The Horror…The Horror
Note: This is my entry for The Ambitious Failure Blog-a-thon. To further enhance the experience of this post play the .mp3 of “The End” from The Doors while reading.
Apocalypse Now (1979)
Directed by Francis Ford Coppola
Never get out of the boat. Absolutely goddamn right. Unless you were goin’ all the way — Captain Willard
In Francis Ford Coppola exploratory journey into self backdropped against the Vietnam War he almost lost his most valuable asset – himself. Its turbulent history is recognized in the documentary, Hearts of Darkness: A Filmmaker’s Apocalypse which can be considered a companion piece and should be required viewing before anyone considers picking up a camera. In the documentary, Eleanor Coppola, wife of the director and credited co-director, points the camera on her husband as he expresses his frustration with questions he has created in the screenplay but feels he cannot answer. You feel the dread. Private conversations are recorded without his knowledge over the course of 238 days of production. This is where we start to see the wheels spinning and the man cracking:
“My greatest fear is to make a really shitty, embarrassing, pompous film on an important subject”
In his mind he was doing just that but it didn’t just end there, it was real, for him, his family and his cast and crew. The self-financed film went over budget and that was just the beginning. Two weeks into production in the Philippines, the original actor playing Captain Willard, Harvey Keitel, was replaced by Martin Sheen. The production forged ahead. Sheen continued, doing a scene that required him to lose himself in his character. He did. He lost all control of his faculties in a self-medicated meltdown on his 36th birthday. The results: a scene that will live in infamy and a heart attack that almost cost Sheen his life and Coppola the picture.
The film was originally intended to be shot over six weeks but ended up taking 16 months. Typhoons destroyed sets, causing delays of several months. This list of catastrophes is endless. The film dying a slow death wasn’t just paranoia or insecurity in the mind of director or the cast and crew — it was exacerbated by the Hollywood press from back home. The media was caught up in the great American malady of predicting failure before it actual happens, if not actually rooting for it. The film did get shot, all 200 hours of it. Upon completion of production Coppola had his hands full. It took 2 years for editor Walter Murch to bring the troubled film to a final cut.
Ambition1 has never been a problem for Coppola. He went to the Philippines coming off the success of the first two Godfather films — classics by anyone’s measure. He was accepted and adored by the industry probably even cocky but I bet he never anticipated his own personal journey into madness up river. The film divided audiences. Upon the film’s initial screenings it was considered obnoxious and self-indulgent2 by some. The hot topic of Vietnam was still a fresh and bloody wound in America and the film seemed to be rubbing salt in it with its perceived grotesque theatrics and arrogant self-importance3.
A three hour work-in-progress cut of Apocalypse Now was screened for an international festival audience in Cannes in 1979. It won the Palme d’Or that year for best film, the most prestigious prize a film could be awarded. It also went on to win Best Sound and Best Cinematography at the Academy Awards in 1980. Maybe now you’re probably asking yourself, “and how is this a failure?”
Before you accuse me of a cutting to black moment, hear me out. I took a contrarian approach when picking Apocalypse Now to hopefully make a point for further reflection. When is it considered a failure and by whom? Maybe it’s just semantics but there have been many films over the course of time that have suffered similar problems but didn’t succeed. Art is perception. The 1968 Stanley Kubrick film 2001: A Space Odyssey debuted to theater goers walking out and scratching their collective heads. It was lambasted in the reviews. Weeks later it started to gain underground popularity and to this day is considered a masterful triumph yet to be matched. There’s no denying there are films that just flat out fail in every way; financially, critically and artistically. The other side of the overlooked masterpiece is a film like Waterworld but those aren’t necessarily the films I’m thinking of. Again it’s back to perception. Whose to say what works or doesn’t? Did The Fountain fail? Not in my book. But to some it did. Who validates failure and when is it valid? To quote the infinite wisdom of a screenwriter far greater in talent than most, “Nobody knows anything.”
So is Apocalypse Now considered an ambitious failure? In its overall history — absolutely not. I was obsessed with this film when I was all of maybe 13 years old. Its spectacle ignited my interest in cinema and to this day I still get lost in its allegory. Lets just say it made an impression. Part Odyssey, part Joseph Conrad-inspired nightmare of obsession gone awry, throw in a little Werner Herzog and you have classic storytelling at its core, audaciously revealing the mess that took place what might as well have been a million miles away in some foreign land (hmmm) — a film I consider a must see before you die. So…ambitious? As all hell. A failure? Not by a long shot but there was a time when it was considered to be, by its creators and by its naysayers and critics. We all came around.
Popularity: 19% [?]
- The director, according to archival materials in the recent “Complete Dossier” edition, also stated that his plan was to create a single theater, in the geographical center of the United States (likely Kansas) that would show Apocalypse Now, and only Apocalypse Now. It would be specially tailored to the film, with 3D 70mm projectors, 5.1 surround sound, and the Sensurround system, which would vibrate the seats at the appropriate intervals. In his eyes, it would be “an event”, and he likened it to travelling to Mount Rushmore. — from Wikipedia[↩]
- Gerald Perry interviews Francis Ford Coppola at a press conference for Redux[↩]
- In Hearts of Darkness we see Coppola at the 1979 Cannes Film Festival press conference with his view of the film claiming, “My film is not about Vietnam, it is Vietnam.”[↩]
I wouldn’t call Apocalypse Now a failure, even if Coppola doesn’t pull off what he was trying to do. What’s fascinating to me is that I think the documentary Hearts of Darkness about the making of Apocalypse Now is actually a better movie than the film itself.
Edward — Branding a film whose scope is ambitious a failure can be arbitrary even misguided at times. Sometimes the criticism is right on but other times a mob rules mentality exist. Another current example that I mentioned is The Fountain. There was a film that was very ambitious but didn’t work for everyone. Hopefully time will be good to the film because I believe it deserves a second look.
Some films can recover from that but most can’t. History has been good to Apocalypse Now.
Yes, I admit I went the long way around to make the point but I thought that by using such a universally accepted (after it was scrutinized) film it would make my point of how hindsight can work in a film’s favor. This was my thought going into the post.
I admire the thoughts you have and think it is a brave choice. But I have to disagree.
I think that because the shoot was so disasterous, it is a huge success that a film of this quality came out of it. Not only do you feel the horror of the Vietnam War but you feel the horror of the whole production.
Moving an audience is the point of film and Apocalype succeeds more than most could ever hope to, for the same reasons that one may see as failures.
<p>Chris — you are absolutely entitled to your opinion but I stand by my entry. Especially my summation at the end which clearly points to my overall feelings about <i>Apocalypse Now</i>. I was playing a game of devil’s advocate and expected this sort of response but was hoping for a different one. </p>
<p>I would rather debate who gets to determine the ultimate fate of a film (critics, filmmakers, audience). Is it as simple as just writing a film off because it didn’t do well at the box office? How do you define it? If, after all this time has passed, Coppola felt that the film was a failure in the end, is it? If the creator is not endorsing the film but generations of audience members are, who is to say? </p>
<p>Just looking to spark some debate….</p>
William, that’s why I said I admired your thoughts. I think it is a great point to make. In the end I think it is for all, audience and director, to decide what is succesful.
I appreciate the debate.