Main Text
Growing up in the United States, I could not imagine a world where you
could be punished for your intelligence. On April 17, 1975 the fall of
Phnom Penh gave way to the Khmer Rouge, which called itself Democratic
Kampuchea. However, problems in Cambodia began many years before. Pol
Pot assumed power in 1974; and the "Year Zero" began. The opening
of the Killing Fields beings with a voice over of Sydney Schanberg,
describing Cambodia, a paradise, as a victim of war and how this seemingly
"neutral" place became involved in the Vietnam War. (Kuhn, The
Killing Fields) The Killing Fields, an emotionally affecting
portrayal of the relationships between a cast of real-life characters
and the unwavering United States as an ineffective presence in Cambodia.
Amid the ruthless massacre committed by the Khmer Rouge The Killing
Fields puts a human face on both sides of the conflict in Southeast
Asia.
Two excellent films, The Killing Fields and Swimming to Cambodia,
offer insight to the massive genocide that took place under the Khmer
Rouge. Despite the ways in which both films have been cast, they have
been acclaimed for their cinematic and historical value over time. The
Killing Films portrays the lives of three American journalists as
well as a trusted interpreter, Dith Pran and gives an account of the horrifying
fall of the Cambodian capital, Phnom Penh under the tyranny of the Khmer
Rouge, depicted through the eyes of New York Times reporters and photojournalists,
most notably Sydney Schanberg and his Cambodian protégé
Dith Pran. Swimming to Cambodia essentially tells about Spaulding
Gray’s experiences as an actor in Roland Joffe’s film, The Killing
Fields. The film features Gray in a small but pivotal role as an assistant
to the U.S. Ambassador in Cambodia. Although these films are both depicted
in vastly different ways one is a historical film, while the other is
a dramatic monologue. Both show dramatic insight to the reporters’ understandings
of the term ‘genocide’ and how they used this experience to expose this
information to the rest of the world.
Though The Killing Fields begins
with the point of view of the Schanberg character, the main part of the
film belongs to Dith Pran. In the later half of the film we follow Pran
and his experiences as he "sees his country turned into an insane
parody of a one-party state, ruled by the Khmer Rouge with instant violence
and a savage intolerance for any reminders of the French and American
presence of the colonial era" (Ebert, The Killing Fields).
I think that in this film the most touching points are the scenes that
omit Pran’s personal inner monologues. While, I find these monologues
helpful in gaining insight to the thoughts that might be going through
a prisoner of wars experiences, I find that seeing those experiences had
more impact on me. The Cambodian genocide is highly unknown to many people.
Pran spent four years in the Khmer rouge, and we see how he had to hide
much of who he was. This genocide differed from the Holocaust as we see
that people were killed based off their knowledge. "He [Pran] and
millions of other Cambodians suffered terrible conditions, including long
hard hours of physical labor, hunger, malnutrition, and constant surveillance
under murderous Khmer Rouge" (Kuhn, The Killing Fields). There
is a scene where we see Pran so desperate to live, that he results to
drinking blood from a cow. He is caught and tied to a tree and left to
die. He is only saved when a boy who remembers him from the Airport Road
recognizes him. There Pran gave the boy a Mercedes emblem that was enough
to save his life (Kuhn, "The Killing Fields," scene log).
Cambodians were re-educated, told that this was "Year Zero,"
and that everything they had known before this "pre-Revolution"
had to be erased. In this film there is a specific scene where a child
leads a man to death after she accuses him of not working hard enough
since his hands were not abraded enough. During this commotion, Pran plans
an escape. He hides in the water and waits for the camp to pack up and
leave.
Not too long afterwards, Pran escapes and the following scene shows us
the horrible truth of the "killing fields". Pran discovers the
mass graves of the Cambodians. This scene is especially significant as
it reveals the horror behind the very name of the film. "Under Khmer
Rouge rule, it is estimated that anywhere from one to three million Cambodians
perished. Across the country, there exist many mass graves, or "killing
fields," laden with the bones of thousands of Cambodians who died
during this time" (Kuhn, "The Killing Fields," history). This kind
of a scene shows the audience how much of Cambodia is so undeveloped that
something like these graves could actually happen.
Although Pran successfully escapes, he runs into more problems. Another
Khmer Rouge group captures him, and takes him as a servant. His only chances
of survival were his ability to hide his knowledge of French or English,
which he is indeed asked. However, as the film continues he is caught
listening to an English newscast. "The leader is actually relieved
that Pran speaks English, because he can entrust his son to Pran and admit
that he fears for his life (a mutiny) without any other KR members understanding
him" (Kuhn, "The Killing Fields," scene log). This scene shows us
that no one is safe in this horrific event. Members of the Khmer Rouge
eventually kill the leader. When this occurs Pran, the child of the leader,
and many other men are able to escape, while the Khmer Rouge is busy fighting
the Vietnamese. Although Pran is able to survive, he suffers the loss
of the child as the result of hidden mines. Nowhere is safe anymore. Pran
makes it through the forest to a village where he finds refuge working
with the Red Cross.
