American Politics & Pop Culture

Miller’s hippie ideals really do show up rather blatantly in Easy Rider. His ideals of dropping out and yearning to get away from mainstream are easily seen in the Rider’s themselves. The love, nonviolence, and environmental awareness are shown in the group of ‘hippies’ that are living out in the country by themselves, trying to subsist on their own. Most of the ideals are cast in a negative light, with the group that is trying the most to stick to these hippie ideals, suffering greatly. Easy Rider is very indicative of the ideals of love and peace and freedom, throughout the entire movie, it seems like the main characters are trying to embody all of those ideals, with the girls at the brothel or the people at the commune. I agree somewhat that Captain American and Billy don’t really fit the common mold of the old-style rancher or the new-style commune, but I believe that they share many of the same ideals. I attribute the violence portrayed in the movie to be stemming from the conflict where the two groups of ideals collide. The ignorance of one or both sides leads to physical altercations. While the dialog of Woodstock does seem much more inarticulate than Easy rider, this can be attributed to the fact that the people on screen in Easy Rider, though slightly incapacitated with drugs, were still professional actors, and even though much of the dialog was improvisational. The movie doesn’t feel like it has any racial undertones. There doesn’t seem to be any racial undertones at all. When Wyatt repeats “we blew it� he feels that this counterculture that they have been trying to live just isn’t succeeding for them, he feels it the ultimate disappointment.

Posted by nemme003 at 11:47 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Posted by schr0845 at 11:45 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

While watching Easy Rider it became very clear that white mainstream America not only discriminates those who are minorities but also those who don't exactly agree with all of your social values and norms. There were a few scenes in this film that really stuck out in my mind. One of them was when Wyatt and Billy are in jail with George. Because George is well known and respected he was offered some tea or coffee to help with his hangover, however when Billy asks for a smoke he is quickly denied. The officer calls Billy an animal and asks if he can be trusted to use fire, implying that Billy is as dumb as a beast just because he dresses, looks and acts differently from the officer. The other scene that really had some racial undertones was when all three Wyatt, Billy and George enter that small cafe in some backwards hick town for some food and drinks. Upon entering those three stuck out like sore thumbs, everyone noticed and became very uneasy towards them. The local sheriff and his friends started making fun of those three and giving very hostile looks. One quote that I remember was that they were talking about how the long hair made them look like women and how being with a colored woman would be way better than ever looking like Billy, Wyatt, or George. After leaving the cafe those three were eventually tracked down and beaten horribly. Those kind of events happened quite a lot to minorities as well. The fear and confusion that people still happens towards those that are different is something that those of the counter-culture and minorities are very parallel. I can only imagine the amount of hate those three would have encountered if one of them was black. I don't think that anyone of them would have been able to travel and go as freely as they did. Easy Rider touches on a lot of good points and ideas about how just because someone is different than you doesn't mean that you have to discriminate or hate them.

Posted by hove0107 at 11:39 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

For as long as I can remember, people have always raved about the film Easy Rider. For some reason, I never really had any desire to see it. Maybe it was the unflattering picture of Peter Fonda and Dennis Hopper riding choppers on the cover that turned me away. Whatever it was that kept me from viewing the film did so rightly. After finally seeing it in class last Wednesday I knew my instincts had been correct. Easy Rider is supposedly the main film of the counterculture movement, and after learning about the truth behind the counterculture movement I could understand why. Hippies are supposed to be free and different than everyone else, when it is apparent that hippies are the most rigidly conformed group. And with no real goals or purposes that seem to matter, hippies waste their time burning out while doing nothing, and that is what Easy Rider made clear to me. The counterculture movement faded away because it had no substance. Easy rider was a pretentious student film to me. With cheesy dissolves and bad acting (except for Nicholson), there was little substance in the film as well. I'll give it credit solely because of the ending, when Fonda realizes what a waste of time the hippie life is.

Posted by probe001 at 11:38 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Easy Rider and the Miller reading both relate similar aspects of the hippie counterculture. Rebellious acts of "dropping out," as explained in the reading, were demonstrated first hand in the movie. Fonda and Hopper's characters meet a lot of different people on their cross country journey, and they aren't necessarily protrayed in the best light. The hippies they meet have all dropped out from society in some extremity or another, and the movie shows what a struggle it is for them straying from the normal way of living and thinking. "It was the disowning of a life oriented toward work status and power." The counterculture definitely struggles for the necessities of life and make do with what little they have. Instead of getting caught up in things that are of little significance in the grand scheme of things, they enjoy in eachothers company, conversation, entertainment. The hippies have a similar view of the environment to Millers aspects as well when he says "One was obligated to adapt oneself to the flow of things instead of interfering with it and trying to conquer it." The people the main characters came across outside of the towns grew, or attempted to grow, their food and raised their livestock.
The only ones who truly accept them were other hippies and the country folk they join for a meal. The hippies accepted them in the act of love and peace as they treat everyone with their similar views. The country folk readily accepted their company because by living off the land, they were not as dependent on money as the townspeople who loathe them the moment they walk into the cafe/restaraunt. Nicholson's character does a good job describing their reaction when he says "They're not scared of you but what you represent to them," They are jealous of something they know they don't have the courage to obtain themselves, freedom. In the end the main characters fate lies with the townspeople who just don't understand.

Posted by kolsu002 at 11:23 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

In the film Easy Rider, Donald Costello's arguments show up in many scenes. First, Costello claims that, "The young of the 60s had contended that their culture was based not on exploitation but on love..." I would agree with this argument only to some extent. While it may be true that the young of the 60's based their culture on love, there is also a degree of exploitation shown in the film. The opening scene of the film shows Wyatt and Billy exploiting the Mexican community when they purchase cocaine from them for a cheap price relative to the price they resell it for in America. Also, there are scenes in which Billy is harassing a woman when he and Wyatt arrive at Mardi Gras. These exploitations contradict Costello's argument that the young generations of the 60's based their culture not on exploitations, but on love. Second, Costello claims that the younger crowds of the 60's based their culture, "...Not on violence but on peace." This is an argument that I absolutely side with. As discussed in class, the younger generations witnessed firsthand the harsh brutalities of the war in Vietnam. Because of this, these generations protested the use of violence and adapted peaceful ways of living. These ideals are exemplified in the film through images such as communal living. Also, the use of drugs was a method for the younger generations to expand their minds and live in harmony rather than violence. Last, Costello states that the younger groups lived, "...Not on restraints but on freedom." This is another point in which I would argue against Costello. I would not claim that the younger generations in the 60s did not seek freedom and limited restraints, but instead think that this was a time for them to learn what freedom meant to them as individuals. Costello claims that the young in the 60s based their culture on freedom. However, in the film, one can easily see that Wyatt and Billy are unsure what freedom is. Is it, for Wyatt, the ability to live on one's own and survive through hard work and determination? Or is it financial freedom if Wyatt and Billy were to ever settle down in Florida? I believe that to base one's culture on a specific ideal, one first has to define it and what they want out of it. In the film, it's clear that Wyatt and Billy are unsure as to what freedom means to them.

Posted by stap0069 at 11:23 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

It is easy to see how the pair could have "blown it" on their trip to Mardi Gras. As rebels and nonconformists, they were determined to live a life free from restrictions and boundaries. However, as they travel, it becomes obvious that their entire future is based on the money being carried in the gas tank. Without it, they would be lost, while the whole point of the trip was to find themselves. Wyatt repeating that statement, that they "blew it", is simply him realizing the cold truth of survival in America. As Jack Nicholson's character puts it, "It's real hard to be free when you're bought and sold in the marketplace."
Billy's suggestion to retire in Florida reaffirms this idea, that the truth about freedom has finally dawned upon the pair. While there are hundreds of cliches to be said here, I think the most fitting is, "If you can't beat 'em, join 'em." Clearly their trip for peace, love and freedom has been halted, and with nothing else to do, retirement seems like an enticing proposition. Ironically enough, this could be considered an extremely nonconformist action. Establishing oneself as a nonconformist, is, essentially, conforming to the identity of non conformism. Doing something that is not expected of a nonconformist (such as retiring to Florida) could be considered the epitome of non conformism. This idea is stated much more "eloquently" in an episode of South Park, where a punk/goth/emo kid agrees to join a dance group because "he is so nonconformist, he's going to conform." (South Park is considered a scholarly resource, correct?)
-Chris Hansen

Posted by hanse978 at 11:20 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

In the end of the film when Wyatt says “we blew it�, he is definitely talking about more than just their trek to Mardi Gras. In an attempt to be so different, they ended up being the same as what they were originally rebelling against. In “From Counterculture to Anticulture� by David Costello, Costello argues that those words serve as a caution to those within the counterculture. According to him, the Wyatt’s words “are a warning for a counterculture that can't really be counter if it accepts the values of the dominant culture into which it enslaves itself� (190). In such case, the whole purpose of the movement is defeated, and instead of being free, they are still bound, just bound by a different yoke that of the mainstream. Costello poses some essential questions about this freedom sought out by counterculture followers:

“Are they blowing their freedom, are they, after all, not the stuff of counterrevolution, but merely a sold-out generation? An easy rider is a pimp who lives off a whore-slave: Is the new generation made up of pimps who live off dope-slaves, whose ride is easy, without commitment, whose enslavement to easy money and instant pleasure means that when real values--of the past or the present-are there to be chosen, the only reply can be "We blew it"?� (190)

This brings up important issues surrounding the counterculture. What is the point if at the end, no gain has been made and nothing has been achieved? This was certainly illustrated in the film. At the end, after much time (and gas) had been wasted, Wyatt and Billy were really no better off than when they began this journey. In fact, they had even put someone else in danger. Costello mentions that, “Captain America and Billy carry George only to his violent death. Captain America and Billy learn nothing from George's death on the road to Mardi Gras� (190). There is no epiphany or great reflection on the matter, they just keep on going.

At the end of the film when they become “martyrs� for the counterculture, it does not seem as if living within the counterculture was worth it for any of them. At the end of their lives, what did George, Billy, or Wyatt have to show for it? How had this lifestyle helped anyone, or even themselves for that matter? The answers to these questions do not have positive responses, which makes one wonder if it all, the whole movement, was really in vain.

Posted by Jasmine Omorogbe at 11:19 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

The movie Easy Rider uncovers the life of the hippie counterculture during the 1960’s. The main characters, Wyatt (Peter Fonda) and Billy (Dennis Hopper), travel across the country and along the way they find many people who share their alternative ideals as well as those who want them dead because of what they stand for. Even though the hippie counterculture, according to Miller, was all about peace and love, it seems that in the movie, both Wyatt and Billy have a difficult time finding either, being unable to find peace in a world that did not accept them. Throughout the movie, we see the hatred that those in society had towards those in the hippie counterculture. In fact, Wyatt, Billy, and their fellow hippie friend George, end up being brutally attacked by townspeople in the middle of the night because they were seen as a threat. This discrimination is similar to that of minorities during this time. Although hippies had more political freedoms, both groups were treated horribly and experienced violence and even death as a result of their differences from what was considered “mainstream� and “acceptable�.
One other point I found interesting was that in the movie there was such an emphasis placed on money. It almost seemed as if Wyatt and Billy were going against the beliefs of their counterculture by placing so much importance on something materialistic. At the end of the movie, Billy tells Wyatt that “they did it� and gives praise to their achievement and hope for the future. Wyatt replies to Billy’s comment by saying “We blew it�. According to Donald Costello, these words are, “clear in [their] meaning; and they are a warning for a counterculture that can't really be counter if it accepts the values of the dominant culture into which it enslaves itself� (1972). At that moment, Wyatt felt that he and Billy had lost sight of what they believed in and had placed too much emphasis on what society considered to be a measure of success. By pointing this out, he expresses urgency to those in the hippie subculture to be aware of their actions and the society that they live in.

Posted by colb0086 at 11:14 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

The establishment of many countercultures is often obtained through the forced recognition by a defying group, sometimes turning to aggression and violence in order to gain attention from the rest of society. For example, the shocking motives and views of the group known as skinheads provides a clear illustration of such shock value obtained through aggression. In contrast to this, the counterculture known as hippies and the stereotypes that they’re often associated with developed in a much different way. Rather than demanding attention and shock of the rest of society, the hippies so called “rebellion� was not a concept that this core group of people craved awareness for, but rather a notion that was created in the minds of a judgmental and narrow-minded portion of society. This negativity and disapproval is very prominently shown throughout the film Easy Rider. Two men exploring the country, although not bothering anyone seem to run into an endless amount of segregation for such petty reasons.

In the reading from Miller he states, “For most hippies, love meant nonviolence.� The fact that a counterculture whose views are centered around hopes to see a change for the better and live in a world filled with less violence and more pleasure is often looked down upon and ridiculed by the rest of society only exposes the lack of apathy and ethical value that is so disturbingly common among a majority of mainstream culture.

Posted by munoz047 at 11:04 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

In the reading, Miller outlines several aspects of the hippie counterculture such as love, nonviolence, antimateralism, hedonism, the hippie lifestyles's political implications, environmental awareness, "droping out" of established society. I see most of his ideals in Easy Rider. For example, there was a simple of anti-materalism in the scene where Wyatt throws away his watch on the road. The two of them just need money to fill up their gas tanks, so they can travel around. They don't need any extra money or possessions. They don't need any thing fancy to wear or to eat. There is a group of hippies in the film having hard time to grow their own crops. They then prayed for "simple food for simple taste". Then they went to perform for food. They portray a lifestyle of freedom and love. They are not under any authority. They movie portrays them as a group of hippies who are willing to share food and love to one another.
Then comes the scene where Wyatt, Billy, and George go into a local restaurant in Louisiana. They are threatened and verbally abused by the local men in the restaurent. They now portray themselves as nonviolent and peaceful. They leave without saying anything to the men and any fighting nor confronting. There is only one comment from George which leads to his death later on, "This used to be a good country, I don't understand what went wrong with it". Because of this comment, he is killed by those men that night when he and the other two are sleeping. His sentence is significant in a way. It is symbolic statement of how many people (hippies) did not like the way things worked in America. It is saying the United States is not the way it was supposed to be anymore. It was about freedom, love, not war, fighting, and violence.

