Insanity is Not a Theme

Rating: 10/10 (20 April 2006)

I really don't think the movie has much to do with insanity as it has to do with the fact that war is simply not civil. If it is fought in a non-committal way, it is a waste of time and victory cannot be sought. Those who would fight it brutally might be considered insane, but they are actually rational.
The Darkness or "Horror" is not insanity, but a realism by Col Kurtz of what is required to win war: Total commitment by the US to wage total warfare resulting in total annihilation (recall his penciled notes in red ink, "Drop the bomb. Kill them all").
When Coppola commented that the movie IS Vietnam, I think this is at least one point he was making: the futility of fighting a dedicated enemy with limited means. Recall Kurtz's comments of what he could accomplish with 10 divisions of troops of the likes that cut off the arms of innoculated children. He was referring to the brutality AND will required to win war. In contrast to his and Willard's will to accomplish their missions, there is ample evidence of those who are trying to escape Vietnam: Lance and LTC Kilgore's surfing obsession during supposed combat, the troops swimming in the river trying to escape the bridge outpost, the lack of officers present and in control, the high ranking general living a pampered existence in his comfortable airstream trailer, and Lance's escaping thru dropping acid.
Those that advocate total war to seek victory (like Kurtz, and implicitly Captain Willard) are probably correct, but made out to be insane. This is not unlike previous history, when Gen MacArthur advocated invading Manchuria and bombing across the Yalu river, essentially fighting Red China and using nuclear weapons. Truman, Marshall, and Bradley agreed that the Korea conflict had to be limited, and MacArthur removed as the UN forces Commander. The same principle was applied in Vietnam, where limited war was micro-managed by Secretary MacNamara and the pentagon. Uncontrolled escalation by the Army could lead to conflict with China and the USSR. Loose cannons such as Col Kurtz were dangerous and could not be tolerated in the officer corps.
I still wonder if the reason to eliminate Kurtz were his views, or his actions ?