Examining the meanings behind Coppola’s Apocalypse Now (1979) in reference to the cultural and social contexts of Hollywood by analysing the production, marketing and reception.
Apocalypse Now is a 1979 war film by Francis Ford Coppola. It was created at a time of great controversy and social change in American history, by a director whose career had sky-rocketed and was now ready to break the norms of classic cinema, while delivering profound messages about society, morality and war. Although the film is simply a Post-Classical Hollywood war epic, what I find most interesting is its ability to reflect three main elements that I will explore in this essay. These are; the state of Hollywood cinema at the time, the mentality and career of Coppola and the cultural contexts that existed, and remain relevant today, in America. These contexts are reflected in the journey of the protagonist and the moral dilemmas he encounters along the way. By examining the film text, primary sources on the production of the film and the critical reception, I can analyze how exactly Apocalypse Now encompasses these elements and portrays them to its existing audience. I will be referring to Eleanor Coppola’s Notes on the Making of Apocalypse Now, written and first published in 1979 after filming and post-production of the film, to gain a better understanding of the strenuous production and the severe challenges that were faced by the director. I will also research the critical readings and reception at the time of the film’s release, and the 40th anniversary re-release in 2019 to analyze the impact of the film in the New Hollywood age, compared to now.
David Bordwell successfully describes the emergence of a ‘New Hollywood’ as a product of both the fall of the ‘Classical’ era, and the influence of the iconic auteur film, specifically developing from the French New Wave. He writes that “the art cinema depicts psychologically ambivalent or confused characters whereas characters in the [classical] Hollywood film have clear-cut traits and objectives,” (Bordwell, 1986, 373). Bearing in mind that the ‘New Hollywood’ conventional films took influence from this art genre; we can see that Apocalypse Now (1979) also employs a majority of the common techniques that can be seen across Hollywood blockbusters and independent art films of the 60’s and 70’s, including Bordwell’s idea of the ambivalent character. Francis Ford Coppola spent much of the decade of the 1970’s obsessively immersed in the production of his fascinating war film Apocalypse Now. This film embraces the conventions of this Post-Classical Hollywood period while referring to the cultural and political debates surrounding America at this time. Coppola carefully constructed this film in reference to the existing state of the Hollywood film industry, while suggesting strong ideologies in favor of the liberal minded counterculture of the time. Looking at primary sources surrounding the production of this Hollywood epic, we can view the film critically in relation to the significant cultural happenings that would influence the making of Apocalypse Now and identify the themes and conventions that were typical of the ‘New Hollywood’ style of filmmaking. Arguments and debates surrounding the release of the film can also help us to understand the cultural implications that the film had on an audience in 1979, compared to today.
Firstly, it is crucial to understand the development of Hollywood and the cultural changes that would influence this shift in filmmaking during this time. Before ‘New Hollywood’ there existed a ‘Classical Hollywood’ era that would see films produced mostly for commercial success and stardom, rather than cultural significance and challenging traditional belief systems. The studios used the directors as employees to create a film that would sell to and be enjoyed by a large audience, of all ages. This was due to The Motion Picture Production Code that was adopted in 1930 to “ensure that films shown in mainstream, movie theaters followed certain guidelines. These were intended to make sure, as much as that was possible, that all films were basically suitable for all audiences.” (Krämer, 2011, 47). This included the restriction of profanity, drugs, nudity, sexual suggestiveness and more. Then came the abolishment of the Production Code in 1968 and the emergence of films that featured these banned taboos and brought great success to the Hollywood Studios. Films were now rated based on the audience it was suitable for, giving directors significantly more freedom to produce for the purpose of art, rather than commercialism. Of course, there still existed the classical Hollywood conventional films that were just as successful as previously, but some directors began to challenge the traditional Hollywood principles, based on influence from European art cinema which was gaining recognition. The films that initiated a Hollywood Renaissance would aim to express “both its awareness of the affirmative ideologies promoted by Old Hollywood and its determination to distance itself from them” (Langford, 2010, 178), slowly travelling away from the restricting classical era of filmmaking.
