Reflections on "No Country for Old Men"

Reflections on “No Country for Old Men”

Written and directed by Ethan and Joel Coen,

based on the book by Cormac McCarthy

Starring Tommy Lee Jones, Josh Brolin and Javier Bardem

A video presentation of this material is available here.

“No Country for Old Men” presents the story of a drug deal gone badly wrong, the opportunist theft of two million dollars intended to be used to pay for the drugs, the pursuit of that money and its thief by several interested parties, and the attempts to make sense of the resultant conflicts and assaults and to save the life of our opportunist thief by the local police.

In the course of the film, we are invited to reflect on the diminishing role of values and morality in modern society, the part that chance can play in our lives, and the disconcerting effect of a perceived deterioration in standards and ethics on ageing and experienced law enforcement officers who may represent traditional values and outlooks.

It appears that traditional societal values and order have been questioned and doubted to such an extent that individuals now indulge their own world views and self-centred ambitions in their desire to survive and thrive and, as traditional values decline, it is increasingly a case of every man or woman for him or herself.

Llewelyn Moss, a down-on-his-luck welder who lives a modest life in a trailer park with his wife Carla Jean, is hunting in the desert of West Texas. Quite by chance, he comes across the aftermath of a deadly shoot-out between two groups involved in a high-volume drug deal. Llewelyn cautiously investigates the crime scene and eventually finds some two million dollars which he removes and stashes under his trailer caravan.

We are given no background about Llewelyn, or, indeed, any of the characters. We join them in the action of the film and we are left to make our own deductions about their character based on their actions, attitude and speech.

We learn that Llewelyn is a man of no great consequence or means. He does what he can to survive and he provides what he can for his wife and family. There is no suggestion of criminality and he appears relatively open and honest. However, in a theme that is revisited at various points in the film, it seems that money corrupts and he does not report what he has seen in the desert to the police or hand in the money he has found, but he does share some details with his wife and he makes plans to travel and protect her as necessary. We see also that he cannot sleep as he recalls finding a dying drug dealer who begged for water but he couldn’t help him at the time. He sets off for the crime scene, carrying a container of water but he encounters danger when he gets there and he must flee.

Llewelyn is a decent and ordinary guy who retains a sense of responsibility and remains devoted to his wife, but he sees a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to better his life and so casts aside the traditional “moral” approach to life to become an opportunist thief, stealing from people he doubtless considers of little or no moral fibre or worth. He understands the potential consequences of his actions but he is willing to take his chances and do what he must to escape the poverty trap in which he and his wife live. He may even be willing to kill those who will seek to kill him as they pursue the money he has appropriated – legality and moral niceties are dismissed as far as defending himself is concerned, though he will not carry the fight to his opponents.

Hitman Chigurh, on the other hand, is more than willing to hurt, damage or kill anyone who gets in his way or whose death will advantage him in his pursuit for the stolen money. We witness him killing, brutally and needlessly, a police officer and a passing motorist who stops to help him out, but their deaths appear to be of no consequence to him, indeed he seems to take pleasure in the act of murder. He is totally committed to his mission of recovering the money procured by Llewelyn so it may be said that he is a professional, but one who achieves his objective at any price and with no consideration or respect for the lives of others.

Entirely amoral, Chigurh survives by indulging his psychopathy, making a living by offering his deadly services for a fee. He seems to hold nothing dear apart from the fulfilment of his task but, amazingly, he is willing to recognise the role of chance in life and he is ready to concede to the way chance (or fate) plays out, indeed he may even have convinced himself that he acts in accordance with fate.

He spares the life of a garage attendant based on the flip of a coin and takes the life of Llewelyn’s wife Carla Jean on the same premise, though Carla Jean tries to reason with him and suggests that ultimately, he must take responsibility for his own actions – no matter how the coin-toss turns out. However, Chigurh takes the easy option and does not doubt himself or his conviction that he must comply with fate.

