Well, we have a lot to unpack here. Apocalypse Now is an overall analysis of the
Vietnam war told through the eyes of one shell-shocked soldier who may or may
not be as crazy as the war itself.
Coppola’s vision of the war a harrowing one and in the pantheon of
all-time great war movies.
The main reason I chose this movie is that I am a big fan of
the unreliable narrator story-telling device, and I think we get hints of it
here. It isn’t quite as overt as many
other movies – Big Fish is one of the few that we know throughout the narrator
is unreliable at best, but it is more apparent than another movie we have
watched, Taxi Driver. We hear this story
through Captain Willard’s eyes, and it would be hard to suspect his motivations
and mental stability didn’t influence the overall narrative. Was Kilgore really that brazen? Did Phillips actually try to take Willard
with him to the great beyond? And how
did we know Lance was on acid if he only told Chef and not Willard? That
last question really bothers me, as it’s really the only interaction we see
that does not involve Willard directly.
Lance is the only survivor from the group, so maybe he told Willard
after the fact. (More on Lance, and the
crew in general, later.)
I also chose this movie due to the source material, Heart of
Darkness by Joseph Conrad. There are
some very overt references to Heart of Darkness in Apocalypse Now, specifically
the name Kurtz for the “villain” of the story.
Heart of Darkness is, in essence, a condemnation of 19th
century imperialism in Africa. The story
has been modernized in a couple instances to draw a parallel between
imperialism and the American war machine.
We can agree/disagree on whether or not this is a fair viewpoint of Cold
War era America, but I don’t think that’s the point of this discussion. The main question to be answered here is
whether or not you feel Coppola succeeds in defending this thesis while still
displaying the horror of Vietnam. That’s
asking a lot of any movie, and I don’t feel like the imperialism parallel was
quite there. We would have needed more
time with the Vietnamese people beyond the interaction with the boat people and
Kurtz’s natives. I’m not entirely sure
Coppola even meant to attempt an imperialism parallel and just chose to use the
source material as a convenient plot to wrap around his image of the war.
Heart of Darkness is a novella clocking in at a mere 72
pages. Therefore, there’s only so much
plot you could derive from there. So,
Coppola had to fill quite a few gaps. I
don’t know if I would classify Apocalypse Now as either plot-driven or a
character piece. It seems to live
somewhere between these two worlds. We
do have an overarching story for sure, but it really feels like we’re watching
a character piece, and the character in question is the Vietnam “conflict”
itself. Throughout the course of the
movie, we get an abbreviated timeline of the war and a better understanding of
the attitude toward it as it progressed.
We have the initial landfall, where Willard and company are told to
“ignore the cameras.” CAMERAS! This wasn’t a war, it was a TV event! We get some pretty amazing shots during this
early section as well, including a nice long shot of everything which is
occurring in this initial battle. Then
we move to the raid on the village, which brings in the full-on view of the
American arrogance in war. This, by the
way, was well-earned in the eyes of the leadership. We were less than a generation removed from crushing
the Nazis and Hirohito. Kilgore has no
taste for subtlety – cue the Valkyries!
What seems like a crushing defeat turns out to be a deep wound that
bends but does not break the Viet Cong in the village, as we then see the
tenacity of the enemy in full force.
Kilgore claims it safe enough to surf (again, who knows if this is true
or Willard’s embellishment) despite the battle raging on. So that’s what Vietnam was early on. A war we thought we would come in, crush our
outgunned foes, and spend a nice little vacation in the jungle.
The battle at the Du Long Bridge shows a stark contrast to
this picture of the war. This far down
the river, we see nothing but chaos. Build
the bridge, blow it up, build it again, blow it up again, wash, rinse,
repeat. Willard asks a couple soldiers
who is in charge, and they think he is.
They have no idea who is in charge and why they are fighting. They received some order, likely lost their
commander at some point, and were now just fighting some stalemate until they
were killed or told they could finally go home.
The Du Long Bridge is the quagmire Vietnam had become. It was a war that could not be won. Willard returning to the boat to declare
“there’s no one in charge here” says all we need to know.
Meanwhile, the river itself becomes an allegory for the
timeline of the war itself and the psychological effects it has on a man –
specifically Kurtz before and Willard now.
From the self-assured bravado to the Du Long Bridge, we see the slow
descent into madness from an organizational perspective. We go from discussions of surfing, TV
cameras, and small religious ceremonies, to what can best be described as an
utter shitstorm. The midpoint between
these two events is the USO show, where the troops essentially become animals
just at the sight of a few playmates.
The breaking down of the barb-wired wall is the breaking down of that
mental stability; the desire to return home still. Beyond the USO show, there seems to be no turning
back – only death and madness await.
As Willard progresses beyond the army’s reach, we see the
true horror of the war and the effects of a drawn out conflict. The potential that any passerby could be an
enemy, as this was a war where the foe cared nothing for order or
uniforms. We get the naiveté of those at
home, where Clean’s mother just assumes he’ll be back and already have plans
for “when” he returns. And, we
eventually see what all of this paranoia and hopelessness does to a man, when
we finally get to Kurtz’s lair at the end of the river.
We hear tidbits about
Kurtz throughout the movie. We can see
that this is a man that Willard both respects and fears. Since we’re hearing this story as a
retrospective, we can only guess whether or not these feelings were developed
before or after meeting Kurtz. Kurtz and
his compound are the metaphorical result of the insanity we have witnessed for
the past 105 minutes. Here’s a man who,
in his eyes, is getting results leading to a U.S. victory. However, he is condemned for his actions, and
is driven mad by a war that is equally mad. The final death scene for Kurtz is drawn in
overt parallels with the sacrificial bull, himself the sacrificial bull of a
war gone all wrong. It is really the
only moment of lucidity we see from him, his world ending not in a bang, but in
a whimper.
