I've fallen out of the habit of cross-posting my articles from bleedingfool.com, but I think it's necessary in this case because what I wrote about The Year of Living Dangerously goes to the heart of what I didn't like about The Killing Fields.
I'm going to assume by now that you've checked out the article and move on with my critique of The Killing Fields. The films are of course quite similar, being about the spread of Communism in Asia during the Cold War.
In fact, they films bookend Vietnam, with The Year of Living Dangerously taking place in 1965 while The Killing Fields begins in 1973.
Both center around Western journalists striving to get the truth out to the larger public. However, the portrayal of them is profoundly different.
The journalists in Indonesia are, as I've noted, a bunch of heavy-drinking perverts. They may be good at their craft, but they are hardly role models.
By contrast, Cambodia's press establishment is remarkably noble and altruistic, particularly Sam Waterston's Sam Schanberg. The only hint of criticism he gets his how failed to ensure the safety of his translator/friend Dith Pran (Haing S. Ngor, who is amazing) and reaped the benefits of the subsequent publicity.
In fact, while approving of the subject matter, I found the presentation of The Killing Fields to be heavily at odds with the facts. I get that by 1984, there was still a lot of Nixon hate out there, but it's obvious that the production team has let it completely cloud their judgement. Late in the film Schanberg admits that the Khmer Rouge were worse than he thought, but then tries to blame Nixon for radicalizing them!
Uh, no. Every single time Communists take control of a country they kill off huge numbers of people. (In Spain, they couldn't even wait until they won the civil war.)
The Khmer Rouge were just really good at it. The notion that the Communists would have been peaceful and inclusive if only those pesky Americans weren't there is nonsense on stilts.
It;s possible that his answer isn't an attempt to preach but instead shows how far removed from reality his thought process has become. I suppose there's also implied criticism in how Schanberg sits in his comfy chair talking about mailing photos while his dear friend eats lizards and climbs over corpses.
Even understanding the difficulty of the logistics at the time, I can't wonder why Schanberg didn't go to the refugee camps and write about them personally, maybe mount a vigil for his friend there rather than rage-watching Nixon administration footage while listening to his high-fidelity stereo.
The most tone-deaf moment in the film is when Schanberg is reunited with Pran and the production team plays of all things John Lennon's "Imagine." Seriously?!
The Khmer Rouge was the embodiment of everything in the song! They denied God, wiped out family ties and literally made everyone live for the day, every day. The fact that their "brotherhood of man" was a nightmare only illustrates the inevitable outcome of nihilistic fantasies.
My resulting rage stroke almost wrecked the movie for me.
I will re-watch The Killing Fields at some point, looking for greater detail. Also, the dialog wasn't very clear in places, so I'm sure I missed things.
Even so, The Year of Living Dangerously is a much better film. The characters are more fully developed and the moral questions are presented with greater skill and complexity. The Killing Fields gets very preachy at times, which it doesn't need to be. The story speaks for itself, we don't need Waterston's sermonizing to make the point for us.