Let's Talk - Apocalypse Now

Rafael Silva wrote: I think it appeals to US (and maybe UK?) citizens more than anyone else, it is war, it is dreadful but it still is an invasion on a foreign country. The US glorifies war because it has been a long time since they have had any in their territory. Shame on you.

To see the other side: Come and See (1985) Belarussian film by Elem Klimov, shows the life in one of more than 600 villages that were invaded by the Nazis in Belarus.

Masterpiece.

I don't feel it glorifies war other than the fact that it's a film. I imagine it has some of that feeling for some people but it's not intentional. The film clearly paints it as horrible and as something that ruins men for no good reason. People gravitate to that due to romantic ideas and the great characters in the film but that's on them... not on the film. However it has to be from an American perspective because it is made by Americans... if it was from another side it could just as easily be criticized for being disingenuous. They have no choice but to tell the stories that they know, that happened to them. I grew up in a very anti-war and somewhat anti-American household. My old man would criticize a lot of movies as jingoist American bullshit (even though we loved a lot of American culture) but this one resonated with us none the less. As Canadians. Whereas films like Top Gun, that truly do glorify war and don't seem to have any kind of conscience or sympathy towards the other side of a conflict, where heavily criticized.

In Apocalypse Now Brando has, to some degree, gone Native and possibly respects the Natives more than Americans at this point in his life. I see them as borderline magical figures in the film... not as savages at all. There's something transcendent about their presence, sure they don't speak (we wouldn't understand anyway) but we need that mystery there. A speaking role might ruin it.

But that's the beauty of the movie to me, that mystery it contains allows you to take away several different meanings. It's part of why it isn't disposable as I said a page back. Things are unclear and there are some pro-war, war glorification moments in the film, but I feel they play as heavy, heavy satire. To me it feels like each one of those moments is done in naivety. Intentionally.

I like Brando's performance, I think that without him there, without that performance, this film never reaches the heights it does. It shadows over the rest of the movie. Every viewing after the first is effected by his performance, you watch all the scenes before he shows up aware of what is going to happen and it changes the way the movie is seen.

I don’t think I was clear; the movie didn’t intentionally glorified war. I said it appealed more to US citizens because it mirrors their experience, and they glorify war.

I like the movie as well; I just think its message is not as relevant to the rest of the world.
I keep recommending Come and See because I watched it recently and I came out of it with one clear felling. This cannot happen again. Ever. But it does, and I think one of the reasons why it is because most US citizens don’t understand what war really means.

Post WW2 the US have had an awful influence in almost every poor land on this planet, their utter disrespect for every race, class, people, creed or belief that it is not “American” is a disgrace and need to stop.

But I guess it is all good if the price of the gallon of gas goes down, right?

I like your culture and tech production though.

Edit: added "and they glorify war."

To be clear, this is just a discussion and I have no horse in this race. For me, part of understanding the film (or any piece of art) is this kind of process, this kind of discussion.

I don't really want to turn this into a political thing, but suffice to say I don't see how the views of the USAmerican public at large has much of anything to do with the film itself. Especially since the public today is much different than it was in 1979. I find the film pretty relevant and I'm not American but maybe we're so close to America that it helps me... I'm not sure of that though. I feel pretty far removed personally.

I also don't think that war, violence, disregard for life or any of that crap continues:

"because most US citizens don’t understand what war really means."

War happened constantly and for hundreds and hundreds of years long before America was even a thing and if America fell today it would continue to happen. That's something about the shittiness that resides inside all human beings right across the world and the film is partly about that. The darkness inside us that gets a voice during these horrible times. I have no connection to America or the Vietnam War but it felt like a film that is more about the violence that lives inside all humans (not just Americans which is why that one extra scene with the French in Redux is the only one that plays as meaningful to me) and how War can bring that out of us.

Your criticism of American foreign relations is in the film. The idea that they have "utter disrespect for every race, class, people, creed or belief that it is not American" is part of the film. The Americans are played as a circus of violence, it's hyper critical of them and that should play well to foreign audiences. Because many of them echo those same sentiments.

Also, personally, I'd be ok with Gas quadrupling in price tomorrow. But again, I don't see how it's related to the film.

Edit: I should add that you've piqued my curiosity for Come and See, I googled it and definitely intend to seek it out.

I concede it has nothing to do with it, I got carried away. Sorry.

Pretty film as far as cinematography and mood, I mean it's pretty much unrivaled aside from movies like 2001: A Space Odyssey. But from an "entertainment" perspective, it's a really boring, long, stupid film. Full Metal Jacket was a better Vietnam film.