Chance comes in to play on numerous occasions in the film, including Chigurh’s car crash and the very fact that Llewelyn comes across the scene of the drug deal and the money. In every case, the result is decided by the action of the protagonist in response to events, and not by the events themselves. Opportunities may be offered and events may occur but responsibility for their consequences lie with the individuals concerned and the actions they take, reflecting their character and personal circumstances.

Carson Wells is another hitman, but one open to reason and discussion. He may be amoral in that he is willing to commit amoral acts in order to do his job, but he is no psychopath. He is a survivor and a realist. He sees how things lie in society and he is willing to do what he must in order to make his way but he is open to reason and will take drastic action only as a last resort. He retains a certain humanity and feeling for traditional values while Chigurh has taken his existential interpretation of life one step farther than Carson. Chigurh has abandoned all attachments to past values and will cold-heartedly kill Carson.

Sheriff Ed Tom Bell is the most conservative, traditional and human character on show. The two hitmen and their employers show little or no regard for others and Llewelyn and his wife show concern for one another and their immediate family, but Sheriff Tom is concerned with the welfare of others and the standards of law, order and humanity in society as a whole.

Reflecting a sensation common to many as they get older, Tom is finding it increasingly difficult to reconcile his present experiences of nihilistic amorality in society with his formative years and early experiences in which values and principles were widely recognised, if not always strictly adhered to.

Tom cannot fathom the perceived existential deterioration in humanity. The film starts with him lamenting the passing of the “old ways” and the clarity they lent to life, and he ends the film in retirement and some bewilderment, the events of the story having pushed him farther down the path of no longer belonging and feeling out of sync with the way modern society is developing.

He even shares with us a dream he had involving his father holding up a dim light in the pitch black surrounding them. His highly respected father, representing rectitude and moral certainty, offers no more than a glimmer of hope in the darkness which suggests the moral malaise Tom perceives all around him.

It is suggested on several occasions that money can lead to corruption and greed. At the Mexican border, a badly hurt Llewelyn immediately offers a passer-by a substantial amount of money for his jacket, perhaps reflecting his mercenary expectations of society, and the passer-by demands to see the money before handing over his jacket, apparently happy to make a fast and easy buck from another’s misfortune rather than offer a charitable helping hand.

After his car crash, the wounded Chigurh offers money for a shirt belonging to a young lad accompanied by a friend. The young lad offers it to Chigurh for nothing but Chigurh insists on paying him and this leads to an argument between the two friends on how to split the proceeds of the sale….

Of course, the whole premise of the film is that money is set above the value attached to any number of lives, while morality is reduced to the keeping of one’s word and the completion of a task, regardless of the potential amorality attached to the consequence of keeping that word or completing the task. Modern morality has become an entirely insular and independent concept as opposed to taking into account the lives and feelings of others.

And so, we have a highly effective thriller in which different takes on principle and duty vie with one another to survive and prosper in a society which has analysed and argued its way to a moral no-man’s-land and where chance can still throw everything into disarray. For me, this is the most accessible and successful of the Coen brothers’ films. The script is highly engaging, the direction brisk, exciting but also thought-provoking, and the performances from all involved are beyond reproach.

My thanks for taking the time to read this article. I hope you found it of some value.

Stuart Fernie

I can be contacted at stuartfernie@yahoo.co.uk .

HOME

BLOG

Reflections on characters and themes in "Gattaca"

Reflections on “Gattaca”

Written and directed by Andrew Niccol

Starring Ethan Hawke, Uma Thurman and Jude Law

A video presentation of this material is available here.

“Gattaca” is an intriguing and thought-provoking film that investigates the potential consequences for both society and the individual of genetic engineering. In the not-too-distant future, mankind is divided between “valids” and “in-valids”, or those who have received genetic intervention to maximise their potential, and those whose genetic make-up is left to nature or God and are therefore more prone to potential weaknesses, with percentage calculations of specific defects on offer.

