ITT we discuss the meaning of the movie, and what Sup Forums think's about it.
I have watched plenty of War movies in my time, and especially Vietnam'war movies, But Apocalypse Now is without any doubt the best Nam'Movie i watched
what does people on this board think about it.
Easily one of the greatest films ever made. Pretty amazing that they set Willard up as the hero and you spend the movie expecting him to get some sort of classic redemption story, then 2/3 of the way through he executes a wounded woman in cold blood. Oops, nope, he was never the hero.
I think it's less about Vietnam than most Vietnam films. It comes across as a fever dream, that become gradually more hellish and surreal the further the characters progress into the jungle. Probably my favourite film of all time.
Hey, he told them not to stop. Should've kept moving.
I've seen Apocalypse Now a dozen or so times and I still can't watch that scene without feeling incredibly uncomfortable
Fun fact, the movie won the awards at cannes and almost won the Oscars in the same year and it also finished firmly at the end of the year's Box Office TOP 10.
No other film has managed that feat
did anybody get the true meaning of the movie?
i must admit, there was some scenes that i didn't get: Like the scene with the french men, and also the last 15 minutes of the movie was a little difficult to understand
I keep rewatching the scenes with Kurtz but I should probably see the whole thing again, it's been years
I love it, definitely in my top 10. I do enjoy the redux version even though many complain about it's pacing issues, but I think the slow pace at the french plantation gives the surrealness more weight.
The central idea is to stay the fuck outta the Congo.
Its about the insanity of the human mind
Redux destroys any sense of danger and isolation in the original cut, a real case of less is more. And that scene of Clean's burial is atrocious, everyone is out of character.
nice bait man
it's my favourite film
discuss
also, redux or original?
It's just a good atmospheric piece, 70s movies were real big on that and it's whats missing nowadays. However new filmmakers trying to recapture that vibe usually make boring shit.
Film stock looked great back then as well, it's all the technical details that elevate this.
>thinking this movie was about 'Vietnam'
Quickest way to spot a pleb
Its themes are wide ranging but one of the most prominent is the hypocrisy of war. Kurtz understands what it takes to win wars - that principles of war are artificial and meaningless, made up by people far away from the action; that a term like "war crime" is an oxymoron. He knew what it took to win: the abandonment of humanity and the willingness to go further than your opponent. Those in charge found his ways to be unacceptable and against the rules. This drives him mad.
>We train young men to drop fire on people, but their commanders won't allow them to write "fuck" on their airplanes because it's obscene!
"Apocalypse Now" is in a many ways a modern update of Homer's Odyssey.
Coppola’s “Apocalypse Now” can be interpreted as a modern update on Homer’s “Odyssey.” Both involve journeys of a protagonist on a body of water. The river takes Willard deeper and deeper into an external and internal conflict without his control and changes him in deep ways. Likewise, the Mediterranean does the same for Odysseus. On both of their journeys, they meet an array of colorful characters who alter their path.
Kilgore is the Cyclops that must be tricked, the Playboy bunnies are like the Sirens
Willard’s boat is named The Erebus – a Greek God, the son of Chaos, Erebus is shadow and married his sister Nyx the Goddess of the Night. (HEART OF DARKNESS??) Erebus is connected with Hades, the underworld. Hades was believed by some to be only accessible by boat.
When Willard reached Kurtz’s hideout, did he reach his Hades? It was a place of darkness.
What is interesting about the connection between these two texts is the motif of Home. Odysseus is on his way home from war, constantly trying to reach his family after 20 years abroad. Willard has fought already, then went home, only to become dissatisfied with what he found there. He returned to Saigon and got a divorce.
“Someday this war’s gonna end. That would be just fine
with the boys on the boat. They weren’t looking for
anything more than a way home. Trouble is, I’ve been
back there, and I knew that it just didn’t exist anymore.” – Apocalypse Now
Maybe there is no such thing as home, now that the Heart of Darkness has been discovered. Coppola might be saying that one cannot feel comfort or a sense of purpose in this Modernist/Post-modernist world. Unlike Odysseus, we have no place to return; the river has already moved on.
heart of darkness was a better story with deeper meaning.
film adaptation pales in comparison. plebs watch movies because they need guns and explosions and pictures to keep their add from cucking them.
