 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
Having just acquired a DVD player and one of my college-age daughters having rented the DVD for some course assignment, I had occasion to watch this film for the first time since it came out, in 1979. It is a self-indulgent film that embodies a great concept but fails in the execution. But for its anti-war message that resonates with critics' political views, I think it would have been dismissed long ago and largely forgotten.The concept of the film is great: a riff on Conrad's "Heart of Darkness" with a journey upriver deeper into the moral and physical jungle in search of an army colonel who has become lost in the moral ambiguities of that particular war. This is a great concept and would have made a great film.
In my opinion, there are two problems -- a big one and a small one.
The big one is that Coppola had a second concept that was inconsistent with the first -- war as a horrible absurdity. This, of course, was Joseph Heller's invention in "Catch-22," a great book unsuccessfully brought to film. The "war as an absurdity" concept is responsible for the middle part of the film -- a complete narrative detour -- in which the Sheen character (Capt. Willard) witnesses the helicopter attack on the VC village led by Duvall's crazy, surfing Lt. Colonel Killgore. So we have great, absurd scenes like the use of PA systems on the attacking choppers that play "Ride of the Valkyries" and Col. Kilgore ordering his two surfer troopers to surf the particularly tubular wave intersection off the coast of the village, even while the shooting is still going on. And we get great lines from Duvall like "Charlie don't surf!" But this part is a different, and inconsistent movie from the rest.
The second problem has to do with Milius and Coppola's violation of one of the basic rules of screenplay writing, as stated by the screenplay writing expert in "Adaptation" currently running in theaters with Nicolas Cage and Meryl Streep: "don't use narration!" The rule, really is: "make narration a part of the story." There are lots of examples of this in written literature -- "Moby Dick" and most of Edgar Allan Poe's "confessional" short stories come to mind. In these, the narrator is a character in the drama being told; and the reader evaluates that narration with some ironic distance, just as he evaluates the statements made by all of the characters; he doesn't just take it at face value.
But here is where "Apocalypse" misses the boat, so to speak and where somebody should have gone back and re-read the Conrad novella. The Sheen character (Capt. Willard) should be the moral center of the drama -- of course having him cast as a US Army assassin is just another example of where Milius/Coppola's antiwar message screws up the film; much better if Capt. Willard had lead a team of MPs to go up the river to arrrest Col. Kurtz (the Brando character). Then, the narration would be a retrospective by Capt. Willard (like Ishmael's telling of the Moby Dick story) of the whole experience and the story would be one of Capt. Willard's gradual transformation from straight-arrow, by-the-book US Army officer as his men get shot one-by-one to the person who decides at the end to assassinate Col. Kurtz, not to arrest him. Then the real story would be how both Kurtz and Willard fell into the same trap -- submitted to what Conrad's narrator in "Heart of Darkness" called "the Destructive Element." Among other things, that still would be a profoundly anti-war message and a profoundly anti-Vietnam War message.
As it is, however, Willard is not much different than Kurtz -- he's a monster carrying out specific orders; Kurtz is a monster filling in the blanks in some very general order that he believes he has to kill VC. So, Willard cannot supply a moral reference for the film. He cannot answer the question as to why Kurtz went off the deep end; because, in Willard's frame of reference, Kurtz isn't even off the deep end. I mean, if you're an assassin, how can you object to someone else being an assassin, too, as long as he's on your side? Hell we don't even know why Willard got himself into the assassin business; why should we be interested in his analysis of where Kurtz went "around the bend"?
So what you have left is nothing but one man's (Coppola's) dramatization of his view of the US Military as a bunch of monsters (or, at least, a bunch of guys lead by monsters above the rank of lieutenant). That says more about Hollywood's views of the US Army ca. the late 1970s than anything else. For people who care about those views or who hold them, "AN!" is a good movie.
But eventually the people who care about that will be gone. And those who come after, who have no "investment" in the phenomenon known as the "Vietnam War" (in the US and abroad) will wonder what the fuss was about with this film.
Follow Ups:
One of the finest films ever made. I've seen it many times and am always finding something else that's great about it.I guess it is like that other masterpiece that divides so many: "2001, A Space Odyssey." It isn't meant to be "realistic." It is meant to make one think. It is poetry. It is genius. It is art.
If AN is about anything, it is about the "military mind" and how it deviates from rationality. How military "reality" is sometimes less sane than it is surreal. How different people alter their realities to allow them to cope with horrible situations.
I'm a Vietnam era vet and the movie really connected with me. Much like the other masterpiece about the Vietnam War: "Platoon." The movies are very different but both are brilliant and thought provoking. And orders of magnitude better than your typical war movie.
