Concessions to Physical Realism: Full Metal Jacket vs Apocalypse Now
word...@rocketmail.com
movies in his own English back yard, so to speak. There are no jungles
on the Thames River, so, in order to give a movie like *FMJ* an air of
physical reality, he has palm trees flown in and positioned in appropriate
places. He tips his hat to jungle realism without going the whole hog.
Francis Coppola, however, goes all out in this department: *Apocalypse
Now* was filmed in an ACTUAL jungle. (The fact that it was shot in the
Philippines and not Vietnam and Cambodia isn't important. What is is that
he went the extra mile in the realism department.) Who agrees that *AN* has
a distinct edge over *FMJ* in this respect? Dissenters, come forward!
Wordsmith
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum
Gonigal
>movies in his own English back yard, so to speak. There are no jungles
>on the Thames River, so, in order to give a movie like *FMJ* an air of
>physical reality, he has palm trees flown in and positioned in appropriate
>places. He tips his hat to jungle realism without going the whole hog.
> Francis Coppola, however, goes all out in this department: *Apocalypse
>Now* was filmed in an ACTUAL jungle. (The fact that it was shot in the
>Philippines and not Vietnam and Cambodia isn't important. What is is that
>he went the extra mile in the realism department.) Who agrees that *AN* has
>a distinct edge over *FMJ* in this respect? Dissenters, come forward!
>
>Wordsmith
I will admit that FMJ's "Vietnam" was quite different from the images of Nam
I'm familiar with from other movies & news footage, but I simply decided to
assume, for the sake of the film, that part of the Vietnam conflict did involve
WWII style urban warfare.
If Kubrick's intent had been to really capture the experiance of being a Grunt
in Vietnam, ala Platoon, the lack of a jungle setting would have been a real
drawback. But for what Kubrick wanted to say, sticking some Palm Trees on the
Isle of Dogs worked fine.
(Actually, I think the fact that none of the Helicopters were Bell Hueys took
me out of the film a bit more than the urban settings)
-D.G.
David Culpepper
word...@rocketmail.com :6qb3fk$16r$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
> SK, it is well known, does not like to travel. He likes making
>movies in his own English back yard, so to speak. There are no jungles
>on the Thames River, so, in order to give a movie like *FMJ* an air of
>physical reality, he has palm trees flown in and positioned in appropriate
>places. He tips his hat to jungle realism without going the whole hog.
snipped...
Who agrees that *AN* has
>a distinct edge over *FMJ* in this respect? Dissenters, come forward!
Hue City is not in a jungle (or rain forest). Never was to my knowledge.
Hue was a very European city. SK did a great job of re-creating the look of
the place. VN is not simply a rain-forest country for that matter.
Tobasco
David Culpepper
Gonigal wrote:
> but I simply decided to
>assume, for the sake of the film, that part of the Vietnam conflict did
involve
>WWII style urban warfare.
>
Yes indeedy, Hue City was a major event (along with Khe Sanh, which WAS in a
rain forest) in the Tet offensive. Definitely urban fighting.
>But for what Kubrick wanted to say, sticking some Palm Trees on the
>Isle of Dogs worked fine.
>
ok, so what do you think Kubrick was wanting to say in FMJ?
>(Actually, I think the fact that none of the Helicopters were Bell Hueys
took
>me out of the film a bit more than the urban settings)
agreed, the helos sucked.
Tobasco
john melville
thought the Helos gave a note of realism, as the marines did not have
many hueys by TET.
john
Mark McFadden
word...@rocketmail.com wrote in message
<6qb3fk$16r$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
> SK, it is well known, does not like to travel. He likes making
> Francis Coppola, however, goes all out in this department: *Apocalypse
>Now* was filmed in an ACTUAL jungle. (The fact that it was shot in the
>Philippines and not Vietnam and Cambodia isn't important. What is is that
has
>a distinct edge over *FMJ* in this respect? Dissenters, come forward!
>
The war scenes in FMJ took place in Saigon, Hue, on a base and flying over
rice paddies. Jungle wasn't a part of any of the locations.
AN, however, was inspired by Heart of Darkness. Jungle was an integral part
of the stories ambience.
Nonetheless, hat's off to Coppola. The decision to film in the Philippines
cost him dearly.
Rebuilding Marcos helicopter fleet (so they could tear off during filming to
put down Moro rebels), waiting out typhoons and seasonal rain, dealing with
the myriad health problems that arose from living in the tropics etc etc
etc.
See the documentary "Hearts of Darkness".
tomlinson
: SK, it is well known, does not like to travel. He likes making
: movies in his own English back yard, so to speak. There are no jungles
: on the Thames River, so, in order to give a movie like *FMJ* an air of
: physical reality, he has palm trees flown in and positioned in appropriate
: places. He tips his hat to jungle realism without going the whole hog.
Hm. As time progresses, I find this sort of "realism" more and more
dissatisfying. As "real" as the artifice might seem, it's still
artifice, and sometimes the excessive and painstaking "realism"
exhibited in certain films only draws my attention to the artifice.
