MovieChat Forums > Apocalypse Now (1979) Discussion > What was the purpose of the scene where ...

What was the purpose of the scene where Kurtz reads TIME articles to Willard?

posted 4 years ago by Wuchak (8081)
12 replies | jump to latest

This sequence wasn't in the Theatrical Cut and arguably reduces the potency of the original film on the grounds that (1) the two articles are thoroughly underwhelming and (2) it destroys the great mystique of Kurtz because it's the FIRST and ONLY time we get to see him clearly in broad daylight.

However, it could also be argued that it's the key scene showing that Kurtz ISN'T insane at all, just depressed due to being trapped in the remote jungle with no place to go because he "got off the boat" (I'm talking about the "boat" of being a respected officer in the USA military and therefore never being able to go home again).

[–] whynotwriteme (7119) 4 years ago

Probably some hare-brained ad-libbing by Brando.

[–] Wuchak (8081) 4 years ago

Brando was known for doing that. Nevertheless, the sequence had to have some significance to Coppola otherwise he wouldn't have included it in Redux, which is basically his "Director's Cut." Especially since Francis & Marlon had a falling out after the film, as detailed in this thread https://moviechat.org/tt0078788/Apocalypse-Now/5e711e578396c32c28e7c2b5/Coppolas-claim-that-Brando-showed-up-completely-unprepared-is-a-MYTH In other words, if the scene was just some worthless ad-libbed sequence by Brando, Coppola would've just left it in the trash.

[–] Redsfan001 (6004) 4 years ago

It is Coppola's film (he owns all rights) so now the added scenes are now the default to which people are seeing this for the first time.

The original version is so much better in my humble opinion. These added scenes are curiosity interesting to watch, but for people watching it for the first time, I highly recommend the original version.

[–] Wuchak (8081) 4 years ago

I agree that the Theatrical Version is the best version. Much of the sequences added for the Redux version should've been relegated to the 'deleted scenes' section of the DVD/Blu-Ray. But I do appreciate this particular scene for clearly revealing that Kurtz was sane -- a military genius who, unfortunately, could never go home again. Death was his only way out.

[–] Redsfan001 (6004) 4 years ago

That assessment of Kurtz sanity is arguable, perhaps he just had brief moments of lucidity.

Willard did find a book with the the words "Kill them all drop the bomb" which would tend to confirm his suspicion that Kurtz lost it.

[–] Wuchak (8081) 4 years ago

I was trying to figure out why (and when) Kurtz wrote that particular comment. Let's assume he wrote it after he read the TIME articles to Willard and they had an understanding that Willard was to kill him "standing up; not like some poor wasted rag-assed renegade." WHY annihilate the very people who have been devoted to you?

Whatever the case, the rest of the movie paints Kurtz as a military genius who refused to play the game of war, like the brass back at Nha Trang & Col. Kilgore; rather, he efficiently and effectively got the job done. Thus the Brass were intent on taking him out, using Willard as their "errand boy."

Kurtz proved himself to be the type of warrior that he insisted was required to quickly win the war: "men who are moral and at the same time who are able to utilize their primordial instincts to kill without feeling... without passion... without judgment." We see this in his savage slaying of Chef, which he evidently did personally, rather than allowing one of his minions to do the grisly deed. Willard showed he had the same mettle in his decisive slaying of the wounded Vietnamese woman on the boat, which explains why he related to Kurtz.

Despite this warrior fortitude, neither Kurtz nor Willard were insane. Kurtz was depressed because he had no where else to go beyond his quasi-family of Montagnard & outcasts in the remote jungles of SE Asia. Willard was depressed in the Saigon hotel because he needed a mission to keep focused and active.

A truly insane person wouldn't have been able to proficiently take out double agents without the knowledge/approval of the Brass, like Kurtz did. Willard's initial discussion with Kurtz and, later, when the latter read the TIME articles to him clearly show that Kurtz wasn't nuts, not to mention his insight just before Willard slew him ("We train young men to drop fire on people, but their commanders won't allow them to write 'F***' on their airplanes because it's obscene!") The question remains: Why would he want his faithful Montagnard & Co. annihilated?

