The next thing to do after seeing The Quiet American is to see the version done 44 years later. The novel by Graham Greene is set in French Indo-China in 1952 and this version is prophetic. The other one surely has the advantage of a whole lot of hindsight. This film done in 1958 has a lot of foresight.

I don't know what to make of Audie Murphy's character, it's never brought out, but he seems to be a CIA man. In the novel he's from the Ivy League, but due to Murphy's speech pattern, his character is from Texas. He's bringing in plastic for industrial purposes purportedly, but we see how the 'plastic' is really used.

The political picture of Indo-China in 1952 has the United States already seeing the French won't hold on and they're getting ready to put in their own surrogate in when the French do fall. Murphy is forever talking about a 'third force' who will bring western style democracy.

Murphy also becomes romantically involved with Giorgia Moll who is also the mistress of British newspaper correspondent Michael Redgrave. The rivalry between the two prevents either from acting coherently though Redgrave has a much better idea of what's really happening.

Interestingly enough the United Kingdom was also fighting to hold on in Malaya the same way that the French were trying to hold on to Indo-China next door. The British were far more successful though.

The Quiet American should have been seen by policy makers in Washington through six administrations in America. A lot of valuable lessons could have been learned and a lot of valuable lives might never have been lost.

Graham Greene's novel, "The Quiet American", was about a naive and rather dumb CIA operative whose blunders led to tragedy and death in Vietnam following the withdrawal of the French in the 1950s. It is definitely NOT a story that advises a greater American presence in the country and could even be seen as a huge counterpoint to American foreign policy in the 1960s. So what does Hollywood do? They buy the story and change it completely--and in the process that pretty much make it into a film saying the opposite of Greene in his novel!!! Not surprisingly, the author and many others were ticked and ended up hating the film. So, as a retired history teacher, I could not help but automatically hate the film because of its dishonesty. But that isn't the only problem with the movie...it's also very boring and was filled with Asians who aren't really Asian. All in all, you could certainly do better than this turgid little romance.

It's 1952 Vietnam. The French are helping the locals fight the communist insurgents. They find the dead body of Alden Pyle (Audie Murphy). Thomas Fowler (Michael Redgrave) sees it but doesn't tell young Vietnamese girl Phuong (Giorgia Moll) who is desperately waiting for Alden. Inspector Vigot (Claude Dauphin) questions Fowler who tells him that Pyle was a quiet American. There was a love triangle between Phuong, world-weary Brit Fowler and wide-eyed do-gooder Pyle from a private aid organization. The movie is told in flashback as Pyle and Fowler meet a few months before. Pyle is importing plastics to replace production in China. Pyle wants to marry Phuong making Fowler jealous.

There is no excuse for changing the Graham Greene novel 180 degrees. They should have the decency to change the title although it's understandable in the Hollywood red scare era. Also it's still a time when white people play Hollywood lead ethnic characters. On the other hand, there are some good qualities. Redgrave is doing solid work. He gets that perfect cynicism. It also has some scenes in Vietnam which is very rare at the time. This has some of the murky morality but it turns that murkiness on its head. This has some good stuff but it is not Graham Greene's book.