Le Vilain Américain

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

Like such cinematic oddities as "A Face in the Crowd" or "Johnny Guitar", "The Ugly American" invites for several questionings. Why didn't the film get much more recognition? Why did it fail to reach the same status as a lesser movie like "The Sound of Music"? Why even those who pretend to be movie fans tend to overlook it or didn't even hear about the title? Is it because it's a Marlon Brando picture that is not from the 50's or the 70's? Is it the title? The unknown director: who ever heard of George Englund anyway? The exotic setting that makes it look like another mindless escapist movie?

In fact, the only reasonable answer I could come up with, is that the film was ahead of its time, which is not even meant as a compliment, since the film is not irreproachable. Released in 1963, a year more remembered for its political happenings than its movies' releases, it's prophetic in the sense that it's the closest depiction of the Vietnam War's Eve, and it's brilliant in the way it delivers a sort of anticipated "mea culpa" from the American perspective, by depicting the implication of America in the Vietnam territory at the pinnacle of the Cold War. Naturally, the names are changed, Vietnam becomes a fictionalized country named Sarkhan, but the rest of the film is too explicit to fool us.

The film opens in a construction site, where a 'Freedom Road' is built to ensure the transport of products for the Sarkhanese. More than a road, it's the symbol of American inference against Communism, salutary from one side, unbearable from another. The film opens when an American truck driver who sympathized with a local worker by teaching him a few words of English is brutally murdered and his mouth filled of scotch. His assassins leave the truck tumbling, falling on the other workers, for one of the most spectacular stunts you'll ever see, even more impressive for the 60's and coming from a film of little action. The scene tends to contradict the title, because although the American were undesirable, we're still waiting for the character that'd define the titular 'ugliness'.

If one thing, the opening invites us to feel sympathy toward the American victim, who's no more politically engaged than any other schmuck, he's just doing his job. His case resembles of Jocelyn Brando and Pat Hingle's couple, he's a chief engineer who opened a nursery with his wife and their lives will be spared thanks to the interference of the villagers. The film takes place during the Cold War, but it shows that the core of the conflict was ideological in the emptiest sense of the word. It's a bunch of artificial meanings when you confront them to reality. It's almost funny how the American insist that the national hero Deong, (Eiji Okada) is or is not a Communist as if it was an insult.

Later, it's revealed that he was from an independent Nationalist movement for the people's sovereignty, but happened to be toyed by the Communists. Still, the general consensus which seems to end the film is that Americans are not better allies, because they forgot that these non-aligned movements are motivated by the same revolutionary impulses that gave its independence the USA. And that made me wonder, maybe people weren't ready for such explicit criticism, and that explains why the film was overlooked. Or maybe am I being too indulgent and the film does have some flaws.

I wish they could let Eiji Okada, the actor who played Deong speak with his own accent, the guy seemed to struggle at each goddamn syllabus it wasn't acting, it was pure line's recitation. I even wondered if Brando's desperate look wasn't genuine. I also noticed some dialogs in English while it was spoken between Sarkhanese, and it sort of killed off the intended realism. However, the rest of the film is surprisingly good and entertaining, with some nice performances from Judson Pratt as the obnoxious Joe Bing, Sandra Church as the comprehensive wife and the scene-stealing performance of the prime-minister Kwen Sai who had the best lines of the film, almost stealing the show from Brando. Naturally, it's Marlon Brando's performance that elevates the film to its greatness, he's not only absolutely convincing as the ambassador, fittingly named Mac White, who exudes both charisma, sophistication and authority.

MacWhite's introductory scene is perhaps one of the best tributes to Marlon Brando's natural talent, and the kind of which I would watch and re-watch just for the pleasure to listen to the lines. The film has the script, the acting, the directing from George Englund, yet it didn't get any Oscar nomination, and till now, the film is vaguely remembered, maybe by a fistful of people. Yet, the film is extraordinarily educational about one of the most shameful pages of American history. To understand the Vietnam War through conflict, many movies are must- see, but this one would be on the top of the list. If not the best, it's the best start.

The film also offers an extrapolation of conflicts to come through the obsessive involvement of America in foreign conflicts in the name of ideals while it's more about profits than ideology. 10 years after "The Ugly American", Richard Nixon would prove all the final words of the Ambassador, that's how prophetic the film is, and I didn't even mention George W. Bush and the Iraqi conflict. "The Ugly American" has the intelligence of an Oliver Stone film, and although it's hard not to notice some minor flaws, it's a film that many should see and that deserve more and more recognition, it's daring, intelligent, thought-provoking and prophetic.

I guess this is the kind of film for which the word "underrated' was invented.

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.

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.

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.