And, of all people, Lance makes it back. Who would have bet on that with the rest of
the crew involved? Lance is the only one
who truly descends into any sort of madness, and his descent ends up being his
saving grace. It goes to show us that
anyone who survived an ordeal like that had to be forever changed, to a level
almost as unsalvageable as Kurtz. We
don’t know what happens to Lance or Willard after their ordeal is done, but I
can’t imagine it’s anything good. We
know Lance and Willard had some sort of lucid interaction after the ordeal,
given that Lance never tells Willard he dropped acid before the battle of the
Do Long bridge.
Chef exists as a foil of sorts to Lance. Unlike Lance, Chef never truly loses his mind
at any point. During the attack on the
innocent boat, we see Chef as the only one who doesn’t suspect trouble. It makes me wonder if that sense of trust is
what caused him to eventually lose his head.
To survive at the end of the river, you had to embrace the madness, just
like Lance. Chef still held on to some
strand of sanity, and a person like that could not survive in this place.
We end on Kurtz’s final words, “The horror… The
horror.” And that truly is the best way
to describe this war and what everyone involved in this story went
through. There is no good way to
summarize it. Many of the actions taken
by all involved were deplorable. It was
not the bloodiest war in American history – some civil war battles saw more
American casualties then the entire 14 years we were in Vietnam – but the
overall damage to the American psyche, the end of our feeling of invincibility,
and the distrust in authority that resulted is still apparent today, and it is
no surprise that this war has been one of the most analyzed events through the
medium of film we have ever had.
That being said, Apocalypse Now would be the defining
analysis of the Vietnam War we had if a little film called Platoon didn’t
exist. Other movies have tackled certain
subjects of the war, like Full Metal Jacket, The Deer Hunter or Hamburger Hill,
but Platoon and Apocalypse Now feel like the two that really tackled the war
itself more than any other movie. Now, I
feel like choosing between the two is a classic “Beatles/Rolling Stones”
argument. Both are amazing (to most),
and there’s no reason you cannot like both.
I still feel the need to compare them though. I felt like Platoon was the better movie, in
that it had a stronger narrative.
Platoon had a real plot; Apocalypse Now wrapped a plot around several
smaller events that spoke to the war as a whole. (It’s been a while since I watched Platoon,
so I could be way off on this. I did
want to watch Platoon again before writing this, but it isn’t available to
stream for free anywhere.) Truth be
told, there are a couple scenes you can remove from Apocalypse Now and preserve
the message – it may lose a little impact, but you could do it. We didn’t need the USO scene for
example. We probably could have told the
entire story without Clean and/or Chief Phillips. However, the movie would have been less
without them.
I’ve already worn out my welcome, so I’ll quickly hit the
technical stuff that I have a feeling most of you will hit. Coppola was at the top of his game
directing. Some awesome shots,
especially considering this was made 35 years ago. Also, it had to be a pain in the ass doing
those Brando scenes with a body double.
We got a lot of good performances, especially from Robert Duvall, Dennis
Hopper, and the aforementioned Marlon Brando.
Martin Sheen was fine but a tad dry.
I later read that was by design, him serving as an observer of sorts, so
I won’t deduct points for his performance.
(Side note 1: I’ve heard the documentary based on the
filming of this movie, Hearts of Darkness, is also amazing. We may need to pick that one sometime
soon. Truth be told, we could do an
entire round of just Vietnam movies and watch nothing but great stuff.)
(Side Note 2: Besides this movie, a video game I mentioned
in Side Pieces called Spec Ops: The Line also bases several of its themes on
Heart of Darkness. I would actually
argue the storyline of Spec Ops is much darker and more sinister then Apocalypse
Now – I would love to “assign” you all that game, but I know we don’t have a
lot of gamers in the group, so I’ll leave it at that.)
+ Hits many of the major points of the Vietnam War
+ Well-done analysis of Vietnam
+ Enjoyed the story-telling devices
- Maybe a few extemporaneous scenes… How is there a 45 min
longer version?!
Grade: A
The timing of Apocalypse Now for me couldn't have been better. A month removed from a wonderful visit to Hoi An had me pumped to learn more about the Vietnam War. It was brought up a few times while we were there, but not much. The locals were incredibly nice, we always felt safe, and our cab driver kept insisting, "United States and Vietnam friends."
ReplyDeleteThat being said, the first scene in Apocalypse Now made me want to cry. Vietnam is a beautiful country and I'm 99% pacifist. I don't know how Phil missed my helicopter sound reference, it was the secondary soundtrack to the movie from the start. While I'm on the soundtrack, I thought it was incredibly well done.
In order to keep this from being a summary, I'll just say the lead up to the boat trip was well done and I loved every minute of the boat trip. Sheen did a great job and Redford's character is probably the most memorable. The boat crew was fantastic - a little crazed from war, and doing what they can to have fun. Did anyone else think someone was going to get shot during every boat scene? I was more nervous when the young kid was dancing than any other scene.
At this point in the movie I'm thinking A or A-. Then we arrive at the Cambodian camp and things start to unravel. Colonel Kurtz was a chiseled, respectable man until you see him. He's an overweight, Godfather redo. You know who's overweight in Cambodia - no one. And what was with the natives? I find it hard to believe they walk around almost zombified.
