Comments on: “Apocalypse Now”: an audiovisual aid http://parallax-view.org/2008/10/01/apocalypse-now-an-audiovisual-aid/ Smart Words About Cinema Tue, 09 Mar 2010 14:32:14 -0500 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4 hourly 1 By: Doon http://parallax-view.org/2008/10/01/apocalypse-now-an-audiovisual-aid/comment-page-1/#comment-176 Doon Thu, 02 Oct 2008 22:07:52 +0000 http://parallax-view.org/?p=341#comment-176 I dunno. It worked for me. The images are often showy, but I don't think their function is really literal. They suggest millions of predetermined Big Themes, but those concepts aren't meaningfully resolved. I supposed that's partially what you mean when you say, "His motifs don't grow- they recur." In a way, you're right; the film, for all its Big Themes, is missing a Big Point, and that's part of why I like it. It's a "one-thing-at-a-time" film that is so committed to that fragmentary style that it creates a genuinely disorienting whole. If you get stuck on Meaning, it will annoy you to death. You have to let it invade you, with all its grandiosity and pushiness, in order for the experience to work. The literalness is less a strategy to convey meaning than something to cling to amid the sensual assault of the film. It takes the Big Action Movie aesthetic to its logical conclusion, amping the bold iconography and visceral stimulation up past 11. Like Willard, who longs for a dangerous mission at the beginning of the movie, caged in his comfy hotel room, we get too much of what we want. (At least, I know I want those things in action movies.) It's punishing, and arguably intellectually pointless, but it was a genuinely rewarding experience for me; there's something contemplative about the quiet intervals, like the simple camaraderie on the boat, and especially the ending, that, for all the messy confusion of the film, is strangely satisfying. Also, I remember Marlow being pretty cynical in the novella, even as he describes himself before the voyage; honorable and savvy, but rather disgusted with society and longing to lose himself in a dark, savage excursion. Willard does have less innocence to lose, but I think he comes across as a genuine "nice guy" behind the tough image; his contempt for the war at the beginning of the film is sort of flat and self-satisfied (especially considering that he actively desires to get back into it) and quite different from the genuine craziness that follows. I dunno. It worked for me. The images are often showy, but I don’t think their function is really literal. They suggest millions of predetermined Big Themes, but those concepts aren’t meaningfully resolved. I supposed that’s partially what you mean when you say, “His motifs don’t grow- they recur.” In a way, you’re right; the film, for all its Big Themes, is missing a Big Point, and that’s part of why I like it. It’s a “one-thing-at-a-time” film that is so committed to that fragmentary style that it creates a genuinely disorienting whole. If you get stuck on Meaning, it will annoy you to death. You have to let it invade you, with all its grandiosity and pushiness, in order for the experience to work. The literalness is less a strategy to convey meaning than something to cling to amid the sensual assault of the film. It takes the Big Action Movie aesthetic to its logical conclusion, amping the bold iconography and visceral stimulation up past 11. Like Willard, who longs for a dangerous mission at the beginning of the movie, caged in his comfy hotel room, we get too much of what we want. (At least, I know I want those things in action movies.) It’s punishing, and arguably intellectually pointless, but it was a genuinely rewarding experience for me; there’s something contemplative about the quiet intervals, like the simple camaraderie on the boat, and especially the ending, that, for all the messy confusion of the film, is strangely satisfying.

Also, I remember Marlow being pretty cynical in the novella, even as he describes himself before the voyage; honorable and savvy, but rather disgusted with society and longing to lose himself in a dark, savage excursion. Willard does have less innocence to lose, but I think he comes across as a genuine “nice guy” behind the tough image; his contempt for the war at the beginning of the film is sort of flat and self-satisfied (especially considering that he actively desires to get back into it) and quite different from the genuine craziness that follows.

]]>