 Please welcome to the stage Mr. Mark K. Uptigrove, director of the LBJ Presidential Library, documentary filmmakers and co-directors, producers of the Vietnam War, Mr. Ken Burns, and Ms. Lynn Novick. Welcome. Thank you. Ken, we've been trying to get you here for six years. I know. I'm so glad you're both finally here. I think we're going to be spending a lot of time because this project has convinced us more than ever that not only is the Johnson presidency such an important and tragic part of the story, but it's made us interested in all of that domestic agenda. And so we're now in the process of developing a series on his presidency with the Vietnam War offstage. We're delighted with that and we look forward to seeing you again. As David mentioned in his introduction, you two are among America's most preeminent storytellers. Ken, you've taken on the Civil War, you've taken on the Roosevelt's, you've taken on baseball and jazz. Why Vietnam? Lynn and I were finishing a film on the, really in the middle of a film on the history of the Second World War in the Mid-Aughts and realized that Vietnam had to be put there, that it would form a trilogy of films that we would complete first with the Civil War then with the Second World War and then in Vietnam arguably the three most important wars after the revolution that made us. But also to do it in a different kind of way where World War II had been sort of from entirely American point of view. This was going to be like the Civil War from the top down and the bottom up. And so as Lynn says, you're going to meet a lot of different people, Vietnamese, North Vietnamese, South Vietnamese, Americans of all different stripes who contribute not to the answers of the questions that Vietnam poses, but in some ways just the resounding of them. We have, as we do in all wars, and I think wars are the important subjects to study because they obviously show human beings that they're worse, but they also show them that they're very, very best. And so a great deal of the American character is revealed in our wars and what we felt particularly with Vietnam and indeed any war that within a few years it becomes encrusted with the barnacles of sentimentality and nostalgia. Happened with the Civil War, 40 years after the Civil War we couldn't tell you what happened except the mythological stuff. Certainly after the Second World War it had become the Good War. When it killed 60 million people, I don't know how you can call that the Good War. And Vietnam itself has also succumbed to this inability for us to talk about it and as Lynn said I think very presciently that we talk about ourselves meaning where we are now. And our own political, social, economic makeup right now determines in a large measure what our response to Vietnam and yet those persistent questions remain. How did it happen? How were we led in there? What was our involvement really like? What are the answers to the mechanical nitty-gritty tick-tock of the war and the larger ones? And that's what we've tried to do and Mark let me just also acknowledge that in the audience tonight is the journalist Joe Galloway who you just saw who heroically did not have to do that. He was not drafted to be there at the Aay-a-Drang or other battles that he covered and did that. And then we also, I believe Nick Utt, the photographer who took the iconic photograph of the young Vietnamese girl who was Napalm Frank Snep, a CIA operative who was witness to the fall of Saigon and very decorated Marine corporal Thomas J. Valilly are all in the audience. And Lynn and I would like to just thank them. And these grubs who started the Vietnam Memorial is also here. And after 18 hours of this, it's really nice to get to the wall. You've seen a preview of Vietnam War tonight. I've had the good fortune of seeing a good deal more and I will tell you it is just as breathtaking as the clips that you've seen. Lynn, but not always the narrative breathtaking, but so is the scope and ambition of what you've achieved. 10 parts, 18 plus hours. Where do you start on a project like this? We gulp really hard and at least I think speaking for myself and then also for Ken and everyone on our team, we tend to pick subjects about which we are not experts. So we did not go into this knowing what the film would be like or what story we would really tell. And every project, it's true, but I think on this one even more so exponentially, it's a voyage of discovery for us. So we start out by reading a lot, watching other films, finding out which are the historians and the experts who actually have spent their lives learning this subject. And in this case, we dedicated quite a lot of time to try and figure out how would we actually tell a Vietnamese perspective or include it. And we just start accumulating some amount of wisdom along the way. And one thing leads to another. So we could not have envisioned the final film when we started the project. It was a blank slate, literally. And as we learned more, one thing led to another. And that's also true of the presidential audio tapes. We knew they existed, but I personally had heard very little. And we've worked very closely with the experts just on those materials to find the perfect recordings that could help us advance the story of what was happening in the White House as this war was unfolding. So each project is its own voyage of discovery. And I really think, for me personally, this has exceeded my expectations of what we would ever be able to accomplish, partly because of the material we found and the incredible team we've worked with, our editors, our writer, our producers, and all the people who helped us. It's just been an incredible journey. So Vietnam is part of the American consciousness. We see it in movies, we hear about it in songs, mostly those written contemporaneously, which