CONSENSUS # 52. The Killing Fields

SYNOPSIS:  “The Killing Fields” is a war journalism movie.  It is a tragic buddy film.  A New York Times journalist (Sam Waterson) is covering the situation in Cambodia when the Khmer Rouge is taking over.  He is aided by his Cambodian interpreter (Haing Ngor).  When the foreign journalists are evacuated, the interpreter is captured by the Khmer Rouge and put in an indoctrination camp.

BACK-STORY:    The movie was Roland Joffe’s directorial debut.  The screenplay was based on Schanberg’s article in the NY Times entitled “The Death and Life of Dith Pran”.  The movie was a critical and box office success.  A British film, it did very well at the BAFTAs winning Best Picture and Actor (Ngor) among other awards.  Amazingly, Ngor also won the award for Beat Newcomer.  It was nominated for Academy Awards for Picture, Director, Actor (Waterston), and Adapted Screenplay.  It won for Supporting Actor (Ngor), Film Editing, and Cinematography.  It is #30 on AFIs list of “Most Inspiring Movies”.  It is #100 on BFIs list of greatest British films of the 20^th Century.

TRIVIA:  Wikipedia, imdb

1.  Ngor was in the labor camps.  His wife died in childbirth because she refused to call for his help because she knew the Khmer Rouge was murdering doctors.  After four years, he escaped to Thailand.  He was discovered by the casting director at a Cambodian wedding in Los Angeles.  He became the first Southeast Asian to win an acting Oscar.  He was the second non-professional actor to win one.  (First was Harold Russell for “Best Years of Our Lives”.)  He was murdered in his garage by a thief interested in his gold locket (which had a picture of his wife).  When his Oscar was found in his home, all the gold had been rubbed off it indicating that he had clutched it a lot.

2.  It has a 93% rating on Rotten Tomatoes.

3.  The score is by Mike Oldfield of “Exorcist” fame.

Belle and Blade  =  N/A

Brassey’s              =  4.0

Video Hound       =  N/A

War Movies         =  5.0

Military History  =  no

Channel 4             =  #15

Film Site                =  no

101 War Movies  =  yes

Rotten Tomatoes  =   no

OPINION:   The plot is solid.  The theme of friendship is not maudlin.  The final reunion is touching and believable.  The movie does a good job of leaving doubts about Schanberg’s motives.  His guilt feelings come out and there is an element of redemption, but I felt he was something of an ass hole.  This ambiguity added to the depth of the character.  The theme of the perseverance of the human spirit as exhibited by Pran’s survival and escape is the main reason the film is rated as inspirational.  The camaraderie and competition between the journalists and their love/hate relationship with war is not ground-breaking, but well handled.  The government as cover-upper is also stereotypical, but Joffe does not rant.

                 “The Killing Fields” is an overrated movie, as are most from this subgenre.  Movie critics like to imagine that because they write for newspapers, they are kin to war journalists.  If they give one of these movies a bad review, they may have to face a collegue who will ask them if they have ever been in the shit.  Plus, those guys are fracking crazy and may bash your head with a beer bottle (or put their joint out on your face).  As far as the Academy voters are concerned, they love their screenwriter buddies who are cousins to the war journalists.