Posted by truon052 at 11:04 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

I was really excited about watching this film because I had heard that it was an important representation of the counterculture movement. I actually plan on watching it again some time soon because there are a lot of parts that I would like to pay more attention to.

There are so many different stylistic attempts to portray the hippy ideals and I feel that Easy Rider did a fantastic job. This is not because Peter Fonda and Dennis Hopper accurately played out all of the counterculture values, but because they portray the lack in concrete definition of principles that members of the counterculture were striving to follow.

As Wyatt and Billy are traveling across the country we continually learn more about what they believe are their counterculture values. We see, however, that their actions don't always represent their supposed hippy ideals. This is not depicting that they are failed members of the counterculture, but instead that all members have somewhat slanted views that cannot be in direct opposition to mainstream society or the establishment. I agree with Costello in saying that "the values of the counterculture were becoming indistinguishable from the values of the mainstream" (189). This is shown best at the end of the movie while the two main characters are once again sitting around a bonfire reflecting on their ideas. Billy announces, "We did it, man. We did it, we did it. We're rich, man. We're retirin' in Florida now, mister," and instead of agreeing, Wyatt sadly responds, "You know Billy, we blew it." Striving to become rich and desiring to retire in Florida are not principles of the counterculture. On the contrary they are commonly goals of mainstream culture and it seems that Wyatt understands this. Throughout their journey they learned that they don't seem to fit anywhere and therefore they have "blown it" by even losing themselves.

Posted by weir0041 at 11:01 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Counterculture is an interesting thing to grasp, but I think that “Easy Rider� succeeded in portraying all of the hippie ideals of counterculture that Miller outlines. Especially present were the desire to “drop out� of established society (illustrated by the entire on-the-road and spontaneous lifestyle of Wyatt and Billy), the political implications of this lifestyle (shown in the scenes where Wyatt, Billy, and George enter the café and are the subjects of universal criticism, and also the ending of the film where Wyatt and Billy are ruthlessly killed), environmental awareness (shown by Wyatt and Billy living off the land within the hippie commune they are taken to by the hitchhiker), anti-materialism (Wyatt throws off his wristwatch in the beginning of the journey, and the pair wear almost all the same clothes throughout their journey), and love (of course at the hippie commune, indicated by conversations amongst the members there). Costello described this film as “a warning that the values of the counterculture were becoming indistinguishable from the values of the mainstream,� which is indeed evident in the film, but I can also see how, as Costello goes on, members of the counterculture purposely blinded themselves from this warning. Becoming so defiant against mainstream society gave them such a feeling of power and individuality that it was hard to accept that their hippie ideals would eventually die out.

Also, Costello discusses the Woodstock film as having virtually no easy to follow dialogue, and I do think that “Easy Rider� compares to this quite a bit. As we learned in class, much of the lines in “Easy Rider� were improvised, and as we saw in “Woodstock,� the entire thing was impromptu. Costello says of “Woodstock,� “The motion picture is the art form of the young precisely because it can do what ‘Woodstock’ did: exploiting sights and sounds to a hyperrealism, it can create myth�. In the case of both “Woodstock� and “Easy Rider,� this myth was the belief that there would exist a strong foundation of the counterculture in our society. Recall that we saw and heard many of the same ideals among the Woodstock crowd. In the case of “Easy Rider� in particular, this “myth� created was also in a sense the “myth� of the American Dream for Wyatt and Billy. We see them accomplishing anything and everything of their choosing, when in the end, Wyatt describes that they “blew it,� probably due to their misfortunes and bad tidings all along the way.

Posted by joh02361 at 10:55 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Wyatt, Billy and George, although they are white, are subjected to similar prejudices and persecution as an African American would at the same time period in the South. First, Wyatt and Billy are jailed because they were "parading without a permit". In actuality, they were put in jail because they had long hair, rode motorcycles and represented freedom, which the Man did not like. This is similar to how an African American would be treated; put in jail for a made up reason, just because of who they were. As a result they were put in jail, were they meet an ACLU lawyer named George. George saves Wyatt and Billy from being shaved by rusty razors, which was apparently common practice to do to "longhairs" in that police outfit. George comments to them that he can get them out of jail "as long as they didn't kill anybody...at least nobody white". Upon their release, George hints at wanting to join the two on their journey, which he does, and along the way they introduce George to marijuana.

A major episode where the three of them encounter an experience parallel to that of a Black person's is in the diner in Louisiana. The three of them walk in and the conversation amongst the patrons comes to a halt. They sit down, and immediately the conversations throughout the room change subjects to them and how they are "girls", "yankee queers", etc. The sheriff and an inbred local conversed about what they should do with them. They were not offered service of any kind. They guys soon realized that it was in their best interest to get out of there. Later, at their campsite, some of the guys from the diner ambushed their campsite, killing George and beating Wyatt and Billy. They had done nothing wrong, except not fit in to the ideals of the conservative south. They were treated on par with how African American's were treated at the time. Judging from the outcome of the diner experience, it wouldn't have made any difference if George were black. The only possible difference would be that the guys would have been beaten up right away instead of later at their campsite. George said it best at the campsite before they fell asleep: "You know, this used to be a hell of a good country, I can't understand what's goin' on."

Posted by smit1989 at 10:47 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

As Timothy Miller states in the opening section of The Ethics of Cultural Opposition, “The counterculture never saw itself as just another subculture; it was the Disloyal Opposition to Establishment culture.� The movie Easy Rider exemplifies the Disloyal Opposition to Establishment culture in a way few films have been able to. In this blog I’ll be arguing that the film does in fact do a good job of depicting what Miller calls “yearning to quit or “drop out� of establishment society�.

The prevailing attitude during the preceding decade (the 1950’s) was that of group cohesion and conformity. Two examples of this would be the massive increase in what we call “suburban sprawl� and the abundance of “white collar workers�. The movie Easy Rider is in direct contradiction to this “group culture�. The entire premise of the movie is to document Peter Fonda, Dennis Hopper, and Jack Nicholson as they abandon the compulsions of conformity and pursue their own individualistic passions. The characters are out on the road living their lives as independent individuals rather than individuals that are dependent upon a certain group (such as a suburban community or corporation). They travel across the country on their motorcycles and make decisions on the fly. They don’t plan much and make decisions as they go. The phrase “shooting from the hip� summarizes their mentality succinctly. So, after watching the film, it’s easy to see how it clearly exemplifies what Miller calls “yearning to quit or “drop out� of establishment society�.

Posted by John Erck at 10:44 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

From two different medias and set in to different environments, the movie Easy Rider and the book On the Road by Jack Kerouac, when juxtaposed, show the views of movement in the 1950s-60s. The young are restless and need a change and in ten years become the middle aged not quite ready to lie down their wild days and continue the careless life of being one with culture and the world. Easy rider shows the world from a motorcycle, through hills and nature. On the Road presents a world of free roaming through cities and enclosed in cars. Other than drugs crimes weren’t committed and showed the escape into society as a hard life, but one that is the natural escape from the womb that is home. Easy Rider is from the point of view of being on a motorcycle, the closest to nature while still being apart from it. But being close to nature crimes are committed as is present in nature, the strong feed off of the weak. As humanity moves towards nature crime becomes more apparent while the evolution of man into city culture brings a more peaceful coexistence between man.

Posted by Chris Lewis at 10:44 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

The main theme or notion expressed in this film, or at least a prominent one, is counterculture. The relationship seen between Wyatt, Billy, George and the native southerners they encountered on their trip is a valid representation of a clash of cultures. Just like the hippies vs. the establishment, the three voyagers were displaced from their free and timeless environment and experienced the traditionalism of the south. As the trio draws attention from the locals at a restaurant and suffer verbal abuse, it is interesting to see that such an intimidating group of men, including a local police officer would be so threatened by a harmless group of grass smoking journeymen. The scene depicts a nationwide rapport between countercultures and the already established, conservative types of America. Just like black and white and Lennon and Nixon, the violence, turmoil and fear seen in the film is attributed to this lack of connection between opposing groups. As Sarah Thornton states in a reading for this week, “Subculture ideologies are a means by which youth imagine their own and other social groups, assert their distinctive character and affirm that they are not anonymous members of an undifferentiated mass� (Thornton, pg 2). Violence seemingly is not a prominent ideology of this subculture, if at all. Therefore, due to the fact that these locals beat these men in their sleep and ultimately killed one of them, the violence is seen to be rather lopsided. So perhaps the film was stating that this violence and hatred is akin to “the other guys� and a product of their lack of understanding. Instead of violence being accredited to the fact that the opposing groups are unconnected in their ways, maybe it is just because the threatened group of locals just have immoral values and have no other way to resolve any differences seen between them and any outsiders. And perhaps this behavior is a symbolic depiction of many clashes throughout the current society.

Posted by luli0004 at 10:42 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Easy Rider portrays many aspects of the hippie or countercultural movement that took place in the 1960s. These included freedom, love and peace, and anti-materialistic views. Wyatt and Billy’s drug use in the film showed that they follow this hippie or countercultural movement, as well as freedom by dropping out and traveling around the country. According to miller dropping out is “the disowning of a life oriented toward work, status, and power; it was a search for poverty, simplicity, and new ideas� (pp. 110). Hippie ideals in the movie were shown both in a positive and negative light. Negatives included that they were rude and lacked respect for others, and seemed to enjoy causing discomfort for those who had other beliefs. However there were also positive traits. They appreciated people helping them out, and gave help to those who they could. The actual culture of hippies was seen in a negative light. They loved being free to do whatever whenever they wanted and were violent towards what they would define improper behavior.
Costello explains, “The young of the 60's had contended that their culture was based not on exploitation but on love, not on violence but on peace, not on restraints but on freedom� (pp. 187).
It reflected the ideology of freedom, love and peace prevalent in the youth subculture at the time. These themes of freedom, love and peace were present throughout the movie through the characters in the film. Wyatt and Billy allowed anyone to join and come along with them on their trip across the country. An example of this is when they are at the commune. They were one huge group with totally different backgrounds but that didn’t bother them. The most significant part of the movie was the fact that Wyatt and Billy were out on the open road, which is a great freedom symbol. The guys had no schedule or detailed travel plans. They were just out on the open road with their bikes.

Posted by campb503 at 10:34 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Like Ashley said below, I would be lying if I said that I really enjoyed this movie. I think it was probably more significant for the people who watched it when it was released in the late 60's, they probably had a little more patience and a better attentoin span for it. Today, though, it is just wayyyy too slow moving for me and it really couldn't hold my attention. The way the camera scaled EVERY landscape in its entirety and the scene where the camera goes around looking at everybody's face in a circle of people kind of summed up why my impatience just didn't mesh well with this movie. The whole time I was waiting for something sweet to happen, but it was just the same thing over and over, two guy's riding on motorcycles while extremely high on LSD and weed. It just seemed to me like every other "rebel" movie out there, I donno I guess it just wasn't unique to me. It did represent the counterculture of the 60's well, though, and I think it should be applauded for that.

Posted by ruppx051 at 10:32 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Like Ashley said below, I would be lying if I said that I really enjoyed this movie. I think it was probably more significant for the people who watched it when it was released in the late 60's, they probably had a little more patience and a better attentoin span for it. Today, though, it is just wayyyy too slow moving for me and it really couldn't hold my attention. The way the camera scaled EVERY landscape in its entirety and the scene where the camera goes around looking at everybody's face in a circle of people kind of summed up why my impatience just didn't mesh well with this movie. The whole time I was waiting for something sweet to happen, but it was just the same thing over and over, two guy's riding on motorcycles while extremely high on LSD and weed. It just seemed to me like every other "rebel" movie out there, I donno I guess it just wasn't unique to me. It did represent the counterculture of the 60's well, though, and I think it should be applauded for that.

Posted by ruppx051 at 10:32 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

The topic of discussion this week, the counterculture, is difficult for me to fully comprehend. It can be loosely defined as a culture in opposition to the values of the established mainstream – I get that. But, I seem to be getting stuck when trying to put it into a more focused context.

Timothy Miller’s analysis painted the movement in rather broad strokes that seemed to include every possible socio-political issue, even describing it as being apolitical in nature. Donald Costello’s attempt to define the movement was just as ambiguous, claiming that values were “communicated from one to another not by mind and words but by sights and sounds. Sensations, feelings, intuitions, spontaneity reigned� (187). He held up Wadleigh’s Woodstock as the definitive film of the movement. We read a review back in week 7 by Daniel Schowalter that asserted the documentary had a depoliticized nature. Are we onto something here?

According to Sarah Thornton’s article, this does not appear to be the case when she states, “[v]ague opposition is certainly how many members of youth subcultures characterize their own activities. However, we can’t take youthful discourses literally; they are not a transparent window on the world� (201). Wait a minute. Miller’s chapter opened with the statement that “[t]he counterculture never saw itself as just another subculture� (103). Are her comments relevant to our conversation of the more general counterculture? Introducing the complexity of a subculture has me thoroughly confused now.

Confusion aside, the passive main character of our counterculture representative sample Easy Rider embodies the non-judgmental, unassuming, idealism that is central to any discussion on the topic. Is it possible the concept we are dealing with cannot be labeled or confined to a particular point in time? Is it possible that the meaning I am looking for is elusive due to the inherent notions of freedom coursing through everything? Maybe the movement is supposed to be whatever we want it to be? Recalling conversations we had about interpreting film noir in week 3 might prove useful insight here. It might make more sense to consider the counterculture as being a timeless discourse on the possibilities of a different reality than the one we live in now.

