|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
4.235.204.205
In Reply to: Re: "Apocalypse Now:" a very overrated film. posted by Vinylized on October 11, 2006 at 10:57:51:
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.
Follow Ups:
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.
filmmaker make carnage "entertaining?"
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.
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: