The Killing Fields

Rating:
Summary: A good film misses its own point
Review: After more than fifteen years, it looks like this film is the only big-scale cinematic commemoration the Cambodian holocaust will receive. The savage ideologues of Angka Leu are shown in all their arrogant, social-engineering cruelty: turning children against their families, murdering all former bourgeois who will not be "reforged" and quite a few who would. The leaders of the Khmer Rouge were educated in France, soaking up Sartrean nihilism with their progressive Marxism. We see grim recreations of how those ideas, which were just so much academic prattle in the universities, put a whole country to the sword in practice. The terrifying scenes are bravely re-enacted by the late Haing Ngor, who in his autobiography described his even more horrible ordeals in Cambodia.

Exposure of communist atrocities in serious post-1965 films is seemingly so rare that one hates to quibble with this one. But as the years go by, _The Killing Fields_' denunciations of the United States' role in Cambodia are more and more obviously wrong. Were the soldiers of the Cambodian monarchy a rabble of bullyboys? Maybe. Did bombers sometimes drop their bombs off target? Happens in every war. Did the U. S. fail in Southeast Asia? Most assuredly. But when we switch to the nightmare years of the Khmer Rouge, American culpability stops. The angry speech that the Sidney Schanberg character gives, along with the Q & A session afterwards, blaming the Cambodian Holocaust on Nixon and the Pentagon, is dishonest to the point of Chomskyism. This is the ready-reference alibi #2 of the Left-the big bad Americans *made* the progressive revolutionists (poor, traumatized babies) slaughter all those people. Ready-reference alibi #1 is "It isn't happening, you imperialist dog, you."

The film itself, taken on its own cinematic terms, has a good story and is visually stunning in the Asian scenes. John Malkovich is agreeably funky as the photographer. Sam Waterston gets in some great scenes as the p. o.ed American newshound, digging out the story, looking down M-16 barrels, doggedly trying to save his friend Dith Pran. There's an agreeably chauvinistic scene with some scummy Frenchmen and another with some comical Russians. But the heart of the film is the chilling Cambodian labor/extermination camps, disconcertingly set in lush tropical countryside. Seeing the horror of what left-totalitarians are capable of completely crushes the overt message of moral equivalence the rest of the film tries to preach. Even the gaffe of ending with a fade-up of John Lennon's "Imagine" can be forgiven (The Khmer Rouge's victims didn't need to imagine no possessions, no religion). This is as honest as Hollywood is ever likely to get about communism, so go ahead and marvel at this _rara avis_. You will never forget it.

Rating:
Summary: The Killing Fields
Review: I recently watched this movie again for the first time in many years, and again I was touched by the human drama of Cambodia, and appalled at the genocide that took place there under the rule of Pol Pot. This film chronicles the story of a NY Times journalist, and his Cambodian assistant. After the journalist leaves, the Camobian, Dith Pran, is left to the mercy of the killing squads. Amazingly, he survived to tell the tale.

Everyone should watch this movie...Unfortunately, as this movie points out, we have continued to be afflicted with genocide.

Rating:
Summary: Most of the film is anchored by Haing Ngor's performance.
Review: After an initially slow start, The Killing Fields builds in suspense, becoming more absorbing and compelling, and by the 80 minute mark the movie is full of unbearable suspense, as we sympathize greatly with Haing Ngor's Dith Pran and his ordeals in Cambodia. The question is whether or not he will survive and make it out of The Killing Fields. There is one particular shot that will stay with me forever, the scene when Pran actually encounters a killing field, with all the rotting bodies inside stretching as far as the eye can see.

The film's best aspect is easily Haing Ngor's brilliant performance. For a man who never acted before, he is absolutely mesmerizing, never failing to convince for a moment and it's because of him that the movie is as good as it is. Trust me, if you become involved in the story, you will be sympathizing with his plight. It's a truly harrowing experience.

Rating:
Summary: Wonderful, but don't expect a good night's sleep afterwards
Review: I saw this 1984 film when it first came out, but after reading"River of Time" by the British journalist, Jon Swain, I knewI had to see it again. This time, it had an even stronger impact onme. The screenplay is based on the true story written by SydneySchanberg, a New York Times reporter in Cambodia who had to leave hisCambodian friend and colleague Dith Pran behind when the Khmur Roguetook over the country in 1975. Dith Pran is forced into a worker'scamp, where he endures unspeakable agonies until he finallyescapes.

The movie won three well-deserved academy awards. One wasbest for cinematography. I can understand why. Even though the moviewas shot in Thailand, the feeling of Indo-China and the area along theMekong display its great beauty as well as the countryside. Jon Swaindescribes this in his book, but there is nothing like seeing it on thescreen. And then there are the killing fields themselves, with bonesand rotting corpses that Dith Pran discovers. Anyone who has everseen this film will never forget this scene.

The second award wasfor film editing. That was a job of real artistry. It is always achoice of what tiny segments of a scene to emphasize and the editorsgot it exactly right. There was the terrified child holding her handsover her ears to shut out the bombing sounds. There was the tinyvegetable that Dith Pran plucks off a plant with relish when he is inthe prison camp. There is the wash of blood on the floor in thehospital where people were dying.

Dr. Hang S. Ngor won an Oscar forhis role of Dith Pran, one of the few non-professional actors to everwin an Oscar. He was especially suited to the part because he,himself, had endured 4 years of torture and imprisonment in aCambodian work camp. He had to hide his identity of physician andwatch his young wife die in childbirth while there. No wonder he wasable to play the part so well. I understand he was murdered in hisgarage in his home in Los Angeles in 1996 during a robbery in which hetried to protect a memento from his wife.

The entire cast waswonderful, each acting performance outstanding. Sam Waterson playedSydney Schanberg with passion and realism. John Malkovich played hisphotographer sidekick. And Julian Sands had a small role asjournalist Jon Swain who was one of the three westerners saved fromexecution by the intervention of Dith Pran and whose triedunsuccessfully to forge a passport to help Dith Pran escape.

Eventhough the movie was 141 minutes long, I was totally absorbed with thesame kind of horrific fascination I felt while reading Jon Swain'sbook. It's hard to believe that such horrors go on in the world whilewe sit here in our comfortable lives. This movie shocks us intoreality. And makes us appreciate our blessings. It also reminded meof the role of the journalist to go out on the front lines and risktheir lives for their stories. They are to be applauded as being thewitnesses to their times.

Highly recommended. But don't expect agood night's sleep afterwards.

Rating:
Summary: A watershed movie
Review: Before "The Killing Fields," the Hollywood entertainment industry generally turned a blind eye to the enormous crimes committed by Communists around the world: the Gulag Archipelago in the Soviet Union, the massive mortality in China, and the stupefying slaughter in Cambodia -- where apparently almost half the population was killed in the space of 3-4 years.

This movie opened the door, but it did so on Hollywood terms. There is an attempt to have an American be the lead character (the NY Times reporter), and the movie tries very hard to blame all the misery depicted on... the United States!

But the story comes through regardless. Superb acting job by Dr. Haing S. Ngor, a true gentleman who resided in Los Angeles with a publicly listed telephone number (and answered the phone himself, much to my amazement). The villains are obviously the brutal thugs called "Angka" -- and their indoctrination at the hands of the Stalinists and the Maoists.

This film, in my opinion, played some part in the world-wide collapse of Communism (well, not complete yet) in the next few years. And it may have done so unintentionally.

Rating:
Summary: Superb Retelling Of True Story of Cambodian Genocide!
Review: There appears to be is a growing audience that appreciates the artful integration of entertainment with education, and few recent movies have accomplished this goal so well as did the classic Academy Award winning movie, "The Killing Fields". Set in Cambodia during the closing days of the American involvement there in the early 1970s, it powerfully relates the true story of an edgy, ambitious, and dangerously inquisitive American correspondent for the New York Times, played superbly by Sam Waterston (of TV's "Law And Order"), and his Cambodian photographer/assistant, played magnificently by the late Haing S. Ngor, who ironically was murdered by street thugs in Los Angeles a few years ago. This movie managed to be both a critical and a box office success, and its depiction of the events leading to the mass murder of millions of ordinary Cambodians by the indigenous communist Khmer Rouge created a kind of worldwide awareness of just how extensive the bloodbath in Cambodia was.

This movie is largely based on the actual experiences of New York Times journalist Sidney Schanberg and his Cambodian assistant Dith Pran during the merciless onslaught by both sides during the extension of the Vietnam War to Cambodia and involving both American forces and the indigenous Khmer Rouge. The movie offers a quite graphic portrayal of the conduct of that war, and the horrible aftermath as the Americans withdraw and the Khmer Rouge come home to angrily roost over the remaining civilians left in the urban centers of Cambodia after the army leaves. The movie takes great care to detail the ways in which the communists attempt to "re-educate" the populace by routing out the educated, the intellectuals, and those with sympathies for the former French colonial government. The bloodbath that ensues is told through the personal experiences of Dith Pran before his eventual escape to Thailand and the west. This is a quite entertaining, sophisticated, and historically accurate effort to show the consequences of the American capitulation in southeast Asia, and the all too human consequences for the individual people left in the vortex of this horrible set of historical circumstances. The exploration of the ways in which the Cambodian holocaust is executed make this movie a terrific teaching tool by showing how critically we can look at the lessons of history. Enjoy!

