The Killing Fields - Reaction

After just finishing The Killing Fields, I feel that the diegesis of the movie is a world that is animalistic by nature. It is violent, spontaneous, and almost post-apocalyptic in a way. The filmmakers and director present the world of Cambodia as one in which there are no true rules of society. One minute, the Khmer Rouge are celebrating in the streets with the Cambodians waving white flags, almost as if it is a parade, and then the next Sid Schanberg and company are being whisked away, arrested, and almost killed by the same group of people. The entire culture is shown in disarray as the city of Phnom Penh is assaulted by the North Vietnamese. The producers of The Killing Fields utilized the same technique as the NBC Evening News did: they employed images of disaster and violence to relate to the audience just how bad the situation in Cambodia was in 1975.

Another tactic that I found both in the film, the NBC Nightly News, and the New York Times was the portrayal of children. At many points throughout the film I found myself grimacing in fear and sadness by images of infants and kids who were trapped in the fighting. Many children are killed. One vision that sticks out in my mind is that of the toddler who sat upon the vehicle with his hands over his ears, crying, as the Khmer Rouge attacked the town. The baby’s cries and wails continued on until about fifteen seconds into the next scene, really providing emphasis to the experience that children went through during this war, as helpless as they may be. Similarly, I found myself constantly reading about the plights and turmoil of Cambodian and Vietnamese children in the New York Times. It seemed to be its way of evoking the audience’s pathos, and it worked very well. Both the newspaper and the movie caused me to empathize and pity the forsaken and helpless in Cambodia, as they were simply bystanders of an extraordinarily violent situation.

We discussed the scene where Sid Schanberg asks Dith Pran if he would like to leave with his family or remain in Cambodia to report. I thought that the movie portrayed this scene in a bit of a different light than the article did. The article showed this encounter as short and quick, one in which Pran came to the conclusion that he would stay in Cambodia quickly and professionally. However, the movie infused much more emotion in to the exchange between Schanberg and Pran. It is really the first time that we, the audience, are able to glimpse into the amazing friendship that these two have created. Until this point, Schanberg often bullied Pran around, more using him as an asset than being his friend. However, Pran’s tears and Schanberg’s obvious emotion over the issue of whether to flee Cambodia or not are illustrated in the movie very effectively. The effect is really felt later on, when Schanberg questions himself. Did he really give Pran a choice to leave Cambodia? Or did he subconsciously force him to stay?

Finally, I found the movie to give a very interesting description of the “Year Zero,” or the new regime that took place after the Khmer Rouge gained complete power over the city. This "Year Zero" concept is what gave me the post-apocalyptic tone that I mentioned before. One quote in particular sticks out in my mind. As Dith Pran’s speech is used as a voice over during this specific scene, he laments, “Only the silent survive.” This is a wonderful portrayal of the dangers and perils of the war-torn city in which he resided. The film gave the audience images of intellectuals and those who were seen as a “threat” to the government being led out of the camps. We later find that they are slaughtered in the Killing Fields onto which Pran stumbles. It is this quote of “Only the silent survive” that give me the best picture and interpretation of the time period after the Khmer Rouge took power and truly had an effect on my understanding of the era.