Throughout the '70s and '80s, Americans were understandably fascinated with Vietnam. During the war, there was a seismic shift in public opinion, going from 75% support to 75% opposition to the war. Hollywood cranked out plenty of movies about Vietnam in response. Some were stupid action movies, others had interesting observations about the conflict or even the human condition.

I don't know what Apocalypse Now had to say about Vietnam, because I have never felt the urge to watch it. The story was originally called Heart of Darkness and was set in colonial Africa, circa 1900, so I assumed that it had nothing to say about Vietnam. I was interested in movies that aimed for a more realistic look at the life and death of soldiers fighting in that war. I highly recommend the PBS documentary series about Vietnam, as well as the companion book. Other great books about the war include Fire in the Lake and Dispatches. Fire in the Lake takes a long, serious look at the big picture and the history of conflict in the region, starting with the various failed attempts by China to conquer Vietnam. Dispatches was a colorful first-hand account by a war correspondent in the middle of the action in '67 through '69.

JonJacob wrote: Don't mistake me thinking it's over-rated for me not thinking it's a .flipping fantastic film. It is... there's just a lot of .flipping fantastic films that don't get any recognition that I like as much if not more than this. I still love Apocalypse Now though, I've seen it maybe ten times.

I would like to see the list of better movies. No pressure.

SuperflyTNT wrote: Pretty film as far as cinematography and mood, I mean it's pretty much unrivaled aside from movies like 2001: A Space Odyssey. But from an "entertainment" perspective, it's a really boring, long, stupid film. Full Metal Jacket was a better Vietnam film.

Kubrick consulted with Michael Herr, the correspondent who wrote Dispatches. Full Metal Jacket could have been even better if they had filmed it in a more appropriate location than England. Unfortunately, Kubrick was notoriously afraid of flying.

craniac wrote:

JonJacob wrote: Don't mistake me thinking it's over-rated for me not thinking it's a .flipping fantastic film. It is... there's just a lot of .flipping fantastic films that don't get any recognition that I like as much if not more than this. I still love Apocalypse Now though, I've seen it maybe ten times.

I would like to see the list of better movies. No pressure.

It would only be better in my opinion though.

We could make a favorite movies thread I suppose. As much as I love this film I don't think it would even show up in my top twenty. My favorite Coppola film has always been The Conversation for example so even among his movies it's not my fav. But to each their own, I have an interest in the topic with The Conversation so that may be personal. Although I do think it's a genius bit of film making as well and it has my favorite soundtrack of all time.

Edit: I didn't notice at first how you censored me... nice. My favorite subs for swears are

Jiminy Cricket - I use this a lot
Flacon de Mais - Corn flakes in French.. I use this a lot too
Any Qubecois swears
and instead of flipping in Canada we usually use 'freakin' ... but maybe you're Canadian too and I'm just wrong on that one. It feels more local to me though.

Rafael Silva wrote: most US citizens don’t understand what war really means.

This was the entire point of the movie. That the proper prosecution of war is beyond the capability of western culture. The only person who understood war was Kurtz, and he had to break with western culture to do it. He became feral, that is why he had to be put down.

As we travel toward the heart of darkness (Kurtz/war), the attempts to put a patina of western culture on the face of war become increasingly bizarre and futile. This is why the movie has a halucinatory aspect to it. Western culture will never win another war with a native population because it no longer has the tools to enforce the Roman peace.

An entertaining movie about a relevant and important topic. This is why it is the best fucking movie ever made.

I could not agree more about the West's inability to do what needs to be done. Kill, bomb, destroy, maim, and completely annihilate. This is what wins war. Dresden wins wars. Hiroshima wins wars. Smart bombs and limiting rules of engagement do not win wars.

The last war we won was World War 2, and it has everything to do with the fact that there were no political aspects. No "we can't shoot those planes, they're Russian." or "We can't go there because it's Chinese"." To win wars, you have to destroy the enemy's ability to defend itself, and then destroy so many people that the people of the country give up en masse because they cannot bear the weight of the war any longer, seeking to sue for peace or surrender.

Fucking sickening how much we spend on ways to limit collateral damage. In my book, there is no such thing. All damage is good, all enemy military, industrial, or major civilian targets are completely valid because they all aid in pursuing victory.

And here it is folks, that’s why Come and See is more important than Apocalypse Now. The person who decides whether there will be a war or not was able to convince Pete that money is more important than people. Because he doesn’t have any idea what it is to live through that.

At the expense of many lives, from my country and yours alike, US war continues to feed the rich at the expense of the poor.

