Americans: Retaining Pride in the Face of Shame
By Wendy Kuhn with comments by Catherine Breckenridge, John Culhane, Stephanie McElroy, and Lindsay Totams; and Wendy's comments on the commentators
[1] We Americans are constantly criticized for our pride. Face it, we think our country is the best, hands down. We have the best houses, the best cars, the best athletes, the best government, the best military, the best Disney World, and the best McDonald's. We are ethnocentric and egotistical. Well, we must also be the best at self-criticism because we realize that this ethnocentricity is a major flaw. The Killing Fields is a film that attempts to correct this flaw. In it, Americans are forced to witness our country at one of its lowest points. We are confronted with image after image of America as the "bad guy," complete with military blunders and political corruption. This film bashes our pride.
[2] And, yet, our pride remains. After viewing The Killing Fields, one does not suddenly lose all feelings of nationalism. We do not leave the theatre wishing we were British or French or Japanese. Ironically, even after witnessing the horrors our nation allowed to occur, we are still essentially satisfied with being American. Sure, we may be angry with our government for the chaos it created in Cambodia. We may regret that the Cambodians had to undergo such horrendous conditions. But we do not abandon our general faith in America, our sense that our nation is good; we may even still believe that America is the best. The evacuation sequence, or Operation Eagle Pull, is essential in this respect. Over the course of seven intense minutes, the American viewer is simultaneously confronted with loud, obnoxious images that overtly expose our government's corruption and force us to question our national pride; and smaller, more subtle images that qualify our nation's shortcomings and allow our pride to ultimately prevail. During the evacuation scene, these opposing forces integrate in intricate and complex ways.
[3] There are many techniques used in the evacuation sequence (37:05) that function to expose America's faults and depict us as the "bad guy." The tense music, the invasive helicopters, and the constant cutting between shots, for example, all give the viewer a sense of urgency. It is as though America is on the run. Indeed, almost everyone in this scene is running. Major Reeves quickly scours the embassy for any remaining Americans; military men run about in seeming circles; Schanberg and Pran sprint around in search of each other; and, later, the helicopter that will take Pran's family to safety. What I wonder at this point is why everyone is running? Why are we in such a rush? Besides the obvious answer that military operations are usually carried out in a quick and efficient manner, there remains the response to why the director made sure that this evacuation sequence was portrayed as rushed.
[4] The first step to answering this question is to ask another: why does anyone run? People run for recreation and for transportation; we run to get to somewhere/something or away from somewhere/something. After answering this preliminary question, it is then reasonable to assume that, since Americans are evacuating Cambodia, they are running away from something.
[5] Now, there are never good connotations to running away from something. People run out of fear (I don't want that fill-in-blank to get me), they run out of embarrassment (I can't believe I called my Professor a fill-in-blank ), and they run out of guilt (I'd better leave before the store manager notices that fill-in-blank is missing). In the case of Cambodia, it is safe to say that Americans ran for all three reasons (see comment by Stephanie McElroy). The Americans realized they had started something big, although they probably didn't realize how big -- no one consciously foresees the genocide of 3 million people -- and wanted to leave before they were drawn into the commotion they created. As an embassy official earlier told Schanberg, "We're either staying or we're living" (33:00). We knew something terrible, a "bloodbath" even (32:56), was about to happen in (or to) Cambodia; we knew that our involvement there had contributed to this terrible thing about to occur; and, yet, we chose to leave. The evacuation scene is "rushed" to expose America's guilt in Cambodia's later fate -- a culpability of which one can hardly be proud.
[6] In addition to the overwhelming sense that America is on the run, other, subtler, techniques are used to undermine American ideals and expose American faults. Images of the American flag, seen throughout the sequence, play a role here. We first see the flag waving proudly outside the American Embassy (38:54). A photojournalist, Al Rockoff, takes pictures as we see our flag, our pride, lowered by a military official. American esteem is then taken a step lower, as this man clumsily climbs through a small opening in the building, practically dropping our flag on his way in. No longer does the American viewer see their flag, the symbol of their proud nation, raised in triumph. Instead, we witness our flag being lowered in defeat and desertion.
[7] Finally, color and status are used to expose America as the "bad guy" in the "good" Cambodia. The American Ambassador travels in a black Cadillac, symbolic of both American "high class" and the dark corruption associated with this class. The Americans, with the exception of the journalists, are all wearing the dark, "classy" attire of military and businessmen, whereas the Cambodians are presented in lighter, purer colors and don ragged, worn clothes. Repeatedly, Americans are associated with the material world (helicopters, fancy clothes, Cadillacs), and that association is presented as deviant, even "evil," in relation to the natural/"good" world of Cambodia (see comment by Lindsay Totams). Our technology, and hence our materialism, is shown to disrupt the purity of Cambodia's environment. When the evacuation helicopters first entered Cambodia's serene atmosphere, for example, the sky was crisp, clear, and blue -- a calm, peaceful color. As the choppers leave, they disappear into black smoke -- the wake of America's dirty involvement. America is shown to be so "evil" here that even the Cambodian sky is blackened with our corruption (see comment by John Culhane).
