Film Comparison: Apocalypse Now Vs. Blade Runner
Jill Banks
behind, having written this baby in the days of weed, lynx and college.
But I've never heard or seen these two films mensioned in the same breath,
and as such was interested in your thoughts.
-
J
----------
Film Comparison: Apocalypse Now Vs. Blade Runner
By
Jill Banks
I was desperately hoping to find less obvious choices for
this comparison as both of the previously mentioned films have
been analyzed to death at this point in time. I have even seen
essays that attempt, with much conviction and far too many large
words, to suggest that Blade Runner was written largely with the
Oedipus complex in mind. After reading this peace of literature,
which I found amusing, but which a fanatic may have found
offensive, I set out to find as many ideas and house-hold objects
as I could that could possibly be linked in some way to the
story's underlying premise.. I wanted a real epiphany. Instead,
I found my self personifying butter and Margarine in the forms of
humans and skin-jobs. If the margarine became mutinous, would
it's disposal be an act of morality? It was then that I decided
that any career that I had in film would include the creation of
a picture, and not the analyses of it.
Sadly enough, I am not yet equipped with enough information
about apocalypse now to engage in a similar rampage, (Thank god
for small favors). It's a fast moving peace of work who's
innards are like those of a computer in that they are efficient,
coordinated, hopelessly intricate and, to those who understand
it, a beautiful and spectacular thing to behold.
I regret to inform the reader however that my interior knowledge
of this glorious machine is not quite up to par with my ability
to see it in it's more standard, mundane, and miraculous exterior
form.
With that in mind, we shall now set them next to each other
like the specimens that they now serve as, and scrutinize them
as much as is humanly (And I use the term loosely, given the
subject matter), possible.
Let me first point out that these films were made in the
same 3 year period, (Blade Runner was in 1982, and Apocalypse Now
was in 1979). And so the 70's, who's ten year span saw a
plethora of contemporary classics that were the result of ideas
not yet seen before, would now evolve in to the 80's, a time of
special effects and mindful plots that dyed out in about 91, in
my not-so-humble and prevalent opinion.
As chronological and artistic luck would have it, the turn
of the decade was sandwiched comfortably between the release
dates of the two films. And so both of them are engulfed in
flames of intellectual delight and technical wizardry. An
example of the latter and it's effectiveness would be the
settings of both movies. Though their identities contrast
violently, their detailed landscapes and the forbidding feelings
that they evoke were enough to set a vast array of high
standards for the generation of films that were brought in to
being during the years that followed. For each set is a hostile
one.
There is Vietnam with it's vast and dark foliage, it's alien
sounds, it's shadows that can reduce even the strongest of souls
to week and paranoid objects of prey who's only hope of survival
lies in their companions, their fear and their reflexes.
Ridley Scott's vision of Los Angles in the year 20-19 is
equally hostile. In the films opening scenes, the danger is
heightened by the immensity of the surroundings and the lack of
trust that comes with them. As time marches on, the danger is
one of elusion as things are no longer what they seem.
In this manner, the films are disturbingly similar. Death
can be hidden in the most unlikely of places. The difference
between the two in this respect is the way in which the threat is
handled by the characters.
In both films, it is suspected at one point that the threat
lies behind false innocence. But the common paths fork
drastically here. For Rick Deckard, (Harrison Ford), his
instincts pay off and he is able to terminate his attacker with
extreme prejudice, (Sorry for the cross-reference).
The crew in Apocalypse now does not meet with such
confrontational success as they slaughter an entire village that
consists mostly of women and children, in a wild and heart-
wrenching attempt to neutralize a supposed threat, who then
reveals it's true identity which is that of a small puppy.
Though the resolutions of these sequences end with enormously
different impacts on the survivors, the victims in both cases
are, in one sense or another, child-like and vital. The
difference is of course their respective natures and intents.
False images and preconstructed ideas of an individual are also
common themes in both of these films.
Also worth mentioning in this comparison are the goals of
the heros. Both are assigned to kill a powerful villain who
poses a major threat to the current system. Though the acts of
both villains are indeed violent, ruthless and desperate. A
result of these attributes helps to make them considerably more
successful in their cruelty and sick dominance. But as the plot
unfolds before us, we see a deeply spiritual side of both
protagonists. In fact, both characters are endowed with
religious over-tones. For Colonel Walter E. Kurtz, the religious
role is that of a king, or a prophet. All those around him
remain in complete fear and admiration of his knowledge and
power. Roy Batty is the typical son of god, the god and father
in this case being Tyrell, his creator. But while Roy wishes for
extended life, Kurtz wishes for death at the hands of a man, who
has practically become one of his followers. In the end, death
finds both supreme beings, they being Kurtz and Tyrell. And in a
way, their killers, a son in one case and a worshiper in the
other, are influenced by and/or created in the image of their
victims. The picture is completed when Roy Batty shoves a spike
through his hand so that he may live longer. The action bears an
uncanny resemblance to a crucifixion.
The inclusion of an animal in the death sequences of both
Batty and Kurtz is a point to ponder as well. As he slumps to
the roof top, Roy Batty releases a Dove in to the air. Moments
earlier, he has been seen clinging to it because it was the only
object that he could reach when falling to the street. This
dove, according to those who get paid to write essays like this,
represents peace and completion. I can side with that. But I
suggest as well that Roy's grabbing of the dove as he nearly
avoids plunging to his death could also be seen as the regret of
one who's end is near. The dove in this equation represents the
few memories that he has managed to accumulate in his shortened
life-span of four years. Beautiful and tender though it may be,
it can not save him from his impending demise. And so he utters
the infamous monologue that brings the strongest and most
fashionably callous among us to tears, and let's it go.
