Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 8/7/84; site ucbvax.ARPA
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!ucbvax!citrin
From: citrin@ucbvax.ARPA (Wayne Citrin)
Newsgroups: net.movies
Subject: The Killing Fields
Message-ID: <3826@ucbvax.ARPA>
Date: Sat, 15-Dec-84 17:36:31 EST
Article-I.D.: ucbvax.3826
Posted: Sat Dec 15 17:36:31 1984
Date-Received: Sun, 16-Dec-84 09:16:33 EST
Reply-To: citrin@ucbvax.UUCP (Wayne citrin)
Organization: University of California at Berkeley
Lines: 45
Summary: 

"The Killing Fields" was one of the films I most wanted to see this season,
but I found it a great disappointment, despite the praise of critics and
New York Times columnists.  For those of you who don't know what it's about,
it's the story of Sydney Schanberg, New York Times Cambodia correspondent
in 1974 and 1975, and his Cambodian stringer Dith Pran.  At the fall of
Phnom Penh, Schanberg was able to escape, but Dith Pran had to stay behind
and suffered under the Khmer Rouge.  They were ultimately reunited several
years later.

The problem of the film is that it attempts to do three things, and it is
not successful at any of them.  First, it tries to convey the horrors
of the war in Cambodia, but despite a number of gruesome scenes, there is
a detatchment.  I felt that "Apocalypse Now" and "The Deer Hunter" were
much more effective at conveying the horror of the war in Southeast Asia.
I realise that those films were about Vietnam, not Cambodia, and that they
took considerable liberties with the facts, while "The Killing Fields"
is based on a true story, but here I'm considering the emotional impact
and effectiveness of the films.  

Secondly, "The Killing Fields" tries
to show something of the role of journalists in the war, but although
we see Schanberg and Dith Pran cover one story, we get no idea of what
Schanberg did to deserve the Pulitzer Prize that he eventually won for 
his Cambodia reportage.  "Circle of Deceit" and "Under Fire" were much
better films about western journalists in third world revolutions.

Finally, the film is about the friendship between Schanberg and Dith Pran, 
but I didn't think that the friendship was convincingly portrayed.

Besides this, the characters in the film made too many speeches; most of the
sentiments expressed could have been conveyed visually instead of having
the characters preach at the viewer.  The film also dragged at times, there
were too many scenes in which people just sat around waiting.  Good editing
could have fixed this.  Also, the Mike Oldfield music was often annoying and 
inappropriate.

What was good about "The Killing Fields"?  There were a number of beautiful and
visually memorable scenes; the acting was good, even if the screenplay wasn't
as good; and all involved seemed to be genuinely interested in the subject -
its heart is in the right place.  However, "The Killing Fields" is basically
a Hollywood film trying to grasp a complex period of recent history and
not succeeding.  I give it **1/2 (out of ****).

Wayne Citrin
(ucbvax!citrin)