Similar to Langford, Bordwell argues that although the New Hollywood has taken a lot of influence from art cinema, it still remains its own unique form of filmmaking and is prevented from “becoming only a pastiche of continental art cinema” (Bordwell, 1985, 375) as American film has not yet completely broken the boundaries of time and space verisimilitude, like the art film, but conforms to the linear narrative structures of the Classical Hollywood movies. “Recent American film has bent art-film devices to causally or generically motivated functions” (Bordwell, 1985, 374). Perhaps what Bordwell is speculating here is that the New Hollywood movie uses the art style in a way that is more familiar to an audience who is comfortable with Classical structures. The merging of this Classical Hollywood and art cinema has created a New Hollywood, in which films “can explore ambiguous narrational possibilities but those explorations· remain within classical boundaries.” (Bordwell, 1985, 377). This idea correlates with the making of Apocalypse Now in that Francis Ford Coppola desperately wanted to portray the ambiguous themes of identity, morality and control through shocking and unexpected sequences while still maintaining a cohesive narrative to appeal to his mainstream audience. This contrast in stylistic development (Old Hollywood vs New Hollywood) can be seen reflected in the portrayal of the protagonist of the film, Benjamin Willard.
Apocalypse Now begins unconventionally with no opening credits. Instead, there is an establishing shot of the blowing trees of Vietnam, as napalm smoke slowly covers the screen creating an immense explosion, burning the jungle. The hallucinogenic sound of The End by The Doors plays over this sequence, referencing the counterculture that was so significant in America during the war, thrusting the audience into the world of Saigon, Vietnam, as described through the non-diegetic narration from our protagonist, Willard. A close-up of Willard in a trance-like state overlaps the fiery trees, while the diegetic beating of the ceiling fan mimics helicopter sounds, reflecting the psychological trauma Willard has already experienced from the war. A montage of the character drinking away his trauma commences as he remains alone in his hotel room, awaiting a “mission”. The character burns a picture of his ex-wife, symbolizing his detachment from home since being at war in Vietnam, and practices drunken Kung Fu which results in an injury from him striking the mirror. Already, the audience are aware of the unstable nature of the captain, immediately painting him as our anti-hero. The scenes that follow would identify the character as a type of assassin, although his composure remains that of a quiet, thoughtful man. Throughout the film, Willard becomes a character of observance as he descends his way along the river, being exposed to the truths of the war firsthand and the psychological damage it inflicts upon the young and compliant soldiers. He is in some ways a vessel for a naive audience to peer into the world of Vietnam. His introspectiveness inhibits the audience’s belief that Willard is a violent character, as we only see him act violently when his journey is compromised, and even then, no real aggressiveness is portrayed. The ambiguity of this anti-hero character is typical to the themes of New Hollywood. Thomas Elsaesser explains that the reasoning for this, in his Notes on The Unmotivated Hero, is essentially the American national trauma caused by the real Vietnam War, “a response to crisis” (Elsaesser, 1975, 295). “The overwhelming feelings of disaffection, alienation, and demoralization that permeate these films are, in a sense, a displaced repetition of the intense trauma suffered by the Vietnam generation.” (Elsaesser, 1975, 296). This “alienation” is portrayed deeply within Willard’s characterization from the beginning of the film as it is clear he has already lost his former self. Compared to other soldiers who long for their home, grieve at the loss of friends and wish for the war to end, Willard witnesses the war, unopinionated, as if he no longer has a purpose outside of Vietnam. The audience is never given the chance to witness the ‘true’ Willard, only the post-war Willard. His anti-heroic nature represents the effect that Vietnam has had on returning veterans and the nation as a whole. Consequently, this largely corresponds to the New Hollywood theme of reflectiveness on the cultural state of the country at the time of the making of the given film. Coppola has successfully created an anti-hero character that reflects the nation’s trauma and the New Hollywood style, while staying away from classic notions of a passionate and aggressive war hero character archetype.
