I've
seem horrors. Horrors that you've
seen. But you have no right to call
me a murderer. You have a right to
kill me. You have a right to do
that. But you have no right to
judge me. It's impossible for words to describe what is necessary to those who
do not know what horror means. Horror.
Horror has a face. And you
must make a friend of horror. Horror and moral terror are your friends. If they are not, then they are your
enemies...
I remember when I was with Special Forces—it seems a thousand
centuries ago—we went into a camp to inoculate the children. We’d left the camp
after we had inoculated the children for polio and this old man came running
after us and he was crying, and he couldn’t see. We went back there and they had
hacked off every inoculated arm and there they were in a pile, a pile of little
arms and I remember I, I, I cried. I wept like some grandmother. I wanted to
tear my teeth out. I didn’t know what I wanted to do and I want to remember it,
I never want to forget it. I never want to forget, and then I realized like I
was shot, like I was shot with a diamond—a diamond bullet went through my
forehead—and I thought, my God, the genius of that. The genius, the will to do
that. Perfect, genuine, crystalline, pure. And then I realized they were
stronger than we, because they could stand it. These were not monsters, these
were men, trained cadres, who have children, who are filled with love. But they
have the strength, the strength, to do that. If I had ten divisions of these me
then our troubles here would be over very quickly. You have to have men who are
moral and at the same time able to use their primordial instincts to kill
without, feeling, without passion, without judgement, without judgement. Because it’s judgement that defeats us.This is Kurtz's last speech. After this he tells Willard: "And if I were to be killed...I would want someone to go to my home and tell my son everything...Everything I did. Everything you saw. Because there's nothing I detest more than the stench of lies. And you understand me, Willard, you will do this for me."
So we finally get to the end of the journey. It isn't pretty. It wasn't pretty on the movie set either as Coppola, as Clark said, madly wrote and wrote to come up with an ending. The ending he filmed hasn't pleased everyone. But we like it. I like it.
1. Questions you had brought up by this last section of the film?
2. Reaction to the film? Like? Dislike? Why?
3. "The horror. The horror." These are Kurtz's last word—as they will be in Conrad's story. What do you think the horror is that he's talking about? And why—how so?
4. Willard and Lance go home—or at least I assume they do. Imagine—as it happens in Conrad's story—we get to see Willard at home. What do you think we'd see? What would he be like?
At the end of a recent film on the Iraq War, The Hurt Locker, Kathryn Bigelow brings her soldier home and we see what it's like for him to have gone from disarming bombs to buying cereal.
How would Willard react to this, I wonder? Or Jerry?
Have a good weekend, and we'll see you all Monday. Have this done by 5 on Sunday.
1. I didn't really understand what was happening when Chief was dying and he had his hands around Willard's throat. It definitely looked like he was trying to strangle him, but I guess I'm just having problems believing it. I really liked Chief, and I understand why he would want to kill Willard. However, I did not think he would do that.
ReplyDelete2. I liked the film, although it was very disturbing and had a lot to take in. However, I think it can teach us a lot about war, death, sanity, and human nature. I also liked how the film also incorporated humor with Kilgore and with the crew.
3. I think there are many possible interpretations for this. He could possibly be reflecting on his life in his final moments and see the horror in what he has become. He tells us earlier that he has made friends with horror, it is a bad enemy. Maybe he is having some sort of revelation and realizing that this was what eventually killed him. It seems up to interpretation. I don't think there is one clear explanation.
4. I think he would be a mess. He was already not doing well at the beginning of the movie, and that was when he knew he was going to get a new assignment and he had not gone through all the things he experiences throughout the journey. I can't imagine him staying in the military after this mission, but I also cannot imagine him leaving it. Like Kilgore, Willard's entire meaning has revolved around his work in the military. However, this mission has exposed how corrupt and hypocritical the military is. I think the cereal clip would be agony for Willard to watch. This is how Willard felt when he went back home, and definitely how he will feel when he comes back again. I don't think anything would ever stimulate any kind of outward reaction for Jerry. I also think this is not as much of a concern for Jerry, since he is (at least I assume) in a position that will continue to be necessary after the war is over, as the CIA is active even during peacetime.
1. At the end of the film, although it wasn't completely deliberate, it seemed as if Colonel Kurtz wanted to die. He might have simply known that he was going to be murdered by Captain Willard and had come to terms with it, but it seemed to me as if he awaited his death. When he was saying to Willard, along the lines of, "When you kill me, make sure to tell my son everything that you saw and everything that happened." when he could have easily had Willard killed to protect his life. My first question: is this assumption that Kurtz wanted to die accurate? And secondly, if he did want to die, what lead him to anticipate and await his death so calmly?
