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 9:07 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (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) | TrackBacks (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) | TrackBacks (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) | TrackBacks (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) | TrackBacks (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) | TrackBacks (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) | TrackBacks (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) | TrackBacks (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) | TrackBacks (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) | TrackBacks (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) | TrackBacks (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) | TrackBacks (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) | TrackBacks (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 9:49 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (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 9:45 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (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 9:17 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (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 9:13 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (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 9:02 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (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 8:59 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (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 8:58 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (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 8:36 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (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 8:34 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (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 8:31 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (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 8:30 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (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 8:29 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (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 8:01 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (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 7:56 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (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 7:37 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (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 7:32 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

“Apocalypse Now� is a hugely important film in how it portrays America and American ideologies during the Vietnam War. The film shows the effects of napalm on the countryside, bullet-laden villagers and psychologically confused soldiers. Director Francis Ford Coppola used this film as a social commentary on U.S. imperialism and American Exceptionalism, both of which were present during the war in Vietnam. Tomasulo argues the film is both pro- and anti-war because of the ambivalence of the U.S. people surrounding the war. Yet, I would argue against this statement because that ambivalence turned into strong opposition when Americans saw the reality of the war. With the first televised war came an outpouring of war protests and anti-war films, songs and attitudes.

Tomasulo uses the title, “Apocalypse Now,� as an example of the film’s pro-war side because it envisages destruction (p. 149). The title, in the context of the entire film, would seem to lend itself more to the destruction caused to the people (soldiers and Vietnamese), the environment (jungles and Army base life) and Social Gospel values of equality, freedom and sense of community. The village of Charlie’s Point, full of children, is annihilated by American soldiers with glee. The terrain and jungles are destroyed by tons of bombs and napalm. Soldiers are forced in tiny boats, crowded USO arenas and thick jungles. Vietnamese people are trying to fight who they consider oppressors, while American soldiers can’t decipher who is the enemy. None of this is making a pro-war statement. Tomasulo argues the scene involving the village on Charlie’s Point “excites the viewer viscerally� and “glorifies war and its godlike heroes� (p. 149). Yet, the scene seems to showcase the psychological disconnect from the helicopters flying above the village and the villagers’ simple lives below. Tomasulo’s “gung ho response� of the helicopters depicts Americans as eager to kill and conquer than bring democracy and freedom. America takes on the role of international bully and comes across as self-aggrandizing, just as the government led Americans to believe we could win any war that we involved ourselves in. Tomasulo seems read “Apocalypse Now� as a pro-war film from the perspective of a Hawk. Yet, the film does allow Americans to place the Vietnam War behind them, from an anti-war perspective, because it acknowledges the missteps and blunders caused by the American government instead of trying to forget.

Posted by Candice Dehnbostel at 7:26 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Francis Ford Coppola’s “Apocalypse Now� has been depicted both as a pro-war film (Tomasulo) as well as an anti-war film. However, the argument could be made that the film was neither pro – war nor anti – war, but rather just anti – "War in Vietnam". Dissimilar to World War I and II, which were viewed as patriotic and just, the Vietnam War has forever been rife with conflict. It was the longest and most detested war in American history. Fifty-eight thousand American soldiers lost their lives and the Vietnamese people suffered irreparable damage. The nation was in turmoil and could not comprehend why their sons, fathers, uncles etc. were being shipped overseas to fight a war that wasn’t theirs to fight.
Scenes like the one in which American soldiers were encouraging one another while they opened fire on Vietnamese women and children "depict[ed] the absurdity and outright lunacy of America's Vietnam policies� (Tomasulo). These grotesque scenes of violence helped depict the mass confusion that occurred both on the battle field as well as in the war room. The deterioration of Captain Willard’s psyche, for example, could be viewed as a metaphor for the breaking down of American military strategy in Vietnam.
Because the Vietnam War, both on the battle field as well as the home front, was unlike any other war in American history, the argument remains whether Coppola was making a statement against war in general, or rather a statement against the War in Vietnam. His depiction of the actions of American soldiers in Vietnam suggests that the film called into question the Vietnam War rather than all wars.

Ian Bell

Posted by bellx236 at 7:19 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Apocalypse Now was filmed after America had withdrew from the Vietnam conflict with Coppola’s stated intent of helping the American public move past and let go. The conflicting sounds, plots and images in the film are read as both pro and anti war by Frank Tomasulo. While there were same contradictory aspects of the film it was a heavily tilted pro war piece.
The “strong evidence of the film’s anti war stance� he cites seem more commentary on specific aspects of the conflict than a denunciation of war (Tomasulo 152). There were strong images of human suffering, destruction of peace/beauty, selfish pursuits at great costs and absurd military antics that may cause one to question the Vietnam War. These do not add up to an anti war stance. While they succeed in making war look unpleasant and inefficient, not many would argue that war is a pleasurable or particularly economical pursuit.
In contrast there was an abundance of scenes that aestheticized military strength and individual effort. The central figure was an anti-hero in his alcoholic renegade style that ultimately rejected the original authority that sent him on the mission, but still supported destructive conflict resolution. Virtually all the crew of the boat perished; there was little remorse or empathy. Chef’s beheading stirred more feelings of revulsion as it stared unseeing in Willard’s lap than bereavement. The film’s treatment of Colonel Kurtz was most telling, showing him as “correct in all his judgments� (Tomasulo 150). He was shown as an admirable man who had stumbled onto a truth he could not reconcile with his ideology. The film reinforced his notion that war is an admirable pursuit if it is fought with passion for the right reasons.
This film may have attained the original goal of allowing American’s to reconcile their ideology with the quagmire that was the Vietnam War. It allowed people to imagine they had some understanding of the atrocities that were committed, absolved them of responsibility for the war’s mismanagement, permitted them to still have faith in American military strength and the necessity of war to the human existence. The film is vague enough to let people read it in a way that need not contradict their views.

Works Cited
Tomasulo, Frank P. “The Politics of Ambivalence: Apocalypse Now as Prowar and Antiwar film� in Linda Dittmar and Gene Michaud (eds.) From Hanoi to Hollywood: The Vietnam War in American Film (Rutgers University Press, 1991) pp. 145-158

Nyssa Shawstad

Posted by shaw0139 at 7:07 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

"Apocalypse Now" is a great movie depicting some of the atrocities and horrors of war, including physical acts of violence as well as the mental torture many people suffer through in such situations. I do not understand how Coppola could have produced this movie with the intention of using it to help people put Vietnam behind them. If the actual war were anywhere near as gritty and psychologically distressing as the movie made it seem (obviously the characters were a little too extreme to be considered convincing and realistic portrayals of actual military men), I would be (or rather, am) extremely upset. If the Vietnam war had ended just recently, this movie would simply bring it back to my attention as opposed to pushing it out of my mind. I think it is definitely an anti-war movie... Nothing about the movie seems to be "glorified" in a way that would inspire people. Even though Martin Sheen kills his target, he will not even be publicly recognized for his efforts... How demoralizing is that? And the lengths he went through to kill Kurtz... Being shot at, witnessing gruesome deaths, torture... All in the name of his country? It's a sad picture, and it is easy to empathize with Captain Willard and his decision on whether or not to kill Kurtz. I see very little in this movie to consider it a pro-war movie, and even less suggesting that the movie is intended to settle uneasiness among the public with Vietnam.

Posted by hanse978 at 6:46 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

The film “Apocalypse Now� is a film that seems to soften the political and emotional trauma of the Vietnam War. In this film it is noticeable that there is less gore than in many other war movies, especially those about the Vietnam War. For a war that was incredibly gruesome this film shows only a little bit of this gory nature. The film primarily focuses on the boat ride of Captain Willard and the crew. And they face only a little bit of actual combat. And the combat they do take part in is bloody, but it is not nearly as bad as it realistically would have been. Because the amount of gore is downplayed to such a large degree, this movie does seem to provide an emotional emollient. The film made the war not look quite as bad or as brutal as it actually was.

This is kind of ironic because the word ‘apocalypse’ blatantly means ‘any universal or widespread destruction or disaster’ according to dictionary.com. With the name of the film conveying widespread destruction or disaster, it is interesting that the film was not as focused on the widespread destruction of Vietnam and the disaster that was the Vietnam War.

