The Quiet American - Spoiler

[Ned]

To those of you who have seen the movie that came out this week, The Quiet American, is this historically accurate of just some really filthy anti-American propaganda? If the former, I am really disturbed by the movie. If the latter, I am outraged!

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
The quiet American is a CIA agent in 1953-4 Vietnam who sets up and finances a local thug to fight both the French and the Communists. Well, this thug begins to commit atrocities. The CIA agent manipulates the press, including Michael Caine, the protagonist, into blaming the communists.

Is this entirely fiction? Or, did this actually happen?

Communists, we know what your answer is already. I would like to hear from those who know what really happened.

[MRT144]

seems like it could have happened...it wouldnt really be outside the bounds of the CIA. you should google it

[Rufus T. Firefly]

I haven't seen it yet, but what you describe is not part of the plot of Graham Greene's novel. If Greene had written it, I'd guess that it might be true; but since Hollywood has tacked it on (as if Greene's work needs their input ), I'd guess it's bull.

[Ned]

Rufus, Thanks. Now I know it is bull. The people who made this film are really in for some heavy criticism. I am simply amazed at how far anti-Americanism has gone.

[JohnT]

If the movie is as described, it will die a short, nasty death.

[General Ludd]

Yes, all movies have to be filthy pro-american propaganda to be worthy of the silver screen.


What happened to the "it's just a movie" line?

[Sprayber]

Originally posted by Osweld
Yes, all movies have to be filthy pro-american propaganda to be worthy of the silver screen.


What happened to the "it's just a movie" line?

ok. "it's just a movie" is that better

[MikeH]

It's only a story and made by an American company. You can't ban anything which can be perceived to portray a country in a bad light, that's ridiculous.

[Ned]

Rufus, I found this by Greene himself. It seems that he indeed is blaming the bombing on the CIA agent. (BTW, the film was made by an Australian.)

"Graham Greene on The Quiet American:
When my novel was eventually noticed in the New Yorker the reviewer condemned me for accusing my "best friends" (the Americans) of murder since I had attributed to them the responsibility for the great explosion -- far worse than the trivial bicycle bombs -- in the main square of Saigon when many people lost their lives. But what are the facts, of which the reviewer needless to say was ignorant? The Life photographer at the moment of the explosion was so well placed that he was able to take an astonishing and horrifying photograph which showed the body of a trishaw driver still upright after his legs had been blown off. This photograph was reproduced in an American propaganda magazine published in Manila over the title "the work of Ho Chi Minh" although General Thé had promptly and proudly claimed the bomb as his own. Who had supplied the material to a bandit who was fighting French, Caodaists and Communists?

…Perhaps there is more direct rapportage in the The Quiet American than in any other novel I have written. I had determined to employ again the experience I had gained with The End of the Affair in the use of the first person and the time shift, and my choice of a journalist as the "I" seemed to me to justify the use of rapportage. The Press conference is not the only example of direct reporting. I was in the dive bomber (the pilot had broken an order of General de Lattre by taking me) which attacked the Viet Minh post and I was on the patrol of the Foreign Legion paras outside Phat Diem. I still retain the sharp image of the dead child couched in the ditch beside his dead mother. The very neatness of their bullet wounds made their death more disturbing than the indiscriminate massacre in the canals around.

from Ways of Escape, pp.139-140"

[MichaeltheGreat]

The rationale behind such actions in the cold war was that the communists would do the same or worse if given a chance, and the people had to be "motivated" to see the communists as the enemy they were. Killing and deception were both tools in our covert arsenal, so why not combine the two?

This fits in with the Kissinger view (re Allende, et al) of "why should we let a country go communist just because it's people vote that way?" - Kissinger said something very similar to that, but I don't recall the exact wording.

Greene's quote has a typo in it - "Caodaists" should be Baodaists, after the followers of the token "emperor" Bao Dai, who was just a French lacker. The Cao Dai were pretty much ignored by everyone except for local Viet Minh at that time, due to their remote location and the then-low strategic value of it.

[Ned]

MTG, What I find hard to accept is that Greene directly implicates the CIA in the bombing, not just in blaming it on the communists.

The bombing apparently took place in 1952. Truman was still president. He was fighting a war with communist NK at the time and he had authorized the use of nuclear weapons twice in the war against Japan and again in the war in Korea, but I can hardly believe he would condone attrocities against civilians for any reason.

It is clear that the NY Times thought Greene was full of it as well.

[Boris Godunov]

Everytime Ned posts a thread ranting about a movie, I don't know whether to laugh or just shake my head...

I enjoyed the movie, mostly because of the atmosphere and its really beautiful depiction of pre-war Vietnam. I didn't care for the love triangle subplot--far too truncated and one-dimensional, IMO. Caine gave a superb performance, but Frasier wasn't too impressive.

I don't know how accurate it was (I certainly didn't take it as an absolutely true story, since it never purported to be such), but I don't thinke Greene is stretching the limits of credibility, as MtG said. There is little doubt we supported The, and he was a murdering *******.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Ned
MTG, What I find hard to accept is that Greene directly implicates the CIA in the bombing, not just in blaming it on the communists.

CIA has killed people. Why is a bombing worse than supporting a coup to remove leaders who are opposed to you sending in massive troops and escalating a half-assed war into a bigger half-assed war? Why is it worse than supporting thugs like Pinochet or the Shah?

The bombing apparently took place in 1952. Truman was still president. He was fighting a war with communist NK at the time and he had authorized the use of nuclear weapons twice in the war against Japan and again in the war in Korea, but I can hardly believe he would condone attrocities against civilians for any reason.

Why would Truman even be involved in a minor operation? The notion of fighting the communists everywhere was pretty well entrenched after the Korean invasion and the USSR dropping the bomb, so certainly US actions around the world didn't stop just because part of the military was tied up in Korea.

It is clear that the NY Times thought Greene was full of it as well.

In those days, nobody challenged the US policy. We, of course, are the beacons of freedom, and they are the dark forces of communist enslavement. Etc.

[JohnT]

Who's talking about banning? Box office is all that matters.

[DinoDoc]

Never heard of it.