[8] Overwhelmingly, this evacuation sequence denies the viewers the chance to experience the American pride to which they are accustomed. Through the various images and techniques described above, Americans are portrayed as careless, inattentive, neglectful, and even "evil." We see our country ignore pleading Cambodians and trip over oblivious children, as it abandons a nation in need. Ironically, though, one does not leave this scene with as sour a taste as one would expect. In addition to the many images that condemn America, there are a few small, but important references to the American "good" that make this evacuation tolerable for those who would like to maintain their sense of American pride.
[9] The most prominent moment of American "good" in the evacuation sequence occurs at the very beginning, as Major Reeves searches the American Embassy for any remaining officials. One American official, Bob, sits alone in his office as Reeves shouts "this is the last check!" (37:36) Bob is the only official we see hesitating to leave Cambodia. He sluggishly rises off his office floor and, deep in contemplation, rubs the face of a Buddhist statue. The viewer feels the power of this moment; we feel that Bob, although evacuating Cambodia, deeply regrets this action. The statue, symbolic of Cambodia and its values, is attended to and respected by Bob. Bob is distinguishable from the other Americans in this scene in that he understands and truly contemplates the complexities of Cambodia's struggle. Unfortunately, he comes to the conclusion that, although he may wish to aid this poor nation, he, and perhaps even America, can do little at this point to prevent the massacre that would inevitably ensue.
[10] The American journalists, Schanberg and Rockoff--who stay in Cambodia after the evacuation--are also portrayed in a positive light in this sequence. In addition to Bob, both journalists can be distinguished from the other Americans portrayed in this scene in that they are critical and reflective of the American involvement in, and withdrawal from, Cambodia. (While both journalists are important, Rockoff's presence in this scene is particularly noticeable, and so I will concentrate on him.) Rockoff's sarcastic remark, "Well, it's been real," (38:58) as he photographs the lowering of the American flag functions to separate him from the other, "bad" Americans who leave Cambodia. By making such an informal, slang-like statement, at as serious a moment as the abandonment of Cambodia, Rockoff essentially mocks America. To Rockoff, only power-hungry American officials could enter a neutral country, stir up a major revolution, and leave when the going got too tough with as much indifference as "It's been real." Although Rockoff himself is American, he can still detach himself enough from America to criticize our government. It is this self-criticism, along with the division made between Rockoff and the people he criticizes, that allows the American viewers to retain their national pride.
[11] The American "good" in the evacuation sequence, which fosters the national pride that the American "evil" criticizes, is conveyed through individual Americans, Bob and Rockoff in particular. These men are presented as the few honorable Americans amongst a dishonorable majority (see comment by Catherine Breckenridge). They are critical of their government's mistakes, and yet powerless to change them. These men represent what the audience would like to believe is "us": flawed -- Bob leaves Cambodia and Rockoff ignores the needs of the Cambodian children who dance around him -- but essentially honest and good-natured people. The American viewer can accept that our government may be power-hungry, thoughtless, and "evil." But the viewer firmly needs to believe that we, the American people, are basically good. Bob and Rockoff are these "good" Americans. Their presence in the evacuation sequence of negativity is essential; they allow us to defend and maintain our American pride. They allow us to continue believing that America, or at least its people, is the best. (see comment by Wendy Kuhn)
Comments
[1] There may never be good connotations to running away from something, but is it really accurate to classify the three reasons as fear, embarrassment, and guilt? I do not refute the fact that people run out of fear. It is reasonable that one would run to escape something that he or she is afraid of. I believe, however, that embarrassment and guilt fall under the category of fear.
[2] The examples that Wendy provides claiming that people also run out of embarrassment and guilt in actuality stem from the initial reason: fear. In her example, "I can't believe I called my Professor a fill-in-blank"--why would someone run away? Is the level of embarrassment really the issue? Someone might run because he or she fears the consequences -- for example, getting in trouble with the dean or receiving a poor grade. Likewise, in the guilt example, why would someone run after stealing something from a store? If the person felt so guilty about it at that instant, then his or her superego would have overridden the impulse to steal. Perhaps the person would feel guilty about the crime at a later point, but he or she would run away at that instant because of the fear of getting caught by the store manager.
