Muddled narrative, stunning visuals

Rating: 7/10 (25 September 2019)

In the introduction to the most recent version, Apocalypse Now: Final Cut, Coppola refers to the surrealistic tone of the film and its avant gardist vision (that Vietnam turned capitalist?). But I wonder if a more apt description of its underlying esthetic is that of a surrealist homage to Dadaism, and rather long-winded at that; because the only firm opinion I could draw from viewing it this third time (my previous viewings were its predecessors), was that it was basically informed by a nod, intended or otherwise, to the absurdist elements of art as they pertain to film, with form prevailing over substance in a very spectacular fashion. Ironically, it was this latest version with its enhanced visuals and sound reproduction and effects that drove me to this conclusion, I guess because the narrative paled even further next to the ramped up audio-visual sensory experience, bringing out all the holes and glaring inconsistencies. One could argue that the absurdist element is a broad metaphor for war, in this case the Vietnamese war, but for a film that sets out to meticulously fill in the character of Kurtz the renegade Colonel through the eyes of Captain Willard the Special Ops assassin, both of whom one would assume have an inkling of the role of the US Military in the American Military-Industrial complex (Willard even refers to it as 'the Corporation' not entirely euphemistically), the received plot summary that Kurtz, having discovered the military isn't interested in winning the war, violating his principles as a warrior and a patriot, has gone insane and formed his own rogue army in the jungle of Cambodia to impose a reign of terror on those trying to depose him (one assumes from both sides), just doesn't ring true. For a Harvard grad with a Masters in History and member of the establishment, one would expect him politically savvy and cynical enough to know that war is business by other means, and that's it's not necessarily just about destroying the enemy and winning; or to paraphrase R. West talking about the military of the Romans: 'They had no use for the local potentates which would build up the Empire by raising their territories to military and economic strength; they wanted it as a defenceless field of exploitation for an international army."
But the narrative would have you believe that Kurtz is an idealist who made his way up the ranks, only to discover that the military doesn't function like he'd always been led to believe, and his disillusionment drives him to fight against his own - to rescue the honor of the US Military and his country? Maybe he really is a stubbornly idealistic idiot whose actions are threatening the profiteering activities of the Corporation and the top brass and he has to be eliminated. I have a similar issue with the Willard character. Yes, he is essentially an 'errand boy', as Kurtz pronounces him, but he too comes across as naive regarding why the Corporation want Kurtz eliminated - perhaps it's his job not to dig too deep. In the final analysis, one can see the parallels with Heart of Darkness. In the novel Kurtz uses brutal methods to run his end of the Company's ivory business and his success threatens the job security of complacent others higher up in the office; and similarly in the film, Kurtz has discovered that the only way to win the war by fighting brutality with greater brutality, but the Corporation keeps putting obstacles in his path. But their motives differ. The former is in it for profit and promotion, whereas the latter is working for the greater good of his country and his own noble cause as a warrior. What they share however is that both are driven to madness by the exigencies of their jobs-lives, which is to achieve the greatest possible success, as measured either in ivory or battle victories, regardless of how horrific and brutal the methods, divorced from their conscience and morals, which in essence the modus operandi of raw, unfettered capitalism where people are mere actors driven by blind forces, in the market place or the the service of the capitalist nation-state. If this indeed is 'the message' of the film, that insanity and inhumanity are at the core of capitalism, where war is business and business is war, then it is even more lost in the latest (final?) version.