I have been to Cambodia and know quite a bit about the Killing Fields/Khmer Rouge history, so I was quite disappointed that this film offered no back story to who they were and why they were doing what they were doing. I know this is because it focused on one man's story, but to the uninitiated about the Cambodian genocide, there would have been confusion as to what was going on.
It was a decent film nonetheless, but I just expected more.
Daniel:
Call me a 'cynical guy' RE: your point but in order for the movies to actually address the motives/origins of the KhRu would require a certain level of introspection that might make the film-maker uncomfortable; it was just easier to 'gloss over' all that 'year zero/forced collectivisation ideology' stuff for simply saying Nixon & Kissinger were to blame because of 'The Secret Bombings' & 'US Intervention';
NM
Uncomfortable? Why? I don't understand. Wouldn't it have been better to have established motive for the KR's actions?
shareDaniel:
In a nutshell......MANY film-makers tend to 'left friendly' if not socialist/communist sympathetic themselves...so to examine the KR too deeply might make them 'uncomfortable' with their own sympathies, so instead they fall back on the old 'cliches' that Nixon & Kissinger are to blame.
nm
The movie was one man's story.
If you want to know more of that era there are countless books, documentaries and stuff online that you could look up.
Its that man again!!
>'uncomfortable' with their own sympathies
You do realize that Communist Vietnam were the ones to put an end to the KR right?
If anything though, their rise only serves to bolster the idea of anti-imperialism. Not in support of the KR's take on anti-imperialism but in support of the idea that intervening with unnecessary military force only serves to create brutality 100x worse. Look no further than the result of our most recent pointless war of choice: ISIS. Probably the most despicable group of human beings since the KR.
The NVA actually armed & established the KR to keep Cambodia's army from mucking around in the NVA's base areas-areas they continued to control even after the war agains Saigon was won--They didn't give a damn about the KR until the KR began to attack "Vietnamese" villages/settlements near the common border:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ba_Ch%C3%BAc_massacre
The West's "liberation groupies" were unwilling to recognize that commies were gonna act like commies have done throughout history.
Why can't you wretched prey creatures understand that the Universe doesn't owe you anything!?
Dan, how many WW2 films have you seen which explain the behaviour of the Nazis? Probably none of the thousands made. TKF would have been 5 hours long had they put in all the detail that the uninitiated perhaps require.
shareDan, how many WW2 films have you seen which explain the behaviour of the Nazis?
I know what you mean, danieloneill. But, decisions have to be made about what to include and what to leave out... Films can get messy if they try to include too much information and, personally, I prefer it if a film is a bit more focussed and leaves me feeling curious about certain things, which I can investigate myself later on... Of course, it's much easier to do that these days - with the internet, etc. - than it was back when the film was made in 1984.
It's a good film... I'm glad I took the time to watch and it's inspired me to find out more about the two guys and Cambodia in general.
It is one man story. It tries to convey the brutality of Khmer Rouge regime, without showing too much gore that will repulse the audience.
Ngor Haing tried to convince the director to show what kind of atrocities KR cadres were really capable to do (he himself was a survivor of the regime). But the director refused for reason mentioned above.
Also, it's hard to tell the audience the full big picture in under 2 hours.
to the uninitiated about the Cambodian genocide, there would have been confusion as to what was going on.But I think we get the general idea, judging from earlier bomb attacks, evacuation, and anarchy. Similarly, The Year of Living Dangerously gives us enough - but not much - background on Indonesia's 1960s massacres, because it focuses on the reporters rather than politicians. share
I agree: for those viewers who don't know much about Cambodia and the Khmer Rouge, the movie seems to dive into the story too quickly without providing any setup or background information. When I first saw the film I thought it would have been helpful if the director had included an explanatory paragraph or two at the beginning.
share[deleted]