposes. Not only did this even never happen, but how did it become such a powerful image in the minds of Americans? This idea of hateful, unpatriotic protestors also made GI’s powerless to stand against the war because they would be viewed as soldier hating anti-war activists too. While serving as a distinct example of how the GI Movement was repressed and anti-war movement vilified, the spitting example used in “Sir! No Sir!” is indicative of the wider strategy of how the anti-war movement was dealt with by those who opposed it.

Beyond how the anti-war movement was portrayed as a whole, “Sir! No Sir!” focuses down to the individual level to give a human feel to what Zeiger argues was a conscious strategy to demonize anti-war activists. Jane Fonda or “Hanoi Jane” as she became to be known, is chosen by Zeiger for this because of her support of the GI Movement. Through interviews and the hope of a sympathetic heart from the viewer, Zeiger introduces us to the “real” Jane Fonda; the activist who above all opposed the war because she wanted to save the lives of soldiers. In this sense, as with the GI Movement, Zeiger is not only honoring her good intentions but clearing the record the best he can.

While up until this point “Sir! No Sir!” holds a somewhat non-partisan line, the Jane Fonda issue pushes it clearly over to the far left. Being as controversial figure as she is, especially amongst conservative Americans, by casting her in such a good light Zeiger weakens his argument. Regardless of what Fonda argues was the reality of the photo shoot with North Vietnamese AAA, the photo is so emblematic of traitorous anti-war activism that defending it takes away from the strength of Zeiger’s argument. Though it could serve as an example of how successful certain parts of society were at demonizing the anti-war movement, Fonda’s photo with the enemy crosses a line beyond being anti-war activism to near legitimate treason.

“Sir! No Sir!” is not without other weakness as well. Technically, “Sir! No Sir!” follows a standard documentary model discussed before. However, at times Zeiger uses frantic montages and cuts, along with overly enthusiastic period music that is a bit too much at times. In his attempt to give the narrative “edge” and recapture the spirit of the time, Zeiger fails. While it is a solid attempt to liven up an at times static formula of documentary making, a more subtle approach would have been advisable.

In terms of content it seems that in addition to trying to cover too much with the inclusion of the Fonda sideline, Zeiger does not adequately address the motivations of the “man,” the military and government in doing what it did. Although Fonda’s case is useful in detailing the way that the media-government agreement was able to demonize activists, it is too severe of an example. Zeiger would have been better served using this time to take a closer look at the DOD’s motives in controlling information and maintaining the idea of success in the publics mind, rather than trying to save Jane Fonda from her past.