Watched "Apocalypse Now" last night-WTF was that all about?

[Carni]

OK, so I watched it for the first time thirty years after it first came out (yeah, so I am a little behind the times LOL)

But seriously what was the point to the film?

I watched the damned thing on AMC (for what seemed like four hours) and I have to tell you...I just didn't get it.

I got the fact that Vietnam was a mismanaged bomb and a debacle(of course I already knew that) but the whole Marlon Brando character and his commune... just confused the hell out of me.

[knowbody0]

1. brando was manifestation of the evil insanity of vietnam

[izzie]

6. I thought it was about the madness of war also.

Brando was us.

[Carni]

10. The fact that the Brando character was reading "The Golden Bough"

REALLY confused me...I thought that book was like the basis for metaphysical type stuff (I have never actually read it, so I can't say that with confidence)

When Martin Sheen's character left the village at the end, had he spared them with being bombed to hell and back because he didn't send the radio code?

Or was the smoke in the background smoke from the ensuing air raid?

I hate to sound like a moron... but I was really annoyed when the movie ended, because they left me hanging!

[yardwork]

19. The ending is sort of a mess but I love and admire the movie

Brando showed up overweight and somewhat mentally unbalanced, so Coppola had to work with what he had. The movie was plagued with problems. The original actor playing Martin Sheen's character had a heart attack and had to be airlifted out and they had to start over and reshoot everything with Sheen in the role. Then Sheen himself had a nervous breakdown during filming - that's Sheen actually losing it and cutting himself during the opening scene - Coppola kept the camera running and used the footage.

There were lots of other subplots and even main characters who ended up on the cutting room floor.

The movie had a great impact at the time. It came out in 1979, on the edge of a massive conservative movement (Reagan was elected in 1980) when most Americans wanted to forget Vietnam.

imo if more people had paid attention to what Coppola was saying we wouldn't have allowed chimpy to be selected and we wouldn't be in Iraq.

[Carni]

26. Wow I had no idea that came out in 1979

For some unknown reason I was thinking it was earlier than that.

I always (wrongly) think the Vietnam war ended in 1970 (Like I said I know that is incorrect but it sticks in my mind)

[yardwork]

28. Yeah it was 1979 - I saw it when it came out

I was shocked by the violence - it took me a long time to get over that. I didn't like it at first but now I really admire it.

[SoCalDem]

29. SHEEN was the one who had the heart attack..They had to shoot

around him, and even stop for a while as he recovered..

The thing was way over budget, and Coppola had many problems fiolming it.. The governments gave him problems, and where he ended up shooting it was about his 3rd choice..

[barb162]

31. I thought his character represented total sanity; he got away

from the useless killing. Everyone else was totally insane, surfing during bombing, Duvall saying "I love the smell of napalm in the morning" and the whole plot of going to kill the one sane human who saw through all the senselessness of it all.

[JimmyJazz]

2. Wish I could help, but I saw it about 15 years ago when I was

seriously stoned. All I remember are the helicopters flying to "The End." Someone else will have to give you the symbolic, allegoric and metaphorical analyses of the Brando character. I just wanted to chime in that I had seen the movie, too. :)

[TheMightyFavog]

3. The film is about madness, plain and simple.

From Kurtz's madness, to the Madness of Kilgore, who was mad enough to force his soldiers to surf in the middle of a firefight, to Lance B. Johnsons transition form innocent surfer kid to complete nutcase. to the madness of the war in general.

[Fovea]

4. What confuses you, I think

is the fact that it is an adaptation of Jos Conrad's 'The Heart of Darkness.' about the how European proto corporatists (19th Century Belgians in the Congo) became more debased than the 'savages.'

However, after seeing this movie, reading "Deliver us from Evil."
By the Late Dr. Tom Dooley might be instructive. It is a short read, if you can find a copy.

[wysi]

5. OK...

... now go back and read Conrad's 'Heart of Darkness' (upon which the story was based). It should make a little more sense to you.

I didn't like it very much the first time I saw it. Over time it began weaving its spell (and I read Heart of Darkness!) and now it's one of my all-time faves.