It has been very interesting tred. What should I buy guys? I remember watching this movie in my late teens. I think in order to understand the craziness of the Vietnam era averybody should watch AN, The Deer Hunter and Coming Home. It is the only way.
RubenSan Francisco, California
I had high hopes with "Redux" and found that Redux ruins Apocolypse Now. The incidental music is just awful. The added footage was better left on the cutting room floor or in the "Hearts of Darkness" documentary.
How about the Thin Red Line? Besides the quality of the movie it is always in the list of good CD's at TAS
RubenSan Francisco, California
for what it's worth, redux is less expensive of the two dvds, with a very slightly better picture. i saw it on sale price at barnes and noble online (bn.com) as part of their soon ending holiday specials.
I, too, hadn't seen it in a few years but had it on VHS if I ever felt like it. Kept putting off buying the disc and then heard about the Redux so waited a bit longer. Found a used copy shortly after it's release and don't know why somebody wouldn't want it. IMO it makes a great film even greater.
It benefited from the added footage. Great flick, imo.
"Deer Hunter" is, IMHO, best of the three. I just saw it again recently on cable. It doesn't hurt, of course, that it has a first-rate cast. A really understated Meryl Streep performance and one of her best if her showy turn in "Out of Africa" and "Sophie's Choice" is not to your liking. Great work by De Niro and Walken, too.
nt
***I think in order to understand the craziness of the Vietnam era averybody should watch AN, The Deer Hunter and Coming Home. It is the only way.Well... one could also read some... but it you insist on the movies, then Platoon and Full Metal Jacket should be added, plus Casualties of War and few others.
the film fading as the Vietnam War fades. I believe it will be relevant and well received for as long as there is war. And even if we were to reach a point where there was no more war (and assuming there were living human beings still on the planet) it would be seen as a window into what war used to be like. Beyond that, my feeling, without even thinking about the story, is that from the very opening shot one is aware they are watching the work of a film maker (and a very very good one) and not just a movie director. This, more than the story or the politics will be the reason the film endures.
"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism, since it is the merger of state and corporate power." — Benito Mussolini.
"When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the American flag." - Huey Long
If you take the non-triumphalist view of war, then I suggest that "Gallipoli" and "King and Country" are much better than any of the Vietnam flicks. And, actually, the very recent "We were soldiers once" is not too bad, in its earnest, straight-from-the-shoulder way.
...that film remaining with us. You are right, the films about war will remain, but the AN will not keep its place among the best out there. Because, as you said, people will be watching the work of a film maker, and this work is simply not of the greatest caliber.
First, forgive me for any inaccuracies, it's been a few years since I saw the film.I think there is a reason that Coppola didn't simply call this film "Heart of Darkness" (other than having to pay royalties) - It uses themes and devices closely related to the book, but it is a separate work. It deals with several issues that you have touched upon in your criticism, and tries to combine them as an overall portrait of civilized man in an uncivilized situation. Anti-war? Possibly. But more than anything, it is showing the barbarism necesary to those doing the fighting. EVERYONE featured in this film, with the possible exception of the crew of the boat (who all get killed - "innocence sacrificed"?) are barbarians. The officer eating his civilized lunch, while planning assasination, Willard, Kurtz, Killgore, etc. All barbarians of some stripe - in the situation they are in.
Willard and Kurtz are also linked in that they, at least, seem to be somewhat conflicted over their barbarism. Did Kurtz, by "defecting" from the "civilized" world actually become less of a barbarian? If war is necessary in some cases (and I believe it is) is barbaric behavior inevitable, and even desirable? All of the "non-barbarians" - including Kurtz, if you believe that he became less of a barbarian by going native - were killed.
So Coppola explored the idea of "Heart of Darkness" (the thin veneer of civilization being stripped away by venturing further into darkness) and also his own ponderings on the meanings of "war", "civilization" and "barbarism".
Only time will tell how well the movie stands up. But can we not watch "Bridge Over the River Kwai" or "The Sands of Iwo Jima" and still "get it"?
As for the "Killgore" part of that movie, I see Killgore as a man who, as long as he can hang on to his symbol of normalcy - surfing - doesn't have to face the fact that he is, indeed, in a nasty business. So it just portrays how some may cope in the situation.
As you can tell, I liked this movie. It's one of those whao have stayed with me, and affected me. That means Coppola communicated something to me through it. An acheivment I look for in a film. Of course, like any art, it's something personal. I understand if it didn't resonate with you in the same way, but I believe it deserves it's ranking as one of the best American flms in the last 30 years.