By next year, 1% of the world’s population will own more wealth than the other 99%.
www.theguardian.com/business/2015/jan/19...c-summit-switzerland

SuperflyTNT wrote: I could not agree more about the West's inability to do what needs to be done. Kill, bomb, destroy, maim, and completely annihilate. This is what wins war. Dresden wins wars. Hiroshima wins wars. Smart bombs and limiting rules of engagement do not win wars.

The last war we won was World War 2, and it has everything to do with the fact that there were no political aspects. No "we can't shoot those planes, they're Russian." or "We can't go there because it's Chinese"." To win wars, you have to destroy the enemy's ability to defend itself, and then destroy so many people that the people of the country give up en masse because they cannot bear the weight of the war any longer, seeking to sue for peace or surrender.

Fucking sickening how much we spend on ways to limit collateral damage. In my book, there is no such thing. All damage is good, all enemy military, industrial, or major civilian targets are completely valid because they all aid in pursuing victory.

Part of the reason that WWII even happened was because of the extreme war reparations imposed upon the German people after World War I. They resented it until a lunatic named Hitler united them against it. Americans tried something dramatically different after WWII by helping Germany and Japan rebuild. Ever since then, America has been overly focused on wrapping up wars early to get to the happy rebuilding phase. The North Vietnamese showed the rest of the world how to fight a modern war. Never surrender and maintain an active insurgency with guerilla tactics until the invading force stops wasting resources and leaves the country. We need to stop worrying about being liked by everybody and hailed as heroes, and just beat the living shit out of our enemies until they are willing to completely surrender.

Better yet, we should stop trying to maintain the most inefficient and expensive empire in the history of mankind. We don't need thousands of military bases all over the world. In Italy alone, we have 113 miilitary bases:

saganic.blogspot.com/2007/06/us-military...italy-there-are.html

That's insane and also too expensive. The only way to reasonably afford all those bases overseas would be to conquer all those countries and collect tribute. But we don't do that, we do the opposite and hand out foreign aid like candy on Halloween night. Stupid. Other civilized countries tax their citizens heavily but provide them with quality healthcare and education. We spend our wealth overseas and skimp on domestic issues, while running major budget deficits that roll into a staggering national debt:

www.usdebtclock.org/

I'm not a complete isolationist. The U.S. plays a valuable role in sustaining a modern international marketplace. But we can't afford to play unpaid world cop anymore. We need to pick our fights more carefully and then stomp the fuck out of the opposition when we do fight.

Superfly=Kurtz

Unfortunately, both are correct. Winning wars by "winning hearts and minds" is just another western attempt to digest war.

"It's a way we had over here for living with ourselves. We cut 'em in half with a machine gun and give 'em a Band-Aid. It was a lie. And the more I saw them, the more I hated lies."

You win wars by paralyzing minds with fear, and eating hearts. Much too savage for polite western society. This is why Apocalypse is ultimately an anti-war movie. A society should not engage in an activity in which it is structurally incapable of success.

More important, less important.. it's really hard to create a hierarchy of importance on something as esoteric as film. I do want to see this film Come and See now but I'm not interested in a competition. It's a movie and personally, I don't get my moral lessons from film... or even art that much. Mine comes from introspection (which art can effect), culture (we all have that one) and religion/spirituality... ah, that's probably the same thing as introspection. In any case I believe that a piece of art can be morally reprehensible and still be great. So I'm not interested in which movie is most important... I don't trust filmmakers to do anything other than make films.

I will say though that there are no idea's about war... either raw savagery or winning through propaganda, that the west invented. Almost all of their war idea's are imported form the Old World. Whether that be from more aggressive systems like Germany and England have used... or even Rome. They all used the 'winning of hearts and minds' too. Rome was big on trying to win over the local population and even Napoleon relied heavily on the people wanting him to take over.. he relied heavily on winning of the hearts and minds. The West is nothing if not the worlds child, the whole world. What we do and have is a combination of things taken from all over the world.

Personally I'm a complete pacifist but a movie that promotes violence can be fascinating to me and I'm totally ok with it (I do not think Apocalypse Now does this at all, quite the opposite). Some people who are overly impressionable might want to steer clear but for me it doesn't really matter. Just because someone has the money to make a big picture doesn't mean they are worth looking up to or trying to emulate. Now if a film or piece of art does line up with me morally speaking that may elevate it a bit but usually it doesn't, usually it does the opposite for me because I prefer to have my personal views challenged rather than re-enforced. Most of my favorite writers are Atheist for this reason.