To take a more obvious example: the "realism" of the dinosaurs in
JURASSIC PARK seemed to have been assumed without question by a lot
of people watching the movie. But I couldn't stop thinking, not only
that these were only computer models, but that they were models of
"artists' representations" of animals whose real appearances and
behaviors we will never know. They're not just fakes, but fakes of
fakes, and maybe it's a little dangerous for use to be fooled, by
mere intricacy of detail and realization, into thinking that the
dinosaurs of JP are any more "real" than Godzilla.
-tomlinson
--
Ernest S. Tomlinson - San Diego State University
Gary Singletary
was flown in FMJ. The marines are invariably the last branch of the service
to get new equipment and were still flying the dated Sikorsky UH-34D
Seahorse helicopters (equipped with reciprocating engines) for the most part
at the time of Tet. The marine UH-34 was similar to the old Army CH-34 which
had long been displaced by turbine powered UH-1B&D models (Hueys) at time of
Tet. Kubrick appears to have used British Royal Navy Westland Wessex
helicopters in place of the UH-34. The Wessex is more modern but looks very
similar to the Sikorsky -34. The Wessex incorporates a turbine engine
instead of the reciprocating engine used in the marine model which is quite
noticeable given the turbine's large exhaust up front. While not accurate,
Kubrick's use of the Royal Navy (I assume) helicopters was not nearly as
offbeat looking as the use of modern tanks in "Patton" and the atrocious
"Battle of the Bulge".
Gary
john melville wrote in message <35C98A60...@ibm.net>...
DeppityBob
fakes, and maybe it's a little dangerous for use to be fooled, by
mere intricacy of detail and realization, into thinking that the
dinosaurs of JP are any more "real" than Godzilla.<<
A very good point. As experience will tell you, a real dinosaur will bite you
in the ass just 'cuz you looked at him funny. I hate that.
Dep
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Humans. Can't live with 'em, can't
escape the fallout when you
bomb 'em into oblivion.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"I picked myself up, dusted myself off,
and joined the Dark Side!"
M4RV1N
><6qd3jp$qio$1...@hole.sdsu.edu>
writes:
>word...@rocketmail.com wrote:
> in order to give a movie like *FMJ* an air of
>: physical reality, he has palm trees flown in and positioned in appropriate
>: places. He tips his hat to jungle realism without going the whole hog.
First, to address Wordsmith, I have on tape Stanley Karnow's PBS documentary
series on Vietnam. A couple of episodes have newsreel footage of the city
combat in Hue. It really makes for a stunning comparison in that except for
more plants and foliage, it looks exactly like 16mm film of the Hue "set" from
FMJ.
The helicopters were discussed on amk last year and I seem to remember that
they were right but the shadow was wrong (which also happened in Dr. S
!!!!!!!!!!!!)
>the "realism" of the dinosaurs in
>JURASSIC PARK seemed to have been assumed without question by a lot
>of people watching the movie. But I couldn't stop thinking, not only
>that these were only computer models, but that they were models of
>"artists' representations" of animals whose real appearances and
>behaviors we will never know. They're not just fakes, but fakes of
>fakes, and maybe it's a little dangerous for use to be fooled, by
>mere intricacy of detail and realization, into thinking that the
>dinosaurs of JP are any more "real" than Godzilla.
In fact the depictions in JP are highly accurate. The production heeded the
advice of legit paleontologists with a few exceptions. Reconstructions of
muscles are possible from anchor marks on fossil bones, fossil skin has been
found with scale impressions, behavior is revealed in both bones and fossil
nest sites. The major flaws were the lack of bright colors (most of the
animals in JP are either brown or grey), and the ridiculous idea that a T-rex
would only see prey in motion. For the most part, the unrealistic parts of JP
are the people and the story.
Mark Ervin
Bryce Utting
[quoting etomlinson (I think)]
>>the "realism" of the dinosaurs in
>>JURASSIC PARK seemed to have been assumed without question by a lot
>>of people watching the movie. But I couldn't stop thinking, not only
>>that these were only computer models, but that they were models of
>>"artists' representations" of animals whose real appearances and
>>behaviors we will never know. They're not just fakes, but fakes of
>>fakes, and maybe it's a little dangerous for use to be fooled, by
>>mere intricacy of detail and realization, into thinking that the
>>dinosaurs of JP are any more "real" than Godzilla.
>
>In fact the depictions in JP are highly accurate. The production heeded the
>advice of legit paleontologists with a few exceptions. Reconstructions of
>muscles are possible from anchor marks on fossil bones, fossil skin has been
>found with scale impressions, behavior is revealed in both bones and fossil
>nest sites. The major flaws were the lack of bright colors (most of the
>animals in JP are either brown or grey), and the ridiculous idea that a T-rex
>would only see prey in motion. For the most part, the unrealistic parts of JP
>are the people and the story.