Similar to the idea of Willard being an anti-hero character, we can say the same for Colonel Kurtz in that he is an anti-villain, although this is less obvious. Throughout the film we learn that Kurtz is to be “terminated” with “extreme prejudice”, so we are to believe that the character is evil, insane and must be killed by Willard, therefore introducing us to the typical villain character. Kurtz has gone rogue and has taken the war into his own hands through radical and unconventional methods of warfare with an indigenous tribe who now worship him. The long-awaited arrival of our protagonists at the Kurtz compound confirms the villainous representation of Kurtz, as the Captain and the remainders of his crew are met with an arrow attack, losing a second respected crew member in the process. The establishing tracking shot reveals scattered bodies and severed heads, verifying the suspected insanity of Kurtz, while a slow beat of a drum plays. This eerily silent entrance may be a stylistic choice by Coppola to avoid the conventions of what the audience might have been expecting. Our boat sails in quietly, categorically no guns blazing, stepping away from the conventional war-movie structure. Here, Coppola is already stepping away from the conventional black and white representations of hero vs villain, instead the lines are blurred. Elsaesser states here that the portrayal of realism rather than stereotypical representation “gives both heroes and the world that dooms them a mystification and starkness” (Elsaesser, 1975, 287). In contrast to these representations, Kurtz presents an ‘anti-villainous’ nature in his poetic preaching to Willard about the purposes of war, and the deception within. He says, “Because there’s nothing that I detest more than the stench of lies”. These preaching’s hold an underlying message that Francis Ford Coppola wanted to express to his countercultural audience of the 1970’s. He alludes to the controversy of the lies surrounding America during the Vietnam war. Kurtz here is addressing the liberal minds of the 70’s that protested against America’s involvement in the war and refused to be deceived by the false media coverage and the lies that were fed to the nation. Coppola was aware that “the films that attracted the largest audiences mirrored increasingly liberal attitudes towards sex, race and ethnicity” (Krämer, 2011, 87) because of the uprise in countercultural cinemagoers in the 60’s and 70’s, due to the baby boom generation growing up to challenge the traditional views the rest of society. This generation was “lining up to see films that were more in tune with their own worldview and values and rejecting those that persisted in propounding the perspectives of their parents’ generation” (Langford, 2010, 116). Therefore, the attitude of Kurtz and the belief he portrays about resisting control may appeal to this target demographic and is highlighting the ongoing cultural shift happening in American society at this time, and the different views surrounding the generations. Peter Lev rightfully suggests that the 70’s, “would have to see a split in the social and cultural values presented by American films” (Lev, 2000, xvii). Coppola is again going against the classical character archetypes and creating his own anti-villain, making Apocalypse Now a great example for the New Hollywood era.
Throughout the film, we understand that Willard has been learning about the Colonel’s involvement in Vietnam up until this point, “the more I read and began to understand, the more I admired him”. Along his journey, Willard sees more of the war and begins to understand what America was really doing in Vietnam, “it was a lie, and the more I saw them the more I hated lies”. He speaks very similarly to Kurtz at this point, perhaps proving that the two characters are not total opposites, of hero and villain, that they actually hold the same fundamental views on the war. When Willard meets Kurtz, he is held captive for days in his compound and Kurtz preaches to him like one of his followers. It becomes evident to Willard that Kurtz has a purpose for him, otherwise he wouldn’t still be alive. Perhaps a part of Willard is tempted by the idea of taking over the compound and becoming the tribe’s new leader, as he realizes this is what Kurtz had planned for him all along. This can be depicted from the way that Willard looks into the eyes of his fellow soldier, Colby, who did not complete his assassination mission. Willard here is seeing what he could become. The tribe bows down to Willard after he kills Kurtz and accept him as their new God, as the camera stays on the character for a long while, keeping the audience unaware of Willard’s next move. Finally, Willard silently walks toward the boat, as we understand now that his mission is complete, so he will leave Cambodia. Metaphorically, he was tempted by the freedom from the American lies and deceit, but in the end decided to obey his rules and ultimately conform with behavioral norms, allowing the cycle to continue. Some critical readings have labelled this ending as “a morass of pomposity and metaphysics … an act of hubristic folly” (Cook, 2000, 137). However, I see this as encompassing the mentality and actions of those who strive for freedom and progressiveness, but ultimately decide to conform to established norms. This is reflected in Coppola’s career as a director in the New Hollywood age. The construction of his own production studio, American Zoetrope, stated an explicit aim to create more art films that were “forty minutes, six minutes” (Coppola, 1979). He wanted to stretch the form and push the boundaries of cinema, which he certainly does with Apocalypse Now, although he ultimately maintains a classical narrative of cinema, as metaphorically reflected by Willard conforming to his mission.
