American Politics & Pop Culture

It has been argued that movies regarding war in the late 60’s and early 70’s were merely films that center on the American “myth making.” Apocalypse Now, a Francis Coppola film, is a movie that fits this theme of “myth making.” According to Leo Cawley, American war films express the importance of the individual and the solitary hero of the American myth (71). In other words the American solider who fights alone can be that supernatural hero that saves the country for all. This type of “individualism” is outline vicariously thru Coppola’s Apocalypse Now.

In a film set in Vietnam, Apocalypse Now, portrayed a man with a mission to assassinate a fellow solider. This man, Willard, was shown to be as John Hellmann calls the hard-boiled detective. Someone that is in search of clues to uncover the mystery of his victim and legally kill him, Willard plan of route is a small boat along the coast of Vietnam. Shown to be an area that is not so fair, Vietnam uncovers clues of devistation and foreign civilizations. It is admidst this foreign civilization that the victim, Kurtz, is found. This detective task not only lays out the American Myth it exemplifies that a hero goes above and beyond complete his task. Whether it is to continue even though one of crewmembers is killed or to murder another human in cold blood. What I found rather distasteful was when his crewmen was killed a tape of his grandmother was being played on his Walkman out loud. It really let in the fact that American lives were taken so easy and that their family would not know for a while. According to Hellman, 58,000 American lives were taken in the aftermath of Vietnam. Regardless of a hero being able to accomplish his task this myth was lay to dust when the war really ended. So what, Willard killed Kurtz, what about the real war that was going on? Nonetheless this movie really did portray the haberdashery that took in the Vietnamese war. A war that the US lost, but one that will go down in history as what Hellman says “the self projected historical nightmare thru which America can awaken from its dream of innocence into a mature consciousness.”

Posted by remy0004 at 09:07 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

The myth making of that the articles are referring to, is the myth that most Americans generally accept; a myth that portrays war as a necessary evil, and one that is fought by the brightest and the bravest. Leo Crawley hits it right on the head with the commentary in his article that really, the people that America is sending to war are the ones that it least values post-war, the ones that are most easily replaced. Adding to this myth is that American losses are more important that the death of those from any other country, as if being from America leads one to be a better, more worthy person just because of one’s citizenship, that the almost 50,000 American deaths are more of a tragedy than the estimated 2,000,000 Vietnamese. Also within this myth, which Apocalypse Now, adds to, is the myth that one man on the front lines can have immense impact on what actually happens in the war. Crawley exemplifies in his article, that the skilled, brave, and smart soldier dies just as easily as the ugly, dull, unintelligent one when he is hit by mortar fire. Apocalypse Now does make some good progress against the American myth before this; the notions that wars are all about killing ‘evil’ enemies and all wars are for the moral and greater good. It seems that many movies at the time were doing this however, exploring the darker sides of modern warfare, so I don’t see this as a particularly interesting point
The film can be both pro and anti war by having no overall statement rather instead showing both sides of the argument. I agree with Tomasulo, that the movie can be viewed either way, and that the opinion of the movie by the viewer can really be what the person watching the movie feels beforehand, what they generally think of wars, what aspects of the film affect them the most, and what they found most striking and memorable. I don’t see Apocalypse Now as really overtly leaning in either direction however I think that Coppola has an opinion about the war himself, and streaks of his opinion show up in the movie. I don’t the film does as good of job at helping the American people put the Vietnam war behind them as Coppola would have us believe. One of the best ways to put things behind you is forget about them, and move along with your life. No matter which direction a person sees Apocalypse Now leaning, I do not think the argument can be made that by shining more light on a subject that one is trying to put it behind.
I don’t see Apocalypse Now being focused on character development. Other than the beginning of the movie, and some internal narratives by Martin Sheen’s character, he changes very little from the beginning of the movie to the end. We learn very little about his past, and what has made him who he is. The focus of the movie is definitely centered on Captain Willard and in doing this does do a good job of making the viewer put him or herself in the position of the Captain, and thinking about the choices he makes, and whether they would do it themselves. The film does suggest an admiration for Kurtz; an American admiration of sorts, where he got it done, no matter what the consequences or whatever the top brass says.
At the end of the movie, Willard does what he should do as an American hero; get the job done and get back home, or to the base for the next mission. Willard doesn’t do this because he is fed up with imperialistic intentions or the colonialist ones of the U.S. government, he doesn’t stay and resume the role of the new deity because while he sees Kurtz’s point about the war an humanity, part of him sees the leading of the indigenous people in a guerrilla war is something that isn’t appealing to him at a personal level, no more or less.

Posted by nemme003 at 11:44 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Captain Willard walks the line between what he thinks to be the blindness and pointlessness of the U.S. government and the insanity and horror that Col. Kurtz represents. He, in the end, chooses to reject the power that Kurtz once possessed but throughout the movie questions the means of the government that sent him on this murder mission and seems to even understand or sympathize with the Colonel’s ways. When Willard walks away in the end and denounces the worship that is bestowed upon him he shows how he does not keep the same morality of war that Kurtz does. This separates him from Kurtz. As Margot Norris states in “Modernism and Vietnam”, “…the difference between the U.S. military and Kurtz is one of blindness and insight.” Willard understands Kurtz’s insight and his hatred for the U.S. military based on his time in Vietnam but, existing in this state of indecision between buying into the war or Kurtz’s society of a pedestal above the war, Willard still slaughters Kurtz. However his actions of committing the deeds of the government still aren’t convincing enough to pair him with the authorities that sent him. Willard associates all the madness and horror he sees to the faults of the military and shows his disgust with these “lies” he sees so repeatedly. He is fed up with the lies of the military and frustrated with the leaderless troops who he encounters on his journey up river. Kurtz mentions, “…the military could accomplish their objective by using a fraction of the soldiers” as long as they cared and brought purpose. Willard sees many troops along the way who are lost and serve no purpose. Throughout the movie Capt. Willard builds up a disagreement with the military and their presence in Vietnam but in the end is left in a state of confusion about who he believes to have the best purpose and insight to the war as he assassinates Kurtz and rejects his inherited disciples.

