5 ms·

>The Vietnamese are never given a say in this story. That's because it's not a movie about the Vietnam war. It's a story about violence and about human savager

>The Vietnamese are never given a say in this story. That's because it's not a movie about the Vietnam war. It's a story about violence and about human savagery that happens to be set within the context to the Vietnam war. The obvious parallels with Conrad's Heart of Darkness have been discussed elsewhere. One could take the story and put it in any other time or context if they wanted, akin to West Side Story being a modern rendition of Romeo and Juliet.

arkitaip 4y ago
That's even worse because it implies that the Vietnamese problem mattered so little, that they were backdrop details.
- poulsbohemian 4y ago
  Are you attempting to be provocative or are you not understanding my comment? Apocalypse Now was a retelling of a novel set in Africa - it isn't "about" the Vietnam war, that just happens to be the context for this particular telling of the story. It comprises a journey, a narrator, a "madman," and various other fictional characters. Heck, I bet you could retell it using hobbits and elves or really fictional characters if you really wanted. The actual setting in this case is secondary to the message of the story, which is why it isn't brought forward more - I would posit that's probably why the scenes with the French colonists were left out in the original theater release.
  - SoftAnnaLee 4y ago
    Every story consists of the decisions that an author executes. Sure, there are the intentions of the author, but that comprises only a small selection of factors that goes into a reading of any work. Within the Jazz community, there is a saying; > It's not the notes you play, it's the notes you don't play. Likewise, within narratives, both fictional and non-fiction, a story is not composed only of the intentional and emphasized aspects of a narrative. But likewise, the subtle details, and the details left unsaid that lead one towards a conclusion; that craft a message unconsciously. To use a more simplistic narrative to illustrate this. Take a look at the original Star Wars. The overt message created in the actions of Luke, Han, and Leia is a tale of good overcoming evil. But in the small details of the setting, there is a subtle narrative about living under an authoritarian regime. The unpleasant but overly clean hallways and rooms within the Empire's bases and vehicles; contrasting with the impoverished, lived-in, locales of Tattooine. The identical uniforms and looks of the Empire's soldiers and commanders; contrasting with the infinite variability of those who live outside (and opposed to) their armies. But another subtle detail that becomes deafening in its silence is; why does the camera only display complex emotions with the human characters? C-3PO and R2D2 are flat comedic relief characters. The only alien we have extended time with as an audience is Chewbacca. Meanwhile, Luke, Han, and Leia all get to experience anguish, wonder, frustration, relief, and elation in varying degrees throughout the narrative. The fact that the narrative is human-centric is an implicit message that only humans within the Star Wars setting have interesting, exciting, and relatable inner lives. Since we are not given a proper chance to relate to a significant non-human character. Likewise with Francis Coppola and John Milius both have made an implicit message to place the narrative within a particular real-life setting; yet significantly downplay the humanity of those who actually inhabit that setting in real-life. It may not be a particularly intentional decision by those two men, or it may actually well be. But the implication of it in either case is that American Men are implied to be those who wield autonomy in foreign lands that they visit, at the cost of those who are native to those lands. It can be read as an implicit view of how the American characters view the Vietnamese people they fight for/against; or a missed opportunity to enhance the horror of war. Or in the most uncharitable light, it is implicitly saying that only American lives are worth depicting and that the loss of an American is a tragedy while the loss of a Vietnamese life is a statistic.
    - junofan 4y ago
      [flagged]
    - wruza 4y ago
      Stories are written for people, and people don’t like their main heroes winning over similar humans who have the same concerns and life depth. It just doesn’t make a good saga or a good background for the key idea, unless it’s related. Dark parodies often literally add humanness to an enemy, both in shows and games (scenes like a trooper talking to his mom about a dinner and then gets stealth killed because hero is too lazy to loop around his post). The idea of showing both (all) sides only makes sense when a plot revolves around that exact idea, and doesn’t otherwise. You have to contrast an idea enough for it to stay primary, and adding a real-world drama does the opposite, because, well, your auditory is not a soulless bunch.
hardwaregeek 4y ago
Well I'd then say that it's a failure of the source text, or at least Coppola's interpretation of the source text, that Apocalypse Now fails to give a voice to the native people. Which, in fairness, is a sin that many commit. John Le Carre, Graham Greene, and many others have failed as well.
- nerdponx 4y ago
  Heart of Darkness specifically not giving much of any voice to the native people is clearly a deliberate literary device, and Coppola carried it over to Apocalypse Now.
- dekhn 4y ago
  That's the whole point of the original book: up the river, there is a natural civilization that simple cannot be understood by western people, it is unknownable and ineffable. "I tried to break the spell--the heavy, mute spell of the wilderness--that seemed to draw him to its pitiless breast by the awakening of forgotten and brutal instincts, by the memory of gratified and monstrous passions. This alone, I was convinced, had driven him out to the edge of the forest, to the bush, towards the gleam of fires, the throb of drums, the drone of weird incantations; this alone had beguiled his unlawful soul beyond the bounds of permitted aspirations."
IndySun 4y ago
>It's a story about violence and about human savagery that happens to be set within the context to the Vietnam war. Your points are valid, almost entirely. But it cannot be stated strongly enough - not human savagery, male savagery. What percentage of human savagery, would you esitmate, is exacted by men? There is no Juliet. There is no Maria.
- rufus_foreman 4y ago
  She's got a grenade! She's got a grenade!

