Directors' Cup - Film Analysis: Apocalypse Now (1979) by Francis Ford Coppola

My defense in choosing Apocalypse Now: A Short Essay by Uli Cain

After haggling with studios on the Godfathers, Coppola wanted to get away from Hollywood interference and resurrected the eight-year old year story he had worked out with Lucas and Milius and decided to finance it fully through his company American Zoetrope.

Independently he went out with this huge project and, as well documented, chaos ensued.

There are times when films earn their reputation as a Masterpiece, and most people know I reject that term more than I use it. But Apocalypse Now is a Masterpiece of Cinematography, stunning work by Storaro, a Masterpiece of Editing, a Masterpiece of Sound, a Masterpiece of Bottling a Hurricane.

The production nearly ruined Coppola, but we cannot blame this film for supposed Coppola sins of the 80s and 90s, we can stare in wonder at what he accomplished with this film.

If you want to scream Canon! (another term I reject) and condemn this film, I feel it is wrongminded, because this film is a victory for the spirit of filmmaking and creative thinking; Coppola did not fold on this film, he fought to create, he laid his livelihood on the line for Film.

This achievement should not be belittled, it should be celebrated. It is the Big Film that Could, and it nearly killed the man behind it.

And it’s my favorite all time film. Plus, it helps set up a film I want to use in later rounds.

“The End” is the beginning is the end:

Thanks, Uli, for telling us the reason why you chose this film. To me, this is the question I am most interested from each manager for any of the films they chose – why did they choose this film and this director. Obviously, this is a personal choice for you. I also love the film, even more in its extended redux version. I, too, love its chaotic feel and the element of surprise, as you never know what’s around the corner – make that the river – when you first experience the film. This is a film that must be seen on a large screen to fully appreciate the cinematography, sound, music, and surreal atmosphere.

My only major criticism of the film is not in cinematic terms, but in its political context. I don’t see the film as a critique of the Vietnam War, but almost as a celebration of it. Coppola uses the war’s backdrop to create his masterpiece, but in no sense is the film a serious analysis on any level of the violence or reason for it. In fact, the violence just becomes an excuse to push the film further, as we get further down the river and meet up with the crazed Colonel. In fact, I still shudder when I see the scene with the helicopters swooping down on the Viet Cong guerrillas with the Wagner blaring out of the loud speakers. This scene seems a grotesque glorification of the violence that I can’t really reconcile, even though the scene is so memorable.

People tend to forget (or maybe overlook) the fact that it’s an adaptation of Conrad’s Heart of Darkness, and like that novella, there’s a great deal of ambiguity in regard to “civilization” vs. “primitives”—", etc. Also, to some extent, there’s the tension of clashing sensibilities—Coppola with screenwriter John Milius, Milius’ dialogue with the voiceover narration written by Michael Herr, etc.

@Uli, this is one of my favorite films too. I view it as this slow journey from consciousness to the subconscious where we go from the realm of reality to that of fantasy or dreams. Sort of like going into the id of our consciousness and seeing the dark side of our nature. I think that not just the cinematography, the sound or the editing but the music as well is well chosen for this film. I think that at the start of the film, there are some clues to the end of the film, where we see the sculpture of an Asian statue mixed with Martin Sheen’s face as well as well as a nice mix of sound of helicopter blades mixing with a ceiling fan. I think that the main music composed for the film by Coppola’s father, Carmine, fits this film because of the way it is presented in a very abstract atonal type manner, sort of like some modern avant garde music. It goes with the film, because I think the film is a very avant garde experimental type of experience as well. The use of the song The End by the Doors at the beginning and end of the film give the film a very hypnotic, trance like quality to it. I think that the film is sort of nonlinear, where as the film goes on, the scenes becomes stranger and more exotic. You could view the river as a metaphor for going through the canals of the brain where we discover what we really are that we are not conscious of when we are awake. I think what I have just said might sound sort of convoluted, but that’s the way I interpret the film. @Enygma I love the Wagner helicopter scene as well. The making of Apocalypse Now, Hearts of Darkness, show just how complicated it was to plan out the helicopter attack on the Vietnamese village. The helicopters were on loan from Ferdinand Marcos, who was President of the Phillipines, ( that’s where they shot the film ), and they were constantly drawn away because of rumors that there were communist guerillas nearby.

Eleanor Coppola’s book Notes is another great look at the shooting of the film, a great companion to Hearts of Darkness.

