Films/DVD Asylum

Posted by TA (A) on December 31, 2002 at 07:14:00

In Reply to: Apocalypse Now! posted by Bruce from DC on December 30, 2002 at 17:04:42:

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.