Swimming to Cambodia and the end of Survival in the Killing Fields

I immediately had a very strong reaction to the film.  We are transported into the theatre to understand where Gray is coming from.  This allows us to escape the outside world and be immersed in the performance.  His speech is fast and he almost speaks in a joking tone.  The performance becomes very theatrical as he gestures frequently.  I understand the narrative more when Gray interacts with the audience, as their responses are recorded.  It becomes a dialogue instead of words on a page.  We are able to understand his emotions and the message he is sending.  Gray repeatedly tells his audience that "it was the first day off in a long time".  Is he doing this to tell us that what he was doing was not really work?  This could tie into the theme that Cambodia was so far removed from the film's production.  

   Something I found interesting was his change in tone.  Often he would be nonchalant or speak quite quickly in an almost monotonous tone.  We can decipher points of emphasis through tonal shifts.  When he talks about the perfect moment, his voice is raised and he slows down.  We realize that so much of his experience was little moments that almost meld together.  But what emerges is his attempts to grapple with masculinity.  This process was about finding something to grasp onto.  We must also consider the sky and water behind him.  It reiterates the fact that he is on a stage, not in the water.  While this is quite obvious, it speaks to the film's nature.  The movie does not take place in Cambodia.  It instead attempts to transport us there even though the location is elsewhere.  We have a vicarious experience and can imagine we took Gray's journey with him.  

   I was intrigued by the audience's laughter.  I definitely do not think Gray attempted to make a humorous narrative, but some moments do elicit this response.  This demonstrates the westerner's absolute distance from what was happening.  Gray's story becomes a series of anecdotes that, on the surface, appear funny.  But upon closer examination, they demonstrate the viewpoint held by so many westerners.  We need to look at the dialogue where Gray tells the story of the film.  He tells it very quickly and in a way is mocking his own role.  The details mesh together as he realizes how little he really knew about Cambodia at the time.  Through the developing story, his journey becomes about coming to terms with the system.  At one point, Gray describes it as waiting for the big indifferent machine to make up its mind.  He then admits that he did not really even know where Cambodia was.  As Gray pulled the map out, I was reminded of the moment in The Killing Fields where Nixon pointed to a map in a similar fashion.  I am really interested in examining these scenes closer in my paper.  What parallels can we draw between the two?  Was Nixon as clueless as Gray?  Why did people think pointing to a map could fix anything or provide adequate information?  When he remembers Kent State, Gray embodies so many Americans.  They know minute details, but could not retell the story.  What sort of commentary is he making in these moments?  If he thinks something needs to change, why does Gray place himself with other clueless westerners?  

Survival in the Killing Fields provides a narrative we do not see elsewhere.  Ngor begins to wonder what America is really like.  This is a stark contrast to what we often see.  People tend to rely on what they hear or stereotypes to formulate opinions.  But Ngor goes into his trip with an open mind and does not know what will happen.  The scene on the plane is powerful in demonstrating the space between Cambodia and America.  People do not know how to behave as they are not accustomed to American ways.  It is clear that Ngor cannot escape his past.  He needs time to understand that he is not going to be killed or attacked for doing something differently. We see the beginnings of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder in his initial move to America.  I was intrigued by how Ngor's identity did not follow him to America.  Just because he was a doctor and wealthy at home did not guarantee continued success.  I understand needing to become certified as a doctor in America, but why would he not have an easier time with this?  A powerful moment was when he admitted to missing Cambodia.  We understand that it was once a thriving and beautiful place to live, but we were never really provided with this narrative.  We were introduced to it as a place of death and destruction.  An overarching theme of ignorance emerges once again in a surprising place.  We learn that non- Cambodian Asians did not know what happened under the Khmer Rouge.  How many were actually largely aware of what had gone on?  Next, Ngor directly addresses the article and says that Schanberg and Pran were not equals.  This is one of the first times we see this.  While it is blatantly true, people often fail to recognize it.  The narrative is powerful when Ngor realizes that he is Dith Pran.  They both stand for the suffering of so many that will never be forgotten.  And their narrative becomes one as the film is put together.  

    I appreciated the epilogue for providing important context.  We learn that Ngor never found peace in his later life.  How could someone ever come to terms with what had happened?  It haunted him forever, and surely did the same for so many other Cambodians.  His plight certainly was not helped when the Khmer Rouge leaders were not put on trial for genocide.  Justice was not brought to the situation, and this may never happen.  What, if anything, could ever do this?  I was saddened by the story of his death. It definitely seems that the police failed to completely understand what happened.  His death was not a simple act of murder.  There were definitely other operating factors, and ones that may never be fully understood.  Overall, both of these narratives brought a more complete understanding.  They portray different ideas but contribute to the idea of unawareness.  So many people really did not know what happened, but one man's story is a call to action for justice and understanding.