None of them brought the movie to a screeching halt.
Apocalypse Now
- Thread starter Danny99
- Start date
None of them brought the movie to a screeching halt.
I thought the movie was slightly, um how do I put this, halting? Before we got that far. Orders to go surfboarding in water under bombardment? I felt the movie all the way through was trying to show that war was madder than Mad Jack McMad. The boat seemed like a fairly insular patch of sanity traveling through it until it started to seep in there too, the closer they got to Kurtz's own madness.
I also got the impression he wasn't just killing VCs. He was killing anybody associated with the VC, or just people he thought were associated with the VC. Basically what the Army did at My Lai, which garnered extraordinarily negative press, was just Kurtz' SOP.
I don't have a problem with the Kurtz sequences bringing the film to a halt, since he is the end of the journey. The French plantation scenes are more problematic when it comes to the film's pacing, but I like the sense that Willard is going further and further back in time as he goes up the river that they provide. I also like the emphasis on the duality of Willard, which strikes at one of the themes Conrad was getting at in Heart of Darkness. It's a little heavy-handed, maybe ("there are two of you...one that kills, and one that loves"), but I like it nonetheless.
But pacing is a different thing than the film changing gears thematically, which is what you seemed to be complaining about before.
Willard spends most of his time passively, observing the craziness around him but not really reacting to it. Even more so in the original cut. I have read that's what Coppola wanted for the character, leaving the audience to puzzle through things on their own without a strong protagonist stance to identify with. But it does make him kind of dull. But I felt the Chief, the Chef, Lance and Clean all had pretty well-defined characters.
But the Vietnam war did start as a classic imperial/colonial conflict, and the bombing &c. didn't work for the classic reasons: The irregular/guerrilla/insurgent/whatever forces could blend in with the "civilian" population and fight only when advantageous. Their supply lines and escape routes could operate in places the "visiting team" couldn't go, or in ways they didn't understand. Offensives and reprisals by the bigger power ended up gaining more sympathy and recruits for the insurgents than degrading their fighting capability. The US generals wanted to use the Montagnards for their own ends, as native counter-insurgents, but Kurtz wasn't doing that. His rogue force could potentially undermine US goals in the area, but most of all Kurtz has forgotten his place, he's bucking the system, he's not following the program. That's why it was a big deal, not because of who he killed or how effective he was.
As far as Redux goes, I grew up on the original cut and really liked it. I like Redux a lot, too, and it is probably a better picture, but it always gives me a feeling that they had all this extra stuff and said "Let's put it all in." It seemed like it could have been edited better (in the novel sense, not the film sense).
--Justin
Kurtz posing a military threat to the US forces isn't part of the movie I remember.
The briefing on Kurtz emphasized his success in reducing VC activity. So I don't remember what he's doing that is bucking the system, except that he uses targeted assassinations to achieve his remarkable results. It is still true that the US military has zero problem with assassination. Indeed, they have degenerated to openly boasting about their successes with drones. They are still indifferent to the accompanying deaths of innocents. And they certainly don't worry that no one has actually trouble to try, much less convict and sentence to death, the people they kill. It is still impossible to imagine that Kurtz's success with extrajudicial executions could really cause such concern in the command staff. And it is still impossible to imagine it would really be so successful.
The story about the VC cutting off the arms of vaccinated children says a lot about where the movie was coming from.
The briefing on Kurtz emphasized his success in reducing VC activity. So I don't remember what he's doing that is bucking the system, except that he uses targeted assassinations to achieve his remarkable results. It is still true that the US military has zero problem with assassination. Indeed, they have degenerated to openly boasting about their successes with drones. They are still indifferent to the accompanying deaths of innocents. And they certainly don't worry that no one has actually trouble to try, much less convict and sentence to death, the people they kill. It is still impossible to imagine that Kurtz's success with extrajudicial executions could really cause such concern in the command staff. And it is still impossible to imagine it would really be so successful.
The story about the VC cutting off the arms of vaccinated children says a lot about where the movie was coming from.
I've never really enjoyed Apocalypse Now as an entire film. The points it makes are obvious and trite (the intensity of warfare can diminish normal societal limits on behaviour - duh, really? Ya think?) which would be fine, if the points were made in an interesting way... But the pacing is plodding at best and Redux worsens this pacing problem further, though at least the plot is more coherent.
Whenever it's on TV, I try to tune in for the fun Ride of the Valkyries scene and the immediate aftermath, and then channel hop away.
Platoon is a much more engaging film.