[–] Redsfan001 (6004) 4 years ago

A forceful and well crafted argument. If you are not a lawyer already you should think about as a possible profession.

I read alot of history and it helps me understand just WHY the US government would want Kurtz killed, and why they are right.
The 'game' of war as you put it has some very important rules. The Geneva convention of 1949 was put in place to give solace for prisoners of war. It protects POWs against torture, rape and other acts of brutality which Kurtz would use to achieve his short term goals.

Kurtz was educated enough man to know the Geneva Convention and it's rules. In his letter to his son 'I am beond their timid lying mortality' killing the double agents, essentially tears up this contract.

The Geneva convention also bans the use of child soliders, which Kurtz seems to have also used.

A great man said (I forget who) The way a country treats it's POWs is the best reflection of it's values.

America has held the high moral ground in this aspect against other countries for the past century. The 9/11 waterboarding abomination and NYT photos POW Iraq soilders tortured has left a large stain on USAs reputation for fairness for decades to come.

The question of Kurtz sanity is interesting because in courts one of the tests to establish sanity is the ability to distinguish between right and wrong. In wartime this often becomes muddled.

In my opinion Kurtz has lost all ties to humanity, is moral compass has rusted out. He would win battles by any means necessary, including torture, rape and other acts of brutality. Kurtz would also not be beond killing innocent civilians or using them as cover to achieve a tactical advantage. These acts in my mind are not the acts of a true warrior but of a savage.

[–] Wuchak (8081) 4 years ago

If the waterboarding of al-Qaeda prisoners resulted in intel that prevented another 9/11-like terrorist attack – which it did – and, let’s say, literally saved the lives of your loved ones, then it was a good thing, huh?

Don’t answer that because I’m not interested in your political views. I’m concerned with what the film itself is saying about Willard and the two Colonels he meets in his journey, both of whose names start with 'K,' which is no accident:

KILGORE is a romantic who embraces war as a lifestyle and feeds off it, glorifies it. This can be observed in his air-raid on the village where he literally plays Wagner. He feeds off the war to the extent that he "loves the smell of napalm in the morning." War is just another day to him so why not go surfing? Since he lives off of the war it can’t kill him or even give him a scratch. Kilgore naturally has the support of the top Brass because he's part of the system and plays the game of war.

KURTZ sees through this hypocrisy. He realizes that being in a state of war is humanity gone mad. It's horror itself and therefore must be ended through the quickest means possible at whatever cost. He refuses to play the game of war as he expertly takes out double agents, etc. The Brass won’t have this so they put out a hit on him. Kurtz becomes increasingly disillusioned after jumping ship from the system and now has no sanctuary. Death is the only way out. His consolation is that Willard will tell his son the truth.

You twice suggest that Kurtz used rape in his tactics, but I didn’t see any evidence of this. He either held enemies captive in jungle cages or swiftly executed ’em. That kind of horror is part of being in a state of war and is why Kurtz insisted that it had to end through the most efficient measures, screw political niceties that allowed double agents to brazenly continue functioning.

[–] Wuchak (8081) 4 years ago

As for civilians being killed, Kilgore played the game of war you approve of and had no qualms about killing civilians, as shown in his taking of “Charlie’s Point.” Didn’t you note the irony of him calling that female civilian a “f***ing savage” for blowing up the copter after he just rained down death on the entire village?

The protagonist in the movie, Willard, more and more identifies with Kurtz. Before his mercy-killing, he says: “They were going to make me a major for this, and I wasn't even in their f***ing army anymore.” So, like Kurtz, he was departing the game of war. Unlike Kurtz, he called off the air-strike and had a home to go back to. Game over.

[–] Redsfan001 (6004) 4 years ago

I guess you are OK with the heads then.