arkitaip 4y ago

That's even worse because it implies that the Vietnamese problem mattered so little, that they were backdrop details.

poulsbohemian 4y ago
Are you attempting to be provocative or are you not understanding my comment? Apocalypse Now was a retelling of a novel set in Africa - it isn't "about" the Vietnam war, that just happens to be the context for this particular telling of the story. It comprises a journey, a narrator, a "madman," and various other fictional characters. Heck, I bet you could retell it using hobbits and elves or really fictional characters if you really wanted. The actual setting in this case is secondary to the message of the story, which is why it isn't brought forward more - I would posit that's probably why the scenes with the French colonists were left out in the original theater release.
- SoftAnnaLee 4y ago
  Every story consists of the decisions that an author executes. Sure, there are the intentions of the author, but that comprises only a small selection of factors that goes into a reading of any work. Within the Jazz community, there is a saying; > It's not the notes you play, it's the notes you don't play. Likewise, within narratives, both fictional and non-fiction, a story is not composed only of the intentional and emphasized aspects of a narrative. But likewise, the subtle details, and the details left unsaid that lead one towards a conclusion; that craft a message unconsciously. To use a more simplistic narrative to illustrate this. Take a look at the original Star Wars. The overt message created in the actions of Luke, Han, and Leia is a tale of good overcoming evil. But in the small details of the setting, there is a subtle narrative about living under an authoritarian regime. The unpleasant but overly clean hallways and rooms within the Empire's bases and vehicles; contrasting with the impoverished, lived-in, locales of Tattooine. The identical uniforms and looks of the Empire's soldiers and commanders; contrasting with the infinite variability of those who live outside (and opposed to) their armies. But another subtle detail that becomes deafening in its silence is; why does the camera only display complex emotions with the human characters? C-3PO and R2D2 are flat comedic relief characters. The only alien we have extended time with as an audience is Chewbacca. Meanwhile, Luke, Han, and Leia all get to experience anguish, wonder, frustration, relief, and elation in varying degrees throughout the narrative. The fact that the narrative is human-centric is an implicit message that only humans within the Star Wars setting have interesting, exciting, and relatable inner lives. Since we are not given a proper chance to relate to a significant non-human character. Likewise with Francis Coppola and John Milius both have made an implicit message to place the narrative within a particular real-life setting; yet significantly downplay the humanity of those who actually inhabit that setting in real-life. It may not be a particularly intentional decision by those two men, or it may actually well be. But the implication of it in either case is that American Men are implied to be those who wield autonomy in foreign lands that they visit, at the cost of those who are native to those lands. It can be read as an implicit view of how the American characters view the Vietnamese people they fight for/against; or a missed opportunity to enhance the horror of war. Or in the most uncharitable light, it is implicitly saying that only American lives are worth depicting and that the loss of an American is a tragedy while the loss of a Vietnamese life is a statistic.
  - junofan 4y ago
    [flagged]
  - wruza 4y ago
    Stories are written for people, and people don’t like their main heroes winning over similar humans who have the same concerns and life depth. It just doesn’t make a good saga or a good background for the key idea, unless it’s related. Dark parodies often literally add humanness to an enemy, both in shows and games (scenes like a trooper talking to his mom about a dinner and then gets stealth killed because hero is too lazy to loop around his post). The idea of showing both (all) sides only makes sense when a plot revolves around that exact idea, and doesn’t otherwise. You have to contrast an idea enough for it to stay primary, and adding a real-world drama does the opposite, because, well, your auditory is not a soulless bunch.

hardwaregeek 4y ago

Well I'd then say that it's a failure of the source text, or at least Coppola's interpretation of the source text, that Apocalypse Now fails to give a voice to the native people. Which, in fairness, is a sin that many commit. John Le Carre, Graham Greene, and many others have failed as well.

nerdponx 4y ago
Heart of Darkness specifically not giving much of any voice to the native people is clearly a deliberate literary device, and Coppola carried it over to Apocalypse Now.
dekhn 4y ago
That's the whole point of the original book: up the river, there is a natural civilization that simple cannot be understood by western people, it is unknownable and ineffable. "I tried to break the spell--the heavy, mute spell of the wilderness--that seemed to draw him to its pitiless breast by the awakening of forgotten and brutal instincts, by the memory of gratified and monstrous passions. This alone, I was convinced, had driven him out to the edge of the forest, to the bush, towards the gleam of fires, the throb of drums, the drone of weird incantations; this alone had beguiled his unlawful soul beyond the bounds of permitted aspirations."

IndySun 4y ago

>It's a story about violence and about human savagery that happens to be set within the context to the Vietnam war. Your points are valid, almost entirely. But it cannot be stated strongly enough - not human savagery, male savagery. What percentage of human savagery, would you esitmate, is exacted by men? There is no Juliet. There is no Maria.

rufus_foreman 4y ago
She's got a grenade! She's got a grenade!