reiher@ucla-cs.UUCP (12/03/84)
"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 dur-
ing 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 Schan-
berg heard more and more of the horrors of the Pol Pot regime,
Communism gone mad, he castigated himself more and more for per-
suading 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 film-
makers 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 disappear-
ance from the latter third of the film as an effective character,
is a limitation of the true story. The filmmakers are to be com-
mended 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 natural-
ism. 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 Waters-
ton 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 sup-
porting 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 al-
ways 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 re-
markably similar to Pran's. As a result, the truth of his per-
formance 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 interest-
ing 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 cinematogra-
pher. I must start taking a notebook to movies. At any rate, he
blends the beauty of the Cambodian countryside (actually neigh-
boring 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 mistreat-
ing each other, and Westerners, for their own inscrutable rea-
sons. 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 atroci-
ties 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 thought-
lessness and callousness as a primary cause of Cambodia's suffer-
ing, 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 Kil-
ling 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