Tuesday: Finish Apocalypse Now, work on film discussion questions
Wednesday: Finish discussion questions in class (We'll pick them up and discuss them in class on Thursday), Speed reading
Thursday: Discuss questions, Apocalypse Now theme-related art assignment, getting into groups and developing ideas. This assignment will be due next Thursday and you will have time in class to work on it, but I need you to have a solid concept of what you want to do by the end of this week.
Friday: Lecture on Aesthetics.
BLOG POST DUE FRIDAY AT MIDNIGHT:
War Films: In the history of Cinema, one of the most enduring genres is the war film. While all film is political in that it reflects a particular point in time, a particular perspective on conflict and humanity, and engenders a response from the audience based upon ideological interpellation, too often war films simply serve to provide a vicarious outlet for some innate desire for violence. Because these films have this effect it is important that we train our critical eye to see the messages beyond the stupid, obvious points gained from a superficial analysis of the plot. In this spirit, your post for the week involves providing answers to the following questions about war films (these answers can be taken from our viewing of Apocalypse Now, or from any other war film you have seen).
- What does the film say about what it means to be a male person? A female person?
- How is "the Other" presented? Are they foils for the central characters, victims or real people?
- Does the film present violence and aggression as the only way to solve problems?
- Is war presented as an exciting alternative to everyday life?
- What are the main characters fighting for? Does the film question their values, or just assume an unquestioning acquiescence to everything in society?
- Does the story really tell us what's bad about the "enemy?" Or are we expected to take their evil nature for granted?
1) Males are considered tough. They aren't afraid, they're warriors. Females are, in general, non-combatants. They're kept to the sides.
ReplyDelete2)The "other" is the bad guy. Most often they are not seen as human, just an entity that we must, as the good guys, get rid of.
3) No war film I've ever seen has presented an alternative to violence, so I think yes, that means they present violence as the only solution.
4)Really, I think war's just the reality. Soldiers will talk about home, and how much they miss it. But war's never the preference, it's the there and the now and the everyday struggle.
5)War films I've seen don't typically go into why the people are fighting. It's taken for grated that the heroes are good, are fighting for a good reason, and that's that.
6)Sometimes you're told what's bad about the enemy but, like I said, usually motives for the war aren't really talked about. It's just taken for granted that all of the enemy, since they're not often humanized, are evil. Those of the enemy that actually have a roll are in general not very agreeable people.
All of my answers are just basic generalizations and aren't necessarily applied to all war films.
Callie Stribling, Period 1/2
Good on the quickness Callie! However, I would like some specifics. Pick a particular war film and apply the questions to that.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteFor this I'll be looking at two war movies (actually a movie and a tv miniseries): Generation Kill and Fullmetal Jacket. Generation kill is about the American invasion of Iraq and very, very realistic. Fullmetal Jacket covers Vietnam and, while not as fantastical as, say, Apocalypse Now or Deerhunter, is more fantastical than Generation Kill
ReplyDelete1-Men are the prominent sex in Generation Kill, but there are three major instances of women that I remember. While searching the houses of Iraqis for mortars, an older women tries to tell them to go away. Poke, a Sergeant who worked as a repo man prior to joining the Marines comments that "Women are always the worst. It doesn't matter if it's a white bitch in Beverly Hills or some black bitch in the projects, or if you got a gun, they'll always fight back" (I'm not sure if this is the exact quote, but it's close enough). The second instance is when the Marines have set up a roadblock, and are escorting Iraqis across. A woman confronts one of the Marines and says "Thank you Americans. Thank you for letting me through a road in my own country. Why are you here? We have done nothing to deserve this?" and then walks off, leaving the Marines understandably impressed. The third instance is much less flattering than the other two. Seeing a female Marine, the group begins to loudly catcall, yell pickup lines, and ask her to show some skin. One marine shows what he wants to do to her with a gasmask as a prop, then approaches her before being stopped by an Officer. Men are given a more straight forward view, although this is mainly from the Marines attitudes and not the camera: You're a tough guy, or you're gay (it's worth noting that one Marine, who is easily in the best physical shape of them all, is considered gay because of his effeminate attitude).
Fullmetal Jacket has two main instances of women: the Vietnamese prostitutes, who are viewed as sex objects by the Marines, and the (spoiler alert) female sniper who kills one and wounds two of the Marines. These two images, like in Generation Kill, provide a stark contrast between how women can be tough as nails, or soft. The movie gives a definite "A Real Man Is A Killer" vibe, both in the bootcamp sequences and the actions of Animal Mother.
2- Generation Kill has two main others- the civilians, and the enemy. The civilians are treated as very human: the Marines give them food, help them when they need it, and react very emotionally when they're killed, often going into a state of shock (although this only happens three times: twice when civilian huts are bombs, and once when a new recruit accidentally shoots and kills one). The enemy, on the other hand, are essentially glorified targets. The Marines talk about "wasting Hadjis", and comment that they feel nothing while killing them. The enemies themselves are almost never seen close up or properly illuminated unless they're dead, and even then their faces are almost never shown. Fullmetal Jacket is an interesting case. The enemies are never actually seen until the end. You see their muzzle flashes, and the traps they've left, but never the actual people, giving a completely alien feel to them. When the female sniper is revealed, this all changes. She is presented in a very sympathetic light, and the Marines find it difficult to kill her, even though she's wounded two of them and killed their commander.
