Way, way, way overrated-


I finally got around to seeing this film after having it at the top of my film list for quite some time now...and I am _majorally_ disappointed. I thought this was going to be a real difficult emotional movie to swallow. Nobody is seen as really "good" or "bad" but in the many different shades of grey between. Wellllllll, that's the (wrong) preconceived notion I had from reading many reviews. Michael Caine plays perhaps the biggest *beep* character in the history of cinema. He's beyond pathetic in his job, his relationships, is incapable of having an opinion on anything and is a coward. Talk about an unexamined life worth unliving LOL. (His acting is marvelous - his character had less 'character' to work with than Frasier's dog.) He can't even stand up and challenge Frasier as he's losing his woman. Pathetic wanker! At least Frasier's character is portrayed as a man taking action when the time calls for it.

So in hindsight I thought I was going to wrestle with these feelings for these characters when in reality all I got from it is Caine is one of the most pathetic characters in cinema history and Frasier is a blowhard. As an America by way of the UK - I'm really offended that the UK looks like a bunch of scared pansies and the US looks like a bunch of blowhards. At least Frasier's character had conviction, right or wrong, so even though he was outacted by Caine he had the way more interesting character.

Please enlighten me to something I may have missed!

reply

I truly think you have missed the point. This isn't a movie where the plot and characters exist only to jerk tears, it's a subtle description of the situation in Vietnam. The main characters represent their respective home-countries, at least thats what I thought when I watched it. When you think of it that way, the characters become much deeper. Much deeper indeed.

At any rate, think of it in terms of politics rather than character drama (though I thought there was plenty of that as well). In that respect it is more like Syriana or Apocalypse Now than Schindlers List or The Deer Hunter.

reply

I thought this film was dull dull dull so would have to agree with this poster. I was just bored. No matter what the movie is trying to depict if it's boring then it's not getting any message across...

reply

Of course its dull, if you believe it to be something that its not.

As the poster above you stated, the story is Graham Greene's interpretation of events at the end of the First Indochina War, leading up to the United States involvement in the Second Indochina War. The characters are an analogy for the political motivations and moral consequences of the time. Perhaps if you read the book, or strove to understand the historical context of the film you would gain a greater sense of enlightenment from the story.....or not..bimbo.

reply

hobgadling2000,

EXACTLY. It is too bad most people can't enjoy something as intelectually involving as this.

reply

i saw this movie when i was 12 and i thought it was good. it wasn't dull. at least i understood it.

reply

To describe Caine's character as cowardly and lacking conviction misses the point.

Many of Graham Greene's character show a loss of faith rather than apathy or amorality.

Thomas Fowler's idealism grows as the political situation worsens and makes a difficult moral choice in leading Brendan Frasers character to his death.

The way he deals with the loss of Phuong reflects a time when social mores were restrained and some might say more grown-up.

This is a superior piece of work that credits the audience with a level of intelligence by letting the story unfold slowly.

reply

[deleted]

Fowler is not really meant to be a likeable character, neither is Pyle. I've read the book and seen the film and studied it at school, it is not my favourite story ever but Fowler is meant to be shown as a bit of a hypocrit as he always says that he is "uninvolved" and such but is actually involved by being in vietnam, by dating a local girl, which with it brings associated opinions on the war, whether he realises this or not.

in the book at least, i remember him saying a quote similar to "i have been blind to many things" or something. He eventually realises this though.

reply

Actually, he did help Communists out of conviction, not out of jealousy. He saw the deaths in the street on the day of the bombing and he saw that Pyle had no interest in anything but the self-centred notion that he was Vietnam's saviour and that any "collateral damage" was just part of the price Vietnam had to pay to be saved. Fowler saw Pyle's callousness and insensitivity and saw that he had to be stopped. Phuong had very little to do with his ultimate decision, though it would be ignorant of me to discount her entirely.

The 1958 version, rather, has Fowler help the Communists purely out of jealousy. Pyle does not end up being involved in anything untoward in that version. This is because the film was an American production, made while the conflict in Vietnam was still going on. The filmmakers had no idea how the conflict was going to turn out, and they had the production code to think of. If you'd like to watch a version of "The Quiet American" that is ACTUALLY boring and really does conform to the conclusions you've come to over the 2003 version, please watch the 1958 version instead.

Equally, if you'd like to have a true picture of what Greene intended when he wrote the novel in 1952, I would suggest reading it.

reply

I appreciated this film for its outstanding performances and for its historic value. America, after France, fell into the same error of misunderstanding the nature of the conflict in Vietnam - that it was essentially a civil war. And in certain ways, Vietnamese culture has a refinement that is lacking in some aspects of the American experience. I also learned a great deal about the arrogance of power - the same arrogance of power that has trapped America into the never-ending Iraq War. We showed have learned from previous experience.

reply

If u find movies like that boring, then go and watch "Bruckheimer-Movies" again.

reply

I struggled through the second half of the movie, having given it a break half way through and hoping things would improve. They didn't.

You said pretty much what needed to be said.

It was one of those movies that "felt" like they were on the right track when they made it... but it never got beyond the sense that something interesting was going to happen.

Although I liked Brandan Frasier in previous work, I thought he was the one actor who was totally miscast. I couldn't get past his goofy previous character work and allow my mind to transform him into mega CIA agent.

reply

I agree about Fraser being miscast.

Let's get dangerous!

reply

I haven't seen this, but it's on tonight so gonna watch.

This line kind of bothers me:

"Nobody is really good or bad, just lots of different grey's inbetween"

Yep well welcome to the real world.

reply

Fraser was just like the way he is in the book. Caine was the one who didn't play the character accurately.

reply

I don't think so. Fowler is played as a journalist who tries to have no opinion, to take no sides. He is, in his quiet and subtle appeareance, a very cynical man which is no surprise after having seen many war atrocities. He is bold when it comes to getting a good story, as you can see in his interview with General Thé. He adapts to local habits (like smoking opium) without trying to change them according to European or American values: he shows respect, that is not weakness. When he meets Pyle, he is amused of Pyle's naive and idealistic attitude: Pyle acts like a 'real gentleman' when it comes to the question who will get Phuong in the end. He even saves Fowler's life. But then, after realizing that Pyle in his zeal to 'improve' Indochina according to US-American 'morale' doesn't care about killing a few civilians, children included, for 'the greater picture' (I think that is what Pyle said), he finally and without regrets realizes that one has to take sides in a conflict like this and does it in his way.
Pyle's character is like a prelude for the latter US-American interference which brought a lot of misery and death not only to a few civilians on a marketplace, but to the millions of innocent civilians in Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos.
Please keep in mind that the original novel was written in the 1950ies by Graham Greene, so it shows quite some foresight.

reply

Read the book. You'll probably be more offended but also enlightened, assuming you know how to interpret novels better than movies.

reply

I didn't read the book but felt this movie was one of the best I have seen. I was so involved with what was going on, not bored for a single second. But, this movie is very deep and maybe best understood by those of us that lived through that time period when we didn't trust our government to give us the truth about what was happening there, hence the demonstrations and demands for truth that went on here.

I don't see the younger generation as invested in this type of a movie as someone older would be as they are used to being entertained without having to think about things. This is a generalization and not meant to represent all young people. The love story was very deep as well and of a different time when people fell in love with an intensity I don't see anymore.

Overall this movie moved me very deeply and gave me a better understanding of the vietnam war then ever before due to the secrecy surrounding it at the time it was happening. Don't miss the timeline on the special features of the DVD..it is excellent.

reply

Its a good film. I first heard about "The Quiet American" when I was reading Niall Ferguson's book Colossus "The Rise and Fall of The American Empire" (execllent btw) and there is a quote from the novel. I would like to read the novel at some point also.

The point of the story is that Fowler is an old tired cynical British man that has lived through the British Empire at its height. He lived through WW1, WW2 (the end of the Empire proper) in which a new world order has replaced the Empires of Europe and Britain and France among others are now grasping at straws to keep territories. It is an uncertain world in which they are no longer relevant now that USAs new Empire, and the Soviet Union other and Communist movements are the powers of the day.

All taking place in a nuclear age, space age, a jet age, an assault rifle age. Britain's people are still on rations and Europe is heavily in debt yet Japan and Germany are only getting better. America is now the focus of the western world. Everything American is considered exciting and fresh. Britain's own youth are more interested in hollywood movies, American rock music, big shiney cars, home appliances, advertising and not Rudyard Kipling, The Empire, or traditional British products or values. The teenager is born. India has been lost. Korea is ongoing. Dollar has replaced the Pound. Britain is trying to find a place in this new world. It develops excellent jet fighters, assault rifles, an independent nuclear deterrent, passenger air craft, even a space program only to have America either directly sabotage, force the British to choose the American option, or fail due to lack of resources and have no choice.

I suspect Fowler (Greene too) is somewhat resentful of America/ns. And Pyle the all American handsome exciting young man, always smartly dressed, (along with all the new naive ideals of liberty, globalisation, empire by invitation, republicanism, being anti imperial yet not realising that it is the same process repeating itself under different names) represents the USAs new dominance. Hence fowler being so fearful that he will take Phuong, knowing that he himself is no match. Not ignoring fact that he is too old to have children, he is past it, like the nation he represents. I think many people miss the significance of the time it was written,or the Britsh author.

Of course Greene was right, America was/is just as bad/worse as any European colonialist. Vietnam was doomed, and the CIA do evil things. And im glad he gave a happy ending for fowler. Perhaps that represents something too.

reply

How much of your post is someone else's words, bbgunpop..you say you are quoting a book but you don't seperate it by italicizing it or using a different font to distinguish it seperately from your own words.

I agree to a point that American culture had an influence for a while on Britain, but not for that long. Britain started producing their own electronics and cars or imported them from other European countries. Then the British invasion of the 1960's came along and America's obsession with anything British started, all while Veitnam was escalating. I believe that author is reading more into the situation than was necessary. People are always looking for underlying meaning where there may not be any.

I don't agree with the author's comparison of Pyle as the young and fresh American and Fowler as the aging dinosaur no longer necessary. Phoung prefered Fowler and was only held back by his marraige, not his age. Had he been single and stood up against Pyle as a single man also, I believe Phoung would have chosen Fowler hands down. A more experienced man is probably way more attractive to a young woman in a war torn country..it is what I would have done also.

reply

None of it was a quote, I was just saying that I heard about "The Quiet American" from a quote in that book.

reply