Posted by skog0031 at 10:32 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

One aspect about Easy Rider (1969) is the anti-materialistic views. This view is portrayed through the “hippie movement�. The hippie’s belief was that money itself was useless. The land was the thing of value. The hippies lived off the land and tried not to focus on money and the materialistic things you can purchase with that money. These non-materialistic views were very different from the most of society, at that time and continues to hold true in society even today. The readings described the notion of counter-culture as a positive, rather than with negativity like many other media sources did. The film really stressed peace, love and freedom. I think these are the same aspects the readings illustrated. So all in all, I believe that the film portrayed the hippie movement in a positive and accurate way, which I truly enjoyed.

Posted by zabor005 at 10:31 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

One of the outcomes of the 60’s counterculture movement was an increase in environmental awareness. There were a couple of references to this in the film this week. Easy Rider portrayed a farmer as one that provides for himself and doesn’t rely on the establishment for food. He works in harmony with and not against nature. At the commune, residents and guests benefit from the localized production of agriculture in order to sustain their community. These ideas weren’t so revolutionary at the time because they were practical. So, it seems unfair to the primitive cultures and the hippies that established these practices to claim today, that organic farming and co-ops are revolutionary ideas because they have been around forever. Wyatt and Billy also camped out every night which in turn helped them maintain a connection with the environment, which was very important to the counterculture. However, I wonder what hippies still alive today think of our society? Environmental awareness is at an all time high, but so is environmental exploitation. Our society is more affluent than ever and more technologically advanced. Pure hippies, which there are very few left of would obviously have to question the contradiction our society imposes. How can such an affluent society that is so consumed and reliant on technology claim to be environmentally aware? I believe our society would be the hippies’ worst nightmare. They valued environmental activism, detested technology and based sound environmental practices on those of Native Americans (Miller 109). The counterculture’s influence did create some of the first environmental interest groups when the idea that the future of the environment was in danger was an oddity (Miller 109). Today, there are more interest groups than ever and the power is more spread out than ever, but nonetheless The Sierra Club is an example of a very influential group that has its roots firmly set in this movement. Still, the government controls the final say in the implementation of environmental policies, which is heavily influenced by big business, exactly what the hippies were against. So, even relevant today, one main reason that the counterculture’s presence in society faded is still present in those trying carry out their environmental goals, the underestimation of the establishment and its power.

Posted by cros0189 at 10:27 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

The American 1960s was a decade typified by countless cultural and economic exertions, the invasion of rock and roll, the intemperance of love and ecstasy, and the embracement of the hippie counterculture. The hippie counterculture was a statement against the dominant cultural paradigm of the 60s and 70s. The subculture embraced freedom, love, and drugs and revolted against establishment and societal normality. It was a way of life “based not on exploitation but on love, not on violence but on peace, not on restraints but on freedom� (Costello 187).

The film Easy Rider accurately portrays many of the aspects and values of the hippie counterculture. It is the story of two bikers, Wyatt and Billy, who partake in a drug infused journey across America looking for answers to life’s questions. While on their journey, the bikers encounter prejudice and hostility from individuals who ‘fear and loathe’ their revolt against societal normality, but also encounter individuals who are living an unconventional lifestyle and rebelling against prejudice, violence, racism, etc.

Easy Rider juxtaposes normality with unconventionality through the encounters of Wyatt and Billy. Wyatt and Billy embrace the hippie culture by taking drugs (LSD), listening to rock and roll, and having no regard for societal norms like time and money. They are depicted as martyrs to the hippie cause, being abused, arrested and finally shot.

Ian Bell

Posted by bellx236 at 10:25 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

All of Miller’s ideas of Hippie counterculture are present in the movie Easy Rider. The two main characters drop out of society, we see Wyatt throwing away his watch to symbolize they are free, and they are not constrained by any obligations like mainstream America. They live by their own rule, they smuggle drug into the US. They share love with people they meet, and the other hippies help them by providing food and shelter. The idea of hedonism and anti-materialism are also present in the main characters life, their main character’s purpose in life is pleasure by make just enough money to retire in Florida.
I think hippie ideals in Easy Rider are shown negatively. The hippies have all of the right ideas such love, nonviolence and environmental awareness but their ideas in a practical sense is disastrous. The hitch-hiker’s family says, they want to plant “simple food for their simple taste� which shows the family are environmental aware and anti-materialistic, they don’t exploit the land for more than they need. But at the same time, they are not sure if the plants will grow to feed their family, therefore they resort to praying and doing the sun dance. The two main characters making their livings not by working, but by selling drugs. Their life is aimless; they do drugs and have sex. Miller wrote “But the hippies hardly achieved perfect love. They were human after all, and therefore flawed, the more perceptive among them tempered idealism with realism.� At the end of the movie Wyatt says, “we blew it� which symbolizes the hippies know what is wrong with society; but they don’t seem to know how to fix it.

Posted by mula0013 at 10:23 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

By Elizabeth Bassett

The 1960’s were a time of political upheaval throughout the American nation. Throughout this period, the hippie counterculture was marked by the ideas of love, anti-materialism, hedonism, and environmental awareness. Easy Rider, a film released in 1969, vividly portrayed these hippie ideals as it followed Peter Fonda, Dennis Hopper, and Jack Nicholson on their trek from Los Angeles to the Mardi Gras celebration in New Orleans.
Looking back at the 1960’s, love was one of the primary ideals ringing through the air. This strong ideal of love is also reflected in Easy Rider. Throughout their journey, Peter Fonda, Dennis Hopper, and Jack Nicholson portray a strong bond of friendship that exemplifies love for each other. They are willing to stick by each other and support each other’s ideals through trials and rough times along their journey. This is evidenced when they are refused service at a restaurant due to their unkempt appearance and the owner’s disagreement with their lifestyle choice. Together, they leave the restaurant, not only as friends, but also as brothers. Meeting new friends along the way and their openness with them is another important aspect of the hippie movement clearly evident in Easy Rider. Free love was another strong hippie ideal that was evidenced in the film when prostitutes came into the picture at the end of the movie.
Anti-materialism also strongly resonated throughout Easy Rider. Traveling cross-country on motorcycles and sleeping in parks or roadsides along the way, the physical appearance of these men was anything but clean as they would not rent hotel rooms due to the expense. None of them held a steady job thereby indicating their unconcern for monetary possessions and comforts that a long-term occupation would allow. At times in their journey, they would stop at houses in hopes of a free meal. One of the most vivid portrayals of anti-materialism exhibited in the movie was when looking in the wallet of a crashed motorist and exclaiming that their “wasn’t much in there, just money.�
Exhibited through their easy-going lifestyles and spur of the moment travels to New Orleans in Easy Rider, hedonism was another signature mark of the hippie movement. Focusing on individual pleasures and whatever works best for the person attitude, Fonder, Hopper, and Nicholson were unconcerned about the rest of society and its implications upon them. Their goal was simply to go-with-the-flow and enjoy life as evidenced by the lack of organization on their trip.
One of the strongest hippie themes exhibited in the movie was of environmental awareness. Living in harmony with the land and tilling the soil with your own hands was strongly encouraged. This was evidenced upon the praises of the community of farmers living off of the land.
Overall, the simplicity of the dialogue of the movie, allowed for greater clarity in revealing the overriding themes of the hippie movement portrayed throughout the journey from Los Angeles to New Orleans.

Posted by basse044 at 10:05 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

The film "Easy Rider" does portray many aspects of the hippie lifestyle, some of these aspects more than others. One aspect of the counterculture that is specifically and clearly shown in this film is the yearning to quite or drop-out of the establishment society. The film follows two hippie-type guys on a trip to New Orleans. The two men don’t have a job or anything to tie them down – they just go and do what they feel like. They take a long trip through the country. They live off of the land and sleep under the stars. They become very much a part of the environment. They also appear to be quit anti-materialism. Neither character really brings anything other than money and the clothes on their backs.

However, it is ironic that the material things that Wyatt does bring with him (his bike, his leather jacket, and his helmet) all have some kind of American flag on it. His character portrays an anti-society type character, yet he completely decks himself and his bike out in American gear. This really seems to represent that even though the hippies are willing to drop out of the society and do their own thing, they are still very much a part of America. Those who participated in the hippie counterculture had their place and made up a large percentage of Americans. I

It is also ironic that the hippies were so much for peace and anti-violence and two of the main characters, who did represent the hippie counterculture, are shot to death and one is beaten to death. The people that they are killed by seem to be ignorant, unintelligent and uninformed hicks. This seems to represent that the people that disagreed or were judgemental about the hippies ideas, are not as enlightened as the hippies and are willing to just shoot down the more progressive ideas of the counterculture.

Posted by Martine Schroeder at 9:59 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

The ideals represented by Captain America (Wyatt) and Billy in Easy Rider are partially indicative of the ideals expressed by Donald Costello in “From Counterculture to Anticulture,� but not perfectly. Costello writes that “the young of the 60’s had contended that their culture was based not on exploitation but on love, not on violence but on peace, not on restraints but on freedom� (187). All of these ideals appear to apply to Easy Rider at first glance, but only the idea of peace over violence is really consistent throughout the movie.

At the brothel in New Orleans, it appears that the protagonists do choose love over exploitation, as they do not opt immediately for sex with the prostitutes, but rather take them out to experience the atmosphere of Mardi Gras. However, earlier in the film at the hippie commune, the characters (primarily Billy, but also Wyatt) take a more lax approach to sex and exploit the nature of the hippies.

With the premise of the movie, two men biking cross country with no time schedule or real plan for how to survive along the way, it is surprising that the freedom argument doesn’t hold up. The fact is that the whole excursion was made possible by a large drug sale to a wealthy American at the beginning of the movie. Their “freedom� was made possible only by this large amount of money, which was made possible only through those who represented the ideals of capitalist America. Billy’s exclamation about retiring in Florida is also very non-counterculture, as we know it as the stereotypical goal of those who play by the rules and look for a relaxing retirement after a lifetime of servitude to a society that has done them well.

Although there is a considerable amount of violence portrayed in the film, the protagonists are always the targets. When the townspeople in the café threaten them, Billy, Wyatt, and George avoid confrontation and leave peacefully, only to be found and beaten later. It is also notable that when Billy is shot by the man in the truck, revenge does not seem to enter into Wyatt’s mind. He rather attempts to find help, and is cut down by the same men who killed his friend.

Posted by dunh0037 at 9:54 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

The mantra of hippies during the sixties, coined by Timothy Leary, was “turn on, tune in, drop out�. The implication was that you would turn on to drugs, tune into counterculture society, and drop out of mainstream society. The rampant drug use by Wyatt and Billy throughout the movie would suggest that they follow this hippie creed, as well as their search for freedom by dropping out and riding around the country. In “The Ethics of Cultural Opposition� by Timothy Miller, dropping out is described as “the disowning of a life oriented toward work, status, and power; it was a search for poverty, simplicity, and new ideas.� (110) Realistically, dropping out only worked in theory, as even the most free-spirited have to make a living in modern society. As Miller comments, “only a few could be supported directly by hip culture- the dope dealers, a few musicians. So if only for economic reasons, most kept one foot firmly in Establishment society.� (110) Wyatt and Billy’s endeavors were financed through their drug smuggling, so on the surface it appeared as though they had beaten the system and found a way to truly drop out of establishment society. At the end of the movie, Billy suggests that they retire to Florida, to which Wyatt comments “we blew it.� Wyatt had realized that while their journey in search of freedom was successful on a financial level, it was a spiritual failure. As Donald Costello comments in “From Counterculture to Anticulture�, “Captain America’s words ‘We blew it’ are clear in meaning; and they are a warning for a counterculture that can’t really be counter if it accepts the values of the dominant culture into which it enslaves itself.� (190) In the end, as Billy suggests the typical mainstream dream of retiring to Florida, they both realize how trapped they are within the system that they rebel against.

Posted by ande4849 at 9:47 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

This film is clearly one of the most tragic of its time. Made in the late 1960's as the counterculture "era" was coming to an end, this is a film that really captures the journey and tragedy of an entire generation. Wyatt and Billy are men on a journey to find the country it is that they call home. They hit the open roads on a quest to find "America". Along the way they meet and travel with George Hanson, played masterfully by Jack Nicholson, a young idealistic man who questions the world just as the two main characters do. Contrary to the opinions of many people, who feel this is just a hippie flick, Easy Rider is a very inteligent film. These two men are members of what was known as the counterculture and I feel that a good scene to discuss would be the scene in the small diner in Louisiana, when the three men enter only to be greeted with two very contrasting look from two different tables. First, we see local men talking about Wyatt, Billy, and George as if the three men are trash. The other table, of younger girls, sees the men as exotic and interesting. The bottom line is that the people fear these men not because they're scared of them, but because, as George puts it at the campfire, these men represent freedom and difference. One of America's great tragedies is the lack of accpetance of certain cultures and groups. Easy Rider tells the story of this quest to find what it is that makes us all free, but all three characters end up being murdered by opposing forces. As far as the "We blew it", I feel that Wyatt is talking not only about his generation, but also about mankind in general. The 1960's, a decade of such spirit, ended on such tragic tones as great minds were assassinated. Easy Rider is a product of its time. Alos, Jack Nicholson gives one of the greatest supporting acting jobs in any film I've ever seen.

Posted by moros007 at 9:29 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

“The young of the 60's had contended that their culture was based not on exploitation but on love, not on violence but on peace, not on restraints but on freedom� (Costello 187).

The film Easy Rider was a counter culture classic. It reflected the ideology of freedom, love and peace prevalent in the youth subculture at the time. These themes were present throughout the movie in the main characters actions and experiences. They were particularly evident in contrast to the ‘normal’ characters violent and repressive actions.
Captain America and Billy were out on the open road, the ultimate symbol of freedom. They had no schedule as shown by their continual vagueness on their estimated arrival time in New Orleans. There were no detailed travel plans restraining them. They just had their bikes and the open road, stopping to camp or staying with new acquaintances.
The anti-exploitation was apparent in their treatment of the prostitutes. Even though Billy seemed ready to go when he picked the tall one this was followed by awkward sitting on the couch, offering to make her a drink and ultimately having them all out on the street. While it could have been an impersonal business transaction with tawdry sex it turned into an intensely intimate experience emphasising their humanity.
Finally their pacifist stance whenever confronted on their style and appearance was a testament to avoiding violence. They left the café when they weren’t served and everyone was staring at them and making hostile comments. These same people they left in peace attacked them in the night, killing their new friend.
All of their personal peace, love and freedom were no match for the ‘normal’ values of fear, intolerance and violence. They lost their lives because they refused to let the men intimidate them.

