Quiller

(2012-04-29 21:44:23)

A Greene adaptation worthy of accolades

A finer adaptation you won't see of Graham Greene's "The Quiet American",anovel set in 1952 about a journalist named Thomas Fowler (Michael Caine)whomeets Pyle (Brendan Fraser), an American who idealistically arrives inVietnam to aid a Third Force which will allow the U.S. a method ofinfiltrating the government and assert their influence inVietnam.The film is not only a faithful rendering of the literary material,ingenious in the manner it constructs and combines scenes and uses quite abit of Greene's actual dialogue; it is a visual splendor, using evocativescenery and taking advantage of on-sight locations (it was actually filmedin Vietnam!) to provide a gaze into both the tranquil, the corrupted, andthe soon-to-be disturbed (the scene in the square is very effectivelystaged).But one of the most essential elements in the film is the pitch-perfectperformances of the two leads, who have both (no hyperbole here) neverbeenbetter. Michael Caine inhabits the body, mind and temporal neutrality ofFowler like he was always meant to step into this character, and BrendanFraser, to my great surprise, was entirely effective as Pyle, a clean-cutYork Harding ideologist who is completely deluded to the Third Force andasa result develops apathy towards any innocent victims that might besacrificed to assert the U.S. influence in Vietnam.At the moment I can't find an American release date (I saw it in Toronto),but this is certainly one of the best films I've seen this year and cannotrecommend it more highly. The director, Phillip Noyce, has achieved agreattriumph (simultaneously with another gem of a film, Rabbit-ProofFence).

Scottie-3

(2012-04-29 04:45:33)

Ambiguous, well-written film, but not that impressive, ultimately

I saw "The Quiet American" today. I thought it was very well writtenand acted. I've seen better work by the director, however (theexcellent "Rabbit-Proof Fence" and "Dead Calm"). I still say JackNicholson deserves the Oscar for "About Schmidt." Michael Caineis quite good, but you sort of get the sense he's playing himself.There aren't many acting pyrotechnics (usually a good thing in mybook) but neither are there any profoundly touching moments.What makes the performance interesting is that you're neverentirely sure of his motives, which is the writers' point.This is a very political film dealing with US intervention (by the CIA)in pre-war Vietnam. It does not paint a pretty picture of Americanactions, but neither does it let Britain or France off the hook. It wassupposed to have been released in the autumn of 2001, but after9/11, Miramax assumed (probably rightly) that no one would beinterested in seeing a film that depicts American cooperation inacts of terrorism. Seeing this movie, I couldn't help but see certainparallels to current events. Michael Caine is credited withconvincing Harvey Weinstein to take the film off the shelf andrelease it. That may partly account for his Oscar nomination.

rotildao

(2012-04-29 15:56:44)

Everybody needs a friend like Graham Greene

Great adaptation of one of the best writers of all times. Thefoundation is strong: we have Greene's work as the main attraction,with Phillip Noyce as captain of the ship, Michael Caine superblyguiding us, and a terrific plot to fill our minds completely withoceans of emotions. The result is obvious and I am not delighted to sayis one of the least commentated films ever judging its relevance.Pure cinematic gem! Everyone should own it on DVD, or at least have theprivilege to watch it.Interestingly in 2002 the director had a good roll and he also directedhis second best work after this one, Rabbit Proof Fence. Perhapsanother reminder of what he has done is Dead Calm, with Nicole Kidmanand Sam Neil being terrorized by Billy Zane in a new version ofPolanski's, Knife in Water.

PlanecrazyIkarus

(2012-04-29 02:01:42)

Disappointing if you've seen the trailer.

The Quiet American may be a brilliant movie. It starts out with thediscovery of the body of an American, who is then identified at the morgueby a British journalist who was "his friend". It then goes on to tell thestory leading up to that moment, involving a love triangle, a civil warbetween Communists and Colonists and third parties.Now giving away the end before the movie starts is always a difficult thing- it can destroy the tension and the anticipation. In some cases (eg "OneHour Photo") it can actually generate more interest. For me it is difficultto judge which is the case in "The Quiet American". Unfortunately, I haveseen the trailer for this movie. The trailer was interesting and successfulin getting me interested to watch the movie, hinting at a great storyline,and even great cinematography (Brendan Fraser running through a dark alleyin a white suit presented a powerful image, that would have fit equally wellin eye-candy like "Road to Perdition"). But at the same time, it gave awayso much of the story, even some of the most important plot twists, that itcompletely ruined the experience of the movie itself for me. I go to acinema to be entertained - to be moved or thrilled or enchanted. I can seethe potential in this movie to do all three. If only the trailer hadn'truined its surprises.On the technical side, this movie is very well done. Acting is, as remarkedupon by many others, good. Brendan Fraser somehow fails to be entirelyfitting of the description as "quiet" American, but much of that is due tothe script. His character is too outspoken too quickly, making him justanother "loud" American. Cinematography is very good (a very powerful shotwith strong metaphorical value of the aftermath of an explosion sticksparticularly in mind). Visuals and Sound are good. The story might be good,but I cannot judge its impact on the uninitiated mind.All in all, it may be a great movie. But if you've seen the trailer, don'tbother going to the movie.

