Films/DVD Asylum

Re: "Apocalypse Now:" a very overrated film.

161.149.63.106

[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ Thread: Display All Email ] [ Films/DVD Asylum ]

Vinylized

(A)

In Reply to: "Apocalypse Now:" a very overrated film. posted by tinear on October 11, 2006 at 10:36:49:

Hmmm, I must have been watching something else, because I can't remember any exaltation of Americans or their involvement in SE Asia in this film. I do remember something of a "quagmire" though :-). But hey, to each his own.
BTW; I remember seeing it in a theatre (Redux version) and thinking there isn't a single frame of this film that cannot stand on it's own as a still photo. Vittorio Storaro at his best, IMHO.

Follow Ups:

Re: "Apocalypse Now:" a very overrated film. - Vinylized 10:53:10 10/12/06 (1)
I first remember seeing this film when I was probably about 8 or 9 years old (child psychologists put the keyboard down and step back, please) and even then I remember what a gorgeous film it was, that's what I remember most about the film and that scene. Moreover, I guess what sruck me; since we are speaking about the subconscious, was the fact that something SO amoral could be so beautiful (I hope this doesn't classify me as amoral).
The second thing that affirmed everything for me about this film was when a neighbor (who was in Vietnam) mentioned that he can't and won't watch the film (again) because of how close to the real thing it was.
It's interesting, to me, how individuals who have never been anywhere near a war (Francis Coppola, Stanley Kubrick) are able to make, confirmed by testimonals from people who were "there" of course, films that are so real. That to me is what makes this film great.
- Repugnant...... - afilado 10:47:57 10/13/06 (0)
  ...as war is, it is, after, all a human enterprise, fully reflective of the dual nature of each person, individually and collectively. The true artist is keen this and 'paints" accordingly, morals intact.
  As you well say, that's what makes film art great.
Okay, let me explain a bit: by telling the story from the standpoint - tinear 18:36:56 10/11/06 (4)
of an American assassin who survives and who is on a mission, the viewer quite subconsciously is drawn into HIS world and wishes for his success.
A similar problem occurs in crime films where, quite inadvertently, by centering the action upon the perps, the cops are seen as "evil" because they go against the protagonists.
The hideous reality of that war, the senseless slaughters, huge devastation, brutalization on a massive scale of innocent villagers... very secondary to the heroic telling of the story.
It's inescapable: you MUST identify with Sheen the murderer as he sets out on his uphill journey.
Specifically, remember the surf on the beach scene, the napalm strike?
Oh, how wonderfully and entertaingly filmed, what a magnificent larger-than-life figure (Patton-like) Duvall struck... meanwhile, how much of the slaughter, the children and women burned alive, the total devastation was portrayed? What do YOU remember of that scene?
Yeah, it was FUN. I admit it. It was entertaining, even funny as hell.
That isn't immoral.
Worse.
It's amoral.
- You must have missed the anti-war theme of Apocalypse. - oscar 06:02:47 10/13/06 (3)
  The Duvall scenes did NOT glorify Americans at war; rather it showed a rather entertaining view of a Americans pillaging a Vietnamese village. If anything the film glorified the heroic stand of poorly-armed VIetnamese against the foreign invaders.
  Nothing in that movie suggested support for the Vietnamese war.
  - "rather entertaining..." Well, exactly. Would a responsible - tinear 08:51:05 10/14/06 (0)
    filmmaker make carnage "entertaining?"
  - Re: You must have missed the anti-war theme of Apocalypse. - rico 07:28:21 10/13/06 (1)
    In the commentary Coppola mentions more than once that "Apocalypse Now" was not intended to be an anti-war film. The intent was to present Conrad's "Heart of Darkness" as a journey into surreal madness using the Viet Nam war as context.
    - Right and one must ignore the fact that the most divisive, explosive, and - tinear 08:53:04 10/14/06 (0)
      important event of that time in American history is to be ignored in the context of the film?
      Hardly.
      If Coppola truly wished to just produce an allegory, he would have stuck to Conrad's short story.
      As it is, he chose the most inflammatory segment in our recent history.
      He ain't stupid.
      It's like a Holocaust film: can one use it as an allegory of human history, in general, and have no moral viewpoint?
      Coppola isn't naive so I'll just assume he's a liar or unable to self-criticize.

This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:

Kimber Kable

You can not post to an archived thread.