Pro War Apocalypse Now
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