Looking at the extensive Notes on The Making of Apocalypse Now, written by Eleanor Coppola (1979), she writes about the problems and setbacks experienced by the cast and crew during the prolonged production of the film, discussing external and internal struggles. She also gives a detailed account of her view on Francis’ battle to construct a really meaningful ending for the film. Francis Ford Coppola was essentially creating a film containing intense themes that, to his surprise, were prominent in his own life, “now he is struggling with the themes of Willard’s journey into self and Kurtz’s truths that are in a way themes he has not resolved inside himself” (Coppola, 1979, 43). Willard’s voyage down the river is highly symbolic of the whole production of the film, and Francis’ commitment to it, in that he has begun the journey and now there is no turning back. As Willard says when approaching the Kurtz compound “as if the boat was being sucked up the river”. Eleanor makes an interesting point here that this idea of commitment to the mission is also what had happened with the USA in Vietnam; they could not admit that they had made the wrong decision in trying to halt the advance of communism in North Vietnam. “I can’t go back the way it was. Neither can Francis, neither can Willard, neither can the United States” (Coppola, 1979, 212). It seems that the process of making Apocalypse Now, and the moral dilemmas that Coppola faced was a perfect metaphor for the 1970’s in America. “The 1970’s were the true era of “nobody knows anything” a period of uncertainty and disarray in the Hollywood film industry” (Lev, 2000, xvi). Apocalypse Now, both the film as a separate text and the reality of the production process as documented by Eleanor Coppola, embodies this period of uncertainty in the seventies, making it an ideal film to represent the New Hollywood process.
Perhaps this is how Coppola fulfills the definition of the auteur, as developed from French cinema to this New Hollywood age. Andrew Sarris developed this idea in his Notes on the Auteur Theory in 1962, as he states that in order to qualify as an auteur a director must; be technically competent, have stylistic tendencies, and experience hardship throughout production (in short). Coppola was stepping away from studio control and making more conscientious films which dealt with controversial subjects. He was also adding to his stylistic tendency in creating films which reflected the struggles he was experiencing in his personal life. “Coppola’s ambivalence over creative control drove him toward paranoid situations” (Connor, 2015, 101). This strong desire to step away from control caused him to create a film centered around one man’s departure from the instruction of the American military, into his own tribe to take back command. The film also deals with the theme of deception, in that the American public was being deceived about what was really going on in Vietnam, through false media coverage. This is ultimately reflective of what Coppola was doing with making Apocalypse Now. He was stepping away from the confines of the studio and making a film that truly represented his own beliefs and morals and would do go to any lengths to do so. For example, he invested over $30 million of his own money into the production and relocated to the Philippines with his family for years. Corrigan names Coppola as an auteur who represents the risk-taking nature of the New Hollywood director. “For him, specifically, his is a self-portrait of the auteur as persecuted and dismissed by the operatic conglomerates who have made him a powerless vehicle in their success.” (Corrigan, 1998, 57) After branching out with American Zoetrope, and putting his career on the line for the sake of filmmaking, Coppola was doubtful of his capabilities. His wife witnessed his severe doubtfulness firsthand during production, as she states he “feels like everybody on the production is looking at what he is doing and saying to themselves, this is a load of shit, this is the director of The Godfather? It sure looks like nothing to me.” (Coppola, 1979, 63). This paranoia is closely linked to the themes of paranoia within the film itself. In the director’s notes, found on the DVD for the original release of Apocalypse Now, Coppola admits “I, like Captain Willard was moving up a river in a faraway jungle, looking for answers and hoping for some kind of catharsis”. These connections between director and film, are what makes Coppola such a unique auteur of the New Hollywood era; he was able to project his own feelings into the film along with the dilemmas of the current society, while still maintaining conventions of a classic Hollywood movie that would achieve great success with his already established audience. Just as Langford states, “some of the most talismanic directors of the seventies generation turned in films that sought to paint highly personal visions on the largest possible canvas, in an unprecedented blend of auteur principles and old-style Hollywood extravagance.” (Langford, 2010, 127).