[DrWeird]

7. It was a rendition of Conrad's "Heart of Darkness"

Which was about a Victorian era Englishman sent up the congo to hunt down a "Mr. Kurtz" who had apparently gone native.

"the horror, the horror" is a direct quote.

Agreed with above post on Kurtz being the personification of insanity.

Interestingly, Conrad's novella opens with the lead character on his return trip of the Thames, and he realizes how thousands of years ago the civilized Roman soldiers journeyed up the river and had to deal with the horror of the savages, like he did with the Congo, and Sheen's character did with the Mekong. Sort of an age old story.

[NNadir]

32. Conrad received no credits in the film, which pisses me off.

Coppola was weaker by far than Conrad.

The scene in "Heart of Darkness" with Marlowe sailing up the Thames is one of the most powerful in all of literature, "This too was one of the dark places..."

Coppola, to his infinite credit, does manage to discuss surfing and have, in the new "Director's Cut" version, a gratuitous scene with Playboy bunnies.

Pathetic.

[mrbassman03]

8. If you were expecting a gripping plot, I'm sorry...

Even though I was not alive at the time, it gives me an idea of how unorganized the war actually was. Correct me if I'm wrong.

[DrWeird]

15. How was that not a gripping plot?

It's a classic gripping plot.

[mfritz]

9. What it would take for us to win

A major theme was that in order to win the war we would have to become more brutal and evil than the enemy. That's what the story about the VC cutting off the arms of innoculated kids was about. Kurtz realized this, and went about doing it. His new and brutal tactics were successful, but turned him and his men into monsters. He realized this in the end, and that's why he wanted to be killed, and his men destroyed.

[Carni]

12. Thanks for all the insight

These posts give me a little more background and insight...I didn't realize this was based on a classic story from another time and set to a Vietnam background (Now the Brando character makes WAY more sense)

Your synopsis of Kurtz wanting to be destroyed because he needed to be... also makes sense.

It was an interesting movie, but I guess I thought it would be more along the lines of the Deerhunter (which I got)

One thing that resonated in my mind while watching it, was that we are in the same damned mess in Iraq.

[Toby109]

16. Yep and Oliver Stone returned

to that theme in Platoon. Coppola said that Apocalypse Now was Vietnam. And, if he had nailed the ending, he might have won that Nobel Prize.

The comparisons between Vietnam and Iraq become more obvious every day.

[AngryAmish]

11. It was about the thin veneer of civilization

We are all savages. Place us in the right circumstances and even our best and brightest (Kurtz) turn lunatic.

Plus something about rubber.

[Carni]

13. "Lord of the Flies" type of a thing then?

With that said the movie makes more sense in regards to Kurtz and his village.

[jmowreader]

33. Rubber was the reason for the original incursion into Vietnam

The first country to invade Vietnam was France, and they did it on behalf of the Michelin Tire and Rubber Company. The biggest rubber plantation in Vietnam was at Tri Tam, and it belonged to Michelin. (So naturally, the Vietcong decided to put the motor pool for the 101st NVA Regiment in tunnels right under the Tri Tam Rubber Plantation.)

When France decided the war was unwinnable, we took it over.

[henslee]

14. IIRC, Coppola shot 103 min. of film for every 1 min. used. At the time,

Coppola was the 70's wunderkid of film and the fact he was millions overbudget and shooting on location for over a year was a story in itself.

Hearts of Darkness (I think thats the title) was a documentary on the making of the movie. Its pretty good.

For me, the movie is beautiful looking. There is a gerat sense of geography and detail. Yeah it may not necc. all add up but it has great scenes, imagery and some memorable lines.

I also think he had half the Phillipine Airforce at his disposal and once, filming had to stop when they had to battle some insurgency.

[wysi]

21. What is fascinating to me...

... is watching scenes like the helicopter scene and knowing they were actually flying helicopters and filming them. Doing it these days would involve some kind of computer animation of helicopters, ugh!

[everythingsxen]

17. Other posters have covered the main points..

The Horror of War, The Madness of War, Kurtz as the personification of insanity, that under it all, we are all savages -- All equally valid points.

On a more personal level, following the transforation of Captain Willard is interesting.

At the outset, he is simply a soldier, following his orders and doing what he is supposed to do. Once he ends up in Kurtz's little playground though...

