Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.PCS 1/10/84; site ahutb.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!cbdkc1!desoto!packard!hoxna!houxm!ahuta!ahutb!leeper From: leeper@ahutb.UUCP (leeper) Newsgroups: net.movies Subject: KILLING FIELDS Message-ID: <494@ahutb.UUCP> Date: Wed, 27-Feb-85 06:46:11 EST Article-I.D.: ahutb.494 Posted: Wed Feb 27 06:46:11 1985 Date-Received: Fri, 1-Mar-85 06:02:09 EST Organization: AT&T Information Systems Labs, Holmdel NJ Lines: 58 THE KILLING FIELDS A film review by Mark R. Leeper I am not really very impressed by the film industry's representation of the Vietnam War. I simply do not feel they they are very accurate. DEER HUNTER was nice and believable as long as it stuck to the good old U.S. But I really do not trust the impressions of Southeast Asia that the film conveyed. APOCALYPSE NOW seemed even less credible, with gung-ho commanders taking beaches for surfing. I do not believe the DEER HUNTER or APOCALYPSE NOW Vietnam, but I can easily believe THE KILLING FIELD's version of Cambodia. THE KILLING FIELDS is about a Cambodian journalist, Dith Pran (Haing Ngor) who was forced to stay in Cambodia when the Americans and Pran's family fled the country in 1976. The story begins in 1973 and traces Pran's relationship with three NEW YORK TIMES reporters, the reporters' attempts to take Pran out in 1976, and especially Pran's life in a Cambodia run by the Khmer Rouge. The viewer sees the chaos that the Southeast Asia war brought to Cambodia and the chaos that the Khmer Rouge brought when the war was over. The conclusions are not that the U.S. was justified in trying to destroy the Khmer Rouge, nor that the Khmer Rouge were right to try and control Cambodia. Instead, we simply see that Cambodia is one of the very best places in the world to not be. There is little doubt on seeing MISSING, Z, THE LAST PLANE OUT, or even THE YEAR OF LIVING DANGEROUSLY who the "bad guys" are in the political situations they portray. THE KILLING FIELDS does not tell you that either side of the war was right. If anything, it tells you that both sides were wrong and shows you credibly and realistically how bad things are in Cambodia. This film creates a number of startling visual images without ever appearing to do so intentionally. In MISSING there was a scene of a beautiful white horse being chased by a jeep and in the context of the film, the symbolic meaning of the scene was obvious. It was a nice touch, but it felt ever-so-slightly forced. In THE KILLING FIELDS, director Roland Joffe manages to have a number of symbolic images without ever forcing them. One scene involves the Americans being attacked while sitting on a stockpile of Coca-Cola; another shows dead pigs being carried around in the back seats of taxi cabs. There are a lot of gore effects in THE KILLING FIELDS, but only because the film does not portray a sanitized, John-Wayne style war. The images are there to distress, not to horrify, the viewer, and the camera records them rather than wallowing in them. Just a personal note--a couple of questions I had after seeing the film. At one point, Sydney Schanberg, the American reporter who ineffectively tries to get Pran out of Cambodia, is watching footage of the Cambodian incursion and listening to TURANDOT. That opera has breath- takingly beautiful music, but I have always considered the story and musical style to exemplify Western culture misunderstanding Eastern culture. That may just be my personal ax to grind, however, and I am somewhat curious why that particular opera was chosen. Second, I suspect that Ngor had more screen time as Dith Pran than Sam Waterston had as Schanberg and the film is really Pran's story. Why then is Waterston nominated for the Academy Award for Best Actor and Ngor only for Best Supporting Actor? In any case, THE KILLING FIELDS noses out AMADEUS as my choice for Best Picture of 1984. Mark R. Leeper ...ihnp4!ahutb!leeper