"Oh no, I can't do anything to the death. Doctor's orders. You see, I have this ulcer condition, and death is the worst thing for it."
good post. thanks for giving us your thoughts.yes, AN doesn't begin with willard as the "straight arrow". instead, the film starts out with willard alone in his room, and we see that he's already closer to the edge than you or i will ever be.
you suggests that willard should be played as the straight man first, with his darker elements coming out over the course of the story. i think, however, that it also works to introduce willard as someone capable of evil from the beginning, but reigned in by society in a way that that evil is acceptable as good. in other words, willard doesn't fall into a trap that changes him. his inherent nature was always the same as kurtz's, just finely controlled and disciplined before he goes down the river, and finally freed at the end of the river.
in the scene where willard receives his mission, the officers dine on fine food with ornate silverware while plotting an assassination. there is something erie about the picture of society and order here. same with killgore. he is trying to maintain *something* of american society in the midst of it all, and he exists just a little way into the river.
after being introducted to willard going crazy in the hotel room, one finds him very out of place in that dinner setting. so already he is pulled towards the journey down the river. knowing from the beginning that willard is to kill kurtz opens ambiguities at the end of the film. does he kill kurtz to complete his mission, or is it because he is someone different? your version of the film seeks to make the story cleaner and clearer that willard has crossed a line. as it is, in coppola's movie we are left wondering at the end, did willard complete his mission as a soldier, or does he become kurtz? is there a line between the two? was there ever a line between the two? coppala's presenation questions the nature of this line and whether it exists; in your version there is always a line.
your version actually points to another coppola film - michael corleone in the godfather. at the beginning, michael says, "that's my family, that's not me". in that movie, we see how circumstances compel michael corleone to become his father.
the middle of AN isn't just about war being absurd. those scenes show that as willard moves deeper into the jungle, he is drifting away from order and into disorder. first, killgore: command gone crdazy. later, the battle at the bridge: no command, but people acting like they're following some leadership. finally, kurtz, no command and a rejection of command.
i think that the crew makes up the "straight arrow" folk that you think needs to be contrasted against kurtz. only willard, and not the crew, is capable of making the journey down the river. perhaps that's why he must be shown as different from the straight arrow boat chief.
there is the scene where they shoot up the vietnamese family in the boat on the routine search. some of the crew try to do right, while willard kills the survivor to move the mission ahead. here, he moves the mission forward because he wants to see kurtz, but he presents it to the crew as following orders. i can see how your version could play this episode up as his "first" unwarranted killing. it may, however, be stronger to establish that willard is an assassin, and demonstrate his willingness to kill to get to kurtz, before we get to his meeting with kurtz. again, it leaves the ending ambiguous.
coppola chose to emphasize the inherent nature of willard from the get go, instead of giving it to us over time. and he chose to establish the fact that willard was a killer before the journey. that may be his view of who we really are, and it seems to reflect our cynical attitude in the '70s. so coppola's film is not just a "war is bad" movie, but a statement about who we are.
yet i can also see that coppola's version is also less about "us", as willard's inner thoughts are hard for us to understand. your version might take us inside him more and actually emphasize willard inherent nature even more, to better show who we are through him as an example.
yet you suggest ironic distance with a narration. a narration suggests a willard in some place after the story's end, reflecting back in time and having "survived" the jungle world (after all, he is able to tell the story). no narration leaves us wondering what becomes of willard after the move, which can be argued as more powerful. after all, how can we undersstand willard if, in the back of our minds, we also know willard as someone who is able to look back and narrate the story?
there are many ways to tell a story, and i am playing devil's advocate for coppola's choices.
i did not like AN when i first saw it, finding it self-indulgent, pretentious and messy. to me, it felt like the music of the doors, whose songs are used in the film. over time, i found that i could not stop watching it when i cued it up. today, AN would probably hold a spot in my short list of favorite films.
while one can pick at flaws in AN, it also contains some of the most memorable and mezmerizing images and scenes in film, and a *damn* lot of memorable ones too. i would guess that's why you picked it to watch when you got your dvd player. ;-)
forget the moral of the story or the narrative (or lack of). this is not about about the vietnam war or a telling of conrad's story -- they are just the barest essentials for coppola to give us his movie magic, like fellini and 8-1/2 or la dolce vita, great films even if one can only see the surface. just *watch* and realize that this is the reason why we go to the movies instead of reading a book.
hey, thanks for your response. I enjoyed reading it.You make a good case for the film. Your mention of "Godfather" is worth taking up. That will be a film that will be watched and watched, IMHO, which transcends its times. I can't say enough good things about it. But "Godfather" reflects, among other things, the very considerable talents of the late Mario Puzo, who was a first-rate novelist (read "Fools Die," his first book before he turned "commercial) and a first-rate screen writer. In fact, "Godfather" is kind of a cinematic "Perfect Storm" in which all the right ingredients -- great story, great cast -- yes -- great director, come together for a few hours of magic.