Posted by Martine Schroeder at 5:50 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

In one of the reading, Tomasulo suggests that Apocalypse Now could be viewed as both anti-war and pro-war movie. By watching the entire film, I didn't get out even a slight suggestion that it's pro-war at all. During the entire film, I get the sense of the violence, horror, and inhumane running through my brain. I don't see why it could be pro-war at all. To me, it seems like the movie tries to show how the bloody Vietnam war made many Americans soldiers sacrificed their lives, being away their families for no purpose, but only killing innocent people and getting themselves into horrified dreams from the guilt from all the killings and mistaken missions. The soldiers during the Vietnam War didn't know their purpose for fighting; for freedom, democracy, or for nonstop violence and bloody murders of all the innocent Vietnamese civilians as well as lives of their own friends in the military? The movie brings to its audience the message of how wrong it was to have a war in Vietnam. During the helicopter attack, it looks like the U.S. was attacking a small village and killing innocent people like they were fighting in the war zone. The villagers are children who are listening to their teacher teaching them how to spell, how to read, and farmers who are harvesting their crops, taking care of their rice field. Even so, the soldiers on the helicopters had conversations like they are playing a shooting video game or rooting for a football team. One memorable scene in the movie represents the mistaken war in Vietnam is the scene of the boat on the river into the jungle, on its way to the jungle of Cambodia, encounters a small boat of the civilians of the river. The captain orders a search of the boat and they ends up killing all the people on the boat because they think they were some kind of enemy. The girl on the small boat just wanted to protect her puppy, that's why she moved during the search, then the soldiers freaked out and started firing at her. To me it was a picture painted to reflect the mistake of the U.S. government sending troops to Vietnam, and ending up killing innocents people there. It was trying promote peace and nonviolence. It is a statement of how wrong it is to have the War. Also, I think the biggest anti-war statement of this movie is being spoken at the tribe in the jungle of Cambodia. Willard was sent there to kill Colonel Kurt, who made himself a "God" at a Cambodian tribes in the jungle. Everybody there is under and follows his rules. Finally, Willard achieves his mission of assassinating Kurt, everyone in the tribes sees that and voluntarily put down their weapons. Here the films, in my opinion, wants to say no certain group of people wants to be ruled any particular foreigners, they just followed because they had to; what they really wants is peace, and their own people, with their own traditions and rules. People putting down their weapons says that they have wanted peace for so long, and that's what they should have. It is the message of peace and anti-violence which the movie wants to deliver to its audience, not the other way around.

Posted by truon052 at 5:04 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

The assumption that Apocalypse Now is both pro-war and anti-war in its “reading� is one I would like to address and refute. Tomasulo suggest this is deeply rooted in the ambivalent nature of the film’s co writers’ take on the military presence. This is something I believe is an assessment that is based on the prior works of Coppola’s previous work in Platoon and not this work. The film its self seems to veer more towards an anti war statement, there seems to be very little ambivalence in the representation of the area and our presence there. The landscape of the film is beautiful but is ravaged by sights of war and has a feeling of looming fear on the edges similar to the feel of film noir. The graphic nature of the extermination of the Vietnamese village at the “Charlie’s Point� battle is seen my Tomasulo as intended to instill a god like worship of the American forces, I believe that in this scene there is a godlessness in all the members associated. The victory of the faceless individuals from the overhead angle feels more like a conquering of something small and helpless then the defeat of a vicious enemy. This film is quoted by the director as a means to help the American public put the war in Vietnam behind them; however the film seems to instill a sense of rage and confusion about the situation as a whole. There is a definite anti war theme but it does not have a tone of finality or forward mobility which is necessary for resolution of an issue to occur.

Posted by swanx058 at 4:24 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

When I finished watching this film, I was awe struck at how this film could ever be considered a pro-war film. Needless to say, I disagree with Tomasulo’s article, suggesting that it is a pro-war and an anti-war film. There were points in the movie when I just got extremely upset and pissed off to say the least. One of these points is when Willard and his crew came across the Vietnamese boat filled with innocent civilians and his crew member opened up fire and shot them all. Tomasulo quotes the filmmaker saying, “Francis Ford Coppola made Apocalypse Now “to assist Americans in ‘putting Vietnam behind them� (2). How could this scene possibly help Americans in putting the war behind them!? This would only infuriate them and carve horrible images in their minds of the brutalities that made up the Vietnam War! It made me ashamed of my own country to watch a film that showed Americans killing people so casually, like it was an everyday occurrence. An example is the horrifying scene when the American troops opened fire on a peaceful village that only seconds before showed children laughing and playing without a care in the world. The Americans were casually talking and joking around with each other while they were brutally killing these people. Tomasulo mentions, “During the battle scene at “Charlie’s Point,� a peaceful Vietnamese village is destroyed, photographed so as to excite viewer viscerally and to glorify war and its godlike heroes� (5). I find this very far fetched. How is the massive killing of innocent children able to “glorify war and its godlike heroes�? I thought the so called “godlike heroes� were portrayed as dim-witted and dense, especially because they were destroying the village so that the soldiers could surf? Are you kidding me? I find Tomasulo’s arguments for why this film is pro-war very difficult to swallow and am not convinced at all that this is a pro-war and anti-war film.

Posted by ruff0046 at 3:55 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

After watching Apocalypse Now, I would have guessed that this movie was an anti-war movie. I was surprised after reading “The Politics of Ambivalence,� by Frank Tomasulo that he viewed Apocalypse Now as a pro-war movie. I am not sure which scene in the movie would provide anyone any motivation to participate or even support the war. I found the movie especially violent and disheartening. As Tomasulo stated, “Many scenes and cinematic techniques work to further a pro-military, pro-war interpretation . . . the film provides the American audience with a victorious rush . . .� None of the fighting scenes in the movie gave me a rush. In fact, I felt particularly embarrassed for our country and military because it appeared that all of the violence and killing was extremely gratuitous. The “Charlie’s Point� scene highlighted this unwarranted violence. Ironically, in Tomasulo’s article he described the battle scene as, “a peaceful Vietnamese village is destroyed, photographed so as to excite the viewer viscerally and to glorify war and its godlike heroes.� To be blunt, I thought every single American soldier was extremely dense. Why did they have to kill all these innocent human beings? To surf? I do not understand how any part of this movie could be considered pro-war as it left me feeling demoralized and confused about the decisions made by the military.

Posted by swens389 at 3:22 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

By: Elizabeth Bassett

Upon initiation of the Vietnam War, the United States went into an upheaval as many questioned the purpose of sacrificing the lives of American soldiers and innocent Vietnamese people through warfare. In order to gain closure and some sense of solace for the American people, filmmakers provided movies of the War in hopes of revealing the true purpose for engaging in combat and the actual happenings overseas. They also hoped to reveal the realities of war to many unaware individuals and provide an emotional emollient in a time of political and emotional trauma across the nation.
One movie produced during this time, Apocalypse Now, failed to fulfill many of the intended purposes of filmmakers of the time as it was based on the Vietnam conflict. Before watching a movie, one must first look at the title. In this case, the very title of Apocalypse Now speaks not only of the horrors of warfare, but the end of the world. This may have upset the American people more than provide comfort as it brought the war to a new level. Could this title reveal that the Vietnam War was simply the start of mass warfare or chaos worldwide? To me, it reveals desperation and sadness instead of consolace and sympathy as other movies of the time provided. To many Americans, it may have been a first glimpse of the horrors of warfare by showing the atrocities and death surrounding the conflict. Soldiers were not the only individuals at risk in this situation. One depiction of this in the movie was of the “PRB boat’s routine search of a peaceful sampan turns into a massacre less by inadvertence than from the pressure of the irrepressible violence� (Norris, 1998, p.2). Innocent lives of both soldiers and civilians were lost. Along with this, it also provided images of the terrain and extremely hot temperatures soldiers faced in Vietnam. Watching the hardships the troops were forced to endure may have struck pride in the hearts of some Americans as it illuminated the valor and toughness of the American boys. To others, it may have worsened the situation by showing the unhygienic, dirty, and muggy conditions that were considered normal in the Vietnam War. If anything, this movie left Americans continuing to question the validity and necessity of a war many in which many innocent lives were lost on all sides.
Apocalypse Now also contradicts the typical image of war films we as a society hold. Until that point, the United States had experienced victory in every war it had participated in as demonstrated in various films and stories throughout history. No resolutions were found in the Vietnam War, however, making it the only war we as a nation did not win. The movie portrayed Willard chugging back up the river at the end after killing Kurtz only to return to conflict and continued warfare instead of home to his family as seen in many war films. Many movies portray the United States military as a machine with all pieces greased, oiled, and running at the most optimal speed possible. Apocalype Now contradicted this image as it revealed holes in the United States armed forces. One example of this from the film was when Willard and his fellow boatmen stopped at an island in hopes of acquiring further information on Kurtz. Instead, Captain Willard found a rag-tag group of soldiers fighting with no particular semblance of order and no commanding officer to be found. “Another key feature of the film falsification of war is the importance of the individual, the solitary hero of American myth� (Cawley, 1987, p. 5). In this Captain Willard was the hero who received credit even though he was surrounded by a boat crew who took him to the innermost parts of the jungle in search of Kurtz. Although Willard was ultimately idolized, he would have been unable to accomplish his mission without his boat crew.

Posted by basse044 at 3:08 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

"Apocalypse Now" is a unique war movie in that it doesn't concentrate on specific and accurate accounts of battles, such as the Normandy Invasion in "Saving Private Ryan", or tells the story of a real life individual, such as in "Born on the Fourth of July". Instead, it focuses on what a war like the Vietnam War does to soldiers, which is done through the character development of Cpt. Willard and his Men as they travel via swiftboat up the Nung River into Cambodia to terminate an AWOL officer, Col. Kurtz, with "extreme prejudice." The film does an excellent job of allowing us civilians to see what the experience of war can do to a person. Lance, the happy and famous surfer in the beginning of the film, turns to drugs to numb the fear and pain he experiences in the war. Capt. Willard has been in combat for so long and seen so many horrible things that he doesn't seem to be able to function normally outside of a combat situation. In the opening scene, we see him going nuts in his apartment in Saigon, aching to go back into the jungle on a mission. Finally, we see what the war can do to even the most accomplished of individuals. Col Kurtz goes AWOL and starts a sort of kingdom of "pagan idolatry", of which he is the deity of many southeast asian natives and several US military personnel who came to see Kurtz's ways. As the movie progresses, we also see the violence of war as the men encounter resistance along their journey. Several of the crew are killed, which deeply impacts the surviving members. The film leaves the viewer (at least in my case) thanking god that I haven't been in a situation similar to the ones in the film, which is probably what Coppola was going for.

Although "Apocalypse Now" does a great job showing viewers the horrors of war, it completely avoids the historical notions of what a war film is like. Many war films before it, such as "Sahara", had clear delineation between the good and the bad sides, heroes and villains, and national pride and morale. It is very difficult to distinguish these characteristics in "Apocalypse Now". Col. Kurtz, Lt.Col. Kilgore, and Capt. Willard and his men cannot be easily described as "good" or "bad". Some are more innocent than others, but all have aspects of good and bad in them. By creating his characters this way, Coppola creates a much more realistic and poignant picture of war, which allows viewers to more accurately see what war is/was like.

Posted by smit1989 at 2:19 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

I love apocolypse now. This is my third viewing and love it each time I see it. One thing that somewhat humors me, and I was reminded of it as I watched the movie again is how brutally violent the ending is and how much people today make of violence in films. There has always been violence and sex in films, and the ending of this movie shows that briliantly. I don't watch alot of horror and gore movies, but the end scene, with the hacking of the bull and of Marlon Brando's character, has to be one of the most brutal in film history.

On the topic of whether or not Apocolypse now was both a pro- and anti-war film, I think it depends on what point of view you want to take. I personally think it was just a war movie, showing the brutality of war. It seemed like an honest take of what a soldier goes through in war, what decisions the generals and military leaders make, and how all soldiers react differently to being part of a war. The movie showed the corruption that was prevalent in the US military at the time, the rampant drug use that was rampant in vietnam, but also America as a whole in the 60's, and it showed how the war can have drastic affects on your mental being. I can't imagine living in a zone as seen in the area around the bridge that the boat crossed before reaching its end destination. That type of day and night brutality could make the most sane person go a bit loopy. I guess I am saying I don't particularly see the film as either pro- or anti-war, I just see it as a film that shows many sides of what went on in Vietnam.

Apocolypse Now to me was different than the two other war films we saw. Sahara was a propaganda film. It showed some brutality for example when the German officer shot the African soldier in the back, but for the most part it was rah rah, help America and its allies win the war. Dr. Strangelove was more anti-nuclear, anti-cold war, and was a farce showing the ineptitude of both the American and Russian leadership, and how farcical the cold war was if you really looked at what was going on. Apocolypse Now actually seemed to try and show you what war was like. Coppola tried to give you a somewhat honest idea of what went on in Vietnam, and what types of brutalities the American soldiers went through. I think each film did what it meant to do, and each was a sign of the era's for which they came out of. The 60's and 70's was a far more open-minded era than was that of the 40's and 50's, and the American population was far less innocent. I think the progression of film in general has showed us a broadening of American attitudes, and sensabilities, and these films are evident of this.

I don't see how anyone can see the Vietnam war as good for America, but it happened and its good to have films give us an idea of what took place. I am not saying Apocolypse Now is the gospel truth, it just gives us a sense of the brutality of war. Everytime I see Martin Sheen come out of the water prior to killing Marlon Brando I get a little creeped out. He just looks psychotic in that scene, just some great acting, and a great movie overall.

Posted by bela0003 at 1:51 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

I disagree with Tomasulo that Apocalypse Now is both pro-war and anti-war. I would say it is leaning more toward anti-war. I feel this way because the flim accentuates the negative sides to war and show the reality of what war is really like. The film showed the soldiers being "unprofessional" in doing drugs and other curricular activies. The flim does not hesitate to show people dying, which I think is very anti-war. I realize Coppola had the intention to make a flim that would help people put the war behind them however, I feel he was unsuccessful. Instead, he portrayed the reality and harshness of war to the viewers. It does not matter how Coppola intended the flim to be received, it matters how the viewers understand it and what they take away from it. To me, this flim was more anti-war than anything else.

Posted by pelt0071 at 1:15 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Matt Hobbs
Essay #8

Leo Cawley, in his article The War about the War: Vietnam Films and American Myth, points out the message of all pro military Vietnam films have a “heavy reliance on a ‘war is hell’ message� (Cawley, 69). While this may be true of many films, Apocalypse Now comes across far more with a message that war is just plain bizarre. It is entirely correct to look at this movie in terms of mythology, and if you want to go that route, as Crawley clearly does, in term of the American Mythos of war films, and analyze the different aspects it has there. Far more interesting about the film is how it is able to stretch beyond simply American myth, and depicts it using the elements of literary myth.
When I first saw this picture I was struck by how closely it resembled the Greek myths and plays of old. And while this film closely follows many of the rules that Crawley sets out, it drastically differs from other points that Crawley holds central t the American myth war film. Most notably Crawley says war films “show how trapped the country is in the perception of WWI� (Crawley, 70) and that “Americans themselves are better, friendlier than other nationalities, and want nothing selfish in their relations with foreigners� (Crawley 70). Both of these statements are incorrect when evaluation Apocalypse Now. The Americans, especially the ones in the war when Sheen arrives, are not represented to be the all-caring individuals. Look no further then the general Willard who leaves death cards around his victims so ‘Charley’ would no exactly which unit killed them.
I said that this film most closely resembles Greek myth, not American myth, and what I mean by that is this film is not so much a large picture of a war but series of bizarre encounters. The director is clearly aware of this as each locale that is visited is given it’s own aesthetic look and feel. From the warmth of the French dinner, to the rain drenched destroyed outpost, and the almost amusement park looking transportation company complete with a playboy bunny halftime show. This film is one that has many different encounters for Sheen, each completely isolated from the other and broken up by boat travel.
The film Apocalypse now is considered ground breaking, and rightfully so among war movies. But this isn’t so much because it falls into the trappings of American war films, but instead because it presents war as too unknown to fully understand. Too bizarre, to crazy to make sense.

Posted by hobb0041 at 1:01 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

I have never felt more confused, irritated, and uncomfortable about a film that I have watched than I did about Apocalypse Now. As we discussed in class, the Vietnam War was clearly a war America lost. I think the feelings of the American public towards the Vietnam War, the military, and it' s leaders were symbolized quite well by Coppola. America did not understand what it was doing in Vietnam, and many felt the actions of the Johnson and Nixon administration played politics with American lives. Apocalypse Now plays politics, in a way, with the audience with it's ping pong effect of playing both sides of the coin when it comes to it's depiction of war, the military, and the Vietnam society.

There are many examples of how Copolla illustrated America's concerns and lack of respect for it's involvement in Vietnam. One that stands out for me is the overly gung-ho Colonel Kilgore, who was the display of America's belief that it's military was all powerful. This belief in it's military might was what got the United States into trouble in the first place. 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). We see this in Kilgore's actions. His might and brutality were underscored by his belief that the world was essentially his oyster, and that his military machine was his tool to do his bidding. While leading an attack on the Vietnamese, it was more important for Kilgore to find a suitable spot to go surfing. The lunacy shown in this scene, as well as many others in Apocalypse Now illustrates how insane the situation in real life terms had become.

Even though there is a strong Anit-war sentiment in the film, I feel that Tomasulo is correct in his belief that Apocalypse Now was also a Prowar film. In the end of the film, Captain Willard carries out his mission, even though he may not have fully believed in his mission. His actions surprised me, as I thought the similarities between he and Kurtz were striking. Both were loners with no family ties and had little respect for command. After he dropped the knife he used to kill Kurtz and the Cambodian villagers did the same, I thought he was in a position to take over Kurtz's role as leader. In the end, Coppola seized the opportunity to show the American public's desire for victory when Willard gave the command to "drop the bomb" and "exterminate them all."