Posted by luli0004 at 11:42 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Tomasula suggests that apocalypse now can be viewed as both a pro-war and anti-war film. I definitely agree with his assessment and even believe that it leans heavily on the anti-war side. The beginning of the film begins with the jungle being napalmed signifying destruction. According to the book by F. Tomasula, “apocalypse now has been read as an anti-war statement because many scenes depict the absurdity and outright lunacy of America’s Vietnam policies, as well as the machinations of the high- level military commanders.” A great example of this is the battle at Charlie’s point where a peaceful Vietnamese village gets destroyed in order for the military personnel to surf at the beach. Another example of this is the bridge between Cambodia and Vietnam where the soldiers are without a commanding officer and are doing whatever they want. Another reason I believe that it is more of an anti-war film is because the Americans are not portrayed as the good guys a lot of the times. The ideal image is, “the Americans are the good guys, and the Vietcong are bad guys, and the peasants and the frightened townsfolk’s who need protection and the rule of law.” From the book, The War about the War, by C. Cawley. When a helicopter landed to pick up an injured military personnel, at the battle at Charlie’s point, a civilian woman threw a grenade into the helicopter. The citizen and the town’s people were fighting us as well as the Vietcong. We obviously aren’t fighting to protect the people because they are fighting us. There are numerous other examples of why this movie is anti-war but, there are a few that support the pro-war. The best example is Kurtz being portrayed ad being correct in his judgment (F. Tomasula, the politics of ambivalence). The only way to stop the war was to drop the bombs, suggesting that we should be there but handle the situation differently than how it was being handled.

Posted by karp0040 at 11:20 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

The film Apocalypse Now can be viewed both as an anti-war and pro-war film depending on how you look at it. Tomasulo discusses the myth that this films structure doesn't require a consistent message because of the way it is perceived. According to Levi-Strauss, "the human mind would automatically categorize the film as either pro or anti-war and not allow us to comprehend it as both for and against the war." I found this film to be more an anti-war film because of all of the unnecessary casualties that took place. On the anti-war point of view, Tomasulo argued and suggested that the film was made “to put Vietnam behind them” (page 2). The soldiers in the film were dresses up like civilians and in turn many of them were killed for no reason. One thing that the film does though is it plays with the viewers mind by throwing out pro-war and anti-war tactics. As Cawley has stated in his article, "it is not even clear that any recent example of a 100 percent antimilitary, anti-imperialist film exists." In the past, people saw the wars as a positive thing because there was a main reason that we were going into battle. However, with the Vietnam War, this was not the case. Most Americans viewed the War as a very negative thing and thought it was completely unnecessary. The main reason why I found this movie to depict anti-war tactics was because of how they portrayed the American military men to kill innocent bystanders just because they were there. I did not exactly like this film but I definitely think that it was an anti-war film because of all of the tactics of the soldiers.

Posted by kapla137 at 11:06 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

I love the film apocalypse now. I've been a fan since I first saw it in High School. Beyond the unique cinematography( Which i loved) I believe that the film is probably the most accurate portrayal of the pitfalls of guerilla warfare on a macro scale and the contradictions and moral dilemmas that war has always presented. IN the film the renegade Colonel Kurtz is shown as probably the most competent and intelligent tactician there ever was. His military training background and accomplishments even go so far as the impress the elite adviser-pro Green beret officer "Captain Willard". But Kurtz has a falling out with the Army chain of command when Kurtz decides to apply the same sort of brutal tactics that the vietcong employ, only with a twisted pseudo-attention to discipline. Historically in the Vietnam war, particularly with the Green berets attached with ARVN units were photographed desecrating Vietcong bodies and even torturing VC/NVA personell. I remember hearing of men taking "trophies" where they would do things like cut off ears and cure and tan them like leather and wear them on a necklace. That tsort of thing that was conveniently left out of the John Wayne film "The Green Berets "... But I digress.

It was those sorts of terrorist tactics that Colonel Kurtz integrated into his fighting-force while also conducting cross -border raids into cambodia and Laos, and because of his effectiveness, the Army decided to try to remove him from power.
The interesting truth behind this is that the discussion to use off-the-record Montanyard civilians trained and equipped by green berets was going on in the Pentagon and the White House. If I remember correctly there actually were some ARVN troops escorted by Navy Seals that did just that, and some cases of U.S. Army, South Korean Army, Australian SAS, and Hac Boa with ARVN units actually conducting cross-border raids autonomously without upper level clearance. Which is strangely similar to the film, but even wierdier because these operations didn't become known until much later through congressional testimony.

There was a debate in the public sphere about just what level we would go to in order to win in Vietnam. Some said that we should pull the troops out. Others said that the United States and Allies should formally declare war and go to war with North Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos simultaneously using air strikes and para-troopers. Some even suggested deploying tactical nuclear weapons against the North Vietnam capital Hanoi.
What we actually did was something in between where we trained ARVN units to fight but also used U.S. troops to defend key cities and tactical stronghold, but also occasionally deploy troops in the field to root-out Vietcong in particular. That particular scenario wasn't discussed in Congress or at the dinner table but was really just a slow escalating follow things like the Tet offensive,the battle of Nah-Trang valley, and the Gulf of Tonkin incident.
I guess it's really easy to get stuck in a war that comes about through slow, gradual escalations. The VC/NVA basically lost every single battle they engaged in with a few small exceptions. But the U.S lost in the long run. I think that it's because at home we couldn't get agreement on whether to pull out or to declare total war that we lost the war.

Posted by gonza275 at 10:55 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Depending on how people view it, Apocalypse Now can either be viewed as having a pro or anti-war lesson. I think that it did not particularly do a specific job of standing as a pro or anti war film. Other than the overal mission to assassinate the evil Beret, the film had several parts that played outstanding roles, especially the horrific scene of attack on a village. In addition to this thought, it did not look like the American soldiers had any remorse for any member of the village during the major attack on the inhabitants.

On the anti-war point of view, Tomasulo argued and suggested that the film was made “to put Vietnam behind them” (page 2). This is true because the horrific scenes showed what it is like to attack a community where it is hard to distinguish the enemy from the innocent. Knowing that such thing actually took place and how purely immoral such attack seems, American people definitely had to feel ashamed of how evil the world would view them as.

On the pro-war point of view however, there was a big picture of the American soldiers fighting to eradicate the evil for the good of the Vietnamese people. Also there were some quick scenes inserted in the film with a purpose of suggesting that the American soldiers were fighting with a humane sense and for a greater good. For instance, during the major attack on a village, a wounded child was taken to a helicopter with the mother for treatment. These kinds of scenes are nothing but cliche of American soldiers in war films in general and did not weigh up to the fact that many innocent people were being killed. Therefore it is easy to see that the Apocalypse Now, no-matter what its main purpose, leaned more towards anti-war purpose.

Posted by onon0006 at 10:50 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Tomasulo talks about the anti-war and pro-war qualities of Apocalypse Now. Also he seems to focus in on Kurtz and Willard. While there is pro-war qualties to this film with Willard acting how he is trained and seeming more normal in his role overseas then when he is in the apartment back in the states, this film seems to be more focused on anti-war issues. Wihen Willard is home he is crazy. He says that when he was one place he wanted to be the other, which seemed fairly evident in this film, though he seemed to want to be overseas more then America. When they came in on the helicopters, the Captain in charge there wanted people to surf while they were being bombed. He seems to have also lost some sanity with the surfing and also when he is just walking while everyone else is ducking with incoming bombs.
Speaking of surfers, there is the one on the boat who seems to me to be the one losing it the most. He sits on the front of the boat doing his war paint different ways so that he blends in. He is on a boat and is in a situation where this is not quite a concern. Then when he gets the dog he continually brings it wherever he goes, including the war ground. When he is on the war ground he gets out of the trench, which made me think of All Quiet on the Western Front, where the lead character stands up in the end and dies. It seemed like at this point he had just no concern if he died. Later when they were attacked on the boat, someone dies and all he has to say is we have to go back and get the dog. And in the final part he becomes part of Kurtz army until Willard takes him away.
Kurtz is pyschotic as Tomasulo points out. All I could think about during this and most of the quest was Heart of Darkness. This character is someone who has gone slightly mental and has a following as he does it. This seems pretty strongly anti-war, in the sense that this movie illustrates what war does to people in different situations at different stages in their careers.

Posted by lile0005 at 10:47 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Margot Norris wrote, “Apocalypse Now's many surrealistic scenes and moments
forcefully convey the war's incomprehensibility. But by themselves they do not produce
an insight or recognition of Vietnam's significance for the American public, or a calculus
for its damage to America's moral life”, in her review of Francis Coppola’s Apocalypse Now. I disagree with her statement. The scenes are able to stand on their own and do not require the entire film to become surrealistic. For example, the scene at the beginning of the movie where the man drafted for war is expressing his inner turmoil by the viscous body movements and disturbing images also contributes to the significance of the American public. This scene represents a common reaction of anxiety and fear that was experienced by numerous men as a result of having to fight in the war. More importantly, this scene suggests the war is at fault for the crumbling moral of many men that make up American society.

In addition to this, the death and destruction of human life that is observed throughout numerous scenes can be linked to the negative effect on families and friends back home, which is also connected to the destruction of many American morals and values. The destruction of loved ones and of innocent life in general is burdening on not only those doing the fighting, but also on the entire American society. The movie’s anti war theme is prominent throughout and is indirectly connected to both the effect of the war on the American Public and also the damages done to the overall moral of American society.

Posted by munoz047 at 10:34 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Tomasulo points out two sides of an argument, saying that Apocalypse now is both an anti war and pro war film. He is, however, quite mistaken for the latter. One point he made that sticks out like a sore thumb was when he stated how the Americans continuous winnings in battle provide viewers with a victorious rush which is accentuated by the lack of concern for Vietnamese lives. The statement is wrong for a few reasons, one being that who won the fights depicted in the film was unknown most of the time. The battles were defined by complete chaos and confusion coming from both sides of attack. The US soldiers acheived no such victorious defeat that the American audience could feel good about.
A second reason is the Vietnamese village people caught in the crossfire were completely and utterly helpless. There were many shots where they did become individualized as human beings. During the most intense battle scene at Charlie's point there are Vietnamese women and children running in desperation away from explosions coming from every direction. The heartwrenching sounds of men screaming in pain are paired with those of hysterically crying babies. What about that could even hint at pro war? Tomasulo even went as far as to say that the scenes of distruction and death were "Awe-inspiring beauty," yea not so much. Another scene that moved me was when Vietnamese school children are jabbering and innocently playing outside in a courtyard when the bell sounds. A women does her best not to panick while she herds the children inside at an attempt to get them out of harm's way. It's a significant scene because after the battle At Charlie's point the audience realizes that in war no one has a better chance at life then anyone else, children included.
Apocalypse Now also showed the damage of the war in most of the main characters. Most of the individuals who we grew to know throughout the film were killed. When the first soldier was shot on the boat, his men cried for him while a recording of his mother payed in the background expecting him home soon. It depicted yet another brutality of the war, an anti war scene. Those who had obviously been around the fightng for quite some time went insane, their perception of the world ahd been turned upside down. Captain Willard was post traumatic, drinking himself to a bloody mess at the beginning. Colonel Kilgore was a little crazy, speaking of such breezy topics as surfing as those died in agony around him. Colonel Kurtz was... well he was far gone in every aspect, accepting horror as his friend. The Vietnamese war was destructive, unecessary, brutal, and chaotic, all of which was protrayed in the ant war film.

