[HN Gopher] Serge Daney on Coppola's Apocalypse Now (1979)
___________________________________________________________________
Serge Daney on Coppola's Apocalypse Now (1979)
Author : Caiero
Score : 58 points
Date : 2022-09-10 18:02 UTC (2 days ago)
(HTM) web link (thereader.mitpress.mit.edu)
(TXT) w3m dump (thereader.mitpress.mit.edu)
| paganel wrote:
| A little meta, but just wanted to say that as a long-time reader
| of the Cahiers I had never expected to see a Serge Daney article
| on the HN front-page.
|
| Later edit: This June's issue #788 has some nice couple of
| articles on Daney [1].
|
| [1]
| https://www.cahiersducinema.com/boutique/produit/juin-2022-n...
| jcynix wrote:
| I loved "Apocalypse Now" as a statement of the idiocy of politics
| and war, which forces humans to shed the thin layer of culture
| and humanity.
|
| Sone interesting tidbits I learned after watching the movie (many
| years ago):
|
| The movie's is based on Conrad's book "Heart of Darkness"
| (nothing new), which was regarded as a critique of the Belgian
| exploitation of (and atrocities in) the Congo region at the end
| of the 19th century, cf. these Wikipedia articles
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atrocities_in_the_Congo_Free_S...
| and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heart_of_Darkness
|
| And, btw, the last chapter of Barbara Tuchman's excellent book
| "The March of Folly: From Troy to Vietnam" contains an
| interesting reminiscense of how and why the US intervened in
| Vietnam.
| Tao3300 wrote:
| Reading this on a somewhat long-in-the-tooth Android and for some
| reason the fi ligature is huge compared to the rest of the text.
| Noted in Chrome and Firefox, and when requesting desktop site.
| It's very unusual!
|
| I've only seen the part with _The End_ in it because it 's my
| favorite Doors song. Good reminder that I really need to get
| around to watching the whole thing.
| jfk13 wrote:
| > for some reason the fi ligature is huge compared to the rest
| of the text
|
| They're using the Unicode "presentation-forms" ligature
| character "fi" in the text (which is not recommended: just
| spell the text normally with "fi", and leave it to fonts to
| generate a ligature glyph if appropriate); but then they've
| specified a webfont resource (Crimson Text) that doesn't
| support it. So the browser falls back to the next available
| font for that character, which may be a poor visual match.
| hardwaregeek wrote:
| What a great article! I'll need a couple rereadings to understand
| it better, but I did appreciate the section about spectacle and
| about how cinema is tied to war. Another film that exemplifies
| that line of thought is Beau Travail. The characters prepare for
| war in a ritualistic frenzy, throwing themselves into each other
| in lavish choreography, dancing in the water and in the club.
| Michel Subor says it well when he notes that a good soldier is
| taught elegance in and under their uniforms. And the ending, well
| let's just say the ending demonstrates this spectacle well.
|
| I would be remiss if I didn't mention though the crucial failure
| of Apocalypse Now, which is the crucial failure of many American
| war films. It reduces the enemy to this faceless, incoherent
| savage. The Vietnamese are never given a say in this story. The
| Sympathizer by Viet Thanh Nguyen goes over this point. Yes, yes,
| Coppola is a fantastic director (The Conversation is an
| especially good masterpiece), but he nonetheless cannot seem to
| stray away from the genre of American soldiers feeling guilty
| about murdering savages. Contrast this to a war film like La
| Grande Illusion, where Renoir explicitly notes that the French
| nobility have more in common with the German nobility, their
| enemies, than with the French common folk, their comrades. But of
| course, the German nobility are the German nobility, and not the
| "savages" of Vietnam.
| somedude895 wrote:
| > crucial failure of Apocalypse Now
|
| I think cramming that in there just to tick a box would have
| hurt the film rather than do any good.
| hardwaregeek wrote:
| Why do you assume it would be to tick a box? A movie that
| reckons with war should reckon with the people it leaves
| behind. I don't see how that's "ticking a box".
| dekhn wrote:
| You completely and fundamentally misunderstand the point of
| the book and the movie.
| hardwaregeek wrote:
| Okay...please elaborate? I don't believe this is a
| productive comment unless you explain.
| wikitopian wrote:
| For most of the American soldiers who were deployed, the
| Vietnamese were a barbarous and exotic other that were trying
| to kill them.
|
| It would do a disservice to all of the sides of the conflict to
| insist that each of the films exploring it deliver a full
| representative survey of the perspectives.
| poulsbohemian wrote:
| >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.
| hardwaregeek wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| _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 wrote:
| 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."
| arkitaip wrote:
| That's even worse because it implies that the Vietnamese
| problem mattered so little, that they were backdrop details.
| poulsbohemian wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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.
| peyton wrote:
| IndySun wrote:
| >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 wrote:
| She's got a grenade! She's got a grenade!
| mc32 wrote:
| Is there a Vietnamese movie about that war that doesn't portray
| American soldiers as bloodthirsty goons?
| the_af wrote:
| I don't know, but it wouldn't surprise me if there isn't.
| Though I've heard from Americans living in Vietnam that the
| Vietnamese are pretty forgiving and not at all bitter against
| them. They are understandably proud of having defeated their
| invaders, of course.
|
| I think this doesn't matter though. This is a critique of
| American cinema and their ambivalence towards the war even
| for a supposedly anti-war piece. It is relevant regardless of
| what the Vietnamese do with _their_ cinema.
| neves wrote:
| Rambo?
| yuan43 wrote:
| The idea that a film critic can be "legendary" seems hyperbolic.
| Film critics will quickly be forgotten because they created
| nothing. Directors can be "legendary". Writers can be
| "legendary". Artists can be "legendary". All of these roles risk
| the reputations of the creators. But film critics never put
| anything on the line.
| Tao3300 wrote:
| > Film critics will quickly be forgotten because they created
| nothing
|
| I think that's terribly dismissive. I mean, take Ebert's
| reviews of the Mummy series for example. There's something
| touching and wise in there that actually makes the films
| themselves _better_ because they give us pause to reflect on
| these things.
|
| Or in a completely different ballpark, the Red Letter Media
| "review" of Star Wars Ep. 1 that manages to be not only a valid
| critique of the film, but is longer than the film and arguably
| a _better_ film in its own right!
|
| (Edit: Another good example that just occurred to me is one
| that I heard in a recent episode of the Rest Is History
| podcast. They were discussing Tolkien and one of the hosts
| pointed out that even if he hadn't written any of his Middle
| Earth fiction, he'd still be well-known in literary circles for
| his critical examination of Beowulf that changed how we see it
| today.)
|
| Like any other "content" there's a spectrum from prolefeed and
| seo spam on one end, and actual art and literature on the
| other. Pull that rabbit out of a hat enough times and there's
| definitely a niche to carve out a legend there.
| chadash wrote:
| The parent would agree that Roger Ebert is _notable_. But s
| /he is arguing that _legendary_ should have a higher bar.
| Shakespeare, for example, died 400 years ago, but is commonly
| known today. There are many other examples. But it 's hard to
| imagine that Roger Ebert will be well known in 100 years from
| now.
| Tao3300 wrote:
| > The parent would agree that Roger Ebert is notable. But
| s/he is arguing that legendary should have a higher bar.
|
| I think that's a reasonable view, but that's not what I
| took issue with. I take issue with the claim that critics
| produce nothing and have nothing in the line. And with the
| notion that legendary stature would be impossible for a
| critic to attain.
| kevin_thibedeau wrote:
| Ebert was a script writer. He knew more about the inside
| baseball than any run of the mill J-school grad who got
| assigned to work on the entertainment section.
| Zealotux wrote:
| I highly suggest you look into the history of movies, academic
| movie critics pretty much defined what cinema is in the first
| place, critics are much more than YouTubers giving their
| opinion on the latest Marvel flick, it's a whole field with
| filmmakers being critics such as during the Nouvelle Vague.
| Slow_Hand wrote:
| This is tangential to the point that you are making, but it
| never fails to irk me whenever I see the term legendary used to
| describe anyone who lived in the last 100 years.
|
| I accept that the term now has a secondary meaning for someone
| who is highly regarded or significant in their field, but I
| can't help but see this as an artifact of marketing speak
| that's ingrained itself in our culture.
|
| I think what's lost is the sense of weight or gravitas that is
| implicit in the original meaning. The idea of a myth that is
| larger than any individual and now represents some manner of
| archetypal story that endures across the ages because it
| resonates deeply with our human nature.
|
| The modern usage cheapens the special significance implicit in
| the original meaning. It piggybacks on the original's import
| and drains it's luster for it's own short-term gain.
| anoonmoose wrote:
| The article you're reading was written in 1979 by a guy who
| died in 1992. So "they created nothing" is wrong (as evidenced
| by the writings we're discussing) and "will be quickly
| forgotten" is wrong (we're discussing it four decades later).
| deepsun wrote:
| There's at least one legendary literature critic, Belinsky [1],
| in the old Russian Empire, who played a prominent role in
| "Westernizing" movement.
|
| Even for _reading_ his critique letter [2], one could get
| sentenced to death (e.g. Dostoevsky, although, after mock
| execution, his sentence was reduced to 4 years of forced labor
| in a remote settlement).
|
| [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vissarion_Belinsky
|
| [2]
| https://www.marxists.org/subject/art/lit_crit/works/belinsky...
| copperx wrote:
| > Film critics will quickly be forgotten because they created
| nothing.
|
| Critizising something is an art, and requires vasts amounts of
| background knowledge. It is trivial to make a useless and
| unfair critique.
|
| > But film critics never put anything on the line.
|
| I disagree. Their reputation is on the line.
| licebmi__at__ wrote:
| Sorry, but I disagree. Good critics can put into words your
| feelings about certain art works, that maybe oneself can only
| awkwardly describe as "good"; they can enhance your enjoyment
| by bringing to your eyes something that you missed; and of
| course perform a curation labor.
|
| While I don't think you should blindly follow the critics, I
| think is lazy to just dismiss the job of a good critic.
| rospaya wrote:
| Roger Ebert, Leonard Maltin, Pauline Kael, Richard Roeper, Gene
| Siskel, Mark Kermode.
|
| Criticism may not be seen as a valid form, but there are more
| than a few very respected film critics. I wouldn't use the word
| legendary though.
| dwringer wrote:
| To me Roger Ebert fills the role of legendary but I'm not
| sure I could think of anyone else. Like all movie critics,
| Ebert would sometimes express opinions that would surprise or
| vex me, but - more or less uniquely to him - by the end of
| his reviews I would usually come to respect and somewhat
| understand his opinion despite the fact that I did not share
| it.
| mc32 wrote:
| I think Leonard takes himself way too seriously and comes
| across as preachy. Ebert is the right guy.
| cassepipe wrote:
| I liked : "And yet, the double bind that Coppola has not been
| able to escape is this: the audience (and millions are needed to
| make the film profitable) come at first for the war scenes, but
| they find accepting this "at first" difficult: they need an
| ending, a denouement, of intelligibility that will
| retrospectively justify those scenes. Ultimate meaning as cover
| for the jouissance of non-meaning. "
| trey-jones wrote:
| Something that differentiates the audience of 1979 from the
| audience of 2022, I think. Or even the audience of 2010,
| probably.
|
| > the audience ... come at first for the war scenes, but they
| find accepting this "at first" difficult: they need an ending, a
| denouement, of intelligibility that will retrospectively justify
| those scenes.
|
| The Marvel Films are the offender that I'm thinking of, but I'm
| sure other films are just as bad. There just isn't much
| substance; Maybe 10 minutes of story and then it's mostly
| explosions and "cool fights" or whatever, and the average viewer
| is there for exactly that.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-09-12 23:01 UTC)