The definition of "realistic" you appear to be working from (correct
me if I'm wrong) seems to be along the lines of trueness to life; this
is a little challenging when applied to (not-quite) science
(definitely) fiction (tries hard) action-adventure. I'm not sure how
useful that is in this case; we're not exactly talking hard-science
speculative fiction here, and certainly not a BBC or PBS documentary.
the "realism" Ernest (I think) brings up sounds more like something to
do with how -convincing- a spectacle is, and how ready to accept it
the audience is ("audience" and "viewer" aren't the same thing where
spectacle is concerned, imho) -- something that very rarely has
anything to do with any objective reality. the point is maybe more
along the lines that the more fantastic the subject, the more risk
there is in attempting to convince the viewer that what they are
seeing is real, or (worse) of bringing attention to the contrivance.
the latter's always a risk in cutting-edge special effects; the nature
of the publicity and of the audience's expectations/preconceptions
come into play. Speilberg's been riding close to this "trueness to
spectacle" line since Jaws first came out. (fwiw, I dug JP.)
so... you mean you -haven't- read Bazin? the recent Bazin at Work
collection's well worth reading.
(I won't bore ya'll with my latest musings on that. unless someone
wants to discuss Eisensteinian montage and The Best Years of Our
Lives...? didn't think so!)
one other thing: can anyone remember who it was that said that "real"
is the only word that requires quotation marks? Rushdie? Eco?
Nabokov? I should know this...
butting
--
Bryce Utting http://www.cs.waikato.ac.nz/~butting
the cross before me, the world behind me
no turning back
cine...@hknet.com
> at the time of Tet. The marine UH-34 was similar to the old Army CH-34 which
> had long been displaced by turbine powered UH-1B&D models (Hueys) at time of
> Tet. Kubrick appears to have used British Royal Navy Westland Wessex
> helicopters in place of the UH-34. The Wessex is more modern but looks very
> similar to the Sikorsky -34. The Wessex incorporates a turbine engine
> instead of the reciprocating engine used in the marine model which is quite
> noticeable given the turbine's large exhaust up front. While not accurate,
> Kubrick's use of the Royal Navy (I assume) helicopters was not nearly as
> offbeat looking as the use of modern tanks in "Patton" and the atrocious
> "Battle of the Bulge".
Thanks for the info., Gary.
The Wessex (I'd thought they were Sea Kings) is/was used in the British navy,
and army and airforce. There was a small squadron of them out here (Hong
Kong) and when they colony tipped over they were sold by tender. Trusty old
machines and they made a great sound, as all the *best* helicopters do/did.
derek
(Or maybe the Sea King was the navy variation of the Wessex? This sort
of remodelling to suit a different role is common isn't it....)
David Mullen
>In fact the depictions in JP are highly accurate. The production heeded the
>advice of legit paleontologists with a few exceptions. Reconstructions of
>muscles are possible from anchor marks on fossil bones, fossil skin has been
>found with scale impressions, behavior is revealed in both bones and fossil
>nest sites. The major flaws were the lack of bright colors (most of the
This was done because in the story, all the dinosaurs were female - in nature,
the female of a species is often dull-colored compared to the male. In "Lost
World", there was more use of color because both male and female dinosaurs
were present.
David M.
David Culpepper
Bryce Utting:
>
>so... you mean you -haven't- read Bazin? the recent Bazin at Work
>collection's well worth reading.
>
>(I won't bore ya'll with my latest musings on that. unless someone
>wants to discuss Eisensteinian montage and The Best Years of Our
>Lives...? didn't think so!)
>
Unfortunately, I am unqualified to discuss it. Any forthcoming
enlightenment??? Oh damn, you mean I have to read something first. OK.
Tobasco
David Culpepper
M4RV1N wrote: >
>In fact the depictions in JP are highly accurate. The production heeded
the
>advice of legit paleontologists with a few exceptions. Reconstructions of
>muscles are possible from anchor marks on fossil bones, fossil skin has
been
>found with scale impressions, behavior is revealed in both bones and fossil
>nest sites. The major flaws were the lack of bright colors (most of the
>animals in JP are either brown or grey), and the ridiculous idea that a
T-rex
>would only see prey in motion. For the most part, the unrealistic parts of
JP
>are the people and the story.
>
>Mark Ervin
well, the realism of JP's 'saurs were based on various theories put forth by
paleontologists of 80's. The rub comes in that these theories are changing
faster than a stripper on Friday night. The entire warm vs cold blooded
issue is far from being resolved. The posture of 'saurs is not a settled
issue at all, current thinking is that the largest herbivores did not eat
high vegetation as previously thought, but were eating lower stuff (how
could they get blood to their brains? is a primary question). The T-rex
models are also changing due to recent (post JP) discoveries. An article
posted in Scientific American on saur colorations a few years ago was
inconclusive at best. There are various schools regarding saur behavioral
patterns, each with their own POV's. JP's saurs were based on Crichton's
research of paleontology which was current at the time, but less so now.
Crichton himself made the point that we really don't know what these
creatures were like. Even the best guesses are ambiguous.
Tobasco
David Culpepper
last year. His modelling of Brontosaurus is fairly conclusive that their
vertebrae structure could not support the theorized weight of a neck and
head in the conjectured upright posture required to eat treetop vegetation.
Tobasco
Steve Sondericker
Kubrick pulls it off because he is a genius filmmaker. Also, not every
square inch of Viet Nam is jungle, just like not every square inch of
the old west was Monument Valley.
Nicolas Colovos
>movies in his own English back yard, so to speak. There are no jungles
>physical reality, he has palm trees flown in and positioned in appropriate
>places. He tips his hat to jungle realism without going the whole hog.
