How would you define heaven and hell here on Earth? My definitions are:
Hell: If you are in a place you don't like together with people you hate and maybe doing something you don't like.
Heaven: You are surrounded by the people you love in a secure and beautiful place and you can do whatever you want to.
If I had to reduce the criteria, I'd say: It's the people who count the most.
Sonntag, 14. Februar 2010
Dienstag, 9. Februar 2010
War is Madness
My main impressions after watching Francis Ford Coppola's "Apocalypse Now (Redux)"
I read somewhere that Coppola almost lost his mind over the chaos of this film's long production. All I can say is that it was worth it. The film is a masterpiece. Every detail has its justification. Even the excess length of Willard's journey makes sense, since it corresponds to the fact that the Vietnam War dragged on and on, wearing down the US army.
The film builds up heaps of tension. Not only does it take Willard more than two thirds of the film to get to Colonel Kurtz, but when he first arrives at his camp, he does not even meet him in person. Instead, he is welcomed by an American photographer (Hopper), who describes Kurtz as a powerful genius. When Willard and Kurtz finally talk with each other, I exclaimed at one point: "It is all so clear!" In my opinion, the film manages to get across its statements in a very understandable way. Mistakes and doubts are excluded. Most of the statements follow directly from the visible action, others, from the dialogues or Willards thoughts.
The film depicts the cruelty of the war without any hint of glorification or sensation seeking. And despite all its cruelty, it is also an aesthetical piece of art. The harmony of the colours is e. g. overwhelming in the scene where Willard and Roxanne talk on the veranda. And you think: "Vietnam must be such a beautiful country - without the bombs, the fire and the guns."
Coppola does not attempt to wag his finger and blame anybody, since the fighting soldiers are the war's most tragic victims. He unveils the absurdity of the situation in its entirety. The message is not: "Don't start a war for the poor people's sake!". It is: "Don't start a war for your own sake."
I read somewhere that Coppola almost lost his mind over the chaos of this film's long production. All I can say is that it was worth it. The film is a masterpiece. Every detail has its justification. Even the excess length of Willard's journey makes sense, since it corresponds to the fact that the Vietnam War dragged on and on, wearing down the US army.
The film builds up heaps of tension. Not only does it take Willard more than two thirds of the film to get to Colonel Kurtz, but when he first arrives at his camp, he does not even meet him in person. Instead, he is welcomed by an American photographer (Hopper), who describes Kurtz as a powerful genius. When Willard and Kurtz finally talk with each other, I exclaimed at one point: "It is all so clear!" In my opinion, the film manages to get across its statements in a very understandable way. Mistakes and doubts are excluded. Most of the statements follow directly from the visible action, others, from the dialogues or Willards thoughts.
The film depicts the cruelty of the war without any hint of glorification or sensation seeking. And despite all its cruelty, it is also an aesthetical piece of art. The harmony of the colours is e. g. overwhelming in the scene where Willard and Roxanne talk on the veranda. And you think: "Vietnam must be such a beautiful country - without the bombs, the fire and the guns."
Coppola does not attempt to wag his finger and blame anybody, since the fighting soldiers are the war's most tragic victims. He unveils the absurdity of the situation in its entirety. The message is not: "Don't start a war for the poor people's sake!". It is: "Don't start a war for your own sake."
Abonnieren
Posts (Atom)