I watched the "Anatomy of a Scene" comentary before watching the movie. The director and others involved in the movie made me think that the movie is meant to make the American look sympathetic in the begining then make him look bad at the end. The director comments that an earlier film based on the book angered Graham Green because it had a pro-American ending, and that he wanted to stay true to Green's original Anti-American intentions.
But, surprisingly, I thought the movie was open to various interpretations, depending on the political views of whoever is watching it. And as is typical for films that criticize American involvement in Vietnam, the historical information that is left out is what keeps America looking bad from one film to the next. But if you've ever been to a pro-America rally in recent years and actually listed to what Vietnamese immigrants at these rallies have to say about the consequences of Communist rule in Vietnam (the millions of Vietnamese that were murdered by the Communists AFTER the Americans withdrew), you might keep a more sympathetic view of Mr. Pyle when he tells Fowler: "You're not seeing the big picture."
The three characters are interesting symbolically when compared to real life world affairs.
Fowler is the European man. He's not a bad guy, but he is indulgent and selfish. He regularly gets high on opium, and is self-righteously posessive of his young Vietnamese girlfriend, even though we know he cannot give her a future. In fact his involvment with her, while giving her temporary security and satisfying his mid-life crisis needs, we know will untimately make her damaged goods in her own society. But he's idealistic and selfish, and he cannot see the consequences of his involvment with Phuong beyond his own needs. (Fowler also reminds me of some of the fat, old German men I saw walking the streets of Bangkok with a very young Thai girl under each arm.)
Pyle typifies America pretty well. He's nice, polite. His intentions with Phuong are noble. He wants to make an honest woman out of her. Rather than offering her temporary and non-commital love and comforts, as Fowler does, he offers her a REAL future and freedom. Just as he wants to offer Vietnam a REAL future and freedom. And he realisically sees that there is no perfect, non-violent way for Vietnam to secure its future. America was not fighting to colonialize Vietnam, as the French were. (Those peace-loving French ) America was fighting because it recognized the potential devestation that Communism threatened. And when we look at the information that was left out of the movie --the millions of Vietnamese that were murdered by the Communists, the current economic devestation, the lack of freedom the Vietnamese have now, etc.... what alternatives were there? Occupation by France was a bad option. Communism HAS proven to be devestating. A third option, a government that could be influenced by a powerful democratic force, just might have been the lesser of all evils. Anyone who thinks otherwise needs to stop holding America and Israel up to a humanly impossibly high standard, while excusing or ignoring the most inhuman attrocities from 3rd world countries and selfish actions from European countries.
If you don't want to find out the end, don't read further.....
The end of the story is a sad and prophetic outcome for Vietnam. Fowler assists in the assasination of Pyle, and he sweet talks Phuong into returning to the temporary security of his arms. (Typical actions for the "international community" to take.) But throughout the story, Fowler is threatened with being sent back to England. We know he cannot stay in Vietnam, and he will not bring Phuong back to England. He claims that his wife will not divorce him... but, come on, get REAL! When he leaves, Phuong will be considered damaged goods in her community. She will be worse off than she was before he got involved with her.
So who is REALLY the most culturally sensitive? Fowler, the man who screws over the young Vietnamese woman, with just the promise of temporary security -and who will some day leave her as damaged goods? Or Pyle, the man who offers himself to her completely, and promises her a real future?
But, surprisingly, I thought the movie was open to various interpretations, depending on the political views of whoever is watching it. And as is typical for films that criticize American involvement in Vietnam, the historical information that is left out is what keeps America looking bad from one film to the next. But if you've ever been to a pro-America rally in recent years and actually listed to what Vietnamese immigrants at these rallies have to say about the consequences of Communist rule in Vietnam (the millions of Vietnamese that were murdered by the Communists AFTER the Americans withdrew), you might keep a more sympathetic view of Mr. Pyle when he tells Fowler: "You're not seeing the big picture."
The three characters are interesting symbolically when compared to real life world affairs.
Fowler is the European man. He's not a bad guy, but he is indulgent and selfish. He regularly gets high on opium, and is self-righteously posessive of his young Vietnamese girlfriend, even though we know he cannot give her a future. In fact his involvment with her, while giving her temporary security and satisfying his mid-life crisis needs, we know will untimately make her damaged goods in her own society. But he's idealistic and selfish, and he cannot see the consequences of his involvment with Phuong beyond his own needs. (Fowler also reminds me of some of the fat, old German men I saw walking the streets of Bangkok with a very young Thai girl under each arm.)
Pyle typifies America pretty well. He's nice, polite. His intentions with Phuong are noble. He wants to make an honest woman out of her. Rather than offering her temporary and non-commital love and comforts, as Fowler does, he offers her a REAL future and freedom. Just as he wants to offer Vietnam a REAL future and freedom. And he realisically sees that there is no perfect, non-violent way for Vietnam to secure its future. America was not fighting to colonialize Vietnam, as the French were. (Those peace-loving French ) America was fighting because it recognized the potential devestation that Communism threatened. And when we look at the information that was left out of the movie --the millions of Vietnamese that were murdered by the Communists, the current economic devestation, the lack of freedom the Vietnamese have now, etc.... what alternatives were there? Occupation by France was a bad option. Communism HAS proven to be devestating. A third option, a government that could be influenced by a powerful democratic force, just might have been the lesser of all evils. Anyone who thinks otherwise needs to stop holding America and Israel up to a humanly impossibly high standard, while excusing or ignoring the most inhuman attrocities from 3rd world countries and selfish actions from European countries.
If you don't want to find out the end, don't read further.....
The end of the story is a sad and prophetic outcome for Vietnam. Fowler assists in the assasination of Pyle, and he sweet talks Phuong into returning to the temporary security of his arms. (Typical actions for the "international community" to take.) But throughout the story, Fowler is threatened with being sent back to England. We know he cannot stay in Vietnam, and he will not bring Phuong back to England. He claims that his wife will not divorce him... but, come on, get REAL! When he leaves, Phuong will be considered damaged goods in her community. She will be worse off than she was before he got involved with her.
So who is REALLY the most culturally sensitive? Fowler, the man who screws over the young Vietnamese woman, with just the promise of temporary security -and who will some day leave her as damaged goods? Or Pyle, the man who offers himself to her completely, and promises her a real future?
Top Box Office
- 1.$116.6M
- 2.$20.7M
- 3.$11.0M
- 4.$9.6M
- 5.$8.3M
- 6.$7.1M
- 7.$6.3M
- 8.$6.3M
- 9.$4.1M
- 10.$3.0M