>Now* was filmed in an ACTUAL jungle. (The fact that it was shot in the
>Philippines and not Vietnam and Cambodia isn't important. What is is that
>he went the extra mile in the realism department.) Who agrees that *AN*
has
>a distinct edge over *FMJ* in this respect? Dissenters, come forward!
>
>Wordsmith
you are completely missing the point. kubrick was never an humble realist
worried about the actuality of a time and place but a conceptualist who
tends to see human behavior and action in terms of grand designs and social
patterns. kubrick doesn't want reality to overwhelm his vision. he wants
his vision to shape the reality. a perfect metaphor for kubrick's approach
is the garden maze in the shining. those who enter the maze don't know
where they are, but a man looking from above can notice the entire pattern.
that man is kubrick.
the kind of realism that you find in platoon would have destroyed full metal
jacket just as kubrick's cold detached style would have ruined stone's
vision of personal grief and sorrow.
full metal jacket is NOT a vietnam movie but a kubrick movie set in vietnam.
kubrick isn't so interested in the particularities of the vietnam conflict
as he is with some observations about human nature he can deduce from this
conflict. in that sense, full metal jacket has more in common with
spartacus, barry lyndon, and even with 2001(man, conditioning,
destructiveness) or with clockwork orange than with deer hunter or
apocalypse now.
kubrick has been attacked by critics for not dealing with real humans but
with caricatures, generalizations. i would say he deals with archetypes.
by the way, apocalypse is not an hallmark of realism either, having been
shot in the philippines. coppola may have gotten closer to the jungle but
his style is very strong and operatic. what with big set pieces(playboy
scene, for example), huge close up of martin sheen's eye, weird
scenarios(arrows!), and a conradian theme plastered several layers thick
over the celluloid, apocalypse now is more psychedelic pomposity than a true
representation of war. i call it la dolce vietnam.
LSK
Bryce Utting wrote:
>one other thing: can anyone remember who it was that said that "real"
>is the only word that requires quotation marks? Rushdie? Eco?
>Nabokov? I should know this...
>
Sounds like Anthony Burgess to me!
LSK
Philip S.
Steve Sondericker wrote:
When FMJ was released during the glut of Vietnam films in the '80s, several
refreshing differences between it and all the others were immediately
apparent:
* Kubrick's main emphasis was on urban warfare. This was an important part
of the war, and I know of no other major Vietnam film that so much as
touched on it.
* He did not bludgeon us with references to the era--i.e., the obligatory
montage of Nixon/MLK/Bobby Kennedy, etc., obvious music choices (see
below), slang ("far out"), and so forth. We know it was the '60s, guys. No
need for a fuckin' primer.
* Kubrick avoided music that was trippy or "cosmic" (with the curious
exception of "Paint It Black" over the closing credits). "Hello Vietnam",
"Chapel of Love", "Sufin' Bird", etc. are inspired choices.
Gonzo Skeptic
wrote:
>Steve Sondericker wrote:
>
>> I personally am not put off by FMJ's not being "jungley" enough.
>> Kubrick pulls it off because he is a genius filmmaker. Also, not every
>> square inch of Viet Nam is jungle, just like not every square inch of
>> the old west was Monument Valley.
>
>When FMJ was released during the glut of Vietnam films in the '80s, several
>refreshing differences between it and all the others were immediately
>apparent:
>
>* Kubrick's main emphasis was on urban warfare. This was an important part
>of the war, and I know of no other major Vietnam film that so much as
>touched on it.
Which always struck me as unusual since out entire strategy was based
on holding strategic city centers to control various regions.
Kubrick's focus on this was indeed brilliant, since it defined the
war. I remember seeing newsreels of soldiers complaining that the
M-16 could not penetrate brick walls like the M-14, making it a poor
choice for much of the fighting.
>* He did not bludgeon us with references to the era--i.e., the obligatory
>montage of Nixon/MLK/Bobby Kennedy, etc., obvious music choices (see
>below), slang ("far out"), and so forth. We know it was the '60s, guys. No
>need for a fuckin' primer.
Indeed. If you lived through that era, the shit is still burned fresh
in your brain like the smoldering ruins of a naplam attack. If you
served in Nam, nothing needs to be said.
>* Kubrick avoided music that was trippy or "cosmic" (with the curious
>exception of "Paint It Black" over the closing credits). "Hello Vietnam",
>"Chapel of Love", "Sufin' Bird", etc. are inspired choices.
When we see how music was used in "Forrest Gump", where it was
excessive and laid in with a trowel, we should realize that the fine
artisan's touch of a master in FMJ.
**********************************************
-- Gonzo Skeptic©
-- http://home1.gte.net/skeptic
--------------------------------------------------
"Science is like a blabbermouth who ruins a
movie by telling you how it ends. There are
some things we don't want to know.
Important things."