The escape of Pran and his eventual survival were not likely during turbulent
times like these. As reviewer Robert Ebert notes, "In a more conventional
film, he would, of course, have really disappeared, and we would have
followed the point of view of the Schanberg character". Yet, the
film is quite a masterpiece at depicting true Asian landscape. Some of
the best moments in the film show us the human sides of desperation, feelings,
trust, loyalty and the inner conversations. However, as I found out in
the end, an actual Cambodian refugee to played the part of Pran. This
casting offers a sincere and convincing depiction of the true emotions
and feelings of someone undergoing these horrific experiences.
While the casting of Pran by an actual
Cambodian refugee is compelling to the story plot, I find that Gray’s
presence in The Killing Fields is very important to complement
his work, Swimming to Cambodia. Swimming to Cambodia is
essentially about the experiences of Gray as an actor in The Killing
Fields. His role in The Killing Fields, though small, gave
him the chance of utilizing his time in Thailand while the filming was
going on. "He seems to have used this time to investigate
not only the fleshpots of Bangkok, but also the untold story of the genocide
that was practiced by the fanatic Khmer Rouge on their Cambodian countrymen"
(Ebert, Swimming to Cambodia).
Interspersed with heavier stuff, gray describes his experiences with descriptions
of marijuana binges, sex shows in the bordellos of Bangkok, as well as
his accounts in great detail of all his findings, from the infamous "banana
show" in a local nightclub to the disappearance of millions of Cambodians
in one of the greatest mass murders in modern history. In his traumatic
detailing of the genocide in Cambodia that took some two million lives
during the Khmer Rouge, Gray punctuates his story with numerous anecdotes
such as encountering a sexually experimental sailor on a train journey,
a description of a journalist's ego, and his own neurotic fear of sharks,
remembered only when he is swimming in an uncharted sea.
This film, perhaps one of the simplest movie sets ever designed situates
Gray in an astonishingly vivid picture of what really happened in Cambodia.
Throughout this 85 minute monologue he sits at a wooden table, furnished
only with a microphone, a glass of water, pointing device, and a small
spiral notebook, as well as the display of two flags hanging behind him
on both sides, one of southeast Asia, the other of Cambodia. The way in
which Gray’s narrative moves along captures an audience's attention as
he motors from one topic to the next, transporting the audience with his
mystical abilities of telekinesis from his apartment in New York to the
idyllic beaches of Phuket, punctuated with comedic punch lines delivered
straight into the eye of the camera. Therefore, when his ‘Perfect Moment’
finally arrives, you are prepared to be right there in the moment with
him.
When they were released, both films
were critically acclaimed. They offer viewers insight to the Cambodian
genocide through two very different views. I think that the coupling of
these two films can greatly enhance the knowledge of people hoping to
seek a better understanding of genocides in the twentieth century. While
these films do not go into depth over the term ‘genocide,’ they expose
it in their own ways. The haunting image of Pran muddling through the
remains of the bodies will haunt anyone who views it. In spite of this
there have been numerous criticisms of Gray’s comical anecdotes pertaining
specifically to his descriptions of some strip shows. He has been criticized
for exploiting the genocide in Cambodia for his own exaggeration. This
can be seen as a serious charge, particularly since most of Gray’s findings
are based on word of mouth. Of course, it can be seen that Swimming
to Cambodia is, on some level, self-exaggeration, but it is worth
making note that in part, The Killing Fields was inspired by the
deaths of millions of the people Gray encountered.
One of the most important distinguishing
factors of this genocide versus the Jewish Holocaust is that the Cambodian
genocide dealt with the mass extermination of millions of people from
the educated classes. Just looking intelligent could have killed you,
or in Pran’s experience, acting as if you are unintelligent could save
your life. Then it is also important to ask the question, aren’t literally
all possible historical subjects exploited whenever they are turned into
fiction? In all fiction movies, no matter whether based on true life or
not, the film directors always has their spin to make the film into a
Hollywood hit. In almost all war movies, for example, the suffering and
deaths of untold victims and turn them into a setting for a fiction story
at the center of a few romanticized characters. Yet, what film is without
criticisms? Despite the criticisms that Gray faced in his films, it brings
to life the fact that every person was involved in this genocide somehow.
These people were not being killed because of their beliefs, but based
on what they know [their background]. I believe it was said best by Pran
inThe Killing Fields: "only the silent survive," namely
that the most deadly factor is within you--your own intelligence.
|
