Talk:The Killing Fields (film)

References to use

 * Please add to the list references that can be used for the film article.



Plot summary
Deftdrummer: Nobody wants to do a plot summary on this sad movie huh? Understandable. Somebody did it and well done!--Danaide (talk) 14:12, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:The Killing Fields film.jpg
Image:The Killing Fields film.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 10:43, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

fhdoidfjncpsieind;soencugjocundoydf —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.177.241.80 (talk) 12:25, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Some questions?!
dealing with shifting narrativ points of view. In our days there is a difference in style, telling political storys more documentary. - and in ''Killing fields appear somehow symbolic or double meaning story parts. Fading photos aren't a technical problem, like it is told on the first meaning. Floating time may be the second interpretative meaning and a philosophical dimenson opens.After his flight pran seems to rest and dream on a killing ground. Suddenly he is the leaders servant, in fiction, real. No bridge between these two events visible. Something cut off? Or should the fabulating reciepent  work? Disguising himself as a kambodschan bubu his identy vanishes. On the first level and on the other hand he flies again, rescuing a child, which dies at an uncomprehensable point in the dschungel. He himself transforming by flying, in this child means buddhist stuff. The me line loops from episode to episode and the foreign friend is far away. Whose perspective is in? There are many archimedic decisive points,where more than the action is told. _and by doing so the real action looses weight ! Strange! Real/ deep and t(h)anks!--Danaide (talk) 14:35, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Yesterday I have had the first chance to see this film in german tv. The page is o.k.but  there are some open questions,

Distortion of history
"According to John Pilger, scenes which show the communist Vietnam People's Army liberating Cambodia from the Khmer Rouge and distributing food aid were cut from the film." - This is really pitiful. We should give credit where credit is due, and admit that it was Vietnam that stopped the madness and rescued these people, while the United States did not help. As long as the film omits this fact, it is not an accurate account of the events. Selerian (talk) 15:00, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * mmmh, as I see it the Vietnamese invaded Cambodia for their own designs. Not to give food aid or "end the madness", which they had to some extend in their own country as well. Now imagine the outcry, if the US invaded Cambodia. The lefties and liberals would have whined that "imperialist" America just "suppressed" a misunderstood Marxist visionary and liberator of the people. Btw. did they mention in the film that Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge were Marxists and radical egalitarians? --2003:5B:E547:1577:6CC4:B570:B912:387A (talk) 12:51, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Categories: Vietnam War films?
Is this a Vietnam War film? The first line in the Plot section reads,
 * "The film opens in the Cambodian capital, Phnom Penh, May 1973. The Cambodian national army is fighting a civil war with the communist Khmer Rouge, a result of the Vietnam War overspilling that country’s borders."

So yes, I believe this film should be in the Vietnam War films category. ---Canstusdis (talk) 02:07, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Land mines
"Pran’s companion steps on a hidden land mine while holding the child. Though Pran pleads with the man to give him the child, the mine goes off, killing them both."

Meaning the film shows a man stepping on a mine, standing there for a while with his foot on it, then lifting his foot at which point it goes off? That's not how mines work - they go off when you step on them. I think I'll write a note to the director. PiCo (talk) 01:55, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

No they don't,they explode when you release the pressure off the trigger in a reverse firing system. I had to make safe many land mines of various origins and everyone would trigger if stepped on, but exploded when the pressure released. So the scene in the film is accurate.90.244.51.17 (talk) 14:04, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on The Killing Fields (film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090413003614/http://www.channel4.com:80/film/newsfeatures/microsites/T/tearjerkers/results/30-21.html to http://www.channel4.com/film/newsfeatures/microsites/T/tearjerkers/results/30-21.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 15:40, 9 January 2016 (UTC)