PDA

View Full Version : The Quiet American



Review
03-04-2003, 02:42 PM
The Quiet American by Phillip Noyce
Review by Chris Knipp

Phillip Noyce's new version of Graham Greene's "The Quiet American" goes well beyond the 1955 book as a forceful and timely political statement. Though the themes are the same in the new movie, the book dealt more in ambiguities, casting great suspicion on the Americans' early involvement in Vietnam and its motives, while in Noyce's movie the suspicion turns to certainty. It's clear quite early on that the Americans are up to no good.

This filming of Graham Greene's novel is a powerful reversal of the 1958 Hollywood adaptation by Joseph Mankiewicz. Mankiewicz's effort, made when US involvement in Vietnam was still in its early stages, was actually stage-managed by the CIA's Edward Lansdale (the force behind the events of the novel if not the original of Alden Pyle, Greene's young "quiet" American CIA man -- Brendan Fraser in the new movie). The 1958 movie made Greene's stand-in, Thomas Fowler, wind up as a basket case and turned the CIA man, Alden Pyle, into a hero. This time Graham Greene's original perceptions are restored -- and then some.

Pyle is no innocent bumbler here, as he seems in the book. He may appear well meaning at first, but that soon turns out to be cover. The Pyle Brendan Fraser gives us is ruthless, dangerous, and well aware of what he is doing. When Pyle steals Fowler's Vietnamese mistress Phoung, and Fowler realizes what Fraser's purpose in the country is -- to move in a puppet regime and make it look like the communists are guilty of atrocities -- the jaded English newsman becomes so engaged that, as we eventually see in a series of flash-forwards of news pages, he will later become a crusading correspondent covering the dirty side of the US war in Vietnam.

Noyce's "Quiet American" is a stunning effort in more ways than one.

The movie begins with the two artists who, in collaboration with Noyce, have made it not only timely and political but also beautiful. The opening scene is a deep dark blue view of Saigon harbor at night with soft lights floating on it photographed by the wonderful cinematographer, Christopher Doyle. As we gaze upon this lovely image, we hear a voiceover from the book read by Michael Caine. The reading is fresh and arresting. A mature master of the art of cinematic underplaying, Caine never lets us sense anything weary or tired in the way he plays the weary, tired London Times correspondent, Thomas Fowler. In Doyle and Caine we have two movie men at the top of their game. Caine we know from dozens of fine performances. Noyce's fellow Australian Doyle we know especially from his stunning cinematography for Hong Kong "auteur" Wong Kar Wai. He also filmed "Rabbit Proof Fence."

Phillip Noyce emerges from a creditable, but not so distinguished background. He directed a series of sometimes belligerent big-star Hollywood thrillers during the last decade, chiefly "Dead Calm" (1989), "The Saint" (1991) "Patriot Games" (1992), "Clear and Present Danger"(1994) and "The Bone Collector" (1999). He has revealed a much more personal and committed side with this film and the equally outspoken "Rabbit Proof Fence," the latter as much a denunciation of Australian colonialism and racism as "The Quiet American" is of the US brands of those commodities. You could hardly have predicted this turn from the earlier work. It's as if Noyce has decided to pay his dues; but maybe he had these bees in his bonnet all along. The screenplay is by the playwright Christopher Hampton, who wrote the screenplays, notably, for "Dangerous Liaisons" (1988) and "Total Eclipse" (1995).

If you choose to remain human, someone says halfway through the movie, sooner or later you have to take sides, and that's what Fowler is forced to do and what the movie itself does. The new version doesn't erase Pyle's heroism. Again, he saves Fowler's life when they are caught in a watchtower in the north. But there is a self-righteous, threatening air about Fraser's version of Pyle, whereas the 1958 movie had him played by the charismatic war hero Audie Murphy -- and in that version, he IS the hero and the communists are the villains. In this one, the communists barely figure and Pyle gradually becomes so much the villain that we feel no pang when he is gone.

The original story emerged from a shocking series of events Graham Greene observed while vacationing in Vietnam, which constitute the pivotal sequence of the present movie. As an informative article by H. Bruce Franklin in The Nation has recently explained, Greene was suspicious of the way a car bombing in a Saigon square was reported (by a CIA-collaborating New York Times reporter) as a "gruesome" act of "terrorism" by the Vietminh. The American press traced the violence to Ho Chi Minh, but the anti-communist warlord Trinh Minh Thé had actually claimed credit for it. How did "Life" magazine happen to have a photographer on the scene? Greene wondered who had supplied Thé with the explosives.

His novel provided the answer: it was Alden Pyle -- i.e., the CIA. The movie makes clear that the brutal Thé is set up and funded by the US, as the US actually set up Ngo Dinh Diem, with young Pyle directing things behind the pose of being a medical attaché curing trachoma. The plastic he claims has been shipped in for eyeglass frames is for Thé's explosives. Pyle runs in directing a photo shoot of the hideous bombing in fluent Vietnamese because he planned the whole thing. The CIA is creating grounds for US entry into the war the French were losing, and pretending it's out to stop communism, when the real aim is control of the region. For "communism," read "WMD's," look at the planted evidence, and you've got a parallel picture of our current situation. Greene's 1955 novel was prophetic, and so is this new movie.

The irony of the effort to suppress the movie in the US (as H. Bruce Franklin has pointed out) is that the way the release of Noyce's "The Quiet American" was delayed for political reasons from late 2001, when it was originally to come out, until Michael Caine forcibly used his influence to get it a two-week run in New York and L.A. the end of last year, and now a general US release, means that American audiences are seeing parallels between the start of one war and the push toward another that they wouldn't have grasped a year ago. Those of us who have been looking a little deeper lately into the history of American efforts abroad may find "The Quiet American" extremely relevant.

But this is not a piece of agitprop. There's a quietude and elegance about it, enhanced by Caine's wonderfully composed, serene characterization and Christopher Doyle's stunning visuals. The big spaces of Fowler's flat stay with you, and the faces of Phoung (Do Thi Hai Yen) and her sister (Pham Thi Mai Hoa); the dance club; and above all, the square that's bombed and the helpless, maimed victims there. One supposes that the Vietnamese know how to stage that sort of thing. They've seen enough of it.

stevetseitz
03-27-2003, 11:03 PM
Or I suppose that after the U.S. pulled out of Southeast Asia we sent covert spies back in to slaughter two million Cambodians to make the "Commies" look bad! Hey what if it wasn't Khmer Rouge at all....?

oscar jubis
03-29-2003, 11:58 AM
I recommend viewing the documentary THE TRIALS OF HENRY KISSINGER to those interested in learning about US involvement in Southeast Asia, including the tragic massacre in Cambodia. This important, gripping doc will be released on video soon. Thanks Chris for your excellent review of THE QUIET AMERICAN.

stevetseitz
03-29-2003, 01:48 PM
Christopher Hitchens, the man who wrote the book upon which "The Trials of Henry Kissinger" is based is a piece of work. Having done nothing of substance himself, he has taken up the yoke of trying to slander as many public figures as he can with the tried and true liberal tool: the appearances of impropriety. Prior to this film, Hitchens' claim to fame was a book which all but claimed Mother Theresa was a charlatan.

What is frightening is that many people will go to art-house theaters and watch "The Trials of Henry Kissinger" under the impression that they are watching history. Instead of someone's skewed and edited agenda ABOUT history.

The film clearly failed to prove it's legal point and consequently there isn't going to be any "war-crimes trial" of Henry Kissinger — forget that, just to begin with.

But the film did succeed in one way: It showed Kissinger was ambitious, duplicitous, dishonest, deceptive, and, that Kissinger was from time to time detected speaking out of both sides of his mouth. Of course, that is what diplomats do for a living. Another word for it is: They negotiate.

Aside from that obvious point an underlying, perhaps unintentional truth can be seen in the film: The moral questions cannot be explored in phony theatrical arraignments done mostly for the satisfaction of people engaged in private wars against Henry Kissinger.

The historic view that will prevail is that Kissinger was the most consistent and resourceful anti-Communist on the scene during a decade in which two presidents sought out his counsel, and the republic profited from it.

oscar jubis
03-29-2003, 05:41 PM
Originally posted by stevetseitz
But the film did succeed in one way: It showed Kissinger was ambitious, duplicitous, dishonest, deceptive. Kissinger was the most consistent and resourceful anti-Communist on the scene during a decade in which two presidents sought out his counsel, and the republic profited from it.
The litany of crime and barbarity commited by our government in the name of anti-communism is well documented. A favorite of mine is the Oscar winner HEARTS AND MINDS, now in Criterion edition. One I miss is the 3 part BATTLE OF CHILE, not yet available on video. It provides irrefutable evidence about US-mandated murder and overthrow of a democratically elected government on September 11, 1973.
I maintain hope. In a country that embraces the Constitution and Bill of Rights like the U.S.A., the truth eventually comes out. For instance, I see a day when kids will be taught the truth about our involvement in El Salvador. How Reagan ordered the cover-up of the rape and murder of 4 American nuns by the Salvadoran military to maintain congressional support for his abhorrent policies, and Big Business profited from it.
There is a moral crisis in America. True patriots will recognize that the first step towards healing and rehabilitation is to acknowledge the problem. To have the courage to face the evidence no matter how bitter. Narrative films such as The Quiet American and others facilitate the soul-searching.

