Devil's Advocate


I've watched the movie twice, then once more with the director, et.al. commentary. It has really piqued my interest in this time of America's history. This is the kind of movie that I wish I had seen with some friends so that afterwards we could go have coffee drinks and major discussions.

I think you have to see it more than once to get a grip on it. Watching it the second time knowing that Pyle, Fowler and Phuong are actually vehicles to represent the conflict between American, European and Vietnamese interests adds so much to the plot. The first time I saw it I got the part about Pyle swooping in trying to take Phuong away from Fowler as the metaphor for how he thought he could swoop in and 'help' the Vietnamese, whether they wanted the help or not. He is clearly naive but only to a point. There is a certain righteousness to what he is doing.

The part that still bugs me after watching it a second time is the idea that Fowler set Pyle up because of his love of Vietnam and it's people. Well if Phuong is supposed to represent Vietnam and he truly loved Phuong he would not have taken away her chance at a better life. So drawing the metaphor out completely would mean that by setting Pyle up he took away Vietnam's chance at a better life. So much for the Anti-American sentiment so many people think this movie puts forth. Would Vietnam have been better off if the powers there had just let the Americans help them?, instead of ambushing and assasinating them?

reply

First, I'd like to say that this is one of my favourite movies of all times. It is one of the rare movies that don't let me go. And so I apologize right here at the beginning, if my thoughts will take a bit long to explain. And - being German myself - I also apologize if my English is not up to scratch all the time ;-)

I think neither Philip Noyce nor Graham Greene wanted to simplify the plot so far as to let the three protagonists represent nothing but their countries. After all, who or what is America, Europe or Vietnam? Is there only one attitude, opinion, way of action in any one country? - I think not.
The three are still humans and act out of their own, very human motives and with their human limitations.

I think Pyle, Fowler and Phuong are representing their countries only to the extent of symbolizing their current situation.
Fowler is the old, decadent European who has settled down comfortably in his routine with his mistress and his daily dose of opium.
Phuong is the dependent Vietnamese, unable to exist decently on her own so she chooses the least bad thing and gets herself a man who will probably be faithful to her. She is looking above all for security, I think.
And Pyle is the young and idealistic American who thinks he knows best what is good for everyone. He has the money, the power and the ideology that will set things right, and even if he has to use force everybody will be thankful in the end - well, or so he thinks.

As I see it, Fowler knowingly, and from purely egotistical motives, sets Pyle up to be killed. Maybe he does not realise it at the beginning, but when he is waiting in the restaurant and thinks about what he has done, he certainly knows that Pyle will be killed. And his own motive was to get Phuong back. He initially justified his betrayal by telling himself that Pyle had done horrible things (the massacre in that village up north and the bombing), but in his heart he knows that that is not his main reason - he wants Pyle out of the way.

In my opinion, Pyle is by far the better man of the two. Fowler, with his attitude of carelessness and superiority and of not getting involved in anything has certainly done a lot more harm in the course of his life than Pyle. Pyle, on the other hand, helps everywhere he can. He is a doctor and genuinely cares about others and helps them getting cured. He is there for less than a few weeks and already finds Phoung's sister a job whereas Fowler has never shown interest in anyone but himself.

And Fowler knows this. His experience probably also tells him that Pyle, with his empathy and his capacity of caring for others, would soon have come round to the realisation, that it was wrong to finance the weapons for General The. I am sure he would have stopped it eventually.
Fowler knows that Pyle is the better man and that he is also the better choice for Phuong, and this is exactly the reason why he wants Plye to die - because Fowler cannot live without Phuong. That is the way of an old, decadent, opium-addicted European.

Pyle's big mistake was to assume that everyone always only wants the best for the people or the country he loves - or to assume that it is even possible to know what is best - that's the real heart of the matter.
And maybe that is supposed to be America's mistake, too: It is dangerous to think that you know what is best for another country, especially when you just jump in blue-eyed, knowing nothing about it first-hand. You start meddling and before you know it, you are so deep in trouble that you may even get killed.
No matter how pure and idealistic your motives - if you start meddling with other people's (and peoples') lives, you are in for big trouble. ;-)

Being German and born in the late 60ies, I was raised to be humble and never to assume any feeling of superiority towards other countries, and I still think that a basic feeling of equality is a good starting point for dealing with everyone. After all, who or what is to say what everyone else should do or think right? There are as many opinions to that as people living on earth and they all have their point.

By the way, did you get the part where Philip Noyce says in an interview, that Ho Chih Min (the later communist leader) sent a total of seven letters to the then president of the United States (at the time when he was not yet a communist but only a leader trying to free his country from the French) begging the USA for help, but he never received an answer? The USA could have helped Vietnam then, but they didn't want to take action against the French apparently.