ReplyDeleteIn addition, (and I know this is due to the main character having a heart attack) some things weren't cleared up or resolved, and the ending seemed abrupt. I wish that another narrator could have done a voiceover to describe what had happened to Chef, Lance, and Willard because it ended without clarifying. If that technique was on purpose to let the audience decide what happens, that's great but I still prefer to be told a distinct ending. I'd assume that they go home, but I'd like to see it confirmed.
2. I really liked this film, overall. It's not exactly my preferred or favorite genre of movie, being a teenage girl who enjoys romantic comedies. However, even during all the explosions and disturbing scenes of death, I appreciated how exciting it was. I really liked Willard's mission, and the blurred lines of sanity presented in the war environment. I remember strongly disliking it at first, but after we talked about it and I actually understood many aspects of the film I really loved it. The characters were entertaining and the imagery was incredible, I thought it was really well made overall.
3. I think Kurtz is referring to the overall concept of war, and how intensely it can affect individuals. I think he realizes how insane war is, and how control and power come into play. Kurtz has been declared mad because he doesn't follow follow orders. He hated that children suffering from polio had their arms cut off, so he views the people in charge as horrible, and their actions containing horror. All the death and chaos of the war seems horrible to Kurtz.
4. Well, Willard was an absolute mess in Saigon. His crazy actions made him seem unstable out of war, because his mind and soul couldn't recover quickly enough. I feel like he wouldn't know how to adapt back home. I would like to think that he wouldn't punch mirrors or have drunk break downs, but I think that he would as a result of how invested he was in the war. I think Jerry would react to the scene by simply doing his little suspicious smirk at the main character in The Hurt Locker. He seems unfazed by many things, not being very expressive in the lunch scene. I don't know what Willard would do, but he seems less calm than the character in the cereal scene. He might yell at him to pick a cereal brand, or knock down the boxes in the aisle if he got angry and impulsive as he acted in the first scene.
1. The last section of the film was very dense and definitely brought up a few questions. Why was Kurtz ready to accept death from Willard? Why didn’t Kurtz kill Willard on the spot? Kurtz imprisoned Willard and kept him on the edge of life but eventually let him free. Why? And my biggest question would be, what did the ending mean? What was the point of it? Clark said that in the final months of filmmaking, Coppola was desperately trying to come up with an ending, re-writing the script almost every day until it finally came to him. To me though, the ending seemed almost obvious. Willard killed Kurtz, took Kurtz’s writings and Lance with him, and sped away on the boat, presumably back to Lucas and Jerry to tell them he had completed his mission. It was definitely a very well done scene, but it seemed almost anti-climactic, because that's what I was expecting. I was kind of waiting for Willard to side with Kurtz or do something different than what was expected. I talked to my mom about the movie, (who upon hearing that I was reading Heart of Darkness told me I should watch Apocalypse Now after I finished the class) and she said that the ending wasn’t the point of the movie, the point was the larger message about the war itself, so maybe I’m focusing on the wrong thing.
ReplyDelete2. I really, really liked this film. It did so many brilliant things and through all its techniques and subtleties, I really learned a lot about the Vietnam War, America’s army and arrogance, and war and war mentality in general. I am, in general, very un-educated about these subjects. The movie isn’t easy to stomach, and certainly not something I would watch lightly, but it is a really important movie.
3. When Kurtz first made his speech to Willard, I didn’t really understand what he was talking about but upon reading it a few times more, I think I understand what he means. I think his last words, “the horror, the horror,” are talking about the horrors of the war the horrors that mankind are capable of as one singular force and unit. Kurtz can’t get past all the terrible things he’s seen, and this larger force of horror is always on his mind, so the way he copes with it is to “make a friend of horror,” because if he doesn’t, it always plagues him and is his “enemy.”
4.I don’t necessarily think Willard will go home, at least not immediately. The woman from the French plantation asked: “Will you ever return to America?” To which Willard responded: “No, I don’t think I will.” The woman took that to mean Willard home was also in Vietnam, in the jungle. When he was away from home, he wanted to be there, but when he was at home, he wanted to be back in the jungle. I think he has seen too much and experienced too much to go back and live a normal life. However, if he does return to the United States, he will definitely act as a changed man. Certainly, he’ll be more wary of the army and war and I think he will definitely draw into himself even more than he already has and act very unstable and inscrutable.