-- Ned Flanders
**********************************************
DJ GQ69
At last! Someone else who sees the similarity between ACO and FMJ (and the
first time I agree with you Nick). While FMJ is about conditioning (somewhat
like Pavlov's conditioned response). ACO is about reconditioning. Alex was a
psycho forced to change into a normal guy. Joker was a normal guy who was
forced to change into a psycho (Marine) Whether or not I agree with Kubrick's
view of what we should do with psychos I won't get into. Indeed, Kubrick is so
objective it's hard to tell what stance he takes with movies like ACO and FMJ.
Either way I will give him credit for 'attacking' prison systems and the
military for both (I use 'attacking' losely for lack of a better word).
As far Oliver Stone. Well he was IN Vietnam. Two-Five Bravo company. He gave an
accurate portrayal of what it was like from the grunts standpoint. Kubrick took
a step back and looked at the big picture. Platoon was also filmed in the
Phillipines. In fact if I'm not mistaken, the scene where we meet Kilgore is
the same area where Sgt. Elias gets it. The church looks very much the same. As
far as Apocalypse Now, I like to think that the trippy surrealism is because
Cpt. Willard is nuts and we are looking through his eyes. Just listening to his
whacked out dialog is evidence of how far gone he really is. The movie is not
'real' but like Robin Williams says "guess what sparky, no movie is real!" the
most frightening thing about Apocalypse Now is the Col. Kurtz character:
A.Military creates a monster
B.Military cannot control the monster
C. Therefore Military assumes responsability and decides to kill the monster
with another 'monster'
This could be a statement against war, Nixon (if you fuck up, admit it and
clean up your own mess), or society (this is what happens when evil stepfathers
sneak into little boys rooms at night) Col. Kurtz only had an army of a few
hundred men. Imagine if he had control of thousands, millions. He could have
been another Manson or (yikes) Hitler. Perhaps the Military was the lesser of
two evils in this one.
I think Willard and Colby sided with Kurtz because they realized that the
Military had made them 'tools' like pvt. Pyle realized in FMJ. Animal Mother
and the others may have realized what they were, but didn't care and did what
they had to do. Willard and Colby realized and said 'fuck it'
Deadguy...
Roger8761
>>* Kubrick avoided music that was trippy or "cosmic" (with the curious
>>exception of "Paint It Black" over the closing credits). "Hello Vietnam",
>>"Chapel of Love", "Sufin' Bird", etc. are inspired choices.
Iagree--the opening of the movie ("Hello Vietnam") was just different than
anything I anticipated--you knew it was a Kubrick movie right then. But "Paint
it Black?"--it works, but its ssorta obvious, like something I'd put in a
Vietnam movie.
Steve Sondericker
Great point about the music. Everyone wants to remember the Beatles,
Hendrix, the Doors, etc. as typifying the 60s, but in fact the airwaves
of the time were dominated by rubbish like "These Boots Were Made for
Walkin'."
Nicolas Colovos
DJ GQ69 wrote in message
<199808081925...@ladder01.news.aol.com>...
>Apocalypse Now. The movie is not
>'real' but like Robin Williams says "guess what sparky, no movie is real!"
the
>most frightening thing about Apocalypse Now is the Col. Kurtz character:
>
>A.Military creates a monster
>B.Military cannot control the monster
>C. Therefore Military assumes responsability and decides to kill the
monster
>with another 'monster'
>
>This could be a statement against war, Nixon (if you fuck up, admit it and
>clean up your own mess), or society (this is what happens when evil
stepfathers
>sneak into little boys rooms at night) Col. Kurtz only had an army of a few
>hundred men. Imagine if he had control of thousands, millions. He could
have
>been another Manson or (yikes) Hitler. Perhaps the Military was the lesser
of
>two evils in this one.
>I think Willard and Colby sided with Kurtz because they realized that the
>Military had made them 'tools' like pvt. Pyle realized in FMJ. Animal
Mother
>and the others may have realized what they were, but didn't care and did
what
>they had to do. Willard and Colby realized and said 'fuck it'
>
>Deadguy...
here, i have to disagree with you. kurtz is really the hero, at least in
john milius's original fascist vision.
the problem began with coppola who found it impossible to have an ending as
simple as milius's. milius wanted willard to join kurtz and the two guys
would go out to rule as reconstituted superman savages.
milius saw vietnam war as a great lie. kilgore behaves like it's a cowboy
movie and americans in general want to make vietnam as much like home as
possible.
and the great generals talk of sanity and ethical code when what they are
dealing with is insanity, madness.
it is kurtz who finds inner peace by accepting the insanity of war, making
it normal, something essential to human nature. for kurtz, it is no longer
the vietnam war but WAR, the timeless condition of man's being. kurtz
admires the vietcong because they can commit atrocities and go home as
loving husbands. in contrast, americans try to sepatate their vision of
america as sane, affluent, and rational with their experience of violence
and madness in vietnam. unlike the general who talk of good causes,
democracy, fighting evil communism while presiding over a never ending
madness, kurtz embraces the madness as sanity, concluding that only a man
who can savor the taste of blood is a honest man. and what is a man but an
animal, a warrior?
this idea of man as warrior has been lost to americans in comsumerist
suburbia where violence is a myth on tv, something entirely separate from
the green front lawn and trimmed hedges reality. but, in a primitivist
setting of cambodia, kurtz finds and accepts the darkness within himself.
if milius would have directed the film, kurtz would have had a commanding
presence. under coppola, it's a replay of don corleone telling michael
"son, it's only business".
