RSS 2.0
I haven’t watched any movies in a seriously long time and I was more than a bit hesitant to make this one my first. I usually think Brendan Frasier is a real dolt and I’ve never really liked Michael Caine (which is probably seen as sacrilege by some.) It’s not that I think Caine is a bad actor, I just sometimes find him painful to watch since he has always seemed like a lecherous old man to me. But as turns out, both of my preconceptions only helped these two actors become the ideal casting for this particular movie.
Set in Vietnam, the movie didn’t have a focus on lush settings that exocticize the region (a la ‘The King and I’ with Jodie Foster ‘ which I’m ashamed to say I watched.) In fact, a large part of the movie is slow character development set indoors. However, the lavish d’cor seems to symbolize conflict of colonization. There is plenty of old, heavy oak furniture that seems as out of date and out of place as the formal suits all the white men are wearing in the middle of the tropics. Every scene just captured a feeling that conveyed hot and stifling conflict.
Based on a Graham Green novel, by the same name, the movie is ostensibly about two men and their struggle over one woman. But the love story (if you even want to call it that) is really just a big metaphor for the desire to possess Vietnam. The Vietnamese woman is trapped between the old, familiar married man who can neither make her legitimate or set her free (France: though interestingly enough represented by an English man character) and the young, virile upstart whose paternalistic desire to ‘protect’ and ‘save’ her without even knowing her (The United States: of course.) The metaphor really worked for me, because I found myself equal parts drawn to what would happen to the woman and what would happen to the country.
Had I watched this movie six years ago, I would have just found it an interesting commentary on the start of the US involvement with Vietnam (something you actually don’t learn to much about in school here ‘ since they focus mostly on the what happened once we got there). But currently, with the involvement in Afghanistan and Iraq, I felt like this movie was amazingly timely and thought provoking. Without giving too much away, it really made me think about our past military conflicts and the government’s willingness to allow or even stage violence in order to gain support for war. I have read a lot of speculation specifically about September 11th and whether or not the government could have prevented what happened, similar to Pearl Harbor, and a movie like this (even though fictional) really disturbed me.
Overall, the movie is somewhat slow and certainly not meant to be watched with a bunch of friends over vodka and tonics, but I think both the message and the delivery makes it worthy of praise and discussion.
marisa (44 posts)Lives happily in upstate Manhattan with a small dog and an amazing woman who weirdly doesn't watch movies very often. (I guess you can't have perfection.)
16 Comments
RSS feed for comments on this post.
I dunno why but this title never really appealed to me. It was an option several times but I refrained from seeing it so far. Nice review tho’
Comment by Arjan — Thu November 6, 2003 @ 15:47Yeah, I’ll be honest, I wasn’t drawn to it either … but my mom was in town and it seemed “mom approved.”
Comment by marisa — Thu November 6, 2003 @ 15:55Michael Caine and Richard Gere are always mommy-material
Comment by Arjan — Thu November 6, 2003 @ 16:04Does it take a movie to (re)view your opinion on your country’s foreign politics? Sounds you’re being heavily indoctrinated in your country if school shows only one side of the issue.
Comment by paco — Thu November 6, 2003 @ 17:11The Jodie Foster movie you’re referring to is “Anna and the King” if I’m not mistaking. It features Chow Yung Fat (of Croutching Tiger fame) as well, and is pretty bad nontheless. Watched it on an airplane, while flying to Kenya if I remember correctly.
This is a movie I’ll have to see, as the whole USA vs. the World issue fascinates me.
Comment by weefselkweekje — Thu November 6, 2003 @ 20:59Oh we are totally indoctrinated in school. I know of only a few people who grew up in the US that had any kind of dialogue about US history in public school. Hell, some didn’t even get it in college! And let’s not even mention world history.
But are you asking if I base my views on US foreign policy on a Hollywood movie. No, of course not. But I would say that as someone who has had consistently critical views on US foreign policy that doesn’t mean I jumped on to the conspiracy theory bandwagon of believing that my government may have allowed the events of 9/11 to take place.
Watching this movie and (probably more importantly) having some distance of 2 years from actually being in lower Manhattan on 9/11, did make me reconsider that maybe my government had some involvement in the event that single-handedly galvanized congressional support for the most recent wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. But notice I didn’t say that I ‘changed’ my views after watching a fictional movie, I said reconsidered my views. The movie made me think ‘ and I don’t know about you, but I usually consider that a good thing.
Comment by marisa — Thu November 6, 2003 @ 21:08I didn’t want to imply that a mere movie would provoke you to re-think these issues. However, not having seen the movie, I am still very interested to know to what extent it made you reconsider. Has it given you another angle on your opinion? Has it created more doubts? Some answers maybe?
I am genuinely interested in your views. If you wish not to elaborate on it on this site (for keeping the review ‘clean’ or whatever personal reason) you are welcome to email me.
I read and reflect a lot on what happens in the world -and the big part your country has in it- and I would think it really cool to hear what a US-citizen thinks on that. I’m also curious to see how one-sided/biased OUR media is on portraying your country.
Comment by paco — Fri November 7, 2003 @ 1:53@ Paco
I’d say, a 9.5 on the biased-o-meter.
@ Marisa
Comment by reisneus — Fri November 7, 2003 @ 10:51I’m also interested in your views on this. Can we keep the thread here?
You thought I wanted her for myself?
We could also open a thread on our news group. I only proposed to keep it away from the review, because it would maybe become too off-topic. And Marisa could be a bit reluctant to share her views so in the open (to prevent a flame-war).
Comment by paco — Fri November 7, 2003 @ 13:58I’m sure however critical the foreign media is against the US (and I think rightly so) … we are overly patriotically biased in the other direction.
Which (to bring this back to the movie) was another surprising thing about The Quiet American. It was produced as a very mainstream film and even nominated for an Oscar … YET it is very critical of U.S. foreign policy in Vietnam, albeit under the guise of fiction. (Of course … I still hadn’t heard enough about it to watch it until my Micheal Caine-loving mom came around!)
As for flame wars, bring it on. I notice the only people who flame me on my critiques of American culture are other Americans. It’s a pity that they believe patriotism can’t include a healthy bit of critical dialogue.
Comment by marisa — Fri November 7, 2003 @ 16:27Still haven’t read your stance on it
Comment by paco — Fri November 7, 2003 @ 18:11Newsgroup sounds like a good spot.
Comment by reisneus — Fri November 7, 2003 @ 20:23stance=
war in Afghanistan was WRONG
war in Iraq was WRONG
Bush getting into office after not winning the popular vote was WRONG
the role of the US govt in 9/11 SUSPICIOUS
damn … how clear do i have to be?
Comment by marisa — Fri November 7, 2003 @ 23:19Works for me.
Comment by paco — Sat November 8, 2003 @ 0:13(didn’t want to make assumptions)
Let’s return to the movie shall we? Although it’s not surprising that this film has sparked of some political debate.
Comment by damian — Sun November 9, 2003 @ 12:00I’ve finally managed to catch up with this film and I have to say it was well worth the wait. The acting, from Caine in particular, but also from Brendan Fraser, is impeccable.
The cinematography is so handosme you’d think they’d painted each individual frame. The use of colour and light is truly stunning and very deliberately used. This film doesn’t look beautiful for thesake of it, but uses light and colour to add texture and depth to the story. The locations really help the feel of the film come to the fore.
I don’t really want to go into the plot so much as that has been discussed above, but there’s a lovely cyclical structure to it that, once fully revolved manages to change the interpretation of the same events in a very satisfactory manner.
A great little movie, not to everyone’s tastes I’m sure due to it’s slow burning nature, but if you want a thoughtful, well crafted, beautifully made and acted film to watch, I can heartily recommend this.
Damian, i think your assessment of the scenery and location is right on the money. This film was shot in Vietnam, right? But I didn’t get that Merchant Ivory, exoticise the location, travel video feel from it. I felt like i was in Vietnam … not watching a glossed up outisders vision of Vietnam.
Comment by marisa — Mon November 10, 2003 @ 15:40