Fuck off retard.
And yet the best parts of the film are towards the end, when the action stops.
>we discuss the meaning of the movie
Go read Heart of Darkness you turbo pleb. There is nothing complicated about the plot and it has little to do with war, you philistine.
you have to admit the helicopter attack scene is probably the greatest action sequence in the history of movies
i like fat BARNDO. good actor.
>mfw you get assigned to read Heart of Darkness in highschool and you see its only 80 pages long
Good post, very interesting.
Except it's entirely wrong, but whatever.
willard is a despicable character from the beginning
theres nothing admirable about him at any point in the movie
Oh god yeah. The buildup and release as they attack the village is orgasmic. But I feel gets better as it goes on. The ending is appropriate, rather than the planned apocalyptic fight between Kurtz/Willard and the Viet Cong. It ends not with a bang, but with a whimper.
I said interesting, not correct.
And if you find fault with it why don't you reply to him and expand on why and what you find fault with, instead of behaving like a passive aggressive little bitch?
Because the only real similarity is that he's on a boat. Willard is not banished, he's not on his way home, neither is Kurtz. It's about what a man will descend to when there is no society or rules to restrict him. It's about what lies in the deepest recesses of a man. It's that Willard comes to realize he's a coward and that Kurtz is a truly remarkable man, because he had something to say and said it.
So the original post was in fact not entirely wrong when referencing the similarities between homers Odyssey and Apocalypse now, and you're a retard.
Good to know.
1) What was Kurtz's end game?
2) Why did Kurtz kill Chef? He dindu nuffin
3) Why did Kurtz let Willard kill him?
>Talks about post modernism and Coppala when the fucking story was written in the 1890s by Conrad.
Yeah, I'm the retard.
Apocalypse Now was weird, tonally. I mean, I loved it, its one of my favorite movies, but I went in expecting a war movie, and instead got a dark and gritty Indiana Jones adventure, complete with the villain hiding in an ancient hidden temple
Vietnam doesnt ban this movie so i guess its acceptable
>all these tards saying it's their favorite film
>haven't seen one from the heart
explain yourselves, posers
Never watched it before. Should I watch the normal version or redux?
Normal. Redux is shit.
Redux is superior, don't listen to the plebs
Redux destroys many characters with needless add ones that deflate once mighty scenes, watch the original first if anything. Redux ruins the dark atmosphere by putting in more conventional Hollywood scenes and lightens the tone. Fuck redux
normal. ALWAY watch original cinematic release.
Redux adds the bafflingly shit French plantation sequence. It is best skipped.
>there are two of you don't you see, one that loves and one that kills
>*thousand yard stare intensifies*
redux is garbage
its cutting 45 minutes or so of needless garbage out of the film
also, even if you like the pointless added scenes, theres these moments of slapstick goofball humor in them that absolutely ruin the dark atmosphere of the movie
redux is trash
It comes across more of an adaptation of Inferno than the Odyssey. Even Kurtz at the end mirrors Dante's Satan, a creature that inspires terror but is ultimately a pathetic creature.
rockers with one foot on the grave
But Kurtz isn't pathetic. He went all the way while Marlow stood on the edge looking in. He even fucked a black woman and Marlow is too big of a pussy to tell Kurtz' wife the truth of how he lived and died in the Congo.
>kurtz
>pathetic
what
>"I've never seen a man so broken up and ripped apart."
>"Everybody wanted me to do it, him most of all. I felt like he was up there, waiting for me to take the pain away. He just wanted to go out like a soldier, standing up, not like some poor, wasted, rag-assed renegade."
Kurtz is a broken man, he may inspire terror and awe in his followers and enemies, but ultimately, he is a shell of his former self. Despite his speech near the end, Kurtz is weaker than his enemies. He can't commit the horrors that Willard sees at the Compound, while at the same time, retain the morals that man has in peacetime.
You really are.
You know the film is not actually identical to the book, right?
>1) What was Kurtz's end game?
didn't really have one, he was just a God in the jungle
>2) Why did Kurtz kill Chef? He dindu nuffin
Chef tried to call in an airstrike on the temple
>3) Why did Kurtz let Willard kill him?
he wanted to die by that point. He knew it was coming. He wanted to die as a fighter, not to rot away to some disease or to get bombed