Posted by char0018 at 12:21 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

I disagree with Tomasulo’s argument in the Politics of Ambivalence reading where he claims that Apocalypse Now is both a prowar and an antiwar film. When watching the film, I found no part of it that made the war and the American soldiers look good in any way. Throughout the film, the American soldiers were portrayed as murderers that treated the Vietnamese brutally and immorally. In the middle of the film, there’s a scene that shows Vietnamese children peacefully going to school, and then the next scene the American soldiers arrive in helicopters ready to tear apart that town in order for Lance (a popular surfer) and other soldiers to surf. Tomasulo mentioned that this scene, which depicts the US winning a battle against the Vietnamese, is prowar because it “provides the American audience with a victorious rush that is accented by the lack of concern for Vietnamese lives� (Tomasulo, 149). When watching the film, at no time did I ever feel good about the US soldiers, including this scene. How could a scene that shows the US unnecessarily killing innocent lives, so the soldiers can entertain themselves with surfing, ever be something to be proud of and make one feel like the Vietnam War is something that should be continued? In fact, in my opinion this movie did the total opposite of what Tomasulo suggested. It made me feel really bad for the Vietnamese people, and embarrassed of being associated with the American soldiers that were participating in these murders.

Posted by clay0115 at 11:27 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

The complete and utter insanity of this movie captivated me. From the eccentric characters to the fantastic use of shadowed faces, the mood was constantly eerie, almost comical, and unpredictable.

While Captain Willard is on his mission to assassinate the supposedly insane Colonel Kurtz, we are introduced to a wide variety of lunatics. On the Patrol Boat, we meet the compassionate Navy boat commander, the sun-tanned California surfer, the chef, and the seventeen year old from South Bronx. On their journey they come across a Playmate show, which obviously has a poor result as soldiers begin to rush the stage. They also encounter Colonel Kilgore who is more interested in a surfing discussion than anything else while his AirCav unit launches an attack on a beach. Kilgore victoriously announces, “I love the smell of napalm in the morning,� while his men are surfing the hardly captured river by the beach. The blinding light caught by the camera portrays the confusion felt by Willard during this encounter. When they reach a large bridge under attack, Willard leaves the boat with Lance who is tripping on acid and carrying a puppy to look for the commanding officer only to learn that there is no commanding officer to be found. The use of lighting, or lack there of, makes the scene totally surreal while American soldiers attack in every direction without being able to see.

With the long anticipated introduction to Colonel Kurtz, the setting is indescribable. It is yet another surreal scene in which a psychotic photographer preaches the brilliance and greatness of Kurtz while stepping over severed heads and avoiding hanging bodies. Upon meeting Kurtz, Willard's silent obsession reaches its climax. Kurtz immediately knows the purpose of this visit and almost embraces it. He gives a long eerie speech about judgment defeating us in the end during which we can only see part of his face and Willard’s due to the shadows and strange lighting of the temple. According to Cawley, “American myth likes the enemy to be big and powerful and established.� This is a perfect description of Kurtz. He is physically the largest man at the outpost and has a huge influence on everyone around him. His power has captivated hundreds of men and he has built this extravagant setting for himself. The slaughtering of the water buffalo and Colonel Kuntz are fantastically juxtaposed at the end of the film. The shadows play a huge role in the visuals of both scenes while the villagers sacrifice the buffalo outside and Willard takes a machete to Kurtz in his chamber. The movie left me speechless. My thoughts were racing and they couldn’t be put into words. I thought it was fantastic.

Posted by weir0041 at 10:41 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

As we all know, “Apocalypse Now� could be defined as both a pro-war film and an anti-war film. It was more pro-war, however, especially in showing the spontaneous brutality of American soldiers towards the Vietnamese people. One strong situation in which the misuse of American power was shown was the boat scene on the river, where Willard and his crew shot down an innocent family.

More than that, however, this film was a prime manifestation of the strangeness of war, and the different ways that people coped and reacted with what they experienced in Vietnam. As Tomasulo puts it, this was “an abstract and philosophical cinematic meditation on good and evil, light and dark.� Kurtz was first mentioned as being the “evil� product that had somewhat been manufactured by his time in Vietnam, which is why he was set to be exterminated by Captain Willard, the necessary and default “good� who was to destroy Kurtz. Even in its cinematography, the themes of “light and dark� were demonstrated, especially in scenes surrounding the strange community that Kurtz has created.

As far as demonstrating what war was like to the American people, “Apocalypse Now� did accomplish that. However, it did not necessarily give citizens a sense of closure, and definitely not a sense of solace. Removing Willard and Kurtz from associations with good or evil, we remember Willard in the opening scenes of the movie, and his manic behavior, and we remember Kurtz and his “unsound methods.� With these things in mind, it is clear that Willard and Kurtz were almost on the same plane of psychological disarray. As Tomasulo also describes, “the growing similarity between Willard and Kurtz had been preordained from the beginning. Both men were defined as psychotic military officers from the outset.� With this opinion, it is clear that the film showed a drastic effect on anyone who went to war, so imbedded in these characters that American people would find it hard to believe that any such experience by their own troops could be obliterated from their pasts.

Posted by joh02361 at 10:20 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Apocalypse Now is primarily a “commentary on the American identity: not just the corrupted American reality, but the American self-concept of a unique national idealism is itself a fraud, a cover for the brute drives for power that dominate Americans as much as any people� (Hellman, 1982). While poignantly portrayed in the context of Vietnam, Apocalypse now is about much more than the specific circumstances and tragedies of the war. Tomasulo (2001) seems to lack an understanding of this, the pervasive message of the film, as he focuses on analyzing Apocalypse Now as a pro-war and/or anti-war film; the film is more than that. The film’s hard-boiled detective formula, as described by Hellman (1982), “undermines the one dependable source of American order, the idealistic self-concept embodied in the ‘pure’ motivation of the formula hero.�
If Coppola’s goal was to help the American public gain an understanding of the war or gain some sense of closure about what happen, it failed miserably. Rather than promoting understanding and closure, the film does a better job of presenting the confusion and tragedy of the war. In doing so, the film provokes an evaluation of oneself and the human condition. The horror forces the question “why?�
The answer lies in the audience’s identification with characters. The “passion of Colonel Kilgore, the cool of Captain Willard, and the brutal honesty of Colonel Kurtz� do not serve a pro-war ideology that the war was simply mishandled because it lacked such characters, as Tomasulo would contend. Rather, these characters are a catalyst for understanding human emotions and motives, a rude awakening for the audience to exam not just the immorality of Americans, but of all people. Watching Colonel Kilgore and his men attack to the tune of a triumphant musical score does indeed invoke feelings of exhilarating superiority, but the subsequent horror of the destruction and killing of innocents obliges the sickening disgust of such feelings and results in their examination.
In that sense, the film is a commentary on something much greater than the specifics of Vietnam, human morality.

Posted by mayxx145 at 11:07 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

I would 100% disagree with Tomasulo on Apocolypse Now being both a Pro-War and Anti-War film as he states in his article "The Politics of Ambivalence." No where in this movie is there any Pro-War message. Tomasulo states that "many scenes and cinematic techniques work to further a pro-military pro-war interpretation by showing the U.S. winning all the battles (179)�. The U.S may have won some battles but however the U.S soldier were portrayed as murderers, killing innocent people such as the Lady on the boat trying to get her puppy. U.S soldiers were seen a mercenaries, people who get paid to kill. No where in this movie was there any talk about freedom or and American flag on the battle field shown the honor of what we were fighting for. However what was shown was U.S soldiers surfing, beach parties, and playboy sponsored entertainment. During wars there are sponsored events for troops but U.S soldier were seen as reckless and irresponsible by rushing the stage. Apocolypse Now was clearly a message of Anti-war and a slap in the face to U.S soldiers but especially towards Pro-War advocates.
Apocolypse Now showed that U.S soldiers did not want to be involved in a war, they wanted to be back home. Apocolypse Now depicts the Vietnam War in a way that leaves a bad taste in your mouth. This film puts into perspective how pointless and destructive the war was to everyone involved. Finally I find it very hard to believe that there is any Pro-War message when the main character is Martin Sheen a well know far left liberal who is an Anti-War advocate.

Posted by towar003 at 9:44 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

In Hellman’s article, he talks about the various aspects of Apocalypse Now, focusing mainly on a concept called the hard-boiled detective formula. This idea is that the harsh city is slowly taking over the world, spreading its emptiness, corruption, and death. He describes Willard in terms of the American hard-boiled stereotype: “more sophisticated and cynical, descendant of the western hero, combining the tough attributes necessary for survival in his environment with a strict integrity based on a personal code of ethics.� (Hellman 430) Willard is portrayed more as an outsider observing everything that is going on in the war. He shows disgust at the way other soldiers view the war, like it’s just an extended vacation that they can do whatever they want on. Willard is taken back by the fact that the air captain is more concerned with surfing than with the lives of the Vietnamese on the beach. He sends a full on air strike just to be rid of them. Willard also shows distain for the protocol of the military. He sees how ridiculously the men follow orders and how they become paranoid with them. He starts to take matters into his own hands by killing the dying Vietnamese woman, who probably wouldn’t have made it anyways. He starts to transform more into a Kurtz character, becoming more and more cynical with each horror he witnesses.