He becomes all that Kurtz embodied -- the supreme Nietche/Darwin-ist.

[wysi]

20. Transformation...

I think the transformation of Willard is even more clear in 'Redux' (the updated version of the film). He's much more of a three-dimensional character.

[necso]

18. It is an old theme in war

to use terror as a weapon.

And this can be done on many levels, from using ruthless brutality on "enemy" populations and combatants, to "terror" bombing of civilians, to disconcerting the opponent's military leadership, plans, tactics and strategy. (In case it is not clear, the aim of the last is to paralyze the opposition with indecision and fear.)

Kurtz takes advantage of the "indigenous" population and takes the first route -- although with some of the third mixed in. It is an interesting concept. And, yeah, it is savage. But war is savage, and should never be engaged in unnecessarily.

Fear is a powerful weapon -- it attacks reason. That's why the neos love it. Reason is their enemy... as is fact.

[necso]

25. And lest anyone thinks

that I am endorsing the use of terror, I am not -- at least not as a universal strategy (or an ethical one, in common terms).

A good strategy has a time and place where it is well used. But every strategy has shortcomings and most (if not all) can "backfire".

When you make a "plan" (a major one, in any case), you must examine it dispassionately and look at it for vulnerabilities, weaknesses, deficiencies, unintended consequences, etc -- in short, you must look at it for everything that can go wrong with it. You must also search for facts that you don't know, or understandings that you don't have, etc and how these might effect the outcome.

In short you must try to "break" your plan -- and re-examine it constantly to see how it is working, and how it is failing, and how circumstances (or your understanding of them) have changed. Then you must adjust your plan -- maybe even throw it out..

This isn't doubt or weakness -- it is wisdom and understanding -- and the inevitable result of a number of other sound principles.

And to do otherwise is ignorance, foolishness and arrogance. -- To do otherwise is to be (with near certainty) ineffective.
...

For example, let us imagine a plan to give large tax cuts to the wealthy as a way to build the domestic economy. What happens if the wealthy do not spend or invest their tax breaks, or worse, invest the money overseas or in businesses that are "offshoring"?

Then again, if that was what you really wanted, you might do well to (openly) overlook this sort of thing. But that would be deception -- as opposed to simple stupidity (stupidity in "action", which has roots in many things like willful blindness, narrow mindedness, ignorance, arrogance, etc etc.).

[Moonbeam_Starlight]

22. How did ya like the chopping the head off the cow thing?

I saw that part when I was a bit younger and it creeped me the hell out for days.

I have seen AN several times (you REALLY have to be in the right mood, though) and I just took it for a good creep-out and I enjoy glimpses into what Vietnam was like.

Not to be simplistic, but to me, it was a portrait of what war can do to a man. Make him insane.

[Carni]

24. This was on AMC and it was cut quite a bit

The whole cow thing just showed people stabbing at the cow no beheading.

When you asked me that question it occurred to me that there may have been many significant parts of the movie cut out.

Maybe I need to rent it!

[alphafemale]

23. The Film Debut of he who would become the beloved "Cowboy Curtis"

Ok, just wondering if anyone will know what the hell I'm talking about.

[Mr Bojangles]

27. Morpheus?

;)

[SoCalDem]

30. Carni.. a "better" adaptation of Viet Nam is "The Deerhunter"

That movie crystalizes what Viet Nam was..If you have never seen it, rent it.. It will change you:cry:

[necso]

34. Oh, and one more thought.

The "bushcraft" of the "indigenous" peoples was (sometimes -- and sometimes considerably) greater than that of Mr Charles. The kind of skills that some of these peoples had was a cultural thing, imbued in people from an early age, and difficult to attain any other way.

But the indigenous peoples were largely tied to villages, even if transient villages and this made them vulnerable to standard military tactics, and skills -- like "find", "fix", and "annihilate".

Kurtz had his army on the move -- this is a credit to whomever thought up the whole strategy. But this demands a steady diet of "targets" (for food, ammo, etc) -- or considerable outside support. And of course the more targets you hit, the more seriously your opponent takes you -- and the harder he hits back.

So I don't think that it could have worked -- but it is an interesting concept.