[3] In the case of The Killing Fields, the Americans were afraid of the expanding Cambodian Communists, the Khmer Rouge, which was closing in on Phnom Penh. It is true that the Americans retreated from a situation that they helped to create, and they may have felt guilt and embarrassment later on, but I do not believe it is accurate to pinpoint those feelings as the reasons why the Americans ran away at that instant.
[4] Wendy argues that certain techniques in the movie "reveal" the embarrassment and guilt of the American people, which expose American faults. She points out the American flag is clumsily taken down "in defeat and desertion" and the dark clouds roll in--"the wake of America's dirty involvement." I believe that these two "dark moments" can also be interpreted as the evils of communism conquering the American "free" way of life. In fact, the situation only worsens after the Americans flee from the country and the Khmer Rouge begins its torturous reign.
[5] I believe that instead of categorizing the primary reasons why people run away, Wendy deduced the reasons why she believed the Americans fled from Cambodia and arranged the argument around that rationale.
2/4/03
While Wendy mentions a categorical difference between the physical aspects of the Americans and the Cambodians, it is important to look a bit more closely at the different depictions within the group of Americans in this scene. There is a blatant difference in the way the "good" Americans are portrayed versus the way the "bad" Americans are portrayed, specifically their style of clothing and their hair. This is seen the most clearly with Al Rockoff and Sydney Schanberg, two "good" Americans. Rockoff's outfit in this scene is a cutoff vest and shorts, while his hair is shaggy and long. He looks as if he put no more than two seconds thought into choosing his attire. Schanberg's appearance is not as "thrown together" as Rockoff's, but he certainly is not dressed to impress. His outfit is nothing special, and his overgrown facial hair could indicate that he does not place a high value on grooming himself everyday. Their disheveled looks seem to suggest that their concerns lie elsewhere, most likely with the Cambodians' crisis. Clothing and appearance is of the very least importance to them at this moment. On the other hand, one sees the immaculate dress of the American military. All of the officers are clad in crisp, clean uniforms with neatly groomed hairstyles. Appearance matters to them, be it their clothing, their facial expressions, or even their military operations. These "bad" Americans are more concerned with putting up a façade, while hiding their cruel intentions inside.
2/5/03
[1] Another indictment of the American value structure in this scene can be found in the separation of Dith Pran from his family. By the year 1975, when the events of The Killing Fields take place, the idyllic "American Family" of the 50's was rapidly disintegrating around the fact that both men and women alike were making large sacrifices in the familial spheres of life in order to pursue career and material achievement. The scene portrays the far-reaching effects of this trend on the Pran family after Dith remains in Cambodia when given the chance to safely evacuate with his wife and children, whether he was influenced to stay or not.
[2] What Wendy describes as representing the intrusion of American materialism and individualism into the relatively simple and collective culture of Cambodia, as well as the Eastern world in general, in this scene can be further extrapolated to include the breakdown of the traditional or natural family structure. As Wendy uses this scene to illustrate the film's stance on America's dark side (the abandonment of Cambodia, poisoning the environments of other people's land, etc.), I feel it is important to add to that list the way this scene indicts America as being responsible for family decay both at home and abroad.
2/4/03
Though I sympathize with Wendy's thoughtful portrayal of Rockoff and Bob as passionate and gentle American reporters, I disagree that they are the "few honorable Americans amongst a dishonorable majority." In 1975 anti-Vietnam/military sentiment was at its peak in the United States. The American soldiers, Marines in this case, who were sent to Cambodia were there as a result of the draft or their deeply-rooted patriotism. In many ways these soldiers were living on "honor" alone. They realized, too, by this time that although America's initial reason for entering Cambodia was a sincere one, the damage they had caused was now irreversible. They entered Cambodia on a mission, and it was their "honor" that kept them alive and sane. They assisted in the evacuation of native Cambodians to the United States for hopes of a better life. They attacked what they believed was an "enemy" of these innocent people, believing they were assisting in a larger mission to keep free, democratic societies alive, not to impart "evil" on every person and country to which they came in contact. I think that "American Pride" is shown through the portrayal of these soldiers who stood by their country when things began to get a little tougher than expected. It is easy to view the devastation in Cambodia as the result of "evil," power-hungry Americans while looking in from the outside view of a photographer. If Rockoff or Bob had been in search of true honor, they may have found it in their fellow American soldiers.
2/5/03
Email conversation with Wendy Kuhn
3/14/03
What have you been doing since graduation?
I graduated from Lehigh in 2000 with a Bachelors Degree in English and Psychology. My main campus involvement at school was through my sorority, Alpha Gamma Delta. If anyone was in my sorority, they probably wouldn't have known me too well because I was a senior at the time and living off-campus on East 5th St. My house did hold a pasta dinner party for the pledges though.
After graduating, I went to Hofstra University on Long Island to work on my Masters Degree in School Counseling. My home town is on the east end of Long Island in the Hamptons and I communted to school from there. Last May, I graduated with my Masters Degree and started looking for a job, which proved to be a bit difficult. I eventually got a job working for Big Brothers Big Sisters of Long Island as a Case Manager. I really enjoy what I am doing, but I hope to eventually work in a school as a Guidance Counselor. As for life outside of work, I spend a lot of free time in Manhattan or (in the summer) at the beach with my friends.
Well, that's about it. It's not too exciting, but it works for me :)
Why did you pick The Killing Fields to work on, and how do you feel about the issues now?
This one required some thought. I remember picking that film because you had it on a list of possibilities. I have always liked war movies and The Killing Fields was a movie I had been meaning to see. Plus, I knew very little about Cambodia and I had a friend growing up who lived there as a child, so I wanted to learn more. That was about it.
As for my feelings, I remember that this movie put a really bad taste in my mouth regarding America as a superpower. I didn't like that we went into this little country, shook things up, and then essentially took no responsibility for the chaos we had caused. I mean, I'm sure we gave them some aid, but, as far as I'm concerned, it was too little too late. I hadn't really thought about how it relates to today's issues until I received this email. Now that I think of it, I feel very similarly about the impending war with Iraq. I think there are going to be consequences that we could never predict and we won't have the resources to deal with them effectively. If we win, how are we going to help that country get on its feet, and why is that our responsibility? Still, I'm not the one who has to make these difficult decisions and, while I don't like it, I guess I consider war to be a necessary evil. I just wish more forward thinking was involved.
Phew. Way to make me feel like I am still in school, Prof Gallagher!
Would you comment on the work that the "second generation" group added to yours this semester?
I read everyone's comments and I thought they were all pretty interesting. It's a new experience for me to have other students comment on and critique my work. Still, I find it so interesting to hear everyone else's take on The Killing Fields and on my essays. It kind of puts your writing in a whole new light. Anyway, I really liked what everyone had to say, so if you were hoping for a feisty defense, sorry!
I thought Steph McElroy had a good comment about the "running" part of my scene essay. I hadn't thought about her point before, but I now agree that running out of guilt and embarrassment does boil down to fear -- a fear of the consequences of your actions. I especially liked your take on the theft example and how you mentioned one's "superego" -- Psyc major? :)
I also thought that Lindsey made a good comment about Schanberg and Rockoff contrasting from the other Americans in regard to the style of their clothes. I remember focusing on the light colors they were wearing, but their scruffy look also made them more positive people to me. John's comment about the disintegration of family being another negative effect of America's involvement in Cambodia was another point I hadn't noticed. Not only in Pran leaving his family, but in the way children were separated from their families in the camps and taught to break from the institution of the family by the Khmer Rouge. While this wasn't directly America's fault, we certainly had an indirect role there as well.
In regard to Catherine's comment, I agree that American soldiers were also a part of the "honorable Americans" abroad. The word "few" may have been inappropriate, but I meant it specifically for that scence. In that essay, I was essentially trying to portray the men in the fancy suits and fancy cars that represented our American government as the true dishonorable Americans in that scene. If you recall, I also felt Bob, who was a government worker there, was a sympathetic character who truly felt sorry for what he and his country had gotten themselves into.
The funny thing is that now I feel very differently about a lot of the things I wrote in the scene analysis and issue essay. In the scene analysis, I presented things as very black and white (good and evil) because that is what I saw in the scene and what I felt at the time about our involvement in Cambodia. I still feel that we should have thought more about the potential repercussions of our actions at the time, so I guess my opinion hasn't changed much there.
I guess I feel most differently about how much our government should let us know. When I wrote the issue essay, my opinion was that the cover-up was the real problem in Cambodia (which I still believe), but my attitude to the government was "tell us more, we can take it and deserve to know." Someone made a comment that they feel less secure with that attitude and I now agree. Since 9/11, my whole worldview (and everyone else's, I'm sure) has shifted. I wrote that essay in Fall of 1999 and in a few short years, my words and opinions feel distant to me. Now, I want to know less. Telling me that the terror alert is now "orange" doesn't make me feel secure and I don't feel any better being in the know. I kind of want to put blind faith in the government and believe that they are aware of all potential threats and protecting me. That's a pretty scary outcome, but it helps me to cope and live with as little fear as possible. Times are pretty different.
Well, that's all I have to say. It was really nice to be a part of this. I'm really looking forward to seeing everyone's [original] work!
~Wendy