Hellman also analyzes the journey of Captain Willard and how he comes to really see the world around him. Willard’s journey perfectly fits the genre in that “the hard boiled detective genre is generally understood to be a journey through a symbolic underworld, or hell, with an ultimate horror at the end providing a terrible illumination.� (Hellman 430) As the movie progresses, we really start to see the hell that was the Vietnam War. A depiction of this hell is most prevalent at the bridge scene. Here, all sense and reason are gone. It’s a place where ciaos reigns.

By focusing on Willard’s story, the viewer is able to see the struggle between duty and following orders against doing what you believe is right. He is fully immersed into all the controversy of the war, and by seeing what he sees, the audience is able to really understand what a disaster area Vietnam was at the time. His political and moral struggle is summed up in this quote from the movie said by Kurtz, “What do you call assassins who accuse assassins?� By the end of the movie we don’t know whether to think of Willard as a hero for completing his mission and doing his duty, or as an immoral monster too taken over by the jungle, both in the carnal sense and the wild, uncontrollable military.

Posted by kenne404 at 12:02 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Apocalypse Now can be viewed as a pro-war film as well as an anti-war film. The Tomasulo article points out how Apocalypse Now is pro-war due to the Americans dominating every battle, Col. Kilgore’s glorious victory over the small Vietnamese town, and the great Col. Kurtz who’s methods, deemed unsound by his superiors, are winning the war. The movie shows victory, bravery, and heroism, all of which make for a good pro-war movie. However, these ideas can easily be interpreted for the side of anti-war as well. The dominating of every battle could show the imperialistic way in which the United States approached Vietnam. Col. Kilgore’s glorious victory may not seem so glorious if you think of it as unnecessary murder for the sake of surfing, a seemingly unprofessional and self gratifying purpose. Another anti-war figure is that of Col. Kurtz not so much the man, but his situation. He is seemingly the only one killing the right people for the right reason’s and yet he is under arrest for his “unsound� judgment. This shows the corruption of the higher-ups in the war, such as Generals and even politicians. A fourth reason for the anti-war viewpoint is the killing of the innocent Vietnamese on the boat that was checked. They were minding their own business and cooperating with the sailors and then were unjustly massacred. So, due to the imperialism, murder, and corruption Apocalypse Now could be viewed as an anti-war film.

The idea of myth making in the film is played out in the way that the story never actually happened, but the ideas and morals taken away from the film do hold some sort of truth to them. There was never any secret mission to assassinate a crazy Colonel, but the emotions evoked throughout the telling of the story were present during the Vietnam war, such as mistrust for people of power, the hesitant conviction of the soldiers, and the unnecessary, possibly evil violence that consumed everyone involved.

This film evoked emotions that give better understanding to the viewer of what the war was like. It was violent and not always done by the book. Many innocent peoples lives were forever ruined, both American and Vietnamese.

Martin Sheen’s character did a very fine job of capturing the morale confusion during the war. He was never really sure what he would do to Col. Kurtz. He debated in his mind up until the last ten minutes of the movie what he was going to do when it came time to assassinated Col. Kurtz, just as no one during that time really knew what was going on.

Capt. Willard’s refusal to accept his new role as the new Kurtz is symbolic of the United States abdication of the responsibility they had to the atrocities that occurred during the war, just as Willard walks away from his responsibility to be the new leader.

Posted by nels5175 at 9:23 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

I disagree with Tomasulo when it's suggested that Apocalypse Now could be viewed both pro-war and anit-war. I think this film is one-sided and the side it is on is the anti-war side. It puts an emphasis on the harsh reality of what was happening in the war. It plays on the stresses that come with war; Colonel Kurtz, for example, loses his mind and kills people if he feels it to be necessary rather than following the rules of war. Also, while the war is going on, there were Playboy Bunnies visiting the soldiers. While the soldiers are off in Vietnam, they should be focusing on the reason they are there and what they should be accomplishing rather than getting a rise out of the entertainment. Another thing the soldiers were doing instead of their tasks, was that they were goofing off and smoking pot. This is not what should be happening. When the boat came up to the civilians, the soldiers were following protocal, inspecting their boat, making sure the papers were legitimate. But, then the soldiers panicked when the woman ran for the puppy and shot her, as well as the others on board. Innocent people died, not very pro-war. All of these examples are scenarios that can happen in real life, not just because it's a movie. But these examples are emphasized in this movie to get across the anti-war stance.

Posted by woehl007 at 9:15 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

I would strongly disagree with Tomasulo on Apocolypse Now being both a pro-war and anti-war film as he outlines in his article "The Politics of Ambivalence." It is clearly anti-war, and the only way it would create a pro-war attitude is in a twisted way in the minds of twisted people.

Tomasulo notes that "many scenes and cinematic techniques work to further a promilitary prowar interpretation by showing the U.S. winning all the battles." (179) While the U.S. may win all battles, several key soldiers die in a way that seems meaningless. For example, when one soldier gets killed by a spear, it started with the "enemy" shooting small, non-lethal wooden arrows. The encounter escalated and ultimately resulted in his death and neither side gaining anything. While it may be a thrilling scene in a movie, it does not create feelings to support this needless fighting. Tomasulo also notes that because "Kurtz is actually portrayed as correct in all his judgments" (180), it also supports a pro-war viewpoint and that the war was only unsuccessful because of the power hungry men who were in charge. This is also untrue. By creating this hero-like character, it doesn't support a pro-war attitude, but rather supports those who fought in it. It creates an appreciation for the soldiers who had to needlessly fight. While Apocalypse Now does convey a message that the soldiers who actually fought weren't all that bad and the war was thrilling and exhilarating, these messages do not serve any purpose of support of the war, but rather encourage support of those who were forced to fight the war.

Posted by marsh401 at 8:09 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Tomasulo quotes Coppola in saying that he made the film to help the American people put the war in Vietnam behind them. This may have been his intension, but it is not what materialized. Apocalypse Now is an anti-war film that does not help the viewers put the war behind themselves. What the film does is to help them grasp the insanity of war and pointlessness of the “Vietnam Conflict�. The intentions of a film’s creator really don’t matter. What does matter is the way the audience interprets the film. As was noted in another student’s blog, Apocalypse Now shows much more than the news reporters of the time were able to show during the war. The reason behind this is the narration associated with Charlie Sheen’s character Captain Willard. Throughout the movie he’s able to express via narration what is going through his mind. As the film progresses, Captain Willard becomes more insane and detached from the motives of the “colonialist U.S. government�. So watching the movie, you’re able to see the atrocities of war and also get the insiders emotional perspective. Also, the characters either went insane like Kurtz (in an egomaniacal fashion) or went insane like the fellows that just wanted to surf! These guys didn’t want to be involved in a war. They wanted to be back home. They wanted to be themselves. It depicts the Vietnam War in a way that leaves a bad taste in your mouth and it’s because of this reason that I say it is an anti-war movie. Also, the movie gives no resolution, finality, or answers to the war itself and therefore doesn’t help people put the war behind them. What it does do is to put into perspective how pointless and destructive the war was to everyone involved, both physically and emotionally.

Posted by John Erck at 6:21 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

First of all – I love this movie – it has been on my top three since I first saw the film years ago. Brando, Hopper, (Martin) Sheen, Robert Duvall, Dennis Hopper under the direction of Francis Ford Coppola with accompanying soundtrack by the Doors – for me, it doesn’t get much better. However, never once did I take into consideration that some may see this film as even slightly pro-war, as Tomasulo suggests in his article. To say that the film in any way represents “America’s idealized view of itself post-Vietnam,� is absurd. The most famous line from the film is “the horror – the horror…� uttered by an accomplished military Colonel after his descent to insanity. The brutal killings, the sacrifice of our young men, is this really our ideal? There is no “hero-villian� no concept of “good vs. evil� “light and dark.� Who are the heroes? Who’s evil? The film is portraying insanity – the Vietnam war was insane. On one hand Coppola gives the audience a very literal translation of this insanity, in the form of the high-ranking military men, Brando, Sheen and Duvall. In the opening credits we see that war has clearly broken Capt. Willard (Sheen), he is now an alcoholic, taunted by nightmares of the jungle, haunted by sleep so much that he has to drink himself to bed. Duvall is clearly not all there – in the midst of some of the most horrific scenes, bombings, bullets flying, people (Americans and Vietnamese) dying – he is raving about surfing and the tide, clearly disconnected, numb and almost oblivious to his own reality. And Brando … well, clearly something has gone wrong, a man with all his credentials, experience, “potential� could only slip to the depths of his insanity with the help of truly traumatic experiences, ie: the Vietnam war.