Well, this has been a long posting, but this is really a film that has caused me sleepless nights.

But there is one comforting thought: Pyle has indeed succeeded in helping Phuong, because he has jolted Fowler out of his indifference. Now Fowler is committed to stay with Phuong, whatever happens, and that is a good thing to take away ;-)

If anyone has worked her/his way through so far, I'd be interested to hear your opinions! So long and take care!



reply

I think neither Philip Noyce nor Graham Greene wanted to simplify the plot so far as to let the three protagonists represent nothing but their countries.

If you put that in your post as a response to my suggestion that each character represents a country I hope you understand that I was not flattening any of the character portrayals to geographic-only metaphors. Each one of those actors did a superb job of bringing humanity to their roles. But they were also "vehicles" to represent something beyond individuals in specific circumstances.*

I purposely made my post slightly provocative (note the thread title "Devil's Advocate") because I wanted so badly to discuss this movie after I saw it.
I agree it is riveting to the point of sleeplessness.

I was so uncomfortable with Fowler being portrayed as righteous in the end for setting up Pyle's death. *If we see each character portrayal as being limited to how an individual reacted to events in their own little world then he did it because he was a creepy old man. And I just did not want to accept that a film that had seemed much deeper than that would end that way.
That is why I went back and watched in again almost immmediately and began to play with the idea of the character's 'representing' international political turmoil.

As far as the director's commentary about the US not responding to Ho Chi Minh's letters.. this is a classic case of "Damned if we do, damned if we don't"
I get it. We are Ugly Americans always sticking our noses where they don't belong. Maybe the rest of the world is right. We should leave the other countries alone, let them fend for themselves. Not give a rat's ass what is going on around the world and just take care of our own. That would mean pulling financial aid from those countries too. Things are getting pretty hard in the US these days. I think if the world sees us as boorish bullies then we should not make the mistake of trying to help countries we see as being oppressed. Who are we to assume such a thing?

Sorry, I just get tired of he Anti-American message in so many movies. I really HATED Fowler at the end of that movie.

BTW listen to the river: I am not suggesting you made Anti-American statements, it's this movie the Quiet American that gets me thinking about that issue and I just started rambling. Sorry.

Winners don't even know they are in a race. They just love to run.

reply

_______________________________________________________________________________
rendrag: "I was so uncomfortable with Fowler being portrayed as righteous in the end for setting up Pyle's death."
_______________________________________________________________________________

That's precisely what irked me, too, especially since on the cover of my DVD (the version that is sold in Germany, I don't know about the US-DVD) there is this quotation prominently displayed that goes: "sometimes you have to take sides to remain human". Fowlers vietnamese assistant at the newspaper says that to Fowler after the bombing on the square when he wants Fowler to arrange that meeting with Plye without the bodyguards so that they can "interrogate" Pyle.

I, too, was worried that it was supposed to mean that Fowler did the right thing by laying the trap for Pyle (i.e. that it was right to kill him for the suffering he caused the Vietnamese). It would be just like "take an eye for an eye", wouldn't it?

BUT (the big and relieving "but") when I watched the movie with the commentary and also when I read the novel by Graham Greene I was reassured: As I had felt all along, Fowler's betrayal is inexcusable and it is grounded almost solely in his wish to have Phuong back. Although, at first, Fowler himself likes to think he does it because he had to avenge the bombing he cannot deceive himself for long and he has to admit his selfish motive to himself, even if he does never admit it to the police. That is why he says the things about everyone having to live with ghosts in the past and that is also why he asks Phuong for forgiveness, even if it is in a very general manner.

Well, and the anti-americanism has been discussed at length already. I personally don't think the movie is especially anti-american (it's mainly "anti-colonial" and "anti-meddling" in my opinion ;-) and I hope I really did make no anti-american statements since I, for one, have always had rather positive feelings towards the USA, which have been especially renewed since January this year ;-)

The commentary of the movie is very interesting, by the way. Have you listened to it? Brendan Fraser also gets a few opportunities to speak of his experiences in making the film and, as always, he is gentle and unassuming and he gets it across that he was very dedicated to getting his performance just right - which he did, of course - more than right, brilliant!!! (I mention that because I have gathered from the boards that you, rendrag, like BF rather a lot. And I agree completely - everything about him, his work, his personality and his looks, are definitely stunning ;-)





reply

Guilty as charged!! I am a big fan of Fraser. that is why I have to be careful when I watch important movies like this one to be sure that I am watching him as the character and that I don't let protectiveness of Brendan Fraser the person get in the way of the story being told.

I have watched the film with the commentary (Brendan is almost too quiet, I kept having to turn his bits up) but it has been a while. I think this is another Fraser film worth purchasing, mostly for the "historical fiction" aspect.

There is a lot more going on the storyline than is even revealed by the commentaries. The Quiet American could easily be taught as a whole unit for a film class. SO much to discuss.

Winners don't even know they are in a race. They just love to run.

reply

In my opinion, Pyle is by far the better man of the two. Fowler, with his attitude of carelessness and superiority and of not getting involved in anything has certainly done a lot more harm in the course of his life than Pyle. Pyle, on the other hand, helps everywhere he can. He is a doctor and genuinely cares about others and helps them getting cured. He is there for less than a few weeks and already finds Phoung's sister a job whereas Fowler has never shown interest in anyone but himself.


Pyle wasn't there to help. His "doctor" role was a cover for his real role as a CIA agent. He was there to manipulate Vietnam and bring it into line with American imperial interests. And he got Phuong's sister a job for opportunistic reasons, so she would support him in his effort to win over Phuong.

Fowler, though you're right in your explanation of him as a cynical, decadent and selfish old European, still loved Phuong for who she was, whereas Pyle tried to make her into something she was not. Fowler wanted to stay in Vietnam with her and let her be who she was, whereas Pyle wanted to take her back to America with him and turn her into something else. Notice how when she was when Fowler, she wore more traditional Vietnamese clothes, whereas when she was with Pyle she was wearing more Western-style clothes. It's a subtle but interesting metaphor of Fowler and Pyle's different relationships toward her.

By the way, did you get the part where Philip Noyce says in an interview, that Ho Chih Min (the later communist leader) sent a total of seven letters to the then president of the United States (at the time when he was not yet a communist but only a leader trying to free his country from the French) begging the USA for help, but he never received an answer? The USA could have helped Vietnam then, but they didn't want to take action against the French apparently.


Ho Chi Minh was a communist from early on, beginning with his time in France in the late 1910s. In fact, he was a founding member of the French Communist Party in 1920. I think the only time Ho tried contacting the US when he was not yet a communist was when he tried contacting Wilson at the end of WWI. But all his later attempts at contact were when he was already a communist. He spent time in the Soviet Union, and served as an agent of the Comintern for many years, organizing communists in China and Southeast Asia throughout the 1920s and 1930s before finally returning to Vietnam in the 1940s to wage the liberation struggle.

This is an absurd myth that has been circulating for far too long. Many Western liberals feel this need to try to turn Ho Chi Minh into an apolitical nationalist who adopted communist ideology for purely opportunistic reasons. This is utterly false. The myth appears to stem from the Western liberals' failure to reconcile their rather tepid anti-war sentiments with their vehement anti-communism, thus they need to try to make Ho Chi Minh into something other than what he was in order to be able to criticize the war against Vietnam. The implication being that it's justified to wage vicious imperial wars against communists, so if you're against a particular war then you need to pretend that the communists aren't communists. Ho Chi Minh was a nationalist whose primary aim was to liberate Vietnam, but he was also a committed communist whose understanding of the world convinced him that communism was the genuine and only vehicle through which liberation could be achieved. He was both a nationalist and a communist. It is possible to be both.

"At first, patriotism, not yet communism, led me to have confidence in Lenin, in the Third International. Step by step, along the struggle, by studying Marxism-Leninism parallel with participation in practical activities, I gradually came upon the fact that only socialism and communism can liberate the oppressed nations and the working people throughout the world from slavery."
- Ho Chi Minh

Ho was a communist for decades before the Vietnam War. His attempts to win over the US to his side stemmed from his practicality. As he saw it, the French were his primary enemy, and he knew that France depended on the US, so he tried winning the US over to his cause to undermine the French. It was purely political. But he had every intention of building a socialist system in Vietnam. Even during times where he organized broad-based "popular fronts" including both communists and non-communists, he made sure the communists were the ones who were really in control even if they led organizations that were not formally communist in name.

Contrary to the myth, it was never possible for Vietnam and the United States to be friends or allies. Ho himself knew this too; he just wanted to buy time, and didn't want to have to collide with the US if he didn't have to. Vietnam was a small underdeveloped country just emerging from colonialism, and he knew that the war would be catastrophic if it came. He wanted to avoid it. That didn't mean he was going to be the kind of client/puppet that the US would inevitably demand him to be. What he wanted was peaceful coexistence. But the US was never willing to tolerate that. The US wanted to own Asia and dominate it, and independent-minded leaders like Ho Chi Minh clashed with that. The US was furious over "losing" China (as if China was theirs to lose) and wasn't willing to "lose" any more countries in Asia, which is why the US fought so viciously to maintain its control over Korea, Laos, Cambodia and Vietnam. Ho Chi Minh's, Mao Zedong's, Kim Il Sung's independence and the US's imperialism were inherently contradictory. The US felt that it owned Asia, and the Asians felt that their own land belonged to them and were willing to fight for it. That's why the Vietnam War was inevitable.

"None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free."
- Goethe

reply

Plain and simple...whenever you get a Hollywood hunk against an older wiser man the hunk wins out. I felt the people whom were killed was his reason along with the gal. Come on he stole his gal so it is normal for him to set him up so he is out of the way butt here was something else more meaningful as his motivator also.

reply

Pyle wasn't there to help. His "doctor" role was a cover for his real role as a CIA agent. He was there to manipulate Vietnam and bring it into line with American imperial interests. And he got Phuong's sister a job for opportunistic reasons, so she would support him in his effort to win over Phuong.


You entirely miss the subtlety of the movie in showing that Pyle genuinely helped people, even though his doctor role was a cover.

Fowler, though you're right in your explanation of him as a cynical, decadent and selfish old European, still loved Phuong for who she was, whereas Pyle tried to make her into something she was not. Fowler wanted to stay in Vietnam with her and let her be who she was, whereas Pyle wanted to take her back to America with him and turn her into something else. Notice how when she was when Fowler, she wore more traditional Vietnamese clothes, whereas when she was with Pyle she was wearing more Western-style clothes. It's a subtle but interesting metaphor of Fowler and Pyle's different relationships toward her.


This is an absurd myth that has been circulating for far too long. Many Western liberals feel this need to try to turn Ho Chi Minh into an apolitical nationalist who adopted communist ideology for purely opportunistic reasons. This is utterly false. The myth appears to stem from the Western liberals' failure to reconcile their rather tepid anti-war sentiments with their vehement anti-communism, thus they need to try to make Ho Chi Minh into something other than what he was in order to be able to criticize the war against Vietnam. The implication being that it's justified to wage vicious imperial wars against communists, so if you're against a particular war then you need to pretend that the communists aren't communists. Ho Chi Minh was a nationalist whose primary aim was to liberate Vietnam, but he was also a committed communist whose understanding of the world convinced him that communism was the genuine and only vehicle through which liberation could be achieved. He was both a nationalist and a communist. It is possible to be both.


You clearly know nothing about "western liberals," as you call them. You seem intent on stereotyping people in the west. In fact, your assumption that anti-war sentiments among such people are "tepid," is merely an ugly stereotype. Similarly, your assumption that people in the west are "vehement" anti-Communists is also false. I know that because I live in the west. The same stereotyping is obvious in your assumption that "western liberals" (whomever they are) feel that "vicious imperial wars" against Communists are justified, which is pure nonsense, as is your suggestion that "western liberals" were not sincerely against the war in Vietnam. You clearly do not know many people in the west, and especially the US.

Contrary to the myth, it was never possible for Vietnam and the United States to be friends or allies. Ho himself knew this too; he just wanted to buy time, and didn't want to have to collide with the US if he didn't have to. Vietnam was a small underdeveloped country just emerging from colonialism, and he knew that the war would be catastrophic if it came. He wanted to avoid it. That didn't mean he was going to be the kind of client/puppet that the US would inevitably demand him to be. What he wanted was peaceful coexistence. But the US was never willing to tolerate that. The US wanted to own Asia and dominate it, and independent-minded leaders like Ho Chi Minh clashed with that. The US was furious over "losing" China (as if China was theirs to lose) and wasn't willing to "lose" any more countries in Asia, which is why the US fought so viciously to maintain its control over Korea, Laos, Cambodia and Vietnam. Ho Chi Minh's, Mao Zedong's, Kim Il Sung's independence and the US's imperialism were inherently contradictory. The US felt that it owned Asia, and the Asians felt that their own land belonged to them and were willing to fight for it. That's why the Vietnam War was inevitable.


Your statements that it was "never possible for Vietnam and the United States to be friends or allies" and that the US felt it "owned Asia" are pure fiction, as well, and read like propaganda that is contradicted by facts. If you're interested in facts, you might be interested to know that Vietnam and the US are rapidly expanding an already well-developed relationship in commerce, diplomacy and defense. Many people call the two countries allies now in many ways, even if their governments are still wary of each other. The people of the two countries are especially interested in forging better ties and relationships, as is evidenced by the rapidly-growing influx of tourists into Vietnam from the US and other western countries. You might not approve of that, but it's not for you to approve or disapprove, after all.


My real name is Jeff

reply