As a result of this scientific intercession, society assumes the superiority of those who have been biologically tinkered with and denies opportunities to anyone predisposed to genetic weakness. Career pathways are decided primarily on the basis of likely biological aptitude and ability. As presented, society is a sterile, dull and highly ordered place devoid of character, initiative or interest. It appears that the pursuit of perfection comes at a price.

The parents of the aptly named Vincent Freeman favour leaving their offspring’s make-up to nature, though they alter their approach to conception for their second son, Anton, as Vincent is born with a variety of possible conditions which may restrict his life expectancy and will certainly limit his life choices in the society into which he was born. For Anton, they opt for wide-ranging, if not complete, intervention, allowing them to take more pride in their second son.

As a rule, “in-valids” accept societal limitations and lead second-class lives, or worse, but Vincent has a burning passion for space exploration and discovery so he goes to extreme lengths to dupe screening measures in place to detect the presence of in-valids in his workplace, Gattaca. This is the future equivalent of NASA and its purpose is to send our most gifted and able into space to investigate, learn and develop our knowledge and awareness. Vincent is literally and metaphorically reaching for the stars as he refuses to recognise limits placed on his advancement laid down by society. There is no question or doubt as to the standard of his work – he is highly praised by a mission director and is due to be sent to Titan in the near future, yet he would be expelled immediately if his true nature were to be discovered.

Clearly, this implies criticism of a purely science-based and biological evaluation of a person’s worth and presents a somewhat mechanical view of mankind. Limitations are set by body parts and no account is taken of spirit, determination and courage in the face of adversity, all of which may compensate for physical weakness or may, indeed, come about as a result of deficiencies. Nor is account taken of the fact that parts judged to be potentially defective may function perfectly well even if they don’t conform to set standards.

Vincent takes on the identity of Jerome Morrow, a valid who had a promising career in athletics but who was disabled in a road accident. Jerome seems reasonably happy and willing to help Vincent achieve his goals by providing biological samples that Vincent can use to fool systems established to verify identity. Eventually, however, we learn that Jerome’s life-changing accident was actually the result of attempted suicide. In a world where perfection and success are prized above all else, Jerome could only achieve second place and this led to a sense of failure, depression and finally attempted suicide, ending in a career-crushing inability to walk. Expectations set by genetic intervention can have, then, a devastating effect even on valids if, for whatever reason, they fail to live up to the expectations set for them.

Vincent and his brother Anton regularly compete in a swimming challenge. Very simply, they swim out together as far as they can from the shore and the first to weaken and head for home is the loser. This competition is very important in the film because it illustrates values set by society as Anton arrogantly expects to win but shows no sympathy or remorse when Vincent loses, simply accepting his superiority as his due. It also informs us of Vincent’s character as he persists in taking part, despite knowing the likely result, but refuses to give up hope and gives his all to the task. Finally, it delivers a message essential to the film, suggesting we are more than the sum of our parts and spirit, determination and nature can overcome apparent obstacles.

When Vincent eventually defeats his brother, he is gracious and caring as he saves his brother’s life. Perhaps having to fight for success has taught him to appreciate aspects of life, and life itself, more than his brother’s life as a valid has allowed him to do. His success also gives him the confidence to break away from his family, reject the limitations imposed on him by society and pursue his dreams.

Vincent develops a relationship with Irene at Gattaca. Although she is a valid, she is biologically imperfect and her imperfections impose limits on her career. When Vincent tentatively declares feelings for her, Irene is open about her defects and considers these grounds for taking their budding relationship no further. Although she is very able and efficient, Irene can appear vaguely despairing and unfulfilled. Once again, genetic intervention and the expectations that accompany it seem to have had a negative effect on the individual and these may deny a positive influence on society by restricting application of abilities.

When faced with Irene’s defects and her offer to terminate their burgeoning relationship, Vincent rejects her evidence and clearly judges her not by her biological make-up but by her whole being, much to her delight and satisfaction.

Later on, when Irene discovers the truth about Vincent, who respects Irene to the extent that he cannot maintain his false identity with her, she reciprocates his rejection of evidence of biological weakness and opts to trust her instincts rather than give in to societal pressure.

The murder of a project manager in Gattaca is the dramatic device used to propel the story, though it is really only the mechanism to allow the exploration of character and themes so essential to this film. There is little question of Vincent being the murderer but the situation creates threat and engages the audience as Vincent may be unmasked and his plans wrecked. However, the murder storyline is used to say more about society and its prejudices based on genetic engineering.

The detectives investigating the murder are clearly held in no high regard, in good part because an interpretation of their not quite top-notch DNA has resulted in their being channelled into what are considered second-rate positions for which they may have no particular liking, leading to frustration and bitterness. It is revealed that one of the detectives is none other than Vincent’s estranged brother Anton. By rejecting society’s strictures and by working hard and showing initiative, Vincent has hauled himself to a position superior to that of his supposedly more able brother, proving the system wrong.

Society is so obsessed with the idea of genetic and social engineering, and has such faith in science and its precepts, that the detectives assume an in-valid is responsible for the murder of the director simply because they find an eyelash belonging to an in-valid (Vincent) on the premises where the crime was committed. This suggests a blinkered and prejudiced attitude and a willingness to attach guilt by mere association rather than seeking substantive evidence.

Eventually, they are forced to open their minds to other possibilities (and the truth) and they discover evidence which leads to the capture of the murderer – another director who had motive but whose genetic make-up contained no hint of violence so he was not investigated. The implication is that humans remain unpredictable and cannot be completely programmed or even understood, despite scientific intervention.

Toward the end, the doctor who has conducted many tests on Vincent unexpectedly takes a final sample from him as he is about to board the spaceship bound for Titan, and his true identity is revealed. The doctor makes an observation that suggests he has known the truth for some time and goes on to falsify the data, allowing Vincent to board the ship and fulfil his dreams. The doctor talks of his son who did not turn out as expected and so, presumably, the doctor came to doubt the validity of the entire basis for society and has gone on to apply common sense and humanity. He appears to judge Vincent as a whole rather than focus on supposed physical defects.

On the face of it, this is a science fiction film but I would suggest it has many elements of a philosophical film as it invites thought and reflection and it focuses on ideas. It presents potential consequences of genetic engineering in an engaging and absorbing way and it appears to suggest that to reduce humanity to scientific deconstruction, and then reconstruction, is to fail to fully understand humanity and may even restrict its progress.

This film may not have done well at the box-office but it makes a worthy contribution to the category of reflective films which do not rely on action or comedy to maintain the attention of the audience. It is a beautifully crafted and well-acted piece that deserves far more attention than it gained on release. It seems to have gained cult status these days, and deservedly so.

My thanks for taking the time to watch this video. I hope you found it of some value.

Stuart Fernie

I can be contacted at stuartfernie@yahoo.co.uk .

HOME

BLOG

Reflections on tone, characters and themes in The Adventures of Robin Hood (1938)

Reflections on “The Adventures of Robin Hood” (1938)

Written by Norman Reilly Raine and Seton I. Miller

Directed by Michael Curtiz and William Keighley

Starring Errol Flynn, Olivia de Havilland, Basil Rathbone and Claude Rains

A video presentation of this material is available here.

I have long since championed this film as one of the best examples of its genre, if not the best. As an entertaining historical adventure film, few can match it. The storyline and main themes are easily summarised and identified, and are likely to appeal to most.

Hard-working, honest and relatively poor citizens are being exploited and oppressed by a self-serving and scheming ruling class who consider themselves superior by birth to those they govern.

Their defender is a man of principle willing to renounce a life of privilege in order to pursue justice while shielding and protecting those being abused.

