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