Firemind

Member
Oct 25, 2017
15,583
I get the reverence of the movie; I even like the bizarre French plantation interlude, but that ending. Oof.

The entire movie was hyping up Colonel Kurtz as a badass Green Beret who finished the brutal training course at the age of thirty something, led his special forces to victories without authorization from chief of staff, is being treated and feared as a god by the locals etc.

When the boat finally reaches the destination, like a normal person, I was thinking shit would go down. Nothing happens. You have Dennis Hopper talking nonsense, Kurtz being philosophical in a dark room and Willard just staring in front of him. When Willard finally comes to his senses, he confronts Kurtz.

I was expecting the confrontation to be more like this:

18.gif


It turned out like this (yes that is an actual animal getting slaughtered):
VfjY_S.gif

What the fuck? Kurtz did nothing back. Did he want to die? Was he startled by the ambush? This man was literally sent to kill you. He knows this since this isn't the first assassination attempt. Martin Sheen's character was monologuing that even the jungle wanted him dead, without any sort of setup by the movie prior. The final line of Kurtz ends up being: The horror... the horror...

I get that Marlon Brando was overweight at the time of filming, which is why they shot the scenes in a poorly lit room, and that the writers had to cobble up a different ending than what was in the original script (which to my knowledge has never been disclosed), but man, what a poorly written ending. Should have casted someone else as Kurtz tbh.

Even the original marketing made him look like a totally unhinged person.

Apocalypse_Now_poster.jpg
 
Last edited:

Scullibundo

Member
Oct 25, 2017
9,741
Your real problem is that you obviously watched the Redux version for some reason, ruining the film.
 

The Unsent

Member
Oct 25, 2017
19,497
Yeah indeed Brando was really overweight so they covered him in darkness, my take was that he was too out of his mind and his body. It might come across as pro war if they have a bad arse battle.
 

amar212

Banned
Oct 31, 2017
58
Read the book.

Also, it is not an action movie.

Notice it has been filmed 40 years ago.

War is awful.
 

Kain

Unshakable Resolve - One Winged Slayer
The Fallen
Oct 27, 2017
7,672
Long story short: Brando was batshit insane
 

Mulberry

Member
Oct 28, 2017
678
Read Joseph Conrad's Heart of Darkness. It's what the movie was based on.

Also, I hope you didn't miss the very young Larry Fishburne. I believe that's how he was credited in the film. That movie is peppered with future stars.
 
Last edited:

-shadow-

One Winged Slayer
Member
Oct 25, 2017
6,110
A lot of it is down due to Brando being way out there and unwilling to do much of anything.
It's honestly amazing that Coppola managed to get much of anything out of the guy and managed to create such an amazing character still.
The lighting, script (what little that's actually used) and editing was absolutely on point!
 

boontobias

Avenger
Apr 14, 2018
9,605
He already passed on his philosophy to Sheen. Who would bring it back to the states and do whatever with it
 

Xpike

Member
Oct 25, 2017
1,676
I don't see what's hard to grasp
Kurtz had gone crazy and started a cult around him, leaving him careless and overconfident
 

The Unsent

Member
Oct 25, 2017
19,497
A lot of it is down due to Brando being way out there and unwilling to do much of anything.
It's honestly amazing that Coppola managed to get much of anything out of the guy and managed to create such an amazing character still.
The lighting, script (what little that's actually used) and editing was absolutely on point!
I think making those scenes so dark suited the film, as he got closer to his goal, he was losing sight and the darkness looked claustrophobic. Probably been said loads of time though.
 

Strafer

The Flagpole is Wider
Member
Oct 25, 2017
29,458
Sweden
I've come to appreciate the Redux version more than the theatrical version myself.

Fascinating movie.
 
OP
OP
Firemind

Firemind

Member
Oct 25, 2017
15,583
Well yeah, indeed irony because you have this glorious music and the invasion is so unglamorous and makes the American general look really self absorbed and unfeeling about what he's part of.
The irony did not go unnoticed to me. Still, at that moment it seemed a bit like glorification of American military might, even if Willard thought the guy wasn't right in his head.
 

Kinthey

Avenger
Oct 27, 2017
22,532
Should also check out the documentary



Basically everyone slowly went insane throughout the production of the movie, just like the characters.

Btw. The lack of blood always surprises me in that slaughter gif. Samurai movies lied to me.
 

teruterubozu

Member
Oct 28, 2017
8,036
"The horror, the horror" is from the book Heart of Darkness which the movie is loosely base on. It's Kurtz's last line. The movie tried too hard to weave in Jospeh Conrad's ending where there's a big discussion on civilization vs. savagery, etc.
 

