I just read that Coppola based the character of Col. Kurtz on an actual Green Beret Colonel named Robert B. Rheault. If you look at a picture of the man, he is a dead ringer for Lee Marvin.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/2/29/RobertRheault-Life-1969.jpg
Looks don't matter when casting a role like that.
The ability to appear disgusted with the world and batshit crazy is what matters, and Brando could bring that and Marvin couldn't.
Pardon me, but I can't believe you have seen many Lee Marvin movies if you don't think he could play "disgusted with the world and batshit crazy". He had a couple of main personas he adopted in various movies and batshit craziness and world-weariness were readily on display. Those qualities were practically his stock in trade! Don't let Marvin's work in his later action movies color your impression of the man. Marvin was a far cry from the one-dimensional movie tough guys of the 80s to the present. And Marvin was actually Coppola's first choice. Plus, even with his drunkenness, Marvin probably would have been easier to work with than Brando.
shareMarvin doesn't look "dead ringer" to me, but whatever. Plus the only elements of Rheault's story that were worked into the script were those corresponding to Project GAMMA, which Willard READS from his mission documents in narration on the boat (so there were no scenes depicting the Green Beret Affair). In other words, it's not like Milius or Coppola based the entire character of Kurtz on Rheault.
I agree, though, that Marvin could've certainly worked well in the role. But, if that were the case, the last third of "Apocalypse" would've been closer to Milius' original script, which Coppola felt was "weak" because it didn't top the action-packed Col. Kilgore sequences.
Brando, on the other hand, brought a lot of innovation to the plate, along with his uncanny charisma. Francis & Marlon worked closely together discussing ideas about the climax with Kurtz for numerous days, maybe weeks (I can't remember). Meanwhile the film crew just sat around and partied (but I'm sure they didn't mind the paid vacation).
What they ended up with was just as good as the Kilgore episode, but in a completely different way. It wasn't action-oriented (like Kilgore's assault on the village), but mood & dialogue focused.
Some people don't like this last third of the film because it's so strange and surreal, with little action. In my opinion, however, it took the movie to the next level. It has the best mindfood and quotes of the film. And the climax is thoroughly haunting. Brando had a lot to do with this.
"Francis & Marlon worked closely together discussing ideas about the climax with Kurtz for literal weeks."
Really? At that time Brando still cared? I thought that he pissed Cappola off because he was asked to lose some weight and instead gained some.
If I remember well I didn't read much positive about Brando's behavior on that set just like any others at that point of his life.
Actually it's a myth that Brando arrived on the set completely unprepared, as detailed in this thread https://moviechat.org/tt0078788/Apocalypse-Now/5e711e578396c32c28e7c2b5/Coppolas-claim-that-Brando-showed-up-completely-unprepared-is-a-MYTH.
View the 1991 documentary "Hearts of Darkness: A Filmmaker's Apocalypse" -- http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0102015/?ref_=nv_sr_1 -- where it shows Coppola & Brando closely working together for many days prior to shooting the Brando sequences of the third portion of the movie. The crew was left to loafing around while Francis & Marlon threw around ideas and dialogues for days on end.
The documentary shows how the highly-paid Marlon would wander off the set during shooting when he was done for the day, his creative juices expunged (being in his mid-50s, he wasn't young anymore). But -- other than that -- he was game for one of the greatest films of all time; and the final results attest to this IMHO. I'm sure there were occasional conflicts -- as there are in any great creative work involving multiple people -- but he wasn't a pompous axxhole to work with, like Richard Widmark was known for.
And, actually, Brando's overweight worked with the idea that Kurtz was spent by this point, just lying around aimlessly, reading/studying available resources, getting fat hiding out in the jungle, waiting for the Brass to send their next assassin. He had no where to go and was done. Once Willard agreed to inform Kurtz' son/family of the truth the Colonel essentially allowed Willard to end his great misery (via executing him).
Just looking at Brando you can see he is traumatized by the evil and horror, and i don't think a clean cut skinny guy would have cast the same image. Brando was already a sensuous, gluttonous, self-indulgent, over-emotional slob, and that what that character needed to project, with a little remainder of an officer that he could pretend to hand on to.
shareBrando was already a sensuous, gluttonous, self-indulgent, over-emotional slob
First, he was indeed unfit and overweight in Apocalypse Now!.
That is just a fact. I don't say it to be mean or disrespectful,
and in fact do not say he was not a good actor, but his look was
more of a guy who lost his edge, which was why he was better
for the role.
Don't you think it is a little silly to get defensives about an actor
and his roles? To me it is the director and writer that get credit
for most movies. I don't mean that Brando was necessarily a slob,
but he did not take care of himself and died at age 80, which is
really not that old. He had a lot of medical problems.
Superman was something he did for money. It was a cartoon movie
and there is really no acting involved, like most movies today, they
are shit.
Don't you think it is a little silly to get defensives about an actor
and his roles?
>> The average age of male death in the USA in 2004 was 77, so Marlon beat the average by three years.
That stat is much misinterpreted because it averages in infant and child mortality. The fact is that the longer you live the longer you are expected to live. If you live to 80 and take care of yourself, and do not have any terrible diseases of genetic problems no reason not to make it to 100 and over. Read Wikipedia, Brando had a lot of health problems, many brought on by himself. He was diabetic with liver problems.
He was a very rich guy who just did not really care. He was a passionate guy, a bacchanal-type. He raped the women in Last Tango In Paris, says to me that he was a misogynistic abuser.
Lots of big stars pull tricks with directors. Sometimes they are so stubborn to do a part their way and demand a writing credit. Brando was not a writer. He was like Hemingway, macho for the time, and over-rated. I thought he was great is some movies, and it doesn't matter if I "like" him or not, I am not commenting based on my likes. Times change
> To say there was no acting involved because it was a cartoon movie is absurd.
No, it is not absurd. You may disagree with it, but it is not absurd. Your implied insistence that comic books movies some kind of art strikes me as absurd, as your taking offense for Brando. Sounds like you are in the 20-30 range and think you know something because these are the references of your peers. That is unfortunate. I don't rule it out, but I have not seen a memorable comic-book based movie ever. I prefer serious artistic movies, and the more you put into special effects the less goes into writing and character development.
You mischaracterized what I said about Brando too, saying that I somehow implied he was a fat bastard all his life. That is demonstrably false, so why would I say that. I judged in my opinion he was a certain type of personality. I don't think I need to go more into it do I?
I would say about 65% of the old men in my circle of life have died earlier than 80 years of age, many in their late 60s/early 70s, and some much earlier. So Brando living till he was 80 was quite good, especially for someone -- as you say -- who had health issues. As far as infant/child mortality rates go, they weren't so high in the USA in 2004 compared to third world countries.
Prove the rape accusation beyond someone's questionable word; be careful of presumptuous slander.
About film writing, all I was saying was that Marlon was responsible for a lot of the content in the final third of Apocalypse Now. He was also partially responsible for the genius and eccentricities of the underrated The Missouri Breaks. In short, he brought a lot more to the table than: "Aduh, the script says to say this and do that."
Of course this doesn't mean he was a conventional screenwriter, but if ones ideas & dialogue end up in several movies, that makes him/her a writer to some degree. It's like a guitarist or bass player who's quality ideas/riffs end up in the band's songs. They may not be the main composer, but they're still instrumental in the writing process.
Superhero flicks are merely another film genre, like Westerns, dramas and so forth. To be effective they require competent acting, just like any other genre.
I agree about the CGI-laden "blockbuster" syndrome, which tends to decrease the writing depth (e.g. The Mummy Returns). The better superhero flicks, like Watchmen and Spider-Man 3, balance out the CGI/action with dramatic depth and interesting themes.
As for "taking offense for Brando," I wouldn't put it that way but whatever. You made a long statement about the man, which was pretty negative without citing anything good. The overall VIBE was condescending and contemptuous -- that he was some worthless fat slob. I simply balanced out your words with some factual info for readers.
You're welcome to the last word.
According to the American Academy of Actuaries, who compile the statistics used by life insurance companies, a 21-year-old non-smoking male in good health is expected to live to 80. A 60-year old non-smoking male in good health is expected to live to age 84. And for those men who have lived to age 84 already? Actuarial math projects they may live to age 92.5. And those that do live until 92 are likely to reach 96, and so on.
Are the people in your circle as rich as Brando. All things being equal someone as rich and powerful as Brando should have lived much longer.
https://partners4prosperity.com/life-expectancy-in-america-live-longer/
> The overall VIBE was condescending and contemptuous
Perhaps, if you were Brando, what is why I said you are being defensive.
Super-hero movies are not really comparable to Westerns because Westerns are exercised in historic scenarios and have some connection to human life. Super-hero movies are made up nonsense. It is possible that a good SHM might be made someday, I just do not know of any.
In the clip from a 2013 press tour, Bertolucci describes how he and Brando had come up with the idea to use the butter in the scripted rape scene, but did not tell Schneider “what was going on, because I wanted her reaction as a girl, not as an actress. I wanted her to react humiliated.”
That's called rape.
Call me crazy, but I think Brando was one of the least interesting characters in the movie. Sure he was built up as this mysterious warlord and said all these pretentious lines, but I was more interested in Sheen, Forrest, Fishburne, Hall, Bottoms and Hopper.
"And what about the sh*t weasels, the ones that blast out the basement door" - Col. Curtis
I know what you're saying, but over the years I've come to appreciate the last third with Kurtz (Brando) just as much as the other parts of the movie, although its very different than the journey there. Milius' original script was more conventional in a war movie sense, but Coppola thought it was weak because it didn't top the Kilgore battle episode. So Coppola and Brando worked closely together to create the surreal-horror ending, which is heavy and filled with gems to ponder.
For the record, I'm not a fan of the Redux version, except maybe a few pieces of the newer parts.
For irony's sake it's just too bad he did not get John Wayne to play the part. I think the Lee Marvin version would not have worked. They needed someone who had obviously gone to seed and was insane, gone native. Robert B. Rheault clearly had too much discipline. But keep your brain working, I like the way you think.
shareFor irony's sake it's just too bad he did not get John Wayne to play the part.
"They needed someone who had obviously gone to seed and was insane, gone native"
That's what Brando brought that Marvin couldn't. Brando was starting his journey into self-indulgence, bloating, dissipation, and madness, a journey that would turn him into a real-life incestuous monster. I think this was the first time he let his inner horribleness out in public. So yeah, Brando had an Inner Kurtz all ready to go, and even his weight worked for the role. There's something horrible about a big man who can chunk up out there in the jungle, while surrounded by people who have to struggle to get enough to eat each day.
Marvin was a very good actor, but there was always something very cold and focused about him. Even when he was playing a hammered drunk bastard in the lovely "Cat Ballou", there was always a little part of him that could snap back into focus at any moment. That might have made for a very scary Kurtz, but that wasn't the Kurtz that Coppola wanted.
Looks like R. Lee Ermey to me.
shareyou are wrong the answer is no
share@einstein Unless you are actually Coppola himself, your answer is merely a personal opinion, no matter how definitively you word it. ESPECIALLY is you choose not to elaborate with details.
sharehe is the wrong choice, because you are comparing him to marlon brando, these are 2 completely different characters. coppola said in the making of, that if brando refused he would take redford, pacino or jack nicholson, just saying
shareWell, just check this page out: http://collider.com/what-if-lee-marvin-starred-in-a-brando-less-apocalypse-now/
It has a scan of a letter Coppola wrote to Marvin inviting him to play the earlier incarnation of Kurtz named Colonel Karnage. Here's the text:
Mr. Lee Marvin,
We’d like you to play the part of Colonel Karnage in Apocalaypse Now. We’re an independant company in San Francisco financed by Warner Bros.
It’s a good script.
Sincerely
Francis Ford Coppola