Looking at critical readings and reviews at the time of the film’s release, we can gain a better understanding of how the film was received by the contemporary audience. One review for the New York Times in 1979, written after the film’s premier at Cannes as a “work in progress”, intelligently praises the film and its metaphorical symbolism that underly the surface of the film’s narrative. The author of the review, Anderson, writes that the film is a “mind-shattering trip up the river of society … the freedom to choose between life’s alternatives.” (Anderson, 1979) The writer seems to have a good grasp on the abstract themes of the film, while understanding the references to the momentous cultural happenings in America, with reference to the psychedelic culture of the time. She also makes note of how the film is “heavily larded with literary and musical allusions” making it “even more opaque to an audience whose primary cultural reference is movies” (Anderson, 1979) referencing the books shown in the Kurtz compound such as The Golden Bough by Frazer, which holds powerful and controversial messages of morality and religion. Apocalypse Nowalso contains music from The Doors (Jim Morrison having been a close friend of Coppola during their time at UCLA) and Jimi Hendrix who were highly influential and opinionated artists during the Vietnam war. Anderson mentions that other critics at the time were “repelled by the violence” and thought the film to be “non-commercial” and “too long” (Anderson, 1979). This is in line with the many Hollywood films of the 70’s, as “it was the period in which the evolution of the genre produced films more gruesome, more violent, more disgusting, and perhaps more confused, than ever before in history” (Wood, 1986, 70). Perhaps these critics were unaware of Coppola’s intentions to “create a film experience that would give its audience a sense of the horror, the madness, the sensuousness, and the moral dilemma of the Vietnam war” (Coppola, 1979) as stated in the director’s notes.
This corresponds with the films marketing, “by United Artists in print, pot TV, and national network advertising as a “multi-level film” with broad audience appeal” (Cook, 2000, 62). United Artists were widely known for resonating with the youth demographic at the time, which fits with Coppola’s extensive use of countercultural referencing in the film, as they were originally set up by artists and filmmakers, rather than studio executives. The advertisement of a “multi-level film” would encourage the audience of the time to think outside of the universe of the film, and about how it has been influenced by real life events and cultural shifts. This was an important moment for the post-classical Hollywood period as “the film industry was beginning to stress advertising and market research as key elements in film planning” (Lev, 2000, xvii). In the early seventies, America had just been exposed to the truth of the Vietnam war through the Pentagon Papers. These revealed as a matter of fact that the US Government had been brazenly lying to its people about the rationale, the nature and the progress of the war. There was outrage among the population which had already seen demonstrations, heavy handed policing and rioting over the war – now that the conspiracy theorists had been proved right there were serious calls for and fears of revolution. This makes the marketing and reception of the film all the more important as United Artists knew that this young demographic would have been interested in what the film was going to uncover about the war, or how it was going to be represented. They would have been more in tune with different pop culture references, so seeing the film being advertised as “multi-level” would’ve been more intriguing. This can also be reflected in Coppola’s experimentation with the film’s release to the public, in that there were no opening credits, only a program was handed out listing the credits. However, he ultimately sticks to the classical narratives of conventional cinema as he had risked so much with the production, he had to make his fortune back somehow. He understood that most people would not want to see a film that completely broke the rules, and that established filmmaking techniques would have to be employed for the film to be remotely enjoyed by a mainstream audience, as well as the counterculture, liberal young minds.
As the 40th anniversary of the original release has just passed, Coppola has released a Final Cut of the film. This final cut is supposedly the “better-looking and -sounding Apocalypse Now”, states David Fear, from the renowned Rolling Stone publication. Fear noticeably is aware of the significance of the cultural references made throughout the film, and the effect that this would have had on an audience in the seventies. However, he is more interested in the fact that an audience watching the film today after its re-release would be likely to have seen the original. He comments on how the film is still a “surreal, psychedelic vision of life during wartime” but it is now “a completely different trip up the river, through your acid-fried skull, and into the heart of darkness” (Fear, 2019). He talks about the way that an audience would notice different, perhaps even more important moments in the film then they would have back when they first watched it in the seventies. “Viewers never step in the same river twice” (Fear, 2019). Audiences now are much more aware of the controversies surrounding the war, and the effect that this has since had on the nation. Cinema has also developed since the release of Apocalypse Now, and what was once seen as a mind-bending, abstract product of the New Hollywood age, is now looked back on as being a “paradoxical project” (Langford, 2010, 178) of a film trying desperately to distance itself from the old, Hollywood conventions into something revolutionary, but ultimately conforming to establish narrative structures.