buiger

(2012-04-28 03:57:26)

Good, but not great!

Michael Caine does his usual phenomenal job (an Oscar would have beenwell deserved), while Fraser on the other hand is totally miscast in myopinion, totally unbelievable as CIA station chief and in general asthe complex character he plays. This to me is a major setback to thismotion picture. Otherwise, the Director paints a very nice picture ofColonial Vietnam and Colonial life in general, aided by very goodcinematography, a good screenplay, dialog, etc. All seems well, but'that something' is missing that would make this a great movie. Oneimportant aspect of this film is that it is definitely politicized andvery opinionated, yet it does this in a very intelligent, subtle way.Even though I do not agree with most of its political messages I haveto admit they are woven into the tapestry of the film ingeniously. Goodtherefore, but definitely not great!

caa821

(2012-04-27 12:20:57)

Disappointing and mediocre

I missed this film when it was released - probably due to a lot oftraveling then. Caught it by chance on cable, and judging from manyother of these comments, perhaps I'd better take another look sometimesoon. The setting and scenes are well-presented, and evoke the feelingfor the period when the whole Vietnam experience to erupt later wasfestering. Brendan Fraser has made many excellent films in 15 years,Michael Caine numerous outstanding ones in a period more than threetimes longer. And in a film released shortly after this one,"Secondhand Lions," Caine performed with exuberance and with the greatRobert Duval made one of the best pictures one could desire. But herefor, for heaven's sake - both he and Frazer were laconic, insipid andeven silly. They looked as if they'd overdosed on tranquilizers, andmade you wish somebody would shock both of them with a cattle prod. Thebeautiful Vietnamese actress, whom they both pursue - also in aninsipid and annoying manner, represented a desirable young woman - buthere they mooned and schlepped around with each other as if she weresome sort of blend of Mother Teresa with Sharon Stone. Even within thatturmoil occurring there, she could walk down a narrow street atmidnight and meet at random someone with more personality and vigorthan the these two. "Low-key" is often appropriate, and can beentertaining, but here it has been taken to depths few characters andfilms have known since Jolson said "You Ain't Heard Nothing' Yet."

real_hiflyer

(2012-04-26 15:49:05)

The Quiet American - an excellent and extraordinarily movie on every level.

I've been watching quite a few movies lately. I was disappointed inThere Will Be Blood, more so with 3:10 to Yuma, and so on. Then I watcha movie I'd never heard of called The Quiet American. Since then I findmyself returning to this movie. Comparing the merits of others incomparison. When my friends ask me if I can recommend something tothem. When I think of the movies I've seen over the years. I return tothis movie.Set in the period when transition was bringing American forces intoVietnam as the French withdrew, it was something I knew little about upuntil then. I always enjoy when a film educates and this one got meinterested in researching the actual events in more detail on the net.But none of this is it. What this movie does is present a moving storyof the lives of those affected during this time. It gave us Vietnamese,British, and American characters who were all too human, and allowed usto identify with each of their predicaments. And Michael Caine, bothnarrating and starring in this movie, in my opinion did some of thebest work I've ever seen him do. With strong support from the rest ofthe cast, beautiful photography which showed us both the beauty ofVietnam, and the ruin that war causes.So I could go in depth with everything I liked about this movie. Couldgo on for quite a while. But my best advice is simply to watch it. Tobe drawn into a story and have it resonate with you for a long periodafter, is, after all is said and done, one of the highest complimentsone can offer.Thanks to Mr. Caine and everyone else involved.If the highest purposeof movie making it to tell a story, and do it well, this succeeds andthen some.

marxisdead

(2012-04-26 07:26:08)

10/10

My favorite movie this year. Completely captivating, excellent acting,extraordinary scenes, beautifully written. If you liked The KillingFields,you willdefinitely love The Quiet American.

finafisken

(2012-04-23 13:01:26)

Great opening

The opening scene where Michael Caine speaks about Vietnam with the riverasa backdrop is very powerful. Only after a while do you realize that thechanging lights in the sky are probably from artillery-grenades as the waris closing in on Saigon. The atmosphere of this scene is somehow kept allthrough the film, that something inevitable is about to happen. If this isdue to our knowledge of what really happened in Vietnam or Greenes writingskills I cannot tell as I haven't read the book. However, it should serveasan important reminder that war never is unavoidable.