1. My main question is: what’s going to happen to Willard? I feel like we’re left hanging—though, in a way, that seems to be quite purposeful, despite the madcap script writing. I also want to know if Kurtz’s family will be told of his actions? Then, I’m curious as to why Kurtz’s followers bow down to Willard. There could be some sort of complex “you beat our deity so now you’re our new deity” situation, but it doesn’t seem like it.
ReplyDelete2. I prefer this movie to other war movies because it paints war as more of reality. I know that no cinematic depiction can show reality exactly as it was, but Apocalypse Now seems to reflect the genuine emotions of the war—which were confusing and complex. At times, it seemed like the missions of the soldiers were slightly without constant reason—they might have an end goal, but not all of their actions reflected that. The soldiers themselves were not always endearing, which I thought was another important factor. It’s a disturbing movie to watch for the same reasons that it is such a good movie. And, finally, from a cinematic perspective it was a beautiful movie to watch. Every twist of the camera seemed so purposeful, with hidden imagery like the statue, and this added to the general aura of the movie itself.
3. I think Kurtz is surrounded by horrors, of his own making as well as ones that he’s inherited. He’s dying surrounded by the cadavers of people he himself has killed, but, at the same time, he’s done so to aid the American military in their fight, which can fairly aptly be described as a horror itself.
4. Willard talks, early on in the movie, about how he’s become so disillusioned by his life at home. The 1960s feel like fairly modern history and so I’m trying to imagine Willard coming home today—and I don’t think it would be very pretty. I can’t imagine that he wouldn’t have some level of PTS(D) and there’s clearly a problem with veterans coming home right now and not getting the proper support. If it were Kilgore, I could see him maintaining a form of depression for a while but then finding something else to live for. For Willard, though, I don’t know how you could transition from Kurtz’s abode back to America. I don’t think Willard would be terribly successful if he returned to the US.
1) I was confused by the note Kurtz left at the end. Was it meant for Willard? Also, if it was, why didn't Willard call in an air strike afterwards? Also, Willard said that Kurtz seemed to want to be killed, so why did he kill Chef? Kurtz generally confused me.
ReplyDelete2) Apocalypse Now was a good movie, but there were a few problems. Firstly, i feel there should have been more explanation for the title. We see that it is the motto of Kurtz's men, but it doesn't really call this to attention, and no one even says it out loud. Also, I felt that at some points, it was just explosions, and not really advancing the plot, which could be frustrating.
3) This is Kurtz reflecting on his life and realizing that though he couldn't end the horrors of war, he should have acted differently. He committed more atrocities for no true purpose. He broke away from the corruption and dishonesty of the military, but still didn't help.
4) Willard would always be on edge, but he wouldn't miss the army. His mission allowed him to see how ugly war really was. He would not have a breakdown for the same reasons as he did at the beginning of the movie, though he would still be unstable.
1. I was wondering why out of all of the men on the boat, other than Captain Willard, Lance was the one who got to live. Why Lance? I’m also wondering what happened to Lance and Willard after Willard killed Colonel Kurtz? What happened between Captain Willard and the men who sent him on this mission?
ReplyDelete2. I liked the film very much, but I normally don't like war movies. I’m not exactly sure what it was, but something about this film was very different from any other film that I have seen or heard of. This movie felt real compared to many other war films. This film accurately showed how emotionally and even physically taxing it was to be a soldier in the Vietnam War.
3. I think that Kurtz says this because he finally sees what the war has made him to be and has made others to be as well. I believe that in the seconds before a person dies they see what they have been missing their whole life. Kurtz saw that what he had done to people and what was happening in Vietnam was terrible. He says this because horror is all he’s seen.
4. I think that Willard would continue to have emotional break downs like the first scene of the movie. The break downs would never stop because of what he had seen in Vietnam and Cambodia. He would come home with severe PTSD. He killed a man, saw all but one of his boat mates be killed, and was in one of the most terrifying wars the US has ever fought in. I believe that when he returns home he will be at an all time low in his life.
1. I'm on board with everything Kurtz says at the end (I don't agree but I see where it's all coming from). Considering the note, "drop the bomb. Exterminate them all," and my recent meditations on the atomic bomb from Donna's class, I get what kind of warfare Kurtz is talking about. I think the disorganization/chaos of Coppola's Vietnam makes a good case for a less 'moral' military strategy. What I want to know is what message Coppola was trying to send by making Kurtz's operation as equally chaotic? Was the end meant to illicit any respect for Kurtz or for the army? I kind of feel like this ending was a cop out or a way for Coppola to avoid having an opinion. Why am I wrong?
ReplyDelete2) I really liked this film -- I couldn't stop thinking about it. The first half was really impressive to me because it was funny and incredibly heavy at the same time. It felt like the film equivalent of Catch-22 or Slaughterhouse Five. The scene of insanity that the film painted for me was really impressive.