Men and women are judged by the values they adhere to and act upon, with fraternity, fairness and honour the bonding principles of some, as opposed to upholding a ruling elite and pursuing self-interest for others. The film makes its points very clearly and unequivocally. There are no psychological shades of grey here, characters are black or white, good or bad.

This is a film that inspires, involves and moves its audience while never losing sight of its principal purpose to entertain, and that is the key to the longevity of its appeal. Many films have dealt with similar themes but this one delivers its worthy message while alternating between threat and a tone of lightness and self-aware fun.

Of course, many films and film series have since adopted a similar tone. The early James Bonds, Star Wars and Indiana Jones, to name but a few, have all been influenced, to varying degrees, by the inclusion of knowing humour and self-awareness, and that notion can, I suggest, be traced back to “Robin Hood”, both in terms of the writing and performance.

The key to success and lasting appeal for any adventure film is in the balance of the elements that go to make it, and in the case of “Robin Hood”, that balance is just about perfect.

Threat must be real and credible, and tension must be created. Considerable effort is made to develop threat and tension in many scenes in “Robin Hood” – the meal in the castle, the archery tournament and the combat in Nottingham Castle – and the antagonists are usually defeated with skill, heroism and wit, often with an action or a line that diminishes the foe or shows humanity or a foible in our “hero”, thus engaging affection, admiration and engagement in the audience.

The characters may be relatively uncomplicated representations of attitude or thought, but they are made human, interesting and entertaining by inclusion of personal characteristics and quirks, and through interaction with others, often with humorous, romantic or threatening overtones.

Serious points are made, emphasising values, justice and common decency, but they are made through characters and a script that entertain without condescension or moralising. Performance is an essential feature in delivering all these elements and must contain a combination of sincerity, threat and light-heartedness. Lines are sometimes delivered if not to the audience, then for the audience. These are lines that may have a connotation for or connection with the public, regularly at the expense of an unsuspecting foe, and make the audience complicit in the action. This may be said to peek over, if not actually break, the fourth wall, and invites a form of collusion.

Errol Flynn was the perfect incarnation for this “new” style of heroic engagement with an audience. He manages to combine a knowing self-awareness in places, almost as if he is sharing a joke with the audience, with a sincere and inspiring delivery and performance when showing compassion or aiming to motivate his men. He receives credit-worthy support from his co-stars who all play to the general tone of the piece.

The direction dynamically reflects the pace and style of the script and the whole is complemented and enhanced by the luscious colour photography and Korngold’s wonderful music which, like the film itself, can be dramatic or playful. And, just as the film may have influenced later film-makers, this music and its orchestration has also exercised an influence on later film composers.

Film-making may have developed enormously on a technical level since this film was made, but in terms of the combination of writing, direction and performance in the action/adventure genre, and the creation of a refreshingly witty and involving style, this film is, in my opinion, virtually without equal.

My thanks for taking the time to read this article. I hope you found it of some value.

Stuart Fernie

I can be contacted at stuartfernie@yahoo.co.uk .   

Website       

Blog

Reflections on "Apocalypse Now"

Reflections on “Apocalypse Now”

Directed by Francis Ford Coppola

Written by John Milius and Francis Ford Coppola

Starring Martin Sheen, Robert Duvall and Marlon Brando

A video presentation of this material is available here.

At the height of the Vietnam war, American officer Captain Benjamin Willard is called to a meeting with his superiors, the upshot of which is that he is assigned the mission of terminating the command of American Colonel Walter Kurtz who has established what amounts to a renegade militia in Cambodia and is using methods his commanding officers find questionable and run contrary to their moral and ethical standards.

Willard is to follow the course up the Nung river taken by Kurtz and, en route to his base, Willard will encounter what Kurtz experienced on his journey and will develop an understanding of his prey’s character, reasoning and evolution. As will we, the audience.