were so infused with passion. So we all have come to Vietnam with some impressions. But as you delved into the project, Lynn, what most surprised you about the Vietnam war? It's hard to say because I didn't know as much about it as I know now, so a great deal surprised me. But I would say for me, what was one of the most surprising was meeting so many Vietnamese witnesses who did not tow the party line that we expected that they would tow. So that was very startling to see that there was a multiplicity of points of view and perspectives that we honestly had no idea was there. That was really, really startling. And I think the other piece of it for me was really just having the privilege of speaking with so many people who lived through it, how real and present it was for them still so many years later that people, they hear a piece of music, they look at a picture, they start to think about something that happened to them, and they are back there in a moment. And that was more visceral and more profound than any project I've worked on. That was really surprising. Ken, you were a teenager. You were in your teen years during the height of the Vietnam War. What did you think of the war then, and what do you think of the war now? Well, I was living in Ann Arbor, Michigan, and Ann Arbor had the first of the teach-ins. So the war was on everyone's mind. The teach-in was sponsored in part by the Department of Anthropology, of which my father was a member. My mother was dying of cancer and would die the next month of April of 1965. And so a lot of our attention in our family was necessarily divided, but it consumed our country. And my memory of it is in the same way that we all accumulated the memory, from the night news, from the protests, from the documentaries that happened at the time, to the succession of news events, to the elections, all of that stuff. But as Lynn was saying, I think that by the time we got four or five decades away, where the historical triangulation can actually take place, when you can have the kind of distance and perspective necessary not to just make a reactive or simply journalistic response, but something that is hopefully greater than the sum of its parts, you begin to realize that almost everything you thought you knew was not true. And that I think I agree completely with Lynn that just the testimony of being brought back, I mean, we couldn't interview anyone from the Civil War, of course. All of our veterans from World War II film were in their late 80s and early 90s, and they were at the end of their lives. The people that we talked to are my age and a little bit older. I was eligible for the draft and had a high draft number. And so I think it's the combination of the sense of being placed back into a moment that we think we know, that our own assumptions superimpose knowledge, but then determine that a great deal of that is just superficial conventional wisdom. And then almost every assumption you have, we have, we share about the war, is completely turned upside down. And so while we're not answering the question, we're deepening the question, what happened? This will be our most controversial work, more so for the people who don't watch it. Right. Than the people who do. But it will be our most controversial work. Even insofar as we're not betraying any particular side, we have deserters and draft dodgers and people who believe we should still be there, fighting the communists equally represented in the film, and more importantly, all the shades in between. But we are presenting a story in which most Americans who have a confident sense of what went on will be staggered in every single episode by not only the immediacy, which I hope you felt today, even with these parachuted in, literally, to these moments, but in the just accumulation of facts, that the things that we thought happened didn't actually happen the way we thought they did. And that provides us with the possibility, as Lynn suggested in her opening remarks, of perhaps unpacking the war in a different way, of getting to know the leaders, getting to know the soldiers, getting to know the civilians in all three sectors, the United States North and South Vietnam, and beginning to understand that so much of our inability to talk with each other, but at each other today, is what we do, where civil discourse has eroded, metastasized back then, and perhaps, by unpacking it as difficult as it will be, we can at least have, and I believe history is a table around which we can have a civil discourse, engage in the thing that we're having such a difficult time today doing, which is talking about things without breaking into argument or faction. Lynn, why is it so raw? I mean, when we were putting together this conference, we knew that we were going to arouse controversy, invariably, because you can't tackle Vietnam in a comprehensive and responsible way without drawing controversy. Why is it so raw after so many years? We have thought about that a lot, and there are several different reasons, and I probably am not going to be able to explain all of it here, but one of the reasons, I think, for the generation that really lived through it in the heart of it, at least one of the people that we spoke with, she was a young woman in college, and she said, you know, our passions are so high about the subject because we're a team, and you just think how heightened your feelings are about what matters and your sense of what's important in your idealism and your beliefs, and it is a black and white kind of way of looking at the world, and so we've aged and we've accumulated wisdom, but when we talk about this moment, it's like we're 18 again. So for some people, I think that's part of it, is that it's just visceral and emotional, and you're back in that moment. But I think on a deeper level, and I've thought about this a lot, and I'm not sure I really can come up with a definitive answer, but I think it's tough because, and the reason why it's unsettled and we don't have consensus is because it potentially reveals things about human nature, about American society that show that we don't always live up to our ideals, and we know that about ourselves intellectually, but emotionally it's very painful to contemplate the really hardest parts of this story, and we retreat into our separate camps and just stay there because it's just too hard to really come up against that, I think, and I'm hoping, as Ken was saying, that the film gives us a chance to recognize, in order for us to address this sort of toxic thing that's been festering, to think about our own humanity and the humanity of the others, the people that we fought, and our own inhumanity, and their inhumanity, and if we can somehow recognize all of those things, then we perhaps have the possibility to not be stuck in this really negative dynamic that has been here for so long, as we're hoping. Ken, when you did the Civil War, of course, you weren't talking to living veterans. When you did World War II, however, you were. You were talking to actual folks who were over there. How did talking to World War II veterans differ from talking to those who fought the war in Vietnam? You know, most of it, Mark, it's very much the same. What happens in war is not what's happening now. I mean, we're able to have a conversation, we do not expect that our violent death could happen at any moment, which is the experience of war, and your awareness of reality is heightened to a degree, not found anywhere else in human experience, which is why war rewards study if it's done without the sentimentalizing and this nostalgia. So in many ways, the descriptions of war are always the same. You can go back to the Greek tragedies and find PTSD and find people who come back from a war with a blank stare or take their own lives or drink themselves to death. This is the currency of the post-traumatic stress syndrome that all wars produce. We just had a name for it in Vietnam. But I also think because of what Lynn was talking about, this sort of divide that's today, coupled with the fact that the veterans aren't at the end of their lives, they are approaching the last chapters, but they're not in the last chapters. The memories are raw and very potent, and there's just more of them around. And so you can essentially select, Lynn is absolutely right, you'll meet 100 people in this film, and you will get to know them, many of them, the way you would somebody you could invite to Thanksgiving. I said that about the World War II film that we made, and I feel that really strongly here. And that's the place in which it might be possible to let down our guard. I mean, you mentioned the Civil War, that's where America really fell apart, right? I mean, we killed 750,000, we now believe now, of our own, you know, over our inability to do what Shelby Foote said was our genius, which was to compromise. We like to think of ourselves, he said, as uncompromising people, but our genius is for compromise. Vietnam is that next closest moment where you just felt, particularly in 68 and 69, that the country just might actually come apart, might fall apart, we might stop working. And so as we've escaped the specific gravity of that terror and that horror, particularly so for the veterans, but also for the rest of the country, that we have found it more convenient to file away all of that stuff. And mainly our own current political politics or our sense of kind of larger patriotic obligation tend to dampen our clear-eyed look at what takes place. And so we always say thank you for your service and we honor the military, but we're also saying we don't wanna know really what's going on. We're so grateful there's not a draft because a draft I might actually have to consider what the cost of war is. But we now have a separate military class that fights and suffers its losses apart and alone from most of us. When I toured with World War II with Lynn, I would go and speak to a group of people and say how many people know someone in Iraq or Afghanistan, 2%, right? I'd say now, could I have all men 17 and older stand up? You're in the Second World War. And we don't have that connection. We think we do because we all share, regardless of political affiliations, the sense of gratitude to that professional service. That's not enough. We are obligated to ask some tough questions. We won't answer them. So the controversy that'll come from our film will not be from any politics we have, but only because we would prefer to return to a very simple binary good-bad thing. So if this is brought up, then that's bad. If you bring that up, well, that's good. Well, you know, and that's why I said, you know, this will be hugely controversial, but only mostly among the people who don't watch it. Well, you mentioned, Ken, that you get to know these people and actually you just saw the clip. You get to know Moghi. Yeah. And Moghi is a narrative threat. You meet Moghi again and again throughout the course of the film. You see his journey. And as you mentioned, you're prepared to invite these people to your dinner table. But the startling thing is some of those people you're prepared to invite are the enemy. Lynn, talk about that. How did you find these folks? And how did you get their stories? Yeah. Well, I do have to just say that we would not be here on the stage talking about this film or the question you just asked. I would not be able to answer where it not for Tommy who helped us beyond anything I can possibly explain in understanding how to begin to navigate that question. He helped us open doors in Vietnam. And we had the highest level access from the government. And again, that surprised us, you know, that the Vietnamese government was willing to let us come in with our cameras and talk to people. And they didn't make us stick to the list of the normal people they tried out when you go there, when cameras go there. They let us choose our own people. And we just started slowly talking to this American war generation there. And the first meeting that I remember having was I want to speak to veterans. And the government arranged it was a room full of, I don't know, 25 retired officers in uniforms with medals all over their chest. And I sat down and we tried to explain why we were here. And each one stood up and gave a speech. And the speech was basically the same speech, every single one. And I thought, OK, this is not going to work. This is going to be a very, very long project. I was getting a party line, sort of just conventional Communist Party narrative of the war from each person at that room. There was one person that I thought showed something a little different. And that's the man that you saw in the clip, Loh Coctham, who talked about how he didn't want to cry when his soldiers. So we have our sort of radar out for people who we think might be able, even across a pretty tough language and cultural barrier, would be able to communicate something on the human level of what the war was really like for them. And we had an incredible team in Vietnam that helped us, a producer there who was a veteran himself and helped us connect with people and explain what we were doing, have them feel comfortable to speak to foreigners with a movie camera. And the government says it's OK. You can say what you really think. And we just little by little kind of learned how to work our way through a lot of different possibilities of people. It was a slow process. And as I said earlier, it exceeded our expectations of there were many times people would say to us, we never tell the truth about the war, but you know what I'm going to tell you. Right. Wow, OK. I'm leaning in now. That's really, really interesting. Or I have nightmares. And my children don't know what it was like. And no one ever talks about it here. And we need to have this conversation. So they were having the same sort of soul searching that we're having here. And I think part of it was just spending time with people, just sitting down in their living room and eating their food and drinking their homemade rice wine and just trying to connect. I don't know. It was incredible privileges that really I made. Sarah Botstein and I, our producer, made several trips to Vietnam and never forget it. The other thing that's striking in addition to meeting these people and getting to know them is you realize this is revelatory for me, perhaps naively. The insurgency was not monolithic. It was fractious. Talk about that. Well, it's interesting. This is still a repressive communist regime and has its own version of what went on. And it's as kind of limited as some of the versions that we sponsor here. We're free to express all the different points of view. And so the majority of the people, the overwhelming majority you'll meet, are a variety of Americans. But I think once you're able to punch through that kind of party line, you're then exposed to people who are revealing their war experiences. And it is extraordinarily helpful. Just as in the Civil War, we can appreciate our own near-national suicide. Because in the presence of the enemy, who happens to be our brothers, we have to sort of drop some of the basic assumptions we make about war. In World War II, we were all doing it from an American perspective. So we had a monolithic them, an enemy. And it's very important in war to make the enemy just bad. We had all sorts of names, the gooks, the slants, the dinks, the zips, all of this sort of stuff that was said at the time, which is a way of reducing people to nothing. And if you then open up with lives that suddenly are expressing the same things that our veterans are saying, and that they feel a kind of comfort, perhaps, towards the end of their life, where so what? I mean, one of the veterans says, I don't know how you're going to use this. I could get in trouble. But now I'm going to tell you something that, to this day, the Saigon Hanoi regime does not admit to place atrocities on the north part and freely admits that. And it's revelatory. And that's what you have to do to understand something. It is too easy, again, to put it into that binary thing. Us, who have dimension and complexity and different points of view, and them, who are one thing, just the party line. And you'll meet a couple people in the film who are that party line. And they talk about the imperialists and the puppet government. And it was good to have that representation, just as I'm sure someone will figure out a few of the people in ours seem, from their own perspective, to be that kind of Martinette. But what we've tried to do is not make the other wrong. You just say, this is what happened. Just kind of deal with it. And what happens is, it's going to make people uncomfortable, because you're going to have to give up, no matter if you're on the extreme left or the extreme right. We have people in this film who, as I said, think we should still be there fighting the communists. We have people in our film who sincerely knew from the very, very beginning this was a mistake. And they're both wrong. They're going to have to let go of some stuff in order to understand what their anti-war movement about, what their military decisions were, how civilian policy affected those decisions, all sorts of stuff that don't fit into that tidy, superficial, conventional wisdom that we like to just tie up and about, oh, I get Vietnam. Here's what happened. We betrayed the South Vietnamese government. We just let them die. It's a lot more complicated than that. You, too, have spent a lot of time with commanders and chiefs, specifically Abraham Lincoln in the Civil War and Franklin Roosevelt, to a lesser degree, Harry Truman in World War II. Talk about the commanders and chief around Vietnam and your impressions of them after having done this film. Well, we have to understand, first of all, that this is a story that begins with Harry Truman, the American story, begins with Harry Truman and proceeds through Eisenhower and Kennedy and Johnson and Richard Nixon and to Gerald Ford as well. And so we are meeting a lot of people and maybe we can focus the attention on just a couple, the two most important would be Lyndon Baines Johnson and Richard Milhouse Nixon. But it is very, very clear in retrospect that nearly all the decisions that were made were informed by some way by domestic political considerations, from Harry Truman to Dwight Eisenhower to John F. Kennedy to Johnson to Nixon to Ford. And so that is an interesting thing to understand that in a situation in which you sort of feel that on the other side of the world you've got certain military exigencies, a good deal of what's happening is being determined by domestic political considerations, which is not always the best way to run a war. Right. Lynn, did you come away with impressions of these commanders in chief that might have been different than the one you came to the project? No doubt, yes. Well, I think as Ken was saying, it's having a multi-dimensional sense of them too because it's very easy to demonize or lionize these figures as larger than life, not real people. And listening to the audio, especially for Johnson and Nixon, you begin to feel a little bit more of a sense of them as a human being. And I've read a lot, I've seen other documentaries and all that kind of thing, but somehow the intimacy of those recordings, and we listen to a lot more than what's in the film. So listening to hours and hours of tapes to pick the few moments that we chose to use began to see, especially Johnson really wrestling with these terrible, terrible problems. But we also hear him haranguing reporters and telling General Eisenhower that the antiwar processors are all mentally diseased. And I mean, you see many different facets of his personality and how he could, as many people here know, sort of shine, project different ways of being, depending on who he was talking to. It was sort of stunning to see. And Nixon, I think he's very, very smart. I had not appreciated quite how gifted a politician he was, to be honest, how brilliantly he communicated with the public on many, many levels. And I may not agree with the things he was doing, but you cannot take away that he was extremely talented at both the decision-making process and also the communication. So you see thousands of people in the streets protesting, but then you have to recognize that the majority of the public is hugely behind him for a lot of his presidency. The 1972 victory is a landslide. So he was really talented, and he was very, very practically minded about what needed to be done in Vietnam. So you see a lot of, just not disconnect, but a distance between what he's saying publicly and what he's saying privately. But in the end, he does seem to understand the true dynamics on the ground of what needs to be done there. So it's complicated, which I think is great. We like complicated stories and complicated people. They're all interesting people. And I think it's also, we can escape the, sort of the sense, oh, well, if Kennedy had lived, we would have never gotten into Vietnam. There's lots of stuff that we just assume, or it's in the drinking water, that I think we just can't say that at the end. Why don't we assume that about John F. Kennedy? Well, a lot of it has to do from a presidency cut short. The mythologizing is sort of hyper-increased at that point. When someone runs their course, it's, you know, when you've got them for eight years or something, it's different. But the sort of the dramatic shift means that we invested in Camelot, which is in fact, after the fact, a kind of appreciation, so many, a mythology. And you heard it in just the little clip, you there. I mean, Johnson took on all of Kennedy's guys and they led him all the way there. Now, maybe John Kennedy would have said, stop. But on many occasions, Lyndon Johnson said, no, I'm not gonna do that. I'm not gonna put boots on the ground right now. I'm not gonna do this. I'm not gonna give you 150,000. I'm not gonna do this. So he was doing what you thought that John F. Kennedy might have done and yet somehow the water, the quicksand was rising. And it had started under Harry Truman and all it took was just, you know, John Kennedy at one point talks about saying, you know, he agonized over it as well and there's a couple of tapes, but also, you know, comments that he made about it was like taking a drink and then another drink and another drink and you'd want more. And that drinking, that addiction happened with Harry Truman and that's a hugely important American question that Lynn brought up earlier about our exceptionalism or when we're not exceptional and how we deal with it or don't deal with it. It's much easier to say, oh yeah, this is one of the greatest and we don't understand the ways in which we often are not the greatest. And after the Second World War, when we quite correctly felt our oats, you know, it's been a rough half century or more of foreign policy. What, Lynn, ultimately, do you want the viewer to take from this film? Oh, well, I mean, I think as Ken was saying, we're trying to ask a lot of questions and we're hoping people will give it their attention and we know we're asking a lot 18 hours but we feel this is an epic story that unfolded over many years in history and we've condensed it down to only 18 hours. So. We can look at it right now. Right. But I think we hope that people will come away with a deeper understanding of the, what it was like to live through that time and how hard it was because it really was a traumatic experience for everyone, it seems, who had to go through it. And I think if we can extend to the past, as Ken was saying, sort of not being so quick to judge and to actually try to understand the choices people had to make then, we can maybe move toward a deeper conversation about what does it mean to be a patriot? Right. The allegations of citizenship. What is a good leader? These are just essential questions. What are the limits of American power? You know, who are we as human beings? Who are we as a nation? These are big, epic questions and they're all tied into the story of Vietnam. So I guess we're really hoping that through watching the film and hopefully having conversations about it and we've had some incredible conversations after our screenings with a wide range of people who've come, you've been to some of them. You know, people have all crossed the spectrum politically and different experiences in the war coming together to kind of share their stories and hear each other out of respect. Those have been some of our favorite moments, I think, of this entire project. And I think we are really hoping that this film can spark that across the country. And we're working with PBS to come up with an unbelievably ambitious sort of outreach and engagement program. We're hoping to come back here and to other presidential libraries and to schools and colleges and communities to help people figure out ways to talk about this really tough subject. We're calling it courageous conversations. It's time to talk about Vietnam. That's our, you know, I think we have high hopes that something really good can come of that, especially in this extraordinarily polarized time that we live in. One of the things that I came away from when I was with you in New Hampshire looking at these rough cuts is the collaborative nature of your film. And I really appreciated your open-mindedness. You don't come to a subject with an agenda. No. And as you said, Lynn, you often come from a place of ignorance. I mean that in the most literal sense. Yes, absolutely. No, curiosity. I mean, you know, too often documentary films are the expression of already arrived at ends. Let me tell you what I know, therefore what you should know. And the last time I checked, that's called homework. You know? And we'd rather share with you a process of discovery. We are not scholars. We hired the very best scholars to advise us. And we listened to them and they represented, as Lynn said, a whole spectrum of different beliefs and different areas of scholarship and different presidential administrations and lots of people from the military, from West Point, from the Army War College. And what we're doing is raising, we're telling a good story. This is a phenomenally complicated story. And that's what we do for a living. The rest of the stuff that we're talking about is kind of the back end film. We're just trying to figure out how to tell a complicated story and do justice to it. And we can tell you that they're not 18, they're not 36. You know, there's 72 hours on the cutting room floor that we wish could be in that's seemingly good stuff. But this is what we feel we could present to get that courageous conversation going. And that's hugely important to us. And you know, when you finish editing a film in the parlance of the editing room, you lock it. Meaning you promise to the sound editors that you won't change the relationships of shots. We've unlocked almost every episode since we locked it in order because we learned something new. And I think that too often, even in scholarship, there is research, the writing, and then boom, done. And same in filmmaking. You research for a finite period of time. It produces a script that comes down from Mount Sinai and it's the written in stone and that's what you shoot and edit. We never stop researching and we never stop writing. And we're constantly, I mean, we were just talking just two days ago in New York City about having to rewrite something in a couple of the episodes because we learned that we could say that one phrase, a nuance that would pass over most of our audience without notice, but we want to get it right. And we find a new picture or we find a new piece of footage or something. And so we have a year and a half before it's broadcast. It's supposed to be done. We're not supposed to be messing with it, but we're trying to get it right. We're not gonna get the answer as we've been saying, but we want to raise all those questions, those fundamental questions and the larger, bigger, almost spiritual questions that Vietnam raises about what happens when human beings make war on each other and kill each other in great numbers. And that's what we hope. I mean, we just want people to just be drawn into a good story and permit themselves possibly the bandwidth to relax or let go of the preconceptions that are part of their own operating system because they don't serve as well as they think they do. Certainly, this is what Jeff and Sarah Botstein, Jeff Ward and Sarah Botstein and Lynn and I have felt that it just wasn't enough to sort of carry our own baggage into it. We actually had to say goodbye to a lot of stuff and not make it homework. I mean, this is, you know, fasten your seat belts. It's a bumpy ride. Well, throughout the course of this week, we've been expressing our gratitude to our veterans who fought in Vietnam and will continue to do so. But I want to thank you in advance for this film that will change the paradigm which we look at Vietnam and for telling the stories of so many of the people who went there for our government. So thank you both for being here so much. Thank you.