WORKS CITED
Costello, Donald P. “From Counterculture to Anti-Culture� The Review of Politics, Vol. 34, No. 4, America in Change: Reflections on the 60's and 70's. (Oct., 1972), pp. 187-193

Nyssa Shawstad

Posted by shaw0139 at 9:14 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

The movie we watched in class reminded me of how heavily prejudiced the United States was as recently as the 1970’s. The ways in which people treated hippies in the movie Easy Rider seemed to be an extension of racism. It seems that as the government attempted to lesson racism, the people just vented their problems on the next available group rather than giving up on old stereotypical prejudices.

As Miller says in our readings the hippy counter culture had vastly different beliefs than the mainstream culture on love, nonviolence, and especially with their wish to drop out of the establishment. As was stated in “Anthony,� Florida Free Press, June 1968 “The idea is that we have no ideas. We want to abolish ideas. What we want is peace, communication and escape from automation.� These ideas were represented over and over again in the movie Easy Rider. They were especially visible during the movie while they are at the commune. The interactions between everyone were like the whole commune was one big family rather than a bunch of people with totally different backgrounds. Also, how they regarded sexual relations were very casual and based off simple attraction rather than a long term relationship. The two went skinny dipping with two of the women at the commune after only knowing them for a day or two.

In some ways the traits of the hippies in the movie Easy Rider were shown in a positive light and in others negative. In some aspects they were rude and unkempt with little regard for others such as when they were revving their motorcycles by horses or riding in and disrupting parades. They seemed to distain the culture and thus take a pleasure in causing discomfort to others who had different beliefs. At this same time they also showed many positive traits. They were genuinely appreciative when people helped them out, and showed obvious respect to the farmer and his way of life. They also gave free friendship, and help to those who they could. They were ex-going and loved being free to do what they wanted. The mainstream culture was definitely shown in a negative light. It was constantly prejudice and violent toward anything out of what it considered proper.

At the very end of the film one of the two hippies stated “We blew it�. I believe that when he said it he meant that he should have stayed at the commune. He was happy there but did not realize it and thus regretted leaving. Marti Gras seemed to represent freedom, and that is why they wanted to go, but in the end he realized they did not have to go anywhere to get freedom but could have it simply by how they acted.

Posted by andre368 at 9:14 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

The most notable aspect of Easy Riders were the anti-materialistic views. This anti-materialistic view is shown through the hippie movement. They live of the land and do not need any money; they do not live by the 'normal' views of the American way of life. Miller states that “The hippies proclaimed what in a sense is obvious but few admit: money itself is meaningless� (111). These anti-materialistic views were important in the counterculture movement and were seen through the film, Easy Rider.
According to the From Counterculture to Anticulture reading, this new counterculture “was based not on exploitation but on love, no on violence but on peace, not on restraints but on freedom� (Costello, 187) This was portrayed really well in the film we watched through the characters of Wyatt and Billy. Wyatt had the attitude of very laid back and nothing could bother him. As a pair, Wyatt and Billy, had a very relaxed and open way of living. They would let anyone join them in their travels if they had the same outlook on life.
Overall, I thought the film really portrayed the hippie movement really well, but was surprised by the end because the pair had a very positive outlook throughout the film.

Posted by culve018 at 9:13 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

What makes Easy Rider such an interesting film was the intent in which it was made. Dennis Hopper and Peter Fonda wanted the film to be more than another biker movie, and wanted it to represent the counterculture that Miller speaks of. I think in many ways Hopper and Fonda accomplished this. For one, Easy Rider was a low budget film, indicative to the hippie ideals, and was produced in a loose fashion, using characters that weren't actors (such as the two men that kill Captain America and Billy at the end of the film as well as the locals in the rural Louisiana cafe.) They also filled the film with low cost footage of the American landscape and Mardi Gras, which also lends to the thriftiness of the hippie culture. It would have been hypocritical of them in a way to shoot this film with a high payroll.

Miller looks at the "thriftyness" of the hippie culture in another way when he discusses money and materialism. "Money symbolized many evils" (112) writes Miller about the counterculture's opposition to corporate America. The scene where Wyatt and Billy happen upon the hippie commune illustrates the counterculture's struggle with reality, the need to survive. Unlike the scene with the farmer who was able to live off the land and make a life for his family, the hippie villagers located themselves in an area where the land was unsuitable for sustaining life. Their hope that they would reap the harvest of the seeds that they had sown, yet they were eating food that came from the establishment to survive contradicted everything they stood for. Their desire to live from the oppression of the "American Dream" was also not justifiable by something that Miller writes later, that "freedom was important, but so was fun" (113). The irresposibility of the hippie culture would eventually lead to their demise, even though in the film Captain America thought otherwise.

What makes Easy Rider even more hypocritical to this countercuture is what we see in the beginning of the film altogether, the selling of drugs by Wyatt and Billy in order for them to escape and survive on their own. Isn't that idea, the ability to make enough money to become self-sufficient, the foundation of the "American Dream"?

Posted by char0018 at 9:12 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Easy Rider from the start of the first scene portrays the hippie era and the counterculture movement, which took place during the 1960’s. This new counterculture “was based not on exploitation but on love, not on violence but on peace, not on restraints but on freedom� (Costello pp. 187). In the film the counterculture development was both shown on the ranch and the commune show. It basically was all about being apart of nature and excepting things for the way they were. The counterculture movement was shown through Billy and Wyatt. They lived off the land and played by their own rules. These people “aka� hippies lived with self indulgence, not caring what the rest of society viewed them due to breaking so many cultural norms.
You can tell through watching the film that that the film is bias in favor of the counterculture lifestyle, basically saying that it is a good this. The Film also created a false impression of freedom. Even though they were able to conform to the lifestyle of the counterculture movement at the same time they did not agree upon everything hippies were about. They had a large amount of money which challenges what other people associated with the counterculture lifestyle they were working towards, living off the land and fending for themselves.
In the end everything starts to unravel when the values start leaning towards normal societies cultural views. Ultimately Billy’s and Wyatt’s decision to choose money over the easy lifestyle, their voyage becomes their demise.

Posted by white968 at 9:06 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

The fily Easy Rider that we watched in class this week represnts many of the aspects of the hippie culture that we have been looking at over the past couple weeks. It showed such things as free love and non violence. This film did a great job showing this in Wyatt's calming attitude. He did not let anyone sway him or change his opinon. Wyatt and Billy were very open and were willing to let anyone come along with them that had their same free loving theme. According to the From Counterculture to Anticulture reading, this new counterculture “was based not on exploitation but on love, not on violence but on peace, not on restraints but on freedom� (Costello, 187). Anti-materialism was shown through the small hippie community where they didn't need money and just lived on their land. “The hippies proclaimed what in a sense is obvious but few admit: money itself is meaningless� (111) They bleieved that money was not what made a person; rather the love and passion that they had. This time period consisted of a free spirited and non conforming life style. Many new things were brought up during the age of the hippies. The movie effectively shows how the counterculture values nature and how it adapts "to the flow of things instead of interfering with it and trying to conquer it (Miller, 109). Wyatt and Billy are seen as positive throughout this film and thier hippie beliefs and ideals cause them negative consequences in the end.

Posted by kapla137 at 9:02 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Costello states in his article that "Woodstock is perhaps the most inarticulate film ever made." The main mode of communication is musical, rhytmic, and mainly non-verbal. He says, "Their culture was communicated from one to the other not by mind and words but by sights and sounds. Sensations, feelings, intuitions, spontaneity reigned. To receive the message of the culture, then, required not sharpening the reason but expanding the consciousness." In Easy Rider, the audience is introduced to two characters on this journey of mind expansion and personal growth. Constantly, the two protagonists are shown experimenting with drugs, and grooving in the wilderness, communing with nature and man. This is most notable and powerful in the campfire scenes towards the beginning and the end. Where the film parts with the culture it is representing, exemplified and partially created by Woodstock, is that it tries to explain the culture while showing it. This use of words only shows the audience how much cannot be articulated and forms an atmosphere of exclusion from the characters, not the feeling of community that is brought about through Woodstock's use of the non-verbal.

Posted by drey0022 at 8:55 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

I'd be lying if I said I enjoyed Easy Rider. Throughout the movie all I kept thinking about how annoying and obnoxious the characters were, and how they weren't doing anything of importance and basically just wasting a lot of time and their lives driving around the country on motorcycles. Dennis Hopper's dialogue was frequently annoying and repetitive "hey man... man... man..." and neither of them seemed to have any relevant or worthwhile to say. Then the ending came along and I was just annoyed that I'd sat through this movie just for an ending that didn't make an ounce of sense.

Then I read Donald Costello's article about Easy Rider in which he saw it as more of a caveat to the hippier counterculture than a fond depiction. He mentioned the paralell between the American Myth of old (travel west!) and the American myth of the hippie culture (freedom, love, peace, travel) and how the films warned against repeating failures of the original myth. Supporting evidence for this includes the juxtapositioning at one point of a man fastening a horseshoe on his horse while the guys fix their motorcycles, the traveling, and the American flag jacket. Peter Fonda's admission that "we blew it" in reply to Dennis Hopper's "we're rich" is meant to be a warning for the hippies of the day to be careful with what they do with their ideals and not get caught up in the quest to be rich like their ancestors in their eventual search for gold did. Their death really drives this point home. While this perspective makes me hate the movie a little less, it still seems like a silly movie that could have presented its point better.

Posted by bergm150 at 8:34 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

In the film, Easy Rider, we saw a lot of things that represented countercultural movement. Personally, i didn't really enjoy watching the film compared to the last few that we've watched just because the movie was a little slow. Also there were lot of activities that involved some drugs and it kind of got old watching two people riding on their motorcycles throughout the country. However, as Miller stated, this movie definitely showed the lifestyle of the hippies and the idea of "living freely". From the way that Wyatt and BIlly lived there lives, you can see that their life was pretty messed up, but at the same time, they were enjoying their freedom - selling drugs and used that money to drive across the country. However, I liked the fact that Wyatt and Billy didnt even try to get involved into some violent activites. Every person that they've met, there were really nice about it and reflected the aspect of counterculture. In Costello's article, he said that "the young of the 60s had contended that their culture was based not on exploitation but on love, not on violence but on peace, not on restraints but on freedom." In a way, this tells me that the idea of the hippie culture helped the world evolve into a peceful place. Some people didnt agree with the idea or the lifestyle that Wyatt and Billy had, but I think this changed some people in a good way and i think it showed what freedom and peace can bring to the society.

Posted by katay007 at 8:09 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

I believe that Costello assertion that Woodstock was the most verbally inarticulate documentary is a bit of a shallow one. Although he mentions the importance of other nonverbal forms of communication was presented in the film, he doesn’t recognize the social value that the new form of verbal communication that came from the event and the film immortalizing it. This new form of verbal communication, which may have consisted of exclamations and other more simple cues, facilitated the feeling of loneliness and extreme social change and subversive ideals though passive measures. To discount this new form of communication as simply nonverbal as apposed to an alternative to previous forms of verbal communication makes light of the attempts of these people to create a new social order for themselves, as well as the directors choice to highlight this as a important part of that order. This new form of communication with its exclamations of life in a matter of fact style is shown in the main characters of Wyatt and Billy. They utilizes this form to embody their cultural differences form their southern conservative counterparts. Their simple communication style shows more verbal communication but stays true to the foundations of the individuals shown in Woodstock. The use of nonverbal communication is vary important in Easy Rider. In the sequence involving Jack Nicolson being introducing to Marijuana, Peter Fonda’s character uses silence and body language to allow Nicolson to talk around the subject to eventually and reach a conclusion by himself, following the pacifist approach that the hippies took to life. To discredit the deep meaning behind the hippies choice of nontraditional communication habits as simply nonverbal is doing a disservice to the great ideals that supported it.

Posted by swanx058 at 8:05 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Peter Fonda and Dennis Hopper’s Easy Rider works as a piece of art that stands for the ‘60s counterculture’s values. The film, following Fonda, Hopper and Nicholson’s trip to Mardi Gras, uses montages, visually bright colors and popular rock songs of the time. The film is meant to do two things. It validates the counterculturists’ way of life, and it serves as a statement to those in the “mainstream.� The film seems to make the point that a life outside of mainstream society is possible, and that it does not need to be violent, racist or constraining. Yet, mainstream life is what forces violence, prejudice and oppression on those who do not conform.

The bikers’ trip highlights many of the aspects Miller discusses. While Fonda and Hopper are on the “open road,� the viewer sees many shots of the natural environment; plateaus, mountains, shining sun and green trees and their beauty are all around. Love can be seen from a wide definition when Fonda picks up the hitchhiker, when they swim with the women from the commune and the commune itself. Yet, Miller’s definition of love, as an “emotion, a state of mind, a feeling that radiated optimistic moral power� (p. 104), is not always there. Hopper isn’t sure the commune will last, but Fonda says, “They’re going to make it.� Then Hopper does not want to take the women with them, but Fonda reminds him they are eating the commune’s food. Even the premise of the film, that the protagonists go looking for America, but can’t seem to find it vilifies Miller’s definition of love.

The prominence of drug use falls back in line with Miller’s writings on “dropping out.� Also, the bikers’ lack of jobs, hippie clothing and motorcycles buck the establishment. Money and material goods mean nothing to the bikers, as displayed when Fonda throws his watch onto the side of the road. Accepted society’s concept of time means nothing to him. Their mocking of the all-American parade lands them in jail.

Fonda and Hopper could be seen to represent both negative and positive aspects of the counterculture. They worry about how they will get by, sometimes slighting others because of it. But, they cannot conform to the rest of society. As Costello suggests, the idea of movement, from state to state, the open road, signals a disdain for static life (p. 189). Even with George, Nicholson’s character, the bikers encounter trouble that has racial undertones. In the diner, the sheriff makes a comment out them looking like “refugees from a gorilla love-in.� The sheriff and townspeople end up causing the three protagonists to leave because of the violent undertones, just as African Americans were made to feel uncomfortable at integrated lunch counters. They’re later beaten with baseball bats by the townspeople, killing George, as some African Americans were.

Through all of this, the bikers retain a connection to the mainstream. They need money for Mardi Gras, they smuggle and sell drugs. They visit whorehouses and they freak out from adverse drug effects. They fall into what they are trying to escape. As discussed in class, the counterculture faded away. Hopper discusses retirement in Florida and the bikers, and their values, are killed at the end of the film. Hopper and Fonda showed no real organization; they roamed freely. They had no set of core principles, they just knew what they didn’t like. The final scene of the film sums up the counterculture’s life. It was fun to feel free, but one is never truly free from society. The extremes of mainstream and counterculture collided violently and consumed each other, leaving failed attempt at real change.

Posted by Candice Dehnbostel at 8:04 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Easy Rider was one of the oddest movies I have seen. Not sure I thought it was that great, but definitely worth watching. I think it gave some insight into the happenings of the late 60's, with the drug use, the hippie compound, the rebellious youth vs the condemning elders, and the prejudice and hatred that seemed to resonate in that time. I thought the movie hit on many of Miller's aspects relating to the hippie counterculture, most of this was seen in the scene at the hippie commune. They definitely seemed to exhibit love, anti-materialism, environmental awareness, and the yearning to leave society and "drop out". It seemed that Wyatt fit in much more than did Billy. Billy seemed to be more of a loose cannon, and didn't seem to necessarily fit the hippie stereotypes. At one point he threatened to fight George, which is anything but non-violent. He also seemed to be possessed by the money that they made in their drug deal. I think he was somewhat materialistic, and the hippie vibe may have been more due to his awkwardness within normal society than a true wanting to be a hippie.

There is a question raised in the blog assignment about what if George was black, and how would it affect the film. Being that they were in a southern town, and in a southern jail, I am thinking that things would have been very different. I don't see the jailers bringing a black ACLU lawyer a cup of coffe in the morning and shooting the breeze with him. I also don't think he would have had as much success in getting Wyatt and Billy out of jail. I think Wyatt and Billy would have been in jail for a while, and may not have ever made their journey to Mardi Gras. The scene in the dinner may have been either similar or non-existance. If it was a diner that did not serve blacks (most likely in those times), they would not have even been allowed in the restaurant. The whole scene with the towns people would have never taken place. If they were allowed to come into the restaurant, the scene would have been somewhat similar. There would have been hatred towards all three. The townspeople in the diner may have been less passive aggressive though, and they may have been run out of the diner even sooner.

I was surprised by the ending, I didn't expect them to be killed, and am not sure I see how it benefitted the film. I think I would have enjoyed the film more if they just rode off into the sunset and we could have just believed what we wanted to about how their lives ended up. Overall it was a decent film, and worth watching to see what went on in the 60's. However, I thought the ending, from the time in the cemetary to the ending when they were killed, a little bit of a let down.

Posted by bela0003 at 7:58 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

This week we watched Easy Rider, which is a movie that exemplifies the counterculture that took place during the 60’s. According to the From Counterculture to Anticulture reading, this new counterculture “was based not on exploitation but on love, no on violence but on peace, not on restraints but on freedom� (Costello, 187). Wyatt and Billy played two guys who represented this new counterculture. In this film, they were traveling to Mardi Gras with a wad of cash, which they got from selling drugs, in the gas tank of Wyatt’s motorcycle. To anyone who has seen this movie, these two men really exemplified the meaning of being free. They didn’t have anything holding them down, and they were traveling the world only to gain experience and nothing more. The sight of these two men scared a lot of other people, because they represented change. People always talked about how change is a good thing, but when it’s right in front of one’s nose it seems so different and unknown that one gets angry and eventually hates it. The town’s people in the movie hated Wyatt and Billy so much for being different that they tried to beat them to death with clubs and eventually brutally shot both of them off of their motorcycles.

Posted by clay0115 at 7:53 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

The film Easy Rider clearly represents many aspects of the hippie or countercultural movement, such as free love, nonviolence, and anti-materialistic views. Personally I was not a fan of this film because it was very slow moving and not all that interesting to me. However I think Easy Riders did a very effective job of portraying the lives of the hippie countercultural movement. Throughout Easy Riders, Wyatt shows the nonviolence of the counterculture movement by his calming attitude during the film and is not bothered by anybody. Especially when Wyatt and Billy were in the diner and they were being made fun of by the locals who did not like their appearance. There were numerous times of free loving theme in Easy Riders. Wyatt and Billy were willing to let anyone join them and come along with them just like they were long lost friends really showing their free loving theme. The most notable aspect of Easy Riders were the anti-materialistic views, Wyatt and Billy had very little things that they took along with them. Anti-materialism is shown through the small hippie community they don’t need money and they live of the land. Miller states that “The hippies proclaimed what in a sense is obvious but few admit: money itself is meaningless� (111). Anti-materialistic views were very important in the counterculture movement and were effectively seen throughout Easy Riders. Wyatt does not care about the money and is not worried about anyone taking the money in his gas tank. Easy Riders effectively shows the values of the countercultural movement during that time period.

Posted by towar003 at 7:26 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

The generation of the sixties was a free spirited, mind challenging culture which explored an assortment of possibilities, including freedom and nonconformity. The film, Easy Rider, showed not only the beauty of the country we live in, but it also relayed the underlying message of the love that the people who reside in the country share. There were many forms of symbolism within this film, pertaining to the counterculture movement, but an important one to consider is the anti-materialistic attitude that many people seemed to possess, and more importantly the unimportant role money played. As Miller states, “The hippies proclaimed what in a sense is obvious but few admit: money itself is meaningless� (111). The characters within the movie camped out numerous times; doing their own things while living off the land God gave them. As well, Wyatt portrays a very trusting man with no worries about people taking his money out of his gas tank. The representation of anti-materialism presents a care-less life style, which tries to break the dominant ideals/norms throughout the U.S. at the time.

Posted by eisl0005 at 6:58 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Easy Rider portrays the values of the counterculture positively. Both the ranch and the commune show the counterculture values of being one with nature and adapting "to the flow of things instead of interfering with it and trying to conquer it (Miller, pg 109)." Those places also showed how amazing and freeing it could be to "drop out" of society. Wyatt liked that those people were living off the land and living by their own rules. Hedonism was the basis of the entire journey. Wyatt, Billy, the people on the commune and the rancher were all doing what made them feel good without caring what traditional society said they should do. Throughout the film counterculture is shown as a good way of life. The consequences come when the values get skewed and it becomes more like traditional society. Instead of living like the simple lives of the rancher or the commune Wyatt and Billy choose money and their quest becomes their downfall.

Posted by fran0723 at 6:14 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

In Miller’s chapter, “The Ethics of Cultural Opposition,� he outlines a number of characteristics that comprise the hippie counterculture. The film Easy Rider, which follows two freewheeling guys, Wyatt and Billy (and the friends they meet along the way), as they make their way, on motorcycle, from Los Angeles to New Orleans, for Mardi Gras, demonstrates all of these conventions of behavior typical in the hippie lifestyle. But in the interest of brevity, I will focus, specifically, on the ideals of abandoning traditional society, play rather than work, and long hair as a political expression, as they are the most prevalent in this film.

The film is centered on the hippie ethics of quitting the “establishment,� the idea of play rather than “meaningless work,� and the search for “poverty, simplicity, and new ideas.� This is shown, in an understated way, at the start of the motorcycle trek. Wyatt and Billy, having just purchased motorcycles, are about to set off on their journey, but as they are about to leave, Wyatt removes his watch and drops it to the ground. Time is a societal construction to which, because of their responsibilities, people are bound. By leaving his watch behind, Wyatt is abandoning the constraints of an oppressive society in which he no longer wants to be part.

Another overriding theme of Easy Rider, is the response Wyatt and Billy garner from the variety of people they meet on their excursion. At night, around the campfire, George, a man they met in jail, tells Billy that, “they’re not scared of you. They’re scared of what you represent to ‘em… [because] what you represent to them is freedom,� and that, “talkin’ about it and bein’ it, that’s two different things…, they gonna talk to you about individual freedom, but they see a free individual, it’s gonna scare ‘em.� Because of their long hair, a hippie ideal that’s a “symbol of separateness,� and its promotion of androgyny, which “reflects a dissatisfaction with one’s actual situation and a wish to recover this lost unity,� they are beacons of what goes against traditional society. These examples of nonconformity infuriate the “hicks,� subsequently leading to some violent, and in the end, fatal encounters.

The film shows the hippie ideals and the characters Wyatt and Billy, as positive. They are the “heroes� of the film and are revered as representatives of the counterculture. However, they live in a society that is hostile to those that go against the grain and the implications of this, being arrested, beaten-up, and eventually shot, are the negative consequences for making this choice.

Posted by palaz012 at 5:21 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

The movie Easy Rider did an excellent job of portraying the counterculture of the the United States during the 1960's and 1970's. One of the aspects of counterculture I thought was portrayed very well in the film was love. One of the ways love was shown was when the two main characters picked up hitch hikers. It happened multiple times in the film, and it shows how open and trusting the men were. To me it was like they loved everyone and everything until someone gave them a reason not too. Love was also shown in the film when they finally made it to New Orleans. When they went to the whore house they were very kind to the two girls, they took them out into the streets to have a good fun instead of using them like most men would.

Another theme shown in the movie was environmental awareness. The men spent many nights sleeping in the wilderness under the stars. It shows their connection to the environment, and that they trust it and it trusts them. Also, the fact that they were riding motorcycles shows their love for the environment. Riding a motorcycle with the wind blowing in your face and the sun in your eyes is much more in tune with nature than driving in a closed in car.

These were just two of the hippie ideals we saw in the film, other include; nonviolence, anti-materialism, hippie's political implications, and their yearning to drop out of society. These were also shown in the film. We see how the hippies were not accepted in society multiple times, like in the first scene when they were not let into the motel, and again when they were beaten by men with baseball bats in the middle of the night. Their anti-materialism was shown by how the men traveled with very little from city to city, and made friends along they way. They had nothing to give and nothing to lose, the were just living day by day. I believe the film portrayed the lifestyle of the hippies very well. It captured a piece of everything they were about, and I think they did it in a positive way.

Posted by elmxx014 at 5:13 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

If George had been cast as a black character in the film "Easy Rider," there would have been some significant changes in the film; however, there were many instances that would not have changed in the film. Certain things that would have changed were George being an attorney, he would not have had the "ins" with the cops the morning he woke up in the jail cell, George would not have attended Michigan State (sweatshirt), or played football for them.

These instances would be significant changes because the guys might have stayed in jail longer, as well as been treated completely different, and by different I mean worse. Instead of being an attorney, George probably would have been just another black man working in a field or a different low paying, labor-filled job. He also would not have gone off to college.

What would not have changed was the way George was treated when he was with Wyatt and Billy. They were treated like scum when they went to the little diner; the people in the diner completely ignored the fact that they wanted some food, but the people bluntly talked about the guys. They were beaten up in their sleep, and George ended up dying from it.

Posted by woehl007 at 5:04 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

I would have to agree with a previous post that this movie displays an "illusion of freedom". Although the main characters are able to attain the means to continue their lifestyle of not conforming to mainstream culture, they are still bound by the rest of society and their disagreement with the hippie life. They may have had a great deal of money but that contradicts what the other people were striving for, living off the land and providing for themselves. On top of this, they are not able to interact with the rest of society because of what they are. We see that in the southern towns they can't even go into a restaurant because they are seen as savages. Even in the back woods they are not able to escape the hatred towards their own culture. The drugs they use are only able to mask what is really happening, their way of life is quicky being crushed by the rest of society.
I really thought the improvisation in this movie helped a lot to display the more hippyish demeanor and the fact they were able to use real drugs only made it more realistic. However it would have been nice to see how the northern side of the country reacted to the hippie movement in the movie. That would have contrasted well with the complete intolerance of the south that did not dissapate for quite some time.

Posted by leex2727 at 5:00 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

It is true that Woodstock was able to convey its message through culture rather than dialogue. Costello claims that Woodstock did this through communication “not by mind and words, but by sight and sounds� (187). I agree with this because after watching Woodstock it is apparent that the personal interviews do not bring much to the movie other than by showing a common theme of how hippies acted and how they were influenced by drugs and sexual freedom. It was important to show the counterculture in the movie without spoken words because it was a documentary, and there was no script. It is shown through interviews, footage of drug use and sex, and through the music of the concert.
This is similar to the way the theme of Easy Rider is played out. There is not much dialogue in the movie. The movie uses actions to show symbolism in the movie, such as when Peter Fonda’s character puts all his drugs in the gas tank of his American flag patterned motorcycle. This makes it different from Woodstock in that the symbolism shown is mostly scripted. A good portion of the dialogue in Easy Rider is improvised while the actors were under the influence of drugs, which makes it similar to the images of drug use and the rambling interviews with the concert goers in Woodstock. Costello gives the idea that the themes in Easy Rider were intended to be very symbolic. I agree with this to an extent, but the improvisation while the actors were on drugs probably made the movie more influential after the fact. Another way Easy Rider portrays its message indirectly is by the psychedelic scene when Fonda and Hopper are in New Orleans. This is the most powerful scene in the whole movie, and not much of that is due to character dialogue. The words that are spoken are very genuine and unscripted. There are a lot of unique camera angles and the actors are showing their vulnerable sides making the scene unlike anything coming from Woodstock.

Posted by kuni0018 at 4:38 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Whether it is to what Timothy Miller calls “Disloyal Opposition to Establishment,� subcultures have their vast differences amongst the views and assignments its norm purports. In the 1960’s, the United States was at the height of subcultures and the country felt the shock of the cold war. Whether it was to hide or to abate itself from norms, one large group of people left their mark on society. This group will go as being called the hippies.

