bch@mcnc.UUCP (Byron Howes) (12/12/84)
- - - mod.movies - - - - - - Volume 1, Issue 15 - - -
"The Killing Fields"
reviewed by Peter Reiher
"The Killing Fields" is an extraordinarily powerful film, the best
new film I've seen this year. It's a strong indictment of modern war
in general and the American conduct of the war in Cambodia in
particular, but its great strength derives from its secondary themes of
the power of friendship and the importance of a will to survive, as
well as general comments on accepting responsibility for one's
actions. This rich combination of themes is what lifts "The Killing
Fields" above most other films.
"The Killing Fields" is based on a true story. Sydney Schanberg
was the "New York Times" correspondent to Cambodia during the 70s. He
worked closely with his interpreter, Dith Pran, a Cambodian
journalist. Together, they exposed many of the US atrocities in
Cambodia which resulted from our secret war there, a spillover from the
Vietnam War. Sydney and Pran also became good friends, but when Lon
Nol's government fell and Pol Pot took over, Schanberg was able to
escape and Pran could not. As Schanberg heard more and more of the
horrors of the Pol Pot regime, Communism gone mad, he castigated
himself more and more for persuading Pran to remain even when it was no
longer safe. Meanwhile, Pran struggled to survive in a nation in which
3 million people, out of a population of 7 million, were killed in the
course of a few years.
"The Killing Fields" is composed of three separate segments.
First, we see Sydney and Pran at work in war-torn Cambodia. Then, as
things fall apart, the journalists seek refuge in the French embassy in
Phnom Penh. Finally, Pran tries to stay alive and escape from a hell
on earth while Sydney guiltily receives the rewards for their work in
the safety of America. The filmmakers deserve much credit for
seamlessly binding together three separate stories. "The Killing
Fields" is very much a cohesive entity, yet, running through the
individual scenes in one's mind, it is easy to see how even slight
carelessness could have made the film into a string of marginally
related incidents. Bruce Robinson's script and Roland Joffe's
direction combine to form thematic lines which run throughout the film,
holding it firmly together. The major weakness of the film,
Schanberg's disappearance from the latter third of the film as an
effective character, is a limitation of the true story. The filmmakers
are to be commended for working within this difficult restriction
rather than coming up with a cheap Hollywood rescue mission ending. (I
can too easily imagine the mess that a hack writer and a director like
Andrew V. McLaglen would make of this story.)
Joffe, a BBC director, makes a fine debut. "The Killing Fields"
is very well directed, albeit in a somewhat impersonal style. The
shots are well selected, with an emphasis on naturalism. There are few
of the flourishes which might expected from a more strong willed
director. As might be expected, many of Joffe's most impressive
sequences concern atrocities, but these are not presented with the
bloodthirsty glee so common in films nowadays. Blood is spilled,
people die, people are tortured, but Joffe does not show this to us as
entertainment. Rather, he makes us see that it an integral part of the
story, something we cannot just turn away from, for it explains the
tragedy of Cambodia.
Joffe is just the sort of director that appeals to producer David
Puttnam. Puttnam, who previously produced "Chariots of Fire" and
several other fine films, is a producer from the old school. His films
are really his. Puttnam is the major creative force behind "The
Killing Fields". The success of the film is due less to individual
excellences than inspired balancing of all of its elements. Each
creative position has been filled by a fine craftsman who shares the
common vision. Puttnam's genius is less for choosing perfect material
for films than his ability to see what he wants and find people who can
make his vision come to the screen. It may not sound like a very
impressive talent, but Puttnam is the only working producer who
consistently displays it. (Of course, most Americans never see
Puttnam's failures, like "Those Glory, Glory Days". Even taking these
into account, though, Puttnam has a unique ability for perceptive
synthesis.)
While all elements of "The Killing Fields" are laudable, some
deserve special attention. The performances of Sam Waterston and Dr.
Haing S. Ngor in the leading roles are vital to the film's success.
Waterston is a fine actor who combines the rare traits of decency and
intelligence. He's been performing in supporting roles in American
pictures ("The Great Gatsby", "Rancho Deluxe", and "Heaven's Gate") and
leading roles in British films ("Sweet William", "Eagle's Wing") for
some years, but has never broken through with a major role in a major
American picture. He reminds me of James Stewart, with a bit less
naivete. I have always liked his work, particularly his role as the
narrator of "The Great Gatsby". He gives another fine performance in
"The Killing Fields", delicately balancing ambition and conscience.
Dr. Ngor is not a professional actor. Dith Pran is his first role.
However, he survived through experiences in Cambodia remarkably similar
to Pran's. As a result, the truth of his performance shines through
any technical inexperiences. We believe his sufferings and sacrifices,
perhaps because he can pull them, direct and horrid, from his own
memory.
The supporting cast is also sturdy. John Malkovich, last seen as
the blind boarder in "Places in the Heart", plays a hot tempered
photographer. Such a different role, so convincingly portrayed, is
bound to do his career good. Our gain, too, for we can always use more
good actors. Craig T. Nelson demonstrates that he has the lock on
middle level military authority figures, playing yet another Air Force
officer. Fans of "Call To Glory" can get some cheap kicks figuring out
if the character is the same in TV show and movie. It would certainly
add some interesting dimensions to the TV show if he were. Athol
Fugard and Bill Paterson have fairly small supporting roles as other
journalists.
The photography is excellent. Yet again I find myself without the
name of a key figure, in this case the cinematographer. I must start
taking a notebook to movies. At any rate, he blends the beauty of the
Cambodian countryside (actually neighboring Thailand) with the horrors
of war. The battle footage is convincingly like documentary footage
from Vietnam in style, though better in technical quality. The
cinematographer and Joffe deserve credit for not showing us Cambodia as
an exotic, foreign place full of incomprehensible things. Rather, they
present the similarities amid the differences. We cannot merely
dismiss "The Killing Fields" as more mysterious Asians mistreating each
other, and Westerners, for their own inscrutable reasons. We must face
their actions as the natural consequences of modern war and fanatical
ideology anywhere.
"The Killing Fields" is not a tutorial on American atrocities in
Cambodia. Little time is spent moaning about how we have destroyed the
country in our typically heartless American way. None the less, the
subtext definitely presents American thoughtlessness and callousness as
a primary cause of Cambodia's suffering, and the specific destruction
of Cambodia through saturation bombing is far from overlooked. Joffe
and Oldfield do not settle for the cheap and popular solution of saying
that it's all the fault of the rotten 'ol USA, though. Cambodia owes
part of its problems to Vietnam, and part to itself, and "The Killing
Fields", in the same low key way it points the finger at the US,
indicts these other forces.
The human, more than the political, is the core of "The Killing
Fields". Fundamentally, this is not a film about one war in one place,
but about the ravages of war in general. The specific villains are of
less concern to the filmmakers than the motives behind the villainy,
motives all too common in the world. The success of the film is due to
the skillful, but unmanipulative, counterposing of the power of
friendship. "The Killing Fields" is not an easy movie, but it is a
very fine one.
--
Peter Reiher
reiher@ucla-cs.arpa
{...ihnp4,ucbvax,sdcrdcf}!ucla-cs!reiher