“My only major criticism of the film is not in cinematic terms, but in its political context. I don’t see the film as a critique of the Vietnam War, but almost as a celebration of it. "

I still refuse to believe this is an anti-Vietnam War film. Turning Heart of Darkness into a petty anti-war film is just too much for me to handle. The book is about the evil inherant in all mankind… so, a slightly larger scope than “boo Vietnam.”

(Yes, I know there’s more to the film so pleased not to jump on me for this comment. In general however, we all know people see this as an anti-war movie).

As stated this is my favorite film, but I do Not see it as an Anti-War film, I see the film as best defined in the line by General Corman “… because there is a conflict in every human heart, between the rational and irrational; between good and evil, and good does Not always triumph.” The film is an exploration of that sentence, just set against the backdrop of war.

…

…

…

I’ve never been a huge Coppola fan, but Apocalypse Now is the exception.

“War is hell,” as they say. And while the most straightforward way to show this is a bloodbath—the D-Day beaches in Saving Private Ryan—Coppola’s film stands out because it’s about something else. It’s not the loss of life, but the loss of sanity. (Which the moments of comedy only serve to underline). To watch Apocalypse Now is to feel like you’re slowly going insane, getting stuck in a situation that gets less and less human by necessity.

Not to mention that it’s an admirably ballsy move, playing this upfront. I’d have thought this would be saved for the end.

It’s not really a ballsy move to play this up front. I think it would be more ballsy to assume that “lesser” works would even get any director to the end. Given the fact that only 4 of the 128 directors will get into the finals as they are called, that’s only a three percent chance. Extremely far from a sure bet for anyone.

I have a plan and if I get through here, which with how things are going may be a pipe dream, I know the path I want to take. I’m still greatly disappointed Zhang Yimou didn’t make the second round.

Uli advanced from the first round by opening with Rain People, so it makes sense to me to come back with one of the bigger films in round 2. That leaves you with The Conversation and The Godfather Parts 1 and 2 still in reserve.

@ Uli: this is the theatrical cut that you’re playing right, not Redux?

theatrical, yes

the end of the river:

horror and moral terror are your friends:

Those Brando sequences are just a brilliant example of creating scenes in the edit bay. the faux shadows they added to help with transitions, brilliant sound editing, the timing was created to perfection. I mean Brando was good in the role, but the editing made the role great.

This is one of my all-time favorites, Uli, one of the few films I grew up with I don’t have to make excuses for to praise. I love it, love it, love it. Has anyone here seen it in cinema? I imagine that’s exquisite.

I’ve seen both of these films and I’ve made up my mind on the vote, but I have to say I’m still very torn on my decision.

My father saw it at the Cineramadome in LA when it came out, look I was six, but he could have taken me.

And I saw a horrible festival screening and WAS PISSED at the poor quality of the print, PISSED!!!!!!!!!!!

I will say my confidence is low Coppola will move on. Though Apocalypse Now is a wonder of filmmaking, it’s name may be too well known; of all the the films used so far in the DC it may be the most heard of name across all demographics and film types from novice to cinephile to even the disinterested.

Yet the fame of Apocalypse I feel is well-earned.

I hope for a good match and thoughtful consideration of both films. And if we truly say the DC is about discovery, well, upon each viewing and hearing of Apocalypse Now there is something new to discovery, it is more then the sum of its parts as a film and it is more than the sum of its parts as story of filmmaking.

For what it’s worth, I also respect the Redux cut although my problem isn’t with the French group part, rather the overt dialogue on the newer version. I prefer the elegiac jolting of the Theatrical Cut (I’m sure I’ve heard that the working project back in Cannes was met with moderate enthusiasm? Even if it went on to win the Palm nonetheless, ho ho ho)

I can’t help but parallelize it with Heart of Darkness and yet, Conrad has written much better material in spite of the popularity of the novella. I have to admit as well that it is indeed one of the most famous titles in film history, no matter if the film geeks haven’t even seen it, part of it is the iconic facade of Brando but the Vietnam aspect plays a severe role, at least in my country where only film buffs usually watch it or war-film maniacs! No one really knows of its written origins unless they’re experienced with literature too and it’s not as valued here as with other countries (I assume), but the night battle sequence and Hopper’s appearance assist on making it more or less the TOP of Coppola’s works, high high above anything he made prior and after Apocalypse (including Godfather II and Conversation), but I’m personally affected by a couple early Coppola, so one can say and wonder how will Coppola survive in case he makes it out of here safe.

I know for sure that if I see The Outsiders after Apocalypse Now, I’d vote even Antichrist against it!!!! :P