Official Synopsis
This emotional and brutally honest true story follows Pulitzer Prize-winning New York Times reporter Sydney Schanberg (Waterston), who remains in Cambodia in 1975 after the government falls. He convinces his friend and translator Dith Pran (Ngor) to stay with him to report on the bloodbath perpetrated by one of the most brutal regimes of the 20th century and on the United States’ role in precipitating the horror. The two continue to work until the Khmer Rouge, the terrorist government that killed nearly 3 million, arrests them. Schanberg is eventually released and returns to New York. Pran is sent for execution but barely manages a daring escape from the killing fields and from Cambodia. With the help of Schanberg, Pran emigrates to the U.S. and becomes a staff photographer for the New York Times.
{media load=media,id=2395,width=720,align=center,display=inline}
I had never seen this film prior to the Blu-ray release, and my first impression of it is that it didn’t have enough of the war story in it to create the substance needed to explain what the journalist were going through at the time. Most films about war show a section of the overall war that really drives home what it was like to be there, and how incredibly bad things can get quickly in unsettling wartime situations. At the beginning of the film we see things like a bombing in a shopping district and a deeper tragedy where U.S. bombers mistakenly drop bombs on a small city. These events seemed to be the primers to start the engine of explanation about what exactly was going on with Cambodia at this given time in history. But it never really gained any traction beyond these moments and at times felt like the regime change in Cambodia was sort of glossed over, skipping what led up to it. You get a lot of explanation through the characters, which is bad because you never want your characters to over explain things (that’s what visuals are for), but visually seeing it and kind of building that suspense of the ultimate takeover in the country was empty at times.
The movie felt this way about an hour into it, but then it hit me. I had missed the point of the film entirely.
The war was a secondary part of the story, something in the background to drive the foreground’s message. The characters’ explanations of the happenings around them were just filler to make sure the viewer knew what was at stake. The real purpose of the film was something far more impactful and important. That purpose revolved around the relationship between New York Times journalist Sydney Schanberg (Sam Waterston) and his Cambodian journalist friend, Dith Pran (Haing S. Ngor). The war brought these men together, wielding an unbreakable bond that drove them to understand each other and create an unbreakable friendship that would keep them together even when they were very much apart. All of this was orchestrated beautifully on film.
Director Roland Joffé did a superb job of building these men. He showed their relationship from the get-go, when Sydney arrives at an airport late, expecting Dith to be there to greet him, only to have to take a taxi. Instead of angrily laying into Dith, Sydney simply asks Dith why he wasn’t there and Dith explains that he had to go to the hospital because something had happened. Dith’s understanding that the ‘story’ was more important to Sydney above all else was shown in this simple moment, and Sydney’s immediate changeover to ‘what happened?’ acknowledges his respect for Dith’s assumption. They’re in sync the entire film like this and it just builds and builds into a solid bond between the two men until they’re forced to part ways.
The moment they part is gut wrenching, as all hell is breaking loose because the regime change is occurring. Pol Pot’s Khmer Rouge group takes over and is forcefully changing the way the urban citizens see life (mainly by killing them, if they don’t convert). At this point, we see Sydney is on his way to freedom, while Dith is on his way to his own execution. By all rights, this should be the end of Dith and Sydney’s relationship, but we know it won’t be.
The film shifts into to halves; one half is showing how Sydney is regretting his decision to leave Dith. while the other half is showing how Dith put together a daring escape from a Pol Pot driven labor camp. They’re two sides struggling to find one point and it’s incredibly well done and balanced. Don’t worry, I won’t ruin the ending for you. Just know that you’re going to be taken on a torturous journey, both from Sydney and Dith (though, Dith probably had the worst end of the deal).
By the end of the movie, I can now see why people considered this one of the best of 1984. Though, I still contend that Amadeus put together a better tale as a whole, The Killing Fields certainly built one of the stronger, more intriguing relationships on film. If you haven’t seen this one, see it.
As for the Blu-ray portion of the film, it’s pretty good. For a film that was made 30 years ago, Warner Home Video did a solid job with cleaning it up and transferring it to HD. You will find some of darker scenes (mostly night – and scenes where there is an extreme lack of light) to contain grainy elements and some artifacts. Some of the labor camp scenes, especially the killing fields reveal, is some of the most gorgeous in the movie. here are some solid colors in this film that stand out, mostly blue and red (and somewhat yellow). There isn’t any color banding, though, which is great. As a whole, Warner Home Video did a really good job on the transfer, but it’s not perfect.
Included with this release is also a booklet, which encompasses the Blu-ray case. Plenty of really nice pictures are included with this booklet and you get some great production notes as well. It helps to make up for the extreme lack of features included (you only get commentary and a trailer — such a shame, as I wanted to know more about this production).
All in all, the Blu-ray release is solid.