Posted by kolsu002 at 10:26 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

It most definitely is both an anti war film and a pro war film.
Why it is a pro war film? It is the comradery shown at the beginning of the movie. A young Lawerence Fishburn dancing around the boat, showing that he was having a good time. As a young man without the rules of society, as a young man living both an extremely dangerous yet carefree and silly existence. Dancing around the boat playing, with guns, getting a sun tan and surfing. The most pointless of hobbies; surfing and sun tanning are shown as glamorous wartime activities.
The horrors of war: the charred bodies of people, the stacks of people reminiscent of the holocaust, only they weren’t put their by Nazi’s, but by Americans. Copolla wanted to show the audience that we too are the monsters that we claim to fight and vanquish.
The director also tried to bring home the horror of the war. He does this in a clever way. When Willard is given the order to terminate the command of Kurtz, he is brought into a normal looking home. Just like a setting that you would have found in an average American home in the 1960’s. Comforting, familiar, heck the army even provided a ‘Sunday Dinner’ style meal. In this way the audience at the time would have felt at ease in the beginning of the movie and gotten more uncomfortable by the end. Brilliant.

Posted by byro0028 at 10:17 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

America’s involvement in the Vietnam War engrossed the entire nation, and it created dynamic responses from many. Frank Cappola’s film Apocalypse Now is a primary example of what was going on not only directly in the war but also what the nation was struggling with domestically. The film doesn’t bother to hide anything; it hits the viewer full force with the damages that the war had created.

Directly, the film shows the hardships of both the Americans and the Vietcong in the war; American soldiers struggled with a different kind of fighting and an unrecognized enemy, many struggled with why they were there, and were physically and mentally pushed to the limit. The people of Vietcong had been dealing with defending their country from occupation for a very long time, trying to maintain their culture and homes. Oblique meaning behind the film surfaces the reality of America itself. It not only touches on the twisted politics behind the war, but it also uncovers the idea that the imperialist goals of America’s “idealism is itself a fraud, a cover for the brute drives for power that dominate Americans as much as any people” (Hellmann 437). This can be seen particularly through Colonel Kurtz and his idealist actions. He creates an empire and is worshiped, despite his horrendous deeds and his brutality, and he continues until someone tries to knock him down. This, to many, can be seen in America and its attempts to occupy and conquer communism and anything that is tyrannical to American idealism.

Posted by riva0067 at 10:14 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

This week’s film Apocalypse Now was an amazing movie. The movie moved me in ways not any other movie has ever moved me. I had such immense feelings towards the actions played throughout the movie. I thoroughly enjoyed the movie, but in the end was outraged. No military procedure portrayed in the movie was necessary, nor was the force and brutality. The violence shown continuously through the movie was highly disturbing. In a quote pulled from the reading “The Politics of Ambivalence: Apocalypse Now as Prowar and Antiwar film” Tomasulo quotes “In some ways, Apocalypse Now shows the war not as immoral, only mishandled.” This thought is only partly correct. Indeed the war was largely mishandled, but it was also immoral. The war was wrongly conducted on many parts. The brutal violence was bad enough on its own, without the excessive malice the majority of every soldier showed towards the enemy. For instance, when the soldiers shoot and kill the Vietnamese woman and steal her puppy. Our when the colonel is merely letting water spill out of his canteen when the man dying on the ground next to him is merely asking for a sip. The was mishandled by the government and military as a whole, but was immoral on every account of the soldiers involved (as shown in the movie).

Posted by mcgui149 at 10:05 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Apocalypse now can be both pro and anti-war because its structure as a myth doesn't require a consistent message. Tomasulo discusses the myth as an interpretive grid through which audiences perceive the message, but the fact that it is through the viewers' paradigm and not an absolute textual reading allows for the message to be interpreted and re-interpreted. Tomasulo's summary of Levi-Strauss' perspective on binaries importantly feeds this argument because, according to Levi-Strauss, the human mind would automatically categorize the film as either pro or anti-war and not allow us to comprehend it as both for and against the war. The obvious madness of Kurtz is tempered by his extreme intelligence and the disarray of war is juxtaposed with the regimented army. The film thus does not serve as an absolute critique because it allows the viewer to justify otherwise unjustifiable behaviors. Even though on face the film seems to be anti-war, several components justify a pro-war reading. The battle scenes glorify the U.S., even as they destroy a civilian Vietnamese village. The depravity of "Charlie" is emphasized, but the corresponding horrors by Americans are ignored. "Good" and "evil" seem to be clearly identified in the main battles, but these labels seem to fall apart when applied to Kurtz's colony. Coppola seems to be playing with duality by questioning many binaries like good/evil, pro/anti (war) and "us"/"them". The complexity of war is reflected in the complexity of the films message, suggesting that binaries are not the correct paradigm of analysis.

Posted by vieir013 at 10:01 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

When I saw "Apocalypse Now" for the first time on Wednesday, I did not interpret the natives' actions at the end of the film as bowing down in worship, as the blog questions suggested. Rather, I viewed the bowing as a gesture of gratitude to the Captain for ridding them of their tyrannical leader, Kurtz. However, I find this other interpretation interesting. I believe that Captain Willard refused the role of deity to the natives' for several reasons. The first reason is the most practical. Given what the military decided to do the Kurtz when it was discovered that he had defected from the military and essentially went insane, it was prudent for Willard to go home in order to prevent an attempt on his life. Staying and becoming the new ruler of this tribe would have only increased the military's resolve to fix the situation. Secondly, Willard had seen first hand what had happened to Kurtz. Though Willard admired Kurtz, he realized that he had gone insane, and that his malarial fever had provoked him to commit atrocities that even Willard could not stomach. Having the decapitated head of Chef being plopped onto his lap while being bound for days was horrifying. It is unlikely that even a soldier like WIllard would've wanted to become that. Finally, I think the refusal of Willard to lead the natives' was a symbolic gesture on the part of Coppola against American Imperialism. The message of the film is that military involvement in other societies based on a dislike of their internal affairs (in this case economic) leads to unnecessary destruction and the most terrible of brutalities.

Posted by Melissa Green at 09:49 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

"Do you know what the man is saying? Do you? This is dialectics. It's very simple dialectics. One through nine, no maybes, no supposes, no fractions…OK? Dialectic logic is there's only love and hate, you either love somebody or you hate them." -- Photojournalist (played by Dennis Hopper in Apocalypse Now)

Are these thoughts simply the gibberish of a stark raving lunatic in a hallucinogenic nightmare, or is a hidden message to be found upon further reflection?