In a more figurative sense, is it not insane to see those young boys aboard that ship, on a mission unbeknownst to them, in a foreign landscape, away from their loved ones at home? This insanity is witnessed as a young Laurence (“Larry�) Fishburne listens to his mother’s voice – her message of love, family and home in her soothing “mama� voice is one of the most tender moments in the movie quickly dissolved by gunfire – shooting Miller (Fishburne) dead, as his mother’s voice still coos in the background. Ambivalent? Tomasulo’s suggestion that this film is “ambivalent� is shocking to me – nothing could be less ambivalent than this scene, or Brando, after hours of literal and figurative representations of insanity, uttering those echoing words, “the horror, the horror.�

The message is pretty clear to me. THE VIETNAM WAR IS/WAS INSANE! Literally: people are going insane! Figuratively: every scene and situation is insane; young boys dying, Lance wondering through the jungle with a puppy, surfing in the midst of death, etc. Taken for what it is – a representation of the war, I don’t understand how anyone could see this film as pro-war. The lighting, the shots of people’s faces, the foreign landscape, the dying Americans and dying Vietnamese, Jim Morrison’s ominous vocals: none of this screams, or even whispers “pro-war.�

However, I don’t think this is the film’s only message, I can see how different people can dissect different interpretations. This is a complicated film with so many layers and issues that I would never assume to have it all figured out, nor would I ever claim to know Coppola’s true and full intent. I can only give my feedback, my experience and emotion after seeing the film, and as I sat back, the credits rolling, the Doors playing, all I could muster to say in the first 5 minutes was, “wow, that was f*ing crazy.�

Posted by rinas001 at 5:46 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

In the film Apocolyse Now, Francis Ford Coppola uses very interesting and good quality features of film with contrast of images and sounds and voiceover to create a picture that despite our arcane technology and idealistic ambitions, we ultimately at least have a course, and corporeal side like any other culture.
The technique of the voiceover is very ideological. If the spectator can't see the person speaking, the effect it has on the spectator is impressionable. He thinks subconsciously, this must be god talking, or some higher authority who has the power to make their voice heard but remain invisible. Martin Sheen's voiceover is what unfolds the narrative. The voiceover or voice also acts in interesting contrast to images on the screen. Sometimes making us think about what is reality and what is fiction in a diegetic sense. For example, Willard is looking at some photos and papers of Kurtz as he is listening with some other officers to a recording of Kurtz voice, acting in a literal sense here as a voiceover. But it’s a fragmented one, because we see only photos of the man talking. So there is a kind of ideology within the ideology of the film itself. Fiction begetting reality? Also, there is a scene where a battalion is storming the beach and a photographer is yelling at them to just keep going and make it look natural. This is interesting because it breaks the ideology of the spectator and makes them think about if what they are watching is fictional or reality just as it would for the on screen characters. Should we believe the voice or the images, or maybe both? This is I think a deliberate awkwardness created by technology and how it works on us exposed.
There is another great example of this contrast that is meant to expose ideology and contradiction and the brutal yet beautiful nature of humans especially our culture with its infatuation with technology. In the scene of the air invasion of the beach village with helicopters flying overhead there is the “voiceover� of what is I believe the “1812 Overture� Opera. The sound is an operatic achievement and is a part of what we might call high culture. It is playing over the images and scenes of mass death by technology of complicated bombs and machine guns etc. In such a contrast it is not clear to the viewer which they should identify with, so they have to choose or identify with the contrast and contradiction of the sound and images. Ironically, I believe the 1812 Overture was written as a testimony to the enduring infallibility of humans who survive through war or something.
Another example is when the boat is getting shot at after a failed use of technology (flare). There existence is exposed and the ideology of successfully hiding is thwarted. Miller is shot dead and the voice recording of his mother talking about family life and plans for the future rolls on as she says “stay out of the way of the bullets and come home in one piece.� The voice is in contrast with the image of the dead body. So again, the images of the brutality of technology, mass death and killing and the alienation that it causes is exposed and stands in contrast to the sound of the beautiful and graceful.

Posted by dahme012 at 2:51 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Although Francis Ford Coppola’s film, “Apocalypse Now,� is often argued to be apart of the multitude of the Vietnam war films in existence, I have to argue that due to the amount of contradictions and inconsistencies through the messages being sent to the audience, that this film is more on the anti-war side and provides little, if any, pro-war messages.

In Tomasulo’s article, “The Politics of Ambivalence� he states that, “it was a common marketing strategy of the American cinema to attempt to deal with controversial subject matter by having it both ways, so as not to alienate segments of the mass audience who have feelings on one side or another of a particular issue.� However, with the beginning of the film, the audience meets the character Willard, and throughout the scene, negative intentions are implied, such as deception and cruelty. His main mission, which is top secret, is to kill another member of the United States military by any means, no matter if it’s unjust or not. Other disturbing scenes throughout the film portray the men from the United States military as being atrocious, such as killing innocent women and children, raping women, horsing around while out on missions, and so on. The irony of the film seems to be that instead of fighting against the enemy, the United States military was ultimately fighting against one another, ultimately impairing the American society. Nowhere, throughout the entire film, was I able to distinguish pro-war messages.

As well, Francis Ford Coppola claims to have made this film in order to, “assist Americans in putting Vietnam behind them,� (Tomasulo) however, after the gruesome and sickening scenes of battle, and the betrayal of the United States military, not only against one another, but against innocent people, it can clearly be stated that this film in no shape or form helps relieve the horrors that the military men saw and became apart of in Vietnam.

Posted by eisl0005 at 2:22 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Although Francis Ford Coppola’s film, “Apocalypse Now,� is often argued to be apart of the multitude of the Vietnam war films in existence, I have to argue that due to the amount of contradictions and inconsistencies through the messages being sent to the audience, that this film is more on the anti-war side and provides little, if any, pro-war messages.

In Tomasulo’s article, “The Politics of Ambivalence� he states that, “it was a common marketing strategy of the American cinema to attempt to deal with controversial subject matter by having it both ways, so as not to alienate segments of the mass audience who have feelings on one side or another of a particular issue.� However, with the beginning of the film, the audience meets the character Willard, and throughout the scene, negative intentions are implied, such as deception and cruelty. His main mission, which is top secret, is to kill another member of the United States military by any means, no matter if it’s unjust or not. Other disturbing scenes throughout the film portray the men from the United States military as being atrocious, such as killing innocent women and children, raping women, horsing around while out on missions, and so on. The irony of the film seems to be that instead of fighting against the enemy, the United States military was ultimately fighting against one another, ultimately impairing the American society. Nowhere, throughout the entire film, was I able to distinguish pro-war messages.

As well, Francis Ford Coppola claims to have made this film in order to, “assist Americans in putting Vietnam behind them,� (Tomasulo) however, after the gruesome and sickening scenes of battle, and the betrayal of the United States military, not only against one another, but against innocent people, it can clearly be stated that this film in no shape or form helps relieve the horrors that the military men saw and became apart of in Vietnam.

Posted by eisl0005 at 2:22 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Pro war or Anti war, that's a tough call. War certainly has changed since the World War 2 movies. Granted people are still dying, although now much more graphically, but now theres surfing, beach parties, and playboy sponsored entertainment. Kilgore's insanity perhaps best represents the times pro-war community, viewing war as a cakewalk and the Vietnamese as pathetic savages who should be thanking us for taking over. The people on the boat capture the different viewpoints of soldiers at the time, the Captain who cares about the people in the boat but also about military procedure and doing his best to follow it, Chef who always seems to be seconds away from his breaking point, Clean who would rather not be there but is only too happy to shoot the Vietnamese, and Lance who just seems to be like a child in combat always seeming to be in awe at whats going on. These personalities are quite the change from World War 2s "while we may all come from different backgrounds we are all in this together and we need to slaughter the robot-like evil-doers immediately!"

To me, Kurtz represents the attitudes of the anti-war movement. He said that we lost the war because we lacked the sheer strength of heart that the Vietnamese had, a point thats illustrated throughout the movie. While the Americans are having beach parties and surfing the Vietnamese are sacrificing everything they have to fight back, like when the girl rushes the helicopter with a grenade. What drove him mad was trying to figure out why America was doing all this while at the same time claiming moral and ethical high ground. As someone who was formally the ideal soldier turned insane jungle demigod Kurtz existed almost specifically for a solder like Willard to meet in order to teach another about the horrors of war and then to end what he had started. The ending where Willard turns off the radio and doesn't blow up the village shows that Kurtz's plan was a success, the cycle of death was broken and the futility of fighting was learned.