(2012-04-22 22:05:48)

Triumph for Caine . . . and Fraser

Graham Greene's 1956 novel The Quiet American appeared soon after Franceabandoned colonial control of Vietnam but before the U.S. war effortescalated to stop the spread of Communism in that country. Nearly a halfcentury later, director Phillip Noyce adapts this story of love and betrayalin Saigon in a powerful, moving film anchored by superbcasting..Saigon in 1952 was the outpost of the waning French empire. An insurgentmovement in north Vietnam was pushing the French closer to defeat at DienBien Phu two years later. But Saigon has become home to London Timescorrespondent Thomas Fowler (Michael Caine). Fowler is a decent man, butdisengaged. The war is less important to him than staying with Phuong (DoThi Han Yen), a beauty he met in a dance hall. A telegram that threatens torecall him to London disturbs his quiet life, as does Alden Pyle (BrendanFraser), a young American ostensibly on a U.S.-sponsored medicalmission.The screenplay by Christopher Hampton and Robert Schenkkan turns onFowler's effort to stay put and on Pyle's sudden infatuation with Phuong.Because Fowler's wife in England won't divorce him, he can't offer marriage.But Pyle can. Fowler tries to uncover the truth about a massacre to buy timewith London. His suspicion points to an upstart Vietnamese general,supported by unknown sources, who is driving a wedge between Viet Minhinsurgents and the French. And clues hint that Pyle is involved. Romance andpolitics become entangled as Fowler realizes that to keep his woman, he mustget rid of Pyle, a man whose good-natured innocence he can't help butlike.Fowler is the center of Noyce's film. As in the novel, he tells the storyin flashback from the discovery of Pyle's body in the Saigon river toFowler's first encounter with the young American. Michael Caine gives Fowlerhis special seedy authority, an Englishman who has found a home where rulesbred in the bone don't necessarily apply. This is a role Caine perfectedlong ago, starting with The Ipcress File (1965), which caught his characterin a similar clash between loyalties. Much older than Harry Palmer in thatfilm, but almost as cheeky, Caine plays Fowler as a man who knows life isrunning out but hopes to hold on to what little savor it has left. Theincreasing complexity of the Vietnam conflict forces him into moralambiguities familiar to admirers of Graham Greene.Just as convincing, but more surprising, is Brendan Fraser as Pyle. Blocky,big-shouldered, and wearing horn-rim glasses, Fraser is an unexpected choicefor Greene's quiet American. Yet this actor can traverse the distancebetween self-effacement (Gods and Monsters) and formula self-importance (TheMummy). Caine's portrayal was nominated for an Oscar and other awards, butFraser deserves notice too.The Quiet American was filmed once before (1958) with Audie Murphy in thetitle role. Greene was reportedly furious because this version suppressedthe novel's anticipatory indictment of America's chosen role in Vietnam.Noyce's version gains power from a half century of hindsight, imaged in amorose closing montage of newspaper articles over Fowler's byline about theensuing American war. That hindsight and the need to invent a plot arc for acharacter-driven story forces Noyce to fashion a suspense thriller closer inspirit to Greene's `entertainments' (his term) than to his serious novels.This is no criticism of Noyce; many Greene `entertainments,' like The ThirdMan and Our Man in Havana became memorable movies.One welcome change enhances the importance of Phuong, who is little morethan a cipher in the novel, and Do Thi Han Yen invests the role with passionand complexity. The director and star have run the gamut from psychological dramas tosimple potboilers. Noyce debuted with Deep Calm and recently directedRabbit-Proof Fence. Along the way he helmed The Saint, The Bone Collector,and other forgettables. Highs and lows punctuate Caine's roster of roles.This is another high. The Quiet American joins two mature talents in anemotionally subtle film that showcases their special skills.

ykassana

(2012-04-21 19:26:47)

Couldn't be so timely

This film has to be seen, there isn't a flaw and i'm sad enough to watchittwice just to see if there was.The photography and script right from art to technical expertise thismovierocks. It is especially amazing for Caines performance.When you leave the cinema watching this film, it leaves you with a calmspiritual flow of energy.Poetry in motion. Some americans may find this movie offensive.

Brian James

(2012-04-21 14:33:34)

Did not grip and maintain attention

I watched this film this evening but found it hard to become veryinvolved. In part I think this was due to the lack-lustre performanceof Michael Caine - he was very bland and surely in a film which movesat such a slow pace one needs a lead actor with a stronger presence - Iwas thinking of a Sean Connery or an Harrison Ford type.I did not see the film in terms of the romantic relationships - theyoung lion challenging and displacing the older one - but in terms ofthe decadence and collapse of French colonialism and the tragedy ofreplacing one colonial power with another. In a political sense thefilm reflected the tragedy of Vietnam in not being able to establish ademocratic government but rather to being forced to follow an extremistauthoritarian communism regime or to be dominated by an opportunisticpuppet regime driven and supported by the CIA and other agencies toextend and maintain USAmerican military and capitalist interests.With the French losing their grip on maintaining colonial rule, a powervacuum was created and thus their were two contenders for power, onethe communists with their rigid ideology and ruthless methods ofgaining and maintaining power, and, two, opportunistic puppets likeGeneral Tay supported by right wing USAmerica.The film probably attempted to do too much - perhaps if it had focusedon the political issues and made them clearer it would have been better- or if it had sought to examine only the sexual relationships -as howwomen are used by men in a situation where they have little power oftheir own - so there were too many threads perhaps and they becameentangled and it was difficult to untie the knots and make sense of itall.Reading the book would probably clarify some points not made clear bythe film.So my main query was, 'What was this film all about?'- to indicate thereasons for the Vietnam war - to show the insidious presence of theseQuiet Americans and the havoc they provoke and for which they fail totake responsibility? Or was it merely about the predicament of a womanwho has to rely upon a man for a decent life? The characters are rathersad - none is very heroic - all are sinners - perhaps this is Greene'smain theme - if the human beings were better in themselves, everythingelse would be better - or in despair he shows that we are all in thesoup up to our necks and all we can do is sweat it out until ourdemise.Perhaps someone else could clarify this for me???

s_and_d

(2012-04-20 05:27:33)

Very Intelligent Movie

Michael Caine does no wrong, and Brendan Fraser was a good fit for theroleof the American. The movie sticks very closely to the book by GrahamGreene. It's a shame that the political landscape of the world kept thismovie from being nominated for Best Film--at any of the awards shows.It'sa fantastic display of pre-US involvement in Vietnam. I love how eachcharacter symbolizes their country of origin.

m67165

(2012-04-19 18:32:13)

Shocking

I have seen much worse graphic violence on film, but for some reason thisone left me almost without hope of finding any meaning not only in war, butin life itself. And I do have a religious belief. I went to see the firstcomedy I found right afterwards, to shake it off. That said, this is a goodstory about a love triangle and politics during hard times, and I wouldrecommend it to anyone about to go into a war zone in a foreigncountry.

Flint-13

(2012-04-10 08:31:58)

Two-sided triangle.

I didn't read the novel, but I probably will after seeing the movie. I wantto see how Phuong, the girl, is developed as a character.Michael Caine rarely disappoints and, once again, his performance as ThomasFowler, the jaded correspondent for the "London Times," meetsexpectations.Brendan Fraser as Alden Pyle, opthalmologist, come spy, was convincingenough, but the character was slightly unbelievable.What really disappointed me was the lack of opportunity given to Do Thi HaiYen, as Phuong, to be anything but a bagatelle over which the men struggledto posess. Yes, possess: I really saw little emotional loveexpressed.The backdrop was the decaying years of French Colonialsm in Vietnam and thiswas handled with skill by the cast and crew. The dynamics between the maleprotagonists blended well with the fighting but totally overshadowed thepotential that the women could have had.Nevertheless, it was good drama and another notch in Phllip Noyce'sachievements.

