What annoyed me

I often felt that too after seeing where Dith's family was placed. Now I will say that Sydney probably already had his nice place and wealth before the events and perhaps he often gave money to Dith's family for support? That would redeem everything quit a bit.

Imagine how Dith must have felt when he came home to his family, then was invited over to Sydney's place for lunch sometime later. The class divide is alive.

or maybe this was the intention?? to show the 2 different extremes where dith would have whole heartedly given his life (as shown when they were captured,the soldier repeatedly tried to push dith to leave and he stayed...why didnt sydney stay?)and was egoless and Sydney who was not as selfless and was more like your everyday joe was guilt ridden because he could not do the same that did for him....

this was all sydney was capable of, as most of us are....just a thought

Of course, this is just one thought-- perhaps not true (and of course, the movie portrayal of both/either home may be done for effect) but at that time (1975-79) there were many Vietnamese and Cambodian refugees. As many didn't speak English well, or just wanted to live near fellow refugees and keep their culture, schools, markets, etc, she may have chosen to relocate her family to a refugee "ghetto". Of course, it could be that Sydney was in a family home (for generations) before NYC prices shot up and there weren't that many options. It's been awhile since I saw this film. . . something I'll watch for in the next viewing.

I actually really liked that the film wasn't overly didactic and was open to interpretation. What often annoys me about human rights films is this clear message with perfect characters, as in Children of Men.

1) Sydney is guilty of Dith remaining there. Yet he also is responsible for saving his family. He helps accommodate Dith's family, but not opulently. Would it be fair if a family with no skills, no language, no job lived better than local Americans just because they have a rich friend? And then this is how many people behave: they take pity on others, but are unwilling to take significant care of them. And why should they? And wouldn't they be more efficient if they dedicated their time to journalism and sprucing up their life rather than helping a single family - isn't that the reason they are rich in the first place?
2) In the first quarter of the film, Dith is more of a subordinate than a friend. Frankly, Sydney treats him like an inferior, and that is how subordinates and the locals in poorer countries are often treated. And, indeed, many would argue it helps their productivity. Dith, in turn, understands that he has secured a very good place for himself that has additional benefits apart from the money. Indeed, Dith is a very lucky man to have such lucrative connections - and he has them because of certain traits of his character* that force him to remain (with Sydney's pressure. They even try to forge documents to help him.

The film has many such ambiguous and reasonable points. Say, it is constantly showing wounded children, but this is normal because the birth rates were disproportionate. Or it's showing Nixon in a negative light, but it isn't Nixon's fault the Khmer Rouge massacre their own populace on previously unseen levels.

* And his background, but that isn't shown in the film.

The film did not paint a very flattering picture of Schanberg at all.

It wasn't just the sub-par efforts pointed out in the OT and various posts; it was also the way Schanberg exploited Pran. Schanberg knew it too because of his feelings of guilt, the dressing-down he got at the French embassy, the scene in the toilet with Rockoff and the confession to his mother.

In the end I got the impression that Schanberg was delighted that Pran survived so that he can write a book and then make a film; which is exactly what he did. Sure, Schanberg fought for the cause of Cambodia but exploited on Pran's charitable nature.

Putting this irritating aspect of the film aside, I thought the story was good but in general the acting and direction tended to hold it back.

5/10