High school history teachers know how important it is to relate
the past to the present and, assuming that the youngsters are at
least dimly aware of current events, the teen scholars can then
relate better to times elapsed. The same can be done with
literature. You can associate a past event with one that took place
at a different time, thereby giving the reader a better feel for the
subject. Something like that was tried most successfully by
Francis Ford Coppola when he used Joseph Conrad's 1902
novella "Heart of Darkness" to illuminate his epic 1979 picture
"Apocalypse Now." Conrad's story deals with a manager of a
trading station in the Belgian Congo, a Mr. Kurtz, who goes to the
Congo with high ideals and a self-imposed mission to civilize the
natives but is instead converted by them to savagery. Kurtz's
conversion to darkness is narrated to the reader by Marlow as an
impartial observer who makes the trip to the center of Africa which
becomes, symbolically, a journey toward the essential meaning
of life. When the manager visits Kurtz, an admirer of the latter
tells him that Kurtz had become corrupted by the very natives he
had hoped to enlighten. "Instead of his changing them," said the
man, "They had debased him into an atavistic savage."
Coppola sees the story of Kurtz as a parable to explain what
happened to the Americans during the ill-advised Vietnam War
and now, with forty-nine minutes put into the film, minutes not
seen before, we become enlightened to four basic changes in the
original story which is now called "Apocalypse Now Redux."
The many reviews that have been published and also posted
online for the original 1979 "Apocalypse Now" are easily
accessible thanks to the miracle of Internet-based, archival
storage. There's no need here to re-invent the wheel, to repeat
what you can easily find on web sites like imdb.com,
www.mrqe.com, and rottentomatoes.com. Suffice it to say that
Coppola's is (to be only partly facetious) a road-and-buddy movie
more than a conventional war film, featuring a group of American
vets traveling up a river on a mission to assassinate a modern
Kurtz; a colonel (played with appropriate mysticism by Marlon
Brando), with his assassin, Captain Willard (Martin Sheen),
learning quite a bit about war and life through the schizophrenic
rantings of Kurtz. Coppola's motif is not to show that war is evil
(that's, like, duh) or that the Vietnam War was especially profane,
but that nothing stinks more than lying. This point is driven home
most convincingly by Col. Kurtz as he reads some articles printed
in news magazines, particularly "Time," in which the president of
the United States, having sent a scout to the 'nam to find out how
the Yanks and their Vietnamese allies were doing against the Viet
Cong and the North Vietnamese troops said that things were
smelling better. "How do they smell to you, soldier?" asks Kurtz
to his captive captain, rhetorically. Seeing is believing. Reading
Time magazine, listening the president...forget it.
Four items have been added to the movie, and what is most
refreshing about the additions is Coppola's view that the American
audience is now mature enough to absorb and delight in the
additional footage though it brings the movie up to three hours
and sixteen minutes. (Well over three hundred hours were
actually shot in the Philippines, with digital editing partly used to
wade through all the celluloid in order to go with what best serves
the vision of the director, the writers--and the performers, who in
the particular instance of the French plantation scene did some
improvisation.) We've been told over and over by pessimists and
elitists that movies have had to be dumbed down for the modern
viewer. Without dismissing this charge as baseless, we can
nonetheless say that for the more sophisticated film buffs who
could enjoy a war movie that is more surreal than traditional with
periods more meditative than combative, this new version
deepens the original.
Here are the changes...First is the plantation sequence, which
to some might appear to come from another movie. As Willard
proceeds up the river into Cambodia on his secret mission to
assassinate Kurtz, he suddenly runs into the bizarre sight of a
French plantation in the middle of the jungle, apparently unhurt by
the enemies of so-called Western imperialism. Clean (Laurence
Fishburne) had just been buried, courtesy of the French hosts,
and during the long, wine-soaked banquet which was cooked
French-style by a Vietnamese chef and served by native
Vietnamese, the French get a chance to discuss their views of the
war with the more naive Americans. The French, we learn from
the head of the family Hubert deMarais (Christian Marquand),
have a good reason to stay. France is not their home: Indochina
is. But as deMarais heatedly explains in French-accented, perfect
English, the "Americans are fighting for nothing." The plantation
scene features an unusual seduction by the young French widow
Roxanne (Aurore Clement), making one wonder why any part of
this vista of what the poet Matthew Arnold called sweetness and
light could be omitted.
Change two involves the Playboy playmate sequence in which
a group of playmates are choppered in to entertain the boys. This
time, Coppola puts back in an arrangement in which the
helicopter runs out of fuel and Willard trades a couple of can of
fuel for the Playmate of the Year. The scene is metaphorical:
these beautiful women are exploited for their surface beauty in
much the way that the landscape of Vietnam is raped--and yet in
the latter case our presidents had called the action a moral one.
Change three makes up for a time-saving cut in a sequence
featuring Marlon Brando, who expounds on greater length about
the insanity of war. Perhaps the director originally felt that
showing too much Brando (so to speak) would take away from the
aura of mystery surrounding him: that allowing him more footage
would run the risk of humanizing him too greatly.
The final big change adds to the jokiness of the plot, specifically
with a bunch of guys who steal the prize surfboard of their
commanding officer, Kilgore (Robert Duvall). Putting the footage
back allows Coppola to contrast the young men, fresh into their
adventure and enjoying their kidding around, with the later horror
of death and destruction.
It's amusing to see some of the performers as they looked
twenty-two years ago. While Martin Sheen seems to have aged
the least, Laurence Fishburne comes across a positively
adolescent (not surprising since he was only fourteen when the
filming began). Harrison Ford is barely recognizable in his
twenties and in his brief role comes across lacking the fine lines of
character that he had developed over time.
Then as now, this film cannot really be compared with more
traditional war films like 'The Longest Day," "The Bridge on the
River Kwai," or "Saving Private Ryan." "Apocalypse Now" is at
once more mystical, more reflective, more suited to a war that has
been blamed for tearing America apart. Contrasts aside, it ranks
as one of the most moving of its genre.
Copyright © 2001 Harvey Karten