It seems many moons ago, that I first set pen to paper (not literally), to write my not-so magnanimous debut in University writing. Alas, time flies faster than the rain falls, and as all things must come to an end, I must sadly bid farewell to ArtsOne (ok we still have finals).
Anyways, ignore that.
Apocalypse Now was an awesome movie. Lots of explosions. But it was also excellent in that it felt like a reward after spending an excruciating (yet rewarding) week attempting to decipher the many messages behind Conrad’s Heart Of Darkness. The movie felt like a rewarding explanation that yes, in fact, I did understand what Conrad’s enigmatic book was all about.
However, the differences in the two stories, in my opinion, made Apocalypse Now a much more deep and rewarding film than if it had just been an exact adaptation of the book. I was really able to get a sense of the universality of the themes present in Conrad’s tale because of how they were able to seamlessly translate to other scenarios, time periods and themes, such as war instead of colonialism (even though as Jon mentioned in his lecture it is a form of neo-colonialism).
Finally, I ask the question of whether or not Apocalypse Now would be as impactful to someone who had not read Heart Of Darkness? I understand that the film holds some pretty powerful anti-war messages, although to someone watching casually without the analytical lens present fresh from reading Conrad, many of the films earlier scenes could be viewed as “glorifying war”, similar to the average action movie. I know that many of us (including me) see the movie as a critique of war, but it is always interesting to think about whether or not the message is lost to some…
Either way, I can’t wait to write about this film (even though I wish the essay prompts spoke to me a bit more)! Perhaps I will write another blog post after returning from Asia in July, but until then, peace out ArtsOne Blogs!
Cheers to a good first year 🙂
– Dev, Official ArtsOne essay title winner 2014
Hi Devin:
I’m behind in commenting on blog posts…way behind!
You know, when Jon asked in lecture if Coppola was anti-war or not, I honestly had to think about it a bit. I didn’t think it was really clear on the surface of the film itself. One could read it as just describing the hell that was that particular war…but then again, why should that war hell be any worse than other war hells? Or, one could just see it as describing the reality of what war is like, without judging necessarily that it’s a bad thing generally. But then again, I don’t have a clue what war is really like, so I don’t know if the film does this well.
But the more I thought about it, and the more I related it to Conrad, the more I thought that the absurdities shown in the film all along the river to Kurtz indicate problems with, if not war generally, then at least this war, or the American military. The ridiculousness of Colonel Kilgore and his surfing, the USO show in the middle of the jungle, the complete chaos and pointlessness of the Do Lung bridge, all together indicate that the whole thing was pretty ridiculous. At least, that’s one way of reading it as anti-war. I’m curious how else one might read it as giving an anti-war message.