White Savior
Movies featuring white people rescuing people of color from their plight.
The White Savior complex is often played in many box office hits. In the movie "The Killing Fields," Sydney Schanberg is the "White Savior" because he is the white, western, male reporter. As we looked deeper into the story about Sydney and Pran, we found that Sydney felt like he should be the savior, and that the cambodians had faith in the westerners, that they would help them.
"I thought if anyone was going to survive it would be Pran. He's smart, he's shrewd, he's cunning. So I kept myself going with that thought and meanwhile his family who had come to the United States. Meoun Ser and the four children, they were in San Francisco also counting on me and the first time I went to visit Meoun Ser when I came back from Asia, I went to their house in San Francisco. I went to their apartment and we talked for a bit. There was a social worker there and suddenly in the middle of our talking she burst into sobs and ran to the bathroom to get a face wash to wash her face and I said you must tell me everything. You must tell me why your crying. I have to know. She said 'I thought when you came you would bring Pran with you.'"
"It was one more evidence of the belief that these people always had that we the westerners, we the long nosers, would perform the final miracles, and that I wouldn't let her down, so there were a lot of things that fed my drive to find him." -Sydney in Documentary
The ending scene in the movie, where Pran runs and jumps into Sydney's arms, looks completely set up to look like Sydney flew in to save the day, and be the white savior of the film. We found that Sydney was happy that they put that scene together that way, because that is exactly how it actually happened. He says this in an interview on the New York Times site.
Taking the first possible flight to Thailand, Schanberg headed straight for the Surin Refugee Camp and asked, "Where is my friend?" Someone fetched Pran, and the two men stood for a moment looking at each other. "He was weak and started hobbling toward me," says Schanberg. "Then he came running and wrapped his legs around my waist. We were both crying, and with his head on my shoulder the first thing he said was, 'You came, Syd. Oh, Syd, you came.'"
Later, with trepidation, Schanberg asked the question that had haunted him ever since he left Cambodia without Pran, "Can you forgive me?"
"I never blamed you," replied Pran. "I know your heart."'
-People Magazine
In the documentary, Sydney talks about the responsibility people have for each other and how he is a different person today:
"I think it's an old old lesson I think you learn that number one yes in a personal sense and one on one yes you are your brothers keeper but number two you learn you can't save everybody." Shamberg said. "I mean you can look out there and feel badly, but you can't make solutions for everybody, as a government you can't do that you can help but you have to help I believe in ways that make sense to the people who live there. There is no magic and I think they may seem like conflicting ideas you are your brothers keeper, then maybe people might say, then shouldn't you bring democracy to all of them, and then you say well who's democracy and in the process of that mission will you so disrupt the country that you leave it in shambles. and I think we did that in Cambodia.I think we created the conditions for chaos and massacre and holocaust and I think to the extent that we created those conditions we are responsible for them. and the Khmer rouge is responsible for what they did."
How did the events portrayed in this film change your life?
Schamberg replied, "I think they changed my life in the sense that they make me feel more responsible for people who have less than I do I don't I am not a missionary, I am not a saint, and I don't live up to those thoughts all of the time, but I think they have made me feel that I have a responsibility to do for others who do not have my influence or power or money. And I do not have a lot of money, so mostly it is my influence as a journalist."
Definition of "white man's burden": The alleged duty of the white peoples to manage the affairs of the less developed nonwhite peoples.
Although Schanberg and Pran became close friends, Schanberg did not always treat Pran well. This can be seen in both the movie and the book, as Schanberg yells at Pran to figure out how to make things work that simply are not possible, and is very impatient with Pran. Their relationship can be compared in some ways to the relationship between the United States and Cambodia, since the U.S. was helping Cambodia but did not treat it all that well. However, just as Pran still respects and trusts Schanberg, Cambodia trusted the U.S. to help them and to keep them safe. When asked in the book why Pran never got angry at the way Schanberg treated him, Pran said, "I was never angry, because I understand your heart." Schanberg eventually left Pran in Cambodia, similarly to how the U.S. withdrew it's direct help from Cambodia.
The relationship between Pran and Schanberg is of course not a perfect analogy to the relationship between the United States and Cambodia. However, there are similarities, listed above, that make the comparison possible.
Errors in Judgement
When Pran and Schanberg decided to stay in Cambodia instead of evacuating with the Americans, they didn't realize what this action would lead to. This is one of the major themes in the movie, since they had to go through so many trials because of this, but that they did not resent each other because of it. They did, however, have to live with the memory and regret of that decision. Schanberg especially suffered from survivor's guilt, since he felt like he abandoned Pran there. They had to learn to live with their mistakes. In the documentary found on the DVD, it states that people may have the best principles in the world, but they will still make mistakes. This accurately describes this theme of the movie, because Schanberg and Pran just wanted to do what they thought was right, but it led to terrible consequences for them both, and they had to accept that and find a way to movie on.
Framing
The U.S. government was framed in a negative light in The Killing Fields. Although the movie was mostly filled with facts about the U.S. military, those facts were not how the military wanted to be portrayed. Because the armed forces were not framed in a positive light, the movie did not receive assistance from the U.S. military. This is why the movie used British and Thai jets, vehicles and tanks in production.
No comments:
Post a Comment