Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
ACF#40: Apocalypse Now
John Presnall and I offer you a conversation on Francis Ford Coppola’s most ambitious movie, Apocalypse Now. It was shot over most of a year in the bicentennial year 1976, and needed some three years of work to make into a movie, ready for release only in 1979, whereupon it won the Palme D’Or at Cannes and a couple of Oscars and other awards and made a lot of money–and was also a great scandal from every point of view. We think it’s great, that it teaches very important things about “horror and moral terror,” and that its reflections on America and the Vietnam War are both insightful and unusual. Listen and share, friends–and let’s talk about the movie in the comments below!
.
Published in Podcasts
Hated this movie when I saw it in ’79. Have not watched it since. Be interested to listen to the podcast to hear what you and Presnall salvaged from it.
Evening Titus,
The boomers, of which I am one, thought that the horrors of Nam were exceptional, they were not in any way exceptional and we only thought so because we were ignorant. Our characterization of Nam as particularly dark and corrupt was a tool that we used against our partners to strip them of moral authority. We were wrong to do so, we did not know how wrong we were and many used our ability to silence our partners for their political advantage.
Is this discussion about the original theatrical cut or the one released sometime later with additional scenes?
We all know Duvall’s money quote that’s become part of popular culture, but there’s some good stuff on the voice over too. Oh, and one of my faves, Laurence Fishburne, starting out.
I’ve always thought the parts were greater than the whole. That doesn’t always make for coherence.
Yes, there were some great moments. I just disliked the mess when considered together.
Mostly, the greater version of the movie is on our minds.
Hey, Jim! Hello from D.C.!
I’m only at leisure to say one thing, before I run back to the job–it was the first time the American gov’t wasn’t serious about what victory would return the country to the kind of peace Americans wanted. Despite the fact they were prosecuting a popular war.
This is, strangely, an important part of the movie!
I do not understand the words you write.
Evening Titus,
“Work!” Says Maynard G.Krebs. What I am suggesting is the our willingness to lose the war is more emblematic of the success of the boomers to wear down their parents and expose their lack of confidence. Nothing about the war from incompetence, to savagery was exceptional. What I think was different is that we were seeing the first sign that the American culture was declining. The boomers may have been more unified than earlier teen generations, but also the forces which held the culture together were lessened with the ending of WWII and a large visible common enemy, and the beginning of the Cold War with an enemy who will in the academy be made into a moral equivalent. This moral equivalence will be used by the boomers to claim a superior wisdom and to ridicule their parents.
I hope your visit is the best ever. Mary and I have been taken over by the devil and have iPhones, forgive me.
I know I preach in the desert, but I was born in the desert-
Afternoon Gumby,
i meant to type parent instead of partner, sorry. Does that help?
Oh, I understood what you meant. I did not understand Titus’ comment.
He meant to say I know a peach in the dessert.
Titus,
I’ve always wondered about the puppy (golden retriever, if I remember it right). You mentioned the scene when it first arrives, but it disappears later on.
Any thoughts on that unlucky animal?
I thought that it was a misplaces symbol of innocence. There is a combination of irony & endearment in Lance taking him up. It’s ultimately deluded, but it would make sense in a normal world…
I really enjoy the show by the way. If you get a chance to get Armond White back on, I’d owe you a lot. It’s hard to find any content of him speaking, or at least that was the case last time I checked – but it was neat hearing you guys bounce ideas around.
I’ll be tuning in regardless; just my 2 cents.
Yeah, I’ve been looking to bring him back, but recently, things have just been hard to do… We’ll do it again sometime soon.
I agree with Kurtz on this much: I think fighting a war in any way other than to win as quickly and decisively as possible should be a war crime. If you’re not going to win, you’re just inflicting death and misery to no purpose.
I missed this at first; I didn’t get an alert. And then I had to work the Redux version into my busy schedule.
It’s the Sherman doctrine of war. Still rather sound.
I think the addition of the bunny scene and the plantation scene bring a lot into it. I can see why he wanted to do this version. Each in it’s own way contribute mightily to the surreal nature of the journey.
Yes, that’s very much the case. Being normal in an abnormal world–war–there turns into being insane.
Also, figure that being shot in 1976, he would have started work on this no later than ’75, and probably much earlier, likely before the fall of Saigon. Everything was still fresh, and a big part of the politics we remember was yet to come. For example, he likely started when people still considered it as a war that we had won.