Le Vilain Américain

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.

"The Ugly American" was released right before the Vietnam War started (depending on which stage of it), and now it seems more relevant than ever. Harrison MacWhite (Marlon Brando) becomes ambassador to the Southeast Asian nation of Sarkhan, which is on the verge of civil war between the Communists and the pro-US government. In Sarkhan, MacWhite begins to suspect that US intervention in this country might be prompting people to rebel. While he refuses to accept it, the situation becomes more and more tense, and MacWhite's officially neutral position becomes less and less sustainable.

You can't say for certain what the movie's political message is, but we might take MacWhite's speech at the end as a good reminder. Either way, this is one of the many movies that showed how great an actor Marlon Brando was.

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.

Southeast Asian freedom fighter is duped by communists and American bumbling into misidentifying his and his people's true enemies. Endlessly fascinating how this straightforward and beautifully told story is misinterpreted decade after decade. The film leaves the viewer with feelings of nostalgia for an America that was once confident of its own decency, while at the same time pointing out how that aspect of the American character (meaning our confidence) could lead to dangerous miscalculations. If you want to see a really disturbing segue, watch the last scene back-to-back with Colonel Kurtz's soliloquy on communists cutting off the arms of inoculated children.

I didn't think much of this film when I first saw it on its original release in 1962. Probably because I was then not mature enough to understand world politics. I watched The Ugly American today, 60 years after its original release, and, WOW.