The film begins with a voice over inviting the audience in. As the scenes progress, Dith Pran and Sydney Schanberg's narratives appear as one. We come to understand their tellings as a common situation in which they search for the same things. Something that stuck out to me was just how powerful the images were. This served as a stark contrast to the monotonous and unemotional telling of the news. It also served as a nice partner to the more honest and open articles we read from The New York Times. But I soon began to wonder if the press is heartless too, as in the wake of a horrible scene, they take pictures as if they are blind to what is really going on.
We discussed the idea of how different groups come across in the film, and at one point, a member of the media refers to Cambodia as "this sad little country". While the situation is obviously sad, this comment ignores the greater implications of the situation and the fact that help is desperately needed. I was interested in Schanberg's difficulty in gaining access to information, as this made the unclear and seemingly incomplete news telling more understandable. Perhaps people only had access to so much, and revealed what they could. Throughout the film, the pair struggles to get places and gain access, which furthers the previous point. At one point, the bombing is referred to as a rumor, which speaks volumes to the confusing media portrayal. As I watched, I continued to struggle with the role of the media in all of this. What good was their reporting doing, if any? Were they there to further their own self-interest, or did they really want to make improvements? Sydney eventually makes the front page, which again makes me question his motives. Does he really care about the people of Cambodia, or does he merely want credit?
A link to other narratives from the semester comes in the overwhelming sense of unpreparedness. The soldiers seem far too young to be involved in anything like this, and there are various scenes of mass hysteria. People wander through the streets unsure of what to do or what will happen next. The most poignant moment occurs when Sydney asks if Dith Pran wants to stay or leave. Here their dynamic becomes one where Sydney has all the power and dictates his partner's behavior. Dith Pran is willing to leave his family for his friend, something that evoked powerful emotions. Dith Pran seemed almost indiferent when separating from his family. Was this a defense mechanism or an accurate portrayal of his feelings? We then can wonder if anyone really understands what is going on, as no one seems to have a realistic grasp of the situation. Even those fully immersed in it seem lost. A question that stuck with me was the effect of the news media here. I already asked a similar question, but here I am wondering more how others saw the reporters. At one point, citizens begin talking to Sydney. They seem to think he can save them by telling their story to the world. But perhaps he only follows along in order to get a good story, and does not really want to help them at all.
Another powerful scene is when Dith Pran is talking about his current situation. The desire to escape and erase the past of Cambodia is overwhelming here. Why would these people want to forget about something that completely altered everything? I understand wanting to erase the memories of the horrors, but so much more came out of this event. It could be seen as a learning experience and a time of rebuliding, as opposed to a situation that cannot ever be spoken of again. While Dith Pran suffers and is brutally beaten, Sydney gets to walk away. This truth really made me question his motives. He was in Cambodia for a while, but gets to walk away unaffected. He has his moment to make his mark, and eventually wins an award for it. When he accepts the honor, I really wondered how genuine his speech was. While he raised incredibly important points, perhaps he went to Cambodia and did what he did knowing full well he would receive this award. But by the end he finally comes to terms with what he has done. Sydney understands that he never really gave his friend any choice in whether or not he stayed. They talked about it, but it certainly was not a discussion. By the end of the film, I am leaning towards believing he is sincere, but am still on the fence. I am ultimately left wondering what to make of the pair's relationship, as the dynamic largely is in Sydney's favor. Did he do all of these things for recognition, or does he genuinely believe in bettering the world?
This blog starts out on a strong note. The idea of a common narrative is an effective one, but is too broad. What is the effect of the common narrative? Does it make us see them as equals, or is Sydney always in the position of power? Also, what is it that they are searching for? Are their common goals to shed light on what has happened, or are they looking for recognition? Through a further examination of the situation, I am still unsure about the press. This course has made me wonder about their role and nature. Are they really ever capable of telling an unbiased story? What is their reason for telling a story: to gain credit, or to raise awareness? These are good questions that affect both this historical moment and also everything that is in the past. The idea of unpreparedness makes sense, but what does it say about the nature of the event? Were people unprepared because they did not know what was going to happen? Or does unpreparedness stem from an inherent flaw from a preexisting system? Or is it a combination of both? Ultimately we must always question the telling we get, as we can never be completely aware of another person's motives. Lastly, the attempts to erase the past make more sense now. The past did not serve people's purpose. It instead represented a time of Cambodian identity and success (at least to some extent). To harp on the past would be to acknowledge that something outside of the present existed. Doing so would diminish the attempt to start anew.
ReplyDelete