This concept of binary polarizations providing the structure of a given cultural myth is the same one Frank Tomaluso uses as a basis for his argument in this week’s reading. According to his analysis, the most important opposition we should be concerned with in our discourse on the links between popular culture and politics is that between the social imagination and reality. It is through myth that people have the ability to “justify the discrepancies between their society and the ideal image of it (146)”. He goes on to claim that that by presenting both ends of the spectrum on the issue of war in his film, Coppola is committing “ethical ‘fence sitting’” and is projecting an politically ambivalent message – going so far as reminding the reader of “a special spot in Hell for those who refused to take a stand and remained silent in times of moral crisis” (154). Not only is this rather harsh, but it is misguided.

I struggled to find a suitable response, but reading John Hellmann’s article helped connect the dots with some of the topics we discussed in our Film Noir unit. His interpretation of “the use of the hard-boiled detective formula as the structural, stylistic, and thematic center of the film” (430) brought to mind the moral ambiguity explored by the noir “genre” in counterpoint to the black and white ethical choices pushed in typical propaganda pieces. It is this ambiguity that Coppola is asking the viewer to contemplate, not merely a reflection of ambivalence as Tomaluso suggests. Both ends of the spectrum are woven together to offer the audience a chance to take an active role in coming to terms with the war and its place in the American experience. If one was to look closer at the film’s elements, it is fairly obvious which way the filmmaker leans, but that discussion can be saved for another entry.

Posted by skog0031 at 09:45 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

The reason Tomasulo describes this film as being potentially both pro and anti-war is because of the ambiguous approach it takes to the U.S. role in the war and the men on the ground who fought it. While Coppola certainly makes no effort to hide the brutality of the war and the often times culpable U.S. troops who perpetrated such violence, the story built up around the principal characters such as Willard, and through is eyes, Kurtz, serve to humanize the soldiers as well as . The dichotomy of Vietnam in this movie is that it is both violent, brutal, and wrong while at the same time seemingly celebrating the character, boldness, and gung-ho Americanism of its characters and, by extent, the American war effort. As Tomasulo points out, the representations of the confusion surrounding Vietnam and the horrors of war are focused on "America's suffering and self-doubt, rather than on the destruction wrought on Vietnam and its people." Thus, it is in reflecting on the self-destructive aspect of the war and showing, via Willard and Kurtz's inner struggles and descents into varying degrees of madness that the film is an "anti-war" film; it seemingly says that war brings out the worst in people and destroys not only the men who are fighting but by extension the "soul" of the United States as well.

Apart from the aforementioned pieces about promoting the image of a powerful, courageous America fighting the war, the film can also be seen as pro-war in that it follows the track of other films that portray Vietnam as a grand, if doomed, cause, in that it suggests that the war could have been won were it not for the bungling officers and strategists. As Tomasulo notes, this film was from its inception one with dual purposes and ambivalent messages, and at times does attempt to "have it both ways." In doing so, there are many elements that can indeed be interpreted as pro and anti-war, but this is probably what Coppola in part intended. While the film is certainly extremely relevant to the national process of coping with the legacy of Vietnam, Coppola's comments about the film and his intentions with it seem to suggest that there are indeed no easy answers regarding the war and all of its aspects. As Tomasulo concludes, the film is ultimately more of a form of national myth surrounding Vietnam than a historical analysis, but in that sense it serves a nonetheless important purpose of "putting the war behind us," of allowing the nation to come to grips with the conflict, despite, as the author points out, the historical inaccuracies and problems associated with such an act.

Posted by woitx002 at 09:27 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

I disagree with Tomasulo's assertion that Apocalypse Now is both a pro-war and an anti-war film. Apocalypse Now shows the unnecessary violence that was the Vietnam War. Tomasulo uses the "Charlie's Point" battle scene as an example of the pro-war message. This scene is in no way advocating war. The U.S military destroys a village for the sole reason that it has the best surf. To inflict that amount of destruction and devestation so they can surf gives a message that the war was based on ridiculous plans. Tomasulo suggests that showing the Vietcong fighting back justifies the attack. The initial reason remains and the scene simply shows the necessary attempts by the villagers to defend themselves from brutal attacks.

Tomasulo also suggests that Colonel Kurtz is portrayed simultaneously as a hero and a villan. He "became an outlaw to the generals" because he ordered the unauthorized execution of 4 suspected Vietnamese double agents. While it seems he was right about the accusations the killings were still portrayed as ruthless and unnecessary. Kurtz is shown as deranged and out of control and is never portrayed as a hero even with his multiple awards.

Posted by fran0723 at 09:17 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

First off I want to say that I really did not enjoy the film. The Film, “Apocalypse Now” can be considered a pro-war or ant-war film during the Vietnam War depending on how you perceived the film. I personally saw that film as an anti-war film as Tomasulo illustrated as one side of his argument. He explains that “Apocalypse Now” was produced “to put Vietnam behind them” (p.2). I do not completely agree with that statement it may have helped bring some closure to the war, but a war of that magnitude will never be forgotten.
One thing that really caught my eye that was the deciding factor in seeing the film as anti-war was how Francis Ford Coppola showed you how innocent civilians and children were killed due to the war. Playing devils advocate as we discussed in class the reason some civilians were killed was because the soldiers looked like all the other civilians. They did not have uniforms that distinctly separated them from the civilians. American soldiers thought anyone that would run from them was considered a soldier. Coppola was able to get his anti-war point across through his direction, but he did it in a mild manner.
Another thing that I found very interesting and noticeable about the film was how it was not a gory as other war films that I have seen in the past, “Saving Private Ryan” being an example that comes to mind. Some may perceive this film as anti-war or pro-war, but I truly believe that the film was produced to allow people to see everything that was happing in the front lines, hoping that people would believe war only leads to negative outcomes.

Posted by campb503 at 09:13 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

I would say that this week's film is an anti-war film. I can definitely see how it may be seen as a pro-war film as well however. Perhaps as Cawley has stated in his article, "it is not even clear that any recent example of a 100 percent antimilitary, anti-imperialist film exists." Wars that had been fought in the past were seen positively because people believed there was just cause for the wars and that they served their respective purposes. However, in the case of the Vietnam War, this cannot really be said. The American people remember the war in a very negative way. There was destruction of not only Vietnam, but many Americans also lost their lives in the war. I would say that this film is in fact anti-war simply because of the way in which the war is depicted. American soldiers are seen killing innocent civilians among the many other realities of war that are shown in the film. It did not portray a sense of heroism at all and in fact made many Americans feel shame in that it was their country committing such atrocities. Perhaps the film attempted to reconcile "the country to its first defeat in war." This is poorly done however. For one, simply because defeat is never easy to accept, whether the first time around or the tenth. Secondly, it is not successful in reconciling the country to defeat because of how positively past wars had been seen by the American public; it was not going to be easy to accept defeat after having been the big shot winners in the world. Prior Hollywood war films had portrayed "war as an arena for the display of a man's ferocity, courage, capacity for sacrifice, altruism, and the like" (Cawley). Examples of this are Sahara and similar films which gained much popularity in their respective times. Apocalypse Now did not show this same display of war as a means of showing courage and proving oneself. Rather, war is seen negatively and the many cruelties of war are accurately portrayed.

Posted by mahmo024 at 09:09 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Margot Norris explains in “Modernism and Vietnam: Francis Ford Coppola’s Apocalypse Now” that “Apocalypse Now's many surrealistic scenes and moments forcefully convey the war's incomprehensibility. But by themselves they do not produce an insight or recognition of Vietnam's significance for the American public, or a calculus for its damage to America's moral life”. This truly did seem to be the case in this film in that this was my first time watching Apocalypse Now, and yet it gave me a different understanding of the war in Vietnam. Many of the scenes were extraordinarily surreal and some were so vulgar that they were almost incomprehensible. An example of this is what Norris refers to as the film’s “puppy-sampan scene”. This was a scene that stood out in my mind as being just one of the war’s common cruelties. Norris explains this scene as the PBR boat’s routine inspection of a “peaceful sampan” (key word: peaceful) that turns into a massacre of men, a woman, and almost a puppy. The ironic part about this scene is that it did in fact look like a peaceful, harmless sampan and ended up being just that, while they were all brutally shot and killed. The woman was shot while attempting to save the puppy from the men, which Norris illustrates as signifying “the heart-searing images of slain infants at My Lai”. I think it is interesting that Norris compared the puppy to the countless infants’ lives lost in the war because when I saw how the puppy was rescued and taken care of, I thought that it was not a fair depiction. It would have made more sense to me to have had shown the puppy shot and killed during the whole ordeal and then depicting the sorrowful aftermath. After all, that was the only thing left in the aftermath of Vietnam – sorrow. There was nothing hopeful or exciting (such feelings that a puppy brings) about this war. Having lived through and experiencing a war first hand, the one thing that was going through my mind during that entire scene that brought tears to my eyes was thinking – how would you feel if foreign people came into your country, on your land, and sailed through your waters and thought themselves to have the audacity and the power to tell you how to live? To stop you dead in your tracks as you are going about your everyday lives and get on your boat and tear the entire thing apart while “searching” you. Who and what gives them the right to do that on your land? There is nothing that makes me more irate than this mentality – ethnocentrism at it’s best.

-Hasti Fashandi

Posted by fash0016 at 09:02 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

The video Apocalypse Now did and excellent job portraying the actuality of the war in Vietnam. The American troops were not portrayed as being heroic or patriotic, but instead as desperate and rather savage. American forces were shown attacking places without regard to the safety of the citizens living in them and without proper prior planning. Also the American troops did not seem like the types of people I would expect to be fighting in the war. Instead they were cooks and surfers who seemed to have been just thrust into the war. These soldiers were under trained. As was shown with the stopping of the Vietnamese boat the soldiers were jumpy and inexperienced. They did not have the training to interact with the Vietnamese people in a way that would prevent conflict.
The thing I found most shocking about the video was how the leadership of the American forces were portrayed. The movie portrayed the American military leadership as incompetent, as well as insecure and spiteful. The American leadership was following tactics that were simply not working. Despite this they continued to follow these strategies regardless of their ineffectiveness. If any leader followed different tactics, even if they were successful, they were frowned upon and pressure was placed on them to return to the old ineffective strategies. When this failed the commanders not following the “assigned” strategies continued doing as they wished they were discredited or removed.
The psychological effects of the Vietnam War were also an important factor of this film. The American people did not understand what was going on in the lives of those who were suffering post traumatic stress syndrome. This video in a way showed what was going on in the lives of the returned soldiers, allowing people to see why the soldiers were so affected by the war.
This film was against the war in Vietnam. It showed troops fighting without proper planning and without a well laid out battle plan. It also portrayed the American leadership as incompetent, following a strategy for making Vietnam a democracy that was inadequate. It showed how Vietnam had been occupied many times before, and how this to them was just another in a long line of foreign occupations they had to fight against. The people of the time knew that the Vietnam people did not want to be occupied and that the more troops we sent to help them, the more unhappy they became.

Posted by andre368 at 08:59 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

The world is coming to an end and what are you going to do? Kill a vietnamese woman and take her puppy. This movie had a large emotional effect on me, and that usually doesn't happen. About the time that the two soldiers were fighting over the puppy I felt the urge to leave. This film portrays the lonliness and the hatred involved in war. Even in a room full of people I felt alone. I'm sure this is one of the things the director tried to portray in his movie, the lonliness of war. If the world were coming to an end it would make sense to go out in a blaze of glory. This movie also showed the de-evolution from common man getting an assignment for assasination to the primal urges of murder and greed. In vietnam the world ends while nobody knows. For them apolypse happened Now.