M4RV1N
><6qfcu2$k...@bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net>
writes:
>well, the realism of JP's 'saurs were based on various theories put forth by
>paleontologists of 80's. The rub comes in that these theories are changing
>faster than a stripper on Friday night. The entire warm vs cold blooded
>issue is far from being resolved.
Okay, let's talk dinosaurs.
{is this a unique newsgroup, or what? :) }
The most recent discussions in the sci-lit suggest an intermediate stage
between ectothermic and endothermic physiology. Small forms would have been
pre-adapted for evolving endothermic regulation if they could develop exernal
insulation. This is what happened with the stock that led to birds. Anyway,
upright postures, tracks indicating running and migration both point to levels
of physical activity greater than contemporary ectotherms.
>The posture of 'saurs is not a settled
>issue at all, current thinking is that the largest herbivores did not eat
>high vegetation as previously thought, but were eating lower stuff (how
>could they get blood to their brains? is a primary question
You're talking apatosaurs and the like (as your other post mentions). The
skeletal structures certainly indicate ground feeding for these kinds of
sauropods but what about brachiosaurs like the big critters in JP? Their
appearance is very much a giant version of a giraffe, and the competition
advantage is the same: to reach foliage in forrests at a level other herbivores
could not reach. In giraffes the blood flow problem is solved with a sequence
of valves. With brachiosaurs it has been suggested they had in the neck
several auxiliary hearts!
>T-rex
>models are also changing due to recent (post JP) discoveries. An article
>posted in Scientific American on saur colorations a few years ago was
>inconclusive at best.
Most predators, excluding those that hunt in a uniform background like grass or
snow, have a pattern to break up their image. This is one of my problems with
the JP T-rex; it's dull grey and would be easily seen by prey species.
> Even the best guesses are ambiguous.
But increasingly less so. Crichton made some horrible mistakes. Some of the
best illustrations are by Gregory S. Paul. His work is in some of the more
recent books, including his own "Predatory Dinosaurs."
Mark Ervin
DJ GQ69
>here, i have to disagree with you. kurtz is really the hero, at least in
>john milius's original fascist vision.
>the problem began with coppola who found it impossible to have an ending as
>simple as milius's. milius wanted willard to join kurtz and the two guys
>would go out to rule as reconstituted superman savages.
That would have been interesting to see, I've read two drafts of the Apocalypse
Now script and in one, Willard eventually sided with Kurtz. Unfortunately
Willard realized that he had a job to do. the alternative was to go back to the
'world' after his wife had left him and the only skill he had was to kill.
>milius saw vietnam war as a great lie. kilgore behaves like it's a cowboy
>movie and americans in general want to make vietnam as much like home as
>possible.
>and the great generals talk of sanity and ethical code when what they are
>dealing with is insanity, madness.
>it is kurtz who finds inner peace by accepting the insanity of war, making
>it normal, something essential to human nature. for kurtz, it is no longer
>the vietnam war but WAR, the timeless condition of man's being. kurtz
>admires the vietcong because they can commit atrocities and go home as
>loving husbands. in contrast, americans try to sepatate their vision of
>america as sane, affluent, and rational with their experience of violence
>and madness in vietnam. unlike the general who talk of good causes,
>democracy, fighting evil communism while presiding over a never ending
>madness, kurtz embraces the madness as sanity, concluding that only a man
>who can savor the taste of blood is a honest man. and what is a man but an
>animal, a warrior?
The only 'warrior' in this sense is Kilgore. I think Kurtz admired the VC
because they had something he didn't: A purpose, something that they believed
in. Kurtz seems to accept his insanity but seeks a higher purpose. Some thing
to use it with. Perhaps that's why he dislikes The Photojournalist.
1. He doesn't take a side like the VC, he just takes pictures
2. He is also insane but has no desire to find his direction or to use his
insanity as a tool.
>this idea of man as warrior has been lost to americans in comsumerist
>suburbia where violence is a myth on tv, something entirely separate from
>the green front lawn and trimmed hedges reality. but, in a primitivist
>setting of cambodia, kurtz finds and accepts the darkness within himself.
>if milius would have directed the film, kurtz would have had a commanding
>presence. under coppola, it's a replay of don corleone telling michael
>"son, it's only business".
You're scaring me pal. If that's the way you really feel, I don't want to get
on your bad side. The only one that seems to revel in violence is Kilgore.
Kurtz and Willard realize that they have been created by the military who wants
"men who are moral...and at the same time who are able to utilize their
primordal instincts to kill without feeling...without passion... without
judgement" Although Kurtz accepts this about himself, he hates those who
created him.
"...And they call me an assasin. What do you call it when the assasins accuse
the assasin ? They lie.. they lie and we have to be merciful for those who lie.
Those nabobs. I hate them. How I hate them..."
Deadguy...
Nicolas Colovos
DJ GQ69 wrote in message
>The only 'warrior' in this sense is Kilgore. I think Kurtz admired the VC
>because they had something he didn't: A purpose, something that they
believed
>in. Kurtz seems to accept his insanity but seeks a higher purpose. Some
thing
>to use it with. Perhaps that's why he dislikes The Photojournalist.
>1. He doesn't take a side like the VC, he just takes pictures
>2. He is also insane but has no desire to find his direction or to use his
>insanity as a tool.
no, kilgore is no such warrior. kilgore is a man living the myth of the
warrior that he slopped up from john wayne movies and national legends. he
is really a kid, who likes war because it's like playing cowboys and injuns
as well as surfing and barbequing. he is the programmed product of the
american military. the few, the proud, the marines.
>
>>this idea of man as warrior has been lost to americans in comsumerist
>>suburbia where violence is a myth on tv, something entirely separate from
>>the green front lawn and trimmed hedges reality. but, in a primitivist
>>setting of cambodia, kurtz finds and accepts the darkness within himself.
>>if milius would have directed the film, kurtz would have had a commanding
>>presence. under coppola, it's a replay of don corleone telling michael
>>"son, it's only business".
>
>You're scaring me pal. If that's the way you really feel, I don't want to
get
>on your bad side. The only one that seems to revel in violence is Kilgore.
>Kurtz and Willard realize that they have been created by the military who
wants
>"men who are moral...and at the same time who are able to utilize their
>primordal instincts to kill without feeling...without passion... without
>judgement" Although Kurtz accepts this about himself, he hates those who
>created him.
no, no. not my opinion. i am a pacifist. just my interpretation of
milius's hammy philosophy which i love because it is so hokey and boyish.
and kurtz is not the programmed product of the army but a man who
deprogrammed himself from the military's contradictory philosophy. kurtz
enters the subconscious soul of the warrior, marvels at its darkness, and
disassociates from a war based on cardboard political philosophies. i
fight, therefore i am. that is his essence. by the way, kilgore revels in
violence that doesn't really touch him. he's got men and all the best
technology to back him up. contrast that to kurtz's primitive and more
honest approach to war. his own very hands have been soaked in blood.
DJ GQ69
>no, kilgore is no such warrior. kilgore is a man living the myth of the
>warrior that he slopped up from john wayne movies and national legends. he
>is really a kid, who likes war because it's like playing cowboys and injuns
>as well as surfing and barbequing. he is the programmed product of the
>american military. the few, the proud, the marines.
Kilgore was Lt Col. in the Air Cav 1st of the 9th. Army not Marines.
>kurtz is not the programmed product of the army but a man who
>deprogrammed himself from the military's contradictory philosophy. kurtz
>enters the subconscious soul of the warrior, marvels at its darkness, and
>disassociates from a war based on cardboard political philosophies. i
>fight, therefore i am. that is his essence. by the way, kilgore revels in
>violence that doesn't really touch him. he's got men and all the best
>technology to back him up. contrast that to kurtz's primitive and more
>honest approach to war. his own very hands have been soaked in blood.
I also have a slight suspicion that Kurtz may have been affected by outside
forces besides the Military. Indeed, they created him. He's devoid of any
feelings like 'Animal Mother' in FMJ or prv. Jackson in SPR. However, Kurtz'
ability to think in any focused direction may have been beyond even his own
control.
"It smelled like slow death in there, malaria,
nightmares. This was the end of the river allright."
The fever may have caused him to go over the edge.
"He broke from them and then he broke from himself. I'd never seen a man so
broken up and ripped apart..."
Although Kurtz realizes that he has checked out from the world of reality, he
is unable to do anything about it. His thoughts seem to meander pointlessly,
although he wanted some direction, he could not even control his own logical
thought.
Deadguy...
Nicolas Colovos
DJ GQ69 wrote in message
>I also have a slight suspicion that Kurtz may have been affected by outside
>forces besides the Military. Indeed, they created him. He's devoid of any
>feelings like 'Animal Mother' in FMJ or prv. Jackson in SPR. However,
Kurtz'
>ability to think in any focused direction may have been beyond even his own
>control.
>
>"It smelled like slow death in there, malaria,
>nightmares. This was the end of the river allright."
>
>The fever may have caused him to go over the edge.
>
>"He broke from them and then he broke from himself. I'd never seen a man so
>broken up and ripped apart..."
>
>Although Kurtz realizes that he has checked out from the world of reality,
he
>is unable to do anything about it. His thoughts seem to meander
pointlessly,
>although he wanted some direction, he could not even control his own
logical
>thought.
>
>Deadguy...
actually coppola's kurtz is pile of confused pseudo profundities. less a
person that a projection of coppola's own confusion and misgivings about the
whole movie. why didn't anyone send an assassin to coppola?
Geoffrey Alexander
: SK, it is well known, does not like to travel. He likes making
: movies in his own English back yard, so to speak. There are no jungles
: on the Thames River, so, in order to give a movie like *FMJ* an air of
: physical reality, he has palm trees flown in and positioned in appropriate
: places. He tips his hat to jungle realism without going the whole hog.
: Francis Coppola, however, goes all out in this department: *Apocalypse
: Now* was filmed in an ACTUAL jungle. (The fact that it was shot in the
: Philippines and not Vietnam and Cambodia isn't important. What is is that
: he went the extra mile in the realism department.) Who agrees that *AN* has
: a distinct edge over *FMJ* in this respect? Dissenters, come forward!
: Wordsmith
I could fly to Cambodia with Ashley Judd and Matt McConaughy and shoot you
a scene you would swear was filmed in the Florida Panhandle. Would that be
realism?
It begs the question of what reality is -- or, more specifically, what reality
it is to which the filmmaker is speaking, and furthermore the intenetions
of his or her representations of reality....
--
g.
Gonigal
<nick...@email.msn.com> writes:
>actually coppola's kurtz is pile of confused pseudo profundities. less a
>person that a projection of coppola's own confusion and misgivings about the
>whole movie. why didn't anyone send an assassin to coppola?
>
>
It so happens that there was an Animaniacs Cartoon short with that very plot.
The cartoon was a parody of both Apocalypse Now and the documentary Hearts of
Darkness: The movie studio sends a special "Fixer" on a journey to the shooting
location of their latest film, where the legendary Director has lost his mind
and is now operating completely outside the pale of studio control, and there
are rumors of horrid atrocites the Director is putting the actors through in
his insane quest for a coherent ending to the film. The gag at the end when
they finally locate the deranged Director is that he is in fact Jerry Lewis
(Mostly "Serious, Telethon Jerry", but he keeps breaking into "Wacky Jerry").
I'm not sure why they make him Jerry Lewis, (except maybe they couldn't find
anyone who did a wacky impersonation of Francis Coppola), but it sure made it
funny when the Director swallows a bug in the middle of a sentence.
I have no idea what a 7 year old kid is supposed to think of this cartoon, but
I suspect a lot of those Animaniacs were made mostly for Spielberg's personal
amusment, anyway.
-D.G.
Nicolas Colovos
Gonigal wrote in message
<199808110524...@ladder03.news.aol.com>...
>In article <OzSJRTNx9GA.262@upnetnews03>, "Nicolas Colovos"
><nick...@email.msn.com> writes:
>
>>actually coppola's kurtz is pile of confused pseudo profundities. less a
>>person that a projection of coppola's own confusion and misgivings about
the
>>whole movie. why didn't anyone send an assassin to coppola?
>>
>>
>
>It so happens that there was an Animaniacs Cartoon short with that very
plot.
>The cartoon was a parody of both Apocalypse Now and the documentary Hearts
of
>Darkness:
wasn't there a saturday night live skit with martin sheen with the same
basic idea?
Philip S.
Geoffrey Alexander wrote:
> I could fly to Cambodia with Ashley Judd and Matt McConaughy and shoot you
> a scene you would swear was filmed in the Florida Panhandle. Would that be
> realism?
>
> It begs the question of what reality is -- or, more specifically, what reality
> it is to which the filmmaker is speaking, and furthermore the intenetions
> of his or her representations of reality....
>
Or, as Kubrick told Alexander Walker, "Going to a place doesn't necessarily
increase the reality of it".
Gonigal
But as some point, you're-- just making excuses here. If Kubrick's intention
had really been to bring home the reality of the Vietnam Experiance, the Isle
of Dogs just wouldn't have cut it.
-D.G.
tomlinson
: his insane quest for a coherent ending to the film. The gag at the end when
: they finally locate the deranged Director is that he is in fact Jerry Lewis
: (Mostly "Serious, Telethon Jerry", but he keeps breaking into "Wacky Jerry").
: I'm not sure why they make him Jerry Lewis...
Lewis at one time was directing a film about a clown entertaining kids
at Auschwitz, called THE DAY THE CLOWN CRIED. I'm not sure how far
production on this progressed, but production _was_ halted. Most
people involved agree that the film never should have been made.
In any case, The Director's movie in the Animaniacs episode was called
THE WRETCHED CLOWN :)
As for APOCALYPSE NOW, I can't believe that anyone who has seen the
documentary HEARTS OF DARKNESS can possibly still believe that there
was anything coherent or intentional about Kurtz's end-of-movie
babbling. Coppola made the greatest mistake of his life in leaving
that role to Brando.
-tomlinson
--
Ernest S. Tomlinson - San Diego State University
DeppityBob
at Auschwitz, called THE DAY THE CLOWN CRIED. I'm not sure how far
production on this progressed, but production _was_ halted. Most
people involved agree that the film never should have been made.
In any case, The Director's movie in the Animaniacs episode was called
THE WRETCHED CLOWN :)<<
I hope you'll help me out with a title here--the film which earned Roberto
Begnini a prize at Cannes? I bring it up because it sounds very similar in
theme to THE DAY THE CLOWN CRIED. In essence, Begnini's character and his son
are trapped in a concentration camp, and he creates a series of games and a
point system to keep his son distracted from the reality of the camps. I have
heard there was much controversy over the film--the same sort of complaints
which were levied against TDTCC.
What was the title? And is there any similarity between the two films (as far
as we can tell without being able to see the former)?
Dep
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Humans. Can't live with 'em, can't
escape the fallout when you
bomb 'em into oblivion.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"I picked myself up, dusted myself off,
and joined the Dark Side!"
DJ GQ69
> why didn't anyone send an assassin to coppola?
Hey, only the good die young.
Deadguy...