Whenever it's on TV, I try to tune in for the fun Ride of the Valkyries scene and the immediate aftermath, and then channel hop away.
Platoon is a much more engaging film.
Last edited:
^^^That seemed to be what Harvey was saying.
A mission to kill Kurtz because, essentially, the top brass were envious of his success and independence, still has the implausibility that, despite the well known failure of the Phoenix program, targeted assassination is somehow supposed to work. Due no doubt to the genius of Kurtz. Wanting to kill Kurtz for his genius makes him something of a martyr, which just seems unpleasant fantasizing instead of some deep comment.
Not having seen the movie for decades, I know my memory is surely omitting other aspects of the film. The thing is, these reasons are why I can't bring myself to bother watching again.
A mission to kill Kurtz because, essentially, the top brass were envious of his success and independence, still has the implausibility that, despite the well known failure of the Phoenix program, targeted assassination is somehow supposed to work. Due no doubt to the genius of Kurtz. Wanting to kill Kurtz for his genius makes him something of a martyr, which just seems unpleasant fantasizing instead of some deep comment.
Not having seen the movie for decades, I know my memory is surely omitting other aspects of the film. The thing is, these reasons are why I can't bring myself to bother watching again.
So, no one else picked up on the fact that the leadership wanted him out of the picture because they didn't want the war to end. He was too successful for them, because their ultimate goal wasn't to win the war but to keep the war going?
I think this is one of the best movies ever made. Certainly one of the best war movies, anyway.
Shocking, haunting, bizarre, eerie, at times funny, at times horrific...stunningly beautiful and stunningly ugly all at the same time. It's a movie that is extremely hard to watch...but once started, you can't take your eyes off the screen until the ending. Even the credits are haunting, with those faces in the rock (which really exist in SE Asia, by the way - I've seen similar carvings when I was in Vietnam & Cambodia myself).
Martin Sheen is breathtaking in this film...and Brando...is, well, Brando. What else does one need to say?
I watch it about once a year - usually during February because TCM airs it during the 31 Days of Oscar pretty much every year.
But oddly, I think about this movie quite often - particularly about the more haunting bits, like the scene in that 'last outpost' upriver where the guys manning it were clearly traumatized and had no idea who or what they were shooting at anymore, and no one was in command. Or the part when Martin Sheen's character finally finds Brando's camp and the whole scene with the natives is so bizarre. And I cannot hear Ride of the Valkyries without thinking about the helicopters in this movie.
There are three movies that make up my personal Vietnam War Trilogy - Apocalypse Now, Platoon, and The Deerhunter. All three of them are very good...and shockingly horrific both at the same time.
Interesting that Martin Sheen is a star of one and Charlie Sheen a star in one of the others.
I think that Platoon is better at capturing the gritty story of a young grunt...and the shocking 'politics' within a unit that make even your 'friend' (ie - 'guys on your side') into your enemy. But Apocalypse Now is much better at capturing the true 'feeling' of SE Asia. Especially the dichotomy of this supposedly peaceful Buddhist land being the setting for such ghastly acts of utter depravity.
Shocking, haunting, bizarre, eerie, at times funny, at times horrific...stunningly beautiful and stunningly ugly all at the same time. It's a movie that is extremely hard to watch...but once started, you can't take your eyes off the screen until the ending. Even the credits are haunting, with those faces in the rock (which really exist in SE Asia, by the way - I've seen similar carvings when I was in Vietnam & Cambodia myself).
Martin Sheen is breathtaking in this film...and Brando...is, well, Brando. What else does one need to say?
I watch it about once a year - usually during February because TCM airs it during the 31 Days of Oscar pretty much every year.
But oddly, I think about this movie quite often - particularly about the more haunting bits, like the scene in that 'last outpost' upriver where the guys manning it were clearly traumatized and had no idea who or what they were shooting at anymore, and no one was in command. Or the part when Martin Sheen's character finally finds Brando's camp and the whole scene with the natives is so bizarre. And I cannot hear Ride of the Valkyries without thinking about the helicopters in this movie.
There are three movies that make up my personal Vietnam War Trilogy - Apocalypse Now, Platoon, and The Deerhunter. All three of them are very good...and shockingly horrific both at the same time.
Interesting that Martin Sheen is a star of one and Charlie Sheen a star in one of the others.
I think that Platoon is better at capturing the gritty story of a young grunt...and the shocking 'politics' within a unit that make even your 'friend' (ie - 'guys on your side') into your enemy. But Apocalypse Now is much better at capturing the true 'feeling' of SE Asia. Especially the dichotomy of this supposedly peaceful Buddhist land being the setting for such ghastly acts of utter depravity.
If I understood that whole thing right it was because Kurtz was exposing things the army did not want exposed. The passage below says ambushes fell off when Kurtz killed two South Vietnamese colonels. Those were the guys who were supposed to be on our side. The war wasn't a cut and dried as the brass was making it seem and Kurtz was one of the few who was saying it(and doing things about it).
"Late summer-autumn 1968 :
Kurtz's patrols in the highlands coming under frequent
ambush. The camp started falling apart...November: Kurtz orders
the assassination of three Vietnamese men and one
woman. Two of the men were Colonels in the South
Vietnamese army. Enemy activity in his old sector dropped
off to nothing. Guess he must have hit the right
four people. The army tried one last time to bring him back
into the fold. And if he pulled over, it all would have been forgotten.
But he kept going, and he kept winning it his way, and they called
me in. They lost him. He was gone. Nothing but rumors and
rambling intelligence, mostly from captured VC. The VC knew
his name by now, and they were scared of him. He and his men
were playing hit and run all the way into Cambodia."
Bingo!
He utterly embarrassed the brass by killing double-agents that were right under their noses, then he refused to come in for his reprimand--both for acting without orders, and the aforementioned embarrassment. He completely broke away and they couldn't have a loose cannon out there with his own private, fanatical army. Sooner or later, he'd consider the Americans the enemy and start attacking them, too.
Remember, his unorthodox behavior was tolerated until he offed the South Vietnamese personnel. That was the last straw.
I absolutely love this movie. I agree with the assessment that a lot of the Redux material was extraneous. The only scene that really stuck out like a sore thumb was the whole French Plantation thing, though. The funeral for Clean was well-done but once they got to the dinner conversation it all became very hokey.
Well, "the right four people" and "winning it his way" just aren't believable. Kurtz as Godlike hero winning by his willingness to do what it takes to the evil ones his superior mind can sniff out seems like a crock to me. Nor do I believe that making Kurtz a left-handed hero for standing up the brasshats is even appetizing. In other words, bingo for quoting most important scene that makes the find memory tiresome.
Again, this is why I can't bring myself to even rewatch the movies. I'm not pretending to a definitivie critique.
Again, this is why I can't bring myself to even rewatch the movies. I'm not pretending to a definitivie critique.
Well its not the first to use stereo surrounds on Dolby 70mm that would be “Superman the movie” (1978) Apocalypse Now was just published wider!
It’s a classic, sure with its use of sound design panning the helicopter on the surrounds and around the cinema a few times or the home. I’ve only seen a 35mm scope 2.35:1 at late night showing at the Odeon Bournemouth around early mid 1990’s, in its smaller screens it would have looked better projected onto the deep curved old Cinerama screen upstairs.
The DVD is the closet to the six-track Dolby stereo mix I can get, The image has less to be desired for. Sigh 2.2:1 are you kidding me!
The scope version wow and the colour balance was nature pure film with xenon light on the image, is the way to see it!
I have three versions on DVD no more and the same goes for the bluray I doubt it would be farmed as it was seen in scope 2.35:1. I see the same extras been used.
The only big deal will be the 24fps rate over PAL speed-up 4%.
Lossless or lossy LMAO you need to get your hearing checked really unless I’m passing bat flying overhead really I doubt I’d ever notice the difference, unless it was poorly piss poorly re-mixed by some kiddie in mommies’ basement using pro-tools badly.
It’s a classic, sure with its use of sound design panning the helicopter on the surrounds and around the cinema a few times or the home. I’ve only seen a 35mm scope 2.35:1 at late night showing at the Odeon Bournemouth around early mid 1990’s, in its smaller screens it would have looked better projected onto the deep curved old Cinerama screen upstairs.
The DVD is the closet to the six-track Dolby stereo mix I can get, The image has less to be desired for. Sigh 2.2:1 are you kidding me!
The scope version wow and the colour balance was nature pure film with xenon light on the image, is the way to see it!
I have three versions on DVD no more and the same goes for the bluray I doubt it would be farmed as it was seen in scope 2.35:1. I see the same extras been used.
The only big deal will be the 24fps rate over PAL speed-up 4%.
Lossless or lossy LMAO you need to get your hearing checked really unless I’m passing bat flying overhead really I doubt I’d ever notice the difference, unless it was poorly piss poorly re-mixed by some kiddie in mommies’ basement using pro-tools badly.
MeanJoePhaser
Admiral
This led to the best scene in Hot Shots Part Deux.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B4PNZqnaZzo&feature=related
