"Apocalypse Now"*** (out of ****)
[Note: This review is in reference to the 1979 theatrical released version]
The film begins with an image of what is supposed to be the jungle of Vietnam. An explosion goes off and the jungle is now in flames. Is this a metaphor for Vietnam? Is it a country imploding? Or is it a metaphor for the soldiers fighting? Are they self destructive? As the scene continues the song "The End" by The Doors is heard on the soundtrack. The lyrics begin "this is the end". Is that another comment on Vietnam?
Depending on who you speak to Francis Ford Coppola's "Apocalypse Now" (1979) is either one of the greatest movies ever made or the beginning of Coppola's downfall. At the end of the 1970s Coppola would never again find the critical success he achieved in the decade he released "The Godfather" (1972), "The Godfather Part II" (1974), "The Conversation" (1974) and this film. It was a decade that saw Coppola nominated three times for a best director Academy Award, winning once for "The Godfather Part II". Each movie even received an Academy Award nomination for best picture with both Godfather movies winning.
I have struggled with "Apocalypse Now" over the years. I have seen it numerous times. I have watched the 1979 theatrical released version and the 2001 "Apocalypse Now Redux" version which added 49 additional minutes to an already two hour and 27 minute film. I own a Blu-ray that features both versions of the film. It would be the recommended copy to buy of this film.
There are astonishing images in "Apocalypse Now" and memorable characters yet emotionally I have never been drawn into the movie. I interpret the movie has a commentary on the mental state war has on men. If that interpretation is correct I believe there are better examples of this on film, namely Stanley Kubrick's "Full Metal Jacket" (1987), a film that as the years pass I find I admire more and more viewing after viewing. That is a film I would call a masterpiece and one of the greatest anti-war films ever made.
But as I say "Apocalypse Now" has its defenders. The late Chicago Sun-Times movie critic Roger Ebert, when reviewing the "Redux" version, wrote "more than ever it is clear Francis Ford Coppola's "Apocalypse Now" is one of the great films of all time. It shames modern Hollywood's timidity. To watch it is to feel yourself lifted up to the heights where cinema can take you, but so rarely does."
Coppola decided to base "Apocalypse Now" on a novel written by Joseph Conrad, "Heart of Darkness", which had nothing to do with the Vietnam War or Vietnam. The novel was published in 1899 and was about a voyage up the Congo River. It was meant to be a commentary about civilization and imperialism.
In Coppola's version we follow a Captain Willard (Martin Sheen), a man clearly suffering from Posttraumatic stress disorder. In some ways, every character in the movie is. In our introduction to Willard he confesses now that he is no longer in the jungles of Vietnam, he misses it. He is still haunted by the experience and is on a drunken binge when we see him but he wants to go back. He can't adapt to civilian life. He gets his wish when he given a mission to kill Colonel Kurtz (Marlon Brando), a soldier the U.S. Army says has gone rogue and may be insane. He is now in Cambodia where some of the locals treat Kurtz as a God. And so Willard makes his own journey down a river to find Kurtz.
As I watch "Apocalypse Now" I find myself agreeing with Kurtz. He doesn't seem crazy to me. Many of the other soldiers seen in the movie seem off the deep end to me but Kurtz appears lucid. Why should the U.S. Army want him dead? That creates some distance for me as I watch the movie because I begin to question the movie's and by extension the lead character's motives. Or, is that the whole point? Are we to believe Kurtz is right? Does he clearly recognize what the nature of war is? Does he convince us when he speaks of the horror he has witnessed?
These may be interesting questions but I never feel as if Coppola is really using Willard to counter Kurtz. Are they two sides of the same coin? Have they both experienced the horrors of war but come away with two different meanings? Some may say yes, Coppola does show that. Is it the nature of the movie. I would say you are really added a lot of you into interpreting the movie. You are creating things that aren't so visible on-screen. What, if anything, is Coppola telling us about war and the Vietnam War in particular?
Perhaps the answer is found in the three most distinct characters in the movie. As I said each is suffering in some way from PTSD. You have Captain Willard. In the first scene of the movie, Willard, doing a voice over narration, explains he is in Saigon, always Saigon. He feels being out of the jungle is making him soft. He explains he has divorced his wife. They barely spoke. He has been unable to adapted to civilian life.
Robert DuVall, who received an Oscar nomination, plays Lieutenant colonel Kilgore. Kilgore, who famously loves the smell of napalm in the morning, acts as if the war has no effect on him. It is life as usual. In the midst of fighting he talks about wanting to go surfing. This man has been deeply affected by the war. Kilgore will not be able to function either outside of combat. Life in not "normal" in Vietnam. Sooner or later that fact will hit Kilgore.
And finally there is Kurtz. To me the only sane character in the movie. He fully realizes what war is. That is the horror he speaks of. Kurtz may have his moments which reflect a disturbed mind but that may be the point. How can war not mentally affect you? I may describe Kurtz as sane but look what I am comparing him to. Willard may be narrating the movie, thus making it his story, but in some ways Kurtz is the movie's moral center.
There is one scene that really sticks out in my mind more than others as I feel it serves as a commentary on the Vietnam and may even reflect the opinion of those of the time period. As Willard and a Navy crew travel they notice a small boat with peasant. The captain of the Navy boat approaches this boat and asks one of the crew to inspect it, fearful there may be weapons on board. The crew member glances over, moves around a couple of things and believes everything is fine. The boat captain won't accept that answer and demands the search continues. Tempers start to flare. The Vietnamese passengers become frightened and shots are fired and people die. It seems as if Coppola is saying this is Vietnam. Everyone is tense. You don't know who you can trust. Situations escalate out of control and needless causalities are the result.
Stories of the movie's production are now legendary. Martin Sheen suffered a heart attack, a typhoon destroyed sets, a civil war broke out on the shooting location, the Philippines, the movie went over budget, Marlon Brando wasn't prepared for shooting when he arrived on set and Coppola struggled with finding an ending. This was all documented in "Hearts of Darkness" (1991) a documentary on the making of the movie. Watching that documentary really gives you an appreciation for this movie and what Coppola had to go through to get it done.
"Apocalypse Now", which won the Palm d'Or at the Cannes Film Festival, was nominated for eight Academy Awards and won two. One for Vittorio Storaro's cinematography and for best sound. It was also nominated for four Golden Globes and won three including best director for Coppola. The movie's worth has been proven by lasting the test of time. It is well remembered today and his considered among Coppola's grand achievements. Many feel it would have been a much more worthy best picture Oscar winner than "Kramer vs Kramer" (1979).
This is a movie I believe needs to be watched more than once. Each viewing should offer something new. That is usually the sign of a good movie but I still don't think it is great cinema. Some of the ideas don't seem clearly defined but it gives you something to think about.
Posts