Deleted member 18360

User requested account closure
Banned
Oct 27, 2017
2,844
Kurtz is presented as a demigod figure to contain all of the conflicting but supposedly lofty aspirations of colonialism, his collapse under these presents that these are inherently alienating and life negating. We might want to admire Kurtz's will if nothing else but in effect all that means is he had the 'courage' to cross a moral event horizon that should never be crossed. Kurtz strength was such that he was just capable of justifying or tolerating his own fashioning of himself into a monster. In this way he's like an anthropomorphization of the colonialist project itself.
 
Last edited:
Oct 28, 2017
13,691
I like that everyone is telling the OP he's wrong but have refused to grapple with his question.

The truth is, Coppola had no clue how to end the movie so he went nuts with pretentious dialog and imagery which gave the ending a veneer of thematic sophistication and a lot of people fell for it.
 

The Unsent

Member
Oct 25, 2017
19,497
The irony did not go unnoticed to me. Still, at that moment it seemed a bit like glorification of American military might, even if Willard thought the guy wasn't right in his head.
It's that classic storytelling device like in Goodfellas where they take us on a ride, make us unsure how to feel about what is being glorified, then knock us off it.
 

Fancy Clown

Member
Oct 25, 2017
5,414
Kurtz was sick and going to die soon anyway. He allowed himself to be killed as sort of a ritual slaughter—that's why it's edited between the actual ritual slaughter— and Willard inherited his role (but Willard casts aside his weapon so the worshippers live in a way free from violence and madness).

If you're still confused I wrote a fairly long article that sort of explains the movie (how I interpret it), I can send you a link.
 

RedMercury

Blue Venus
Member
Dec 24, 2017
17,745
I never understood why they shot Brando in darkness because he was overweight, he wasn't even that overweight, plus it played into the character basically having a cult of people to do his bidding while he just chilled out. Brando looking unhinged was perfect for the character.
 

ViewtifulJC

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
21,020
" I get that Marlon Brando was overweight at the time of filming, which is why they shot the scenes in a poorly lit room, and that the writers had to cobble up a different ending than what was in the original script (which to my knowledge has never been disclosed)"

Sounds like you understood it perfectly! Storaro's amazing nighttime photography tries reallllly hard to make Brando look like this dark, hulking menace instead of a fat, arrogant actor who deliberately went off-script. Meandering philosophical poetic dialog, the movie just kinda going up its own ass and slowly dies. Its a very unsatisfying ending, but Vietnam was a very unsatisfying war? And the excessive, needless destruction and collapse of all internal logic kinda matches the theme of the film's journey into darkness away from society? How do you feel about them using the brutal slaughter of an actual water buffalo as symbolic cross-cutting?

Anyway, the middle part of the movie is really good.
 

jett

Community Resettler
Member
Oct 25, 2017
44,698
Wait a few years for the stench of Redux to dissipate and watch the theatrical cut.

This isn't an action movie though. I have no idea what gave you the impression it was going to end like Schwarzenegger schlock, especially watching Redux.
 

Deleted member 9932

User requested account closure
Banned
Oct 27, 2017
5,711
Dont listen to the redux downplaying. It's the best version
I never understood why they shot Brando in darkness because he was overweight, he wasn't even that overweight, plus it played into the character basically having a cult of people to do his bidding while he just chilled out. Brando looking unhinged was perfect for the character.

brando had huge issues of how he looked
 

AbstractPlain

Member
Oct 27, 2017
270
The documentary Heart of Darkness covers a lot of what your asking in regards to the ending and the way it is. The original ending was disclosed. It is mentioned in the documentary and had Willard and Kurtz fight off a bunch of vietcong before being rescued by American helicopters. Naturally Coppola hated that ending but struggled to come up with a good ending of his own for the film so that is what we got.
 
OP
OP
Firemind

Firemind

Member
Oct 25, 2017
15,583
Kurtz is presented as a demigod figure to contain all of the conflicting but supposedly lofty aspirations of colonialism, his collapse under these presents that these are inherently alienating and life negating. We might want to admire Kurtz's will if nothing else but in effect all that means is he had the 'courage' to cross a moral event horizon that should never be crossed. Kurtz strength was such that he was just capable of justifying or tolerating his own fashioning of himself into a monster. In this way he's like an anthropomorphization of the colonialist project itself.
"The horror, the horror" is from the book Heart of Darkness which the movie is loosely base on. It's Kurtz's last line. The movie tried too hard to weave in Jospeh Conrad's ending where there's a big discussion on civilization vs. savagery, etc.
Seems like the Vietnam war doesn't really fit with the themes established in the book it's based on, since the US never wanted to colonize Vietnam. It effectively made the ending of the movie a wash. There are themes of morality in war, but the ending didn't reinforce that in my view.

