Apocalypse Now: A crude wartime reality

War brings out the best and the worst in men. It is when they are put under high stress situations that arise due to war that men show their true nature in terms of courage, compassion and humanity. The stigma of war lies in the inevitability of death and destruction that comes along with it but few people believe there are positive takeaways in terms of loyalty and valour on the battlefield. Francis Ford Coppola has experimented with these ideologies in his epic war film titled Apocalypse Now.

Captain Willard is a veteran of a special operations division in the United States Army deployed during the height of the Vietnam War. He was discharged and returned to America but decided to join back in the war efforts after finding rudimentary life not attuned to his liking anymore. He is summoned by a General in the army and tasked with finding and assassinating a rogue Colonel of the Special Forces. He is informed that the man in question is Colonel Kurtz, a brilliant soldier who went astray and has started murdering without orders after having set himself up in a local tribe as a God. Willard is informed that the mission is top-secret and does not exist – nor will it ever exist. As he joins a small US Navy crew, he studies the dossier on Kurtz and starts to grow in awe of the rogue soldier who may just be the most decorated officer in the US Army. Along the way Willard is assisted by other army officers and fights enemy troops as he travels up the Nung River in his efforts to finally reach the liar of Colonel Kurtz.

The film was directed by legendary filmmaker Francis Ford Coppola and released in the year 1979. It is a period film set during the Vietnam War. The screenplay was written by Coppola, John Milius and Michael Herr and was roughly based on a novella titled Heart of Darkness written by Joseph Conrad. The film stars Martin Sheen in the role of the protagonist and Marlon Brando as the antagonist. Other actors in the film include Robert Duvall, Frederic Forrest, Albert Hall, Sam Bottoms, Laurence Fishburne and Dennis Hopper.

The film stars a morally ambiguous war veteran with symptoms of post traumatic stress disorder who has gotten addicted to war and returns to Vietnam after normal life gets too boring for him. The character shows glimpses of a dark side which has resulted due to his exposure to killing in the war as he himself confesses to having murdered many people, 6 of whom were close enough to breathe their last into his face. The character is a hardened war veteran who is called in to hunt down a compatriot and agrees on the pretext that the man has gone completely insane as reported to him by his superiors. He shows loyalty towards his country, his superiors and his mission by not asking too many questions and safeguarding the secrets which are entrusted to him under classified information. He is well aware of the crimes committed by the man he is sent out to kill but slowly learns more about him as he studies his career during his journey to find him. In the end, the protagonist is both at awe and repulsed by the antagonist before he has had the chance to face him.

The film is a direct reflection of the effects of war on men. Coppola was aiming to lay out the horrible truths of war in his film and has accomplished the feat he set out for. Through actions and dialogues from the characters, Coppola has shown just how brutal war can be and how terribly nerve-wracking the effects can be on a normal human being. One of the most shocking dialogues comes from Lieutenant Colonel Kilgore who says “I love the smell of napalm in the morning” as a village is air bombed in the background which clearly depicts the level of insensitivity during war. In the same battle, Kilgore orders his troops to play Ride of the Valkyries on the helicopter loudspeakers as they fly into battle and invade a village to instil fear into the hearts of their enemies and announce their arrival on the battlefield. Another instance shows a woman being brutally murdered when she runs to protect a puppy as a squadron opens fire on her. Although not as grave, there are few other shocking moments in the film as well, one of which has a Colonel ordering his men to surf or be shot by his hand as a battle ensues in the background and a second when a squadron of soldiers travelling on a river in the middle of a warzone decide to take time to surf while starving locals look on in amazement.

Brutality is one of the key components of the film. Being set in a warzone, it can be expected that multiple killings would take place. But the manner in which they are depicted show what director Coppola was aiming to convey to his audience in his criticism of war. One particular scene actually has a television crew recording on the shore of a beach as a battle takes place and telling soldiers to act naturally, not look at the camera and get on with the war. In another scene, a commanding officer demands that an injured prisoner of war be treated well and attempts to give him water from his own flask but loses focuses as soon as he is informed that a celebrity surfer has joined his platoon and drops the injured man from his arms to greet the celebrity. Some of the soldiers in the film take pleasure in being able to kill their enemies even if it is uncalled for. Although informed that a particular area is a hotspot for enemy troops and advised to divert paths, a platoon leader decides to take the route via the enemy hotspot just to be able to eliminate the enemy soldiers and claim the area for his own army.

The film shows a contrast in what is seen as being sane during war but would otherwise be considered insane in times of peace. The film uses the antagonist to depict this perfectly. The antagonist is shown to have gone mental and defected from his own army when in fact he has realised that the commands he previously received were to kill unnecessarily and he decides to conduct his own operations. In one scene, the antagonist reveals that the news broadcast about the war claims that it is under control with minimum deaths and that peace will be restored soon; however the truth is that soldiers are continuously ordered to carry out innumerable attacks which are unknown to the rest of the world. In the end, there is sympathy towards the antagonist because although partially insane, he still comes across as fairly rational.

The film has narration by the protagonist which comes through well in the raspy voice of Martin Sheen. It is a brilliant film which is aesthetically pleasing; one particular scene where Marlon Brando is first revealed as the antagonist as he speaks in a deep, commanding voice through the shadows but only the glint in his eyes is clearly visible. It is an excellent film which can be summed up in the last dialogue as Marlon Brando exclaims “The horror, the horror”.

Why We Fight: A look at USA’s aggressive military policies

There is one common theme which can be witnessed to be present in all of the world’s recorded history. This theme is war. War arises, mostly, due to conflict of interests and in defence of certain ideas. As humans, we are bound to have our own ideas and be loyal to them and defend them, this ultimately creates a conflict of interests and on the larger scale, between countries for example, such a problem can lead to a war.

Why We Fight is a 2005 documentary which takes a retrospective perspective of America’s involvement in many large wars over a period of six decades since the end of the Second World War. The documentary was directed by Eugene Jarecki and features many interviews with top correspondents and former officials from the American military, aids to Congress, armament manufacturers and other significant personalities. It also includes stock footage of various past Presidents of the United States of America including Harry Truman, Dwight Eisenhower, Lyndon Johnson, John Kennedy, Bill Clinton and George Bush. The documentary also features personal bytes from a Vietnam veteran who lost his son in the 9/11 attacks, two stealth fighter pilots who dropped the first bombs in Baghdad at the start of the 2003 Iraq war and a young man who has volunteered for the American military service. Most of the documentary features the policy making agenda of the American Congress which leads to America’s ever increasing involvement in wars, particularly the Iraq war in 2003. The documentary also has snippets of interviews with locals from Iraq about their thoughts on America and their involvement in the political affairs of their country.

The documentary’s main focus is President Eisenhower’s farewell speech which warns the American people of the military-industrial complex which in foresight appears to have been fulfilled. Eisenhower was increasingly aware that America’s military growth would lead to growing need for ammunitions which would increase the competition among arms manufacturing companies which would eventually increase jobs resulting to a complex that would not be viable to shut down. Since the end of World War II and America’s growing need of acquiring arms, the United States has participated in a major war in practically every decade under the stewardship of a different president. The documentary focuses mainly on the most recent war which is the Iraq war in 2003 which was first attributed as retribution for the 9/11 attack on America but then later swept under the carpet as a move to end an oppressive regime and bring democracy to the country. The documentary also focuses on America’s policy-making decisions which change phenomenally with every new president and especially their foreign policy of pre-emptive strikes. America’s policy of pre-emptive strikes can be defined as declaration of war against a country which might in the future declare war upon its neighbouring countries or which have the capability of launching a full military operation which may be counterproductive to America’s ideals.

The documentary begins from a neutral standpoint by merely gathering facts and placing them together. Through the interviews of officials and stock footage of the past presidents, the documentary brings different viewpoints into the mix for an overall perspective. As the documentary starts to focus on the topic of the Iraq war, the perspective of the documentary gradually shifts towards being a propagandist film. Through the viewpoints of the interviews conducted, the documentary speaks about America’s rash use of explosives and the carless attitude of its military in treatment of civilian lives in the war zones. Although the documentary does use bytes from both sides of the argument, towards the latter stage of the film, the criticism of America’s use of military power takes stage.

The main premise of the documentary is to unearth America’s military policies and the reasons for America’s increasing involvement in major wars which have occurred since the end of the Second World War. The documentary continuously poses one simple question which forms the title of the documentary, why do we fight?

The Reader: One summer’s love that wrecks a boy’s life

The most significant events to have taken place over the past century have been the two World Wars; in particular, the Second World War which saw the deaths of millions of people and had the world introduced to a very serious threat of nuclear weaponry. What was most astonishing about the Second World War was the number of casualties, both military and civilian, a key cause of which was The Holocaust. It is because of this reason of being so dramatically impactful to human life all over the world that films made on the topics of the Second World War and The Holocuast can be immense.

Michael Berg is a divorced father and a lawyer. He shares a dicey relationship with his daughter who thinks he has always been aloof emotionally. The reason for this, as Michael recalls, is because of a heartbreaking experience he endured as a teenager. When Michael was 15 years of age, he met a woman called Hannah Schmitz. Michael was suffering from an illness and Hannah helped him home one day which was enough to form a bond for Michael to return to thank her. Awkwardly, Michael and Hannah being to have an affair with him returning to her house every chance he gets. Hannah, who is illiterate, enjoys listening to people reading aloud and has Michael read to her every time they make love. As Michael’s infatuation begins to increase to a point that he falls in love with Hannah, they begin to have fights which causes Hannah to promptly leave without informing Michael which leaves him heartbroken and emotionally scarred for the rest of his life. Years later, Michael is a law student on a field trip to a criminal proceeding in a court where he sees Hannah and discovers a hidden truth about her which he was unaware of in all their time together.

The film demands more from the audience in terms of patience and attention than what it delivers in terms of entertainment. It is a slow moving non-linear film which takes its time between the protagonist in the present and his flashbacks to his younger days. As a young man, Michael is played by David Kross, who performed the role admirably, and the present day character is played by renowned actor Ralph Fiennes who deserved much more screen time in this production than he was granted. Kate Winslet also put in a strong performance as the female lead in the film.

The most astonishing problem with The Reader is the fact that serious problems such as child sexual abuse and murder are brushed aside while the issue of illiteracy takes precedence. Not to say that illiteracy isn’t a problem that has to be dealt with, but the casual manner in which genocide and child sexual abuse are merely swept under the mat seems to be a hindrance with this film. In fact, the irony of the matter is that the film does point out how serious the matter is as one of the characters dramatically exclaims that people should have killed themselves knowing that genocide was being conducted in their country without being able to stop it, but the film does not really take a standpoint over the matter.

With a few good performances and a good story, the film is a good watch. But it should have achieved more with the non-linear style and if it had dealt with the bigger problems more appropriately rather than ignore them as the elephant in the room.