Apocalypse Now most interestingly holds messages that parallel between Coppola’s dilemma, Hollywood, and US society. Although people often strive for revolution, progression and freedom from tradition, they usually fall back to familiar structure due to a huge and complex variety of reasons. Francis Ford Coppola desperately wanted to break traditions of classical cinema in the seventies, and change the way that film was viewed, but due to his fear of failure, he came to realize that to remain successful and relevant, his films must obey mainstream conventions to an extent. He experimented with portraying unorthodox themes throughout Apocalypse Now, and even released the film unconventionally to gain recognition. Ultimately, the film reflects his decision to fall back on familiarity, especially when Willard decides to terminate Kurtz’ command and return to the ordinary. Coppola’s dilemma is essentially reflective of what cinema was in New Hollywood, and what it always will be. There will always be directors who try to challenge traditions, but eventually cinema is designed to bring entertainment to the masses and therefore, commercialism. This attitude towards change can be seen in the radical attitudes in the 1970’s when the public was outraged by the lies in America, much like Kurtz, but ultimately accepted the political status quo. Nevertheless, America is still facing an untruthful government as a similar expose has just come out about the Afghanistan war. This time, the public is not outraged, instead they are more accepting of the corrupt system, proving that since the 1970’s, there has been no real revolutionary change. People today are desensitized to the dishonest government, making Apocalypse Now hardly as impactful now as it was at its original release, although the themes and messages are just as relevant today in reflecting the state of cinema, and American society. Willard decides to return to familiarity and leave revolution behind, just as Coppola abandons his dreams of revolutionizing cinema and decides to conform, and US society still tolerates lies from its government in this present day.
Word Count: 4680
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Anderson, S. (1979). 'Apocalypse Now' Film Stuns Cannes. New York Times.
Bordwell, David, Staiger, Janet and Thompson, Kristin (1985). The Classical Hollywood Cinema: Film Style and Mode of Production to 1960, London: Routledge,
Connor, J.D. (2015) The Studios After the Studios: Neoclassical Hollywood (1970-2010). Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Cook, David A. (2000) Lost Illusions: American Cinema in the Shadow of Watergate and Vietnam, 1970-1979. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Coppola, E. (1995). Notes. London: Faber and Faber.
Corrigan, Timothy (1998) “Auteurs and the New Hollywood”, in Jon Lewis (ed.). The New American Cinema. Durham: Duke University Press. 38-63.
Elsaesser, Thomas (2004 [first published 1975]). “The Pathos of Failure: Notes on the Unmotivated Hero”, in Thomas Elsaesser, Alexander Horvath and Noel King (eds.), The Last Great American Picture Show: New Hollywood Cinema in the 1970s. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press. 279-292.
Fear, D. (2019). 'Apocalypse Now: Final Cut': Coppola's Surreal Vietnam Epic Returns. [online] Rolling Stone. Available at: https://www.rollingstone.com/movies/movie-features/apocalypse-now-final-cut-review-coppola-870292/ [Accessed 8 Jan. 2020].
Krämer, P. (2011). The New Hollywood: From Bonnie and Clyde to Star Wars. London: Wallflower.
Langford, Barry (2010) Post-classical Hollywood: Film Industry, Style and Ideology Since 1945. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. 245-264.
Lev, Peter (2000) American Films of the 70s: Conflicting Visions. Austin: University of Texas Press.
Wood, Robin (1986) Hollywood from Vietnam to Reagan. New York: Columbia University Press.
FILMOGRAPHY
Apocalypse Now. (1979). [film] Directed by F. Coppola. Hollywood: United Artists, America Zoetrope.