-Thomas Kuppe

Posted by kupp0012 at 2:16 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Apocalypse Now, especially the Redux version, has always been one of my favorite film-going experiences--I say that because Redux in particular is much more than a simple movie, it is indeed an experience, an emotional endurance race of an experience in the same way Lawrence of Arabia or even Grindhouse is. Any movie running over three hours is going to stay with you, and seeing that very few of that length are allowed through the gates in the first place, it's probably going to be a good one as well. Apocalypse Now, released in ’79, was not only an experience on screen, but off-screen--the stories are famous enough--the 16 month shoot, the destroyed sets, Martin Sheen having a heart attack and literally being drunk in the opening montage, Marlon Brando being overweight and not knowing his lines, Dennis Hopper and Sam Bottoms being on drugs, Laurence Fishburne being 14, and so on. The 3-year edit and all the troubles listed above show just how much raw emotion was put into this project, and the results definitely reflect it. This emotion only helps convey the messages that the film wishes to put out, stemming from both Joseph Conrad's Heart of Darkness and of course the Vietnam War. It has often been said that Apocalypse Now is not even a war film at all, and that the war setting is simply an effective means to communicate the particularly dark themes first found in Conrad's novella and expanded on by the filmmakers involved. Other reasons for this claim include that the depiction of the war is often unrealistic and over-the-top and that the film as a whole seems fantastical. With the readings, I strongly disagree with Tomasulo's comments on the film being pro-war in some of its elements. While I can concede it could be interpreted this way by certain types of viewers, I feel it was definitely not the intention. When he says that the infamous helicopter attack scene is one of “awe-inspiring beauty, (Tomasulo, can't make out page number)� I feel that is the very point of it. The beauty is what makes the sequence so demented, and it is how, as a viewer, one finds oneself being wrapped up in the madcap, exciting ways of Colonel Kilgore. I also disagree with his handling of Kurtz. Kurtz, as in Heart of Darkness, is presented as a figure on the fine line between brilliance and madness. There is really no other way to put it, and I can't imagine Kurtz being viewed by any given viewer as an inspiration or pro-war vehicle of any kind. I feel that in the film as a whole, there are no good or bad guys, even the crew of the boat are not fully innocent, though they may be viewed as such. The greatness of Apocalypse Now is how it so perfectly portrays a world gone mad, a world gone completely f-ing mad where no one understands one's place anymore. This is where I think the film really delivered on being an adaptation of Heart of Darkness. Both the incredibly short novella and the incredibly long film, manage to effectively show the potential for madness and darkness within any given individual, and in the end, no character is spared. No character is given room to heal, or in other words, they are permanently damaged, and by that account I can't see how Apocalypse Now is a pro-war film at all save a few, riveting sequences that are only exciting in the way that they are demented.

Posted by Darth Nep0wix at 12:27 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

It's been argued that Apocalypse Now has been pro-war and anti-war. I believe that due to the ending, this movie is more anti-war. During the course of the movie, there are so many conflicting ideologies that at times make it appear pro-war, and other times anti-war. However, I feel that no matter what decision is made my Willard at the end (To bomb, or not to bomb), that this movie is more anti-war.

The Tomasulo article writes of how Coppola showed up at the Cannes film festival with two endings - one that has Willard call for the bombing, and one that has Willard slowly drift away downstream in the PBR. Had Willard called in the bombing, it would have shown how war corrupts, clouds judgment, or easily sways someone to do horrible things. It would show that Willard has become no better than Kurtz. This would put a negative spin on the war.

The other ending has Willard drifting away from the village, and when the radio calls for him, he just turns it off. I take this to mean that Willard wants to disconnect himself from the military, and separate himself from any sort of fighting there may be. This ending also seems anti-war to me because it shows a soldier doing what he's ordered to do, and as a result, is so disgusted/sick of it that he tries to cut off communication with his base. Another part of this ending that is key is Kurtz's repetition of 'The horror...The horror...' If a guy who has been depicted as insane the entire movie views the entire situation as horrible, I think it's safe to say that no matter what ending Coppola chose, there could be a good argument made from it that the movie is anti-war.

Jeff Batts

Posted by batts002 at 10:01 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Maybe it’s just me, but in no way did I see the movie Apocalypse Now to be a pro-war film. I decided to watch the movie before I read Tomasulo’s article so I could form an opinion of my own, and honestly when the movie was over I was so curious to see how this form could possibly be portrayed in a positive light. It is probably just a reflection of my feelings about war in general, but I couldn’t stop thinking about how sickening the whole movie was. As we discussed in class last week, the media and press was present in Vietnam and showed images and films of what was happening on the warfront. American citizens weren’t naïve, and I don’t think a movie like Apocalypse Now could have eased anyone’s mind about what happened.

Scenes that I found particularly disturbing and anti-war were Captain Willard’s flashbacks and suicidal alcohol binge when he is off duty, then scene where men are flying above Vietnamese citizens in a helicopter and opening fire on women and children while making encouraging comments on their targets, and the American soldiers going surfing during a raid, horse-playing on boats, and raping women. The American soldiers were portrayed as cruel, stupid, and emotionally scarred. And also the fact that the entire movie was based off Willard trying to kill Kurtz, another American soldier, made it seem like a battle against our own country.

After reading Tomasulo’s article I could see how some of his ideas of how this movie was pro-war, but they seemed like a real stretch. The whole movie is ] shot with dark lighting, mostly grays, greens, and sepia tones with explosions lighting up the screen . Tomasulo suggests that this made the violence seem aesthetically pleasing and would draw patriotism from viewers. To me this is not pro-war, it is just emphasizing the destruction and devastation. Tomasulo also writes that the movie pays tribute to “our heroes’ ability to search and our technology’s ability to destroy.� I think this would just infuriate people even further about the unnecessary death and destruction in Vietnam.

While I firmly believe that everyone is entitled to their own opinion, I am just not buying Tomasulo’s idea of Apocalypse Now being both a pro- and anti-war film.

Posted by osbo0100 at 7:37 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

CHRISTINA JOHNSTON – ‘Nam

What sets Apocalypse Now apart from other Vietnam films of the time is its constant contradiction between good and evil, light and dark, idealism and turmoil, and purity and corruption of American soldiers in the Vietnam war. We see this contrast emphasized in our reading by Frank Tomasulo, The “Politics of Ambivalence…� which analyzed the use of Apocalypse Now as “…a historical hindsight that could sublate contradictions….both a prowar movie and an antiwar movie in that the film’s cinematic and political ambiguity both conceals and reveals a national ambivalence towards the Vietnam war.� (Tomasulo, Frank)

Contradictions were shown in the way that this film made fun of the American military by showing it as unable and ill-equipped in its planning and execution in battle, while simultaneously winning every battle. This emphasizes the prowar side of this film. Also, Kurtz frequently is portrayed as an insane lunatic, but is looked up to and respected by Willard inadvertently. I found myself torn about what to think and who to feel sorry for, which was precisely the goal of this film, to show what a confusing, maddening, and volatile time the Vietnam War era really was.

On the anti war side, we see the use of the camera to zoom in on the faces of the dying Americans and really expose the agony that war brings. As Tomasulo points out, all the images of the Vietnamese being bombed are shown aerially, so it is difficult to connect in the same way with the individual sufferings of the Vietnamese as the Americans. However, at times the US is shown to be heartless murderers themselves, like when the US soldiers ravaged a village in order to be able to surf, or at the USO show when they segregated the Vietnamese, or when they get the mission to kill Vietnamese just to make an example of them, or when they show the American smoking weed at the USO show…all these scenes were a creative way of defining the utter mess that was the Vietnam War.

Posted by joh03704 at 7:20 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

While the conflict between mission and moral duty collide with Kurtz, there is an underlying struggle through the entire movie: nearly everyone wants to go back to America. Kurtz, first of all, is one exception, as he has built himself an small empire in the jungle. Willard, though--strange, as we would expect our protagonist to feel like we would--never seems to worry about going home. He becomes so disassociated with what he is doing that he shoots the woman on the boat just to speed things up for himself.
Yet, for the rest of the characters, they are only fighting because they have to, only there because they are made to, and any effort they make could get them home faster. This is shown most clearly when the men on the boat recieve letters from home. They are simultaneously restricted to and interacting with their memories of home. For Chef, it is a matter of dealing with a relationship that he isn't even around to have. Even more, these memories are distorted by things like the USO show, which gives a false sense of what 'home' is all about; or Killgore's dramatic--and in many ways inspiring--cowboy conqueror methods. Neither of these things truly represent home; no, they aren't even shadows of life at home. This tension, then, becomes the struggle to become or remember what home was really like; with all of the distractions and warped mirrors, people were bound to be changed by the war.

Posted by aretz008 at 3:38 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

I think this movie is antiwar. There were too many scenes of guys breaking down, or innocent people being killed (women and children) to show a positive side to the war. Not to mention the fact of how crazy everyone was acting. Although it was funny to see the guys surfing in the middle of a war zone, it really does come off as insane. It makes it seem like the war is turning soldiers into mental cases.
Charlie Sheen was narrating and he talked about how everyone was trying to make the war feel like home: talk about surfing, having a barbecue, etc. But he said that he had been back and it’s not home anymore. This is really sad and antiwar; if you notice all the guys come from different places, different lives. It’s obvious that a lot of them were drafted and each guy seems to be obsessed with where he came from, whether it was the Hawaiian surf, or New Orleans food; as if talking about it would bring them home sooner.
I think this film does a good job of showing the emotional side of the war. Men crying for various reasons, the way they acted when the playboy bunnies came for a show, and soldiers were smoking a joint when they could get a chance. These are all things that took place in the war that the general public probably heard or knew about. The thing that struck me to be the most surprising was when they were getting off of the ship in the middle of fire, there is a camera crew sitting there and a director telling everyone not to look at the camera and to act natural that it was for T.V. I knew that they put live footage of the war on T.V. back home, but seeing that scene really hit home.
I think a big reason why this movie showed a good job of what Vietnam was like on more that one level was Willard’s narration throughout the whole movie. Before we were used to just seeing war acted out. This time we actually get to get inside of a soldier's mind, which is a honest as you can get.