Having been let down big time by the ending, I actually went to Wikipedia to read about this one. Copola should have just sent Brando home instead of letting him play Kurtz, I'm still irritated 2 weeks later.
I wish I had written this review right after watching, but it will probably just lead to better discussion as other things are brought up. Good discussion is the point of the pick, right Phil ;-)
B+
This is the third time I've watched Apocalypse Now and I'm more or less locked into my opinion of it. It's my preferred flavor of war movie, i.e. the war is useless flavor, with no romanticism or heroism to glorify. It also really questions what effective war-bringing is, in a Breaking Bad half measures/full measures type of way. It also gradually loses me in the last 20 minutes, keeping it out of A+ territory, though it's still in my all-time top 50.
ReplyDeletePhil talks a lot about what this movie is trying to say, and we'll get into his thoughts during the free-for-all, but for me, there are two main takeaways. First, war takes the best nature and mankind has to offer and destroys it. This is established in the opening shot, with the pristine jungle annihilated with napalm. It continues with Willard being ruined for real life, torn between home and the shit. Kurtz is supposed to be the very best America has to offer, but add war to the mix and all that comes of him is a death cult and an ignominious death. As a chef, Chef gave life and beauty to people but again, his life and the thousands of meals he could have made were traded for nothing.
The second, and more intriguing takeaway, is that war is winnable, but only if you submit to and embrace the very worst that man is capable of. Kurtz's speech about the polio vaccines and the pile of arms is the fulcrum on which the movie is balanced. The US came into those villages with compassion. The VC came in with deadly resolution. Per the viewpoint of Apocalypse Now, the side with strength of purpose will always win. In thinking about the movie afterwards, I thought about the quote about the Roman military, "Rome makes a desert and calls it peace." The great conquerors became great because they razed shit to the ground, murdering males between 12 and 60 and selling everyone else into slavery. The US keeps getting into these occupational wars but doesn't have the resolve to break spirits. That's obviously a good thing, but it makes war a fool's errand. Kurtz, and Coppola by extension, has no patience for the half measures that plague the film. Commit to a path, and follow it to the end. Kurtz's big speech perfectly summed up for me why the US lost in Vietnam; they were fully committed while we were not.
Though Brando had weight problems and was always shot in shadow, I thought he was incredible. I understood why Dennis Hopper was so in love with him. He was everything the film built him up to. The disdain he has for Willard at first is palpable, summed in that great line about him being an 'errand boy sent by grocery clerks to collect a bill.' Robert Duvall is second place as Killgore, one of the great movie assholes. If a viewer isn't watching close enough, he comes off as a solid dude, claiming his kills to strike fear into the enemy and giving enemy wounded a drink from his own canteen. Except he puts those death cards on dead kids and is distracted away from actually giving the disemboweled VC any water. He claims to love his men, but puts all their lives at risk so he can do a little surfing. He tries to recreate home for his men, but Willard calls this out as cruel and simplistic. He heroically rides into battle blaring Ride of the Valkyries, a tune from Wagner, who was Hitler's favorite composer. His famous line about napalm in the morning is one of those that gets misinterpreted by other assholes, like 'Greed is good' or 'I am the one who knocks.' He's onscreen for exactly the right amount of time, making a huge impression and doesn't overstay his welcome.
ReplyDeleteOther performances don't stick out as much. Sheen is fine to very good. He hits his high mark over the opening credits and doesn't match it for the rest of the movie. Young Laurence Fishburne is solid as Clean. I love his Satisfaction dance. Chef and Lance were good characters, but something's missing from the acting. I think Chef hits his lines too hard. I loved the intense discomfort in Harrison Ford's character. He knows what he's telling Willard to do, but to quote Littlefinger, the words stick in his throat because they're not honorable.
Going more granular, the cinematography gets great shot after great shot. Kurtz in a smoky ray of light, Willard's face as the only thing in deep blackness, Chief sinking into the river, the fleeing helicopter after the USO show, all spectacular. The disorder and chaos of the battle scenes really comes across, specifically the blown-up helicopter. That still stresses me out. I love the lack of sentimentality about the troops, becoming increasingly pronounced the further we go down the river. They're not necessarily bad people, but they're not saints either. Rushing the USO dancers is such an ugly scene, and the anarchic last post reminded me of a haunted house.
Apocalypse Now is a heady film, and what I took as its themes have been sticking in my craw. That goddamn Kurtz speech is one of my favorite movie monologues, the culmination of everything the movie's been building towards. After the good Godfather movies, The Conversation, and this film, Coppola spent his talent on some of the best movies ever made, such that I think it's fine he hasn't made anywhere near as good a movie in 30+ years. I do start to rush for the exit once it's clear the way things are going to go. The last handful of minutes are dragged out a bit to my mind, so that, and some of Chef's delivery are serious enough flaws to drop it to an A. Great start to a new round.
When I was a teenager, The Patriot came out. I loved that movie. It had fighting, patriotism and a 1-dimensional bad guy who gets his in the end. It was one of my favorite movies. Thinking war movies were awesome, I rented Apocalypse Now at some point as a teen. It was horrible. Nothing like The Patriot. 15 years later and it is still nothing like The Patriot, but I'm now happy instead.
