Wednesday 31 December 1969

plot explanation - What did Coppola want to symbolize by the last sequences involving rogue colonel? - Movies & TV



I didn't understand the ending of Apocalypse Now. What did Coppola want to symbolize by the last sequences involving rogue colonel? And what is the purpose of Marlon Brando's character?


Answer



In the end of the film, when Willard finally makes it to Kurtz's compound, he discovers that the colonel has gone insane and sees himself as a 'god', lording over the indigenous occupants in that part of the jungle.



In presenting this conclusion, both the novella and the film show that Willard has left one hell for another, the hell of war for the hell of the tortured human psyche.




Kurtz himself has come to terms with the fact that Willard is there to kill him, and in fact he welcomes it, as he knows that he will live on in Willard and eventually make it to the godhood he desires. This is demonstrated when Willard leaves Kurtz's 'hovel' after the killing and drops his weapon, relinquishing his connection to violence, and becoming the new god for the locals.



According to wikipedia:




When Coppola originally organized the ending of the movie, he had two choices. One involved Willard leading Lance by the hand as everyone in Kurtz's base throws down their weapons, and ends with images of Willard's boat pulling away from Kurtz's compound superimposed over the face of a stone idol which then fades into black. Another option showed an air strike being called and the base being blown to bits in a spectacular display, consequently killing everyone left at the base.



The original 1979 70 mm exclusive theatrical release ended with Willard's boat, the stone statue, then fade to black with no credits, save for '"Copyright 1979 Omni Zoetrope"' right after the film ends.





This has prompted many to speculate that the intense napalming seen when the film starts is actually the destruction of Kurtz's compound, a flash-forward if you will.



I'm sure there are many more eloquent essays written about this subject, but I hope I've provided a good starting point for you.


No comments:

Post a Comment

c++ - Does curly brackets matter for empty constructor?

Those brackets declare an empty, inline constructor. In that case, with them, the constructor does exist, it merely does nothing more than t...