stevetseitz
03-29-2003, 09:54 PM
We agree on some points:

There IS a moral crisis in America and true patriots do recognize that acknowledging the problem is a good first step. Our hearts can be in the same place but if our minds are diametrically opposed the step will never happen. There are those who choose to believe every evil thing they hear about the government of this country. There are those who believe we are in Iraq right now for "oil". It doesn't matter that we had control of the oil fields in Iraq and Kuwait 10 years ago and simply left, perhaps too soon, after kicking Iraqi forces out of Kuwait.

Crime and barbarity are far more common in Absolutist regimes than in American foreign policy. Chile is a good example The three-year-old Marxist government was overthrown in 1973 by a dictatorial military regime led by Augusto PINOCHET, who ruled until a freely elected president was installed in 1990. Sound economic policies, first implemented by the PINOCHET dictatorship, led to unprecedented growth in 1991-97 and have helped secure the country's commitment to democratic and representative government.

The charge of "unclean hands" is not a new one. America has faced harsh criticism for its past support of pro-American dictators like Somoza in Nicaragua, Pinochet in Chile, Marcos in the Philippines, and the Shah of Iran.

It should be noted that, in each of these cases, the United States eventually turned against the dictatorial regime and actively aided in its ouster. In Chile and the Philippines, the outcomes were favorable: The Pinochet and Marcos regimes were replaced by democratic governments that have so far endured. In Nicaragua and Iran, however, one form of tyranny promptly gave way to another. Somoza was replaced by the Sandinistas, who suspended civil liberties and established a Marxist-style dictatorship, and the Shah of Iran was replaced by a harsh theocracy presided over by the Ayatollah Khomeini.

These outcomes help to highlight a crucial principle of foreign policy: the doctrine of the lesser evil. This means that one should not pursue a thing that seems good if it is likely to result in something worse. A second implication of this doctrine is that one is usually justified in allying with a bad regime in order to oppose a regime that is even worse. The classic example of this occurred in World War II. America allied with a very bad man, Stalin, in order to defeat someone who was even worse and posed a greater threat at the time, Hitler.

Once the principle of the lesser evil is taken into account, then many American actions in terms of supporting Third World dictators like Marcos and Pinochet become defensible. These were measures taken to fight the Cold War. If one accepts what is today an almost universal consensus — that the Soviet Union was indeed an "evil empire" — then the U.S. was right to attach more importance to the fact that Marcos and Pinochet were reliably anti-Soviet than to the fact that they were autocratic thugs.

But the Cold War is over now, so shouldn't the United States end its backing of tyrannical regimes such as the ones in Pakistan, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia? This question cannot be answered without considering the ALTERNATIVE to these admittedly defective regimes. Musharraf is a despot, but he is a pro-Western despot who wants to liberalize his country. In an ideal world we would support someone better, but this is not an ideal world and there is no one better.

Unfortunately the alternative to a Musharraf is not a liberal democratic party; it is fundamentalists of the bin Laden stripe. The choice in Pakistan, as in Egypt and Saudi Arabia, seems to be between "uncompromising theocrats" and "corrupt moderns." Both American interests and the freedom of Middle Eastern people are better protected if the United States sides with the corrupt moderns.

"Big business" is a common scapegoat but it really just consists of consumers, employees and employers and investors. It's you and I. The computer you type on was made by a "big business". The residence you inhabit was made by a big business. The food you eat was probably bought from a big business. "Big Business" is not some cabal of nefarious wax-moustached villians who plan sinister ways to profit from raping nuns. The idea is ludicrous and absurd. Business simply offers a good or service that people pay for.

Real courage is not living life as a spectator, paralyzed by cynicism. Real courage is having the guts to examine your belief system and expose it to the cold, harsh realities of life. Admit that the world is a better, safer place because America has consistently stood against Absolutist regimes and oppression. In the 20th century, Absolutist regimes killed 119,000,000 of their own citizens. In the same century, War killed 36,000,000 people. Sometimes the lesser of two evils is the right choice.