ReplyDeleteApocalypse Now isn't fun. It doesn't make you feel good. It doesn't make you want to go to war. Last night, on Facebook, some asshole in the military posted something about assholes in Iraq threatening Christians being targeted for death in Iraq and asking who wouldn't want to go to war against these guys and kill them. Fresh off the heals of this movie and watching other movies like it, I can resoundingly say no fucking thank you to going to war.
Despite the brutal nature of the movie, it's still enjoyable to watch. We have interesting characters at every turn. The visuals are even better. The first time I watched this movie, Geoff was crying like a total asshole. I mostly only got visuals and still was entranced by the movie. Honestly, it's hard to believe that this was filmed in the late 70's. The scenes could really pass for recent work.
There are a few things that stuck out:
The river. I couldn't have said it any better than Phil. The further down the river, the more into the war they are. Just utterly saturated in violence and arbitrary killing. There's a point where someone says "Don't get off of the boat." Every time they get off of the boat, everything is more and more of a shit-show. The surfing scenes show America being forced upon a land where it doesn't belong, but there's still some "civilization" lingering. The USO show shows contained or controlled base-level humanity that explodes from it's container. The bridge scene is war without borders. Nothing is gained, nothing is lost. Just pure arbitrary killing. The natives attack, seemingly in a benign manner, and show that civilization is not always in control. Finally we end at a camp of controlled chaos. War simply can't be harnessed.
Kurtz is what happens to good men when they're forced to drop what is good about them and embrace the most base nature of man. He does what any good leader would do: He attempts to control the chaos and is brutally effective. Brando's portrayal doesn't bother me in the least. I think he succeeds in playing a depraved and insane person who used to get along in society because Brando is a legit depraved and insane person.
I'm surprised that no one has brought up the slaughtering of the water buffalo. I loved that final scene and the water buffalo topped it off. There was something so basic/violent/pure about some villagers slaughtering the water buffalo.All of the chaos around it. All of the madness. But the end is as simple as a machete to the neck. Dead. One second the water buffalo is being held in esteem, the next it's just dead. Nothing more, nothing less.
I absolutely loved you response to the facebook comment about Iraq last night. Made my night.
DeleteLink?
Deletelink?
DeleteI like that 7 minutes after asking for the link... Bryan asked again, but in lower-case fashion!
DeleteBlogspot was really messed up on my computer this morning.
DeleteForgot to add my grade. This is an easy A. I can't quite do an A+ because some of the performances were a bit underwhelming, but I can't find anything else wrong about the movie. Just a great film.
ReplyDeleteSo this is my first review- I'm nervous! I feel like I have the weight of the female voice on my shoulders.
ReplyDeleteHere we go...Apocalypse Now. This is one of those movies that I feel like I should enjoy a lot more than I actually do (kind of like wine or green tea. I get why everyone else likes them, but I just...don't). I appreciate it for what it is, I understand why it is well liked and well received. But do I really enjoy watching it? Not so much. And no, it's not because I like girly movies. I don't. Ask Shane- I prefer the shittiest of shitty horror and sci-fi movies.
Which led me to analyze why I don't always enjoy the "classic" movies like Apocalypse Now. The movie is largely driven by the long periods of inaction and anticipation, and maybe I just crave a bit more action in my movies (or maybe I've been brainwashed into believing that movies need to be non stop action packed in order to be enjoyable? I hope not. Transformers 4 is proof alone that this is NOT true). That being said..I should point out again that I do appreciate this movie for what it is, it's just not my favorite.
This was my first time watching this movie, and I had to watch in 2 pieces. It's intense, to say the least. Martin Sheen's opening scene was chilling and set the tone for the rest of the movie perfectly. His performance is easily one of my favorite things about the movie. I as well went to Wikipedia on this one to get some background on the making of the movie. Interesting that Brando was so overweight that they had to adjust the way the film was shot- filming him in darkness and photographing only his face. I actually think that this worked out to their advantage, adding to his eerie, somewhat god like presence. Coupled with the fact that we don't see Kurtz, the main focus of the movie, until well into 3/4th of the way through, Coppola did a fantastic job building his mystique.
All in all it's a gorgeous movie with awesome cinematography- each frame so beautiful and well done. And the soundtrack, pretty rad as well. I liked it, I appreciate it...will I watch it again? Probably not. I'll go B+ for my grade.
Hope I did this right and that y'all don't kick me out of the boys club! Thanks for including me :)
I definitely agree with the pacing. I had a similar issue with Taxi Driver, but I felt like Taxi Driver REALLY meandered. I think some of the older movies are an acquired taste in that regard. A lot of 70's movies had VERY slow pacing that makes them a little tougher to watch today - Rocky, Jaws, and Alien come to mind immediately.
DeleteAs I mentioned in the side piece on grading philosophy, rewatchability is a concern for me depending on the type of movie. I agree that I have little desire to revisit Apocalypse Now from an entertainment standpoint, but it didn't affect my grade. This is one of those movies I may eventually rewatch from purely an analysis standpoint, but not for sheer entertainment.
Meandering and slow paces definitely are a quality of 70s movies..Alien came to mind when I was writing my review and watching this movie. But maybe I can excuse the pace of Alien because of the badassness (sure, that's a word) of the aliens. And the suspense leading up to the first time we actually see the aliens. Jaws- most definitely in the same vein as Apocalypse Now (and Jaws frustrated me as well, even though I didn't want it to). Maybe I just need to push on and acquire a taste for these types of films.
DeleteGreat job by Phil covering all the bases.
ReplyDeleteI'll start by quoting Roger Ebert,
"But "Apocalypse Now" is the best Vietnam film, one of the greatest of all films, because it pushes beyond the others, into the dark places of the soul. It is not about war so much as about how war reveals truths we would be happy never to discover."
Does this make Apocalypse Now war adjacent Kissel?
Ebert’s sentence above not only describes why the movie is great but is able to offer a synopsis of the movie by summarizing the lessons learned in Kurtz’s polio village monologue.
The pacing of the movie and the anticipation for the arrival at Kurtz’s village is something most horror movies could learn from. Kurtz’s absence throughout the film is what really makes his presence when he finally does appear, Willards occasional looks into the dossier with respect, fondness, fear, etc help build the character as well instead of your more traditional one-sided villain.
I know it’s cliché to compare Apocalypse Now to Pirates of the Caribbean but I couldn’t help think about how stabbing the heart of Davy Jones you become the captain of the Flying Dutchman. When Willard walks out after killing Kurtz and everyone kneels to him, they need their deity. Only after her drops his weapon do they awaken from the “zombified” state and drop their weapons too.
Everybody is great in their parts- Duvall as Kilgore was a fantastic prick and played the arrogant war machine part perfectly, I had difficult time picturing him surfing though. Seeing him trying to describe the “breaks” of the surf was rough. Brando in 1979 was the acting deity they needed to fill Kurtz’s shoes. I feel like Sheen’s cold narration is underrated by this group so far.
I even will defend Chef. He needs to leave the boat and go find some mangos- this is where we learn about who he is away from Vietnam and he needs to find the mangos so he can remember for himself what life away from Vietnam is. After the scare with the tiger he is scared shitless and doesn’t want to leave the boat again. Leaving the boat represents leaving the war and going home to a normal life for these men, the tiger in the jungle represents the realities that after what they’ve experienced there is no return to normal life as they once knew it, Chef’s struggles from there on represent fighting his fear now knowing he is either in the shit or he goes home but will always carry around the burden from having been in the shit.
Lance had me confused though, how much acid did he have?
I’ll go A. My gut tells me A- but the performances from every character were so solid and the movie’s place in history and what it represents elevate to an A.
Ha, war-adjacent. Laughing at my own jokes.
Delete"I feel like Sheen’s cold narration is underrated by this group so far." I agree. I thought Sheen was great.
ReplyDeleteI'm still a bit flabbergasted that everyone loved Brando's performance so much.
I thought he was the perfect choice and nailed the expectations for the character and mindset which was set up... What did you feel was off, or missing?
DeleteFrom the images in the film I was expecting a much more chiseled character. A cross between Brando and Heston. I can't imagine a man spending 2-3 years in the jungle and coming out weighing more than when he went in.
DeleteWe never got a great look at his body... which was on purpose of course, but he still seemed to be pretty menacing. Also... he was essentially a god among his people. So if anybody in that place had the means to gain weight, it was him.. as he was given anything he wanted and obeyed without question. It didn't look like he did too much otherwise to keep his chiseled physique. If anything, I sort of chalk it up to the degradation of everything in general... the people, the land, it was all headed in a negative direction.
DeleteI loved Sheen's performance! And I didn't love Brando's..I just loved the way it was filmed. Which really had nothing to do with his acting skills as a whole.
DeleteI did love the way Sheen shot the dying boat person and his insistence they get back on track, and his opening freakout is great, but I think he was overshadowed by the bigger performances, particularly Brando and Duvall.
DeleteOn Brando's appearance, I thought he looked more thick than fat. He is genuinely intimidating when he's putting Chef's head in Willard's lap. They never show his midsection, just his big head and broad shoulders. It worked for me.
I first watched Apocalypse Now sometime back in high school... And while I'm usually not overly fond of war movies, I gave it an A grade when filling out the sheet as I recalled being pretty impressed with it. The only war movie I have rated higher is Full Metal Jacket, and that's partly due to my slight obsession with Kubrick's work. So yeah, I was interested in watching this again after so long and seeing if it holds up for me.
ReplyDeleteThe opening scene is a perfect way to set the tone.... the visuals and the music. It drew me in right away, the exact opposite of how Taxi Driver began for me. I feel like our early time spent with Willard is the most important with him. He's already losing it... and his words, tone and reactions make us uncertain about what he's going to do as the movie progresses, especially when we finally reach Kurtz.
While this may have been the highlight of Sheen's performance, I think he was superb throughout the movie... especialy in his narration. Without great voice work to tell his tale, I think the movie would have really lost something. And it actually worked for me that he started on such a high note , because really... that's the highest point at which his character was going to be (and it was already in the shit).
There were a lot of scenes that looked fantastic. The shots of the helicopters in flight always captured my full attention. Also vibrant colors from the smoke grenades caught my eye and made me wonder what each one meant in their various places. Coppola does a great job overall of presenting the imagery. He captured the essence of what was going on and succeeded in making a movie that had to be extremely difficult to do considering the subject. Even though the war and fighting was going on all around throughout the movie, it never felt like the focus was on the physical part... which I appreciated and reminds me of why I liked this more than most War movies. I think it's also important because the war ended up being much more about people and pysche... and reality than about the fighting. Also, I especially like that he put himself in there as the TV director telling them to not look at the camera.