I find it interesting that Kurtz is in Cambodia and Cambodia had people in charge in the mid 1970s that were just like Kurtz. Obsessed with a goal and not concerned with the means in which it is obtained.

If you haven't seen it already you should check out 'The Killing Fields' (1984)

Did you check out the Brando/Carson interview 1968? It really is a good one.

[–] Wuchak (8081) 4 years ago

You've turned this into a you believe/I believe thing. I'm not talking about that. I'm talking about what the movie is saying to the viewer.

Willard is playing the game of war at the beginning of the film; he's lost his wife and is having a mental breakdown in a Saigon hotel room because he needs a mission (to kill other people) in order to function properly.

During the journey of the movie he meets two colonels: (1) Kilgore, who plays the game of war, and (2 ) Kurtz, who refuses to play the game, and therefore is getting the job done far more effectively and efficiently than the USA military. Keep in mind that the American military won every big battle in Vietnam, but still lost the conflict because they (and the politicians) played the game.

Willard increasingly identifies with Kurtz and observes that his way is the superior way if the USA is to accomplish its military goals in 'Nam. After they meet and talk, Kurtz recognizes a kindred soul (even though he's aware that Willard was sent to assassinate him), which is why the Photojournalist says "He likes you." It also explains why Kurtz entrusts Willard with the job of sharing the truth with his son.

My original question to you after you offered a piece of evidence was: If Kurtz was sane (as illustrated when he read the TIME articles to Willard) why did he later scribble "Drop the bomb. Exterminate them all!" in his notes? After all, these people were his family now and had proven their loyalty to him. My guess is that he scribbled that line amidst an emotional frenzy when the dark side of his psyche had taken over during his ongoing depression (which was due to the fact that he had nowhere to go and knew the end was near). This ties into the two-sides of human nature theme noted by the blonde at the French plantation: Willard had one side that loves and one side that kills. It was the same with Kurtz. They were kindred souls, but Willard chose the better path:

[–] Wuchak (8081) 4 years ago

Like Kurtz, Willard was going to jump ship from the game but, unlike Kurtz, he wasn’t going to futilely stay in Southeast Asia and try to accomplish America’s mission by himself along with whatever motley paramilitarists he could assemble. He recognized the dark origin of Kurtz’ fevered note to “drop the bomb” and so didn’t call-in the airstrike at the end. In short, he chose his “side that loves"; it was the perfect end to the movie.

The brilliance of the film is that it doesn't spoon-feed these answers to the viewer; you have to put the pieces of the puzzle together.

As far as the severed heads go, like I said, Kurtz swiftly executed the enemy. It’s a brutal form of execution, but it’s not torture and, besides, he was involved in a war and war by its very nature is brutal. Observe that he didn’t rashly slay assassin Lieutenant Colby (Scott Glenn), but rather incorporated him into his team. Contrast this with Kilgore who abided by the “rules of engagement” and savagely assaulted scores of civilians at “Charlie’s Point.” According to the rules of war, of course, they’re just “collateral damage.”

Incidentally, the severed heads angle was based on the grisly psychological warfare tactics of CIA Paramilitary Operations Officer Anthony Poshepny, who worked with remote hill tribes in Laos and was a real-life blueprint for Kurtz. For details go here: https://bit.ly/3ajhpwt

Cambodia had people in charge in the mid 1970s that were just like Kurtz. Obsessed with a goal and not concerned with the means in which it is obtained.

Kurtz’ goal was the USA’s mission, except without playing the idiotic game of war: To prevent Communists from the North from taking over South Vietnam and build-up the indigenous armed forces. Pol Pot & his Khmer Rouge, by contrast, were tyrannical, freedom-hating Communists. Big difference.

I have seen “The Killing Fields” a couple of times; actually, I’ve been keeping an eye out for it lately because I haven’t seen it for so long.

I’ll also look for that Brando/Carson interview on Youtube, thanks.

Nice chatting with you.