ginger_sonny

(2012-04-10 05:48:54)

beautiful and thought-provoking

Second, and arguably superior, screen adaptation of Graham Greene'sfascinating, still pertinent novel about Western meddling in 50s Vietnam.Michael Caine and Brendan Fraser star The spirit of Graham Greene can rest slightly easier now. The Britishnovelist was critical of Joseph L Mankiewicz's 1958 adaptation of his 1955book for its more positive portrayal of the Americans. This 2002 adaptationmay not be the most strident political movie, but it make a far morereasonable appraisal of Greene's themes and the US involvement in Vietnam atthe end of the French colonial period. And, of course, the critique of USforeign policy remains pertinent. It's 1952. The story starts with the body of the titular American beingfished out of Saigon River. British journalist Thomas Fowler (Caine)identifies the body of his "friend". But who was this man? Fowler'snarration takes the action back several months to the arrival of Alden Pyle(Fraser), working for the American Economic Mission, who naively hopes tomake a difference in the war-torn country (France is fighting theCommunists). The two men become friends, despite their jarring ideologies -the cynical Brit saying, "I am just a reporter, I never get involved", theearnest Yank later saying, "It's not that easy to remain uninvolved." Onething they share, however, is love of Phuong (Yen), "the most beautiful girlin Saigon" and Fowler's mistress. When Pyle falls for her, the men vie, theyounger man saying, "I want to protect her". This mirrors the US attitudetoward Vietnam, to essentially take possession of it for its own good.American policy is to surreptitiously back General ThГѓВ© (Hai) and hisbreakaway army, who provide a "third force", a force that is neither Frenchnor Communist. Yet when General ThГѓВ©'s forces let off a bomb in Saigon Square("30 dead. Probably 20 more by the morning"), it becomes clear that thisapproach is mistaken. It's this image of ordinary people dying or in agonyas a direct result of US policy that makes the film particularly problematicfor Americans. But why shouldn't mainstream cinema be critical? Why can't itdeal with difficult subjects? The film - a US/German co-production, directed by an Australian - containsnumerous lines that either provide a premonition of what America would getinto in Vietnam or comment on US foreign policy at large: Pyle saying "It'slike a test run for us" and "We're not colonialists", or Fowler's colleagueHinh (Tzi Ma) saying "Never underestimate a patriot." The film, of course, has an agenda different to that of Greene orMankiewicz. Although it doesn't shy away from the problems of US foreignpolicy, it's also a fine piece of entertainment. Caine just gets better withage, while Fraser's amiable demeanour suits his role. It's also finelycrafted. Like director Noyce's other 2002 film Rabbit-Proof Fence it's shotby master cinematographer Christopher Doyle. Although born in Australia,much of Doyle's career has been in Hong Kong and China; he therefore has theability to balance the western vision of Vietnam as exotic with a morerealistic sense of 50s life in a vibrant but messed up Asian society.Verdict A sumptuous, well-acted and, perhaps most importantly, thought-provokinglook at how Western foreign policy - however well-meaning - can wreak havocin other cultures.

Tim Johnson

(2012-04-07 21:04:49)

A beautiful anti-Hollywood movie

One of the many thoughts that passed through my mind as I watched this gemof a movie was how poorly it would be commented on by the younger generationbrought up on The Hulk and The Matrix-films that rely on special effects tokeep people in their seats. Noyce's The Quiet American is the antithesis ofthese movie monsters and I thought the whole film was terrific. I'm notfamiliar with his work except for his small masterpiece, Rabbit Proof Fencebut to see him work with something completely different and about as faraway from out-back Australia as you could get was an indication of the depthand breadth of his directorial expertise.There have been a number of movies set in post colonial Asia and I freelyadmit that I have loved them all. I was lucky enough to visit SoutheastAsia as a tourist in the early '70s and Noyce's superb camera work involvingshot selection, angles and lighting directionmade this film languid, rich and immensely enticing visually.Based as it was on a Graham Green novel the viewer knows immediately thatthe film's plot will be superb. Having said that, I can easily see why thefilm had to be pulled after September 11th because of American box officeresistance-the movie was too tough for viewers. I'm glad that it'sre-release was greeted better the second time because it is a beautifullymade film and deserves wide and full appreciation.

Rafael Nordfeldt

(2012-04-07 10:35:54)

A good adaptation of the book

Without any doubt the best adaptation of a book to the cinema I've everseen. It has been always frustrating to me to see a movie of any novelI've read before. Usually because the movie just scratch the surface ofthe story (and sometimes not even that). In the case of the QuietAmerican I saw the movie 10 or 15 years after I read the book and whatI saw was exactly what I remembered, further more, what I felt readingthe book was very close to what I felt when I saw the movie. I'm quitefar away of being a fan of Mr Fraser, and I must say that the electionof this actor for the role is perfect, and his performance accurate.The rest of the cast is perfect. When i say cast I mean from productionto person who maybe just worked a day in the shot. A very differentthing is what you may think about Mr Green's literature... personally,I like it...