Other than the beginning, I think most of the we're cruising down the river are my favorite. They bring all the different emotions into play. We see them laughing, crying, relaxing, panicking.... living and dying, finding a puppy! This is where everything builds up before it really falls apart and we see the true cost of war. As Bryan mentioned... there were many times I was a little anxious, worried somebody was getting shot, then relieved when they weren't. While some crew death was certainly expected, the causes and timing of the well done in terms of being out some surprise and sadness from me. I think the performances for the crew were great overall... and don't really have any issues with how Chef was done, although Forrest was the weakest of the group. That's praise toward the rest of them, not really a knock on him. It's a nice look at a young Larry Fishburne long before his Morpheus days.
Brando, Duvall and Hopper all stood out. Along with Sheen, they made up a great cast of stellar performances. I think Jon describes Kilgore perfectly. They want you to like him.. unless you pay attention to the details. I actually said 'dick' aloud when he pulled the canteen away because he heard Lance Johnson was there. Hopper was perfect as the photojournalist... and I completely bought his obsession with Kurtz. Apparently he was based on a real photojournalist, Sean Flynn...but i don't know anything about him or his disappearance.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteAnd then there's Brando. Kurtz is what everything relied on... more than half the movie leading up to this one character. And while it did drag at times, it all paid off. The character is what I expected and what the film needed him to be. Brando gives a completely memorable and convincing performance. The shadows and angles worked out great for the setting... and I think the focus being on his face and tone were key to the scenes anyway.. but it was more about what he said and who he had become. His death scene was outstanding with the parellel to the water buffalo sacrifice really captured it. I guess Coppola provided the tribe with a bunch of buffalo, so he could get the ritual on camera and that's the real thing we're seeing in the film. He's quoted as saying it was lucky that they happened to be performing the ritual on their last day of shooting... but seems other say he was just distancing himself from the controversy.
ReplyDeleteSome good timing concerning Coppola and Brando... I just read an article from last week about Brando and his role in the movie and how Coppola sort of betrayed him. While he was overweight, it's supposedly exagerated as to how much. He was also instrumental in how Kurtz was written.
Interesting read, even though it's HuffPost:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/susan-l-mizruchi/brando-v-coppola-debunkin_b_5587675.html
It'd be need to see some of the letters and hear the recordings. So while Coppola made a great film... he's a bit sketchy on some of the things involved.
I know there is a ton to talk about concerning the source novella, the philosphy, etc...but I wanted to focus on the movie itself first... review and grade it, and then perhaps delve in to Phil's topics in the discussion.
Anyway... even with some bogged down segments in which I caught myself losing focus, looking at my phone or computer... the positives are numerous and grand.
It's pretty clear I still favor the film, and see no reason to change my initial grade. So while it doesn't have the A+ factor and feel to it for me... it's a firm A.
It'd be neat* yikes... i really should have proof read.
DeleteSomething we're a bit divided on seems to be whether Kurtz is crazy or not. I don't think he is at all. He embraces something so contrary to normal morality that he gets judged as crazy, because to get behind Kurtz's philosophy, even though it's kind of working, would be the end of America. He saw some capital-T Truth in the pile of arms and it destroyed his worldview, but that doesn't make him crazy, because you can easily dismiss a crazy person. The military brass would love to do that, but the monologue is so logical and so articulate and so right that only someone lucid can make it.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteTruth be told, I don't know if we have enough information. I know that's a cop-out answer, but it's the best I have. We see a MOUNTAIN of bodies - to me, that's crazy. But, were those all enemies? Maybe it becomes less crazy then? We don't have a great idea of what Kurtz is doing to his own followers. Kurtz seems to take some sort of liking to Willard, and still chops Chef's head off. That spells at least "off" to me.
DeleteI think he chops Chef's head off because Kurtz wants to make sure that Willard kills him. When they first arrive, Willard just asks to see Kurtz like he's knocking on the door. Kurtz tortures Willard, kills Chef, drops Chef's head in Willard's lap, and then lets him go. He's forcing Willard to complete his mission, because I don't think Willard is committed one way or another when he first gets there.
DeleteThe pile of bodies and the heads and the pantsless corpses are all about the 'spectacle of fearsome acts,' as Bill the Butcher would say. Cut off your enemy's head, raise it up high for all to see. It's a big Don't Fuck With Me sign in the middle of the jungle.
I think crazy (which is apparently a slur now?) or insanity is more similar to having no reasoning behind your actions. Kind of like pure chaos. Kurtz may not have been crazy as his actions were predictable and rational (even if the rationale was weak), just that they were predictably inhumane. However, even a lucid person can start believing in a crazy theory or philosophy. With no opposition, that person sees less of the weakness in their way of thinking and becomes more emboldened that they're living on the fringes. Kurtz had no opposition. He just got to enjoy his own greatness and started to buy into. Crazy? Myabe not. Crazy way of life? Absolutely.
DeleteIt's like the Food Babe. She's living on the fringes and has a bunch of ignorant peasants afraid and following her. There is no doubt that she actually buys into the bullshit she spews. She is lucid, but sells snake oil (for a nice chunk of change I'm sure). Hopefully someone hacks her to death with a machete (metaphorically speaking, of course.)
It's just a word that's just overused to dismiss somebody because we don't agree with or understand something. I was gonna say it's not a slur so much... but I guess the fact that it denotes a very negative connotation and implies mental illness... it can be offensive and a slur.
DeleteShane, if your equating inhumanity with insanity, then by the transitive property, the act of warmaking itself is insane. You might have cracked the code.
DeletePhil... you talked about Willard not knowing about the acid, although you answered how he could have found out.... but I'd more so question about how he'd know about Chef on the boat with the radio contact before he lost his head... Willard was already held captive at that point, and nobody was with Chef to pass on that little detail, right?