3) I think the horror Kurtz refers to is the double nature of human beings. The way that they can be both peaceful creatures and wage war. The fact that they can love their families and be moral parents and at the same time kill without judgement. The whole film does a good job of portraying how horrific the two-facedness of humanity is. The whole films flips rapidly between sex and death, music and death, childhood and death, etc.
4) I doubt Willard will ever be happy, but I also don't think he was in the first place. I think the scene where he's stuck in Saigon, always wishing he were someplace else is pretty indicative of his life after Vietnam. I doubt he'll ever find a place he is comfortable.
The main question that this movie raised for me was where do we draw the line between good and evil? Who gets to decide who is good or bad? Can you somehow be both? Can anyone completely be either? This movie made me question most of my morals, to be honest.
ReplyDeleteI enjoyed just Apocalpyse Now much more than I thought I would. I'm not usually into war movies, but I tried to go into this one with an open mind. I'm glad I did, because I loved it. I particularly loved how Coppola didn't focus only on the war itself. He incorporated all the aspects of war, especially the ones people don't usually know or think about. He allowed us to see the tradgedies of war up close and understand the characters and what they were going through.
Kurtz could be talking about the horrors of war, or the horrors of life in general. Throughout the movie we saw plenty of horrors: Kilgore's attack on the Vietnamese village, Clean's Death, Cheif's death, Chef's death, the death of the group of people on the junk, and so on. Not to mention the horrors of what Kurtz himself has done. It's all horrible.
We already know from the beginning of the movie that Willard isn't exactly emotionally stable. After coming back from what we saw him experience in the movie, he's probably even worse off than before. He most likely will go home and not know what to do with his life after all he's been through. I think at this point we could even call him insane.
1. What was the role of the man who joined Kurtz? We didn't see him, so I guess he wasn't that close with Kurtz. Maybe instead of having a position like Kurtz's, he just went to live in Kurtz's community/cult.
ReplyDeleteI wonder how Kurtz's family will react if/when Willard tells them about Kurtz. Also, will Willard actually tell them?
2. I liked it. Usually I dislike violent movies because I feel that many use violence to make the movie more exciting for the viewers, but the violence in this movie was definitely geared less towards excitement and more towards horror. I felt like the movie invited its viewers to ask why and how instead just presenting the plot and the story. For example, the fade-to-black after the massacre scene gives the audience some time to think through what they just saw.
3. I think that one of the points Coppola seeks to express through the film is that in war, human beings must suppress their instinctive morality (people don't like to kill, people are repulsed by killing and violence) to be victorious. When Kurtz talks about befriending horror, I think he means that war requires a person to allow themselves to become desensitized to violence. He also means that people must divide themselves ("there are two of you...one who kills, and one who loves) in order to be able to be desensitized. Kurtz exemplifies the division when he tells Willard that the same men who dismembered the inoculated children loved their own children and families. I think that "the horror" Kurtz talks about is the fact that people can and do make this division.
4. We already know that when he went home before, he felt like he wanted to go back to Vietnam. He doesn't seem to have anything to return to, as he has divorced his wife and he never hears anything from his family. In fact, while the other men on the boat open letters and packages from their families, we don't see Kurtz with any mail from home. He only has the dossier for his mission and the note about the man who joined Kurtz. Like Kilgore, I think Willard relied on the war for his self-definition and purpose. I imagine that he would be horribly depressed and that he would end up feeling disgusted with himself for the things that he did during the war. I can't really see him working any kind of job other than that of a soldier, since he defined himself through his role in the war.
1) I didn’t have many solid questions. I am mostly interested in Kurtz’s speeches and the different interpretations of those. I was a little confused by them.
ReplyDelete2) I really, really liked the film. I’d probably put it in my top five movies of all time. I loved how almost every detail had so much thought and meaning put inside of it. Coppola masterfully put together every scene and the writing and acting were extremely good. The message in the movie about war and human nature is also very interesting.
3) I think he is talking about the horror of war and the death and destruction it brings about. He talks about the horror that war can bring men to in the speech above. I think witnessing that horror broke Kurtz and he instead tried to embrace it.
4) I think that Willard will have a hard time adapting to normal, civilian life. However, I think he will no longer be like he was in the beginning; he will no longer have a longing to return to war. First of all, Willard says that this would be a mission to make him no longer want any more missions in the very beginning of the movie. Also, the very last scene, when Willard puts down his weapon and all the other soldiers follow suit show the end of Willard’s obsession with war.