Your comment about The Doors' music was spot-on and, I guess, illustrates an evolution of my taste (maybe yours?) since 1967 when I used to lie around stoned listening to the alblum version of "Light My Fire" thinking how profound it was, etc., etc. Of course, in comparison to any particular jazz improvisation you care to mention of similar length, it is musically vapid . . . Jimi Hendrix I will still listen to; Jim Morrison I will not.
Hi Bruce,
As the other poster pointed out, what you saw reflected the basic insanity of the conflict. I remember an Atlantic article about books and movies that covered Vietnam. The author, a veteran, was dismissive of the movie, as most people are. Nonetheless, for the remainder of the article, he compared almost everything to it. It was his reference, warts and all. And warts and all, I doubt you will get
a better Nam film. The ambush of the riverboat where everything goes silent; I had experienced that in a crisis situation; but I had never seen it portrayed before. It raised the hair on the back of my neck.
You are looking at this through an analytical prism, a bookish sort of approach. This attempts to throw a very particular sort of insanity in your face. It succeeds pretty damn well. Monstrous, but no monsters.
;-)Guilty as charged. I have the same expectation for cinema as I have for fiction or drama; if it's really good it has to survive being removed from the context of its own time. And I don't think AN! is going to do that, for the reasons I said.
It may be the "best 'nam film;" it may evoke Rufus' memories of his actual experiences there. But, when the time comes -- and it will -- when "'Nam" means nothing to anyone walking around, neither will "AN!"
Hi,
The Blues brothers movie, the first Muppet movie, and AN all came out at about the same time. I adored the BB, I loved the MM enough to buy the soundtrack LP,and Apocalypse Now was literally stunning. I wonder if you had seen it when it was fresh, if it wouldn't have made more of an impression. Seeing it in a theater,larger than life, also makes a big difference in a movie that is trying to convey an experience. While i have seen many attempts to analyse this film; I take most with a grain of salt. This is a big film, as the years have gone by, my sense of what the film is about has deepened. Btw, the Heart of Darkness bit has gotten way too much ink. You could aslo see the dinner as a Mad Tea Party, but the clever bit is that the viewer gets to be Alice.
But I digress. It's a family trait,I'm afraid. I doubt any of those films will be watched by future generations. Doesn't matter a bit to me. Life is topical. While there are great movies, and great lit-rah-chah, this boy just wants to have fun. So I have BB on dvd, I must have seen that film a hundred times. I still like to watch the first MM from time to time (the later ones are nowhere near as good), and I still approach AN with a caution borne from it's ability to awaken terrible ghosts.
I did see AN! in a theater when it came out. I thought it was a jumble at the time, even though it was much closer to my political views then than it is now.Yeah, BB and TMM are fun; but they're definitely generation specific. My kids give me strange looks when they watch BB as in "What's so funny about this, Dad?" (I give them the same looks when they're rolling on the floor at the latest Adam Sandler movie, e.g. "Mr. Deeds.") They watched TMM as little kids; of course they liked it then. We probably have it stashed around the house on VHS video.
Hi,
TMM has a bucket full of great lines. "I could have been gone with the Scwinn" "Yeah, but she's my myth" "I am the owner" The song "I'm going to go back there some day" is one of my favorites. Call me Gonzo, but when the Mothership gets built, I am outta here :) -or-
'Hope that somethig better comes along'(never seen a frog that green get the blues that bad).
Shit, Dennis, you made me go back and find the thing to watch it!Shame on you!
Destruction of the original tape and all copies? Is there one film on Earth that has not survived an army of critics?
the story of a lost Russian tank in Afghanistan? See it? Portrayed the Mujahaedin as simple-minded fanatics hellbent on revenge. The Russian crew a group of misfits worthy of any Viet Nam movie.
Yes, I saw it. Not a great film.
Point: do you think the Russian crew portrayl was "over propagandized" to suit our (USA) viewpoint? Murderous, discordant, maniacal, unwilling. Was it a cheapshot saying they hated being there as much as we did in VN?
Rufus, I presume you are asking whether or not that story would resonate with someone who served there - I have no problem with that. That, however, doesn't make the film better or worse. I could take any number of important stories and make lousy films based on them - as for instance Spielberg did with his Schindler's List, among the others. I perfectly understand that a Holocaust survivor would see that film differently from a Nebraska teenager.Regardless of their stories, the List, the Beast and the AN are all weak films, as far as films go.