ReplyDeleteRadio logs? Whoever eventually got them out? I don't know really, but it's plausible that someone onshore could have shared this detail. Good find!
DeletePhil, like a Fat Brando stuffing himself into his costume, I think you may be forcing this movie into the unreliable-narrator box. Willard's narration is happening in real time. He never talks about anything that hasn't happened yet or lessons learned. I like that trope, too, but Apocalypse Now doesn't have any of those story tricks. Everything struck me as straightforward. It's a road movie, not a psychological mindfuck.
ReplyDeleteIt's very possible. However, at the beginning we hear Willard say "to tell Kurtz's story, I have to tell my story." To me, that indicates past-tense.
DeleteI don't like the new format :)
ReplyDeleteAs for the Apocalypse Now, great movie. I never watched it until now and I have to agree with what has been stated.
What I want to discuss is the sanity of Kurtz and the amazing job of Martin Sheen. First, Kurtz's sanity. He is clearly out of touch with reality. He is very much in touch with his own reality and that is a key indicator of losing touch. This isn't some Dave Chapel thing that Bobby quoted either. Kurtz is a complete sociopath. How can a sane person convince an entire tribe of locals to do his bidding? That is power every politician desires and Kurtz was masterful of getting it and maintaining it by the beheadings. Jon claims he has sanity due to his idea of an absolute truth. I disagree with that sentiment because he convinced himself that killing four Vietnamese was an act of war. The evidence is pretty clear of his insanity.
On to Sheen. He was fantastic. The narration and acting was great. It was his best movie and I wish it was mentioned in the earlier posts. The sad thing about it is he never really did anything to equal this performance. Sure, he was great in The West Wing but nothing compared to Apocalypse Now. Just a great performance but too soon for his career.
Anyway, good all around film but it dragged in some areas. Why was it 2.5 hours long? A couple of great quotes though. Brando's "horror" speech was great and Duvall's "napalm" quote was well timed.
Grade: A
I lean more toward's Jon's view of Kurtz. I think he's completely in control of his thoughts... we may not like or agree with them, and neither does anybody else who hears/reads what he's doing out there, until they get more into the shit and see what reality is out there. We're so far removed from that world, wrapped in all of our comforts and conveniences, of course it's easy to label him as crazy, and I do think it's dismissive here. But being put into a different world with different rules and conditions and accepting that as the reality, for what it is... is not crazy. He knows it's a mess out there and I think he's pretty lucid in what he tells Willard.
DeleteI agree on Sheen, though. From the couple of seasons I watched of The West Wing, he was great in it, but didn't have anything written for him that would make him shine like the opening scenes in Apocalypse now. I'm not sure what that says... and I wonder if he wasn't presented with such strong scripts/roles, or just wasn't really as good overall as he happened to be in this.
If I remember correctly, Sheen made up some of the first scene on his own.
DeleteIt's a farce to suggest we labeled Kurtz crazy to be dismissive. We are having a discussion with evidence supporting either side and you suggest calling him insane is "dismissive." That kind of presumption assassinates thinking and the discussion. Now do people do that in society because it is easy? Yes but that does not apply to our discussion.
DeleteIt may not be dismissive as the easy way out, but i think it dismisses his lucid thought process, his coherent words and story to Willard and his overall rationale for what he's doing. It's focus on the fact that he does something that we can't fathom.
DeleteHow does a sane person amass such a following? By being any number of things.. including right, kind, fair, intelligent, menacing, manipulative, etc.... not necessarily insane. Jesus supposedly had that kind of sway over people, no? It can be argued that Hitler was perfectly sane.. deplorable and wrong, but sane. Power doesn't depend on sanity, does it?
He killed the 4 Vietnamese double agents after doing months of research to be absolutely sure of what he was doing. He writes about it very clearly to his son. He wasn't even void of his humanity... he still cared and thought of his family, and even said "in a war, there are many moments for compassion and tender action." He sounds sane, even reasonable in the letter, if only "beyond their timid, lying morality."
That's just it. Sociopaths convince themselves they are correct and have a rationale for every action. Ted Bundy, Vlad the Impaler, Robert Maudsley all had clear reasons for doing what they did.
DeletePower doesn't necessarily depend on sanity but it can corrupt the mind. Look at Maximilien Robespierre before and during the Great Terror. It was as if he turned into a different person. How did Kurtz keep those people in line yet happy? Through brute force and knowing when to let up. That is the plan of an insane leader.
Now think back when Kurtz killed Chef and visited Willard. It takes someone who is mentally uncaring and scarred by war to carry a decapitated head and toss it into the lap of the deceased's comrade. That is exactly what Kurtz did to Willard and Willard, who has seen much action, cried out when he saw Chef's head on his lap.
As for the Jesus comparison, we do not know if he told the truth. Many believe and take comfort he did but no living person knows that for sure. What I am getting at is Jesus could have been insane.
The four Vietnamese Kurtz killed was, indeed, out of his own research and accord. He was never authorized to do that. Why do you think that? Perhaps Kurtz was wrong.
The sociopath is the very thing Kurtz was. Maybe he wasn't but the evidence suggests otherwise.
I'm less interested in us calling Kurtz crazy, and more interested in the movie calling him crazy. Bobby's quote from Chappelle summarizes exactly how the military feels about Kurtz. If Phil wants to call someone an unreliable narrator here, it's the military.