Willard is a capable and experienced officer but he is profoundly troubled. Through a brilliant series of vignettes, we are given to understand that he has seen much action, violence and destruction, and that he may have lost perspective on what he has gone through and what life can mean. He has lived at such a heightened pace and level of adrenalin that he can no longer cope with civilian life, or indeed peace and quiet at all. He is almost detached from regular life and needs to be surrounded by threat and action to feel alive and have purpose, and that is when he copes best.

Willard’s skills and mindset make him the perfect weapon or tool to carry out the mission to eliminate the Colonel who is causing embarrassment by not adhering to the military’s code of ethics and conduct. Kurtz is accused of murder and using methods that raise doubts about his very sanity. Willard’s superiors use reasoned argument and legalistic language to justify their position and the action they are sanctioning, and they are apparently unaware of their own hypocrisy and fail to recognise the irony in the fact that they are commissioning a murder in response to their dismay at the murders committed by Kurtz. The bottom line is that Kurtz is to be assassinated because he has taken the military imperative to destroy the enemy to heart and is using what he considers the most effective methods and means to achieve that goal, but methods and means not in keeping with the veneer of respectability military command wishes to maintain.

Using a navy patrol boat and its crew, Willard makes his way up the Nung River to reach Kurtz and his base. As they travel ever farther from what is familiar and accepted, they go more deeply into waters and experiences that test their mettle and also their perceptions of warfare, civilisation and humanity. The farther they go, the less rules of engagement, order and sanity seem to apply.

They come across Lt Col Kilgore who will help relay them upriver. In order to do so, he and his airborne forces attack and destroy a seemingly peaceful and idyllic coastal village, principally because of the good surfing conditions in the waters nearby.

This sequence imparts the devastation, agony and chaos of battle quite brilliantly. The sudden contrast between the relaxed calm of everyday life and the indiscriminate destruction inflicted by military forces is quite breath-taking and totally engaging in its intensity and unpredictability. Like those involved in the action, our senses are assaulted and we don’t know what will happen next, leaving us quite disorientated. We are starting to share some of the experiences, thoughts and feelings Willard and Kurtz might have known.

The single greatest source of calm, composure and clarity of purpose in this action is Kilgore, an officer so immersed in and conditioned by warfare, violence and bloodshed that he has become desensitised to battle, danger and suffering. The authority to make life-and-death decisions for others, combined with the ease of their implementation, with little or no apparent control over his actions, has undoubtedly affected his judgement and his attitude toward responsibility and humanity. Perhaps in an effort to impose sanity on his circumstances, or to find a way to survive and cope mentally, he appears to have lost focus on purely military objectives and has personalised his mission, focusing on opportunities for surfing and opting not to see potential danger in indulging this activity. He is a good officer in terms of organisation and the mechanics of command, but he appears to have lost sight of the bigger picture.

Willard and the boat crew make a stop to pick up supplies and they are surprised to find the post bathed in light, with troops gathered in noisy and good-hearted anticipation in a specially built amphitheatre overlooking a water-borne stage set for a show. There is great excitement and a request for fuel by a member of Willard’s crew is ignored in favour of the selling of souvenirs, causing the professional and highly focused Willard to lose his temper and threaten the offending soldier. Shortly afterward, a helicopter deposits three Playboy Playmates of the month to dance for and entertain the troops, leading to a breakdown in discipline, general chaos and the hurried departure of the girls and the helicopter. This also leads to a brief meditation by Willard on how the enemy receives no such treats and is hardened and more focused as a result. This is one of several instances of implied criticism of the incorporation of entertainment and home culture in the daily lives of young conscripted soldiers in the struggle to defeat a determined, focused and enduring enemy.

When they reach Do Lung, the last American outpost on the river, they are confronted with scenes of sheer chaos, fear and bewilderment, with soldiers driven by the fundamental desire to survive. There is a repeated and existentially wearing cycle of action with a bridge being built or repaired during the day, only to be damaged or destroyed at night. There appears to be no chain of command and little clarity of purpose or order. In military terms, it is directionless and a stalemate, while in human terms it borders on nihilism and depression with soldiers left to question the purpose and point of their presence there and their lives reduced to relying on instinct to survive and destroy the enemy.

