 
|
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 |
4.235.207.137
Martin Sheen. He's runty and high-voiced and he just doesn't command the screen. At best, he's a tv actor (as he is showing now). Of course, the excesses of the thing destroyed any sense of worth, as well: the scene with Duvall commanding the beach while the surfer does his thing is so ridiculous as to make a travesty of parody. I know, I know, the film is supposed to be an allegory, based on the Conrad short story. But it doesn't compel on its own: no pacing, little suspense, slow as molasses. And Hopper embarrasses himself in a pivotal role.
At least Godfather, Puzo-written drivel that it is, entertains.
Follow Ups:
I can absolutely attest that Apocalypse Now was and remains the most realistic film about that crazy war. Yes, commanders like the Duvall charactor actually existed! I myself did some crazy things. There was somewhat of a party (like it was the end of the world) atmosphere that just brought out wierdness.I worked on planes that had 5000 watt audio systems to broadcast propaganda (and music) to the Vietnamese villagers- just like Apocalypse Now.
I was involved in taking a Filipino rock band through Viet Cong lines during the Tet holiday to their hotel because the base commander dug the lead singer!
I also traveled hundreds of miles through enemy territory in order to trade steaks for a propeller which we then traded to some Army troops for an air conditioner.
I knew guys who didn't want to leave Nam because they owned bars and were making a fortune so they traded IDs with newly arrived troops and send them back home in their place!
Yeah, Apocalypse Now was realistic- unlike the "Deer Hunter" for example. No one I ever knew there sat around pointed loaded guns at their head!
Music is Emotion
He says that over his 12 month tour, he saw every bit of wierdness shown in the film, except for soldiers fighting with music blaring.Hell, Dad was even friends with a real Colonel Kurtz - an Australian Army Officer based in Cambodia or Laos or someplace, bankrolled by the CIA, with his own private army. He even had pet tigers :~)
Cheers,
John K
attack on a flat beach would have been toast. Sure, Duvall's character could have been unscathed but all around him would have been toast. Great examples of your experiences, though.
Like I said, Sheen wasn't believable and that was a major problem. Hopper was also in-credible.
I must say that Brando few moments make the film worthwhile, but hardly so as a classic.
My unit had Ivy League CO's but that's a different story. AN just says it all with the craziness. (Being in an Intel/Photo unit we traded camera film for steaks and whiskey all the time. We had two john boats at our villa. One for fishing and the other for water skiing. We took off all federal holidays and partied. Once our supply sgt. came in excited because a helicopter unit wanted to give him a Cobra gunship. Of course, we had no pilot or place to land it. But why? The chopper wasn't in the company property book and they had to ditch it before the CMMI inspectors got there. Craziness.)Everybody who went to VN could write a very amusing and/or terrifying book.
----------
This space available.
s
Sheen seemed to me to be the classic "conflicted innocent" thrown into the situation.I have always thought that Apocalypse Now was very successful in getting the audience to feel what the director wanted. Whether you like the feelings it engenders or not does not indicate failure for the film.
e.g. The scene with the playgirls having to flee on the helicopter was sheer genius . . . not for their flight . . . but because Willard (Sheen), as he watches, moves further and further away from his comrades. And his isolation at the end is perfect.
It is, in a way, a poet's view of war, carnage, conflict and degredation. In virtually every sense of the word, the 'greatest" character is Brando's. I am not sure how I personally regard the film and its excesses. But I witnessed all of those excesses (and more) in Africa. There is a madness that descends on one in such trials. This movie shows it better than any movie I know. I seldom watch it. Perhaps because I know that Kurtz was right realpolitically and that Willard was the flunkie sent out to silence him. I admit that Kurtz was correct. All else in a veneer on a very unstable surface.
And I always remember, as in Conrad's short novel, if Kurtz had not assented, he could not have been silenced. The film portrays the madness, isolation and banality of evil stunningly well. Situations like this do happen, the blindfolded solipsists of this board notwithstanding. I am always staggered that someone even came close to getting it right.
from your spy activities to comment on the veracity of the film. If your view of war is such that you find the scene on the beach believable, hey, who can argue with such an authority...solipsism, indeed!
My point, incidentally, wasn't directed at the story line but at the directorial excesses and the blunder of having such a wimp cast as an assassin.
the most successful assassins seem to be wimps. Ask Trotsky . . . Oh, wait. You can't! Axe in his head, and stuff!Obviously, you ain't been there.
I did not say that the film has no problems. I did say that it got certain things right about that circumstance; so right that it is stunning. Perhaps you are fortunate that you don't get them . . . or know about them.
But you are fortunate only so long as this society remains (relative to the rest of the world) free of such things. We weren't, you know (See "Revolution: America"). And we shall not be for long now that we are the focus of envy and hatred amongst the dispossessed of the world.
a wimp as an assassin it destroys the drama: Sheen looked like a drunken musician destroying a hotel room.
