Missione in oriente - Il brutto americano

Eugene Burdick's book and this film have a lot in common. I read this book in the 60s, and then saw the film. I still couldn't understand the dynamics of the events unfolding in the film. It was not until years later after I had been to VIetnam and finished my political science degree in college that I finally understood the real meaning of both the book and the film. Vietnam was complicated; too complicated for the average American from either the left or right to understand. The answer was, as most answers are, somewhere in the middle. This film shows the dilemma of Nationalist leaders who want total independence from foreign powers. It is not easy to obtain. National sovereignty is an easy concept to understand, but a very difficult one to achieve. It is not black and white; it is a simple solution. There are three separate forces at work in both this film and were at work in Vietnam (and other countries where we have a military presence). There is the leftist stance, usually communism, the rightest stance, usually a oligarchy combined with military support from the US, and then there is the true will of the people caught in the middle; the desire to not be a colonial outpost, not be militarily tied to one country or another, and, of course, the desire for a country that will be prosperous and make money. These three forces are usually in conflict with each other in several countries in the 21st century. So, this is why this film was not a great success; it was just too sophisticated a topic for the average American to understand. Over 90% saw this film in a black or white mode with no gray area. They were for the American Way, or for America to get out, but less than 10% ever considered what the people of this country really wanted. And we still have this ignorance about Asian Studies in America today. An interesting film; once you know what it is really about.

This film came out in 1963, just when the Kennedy/Johnson administration started to escalate the war in Vietnam. I am terribly dismayed and disappointed that the U.S government learned nothing from this movie.

In the first place, it is utterly and unrealistic to muddle into the political affairs of a country with very different culture and political background. Secondly, while we in the western world deplore communism, it is very silly and idiotic to treat it as a contagious disease, to be repelled and avoided at all costs. With our wealth, freedom of expression and using an open-door policy, we can show the people in the Communist countries or countries about to go Communist that our system is better and in every way offers people more freedom, pleasure and security.

I think this film should be shown whenever and wherever people come to see the Vietnam Monument in Washington

This film is loosely based on the novel of the same name by Burdick and Lederer, but departs from the novel in some significant particulars that I won't get into here. I think it is important to view this film as a period piece. Released in 1963 before the assassination of JFK and the escalation of the war in Viet Nam, the story retains a certain degree of naiveté about the role of the United States in the world and the perceptions of the United States that existed in other countries. This film would have looked quite different had it been shot in 1968 or 1969, by which time the country had long since shed any illusions about the nation's role in the world. In some ways, this provides a kind of still photo of the United States just prior to the Kennedy assassination and the tumultuous sequence of events that unfolded afterward. For that reason, this is a fascinating period piece that survives Brando's chewing on the scenery and a screen play that departs in unfortunate ways from the outstanding novel.

Oscar winner Marlon Brando stars in this prescient drama from 1963 about a newly appointed ambassador heading to his old hunting grounds to broker a deal w/the people of Sarkhan (a fictional Asian country) as the West tries to bring industry (namely a road) to the masses. Arriving already under a cloud of controversy due to his past association w/the rebel leader, Eiji Okada, Brando has his hands full the moment he arrives as he & his wife, Sandra Church, try to broker a peace deal. When Okada & Brando break bread their casual drink & conversation make way for seething sentiments about the nature of the progress being made in the country w/both sides not budging from their positions. Okada's people & movement soon fall prey to Russian & Red China intervention which sets up the final conflict on the beleaguered road being constructed. Made just 2 years before America's entry into the Vietnam War, much of the dialogue could be lifted piecemeal to the rhetoric being lobbied from both sides for & against the war w/Brando, the consummate good looking cock of the walk, pleading his case in vain especially viewing the film 60 years after the fact. Also starring Arthur Hill as one of Brando's co-workers, Pat Hingle (who co-starred w/Brando in On the Waterfront) as the construction foreman & Brando's real life older sister Jocelyn playing Hingle's wife.

I remember first seeing "The Ugly American" upon its initial release in 1963, and I equally remember immediately linking it with what was happening in Viet Nam. I found it absorbing and timely then just as I do today.

As the American ambassador with a total white hat/black hat mentality, Marlon Brando in my opinion gives one of his best performances. There's the shouting and the strutting, but there are also some very, eerily quiet, contrasting moments when he simply lets the frustration of his character all hang out.

As his former best friend and now rebel leader of the fictional Sarkan to which Brando's Ambassador White has been posted, Ejii Okada is every bit Brando's equal. Their sharp exchanges are riveting, as is so much of the dialogue in this film, dialogue-heavy moments that I do not personally find boring because what they are discussing strikes me as being as important today as in 1963 when this film was first released.

I do recognize that some reviewers were terribly disappointed (maybe even offended) that the film was not a recapitulation of an apparently well written, highly complex novel which I haven't read yet but intend to if I can find a copy. However, no matter how great the book, shouldn't a film be judged as a film because it is not a book? For one thing, movies don't have the luxury of an endless running time, a constraint not put upon the number of pages needed to tell a print story. Also, is not the punctuation, grammar and syntax of image quite different than that of print?

Finally, as others have said, it is too bad (a) "The Ugly American" has been mostly forgotten (if it has ever been heard of) and (b) the powerful message that ends this picture is still as relevant today as it was in 1963. Indeed, if anything it is even more (very sadly) spot-on than it was then.