A hippie brefily can be described in the film Easy Rider, a Dennis Hopper film. In this movie three people are followed on a cross-country motorcycle ride across the United States. These three portray many of the ideals that these subcultures resemble. The hippies felt freedom was a major part of their life and this trip was a guide to a life of freedom, a life full of voids, or one simply that is not enslaved to the dominant cultural norms. In the end of this movie however a great problem is outlined that many subcultures felt. The feeling of blowing it, or not reaching their destination in the end was the problem (this can be either Marid Gras or their retirement in Florida). While sitting around a campfire in which one of the people says “we blew it,� a great feeling of what really was that typical hippie. A great pursuit only to end in disappointment! This statement to some was that a counterculture cannot be counter if it accepts the values of the dominant culture to which enslaves it (Miller 190). The three motorcylcists where haunted by their past, and being free would absolve this however they couldn’t free themselves from it. It is very easy for a subculture to exist, but for one to be successful it must stick to principles that its group lays down, whether they are obtrusive or not.

Posted by remy0004 at 4:35 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

I personally did see a lot of hippie Ideals that Miller portrayed in the movie Easy Rider. There were a lot of instances during the movie where Miller tried to show love like when they shared food with two bikers and also when Wyatt decided to pick up a hippie who was hitchhiking. I thought that portrayed love along with when they brought George with to Mardi Gras after he had got them out of jail. It showed the hippies are always willing to return the favor.
I also felt that the movie did portray hippies with a positive image through their appearance. I also think a very important aspect of the movie and what hippies stood for was freedom. Nicholson talks about how people think that they are free in some way, but they really aren’t because they are always conforming to everyone else. The hippies stand for real freedom in this movie especially with their long hair.
I did find it interesting too how the town’s people did not like the bikers at all and pushed them out of there. They could not even eat in the restaurant since the local people did not care for them at all. After watching this movie it was definitely one of the slower moving movies we have watched with not a whole lot of plot to it. But I did enjoy watching the two bikers on the road riding through the country looking for the American dream and happiness.

Posted by pelt0071 at 4:07 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Some reflect on the counterculture as the epitome of peace, revolution, and freedom. While many aspects of the culture do hold these values and it was somewhat an anomaly to previous generations, some ideals of the counterculture faltered because “the new American Myth repeat the failures of the old American Myth� (Costello 189). Easy Rider is filled with metaphors, for example, they hide their money in the American-flag embellished gas tank of the motorcycle symbolizing the traditional American consumerist stuffing its money into material goods with no thought about anyone else, and they are like old American pioneers in search of freedom, but this time working backwards traveling east instead of west, trying to get away from the structured life and retire in Florida, not to establish a hard-working, structured lifestyle. Costello contends that these metaphors are trying to warn others in the counterculture about how their actions and goals are not too far from the ideals of the mercantile, old American Dream. They are trying to forewarn them that, although they may seem to be revolting against the traditional lifestyle, many are blinded by the same material, money-driven goals of the dominant ideals.
Wyatt and Billy are offered several different lifestyles, shown various paths of orientation, for example, the peaceful, nonmaterial, and free lifestyle on the commune and the natural, careless life on the ranch. However, the duo opts for the “mainstream American values,� driven by money, material goods, and an easier life, which is what Wyatt was referring to when he said, “We blew it� (190). What the film is trying to convey is that the counterculture is not defying if they continue to accept and pursue dominant society’s values and goals. Their rebellious efforts for change will simply be shot down, eventually conforming completely to dominant society in the end.

Posted by riva0067 at 3:46 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

One of the main themes of Easy Rider and the counterculture of the '70s was love. Love is the answer to everything. If everyone loves each other, all of the worlds problems will disappear and there will be no more conflict. This was shown throughout the movie and culture as an expression of non-violence. The main characters are simply out to enjoy and appreciate life and people and have no desire for any conflict. They pick up a hitch hiker, make new friends at every stop, and never once show any aggression. The same does not hold true for others that they encounter. This love filled lifestyle worked until it began to scare those in "the establishment." The police they encountered saw them as trouble makers, they were attacked in their campsite and ultimately killed. In his article The Ethics of Cultural Opposition, Miller states that "given the problems with the noble idea of love, perhaps it is not too surprising that some counterculturists found the entire idea hopeless [but], the majority, however, were dedicated to peace and love. Love, after all, was all you needed." (Miller, 106). The movie portrays this lifestyle in a positive context, but it also shows the problems they encounter. They were causing no problems, yet both were shot in the end because of how they looked and what they represented.

Posted by marsh401 at 3:20 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Easy Rider is a movie about the illusion of freedom. Costello writes, "the dream of freedom in this film is clearly an American dream." What then, distinguishes Wyatt and Billy's counterculture dream from the typical American dream. After all, they've scrambled for money so that they wouldn't have to worry about that anymore. Isn't that exactly what most Americans do when they save up to retire? The fact that they're still reliant on money--as opposed to the commune they run into at the beginning of the movie that survives on labor and working together--something that binds them to the current culture. Without severing all ties to the mainstream, they will only become victims of it. As Costello writes, "[Wyatt and Billy] are a warning for a counterculture that can't really be counter if it accepts the values of the dominant culture into which it enslaves itself." The freedom that the two motorcyclists represent is a false one: they live on the edge, with their long hair and bikes, but they still buy and sell from the mainstream culture, which makes them dependent on the mainstream.

Posted by aretz008 at 2:59 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

When I first heard the campfire conversation where Wyatt keeps muttering 'We blew it,' I interpreted that to mean that he's looked back on his hippie lifestyle and realized that it's been a waste of time. It seemed that he was reflecting on the trip and blaming himself for George's death. The commune they visited that represented their ideals was barely surviving. After all the negative responses from society towards Billy and himself, he felt that their ideals had lost. However, the Costello reading casts a new light on the phrase, one that I feel is a much better explanation.
Costello's argument behind 'We blew it' states that after the Mardi Gras trip, Wyatt and Billy 'sold out'. They did what everyone else would do on a Mardi Gras trip. The goal of the trip wasn't peaceful, political, or many of the aspects that Miller outlines of the 'hippie lifestyle.' The goal was to get high and bang hot chicks, and while I certainly can't knock them for having that goal, it's not what the counterculture movement was about.
Because of this, the tone of the movie changes. Had I stuck with my initial reaction about the meaning of 'We blew it,' it means that Easy Rider is a movie that mocks the counterculture movement. It would mean Wyatt and Billy got what they deserved. With Costello's interpretation of the meaning (which I think makes much more sense than mine), the movie serves as a warning the counterculture movement. It basically tells them 'We can't let our guard down. If we want the movement to remain strong, don't ever compromise your morals, because one small compromise could kill the entire movement.' - A message that fits the movie well, because one small compromise by Wyatt and Billy proved fatal.

Posted by batts002 at 1:29 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

I do see all of Miller’s hippie ideals in Easy Rider. When Wyatt picks up the hippie even though it is out of the way, that is showing love. Another example of love during the film was the sharing of food with the two bikers. Yet another example is when Wyatt and Billy decide to take George with them to Mardi Gras. Nonviolence is another key aspect of the film. It is shown when the group enters the diner, is ridiculed, and is refused service, but still do nothing disruptive, they just leave. The violent ways of American culture are also quite evident throughout the film in situations such as, the men from the diner beating them in their sleep and two in the truck at the end with the shotgun. Anti-materialism is shown through the small hippie community they don’t need money and they live of the land. This little community also expresses the environmental awareness and want to “drop out,� during the counterculture.

Wyatt represents the counterculture where as Billy is more representative of the popular culture. This is shown, by Wyatt’s laid back attitude and respect for those living off the land. In contrast to this Billy is quite hostile and greedy. For example when the hitchhiker hippie tries to fill Billy’s gas tank and he refuses, then proceeds to fill Wyatt’s gas tank, and then Billy complains to Wyatt that they have a lot of money in there and the hippie might see it or steal it, but Wyatt is not worried about it.

When Wyatt says, “We blew it.� He is referring to the ideals the duo represent. They “blew it� in the sense that they went against all they stood for when they made that money, or in other words they sold out and conformed to the ideals they hated.

Posted by nels5175 at 1:12 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

I do see all of Miller’s hippie ideals in Easy Rider. When Wyatt picks up the hippie even though it is out of the way, that is showing love. Another example of love during the film was the sharing of food with the two bikers. Yet another example is when Wyatt and Billy decide to take George with them to Mardi Gras. Nonviolence is another key aspect of the film. It is shown when the group enters the diner, is ridiculed, and is refused service, but still do nothing disruptive, they just leave. The violent ways of American culture are also quite evident throughout the film in situations such as, the men from the diner beating them in their sleep and two in the truck at the end with the shotgun. Anti-materialism is shown through the small hippie community they don’t need money and they live of the land. This little community also expresses the environmental awareness and want to “drop out,� during the counterculture.

Wyatt represents the counterculture where as Billy is more representative of the popular culture. This is shown, by Wyatt’s laid back attitude and respect for those living off the land. In contrast to this Billy is quite hostile and greedy. For example when the hitchhiker hippie tries to fill Billy’s gas tank and he refuses, then proceeds to fill Wyatt’s gas tank, and then Billy complains to Wyatt that they have a lot of money in there and the hippie might see it or steal it, but Wyatt is not worried about it.

When Wyatt says, “We blew it.� He is referring to the ideals the duo represent. They “blew it� in the sense that they went against all they stood for when they made that money, or in other words they sold out and conformed to the ideals they hated.

Posted by nels5175 at 1:12 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

I definitely didn’t care for the film “Easy Rider�. It was very slow moving and the little dialogue made the movie quite boring. However, “Easy Rider� definitely outlines many of the aspects, such as free love, nonviolence, and anti-materialistic views of the counterculture movement but the movie also contradicts these views in different ways throughout the film.

Free love is quite evident during the entire film. It is shown when Captain America (Wyatt) and Billy take the two girls to Mardi gras. The graveyard scene depicts every aspect of free love that I had in could imagine. However, this was earlier contradicted when Wyatt didn’t want to have sex with the girl, instead he wanted to buy her a drink and get to know her.

All throughout the film, Wyatt depicts the nonviolence aspect of the counterculture movement. He displays this calm attitude throughout the entire film and isn’t bothered by nearly anybody. But to counter this aspect, there’s his friend Billy who is shown as hostile and untrustworthy towards everybody he meets. For example, when Wyatt picks up the hippie and takes him on the road with him, Billy doesn’t trust him and thinks he’s going to take the money they have stored in his gas tank. This is definitely not an aspect of the counterculture movement, “The counterculture proposed the elimination of double standards; it proposed a forthright honesty in daily life that it saw sadly lacking in most of society� (Miller 120). Another event that contradicts this view is when Wyatt and Billy are thrown in jail; Billy doesn’t trust George and almost gets into a fight with him just for looking at him.

As Miller states, “The hippies proclaimed what in a sense is obvious but few admit: money itself is meaningless� (111). Anti-materialistic views are very common in the counterculture movement and this is somewhat shown throughout the film. For example, Wyatt doesn’t seem to care about the money and isn’t worried about anyone taking the money in his gas tank. However, Billy is always worried that someone might take the money, making money the most important thing to him, which is definitely not an aspect of the counterculture movement.

So this movie does depict many aspects of the hippie culture but also contradicts these issues throughout the entire film, showing the confusion of many people at this time.

Posted by ruff0046 at 12:36 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

The characters of the film Easy Rider are displayed to the audience have adventurous, but peaceful civilians. They do not want to cause trouble with anyone, in fact, they are very grateful for every stranger that has helped them. The family in the middle of no where feeds them, George gets them out of jail, and another group feeds them. The acts of good deeds are shown throughout this film as they try to return the favor by giving someone a ride to a certain destination. Wyatt and Billy are common portrayal of hippies. They treasure what they have and hope to gain in the near future. The way they use the environment is displayed many times in the movie. Whether it is sleeping in the open forest or bathing in the nearest spring, they use everything that the Earth offers. When they entered the restaurant, they were immediately harassed by the way they look. They remained peaceful and walked out with no temptation to neither flirt with the local high school girls nor start a fight with the local men. Though they were punished for their looks, they did not seek revenge on anyone. With all that said, the hippie ideals are positively shown in this movie.
It was interesting to hear the famous Bob Dylan song “It’s Alright Ma (I’m Only Bleeding)� being played at the end of the movie. This song is still very popular amongst this nation. This song was played to symbolize all the people who did Billy and Wyatt wrong in this film. A certain part of this song is stating men who believe are free but questions the way they live. Sarah Thornton stated “Freedom for necessity, therefore, does not mean that youth have wealth so much as that they are exempt from adult commitments to the accumulation of economic capital.� These people do not want to change their lifestyle, therefore they are not free. This song was used to show the audience that Wyatt and Billy are free, and they will die freely with no regrets.

Posted by Anthony Zerka at 12:35 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

At the end of the film, Billy and Wyatt are talking about their trip to New Orleans and Billy remarks that now they’ve done it all and can retire to Florida. To this, Wyatt says that “they blew it.�

I think that Wyatt says what he does because he is thinking about the trip over and how it was supposed to be a great moment for them, and it turns out to be just a giant black-out of their acid tripped adventures. He probably would have been happier settling down in the desert with the other really free loving hippies, who were just trying to make it on their own living off the land. He had mention to both the rancher and the hippie farmers that he really admired them for that, so it might have been a good thing for him as well, at least emotionally. Costello remarks on this in his article “from counterculture to anticulture� saying, “Captain America sees a nonmercantile religious peace and unity, where the body is free and beautiful, not sold or violated, and where he can predict, "They're going to make it."� (Costello 189).

Practically, farming in the desert probably won’t work out so well since there is very limited water. The farming in the desert parallels with the counter culture in general. They were very idealistic but not very organized. They knew what they wanted to do, but didn’t have the resources to accomplish anything.