Rating:
Summary: Opened my eyes to the sorrow of Cambodia
Review: I've recently read a ton of Cambodian history - "First They Killed My Father", "River of Time", "Brother Number 1", and a few others. My interest started with this movie.

"Killing Fields" is not perfect. I agree with some earlier reviewers that the anti-American take is a bit too much. The counter-point to that is, I guess, that the Nixon Admin brought a lot of that on it's decendents. And don't forget that 1984 (the year this movie was released) was the height of the Reagan years - Hollywood was much more anxious to take shots at the Establishment in those days than they have been during the Clinton love-fest.

"Killing Fields" does a few things very well: I got a sense of what Indochina must have been like before 1975, and what the madness of the Khmer Rouge takeover must have been like. The scenes of the evacuation of Phnom Penh are one of the highlights of the movie - total chaos. I also got a sense of life under the Khmer Rouge - physical labor right out of the Middle Ages, no food, fear of the "Organization", fear of the child-soldiers, fear of each other.

Some technical points: You really have to pay attention - the accents of some of the Cambodian actors and (especially) the actor who plays Pran are hard to understand. This is doubly unfortunate during the 2nd half of the movie, when "Pran" narrates the action. It took me at least 2 viewings of these scenes to understand what was going on. Also, during "Pran's" journey to Thailand, it's very unclear who some of his companions are and what happens to them.

Overall, "Killing Fields" is an important and interesting movie. I recommend it highly.

Rating:
Summary: An uncommon friendship in an uncommon time
Review: Of all the wars which ravaged the pages of America's history, none has been quite as devastating as the Vietnam War, a costly and controversial battle which cost the lives of thousands of men and women. Many films have been produced which focus primarily on this era of U.S. history, but none have been as "deep" and long-standing as Roland Joffe's "The Killing Fields." As to not destroy the context of the film for the viewer who has not yet seen the movie, I shall not delve into a plot summary, but I will place some of my view(s) within this comment space. First, cinematographer Chris Menges's excellent effects created the sense of doom which permeated the quiet, humble country of Cambodia and its war-stricken victims, portraying the despair and suffering of the civilians. Close-up shots of congealed blood, rubble and ultimate devastation of the nation truly drove home the essence and appreciation of the film. Second, the friendship which developed between the two men in the film illustrated the fact that admist the guns, bombs and bullets, glimmers of humanity and empathy still existed, and was capable of being brought forth-- hence, the uncanny comradeship between these two individuals. With this in mind, I leave this comment with the realization that despite the hatred which was rampant between the countries at that time, two men chose to rebel against those chains, and forged a companionship which no gun or bomb could ever eradicate.

Rating:
Summary: Powerful
Review: Enough can not be said about the performance of Haing Ngor (mysteriously murdered in San Jose in the late 90s), who was himself an intellectual (he was an MD), and a survivor of the Killing Fields, just like Dith, the character he plays. He was (it could be said perhaps) literally born to play this part. But having said that, anyone from or in touch with the Cambodian community knows that no depiction in cinematography can match the horror of the Zero Years in reality; but the film is perhaps the best widely-available educational tool with which to "broach" the topic-- it does deliver some of the emotional impact of the notoriously horrific Pol Pot regime. US culpability aside, the main theme of TKF is the horrific effects of war and revolutionary politics on collective and individual human lives. A universal theme-- only the Cambodian case is in a different class than the well-known legacy of imperialism, because the former was unapologetic fratricide--a scenario much harder to rationalize for this American than even the West's harsh aggression and exploitation of Indochina, even though ultimate blame for the Zeitgeist that produced this enigma may be historically placed at the West's doorstep. The movie strategically emphasizes US aggression over the fratricidal aspect of the Communist revolution in Cambodia, while managing to capture an inkling of the profoundly disturbing experiencesin of the Cambodian people, who were sheep to the slaughter, guileless pawns in a political game of inhumanity and Bloody Handed Brutality. See this powerful film!

Rating:
Summary: A- in propaganda D in history
Review: Whle there were some touching moments in this movie it was must definitly "ideaological" Like almost all hollywood movies of the last 40 years it had a very difficult time showing the communists for what they were, murderous thugs. The Khmer Rouge killed well over 1 million people in Cambodia in 4 years (some estimates range as high as 4 million), yet in this movie the only killing seen by the viewer, except for a brief battle scene and one land mine, all the killing in this movie is done by B 52's. the movie tries to make the case that it was the American bombing of Cambodia that was responsible for the brutality of the Khmer rouge, sorry it just doesn't wash with me. If that were the case why weren't the communist in Vietnam and Loas at least as brutal, they were bombed at least as hard and far more often then Cambodia. The Khmer Rouge were responsible for the crimesand no one else, except maybe the Chinese who supported them with weapons and other aid.