He was a professional assassin, get it? Not a one-time loonie, but a pro who did this many times and was so trained. You may wish to get to know a few Army assassins, the easiest ones to access being snipers. Not a wimp in the bunch.
Ok, go back to your over-intellectualized view of this film and war (good directors don't have to bore you to make you feel the characters boredom).
> He was a professional assassin, get it?He was a professional assassin but now wrecked with guilt, cynicism, introspection and fatique. He started to question the cause, who were the real murderers? maybe Kurtz was the sanest of them all. The portrayal of the resultant conflicted self may come across as wimpy ('unsure' = 'wimpy'), but I didn't get that impression.
Speaking of snipers, I also liked Richard Farnsworth's reminiscing with regret in The Straight Story.
over-reacting) but I mean Sheen doesn't have the gravitas to play the part. Period. Hell, Jim Carrey could play it for the same reasons many here mentioned but he'd still be wimpy Jim.
the most successful assassins seem to be wimps. Ask Trotsky . . . Oh, wait. You can't! Axe in his head, and stuff!Obviously, you ain't been there.
I did not say that the film has no problems. I did say that it got certain things right about that circumstance; so right that it is stunning. Perhaps you are fortunate that you don't get them . . . or know about them.
But you are fortunate only so long as this society remains (relative to the rest of the world) free of such things. We weren't, you know (See "Revolution: America"). And we shall not be for long now that we are the focus of envy and hatred amongst the dispossessed of the world.
Wasn't the role offered to James Caan? But, for some reason, he couldn't/wouldn't take the part.Martin Sheen in "Badlands" in one of the most important American movies of the last, great, creative era in American cinema - late 60's to later 70's (before "Star Wars" messed eveything up).
added a depth and a realism to his internal struggle that helped make the movie what it is (and what it is, is very good).
"Where are we going? And what am I doing in this hand basket?"
musician he was supposed to be a professional military hit-man.
(nt)
VN movie. It's not about accuracy or taste--it's about the surreal, disconnected feel it gives off. Just like the sense you felt being over there. This may not have been Coppola's intention but that's the product he ended up with.
----------
This space available.
Near the end of the movie a German unit moved into a small Russian village and began to sack, rape, and roundup its inhabitants. It's like the director did an homage to Apocalypse. The scene was like a circus of the macabre with the Germans behaving without discipline or order.
----------
This space available.
That is quite an understatement ;)
This film is a fascinating monstruosity.
...but that fascination appears to be appropriately short lived.
For me also! I have seen it two or three times, and I do not intend to do it again.
The Walküre scene was a terrible one. But also perfect.
Of course all this ia academic, as without actually seeing what other actors might have done with the role it is like "What if China invaded Brazil?" discussion in a local pub... but we all have our favorite cases of surprises - one of my favorites has been Ryan O'Neal in Barry Lyndon. I now love that man, no matter what else he has done with his life.
I have watched this movie many times, but it wasn't until I saw the documentary "Hearts of Darkness" that I understood all the holes and flaws. Considering all the problems, it's amazing this movie was made at all. At any rate Apocalyse Now does have a surreal quality that I don't mind seeing once in a whileOn another note, Redeux is a total waste of time. I saw it in the theater (needed only one bathroom break) A real sleeping pill.
John
There was a reason it was on the cutting room floor the first time. The action and acting style was incongruent to the overall flow. The Playmate segement was totally emabarassing with the girls being incapable of delivering one believeable line. The rubber plantation segment, though interesting, disrupted the flow of Sheen's character. Was he a "pussyhound" or a soldier? Nothing about Redux truly fit for me.
----------
This space available.
was origianlly cut for time purposes.
*
----------
This space available.
After seeing it in the theater and several viewings on DVD I think that it flows better even though it is 50 minutes longer.
apparently there were "creative" differences and Sheen came aboard. Sheen also had his first heart attack and almost derailed the entire project. After seeing it so many times, I really see Sheen in the role as an unassuming, unlikley officer squeezed into a situation he wasn't sure about. Keitel was just too hard for the role--he would have no doubt about why or what he was going to do. My preference is Sheen all the way.
----------
This space available.
Clint Eastwood was offered the role but turned it down, saying to Coppola, "You don't have an ending".
*
----------
This space available.
Charlie Sheen is just the right fish out of water, the grunt in the wrong place and at the wrong time, which is just what makes "Apocalypse" work
Runty; good, it makes Sheen more of a fresh faced everyman than Keitels stone faced "Bad Lieutenant"
The other role I really admire Sheen in is "Badlands" with Sissy SpacekGrins
s
Harvey Keitel - absolutely can't stand the guy. I realize you don't care.
deeply.
It's MARTIN Sheen, not his son Charlie.
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 © 2024, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
