Welcome statement


Parting Words from Moristotle” (07/31/2023)
tells how to access our archives
of art, poems, stories, serials, travelogues,
essays, reviews, interviews, correspondence….

Monday, August 12, 2019

Movie Review: Apocalypse Now (1979)

Francis Ford Coppola’s failed translation of Joseph Conrad

By Rolf Dumke

I found Francis Ford Coppola’s The Godfather (1972) wonderful. But I think that his celebrated Apocalypse Now (1979) contains too much slaughter. And, according to a recent article in The Guardian, Coppola agrees so far as to say, “Apocalypse Now has stirring scenes of helicopters attacking innocent people. That’s not anti-war.”
    The main scene emphasized by film reviewers – the helicopter attack on a Vietnamese village by drugged Green Berets with loudspeakers blaring Wagnerian music – is camp, but disgusting. It is also stupid and gratuitous to show the required “horror, the horror” of the war in this way.
    Why Joseph Conrad’s novella The Heart of Darkness (1899), about the upper Congo’s brutal exploitation by King Leopold of Belgium and his henchmen, is Coppola’s model and metaphor for the war in Vietnam is a puzzle.


Coppola’s daughter, Sophia, directed a delightful film, Lost in Translation (2003). It’s about finely nuanced interpersonal relations experienced by guests for a week in a Tokyo high-rise hotel. I too have been “stranded” for weeks in a Tokyo high-rise hotel (and in the Beijing Hilton) and encountered curiously displaced persons.

In contrast to Francis Ford Coppola’s puzzling “translation” of Conrad into our own times, a modern masterpiece in such translation can be found in V.S. Naipaul’s novel, A Bend in the River, which came out the same year as Coppola’s Apocalypse. Naipaul’s work is a story of a former Central African colony’s initial attempt at modernity and its subsequent collapse into tribal mayhem and violence, which has unfortunately happened several times in Africa since 1979.
    In Naipaul’s novel, the story is experienced and told by an outsider, a trader with an Indian background who knows both the modern Europeans and the tribes and has engaged in a comfortable and profitable modus vivendi with both. But he is distracted from the encroaching danger by a love affair, loses all, and barely manages to escape down the river.
    Naipaul presents an African town and country in precarious balance between modernizing trends and tribal responses, which include post-colonial revenge on their former “masters.” The outsider who tells the story is the litmus test of this society. He is not really close to either group, but he knows them well and is usually wary of the numerous dangerous changes around him and is able to interpret finely nuanced social signals but has come to ignore them.
    Naipaul’s novel is the great Conrad story of our times. Coppola’s film isn’t.


Copyright © 2019 by Rolf Dumke

4 comments:

  1. While I agree Apocalypse Now was over the top, I don't believe it was intended to be factual but an expression of the horror of war. All wars, are made up of horrible scenes; watching the evening news as babies, mothers, young children, and hundreds of others are pulled from blow up buildings is not unlike Apocalypse Now. Not to me anyway.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Ed,

    You may be right that our innundation with previously unseen Facebook gory may make Apocalypse Now look like an appropriate anti-war film today. But only at first blush.

    However, I recall my reaction in 1979, one of immense disgust and revulsion. I felt like puking.

    I don't think that retching is an adequate response to war, nor is Coppola's cheap attempt to get a gut reaction.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I read a book about WW I called Johnny got his Gun. It was so horribly real it took me a month to finish it as I could only read it a few pages at a time before I had to put it down. Maybe the reaction you had was the intended one.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I think I now need to watch Apocalypse Now again, to see how I react, although how I react in 2019 might not much resemble my reaction 40 years earlier. Still, your somewhat diametric comments, Ed & Rolf, make me wonder how the pivotal scene will affect me – as campy comedy, atrocity, exploitation, or what.

    ReplyDelete