DeleteThe point of no return for Kurtz is the execution of the Vietnamese officers. By his own assessment and investigation, they were NVA spies, and by the military's own record-keeping, enemy action declined to almost nothing in Kurtz's zone. However, the South Vietnamese can't have their officers summarily executed, so the military called Kurtz back. He refused because what he was doing was working. At this point, he presumably hightailed it to Cambodia and set up his camp there. The military then sends multiple teams to assassinate Kurtz, telling the assassins that he's gone insane. It's unclear if they know specifics about his methods, but they do know that he's no longer falling into line, and that the South Vietnamese are pissed, so he has to go.
Driving Kurtz's actions is his realization that if the US doesn't match the ruthlessness of the VC and NVA, they're doomed to lose. So his command becomes brutal, because it's actually insane to fight war with restraint. If you're not ready to terrorize civilians and make horrific decisions, you shouldn't be at war in the first place. He follows that path for a period of time, but by the time Willard meets him, he's depressed and ready for suicide-by-cop. The Truth he discovered was too much for him, and if that's what humanity is, he no longer wants any part of it.
Applying conventional civilian morality to a warzone is a recipe for failure. Industrial war can't be fought humanely. That's not to say Coppola is arguing for America to be more brutal. He's arguing for America to avoid war, lest we make piles of arms.
I'm no psychiatry expert, so i have to rely on a given definition of sociopath...
Delete"a person with a psychopathic personality whose behavior is antisocial, often criminal, and who lacks a sense of moral responsibility or social conscience."
Kurtz isn't antisocial, is he? He's speaks to Willard pretty comfortably, his letters are social and caring. He doesn't lack moral responsibility... he completely understands what the moral code is, and it's not that he doesn't care about it, but he sees what it is in the war as a lie (as does Willard when he calls Kurtz's story, and his own, a confession.) Kurtz even said outright that Willard has every right to kill him... no lack of moral responsibility there. He even acknowledges the necessity of morality, in his monologue, but also the ability to use the most basic of instincts to kill without judgement... that's the horror of it.
He also tells Willard that his fear is that his son won't understand what he was trying to be. He doesn't want to be seen as infallible or being right... he knows what he's done, and appears to have a full understanding of it and how others (including his son and wife) will likely view it. Willard understood... even said he admired him at one point. He went from hearing the recording and being told Kurtz is insane, to believing otherwise throughout his journey and reading the dossier, which, if anything, seemed to work at showing Kurtz wasn't crazy.
And actually, side note.... I'm surprised only one of us (Sean) even mentioned the dossier. It's a major part of the story, and pretty much a character in itself until we finally meet Kurtz... The dossier and Willard's thoughts on it are all we have to develop who Kurtz is.
And Jon... Kurtz was assigned to that place, he didn't hightail it there to hide.
Delete"On his next tour, Kurtz was assigned to the Gamma Project, in which he was to raise an army of Montagnards in and around the Vietnamese–Cambodian border to strike at the Viet Cong and N.V.A. Kurtz located his army, including their wives and children, at a remote abandoned Cambodian temple which they fortified. From their base, Kurtz led attacks on the local V.C. and the regular N.V.A. in the region" (from the wiki page on Kurtz, don't feel like searching deeper at the moment)
Ok, I was a little unclear about when he got to Cambodia and whether that was a hideout or his actual assignment.
DeleteIt wouldn't be a very good hiding place... seeing as they all knew where to go find him. That and the "big Don't Fuck With Me sign in the middle of the jungle" he put up!
DeleteI forgot to mention 1 question I had,
ReplyDeleteWhat are the chances given what they encountered on the way up the river that Willard and Lance make it back down the river alive?
Less than 50%, our record in Vietnam was pretty bad.
DeleteIf Kurtz lives, does he stop the Khmer Rouge?
DeleteThe odds have to be way against them. Though Lance is straight bonkers, and crazy White dudes usually terrify everyone.
DeleteI think we have to assume Willard made it, as he is our narrator. Plus, like I mentioned to Bobby earlier, the only way he knows about Chef radio'ing from the boat is if the person on the other end of that radio told him.
DeleteLance? Who knows. There's a 150% chance that if Lance did make it back, he's homeless.
I'm pretty sure movies have existed where the narrator died. Was there something in the opening where it was without a doubt a retrospective?
DeleteAt the beginning we hear Willard say "to tell Kurtz's story, I have to tell my story." To me, that indicates past-tense. As for movies where the narrator has died? The only movie I've seen where I recall it happening is Sin City (Clive Owen's part I believe). A quick google search shows American Beauty & The Lovely Bones were also narrated by a dead person. So you are correct - narrators can die in the story. However, in all of those instances we see the narrator die. I don't think there's any indication given that Willard dies. Also, there's little chance he would have known about Chef radio'ing from the boat while captured without making it back.
DeleteSure, he lived longer than the story he told... but that doesn't mean he lived more than 5 minutes once he got on that boat...
DeleteChef didn't radio, he heard something from the radio, right? And they wouldn't have known if Chef, or anybody was on the boat, unless they got a reply, which we didn't see anyway...
I don't think it really matters whether he made it back or not... but their odds were definitely not good.
What did you all make of the soundtrack? I found it very fitting and supportive of the scenes. Their taste in song selection was also stellar. Agreement?
ReplyDeleteAbsolute agreement. It was fitting and actually added to the movie... starting with, but not limited to, This is the End opening the movie.... which I felt was a perfect match for the sequence.
DeleteBeyond The End, Ride of the Valkyries, and Satisfaction, I honestly don't remember a lot of it. Those choices though were all inspired.
Delete