Posted by robak003 at 11:06 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

First off, I would like to note that this film really FREAKED me out. I had a major headache once it was over from trying to piece it together and understand the bigger picture. I even felt uncomfortable while I was watching it. There is a creepy, dare I say, just plain weird undertone throughout the film and neither the viciousness of the scenes, the music, nor the lighting help counter that.

In “The Politics of Ambivalence� reading, Tomasulo states that, “it was a common marketing strategy of the American cinema to attempt to deal with controversial subject matter by having it both ways, so as not to alienate segments of the mass audience who have feelings on one side or another of a particular issue� (3). (I cannot make out the page numbers on the photocopy, so I will cite using the actual page number of the document). This strategy makes a lot of sense economically; however personally, I get no sense of “pro-war� from this film. Tomasulo talks about the “victorious rush� the audience is supposed to feel when the film shows “the US winning battles�. Maybe it’s just me, but I missed the “rush�. All I felt was sick to my stomach and ashamed of my own country. The scene in which they ruthlessly shot the Vietnamese people on the boat really upset me. They were unnecessarily rude to the people and did not take the time to search the boat efficiently in the first place. In addition, they jumped the gun and mercilessly shot them all dead for no reason. They were innocent people. Tomasulo says that scenes like this one “depict the absurdity and outright lunacy of America’s Vietnam policies, as well as the machinations of high-level military commanders� (5) which indeed they do. But after 2+ hours of similar horrible scenes, I do not see how anyone could walk away feeling pro anything. I think though its goal is to remain ambivalent, this movie is more anti-war than anything else.

The main messages I got from the film were that WAR COMPLETELY SUCKS and WAR WILL DRIVE ONE CRAZY. Nothing in the film came to a good end. The leading officials who sent Willard on the mission in the first place were crazily thirsting for Kurtz’ blood. Willard started out the movie crazy but ended up way worse. Even my personal favorite, Lance who started out as a fun loving surfer was zombie-like by the end of the movie. Kurtz was clearly off his rocker, even though as Tomasulo discusses, he was successful in his efforts. These soldiers were expected to do things that no ordinary civilian would ever do. Their orders were insane, but they were trained to follow them without question and became desensitized to the cruelty they were perpetuating in the name of the US. Eventually as briefly mentioned in the beginning of the film under a different context, a soldier gets to his “breaking point� where he changes-flees from his normal, moral self into a hardened soldier with no feelings. I call that crazy.

Nothing in the film came to a good end. Tomasulo quotes the filmmaker, Francis Ford Coppola made Apocalypse Now “to assist Americans in ‘putting Vietnam behind them’� (2). I could not possibly disagree more. Even watching it today, those images resonate in my mind, they are not easy to forget. I feel that watching a film like this during that time period would not offer closure but instead scratch open the wound and sprinkle salt in it. It would only make me angrier. The film does nothing but show the cruel, imperialist attitude of the US, demonstrate the corruption of leadership within the armed forces in addition to the harsh reality of death on both sides. How the heck could that possibly set the stage for Americans to “heal� the wounds of war and move on? Moreover, I don’t see how Apocalypse Now could possibly offer closure when it was made to be purposefully ambivalent. I believe closure comes when something is decided one way or another, not left up in the air. Lastly, I feel that the weight of those things (death, corrupt leadership, unnecessary cruelty to civilians) completely outweighs whatever small pro-war sentiment some viewers may claim to see portrayed in the film.

Posted by Jasmine Omorogbe at 3:16 AM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

Some may say that director Francis Coppola made "Apocalypse Now" purposefully ambivalent. Others say that the film has scenes that are undoubtedly pro-war, like author of "The Politics of Ambivalence" Frank P. Tomasulo. Who says the pro-war theme is exemplified by the films focus on the American victories opposed to Vietnamese victories. In addition, the battles involve "editing that is quick and fast paced" to emphasize the "highly charged emotional state" of the soldiers which he says "glorifies the war and its godlike heroes."

However, I say the film, although sending mixed messages at times, is anti-war. I say this not because of the scenes "depicting the absurdity and outright lunacy of American's Vietnam policies (Tomasulo)," but rather after witnessing the many gruesome and horrifying battle scenes. In the beginning, the soldiers on board with Captain Willard are young and free spirited (skiing behind the war boat, singing, and dancing). However, later in the film the same characters are shown spontaneously murdering a boat full of innocent Vietnamese. Another gruesome scene that comes to mind is the one in which the quiet and unthreatening Vietnamese schoolyard/village is bombed, killing many.

Overall, these gruesome scenes sent a silent message about the brutalities, psychotic rampages, and "mad souls," that result from war. Throughout the film, Captain Willard deals with the effects of war, stating that even when he is out of the jungle and back home, the effects of war never leave a person. Thus, the film sends an anti war message, which focuses on the ruined souls of those put through war.

Posted by dollx040 at 10:08 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Generally war movies try and persuade the viewer either one way or the other. Apocalypse Now is an exception to this. The movie is full of paradoxes. One way is because it is considered both a pro war and an anti war movie. During a battle scene when Kilgore says the line, “I love the smell of napalm in the morning… it smells like victory,� it is an example of how the movie shows the US winning battles to make the viewer feel more patriotic because the US is winning the war. On the other hand, the film also exhibits some anti war qualities, for example in the scene when Willard’s platoon meets a boat of Vietnamese and destroys them all because they think they might be members of the Viet Cong. They quickly realize they are not and that their murder was all for nothing. This part of the film shows the atrocities that the war brought, making the viewer much more sympathetic towards the Vietnamese than the American soldiers. It is also interesting when Willard meets Kurtz, and Kurtz says, “for it is judgment that defeats us.� This shows the anti war aspect because it is implying that both sides cannot win the war and both are being defeated by their own self judgment. The point of the movie according to Coppola is meant to let American’s put the war behind them. For the most part I don’t think that his writing accomplished this. Tomasula’s article describes how Richard Nixon after watching Coppola’s film, Patton, decided on the immediate military action of bombing Cambodia (147). Since Patton had similar ideas of pro and anti war, I think this shows that one cannot simply put a war behind them by watching one of Coppola’s movies.

In the end of the movie, the natives bow down to Willard after he killed their leader, Kurtz. However, Willard refuses to take the role of their new leader. I think this is because the moral struggles he faces throughout the movie have finally gotten the best of him after he kills Kurtz, and he doesn’t want to be the army’s “errand boy� anymore. I think it is symbolic of the government’s action to leave Indochina because Willard realizes he doesn’t know what he’s fighting for anymore, just like the US with their involvement in Vietnam. This may aid in the attempt by Coppola to get Americans to put the war behind them because it portrays Willard as putting the war behind him.

Posted by kuni0018 at 10:03 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

In the reading by Tomasulo it talks about the the film can be seen as pro war, and also anti war. I don't believe this is true. From everything I saw in the film it was anti war. From the very beginning the film is about deceit, breaking laws, and the evils of war. In the first scene we meet Willard who is the main character and we learn about a mission he is sent on to kill another member of the United States military. His mission top secret, and he is to use whatever means necessary to accomplish it. The movie then moves to Willard on the boat traveling through the seas of vietnam and they get to the site of their escort. These men are busy destroying a village, and we see all the bodies of the dead civilians. The commander of this group, Kilgore, makes very rash decisions and we see how brutal the war is. Other scenes that show the brutality and the hardships of war are when Willard kills the civilian woman on the boat so he can continue on. When Chef's head is given to him when he is a prisoner of Kurtz's, and when the Chief is killed by the arrows. Many of the members of the crew that we learn so much about during the movie are killed, and we see how nasty the war is.

The only reason I can see that this movie is pro war is that Willard and the other members of the military will do whatever it takes to win. They fight for our country and will do anything they are told. The men are trying to make life better for everyone back home, even if they must suffer to do so.

Looking at the film from an anti war prospective I don't believe it helps the American people get over the war. I believe if anything it brings up bad memories of what happened in Vietnam. The secret mission Willard is sent on could instill doubt into the American people, because they may wonder what other missions took place that we were not told about. We also saw many people killed, good and bad, and for a lot of people memories of death are not good or happy. So, I believe that Apocalypse Now is an anti war film, and it did not help the American people move on from the Vietnam War.

Posted by elmxx014 at 9:23 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)