As for Billy, he talks about retiring to Florida despite the fact that that’s more of a corporate type of dream. Throughout the whole movie Billy seems to admire those with power, money, and influence. He is also quick to violence and doesn’t find peace amongst other members of the counterculture. He represents a warning to the rest of the counterculture that Costello talks about where the counterculture “… can't really be counter if it accepts the values of the dominant culture into which it enslaves itself.� (Costello 190).

Posted by kenne404 at 12:23 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

The riders were driven out of town by people who didn't like them, in fact they couldn't even eat in the restaurant because locals didn't like the way they looked. Such attitudes are similar to those imposed upon Blacks who couldn't eat in certain restaurants or were hassled by whites who just didn't like how they looked. One of the riders comments that it "used to be a hell of a good country" which functions ironically in the context of a racial reading of the scene. For Blacks, it never really was a good country.

The pimp/ slave structure Costello sets up also creates an interesting paradox with the racial reading of this scene. Costello aligns the easy riders with pimps who reign over money slaves, inverting the historical slave structure.

If George had been Black, the film might be different only in that Wyatt and Billy might have been seen as "more" counter-culture. Since counter culture was about rejecting prominent ideologies and befriending those of other races rejects the dominant racist ideas, George's race could have deepened the counter culture values.

Posted by vieir013 at 12:02 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Millers ideas of the hippie culture are shown quite prevalent in the film Easy Rider. First looking at the political implications, Peter Fonda is riding around on a bike that is colored with the American flag and his jacket also has the flag. This is a time when typically hippies are making a stand against America. I did not notice him talking about how he chose to decorate himself or his bike. It seems like he just does and no one questions.
Then there is the environmental awareness, which also seems to be overlooked in this film. They are riding across nation in their motorcycles and sleeping outdoors. There does not really seem to be any concern with environmental awareness, except for the fact that they are using what nature gives them. On one of their stops they meet a bunch of people that their hitchhiker knows. These people are city boys who are trying to grow a harvest in sand and yet they continue to keep trying to live of what they are surrounded with.
These two main characters have also dropped out of society. They spend their time together and meet people along the road. They do not seem to have a home or idea of what they will do after reaching Mardi Gras. Also, with dropping out, in one of the first scenes, Peter Fonda looks at his watch, takes it off, and leaves it at the side of the road. He has no care for what is ahead of him, and will get it done when he gets it done.
This movie has a slow pace, which I think accurately reflects these people. He threw away his watch; he does not care about time. They do not have a timeline for life and have no cares. I think that this movie has positive and negative aspects of this culture. For people who are living this life, there does not seem to be a clear negative tone to their lifestyle. While for people watching it today, it could seem negative. Today people live more by the book and with a plan. This idea towards life is something that could potentially scare people and their comfort level.

Posted by lile0005 at 11:43 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

There was a great deal of symbolism in the movie Easy Rider, in which I found to be somewhat confusing. There was confusion because Miller explains counterculture as not just another subculture, but rather as “Disloyal Opposition to Establishment culture� (103). As in, counterculture is not just a smaller group within a larger, dominant culture; counterculture is the opposition and resistance of the ‘dominant’ culture. The counterculture consisted of the hippies that did not want to function as part of the American machine and decided rather to just ‘drop out’ of American society proper. At the beginning of the film, Wyatt explains that he and Billy are just “living off the land� and “doing their own thing at their own time.� Therefore, it was confusing to think that Wyatt was a part of this counterculture with the mentality of ‘going against the American machine,’ however he was the most patriotic-looking hippie I have ever seen! His motorcycle, helmet and leather jacket all contained the image of the American flag. I was confused about this at first, but then I realized that it seemed so overdone and gaudy that it was basically mocking the American way.

There was symbolism in the beginning of the film when Wyatt was shoving all the money he and Billy had made into the small hole of his gas tank, which was brightly painted red, white and blue. This again seemed to mock the American machine in that this is exactly how it functions – American people are worked like animals, only to have their earnings shoved back into the government.

Another symbolic and poignant part of the film was the ending. It was clear that hippies living the lifestyle of the counterculture were not accepted by the typical working class American. At the end, two rednecks were driving in their pick-up and spotted the two hippies riding along, and one told the other to watch as he “scares the crap� out of one of these hippies. His attempt to scare Billy failed, as Billy’s only reaction was to give him the bird, which motivated the redneck to shoot him. Ironically, Wyatt stopped to cover his friend with his leather jacket (the American flag). Wyatt then continues after the rednecks and ends up killed in the same manner. The irony here lies in the shot to the gas tank of the American flag, which held all of their monetary earnings.

-Hasti Fashandi

Posted by fash0016 at 11:42 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Easy Rider is a very different movie in that there was very little dialogue between the actors and actresses. It was produced in ways that leave the viewers to make meanings out of the scenes.

The movie definitely exhibits Miller’s meaning of hippie counterculture and lifestyle. While some parts of the movie display the positive aspects of such hippie counterculture, some parts do portray it in negative ways.

For instance, the movie shows a group of people that are willing to settle for less. Sixties was undeniably a time of social and various other changes. However such shanges did not reflect the living conditions of average American citizen. Knowing that they had every opportunity and access to better living in the sixties, they chose to be more dependent upon themselves and less succumbing to the ideals of their government. Also there seemed to be an utter prohibition of violence and hate amongst them.

In some not so positive ways however, the hippies were displayed as dirty, stupid, and lack of proper family upbringing. Their clothes seemed more like rags, their living conditions were very poor, and they had less concern for many health problems as a result of practices such as marijuana smoking.

In addition, I agree with Costello’s comment in that Woodstock became one of best movies of all time not because of the dialogues, but because of the ways that individuals lived and dealt with one another. Such method of transmitting the message of the movie is very similar to the method used in Easy Rider. There was more information transmitted through the actors’s and actresses’s interaction with each other than did through their conversations.

As many people often say, pictures usually have a thousand words and explanations behind them. Such perception can definitely be applied to Easy Rider.

Posted by onon0006 at 11:07 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

I didn’t really like watching Easy Rider; I found the plot extremely slow. Also, it got kind of old watching them ride on their motorcycles through the country. However, this was how the movie needed to be made in order to accurately depict the hippie lifestyle. Miller wrote in his article, The Ethics of Cultural Opposition, “the major themes of the culture of opposition – dope, sex, rock and roll, and community . . .� were all accurately depicted in the film. The goal of Wyatt and Billy was to get to New Orleans in time for Mardi Gras, but along the way they did not really care what happened to them. They just were along for the ride. They met a lot of people and shared a lot of drugs. Miller also identified love, nonviolence, anti-materialism and the yearning to drop out of society as hippie ideals. Most of these principles are portrayed in the film. I think especially the yearning to drop out of society and anti-materialism are highlighted as Wyatt and Billy just leave their old lives and travel. Also, the only money they need is to buy gas. As Miller put it, “the hippies lived in the real world, but their ideal remained a disavowal of the materialism of American society� (p.112)

Posted by swens389 at 10:22 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

The Film Easy Rider does a great job of articulating the rhetoric or ideology of the hippies as defined by Miller. One point of departure though was that there were American flags all over the mise en scene throughout the film. And it is my understanding that most hippies did not believe in America. Miller refers to a Leary quote and adds to it: “‘we are absolved from all allegiance to the U.S. government and all governments controlled by the menopausal.’ But it was broader that just that. It was the disowning of a life oriented toward work, status, and power.� Granted, the two men in the film are drifters who have no clear purpose or direction but they seem to invoke a certain American folklore which turns out to be almost more affirming to the American ideology than critical of it. For example, the attire that Hopper wears in the film is iconic of Davy Crockett or perhaps Johnny Appleseed. And there is talk in the film between the characters about the mainstream being afraid “not of you, but of what you represent. Freedom is what they’re afraid of.� This along with the fact that they are riding through some of America’s most time honored and iconic landscapes that have been regarded worldwide as symbols associated with freedom and western films in popular consciousness, etc. This seems to “let Americans off the hook� from a hippy perspective in terms of this very hippy movie. So there is a slight contradiction here at least if the real hippy agenda was to dislike what America was and what it came to stand for from a hippy perspective.
Most of the film’s ideology though was directly in line with the hippy perspective and in that sense was an accurate reflection of the hippy philosophy and agenda. For example, Peter Fonda says to a farmer they encounter “You’ve got a nice place here, to live off the land and do your own thing in your own time. You should be proud.� Perhaps this signifies the hippy mentality of not working for the system or being taxed by the government and conforming to a corporate schedule. I suppose they saw the farmers time as corresponding to the rhythms of nature instead of being organized by a central authority such as in urban areas etc. Another example is the song they were singing in the commune “Does your hair hang low?� Long hair had symbolic meaning to hippies. It signified a natural man and a rebellion against the 1950’s crew cuts so many men had a generation before them.

Posted by dahme012 at 1:53 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Easy Rider is another movie that looks at the American Counter-Culture of the 1960's. Peter Fonda and Dennis Hopper represent two Counter-Cultural representatives on the road to go to Mardi Gras, all they have is their Motorcycles, their drugs, and a tube full of money stashed in the Gas Tank. The farther they get from home the less friendly the people they run into become, starting with the farmer and his Mexican Wife living off the land who welcomes them the most. In many ways I feel like he is the most counter-cultural out of all the people, he lives away from society, he lives entirely off the land, and he has a family with a woman who is a different race than he is. His friendliness and calm demeanor fully embody what the hippies wanted to become, which is why when the two go to the hippie commune the farmer seems even more of an embodiment. The hippies at the commune seem friendly enough and welcoming but soon after their arrival the lady running it begins complaining about the other hippies stopping buy and demanding food and not sharing their drugs. They are different from the farmer in that they are still attached to the normal cultures refusal to share without getting something in return.
The commune is the last time the two really meet anyone friendly. In the next town they get arrested for riding their bikes behind the parade. The towns police have nothing but scorn for them but thanks to Jack Nicholson, whom knows the cops personally, they are allowed out. Jack represents something else than what Fonda and Hopper are. Jack is respected in his own town despite his counter-culture personality. He shows that the main culture has the capacity to accept the counter-culture in small increments, but not as a whole due to their chagrin for Fonda and Hopper. As the three enter the true American South they are all completely out of any friendly ground. The south, being a hotbed of turmoil in real life at the time, perfectly represents the main culture. They have absolute hatred for the counter culture, and anything even remotely different, except of course for the young girls. Of course, the young girls interest in the three just make the hillbillies hate them even more, because now they feel the need to protect them from the possible change that comes with the three. That night while they are asleep on the side of the road, the hillbillies beat the three of them and Jack is killed. Hopper takes all of Jacks money, an act that Fonda doesn't seem at all happy with, and the two go off to Mardi Gras. Fonda says later, "We blew it." to Hopper. This is because Fonda figures out that they really aren't part of the Counter-culture, like the farmer, but that they are just outcasts of the main culture because of their attachment to money, and society. When Hopper is shot, Fonda says he will go get help, still naively thinking that he will be taken seriously by the main culture despite receiving nothing but scorn from it so far. He too is shot by the hillbillies, thus ending the movie.
The lesson from the movie is to show how hippies could fail, and that was by not completely severing themselves from the main culture.

-Thomas Kuppe

Posted by kupp0012 at 7:51 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

After watching Easy Rider I was left wondering what the true point of the movie was. It took me awhile to think about who the “good guys� were meant to be in this movie. Obviously the hicks who ridiculed and even killed Wyatt, Hopper , George were bad guys, but what did the other guys do to establish “good guy� status?? I think Miller’s hippie ideals from his article were portrayed somewhat through the movie. You could definitely see the hedonism, the yearning to drop out of establishment society on the behalf of Hopper and Wyatt. Then again, these things also made them seem lazy and not exactly favorable members of society. The movie basically revolves around drug use. The hippies always have a joint in their hand or seem to be on a high or trip of some kind. Other characteristics that Miller describes such as love and anti-materialism weren’t supported by Easy Rider as hippy values. Wyatt and Hopper made money by selling drugs, and protected that money in their gas tanks. At one point Hopper gets really uneasy as a hitchhiker fills the gas tanks, afraid that he might take their money. Also, there was no reflection of love really seen in the movie in any form. There is no friendship love, as George dies and they just burn his body on the side of the road. Also, the guys meet these women at a whorehouse and go on an acid trip with them, getting naked and taking advantage of the vulnerable women.

So after thinking about all of this – I couldn’t see how Wyatt or Hopper could be the good guys. Then that day on campus, it just so happened to be the day of the student’s Iraq War protest. There were large groups of students gathered in front of the Army recruiting office and chaining themselves to the Armory. Later that day I heard Sheryl Crow’s newest song on the radio, “Love is Free�. The lyrics reflected the hippie values with the chorus stating, “Oh everybody, Devil take your money, money’s got no hold on me. Oh oh everybody’s making love cause love is free.� These hippy ideals are still alive today, and thanks to guys like Wyatt and Hopper people are still allowed to publicly protest and sing about their visions on the radio, but now without becoming outcasts of society. And really, this is the freedom guaranteed to us as US citizens… so maybe Wyatt and Hopper are the good guys after all.