Willard sees and experiences all this but Kurtz saw it before him. Being a professional, Willard wants to know his target and so he studies and shares details of Kurtz’s career with us. Destined for one of the top positions in the military, Kurtz effectively renounced promotion to join Special Forces when he was 38. He put personal conviction and action above career, perhaps believing he could achieve more in the field than from a desk. Willard appears to admire him and, in following in his footsteps, is learning to understand him and how he reached this position.

There is minor conflict between Willard and the Chief, who is nominally in charge of the boat. The Chief understands and follows regular orders but he is very apprehensive of people like Willard as he senses danger and threat in him. As they approach Kurtz’s base, the boat and crew are attacked by tribesmen throwing sticks and the odd spear. The Chief is fatally wounded by one of these spears but before he dies, he tries to kill Willard by pulling him on to the spear head protruding from his chest, perhaps because, by instinct, the Chief hopes that this cycle of death will be halted if he stops Willard and his like. It is ironic that Willard has similar feelings toward Kurtz and is set on taking similar action.

Within Kurtz’s camp, all trappings of civilisation have been abandoned. All of Kurtz’s followers have suffered the psychological horrors we have encountered on our journey to the camp and life has been reduced to death or survival, with Kurtz deciding people’s fates. He is accepted as leader perhaps because of his purity of purpose and his ruthlessness, and he rules by fear and dread.

Eventually, Kurtz offers an explanation for his methods. After immunising some children in a village, the enemy arrived and, to show displeasure and enforce compliance, they hacked off the arms of the children who had been immunised. It was at this point that Kurtz had an epiphany – the only way to defeat such an enemy was to apply the same strength of purpose and have the strength to manipulate horror in your own favour. Thus, conflict is stripped of all niceties, facades and pretences at standards and morality in favour of the purity of horror as the ultimate weapon and means of destroying your enemy.

Kurtz could easily have had Willard killed but instead he engages in a vaguely philosophical discussion with him. Perhaps Kurtz views him as an equal and wishes to receive his understanding and approval, or perhaps he sees himself in Willard and recognises the validity of his mission and Willard’s right to exercise his judgement just as Kurtz had done.

The imagery is clear when Willard kills Kurtz. Kurtz is being brutally sacrificed to protect and maintain the façade of civilised warfare. He was a good soldier and as such became a product and perhaps victim of his own profession, as he took his task to its logical conclusion rather than playing the game expected of him.

After killing Kurtz, Willard re-emerges to face the horde of Kurtz’s followers. As Willard drops his weapon, both physically and symbolically, the followers drop theirs and they appear ready to accept him as their new leader, but Willard gets in the boat to leave. Having followed Kurtz’s path and shown the same strength, determination and occasional ruthlessness as Kurtz, he could easily have taken on his mantle. However, Willard has stated he is no longer part of the military, perhaps implying he has developed beyond their code of conduct, or even that he no longer recognises authority. He lacks the ambition, drive and ego of Kurtz and, more importantly, he may have developed an existential understanding beyond that of Kurtz and he sees that only by laying down his weapons and allowing people to lead their own lives will the ceaseless cycle of bloodshed and dependence come to an end. Kurtz has therefore also been sacrificed on the altar of peace and freedom.

If an acceptable definition of art is “an attempt to convey concepts, ideas and emotions, typically through words, images or sound, in a concise and engaging manner”, then “Apocalypse Now” is, for me, a work of art. The storyline and imagery lend themselves to an onslaught on the senses and the mind, leading the viewer down the same existential path as Willard and Kurtz and allowing us to understand this descent into murder and mayhem while warning us off this road.

My thanks for taking the time to read this article. I hope you found it of some value.

Stuart Fernie

Website

Blog