Apocalypse Now as Binary- Liz Vieira
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.