Posted by Chris Lewis at 08:58 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Apocalypse Now is a startling movie detailing the madness that accompanies war. Francis Ford Coppola made a gripping war film about the senselessness of war itself, a metaphorical decent into hell paralleled by Willard's journey up the river. While mainly showing the war and the myths that accompany it in an unfavorable light, some of the conventions of those myths are upheld in the film. In one of the film's most famous scene's the audience is shown the insanity of the American John Wayne myth, that of the man, the leader who could stand alone and charge any hill. Colonel Bill Kilgore, played by Robert Duvall, is dressed both as a cowboy, with his hat, and a cavalry general akin to Custer. He is, however, quite crazy and orders a napalm strike, so he can surf the newly captured beach free from sniper fire. The depredation of the gung-ho American warrior shown here is quite explicit. This disparaging outlook is somewhat nullified by the actual plot of the film. Willard is one a solo mission to assassinate Kurtz. While he has companions for some of the journey, he is operating alone outside of a combat company. This only reinforces the "myth of the solitary combatant and lonesome cowboy" that Cawley describes. Cawley speaks of the war as only another expansion of the American frontier, once more American conflict is depicted as a fight between the righteous white man and the evil colored race. The depiction of Kilgore does much to dispel this image of the Rough Rider by showing how ludicrous it is. The film fails to completely disentangle itself from this myth, however, since its main character is on a mission that inherently fits within this myth.

Posted by drey0022 at 08:36 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

The film “Apocalypse Now” is depicted as a film that could either be seen as a pro-war or anti-war. I found it hard to distinguish the difference between these two in this film; it was more about the war rather than judging it. Another aspect that I thought about the film was that it didn’t show the patriotism that the previous films about the Second World War showed.
I thought that the Vietnam War was a war that was clearly lost by the Americans. I was not aware, as I am from Britain, that most Americans did not know why they were involved in the war. Tomasulo writes in "The Politics of Ambilvalence" that "In some ways, Apocalypse Now shows the war not as immoral, only mishandled. It may be saying that had Americans made war with the passion of Colonel Kilgore, the cool of Captain Willard, and the brutal honesty of Colonel Kurtz, the United States would have won" (Tomasulo, 141)
Overall, I thought it was a good film that touched on many good subjects but was not as convincing as the previous World War II films.

Posted by culve018 at 08:34 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Apocalypse Now can be seen as an anti-war film. It was released five years after the war was over in 1975 as it imitates the war atmosphere in Vietnam. This film visually illustrates all my thoughts on how the Vietnam War was like. The director, Francis Ford Coppola, made sure that we witness innocent civilians being killed, children bodies being thrown away like garbage, and destroying whatever land they set camp in. Margot Norris identifies a scene in the movie and states, “When Willard dispatches the wounded woman with a shot--as though euthanizing an animal--the military machine's brutality loses all hypocritical ideological cover and becomes narrativizable and visualizable as pure murder, a shadow of the historical My Lai massacre.” This film sent out a message to many as it depicts that fact that we should have opposed this war from the start, as it only brought death to many soldiers and civilians. I do not agree with Tomasulo’s comment on how Apocalypse Now should help America put the war behind us. This film is just a constant reminder of the catastrophe and horridness war in Vietnam was like. I may speak for myself, but it was just sickening to watch people and soldiers being killed for a reason that was unclear. Throughout this film, the soldiers are seen having psychological episode. Complaining that they not want to be here, creating a cult in the middle of Cambodia, and being stuck in a room breaking mirrors. Even today you hear about soldiers still dramatized by the horror. I have read numerous articles on the long term effects of the war in Vietnam brought to the soldiers. My 11th garde English teacher told us stories of his brother being drafted into the war and coming home very frantic and unable to sleep because of constant nightmares. Even when they returned, the American people turned on them. Not feeling wanted in Vietnam and in America had to be hard. Throughout this film, an anti-war theme is noted to my belief and I would only assume that Coppola was leaning towards that direction.

Posted by Anthony Zerka at 08:31 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Apocalypse Now was one of the most psychotic and worst films that I have ever seen. The story line was outrageous, very sick and twisted. It is interesting that the writer did not portray a factual story, instead he created a very imaginative story with many did different angles and odd events.
The idea of American ‘myth making’ when it comes to films abut the war in Vietnam holds true when you look at this film. The war in Vietnam should not have happened and history says that the U.S. lost the war in Vietnam. Hollywood needed to promote the war in Vietnam and make the public believe that the U.S. was there for a good reason and that we were winning the war. Hollywood also tried these tactics during WWII in the film Sahara. In Apocalypse Now the writers portrayed the American soldiers as hard-ass soldiers who went surfing during combat and completely destroyed the opposition. They also portrayed the U.S. as very helpful and caring, in a way, to the people that they killed and injured. The film plays into the myth in the way that they portrayed the U.S. in combat, but the part of the storyline about the cult does not feed into the myth. That part of the film throws me.
The film is both pro and anti war for the same reasons why it fits and does not fit into the myth. I think the film writers tried to make the film anti-war. By making the soldiers surf and the cult that is formed deep in the jungle by a very renowned General in the military.
I think the film does a good job of showing the effects of war on the human mind and soul. It shows how harsh the effects of war on humans by the way that they portrayed the General being in control of his cult.

Posted by hanl0083 at 08:30 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Tomasulo suggests that ‘Apocalypse Now’ could be viewed as both a pro-war and anti-war film. After watching the film I have to say I disagree that Apocalypse Now is both a pro-war and anti-war film. Tomasulo explains that Apocalypse Now was made “to assist in putting Vietnam behind them” (pp. 2). A film that is created to help the country put the war behind them, should not contain graphic images of the brutal components behind the war, if the film was intended to be an anti-war film. The soldiers in the film were casually killing innocent people and this is not the way to demonstrate an anti-war film. The film however was a pro-war film thanks to these graphic scenes. Throughout the film we see many battles, where Americans were killing peaceful people as if it was just part of their job and meant nothing. This indicates the pro-war realism. At the time of the war soldiers fought to protect their country in any possible way, and in the film this did not change. As a citizen today I cannot see how killing innocent Vietnamese people could represent an anti-war film. It is obvious that the film was a pro war film, but only a pro war film.

Posted by campb503 at 08:29 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

The film, Apocalypse Now, could have been both a pro-war or an anti-war movie depending on how people would take the film. Personally I thought the film showed more of an anti-war theme rather than supporting the war like Tomasulo believed in. I thought the film showed lots of violent scenes and illustrated the reality of war which made me lean more towards being "against the war" rather than supporting the war. I don't know if it was a good idea for the film producer and the directors to show lots of violent scenes just because i thought this could have created more hate and grudge instead of leaving the past behind them. Also there were some scenes where we saw soldiers doing drugs and flirting around with the girls during the war instead of committing to what they were trying to accomplish - there were several actions which conflicted with the rules of war which I thought it was a bad example of representing your own country. Many innocent lives were taken away from this war and i thought it was quite disgusting to see lots soldiers doing the wrong things and killing people when they felt like it. I still don't know how Tomasulo would have thought that this film could be a pro-war film, but in my mind, it was definitely an anti-war film just because i didn't see any scenes where i thought i would consider this film as a pro-war film and after watching the film, i strongly felt that "war" in general only creates hate and anger, which is exactly what people don't want to have.

Posted by katay007 at 08:01 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Apocalypse Now is an overwhelmingly anti-war movie. I was going to write that it is also an anti-American movie but this is not the case as we can see through the portrayal of Willard and most of the men on his boat who are simply trying to fullfill their duties and nothing more or less. Also Kurtz, while portrayed as crazy, is highly-idolized by his minions even though he, too, is an American. More accurately, it is a anti-Vietnam war film which some mistakenly translate to mean anti-American as America was the major force behind the Vietnam war. There is nothing in this entire film that suggests war is a good thing or that America was right to get involved in Vietnam. All we see in the whole film is a lot unnecessary violence, a lot of death, destruction, and people going crazy.

Frank Tomasulo argues that the film is both anti-war and pro-war. He has two major pro-war arguments. He claims the attack at the so-called Charlie's Point was meant to inspire a patriotic, gung-ho response from the viewers. By using overhead cameras to show the Vietnamese as faceless and tiny, Ford shows them as unimportant, Tomasulo argues. Furthermore, the usage of Wagner's "triumphant" "March of the Valkyries" is meant to inspire more patriotism from American viewers. I disagree with Tomasulo on both these points. The music seems to show how Americans trivialize the war. Furthermore, while Coppola was intending to show the Vietnamese as faceless and tiny, he was only doing so to further explain how American soldiers, especially Kilgore, belittled and disregarded the Vietnamese.

As for Tomasulo's second argument, he claims that Kurtz is shown only as a hero and that he is potrayed as correct. While this may be true, we have to consider what has happened to Kurtz. At first Kurtz had an "impressive career", he was being molded into a future general or someone of equal importance, he was a highly valued American soldier. Yet the film focuses on Willard's journey to find and kill Kurtz on a government mission. Clearly, the American government is no longer impressed with Kurtz, the man who is being constantly idolized throughout the film, and wants him gone. Willard even notices at the end just how different Kurtz is from the men who want him dead. Kurtz is idolized because he's not like the rest of the American government, so to argue that this is a pro-war stance is completely off-base: Apocalypse Now is a decidedly anti-war film.

Posted by bergm150 at 07:56 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Francis Capolla’s Apocalypse Now is a rather bizarre film, but has the best portrait of Vietnam War I’ve seen. The strange detail that messes with your mind in the beginning is how they don’t roll through any sort of credits or title, so one doesn’t know if they are actually watching the film already or just previews. This sets the mood for the rest of the film with a sense of symbolism with the wide non-conclusive opening into the film. Throughout this film there lies a kind of openness that can infuriate a viewer of the film, because it makes no conclusions or inferences about the war. Apocalypse gyrates around that idea of violence and fear of the Vietnam War.

During the Helicopter attack over the village you can see the pain and anguish in their face before they even take off. They know that they are going into a huge attack and no one knows what to come of it, especially when one of the captains of a helicopter uses music as they enter to scare the Vietnamese. One senses fear during the attack, when they tell the Seargant, “It’s still pretty hair out there.” And the Seargant tells them, “You either surf or fight?” He’s all about the rest and relaxation when fighting which I feel is rather weird, especially when they are bombing the living daylights out of the village. I guess he’s more about having fun while fighting than living, because he’s wants to surf while the others are hiding in their holes.

In Leo Cawley, The War about the War, he explains that in films that have a more promilitary slant, there is a heavy reliance on a “war is hell” message until…the Rambo and Chuck Norris part of the war becomes exciting and fun, but because of the political spectrum of attitudes towards the war is oddly uninformative. Much more is going on (2001). This is exactly what is going on in Apocalypse Now, because they are having their fun, but this fun has a much deeper meaning that I couldn’t figure out. This is why I leave someone with this question…What’s the deeper meaning of this fun of surfing during a live battle in a village?!?

Posted by carr0445 at 07:37 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Since the dawn of cinema, countless war films have been produced and viewed by all nations across the world. America’s war cinematography ranges from Sahara to Apocalypse Now to Saving Private Ryan. If one were to watch such war films one can often get the sense of attitude that the American public had for war. In the earlier part of the 20th century when the film industry was just blossoming, a lot of pro America-going-to-war films were produced. What I mean is often the situation portrays Americans as the defenders of freedom fighting evil and corruption throughout the world. Characteristically these types of movies always spread the notion that war is good, American’s should do everything within their power to help in the war effort whether that be fighting on the front lines, recycling metal to build tanks or even just being patriotic. War films for this era glorified war. Basically implying that all U.S. soldiers are honorable, fighting by the rules and that at the end of the day everything will be all right. The Vietnam War changed that impression greatly. The change in attitude towards war films and war itself really actually started to change during the cold war; Dr. Strangelove being an appropriate example. Before this the American public just believed everything that their government told them and smiled. Due to the unpopularity of these wars films became more antiwar leaning. The main characters Captain Benjamin L. Willard and Colonel Walter E. Krutz show that U.S. soldiers and warfare is not what it’s all cracked up to be! Emotions run high; war is portrayed in a darker lens than it was in Sahara. Characters must choose what is right and what is wrong within the film. It is clear that war messes with a man’s psyche and that glory and honor cannot always be achieved. Coppola does an excellent job of the pain and struggle of warfare. Overall I enjoyed this film more than that of Sahara due to its accuracy of warfare.

Posted by dhill004 at 07:32 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)