Dick Clarke

(2012-04-07 16:57:16)

My best movie in 2 years

For me this movie had it all. First Michael Caine is at his best as anjaded but principled reporter caught up in the turmoil and tragedy of VietNam during the defeat of the French and the dirty tricks of the CIA. Hislove for a much younger Vietnamese woman also transcends the norm and iswonderfully portrayed. The direction and cinematography are alsooutstanding. Brendan Fraser as the CIA agent sincere but ideologicalyflawed is also excellent. This film probably did not get the broadexposureit deserved in the US in the light of 9/11 and Gulf War and the accurateugly American interference it so tellingly reveals.

eldonado

(2012-04-06 22:30:46)

Mired in Quag--But Whisky and Opium Don't Help

Perhaps. Perhaps only Americans buy a map of the road to failure andfollow the curves of its route precisely to the very end. Perhaps not.American viewers above a certain age may bring passionate emotions andunwavering opinions to The Quiet American. That will be too bad. Maybeeven in spite of director Phillip Noyce's intention, this movie is notabout the war in Indochina. It gives us a glimpse into that time,condemns, it seems, the incipient American presence, and denounces,apparently, wars of colonial conquest, but all these things merelyprovide a context in which the lead characters have to make, or evade,moral decisions. Stepping carefully into Viet-Nam the way one of Fenimore Cooper'sleather stocking heroes stepped into the tracks of their enemies so asto leave no trace, the US insinuated itself into the French-Indochinawar for the purpose of . . . well, the purpose is never quite clear.Walking, almost sleepwalking, through events in Viet-Nam is Britishreporter Thomas Fowler (Michael Caine), who also lacks purpose.Besotted by whiskey, opium and a fetching young woman, Fowler has madehis own peace with war as well as with life. He is no James Bond,preferring one specific drink but many different women. In fact, he hasit the other way round. He wants one woman, Phuong (Do Hai Yen), butany drink will do. He is also no Humphrey Bogart trying to mind his ownbusiness by running a popular bar. Instead, he tries to have nobusiness at all. He has neglected, almost forgotten, his Londonnewspaper employer. An aging libertine, he only fitfully andhalf-heartedly partakes of his self-indulgences, pursuing them as ifreluctantly following doctor's orders. He has long since come to hisown terms with the war, such as they are, whose sporadic noise in thestreets of Saigon annoys him from time to time, but it is nothing moreto him than the barking of a neighbor's dog. In fact, it turns out,dogs annoy him more than the war does.Then into his complacent world steps one of those leather stockingheroes, the "quiet" American, Alden Pyle (Brendan Fraser). Young,congenial, modest, courteous, sober, knightly, even "Boy Scoutly," Pylecomes to Viet-Nam bringing medical aid and supplies for the Vietnamesepeople and a belief in freedom. He annoys the French for some reason,seems to know everybody who matters, and befriends (or is it the otherway round?) Fowler. Then, almost immediately, he falls in love withPhuong, Fowler's mistress, apparently for no other reason than thatFowler seems to love her. True to some kind of misguided Victoriancode, he requests in a peculiar way Fowler's permission to court her.Pyle does not forget his mission. Very quickly he learns to distinguishbetween the sound of the backfiring of a car and the sound of adetonation of a grenade. Old-hand Fowler grins in triumph to see himlearn the difference.The viewer of the movie must make even finer distinctions. AuthorGraham Greene did not shy away from making political or moraljudgments, nor does the movie. However, the viewer has no easy timedeciding just what judgment should be made. All we have to go on seemsto be the fact that the grand sweep of conflict depends most decisivelyon the moral decisions of individuals. From some decisions come certainresults: people will die. The question is, do you want people to die,and if you do, why? There are other questions. Do native women who shun common prostitutioncome off any better sleeping with married men? Should men who want andlove children embrace the need to kill them? Can civilized men andwomen who abandon morality be depended upon to defend humanity frombarbarity?By movie's end we are left with men and women most of whom are, howevercongenial and however civilized, too distasteful to face and toodangerous to turn our backs on. Both in the movie and beyond it, themajor powers continue to engage the rest of the world. As they must, ifonly because the rest of the world will not let them disengage. Notbeing in positions of world leadership, most of us, we the viewers mustcontent ourselves with observing the Fowlers and Pyles and Phuongsaround us and deciding what decisions we would make in their place.Would we do better? Perhaps, though what is better?