Wargnier’s Indochine

Respond to the following assessment of Indochine by Panivong Norindr:
"Critical and popular acclaim notwithstanding, Wargnier’s representation of Indochina exerts a dangerous fascination precisely because it brings visual pleasure without questioning or subverting any preconceived ideas about French colonial rule in Southeast Asia. Indochine merely displays beautiful images and should only be remembered as a symptom of the current French fad for things exotic." Do you agree? Why or why not?

I absolutely agree that the film "brings visual pleasure without questioning or subverting any preconceived ideas about French colonial rule in Southeast Asia." really enjoyed the film as a film, but from a historical viewpoint, reviews such as Marouf Hasian and Helene Shugart’s are right on when they call it “Melancholic Nostalgia.” There were some gorgeous scenes, great acting, and an exciting story, but as a look at the French colonization of Indochina, the film is anything but fair.

However, I don't know that that the fascination is dangerous. It isn't helpful either, however. Rather than questioning French colonialism and the damage it did, it almost makes it seem enchanting.

Based on your viewing of the film and the Unit 5 online lecture material, how would you compare or contrast the French and American experiences in Vientam?

While the French were building cafes and colonizing, they were being unfair to the Vietnamese, but at least they were successful. The Americans, on the other hand, didn't do so well. The My Lai massacre was one of several huge problems involving American presence in the country. U.S. support became so bad that the military eventually had to "declare victory and leave."