Posted by osbo0100 at 5:02 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

That film was really out there. It ended so abruptly and absurdly. No explanation just why they both got shot in the end. And all the scenes leading up to it didn't build on each other. No character development. I think that was probably an accurate portrayal of the fate of the counter-culture. Most of the people that participated in those movements grew-up gots jobs and fell prey to the changing zietghiest. In the 60's it was about individuality and self determination. Somehow those same people got wrapped up in the greedy business world of the 1980's. The 80's brought wealth to a lot of baby boomers but they didn't really advance socially during that time. Sure you have former hippies like Steve Jobs of Apple Computer who's really made a name for himself. He became really successful and introduced the personal computer into peoples homes. But The Reagan era was very socially regressive. The whole counterculture just sort of faded away

Posted by gonza275 at 2:21 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Near the end of the film, Wyatt and Bill converse over a campfire in which Billy says they were ready for retirement in Florida, where Wyatt just repeats “we blew it.� According to D. Costello, the meaning of that phrase is, “warning for a counterculture that can’t really be counter if it accepts the values of the dominant culture which it enslaves itself� (Costello, 190). Wyatt and Bill were attempting to be part of the counterculture movement where peace, love, and freedom were the dominant factors the movement represented. At the end, however, they were enslaved by the money they acquired and fell back on the dominant culture instead of separating themselves from it. Billy and Wyatt valued the money that the counterculture condemned, and therefore could not be part of that movement they were striving to be in. They rode through the country with the hidden money in their gasoline tanks symbolizing their bondage to the dominant culture. Initially, Billy and Wyatt were represented as non-conformist, but at the end they were just like the rest of the people in the dominant culture. This was shown by Billy suggesting Wyatt to retire in Florida, which did not fit the counterculture ideal of freedom, but rather a corporate type. According to the book, The Ethics of Cultural Opposition, “hippies lived in the real world, but their ideal remained a disavowal of the materialism of American society� (112) Billy and Wyatt, however, accepted the materialism of American society rather than denying it and ultimately “blowing it.�

Posted by karp0040 at 8:00 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

I saw "Easy Rider" for the first in class on Wednesday. I had some fuzzy notion of the film being about two dudes riding around on motorcycles, but I had no idea that it had anything to do with some notion of being part of the counterculture movement. Although the film's main characters seem to be a part of and involved with this movement, it seems that they were only tangentially related to the ideals of hippyism. Certainly Captain America and Billy had "dropped out" of society, and their excessive drug use indicates that they are not part of the mainstream. They don't appear to have any form of employment, and they spend their days stoned and on the road. This, however, does not a hippie make. The symbolism of their cocaine pay dirt being hidden inside the American clad gas tank of a character nick-named "Captain America" suggests that, for all of their drug use and connections to the counterculture movement, they have still bought into the idea of the American Dream. Towards the end of the film, when Billy notes how he and Wyatt are rich now and ready to retire to Florida, Wyatt states that they "blew it." Wyatt understands at this point that in their quest to continue living their "free" life, they have instead gotten rich and therefore have done what is expected of individuals in a capitalistic society. Money and retirement are two things that will time them down.

Posted by Melissa Green at 5:38 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

I had been meaning to see Easy Rider for some time now. I even rented it once but ended up not having the time to watch it, so I was pretty happy with the switch for this week. And though I was kind of worried I might not like it, I found myself enjoying more or less the whole thing. It certainly deserves its place amongst the innovative and influential films of the late sixties (Bonnie & Clyde, Midnight Cowboy, The Wild Bunch, The Graduate, etc), and as the definitive counterculture film as well. The thing I found most effective by far was the two main characters through which we saw the counterculture world. "Captain America" and "Billy the Kid," as they were so cleverly nicknamed, were these hippie/hell's angels hybrids with which I felt I could sympathize more with than just straightforward archetypes. By the end of the film, I particularly liked Dennis Hopper's character. In the beginning he just seemed to fill the bumbling sidekick role, but as the movie progressed he really seemed the wiser of the two in most situations save the whole "We blew it" deal near the end. The ending itself was obviously pretty cheesy and ridiculous, but the rest was a surprisingly accurate portrayal of the greater '60s counter-culture movement. The famous music, the weirdness of the hippie commune, the running around Mardi Gras, and the general free-flowing-road-movie feel all worked well within the counterculture frame. Some other things I noticed included that Peter Fonda's character had a real "man-with-no-name" Clint Eastwood kind of feel to him, while Dennis Hopper seemed like "the Ugly" from The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly. You could even say it's a modern day Western of sorts, but that might be a stretch. All that aside, I must add my favorite part of the film was with Jack Nicholson's character, George Hanson. I had known that Nicholson was in the movie, but I didn't expect his character to be anything like it was. His Southern accent was convincing and he pretty much stole the movie. All in all, Easy Rider was a pleasant surprise and I'm glad we took the time to watch it in this class.

Posted by Darth Nep0wix at 1:52 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

It does not seem to be a coincidence that "Easy Rider" was released in 1969, the same year Woodstock occurred. The film seems to be a response to the counterculture in which everything from education, to sexuality, to life in general is questioned. "Easy Rider" undoubtedly "outlines many aspects of the hippie culture" such as drugs, the unimportance of money, and the importance on nature. Timothy Miller examines these same aspects in "The Ethics of Cultural Opposition."

Money and materialism was one unimportant aspect to those of the counterculture. For example, multiple demonstrations of throwing 40 dollars onto the floor of the New York Stock Exchange took place during the counterculture movement, sending the message that "money is over"(Miller).

The unimportance of money is also observed in the film "Easy Rider." For example when reaching into a dead man's wallet one of the main characters says, "Not much here, just some money." In addition, they pride themselves on living the simple life, traveling from town to town spending money only on gas and many times stopping at random homes to get a free meal.

A final aspect of the counterculture that is examined in "The Ethics of Cultural Opposition" and "Easy Rider" is the importance of nature and the environment. Author Timothy Miller writes, "Races survival depends on learning to live harmoniously with nature," according to the counterculture. The importance of nature to those of the counterculture is evident in "Easy Rider," the characters camp out almost every night, rarely bathing or changing clothes. They admire those who live off the land stating, "It's not every man who can live off the land, [and] do his own thing at his own time."

Posted by dollx040 at 11:00 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Easy Rider successfully characterizes the counterculture movement, in that, it left me thinking “Uhhhhh…...� throughout the film and once it completed. I personally didn’t care for the lack of dialogue and real direction of Easy Rider, however, the lack of organization in the film represents the lack of predictability and organization within the counterculture movement. Miller’s identification of love, nonviolence, and antimaterialism as the main themes of the hippie counter-movement were shown, and then contradicted all throughout this movie.

We see “Captain America,� who is relatively calmly tempered (maybe because of all the pot) and doesn’t seem to have a problem with anybody he comes across, which is consistent with the nonviolence ideal. However Billy becomes violent easily on many occasions, like in the prison cell, as Jack Nicholson woke him up and he continued to threaten Jack until he realized that he was dealing with a man of influence who could get him a cigarette. This is doubly hypocritical of the counterculture ideal: 1. Billy isn’t a mellow-hippie, he is instead inclined towards violence; 2. Billy shows respect and reverence for the corporate and political “man� when he instantly respects Nicholson more once he finds out he has money and power. In doing this, Billy goes directly against the alleged “antimaterialism� value. Captain America is always well coiffed and obviously cares more about his image than his cohort Billy, his vanity also works against the notion that the new left devalued material possessions.

Free love is shown in the end of Easy Rider when they are all tripping on acid and “getting to know one another� in the graveyard/park scene. But Captain America contradicts this notion when he doesn’t give into the initial seduction of Mary, and instead wants to buy her a drink. He goes even farther to show remorse for Mary’s indifferent view towards making love. The term “free love� is even contradicted in this scene, in that Mary and her friend’s “love� were actually purchased for Billy and Captain America’s enjoyment.

Easy Rider showed the confusion, lack of organization, and unsustainability of the hippie counterculture movement in America. By showing constant contradiction of the alleged “doctrines� of the counterculture, the director exposed the reality which led to the decline of the hippies in American society: they failed because they only questioned life, and failed to provide any unique solutions.

Posted by joh03704 at 11:05 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

The hippie counterculture aspects, as outlined by Miller (1991), are reflected in Easy Rider. The hippie communes in the film clearly operate under the assumption that “love is all you need,� and by definition, the commune is composed of people who have decided to “drop-out� of society. What makes the film interesting is the “hippie� lives of the two main characters. While they represent some aspects of hippie life (certainly “hair, obscenity, dirt�), they are driven by non-hippie ideals.
More so than Wyatt, Billy is estranged from hippie ideals, which Wyatt notices as he maintains a contemplative demeanor throughout the film. Billy is goal-driven; “we’ve got things we’ve gotta do,� he urges Wyatt, who is enjoying hippie nature and leasure at the commune.
In the end, Billy is intent and excited to retire in Florida, the epitome of a corporate dream. In response, Wyatt confirms that the pair have indeed missed the point; they were not enjoying the benefits of truly “dropping-out;� they were only struggling to get back in, so to speak.
Trusting Costello’s (1972) knowledge of the subject area and my humble analysis of the film, I would agree that it was a “warning that the values of the counterculture were becoming indistinguishable from the values of the mainstream.�

Posted by mayxx145 at 9:24 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

I did not enjoy the movie at all. It was very drug-induced and messed up in the way the messages were portrayed and perceived.
Miller's ideas of what the hippie counterculture was supposed to represent were shown fairly well in the film. Wyatt and Billy made their drug deal, took their cash and decided to travel cross country to to mardi gras. They dropped out of civilization and just went with the flow of their trip. Peter Fonda's character was a good balance for Dennis Hopper's character. They did not have many things, just money and their bikes.
The hippie ideals in the film are shown both positively and negatively. Positive in the fact that they were able to have fun and do what they wanted to do, but negative in the fact that they had to cross some cultures in the country that did not agree with their lifestyle, image and what they stood for. They paid for that, in the end, with their lives and the life of one of their friends that made along their journey.
Wyatt and Billy had only love for the many people they came across in the film and did not try and start any type of violence towards anyone. They lived by what Costello thought that the young of the 60s lived by. The violence in the film was from those people who did not agree with the boy's hippie, free-loving lifestyle. They were victims of horrible acts of violence against them. They were treated like many of the other minorties of the time were treated.

Posted by hanl0083 at 1:49 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

I don’t think that the hippie “views� were shown positively or negatively, I don’t think they can be shown that way. It all depends on the viewers beliefs. For me everything was positive. Being able to live life with no concerns, smoke a joint and relax. At the hippie commune they visited everyone lived off of the land and everyone was happy. I think it did exaggerate the sex and drugs stereotype that goes with hippies. And it’s those stereotypes that can show the hippie lifestyle in a negative light. For the people who are more conservative they would not have agreed with the sexual freedom and acid trips that were taking place. This was shown in the movie from the people of the town they stopped in. Criticizing Wyatt and Billy for their long hair, motorcycles and counter culture vibes. Then at night they come and beat them with bats and kill Jack Nicholson’s character. Then in the ending when the red necks in the car make fun of them for their hair etc. Then shoots and kills both of them. All of the violence comes from the “old culture.� The hippies, or counter culture is all about peace and it is shown in the movie. Which is why I will never understand the minds behind people like that: having a problem with people who promote and practice peace.
At first this movie pissed me off because of the lack of dialogue, but when it was done I realized that it was supposed to be like that, and appreciated it. It was a movie that was meant for the counter culture. As far as comparing it to Woodstock I don’t think you can compare them, Woodstock was more of a documentary, and this was a movie. This movie was also a trip. There were so many random scenes that made you feel like you were on an acid trip.
I was also wondering if they were going down to Marti Gras for fun or if they were transporting drugs?? I didn’t know if the stash in the gas tank was for them or not?

Posted by robak003 at 9:17 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Easy Rider though all the main characters are white clearly have racial undertones throughout the movie. Just like minorities back in the 1960’s and earlier, Wyatt, Billy, and George all are persecuted by the townspeople. There is a lot of symbolism that is shown throughout the entire movie. The townspeople represent the conservative America who are not willing to change. George in the beginning tells Wyatt and Billy that the subculture is scared of the men’s freedom and that fear is what leads the subculture to frown and hate the “hippies�; Wyatt, Billy, and George. In one scene the men go to a restaurant where the girls find them attractive but the men are all trying to get them into trouble. One table with a sheriff and a local truck driver, try to think of all the ways that they could arrest them. Another table with a group of four men try to make them angry by talking loudly and making obscene remarks towards them. Wyatt, Billy, and George all leave after not getting any service and being treated terribly because of how they looked; specifically their hair and their messy appearance. Another instance of discrimination against them was when they were beat with a bunch of baseball bats and even a machete resulting in George’s death. The last example of the townspeople being prejudice against Wyatt and Billy is at the end when they try to scare them but actually end up shooting and killing both of them. The obvious racial undertone is that the men are treated as second class citizens for the lifestyle that they chose to live. Though they are white it is clear that only was conservative America in the 1960’s were not only a turbulent time for minorities but also for hippies, females, homosexuals etc. If George had been cast as a black character I don’t believe it would have made a significant change to the film, though I believe the townspeople may have been a little ruder and harsher. Overall it is evident that though the main characters were not white there was a correlation of their treatment and that of minorities.

Posted by dhill004 at 2:17 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

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)

Personally, I really enjoyed the film. “Apocalypse Now� could be viewed as pro- war or anti- war depending on the time when you saw it and how it was perceived. I saw it as anti-war from how Tomasulo viewed it as a way to “ Put the Vietnam experience behind them.� (page 2). By saying this he is inferring that the war could be forgotten, and obviously it cannot be, since we are still feeling the aftershock of the war to this day. I really liked how Coppola showed the effects of the deaths of innocent civilians and children. He allowed us to use our imaginations to see it rather than actually showing us first hand, which I really appreciated. No one wants to see that. One instance where he used this was when they went to check out the boat to see if the people on it were boating supplies up the river. It ends in everyone on the boat getting killed because the innocent woman goes to grab her puppy. This just plays into the whole “devils advocate� idea we have read about where since the Vietnamese weren’t wearing uniforms, our soldiers had to assume they were enemies until shown differently. The film also shows our soldiers crying and longing towards the boat as they go up the river screaming and pleading for them to take them home.
This movie could be considered pro- war because all of the fighting and bombing scenes show the power our military has. I could be a “flexing of our military’s muscles� if you will. The only times I felt like the movie could have been pro- war was when the Vietcong was attacking us, or when one of our own soldiers dies.
From the readings and watching the movie, I truly believe that “Apocalypse Now� is an anti- war film. The way he leaves most of the death to the imagination only adds to the goal of war being unnecessary.

Posted by stor0245 at 10:02 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 t