From: anthony@panzer.b17b.ingr.com (Anthony Shipman)
Subject: Apocalypse Now (was Re: Coppola's DRACULA)
Organization: Intergraph
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 20:48:45 GMT

In article <1993Jan7.144844.16689@Princeton.EDU>, egnilges@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Edward G. Nilges) writes:
|> In article <C0H3AB.C6v@news.iastate.edu> s1mbm@isuvax.iastate.edu writes:
|> >In article <1993Jan7.022056.10619@Princeton.EDU>, egnilges@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Edward G. Nilges) writes:
|> >
|> >Ed, thanks for a heartfelt, and in my view, rather sensible post.  Am I to
|> >infer, though, that you think *Apocalypse Now* is crap?  I *hope* not!
|> >
|> >michael mcdonald
|> 
|> Apocaypse Now certainly lacks the focus of the Godfather, and even in
|> this rather early movie Coppola shows his inability to deal with his
|> will-to-power.  This movie popularized a scene of an American air attack
|> and set it to the music of Wagner; one would suppose that the North
|> Vietnamese, subject to Nixon's "mad bomber" attacks of Christmas 1972,
|> would be less amused.  It could never decide, as a movie, whether it
|> opposed the war in Vietnam or supported it as a crusade against "the
|> horror!"  As such, it is disjointed.
|> 
|> I KNOW that I don't love the smell of napalm in the morning, and to me
|> it's not the smell of victory.  Coppola needs to grow up.

Those are pretty harsh statements from someone too ignorant to determine whether
"Apocalypse Now" was a pro- or anti-war movie. There are so many points to be
addressed it's really hard to tell where to begin:

"lacks focus of the Godfather"
	Where was the lack of focus? Martin Sheen gets his orders, goes down the
river, sees various examples of the absurdity and horrors of war, gets to Kurtz's
compound, recognizes Kurtz is a looney-tune and not a great Prophet of War, and
kills him. What can be simplier than that?
	I've heard many critics complain about the part in Kurtz's compound being
murky and just plain weird. But IMO that WAS the point. Kurtz was insane. He was
driven insane by war. He has succumbed heart and soul to "the horror." I thought
it did a very good job at visually portraying the insanity.
	And how about that cutting (no pun intended) between Kurtz's death and
the sacrificial cow while playing the climax to "The End". What a cinematic coup
de maitre!! It's even better since Brando looked like a cow, too. (sorry,
couldn't resist.)

"inability to deal with his will-to-power."
	Well that's what sets an Uebermensch apart from worms like you.
Besides, even if you think "Apocalypse Now" was a crappy movie, I think
NO ONE can argue that this movie has not become an all-time cinematic classic that
will be watched 50, maybe even 100 years from now in film classes, just as
Eisenstein's stuff is watched now.

"music of Wagner"
	The tune in question is "Ride of the Valkyries." Valkyries were sort of
spirits of death that swooped down onto the battle field after the fight to carry
the souls of the dead warriors to Valhalla. The symbolism between the music and
the scene in the movie is to obvious to even be commented upon further.

"It could never decide, as a movie, whether it opposed the war in Vietnam or
supported it as a crusade against `the horror'"
	Surely you're joking. The movie's point was that the war WAS "the horror."
Inhuman, evil, and totally mindless.

"napalm in the morning."
	The colonel (Duvall) was the epitome of the gung-ho, kill-kill-kill
mentality that got us so deeply involved in a useless, tragic war.

Anyway, "Apocalypse Now" may have its problems, but a lack of conviction on the
stupidity of a horrible war is not one of them.

Anthony 
Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies