Apocalypse Now Redux film analysis | Movie Meaning

JustMC Level 1 Commenter 8 months ago

Interesting to read. Several things leap to mind. I apologize in advance for focusing on differences rather than agreement, but the differences are both more important and more interesting.

First a caveat. I am operating off of the original, not the redux, so it is possible I am missing some elements in my assessment. That said, I think my points are largely immune to any differences in content between the two.

While I completely agreee that the film makes the point that the military industrial complex is a reckless and evil machine (a point with which I wholeheartedly agree), it is a misnomer to say the military industrial complex is "capitalism." Capitalism is individual freedom and ownership of property, with freedom to trade freely with others through exclusively voluntary transactions, and requires real freedom and well-checked state power over the individual. The military industrial complex is the exact opposite of capitalism. The military industrial complex is an abusive, bloated and tyrannical machine that steals the property of the individual with the threat of ultimate force, uses that stolen wealth to create muscle and empire to steal yet more, and is even willing to send the individual citizen to non-defenseive wars of conquest and death (again, under the threat of ultimate force). The military industrial complex tramples the life, liberty, and property rights of the individual, ALL of which are absolutely fundamental to real capitalism.

Which leads to a broader discussion of real capitalism versus the statist and ever-more fascist system that dominates in the US and much of the rest of the world. Some have called it "crony-capitalism" but I think this is misleading to many, who consider them similar. As "justice" is the opposite of "injustice" so is "capitalism" the opposite of "crony-capitalism." We have a mix of the two here. But saying "crony-capitalism is a form of capitalism" is commonly used to smear capitalism's good name, and in truth it makes as little sense as saying "injustice is a form of justice."

Now, to be entirely fair on the issue of your statement about capitalism, IF it is your claim that Coppola incorrectly confuses the military industrial complex with capitalism, you could argue this point. However, if that is your claim, you should be clear about his error. Further, given the film's lack of discussion of capitalism, I will venture that the injection of the term into your review is yours alone. The closest thing we see to capitalism in the film is (presumably) the villagers and others who are trying to live, eat, raise livestock, etc, who are horribly abused by the actions of the military industrial complex. Capitalism and military industrial compled. Justice and injustice. Opposites.

Now, if this seems pedantic in its focus on the definition of capitalism, I would say the not-so-brief discussion I have devoted to it is critical in understanding what the film illustrates so well, and in applying the film's lessons to the world in which we live. Herein lies a good bit of the film's relevance. Real capitalism and individual freedom are truly good and principled, by far the root of the greatest expansion of prosperity and easing of suffering in human history. The military industrial compled is truly evil and destructive, as with any excess of state control. And the film illustrates this, with the destructive madness when few (or even one) have so much power over so many.

Another important point is that Willard is anything but the "everyman" you have claimed. Willard is a serial murderer who has completed multiple missions that defy even the "accepted" rules of war. He is not only not the "everyman" dropped into (supplanted means something else, BTW) the violence, he isn't even the everyman amongst the universe of soldiers. He is an elite, unconventional fighter, more like Kurtz than almost anyone else one might encounter. He is Kurtz a few years before Kurtz became all he has become. He is a socially-acceptable, outstanding in that he can understand Kurtz's notion of ethics and his betrayal by the US Army, and also (Kurtz hopes) communicate to Kurtz's son the truth of these.

What IS interesting is to ponder the extent to which Kurtz and Willard each consider themselves betrayed by their country and the US Army. To what extent do were they duped by "patriotism" or other lies from "fools and scoundrels" into abandoning their morality and becoming monsters? To what extent does Kurtz, in his final days, reject what he became? To what extent does he realize that his methods were the logical and honest extension of the flawed premise sold by the military industrial complex? To what extent does he see Willard, anything but the everyman, as one of the few rare souls who can understand him, because he was so similarly betrayed?

Regards,

JustMC