Kurtz's death creature meets a more graphic and carnal end
as worshipers try again and again to decapitate it, eventually
accomplishing their goal after a long series of hacks to the
immense beast's neck. As this happens, the shot often cuts
rapidly to the sacrifice of Kurtz at the hands of his intended
killer. The loss of unimaginable power is easily seen here as
both rulers are drained of their blood and sovereignty. But
while
Batty talks passionately of things that humans wouldn't believe,
Kurtz can only whisper
"The horror, the horror."
But there is, as always a flaw in my reason, or lack there
of. If one assumes that Batty serve the same purpose as Kurtz,
but in a different capacity, and Batty was created by Tyrell,
then who created Kurtz? My best guess is that he was made in the
image of the severed arms of the inoculated children. Saying
that the paine of this incident is unimaginable, is like saying
that elephants are of average size. So the only way that Kurtz
could surpass those who were stupidly telling him what to do was
to declare independence from them. He saw that he had to
transcend the paine that had left the mark of it's teachings and
fatherhood upon him.. In order to do this, he was forced to see
the intelligence that lurked with in it, then to absorb that
intelligence, and then to live by it.
In the end, the common ground that I think these films share is
built mostly on the foundation of dehumanization. Roy Batty and
his companions were considered expendable tools because they were
manufactured. The Vietnamese that attacked in Apocalypse now
were also dehumanized in that they were monsters without true
essence that would stop at nothing to kill as many Americans as
possible. In the words of Martin Sheen, when speaking of the
enemy that waited within the bush,
"He had only two ways home: death or victory."
And that, my friends, is the one thing that I think all the
characters in both films have in common.
Lukas Mariman
news:3b441a0a$0$325$8ee...@newsreader.tycho.net...
> Okay, there is little in the following work which I would now stand
> behind, having written this baby in the days of weed, lynx and
college.
> But I've never heard or seen these two films mensioned in the same
breath,
> and as such was interested in your thoughts.
Thank you for this comparison. Funny coincidence, actually, since I
happened to buy the DVD last weekend. (I had seen it before, so it
wasn't exactly new to me, but it's still a powerful movie.)
I hadn't really considered the common theme of dehumanization, obvious
as it may be.
Netrunner
I thought as I started reading that I should probably not respond as I
had nothing positive to say other than that you are brave to post it.
I will ignore the language errors, but must point out a fundamental
error with regards to Roy Batty. He is not at any time in danger of
falling to the street - it is Deckard who hangs off the roof. Also,
Roy grabbed the dove before even venturing out onto the roof. The
symbolism is simply of him dying.
As for the comparisons - interesting to read, but nothing deeper than
can be found in comparison with a whole range of movies.
Dehumanisation is not an unusual theme in movies, nor is going after
an evil "monster" - James Bond does that in every movie. And why is
being a "king" a religious thing?
Okay, I'll stop. Maybe someone can post some positive stuff to
balance my comments?
Netrunner.
----------------------------------------------
The newsgroup website is www.BRmovie.com
Home of the Blade Runner FAQ, Character Profiles,
Fan Fiction, Related books/movies and much more!
----------------------------------------------
RoyBoy
However, many of your specific comparisons
are flawed, particularly when it comes to BR.
As to Apocalypse Now, I am unsure, I have
seen it twice...and appreciate it as a decent
interpretation of 'Heart of Darkness', but my
knowledge of BR is much stronger.
The comparisons I agree with are broad,
such as 'threat lies behind false innocence', both
Vietnam and LA2019 are dark and hostile, and
the dehumanization. It is common for
two sides in a conflict to do that. However,
in BR, who is being dehumanized? Replicants
are not human...but making that distinction
becomes tough when they are able to learn and
grow, to become indistinguishable from what we
define humanity to be. However, I concur, that
if it can become human, than it should be treated
as an equal...and the Nexus-6's are not.
***
Both are assigned to kill a powerful villain who
poses a major threat to the current system.
***
How does the villain in ANow pose a major threat
to the current system? He has gone AWOL,
he is committing atrocities...I guess maybe it is
bad PR for the war machine...not sure if this
constitutes a major threat though. I think I need
to watch ANow to render any commentary on
it. :')
***
This dove, according to those who get paid to write essays
like this, represents peace and completion.
***
I do not get paid, but I can give a more accurate
interpretation of the dove. It represents his soul.
He has just earned it, and that in turn provides
him with peace...as to completion...well he has
completed his journey to become human...
it could have been a new beginning,
but the irony of life makes it an end.
***
"He had only two ways home: death or victory."
And that, my friends, is the one thing that I think all the
characters in both films have in common.
***
Did Deckard win? Did Gaff win? Did Rachael win?
--
"Smiles free. Do you want fries with that?"
"If the Truth is dynamic; how will it ever be found?" - RoyBoy
http://members.home.net/blade2019/
RoyBoy
Booooooo!
{[ZenmasteR]}
I cant really rate 1 higher than the other
Jim Morrison singing the End is just awesome
I bought this subject up before but it seems apocalypse now is out and out
just a movie about man going to his lowest self
no right no wrong just clear cut journey into the heart of darkness,
whilst BR their is a longing for many characters in the movie to be
something better or try to redeem themselves in some way
"Jill Banks" <dime...@deeptht.armory.com.> wrote in message
news:3b441a0a$0$325$8ee...@newsreader.tycho.net...
Womb Raider
<netr...@netrunner.co.uk> wrote:
> Okay, I'll stop. Maybe someone can post some positive stuff to
> balance my comments?
>
> Netrunner.
Um...that one shot of the three spinners flying in loose formation has
always reminded me of Apocolypse Now's helicopters.
WR