American Politics & Pop Culture

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.