You really thought it was going to end like an 80s action movie?
Of course not. I expected more than nothing though.
 

Deleted member 18360

User requested account closure
Banned
Oct 27, 2017
2,844
Seems like the Vietnam war doesn't really fit with the themes established in the book it's based on, since the US never wanted to colonize Vietnam. It effectively made the ending of the movie a wash. There are themes of morality in war, but the ending didn't reinforce that in my view.

The 'red scare'/Cold War made the US drop more bombs on Vietnam than was dropped by any and all parties in the entire Western theatre in WWII (iirc) because the us were afraid of the prospect of some falling dominoes on the other side of the globe. It's almost exactly the same and the only reason I didn't present it that way is because I'm admittedly only really familiar with the book.
 
Last edited:

Zygnosis

Banned
Dec 1, 2017
559
Kurtz is the voice of reason in the middle of war. He defies the status quo. He is anarchy, reason.

Willard is a brainwashed puppet, a grunt; hateful and lost. Doesn't know what to do, what to think, what to believe in. He just kills when ordered. Broken.

The river is a metaphor for Willard's inner journey, from a strugling sanity into clarity, which Kurtz' anarchistic philosophy represents. Kurtz is the end of a journey; freedom from the society, establishment, the norms, the moral, the american dream. Kurtz' philosophy is anti-establishment. Willard is the new God. He is Jesus. The promised son. Kurtz is a martyr-God.

Broken minds are easy targets for philosophy, religions, every ism. Willard is humanity. Kurtz is the God, the preacher, the preacher. He is reason.
 
Last edited:

Vamphuntr

Member
Oct 25, 2017
3,301
I like that everyone is telling the OP he's wrong but have refused to grapple with his question.

The truth is, Coppola had no clue how to end the movie so he went nuts with pretentious dialog and imagery which gave the ending a veneer of thematic sophistication and a lot of people fell for it.

It's often endings like these that make movies much more interesting though.People complain about the ending to 2001 A Space Odyssey a lot but it's really interesting how you can make two complete opposite reading of it considering what happened in the movie.

Considering everyone in Apocalypse Now goes insane the more they progress along the river (the riots with the playmate, the endless defending of the useless bridge in the middle of nowhere, The French colonialists living business as usual in the middle of a dangerous warzone) it's no surprise Kurtz is batshit insane at the end of the journey. Throughout the journey Willard is also seen more and more understanding Kurtz and was shown as not that stable in the beginning. Always understood it as Kurtz wanting to die and thinking the one killing him would replace him as once you went so deep in this hell there was no coming back. Yet Willard rejects it and leave.
 
OP
OP
Firemind

Firemind

Member
Oct 25, 2017
15,583
Kurtz was sick and going to die soon anyway. He allowed himself to be killed as sort of a ritual slaughter—that's why it's edited between the actual ritual slaughter— and Willard inherited his role (but Willard casts aside his weapon so the worshippers live in a way free from violence and madness).

If you're still confused I wrote a fairly long article that sort of explains the movie (how I interpret it), I can send you a link.
I thought about that. The movie didn't really tell us he was terminally ill though. He and Willard didn't have an actual talk come to think of it. The line where Kurtz tells Willard to go back and tell his son the truth is unearned, since they never formed any kind of relationship. They just met each other without any real conversations and he even kills one of his soldiers. All Willard knows about him is from the dossier.

How do you feel about them using the brutal slaughter of an actual water buffalo as symbolic cross-cutting?
I thought it was unnecessary.
 

Vetinari

Banned
Oct 31, 2019
64
Kurtz is a very tragic figure.
He is a brilliant soldier who realizes that if he wants to win this war he has to become as ruthless as the enemy.
The high command and the politicans don't see if that way because they worry about PR and are too civilized and, according to Kurtz, no longer true warriors.

Kurtz thus finds himself between a rock and a hard place: he despises the army and the country he devoted his life to but he also can't become a native and live in the jungle, it's a travesty and he knows it. So he is waiting for someone to put him out of his misery.
But he does not want to be killed by some lousy assassin sent by the top brass.
He surrenders to Willard because he deems him worthy. Willard have been through the same trials but unlike Kurtz he is still young enough to go back.
Willard is spared because in some way, Kurtz sees him as some version of him.

Kurtz becomes insane because he realizes that true warriors have no place in the modern world.
Edit: Kurtz is literraly the scapegoat, the vehicle in which society puts its violence and then sacrifices.
For the modern world to keep on living, men like Kurtz have to die.
Kurtz is the bull and the bull is Kurtz.

PS: I think the Redux version elevates the movie. The plantation scene captures the French spirit like very few things have.
 
Last edited: