Apocalypse Now Mikhail Karpich
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.