One reason why Orson Welles’s Citizen Kane always comes
top in critics’ picks of the best movies ever made in spite of its
being, in my opinion, no more than middling good is that the
critics are all journalists. By this I mean that they are more or
less required by their trade to believe implicitly in that
“Rosebud” moment that, to so many, gives the film its piquancy.
Rosebuds everywhere, that is always the hack’s watchword. To a
journalist, there is no such thing as a great man without a secret
hidden away deep inside that will explain him. It must be so
because it is the journalist’s job to root it out and so do the
explaining. This view of the world is what ruined Dutch,
Edmund Morris’s fictionalized biography of Ronald Reagan. Mr.
Morris simply could not get over his obsession with finding
Reagan’s rosebud and, having failed to find it, he decided to make
things up. Reagan’s real secret, however, was that there was no
secret — or none that would “explain” a man who was exactly what
he seemed to be, the same all the way through, like a stick of
Brighton rock.
Such integrity is a scandal to the media mind, and
justifies almost any attempt to deny that it exists or could exist.
The Hollywood biopic is an offshoot of that media sensibility and
it, too, depends on the assumption that the most interesting things
about our public men and women belong to the private and hidden
life their public personae may be supposed to conceal — as we may
see in the fanciful biographical inventions indulged in by new
movies about J. Edgar Hoover and Margaret Thatcher. For less famous
figures, the documentary is the more appropriate cinematic vehicle,
but even in documentaries we routinely see the same sort of media
model of private secrets hiding behind the public persona, even
when the secrets themselves are unknown. A good example is The
Man Nobody Knew: In Search of My Father, CIA Spymaster William
Colby by Carl Colby. But if you think that a man’s son might
be expected to cut his old dad a bit of slack, even a quarter of a
century after his death, Mr. Colby the younger is here to disabuse
you.
“The man nobody knew”? Nonsense. I knew him. Or, at least,
I knew dozens like him. They were men of the generation before mine
who grew up with unquestioned faith in their God, their country,
and themselves and who were determined to do the right thing by all
three even if it cost their lives or lives equally precious to
them. Then one day in the 1970s they woke up and asked themselves
what it had all been for. After Vietnam and Watergate, the American
honor culture that had shaped them was dead and gone, and those who
had lived according to its canons were being blamed for everything
that was wrong in the country. Suddenly, it was the Me Decade and
anyone who wasn’t living for Me and making the most of it was a
sucker. Those who had been involved in the war in Vietnam in the
belief that it was, as Reagan was to put it, “a noble cause,” were
something worse.
Few of these men were subjected to more public abuse than
William Colby, who got it from both sides. The CIA’s director of
Operation Phoenix in Vietnam, he later became the agency’s director
under Nixon and Ford just as the revelations of the Watergate
affair were beginning to spill out. Colby was blamed by the left
for Operation Phoenix and for running a spy agency they saw as
corrupt and by the right for revealing to congressional inquiries
the “family jewels” — that is, information about pre-Watergate
buggings and assassinations — they thought should not have been
revealed. “People would turn to me and say, ‘Your father was a
murderer,’” says Carl Colby in voiceover. “My immediate reaction
used to be, ‘You don’t know what you’re talking about.’ And then
I’d find myself thinking ‘Was he? Who was he, really?’” Anyone who
asks a question like that has already answered it in his own mind.
Who was he, really? Someone who wasn’t who he seemed to
be.
In one way, of course, this had to have been obvious all
along. Carl Colby’s camera records his mother, Barbara, telling of
how she was warned by her husband, when they were posted by the CIA
to Italy in the 1950s, that she wasn’t to show that she knew some
people they had spent the evening with the night before. “I didn’t
know what role we were playing,” she says. “Who were we tonight?
The family wasn’t really let in to this world of his. It was the
CIA code of need to know.” She seems a little unhappy about her
husband’s secretiveness even today. Carl is very unhappy
about it. This is silly. What did they expect? Colby was a spy.
Pretending to be someone you’re not is part of the job description,
as is keeping your family from the knowledge of classified
information, possession of which could put them in danger. The
point of bringing it up, however, on the son’s part if not his
mother’s, is to suggest that professional duplicity must have had
some counterpart in personal duplicity, which would have been
discreditable to his father — even though he still doesn’t know
what the presumed discreditable secret was.
It is as if, to Carl Colby, his father’s keeping of the
nation’s secrets could not be distinguished from his emotional
distance from his family — which makes the viewer wonder how much
emotional distance there really was. But this merely personal
grudge is the real charge against him, and it is allowed to obscure
the public record with which the film ostensibly intends to deal.
At no point does Mr. Colby the younger come out and say this, and
on his father’s activities with the CIA he is mostly sympathetic,
though there are some perhaps inadvertent visual suggestions that
his father was involved in some of the more discreditable episodes
of the war when he wasn’t. On the matter of Operation Phoenix as an
alleged program of assassination he returns a verdict of “not
proven.” But all that hocus-pocus about an alleged mystery, “the
man nobody knew,” puts his personal grudge against his father into
a position of greater importance than any question of his
professional probity.
Colby’s Rosebud, according to his son, was guilt over the
death of his daughter, Carl’s sister Catherine, who died in 1973 at
the age of 24 after suffering from anorexia and epilepsy. His
father’s regret that he was unable to do more for her is here
inflated into the guilty secret that unlocks his mystery — even,
perhaps, the mystery of his death in a boating accident in 1996.
Others, especially Brent Scowcroft — who must have had something
to do with President Ford’s replacement of Colby with George H.W.
Bush in 1975 — profess to think that Colby was trying to expiate
his own personal sins in Vietnam (whatever they may have been) with
his too-forthcoming testimony before the Church Committee. In
truth, however, he can have had little choice in the matter, as the
film’s clips of his testimony and the abuse he endured for it from
such demagogues and buffoons as Senator Frank Church and
Representatives Ron Dellums and Otis Pike make clear. Though they
also make for some of the movie’s most painful viewing, these
scenes provide all the explanation we need for the mystery, if such
it be, of his life after government service.
The worst thing Carl Colby says about William Colby is
this: “I’m not sure he ever loved anyone; I never heard him say
anything heartfelt.” Though they are doubtless heartfelt
themselves, these statements cannot be true, even on his own
showing, since he makes so much of his father’s love for and guilt
about Catherine. They are simply his way of taking sides with the
media consensus against his father and the pre-Watergate CIA.
Without some such act of obeisance to the Rosebud party, he
doubtless wouldn’t have been able to make this documentary. And
who, after all, wants to go and see a movie in which one of the
Vietnam-era “best and brightest” is defended and vindicated by, of
all people, his son? A crypto-betrayal like The Man Nobody
Knew makes for much more compelling cinema, at least in the
media’s view. But that doesn’t mean that, when you come out of it,
you will know any more about the spymaster’s secrets, if any, than
when you went in.
