I'm wary whenever I read that a film is a "documentary." The term seems to be used rather loosely these days-- some people even apply it to Michael Moore's offerings (even when he has contradicted that notion.) A film like this is not a documentary. It is a propaganda set-piece intended to make the hippie generation look like heroes, whether they were or not. Personally, I don't think that theirs' is a legacy to be very proud of.
Mr. Talbot was a typical campus anti-war protester of the time, so it only makes sense that he would paint "his" generation in the best possible light. This, to say the least, detracts from the balance one would expect of an authentic documentary.
As an aside, it's always amused me that it was the radical Left that practically destroyed the Democratic Party's chances at the Chicago Convention in 1968-- and thus paved the way and rolled out the red carpet for Richard M. Nixon.
Mr. Talbot was a typical campus anti-war protester of the time, so it only makes sense that he would paint "his" generation in the best possible light. This, to say the least, detracts from the balance one would expect of an authentic documentary.
As an aside, it's always amused me that it was the radical Left that practically destroyed the Democratic Party's chances at the Chicago Convention in 1968-- and thus paved the way and rolled out the red carpet for Richard M. Nixon.