No, it was a straight forward question. Based on your home-ties, and feeling for the history of your country--do you think it was a stab at painting an unecessarily negative picture of Russian attitudes during that campaign?No resonating here, not discussing merits, just what's your take.
Rufus, Russia is of course my *former* country, and my ties are not too strong anymore. But no, I don't think the brutality was unnecessary. I know full well how things often go in wars - there are enough accounts to that effect everywhere - so that in itself didn't strike me as gratuitous. Too bad the film was a weak one, and characters cartoonish, that got in the way of course. But there is absolutely no question the Russian army has commited its fair share of atrocities. And still is in the Chechnya war.
Hi Vic,
it is the fate of most film to be ignored. Just in Westerns there are hundreds, perhaps thousands, of films; most of them just sitting on a shelf somewhere, slowly rotting. Every once in a while, a film survives despite it's flaws. "It's a Wonderful Life' is a good example. Critics panned it, it wasn't popular either. But it definitely survived.
There used to be a website that sold movies, that was pure text. You could ask for all movies beginning with a letter,say F. I was surprised at how long the list was; and how most of the movies were bad. So I guess what not surviving means is no one watches.
...through your TV guide will reveal how wrong you are. There are thousands of trashy movies still around, being watched all the time.All this has nothing to do with the armies of critics, just with the armies of willing watchers.
Ever stood in line at the video store counter, watching what people rent?
Hi Victor,
hey, I'm one of those guys in line. I keep trying to find an enjoyable movie, and it seems 9 times out 10, I come home with dreck.
But that doesn't change a thing. There are,literally thousands,of movies, that go unwatched and just rot. Now that you're a rich guy, you could fund a grant for some young film grad to rampage through some of those old flicks looking for lost gems. Btw,Faroudja makes a box for plasma tv's. You should check into it.
***hey, I'm one of those guys in line. I keep trying to find an enjoyable movie, and it seems 9 times out 10, I come home with dreck.
Then YOU are not doing your homework. With good store and homework well done your success rate should be close to 70%.
***But that doesn't change a thing. There are,literally thousands,of movies, that go unwatched and just rot. Now that you're a rich guy, you could fund a grant for some young film grad to rampage through some of those old flicks looking for lost gems.Hardly any need for that. There are thousands of great movies waiting for all of us to see them, no need to dig deep until the top layer is done with. I am not even in the top 12" yet.
***Btw,Faroudja makes a box for plasma tv's. You should check into it.I don't think that is for me. I can watch the Fox News as it is now. I am not a video freak. Few minutes a week or good images is enough for me. My biggest issue is that many good films come in the 4:3 format, and there is nothing Faroudja or anyone else can do to remove THAT problem. There is nothing like watching the Wages of Fear on a 100" 4:3 projector in B&W...
Hi,
there is only one halfway decent video place in Maine. It's downtown, and the last time I rented a movie, I also got a parking ticket. Damn movie cost me nearly $50. The parking control goes around on these little 3 wheelers; and they are just too damn good.When the weather gets better I might go downtown on my bike. Easy parking,I just have to dodge those hideous metal boxes and stay alive long enough to get to the store. If I make a list,even they won't have any of the movies (or they will have one, and it's already rented). So for me, it's typically an impulse thing. Hey, Honey, let's rent a movie.
The fantastic store here - and Wilmington is NOT your NYC, you know - is not something you would find easily. It is out of the way and smallish, known only to those who care. There are some small chains around the country that do good job, but finding them can be hard.
Having served in Viet Nam, I (and many vets) would say that it best embodies the insanity and absurdity of the situation better than any other movie made about Viet Nam. Things WERE really pretty crazy. I guess you would had to been there in order to understand. Killgore was there. Willard was there. It was "better than Disneyland" because almost anything went. I can see a J.D. Spradling worming around enough to let an underling say: "terminate with extreme predjudice". From a technical standpoint, it may be flawed--but perhaps Francis accidently made an "insiders" movie. I remember in '79, most people coming out of the theatre were puzzled--I wasn't.BTW, don't even think about renting Redux. There is a reason all that was on the cutting room floor the first time . . .
-a Vietnam vet.
about this film. He said it realistically depicted the insaneness and absurdity that was observed in that war for him.mp
drinking in a bar watching Vietnamese (or you fill in the blank) go-go dancers, then almost getting blown apart by a stray VC rocket on the way to sleep.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2025, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