3- Generation Kill doesn't present violence as the only way to solve problems. The Marines conduct many peacekeeping operations, such as distributing food, disarming bombs in civilian areas, and giving medical aid to the locals. In Fullmetal Jacket, the Marines view violence as the be all end all solution.
4- Generation Kill doesn't give an opinion either way. It's more concerned with the lives of the Marines than whether war is a good career path or not. The Marines are happy and enjoy their work, but it also presents some very harsh realities of war, such as going with very little food, seeing atrocities, and dealing with incompetent leadership. Fullmetal Jacket presents war as utterly horrible. The pain and violence the Marines experience is shown in slow motion, boot camp is depicting as driving one recruit to suicide, and the main character seems on the verge of going insane by the end.
ReplyDelete5- Officially, the Marines in Generation Kill are fighting to liberate the iraqis and get rid of Saddam Hussein's WMDs. However, their individual reasons vary. Brad wants the perfect recon mission, Rudy wants to challenge himself, Ray just seems to want to have fun in the chaos, and Trombley wants to kill as many people as possible. This question is posed by Fullmetal Jacket where one Marine comments over the corpse of another that he died fighting for something, at the very least. Another asks what, to which the first replies "Freedom". The second claims that this is bull, and the war doesn't mean anything. If he's fighting for anything, he claims, it's Poontang (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LqpGiwNtMvY). The movie as a whole is very cynical about the nature of the war.
6- Generation Kill never explicitly states why the enemy is "evil", but it can be inferred from their actions, such as ambushing the Marines, using IEDs, crucifying a captured Marine, and executing deserters. Full Metal Jacket seems as if it's going the route of "They're evil because they're evil. Look, they use teddy bears as bombs! Scary", but then it goes in the completely opposite direction at the end, showing the sniper as human and causing the audience to identify with her.
The only exception I can think of to my first point is the movie "G.I. Jane," which is the point of that movie. I've never seen a war movie with a woman in combat other than that.
ReplyDeleteOn second thought, the second was a bad generalization. In "The Great Escape" not all of the commanders at the camp are portrayed as inhumane. Kurtz in "Apocalypse Now" definitely has a human side we get to see. However, also from "Apocalypse Now" is the view where they're just shooting and killing, it doesn't matter who, a lot of the time.
In "Apocalypse Now" it's questioned if Willard is right, and it's explained what's bad about Kurtz. Other than that, and I haven't seen too many war movies, it's taken for granted that we know what's bad about who the hero's are fighting.
Callie
1. Although I don't really watch many war films and don't have a vast array of knowledge to draw on to answer these questions, I can say that in "Casablanca" (which I did see a while ago...) the man is shown as the do-watcha-gotta-do type while the woman is more subdued and quiet. However, by the end of the film the point is made that the woman plays just as big a part as the man as the driving force behind her husband's war efforts. I think this says that both play vital roles even if it is the man doing the most action, without the woman, he is nothing.
ReplyDelete2. The true "Other" isn't really given too much screen time in "Casablanca" aside from the police. One of the policemen is an ally and thus a real person, the others aren't so much and just stand in the way of the protagonsists.
3. I don't think the film presents violence and agression as the only way to solve problems. There is some violence present, but resistance measures are more emphasized than black and white killing.
4. War isn't presented as an alternative to everyday life in the strictest sense. The woman even almost chooses to leave war for a different life. By taking part in resistance they don't show it as crazy fun, but something that changes the characters and their lives. They live with not being completeley free to do what they want to accomplish what they know they have to do.
5. The main characters are fighting against the Nazi's and policemen for freedom and fairness for all people. The film never really questions their values nor does it say that they are perfect people.
6. Since it is assumed that everyone knows the evils of the Nazis that topic isn't gone into in-depth, although they do talk about them a litte and what they have done to the characters. On the other hand, you do see what is wrong with the police and how they treat the people.
Jenna Lang, 1/2
(I'm looking at the film, The Last Samurai, because I find it presents a different view from most other war films)
ReplyDelete1. In the world of the samurai, the men are the only ones who fight. It is their duty to protect and provide for their family. The women are portrayed as housewives who stay home to cook and clean, and are never even thought of as fighting options.
2. At the beginning, the other are the samurai because no one understands their way of life. But as the main character gets to know them and live with them, they become real people who change the way he looks at the world. Then the other become the Japanese who are fighting against them, and they are shown as vicious and intolerant.
3. The film presents violence as a necessary aspect of life. The samurai clearly view peace as a more welcome option, but are realists who understand they must fight to keep themselves from dying out at all times. Violence isn't embraced but is looked at as something that can't be sidestepped.
4. War isn't looked at as exciting, but because the entire samurai way of life is spent training and honing their skills for war, fighting happens to embody their everyday life. But because the trauma that losing a family member is shown in the film, war isn't shown as something grand.
5. The main character are fighting to prevent themselves from being extinguished and forced to integrate into modern society. The film never questions their values because it is made clear that they aren't the main instigators of the war.
6. The film does a great job of showing the enemy from both sides. The main character starts out on one side but switches over to the samurai's side and this shows how both sides view each other. The Japanese who are fighting the samurai are looked at as bloodthirsty and the American helping them is shown as someone who is both vicious and willing to do anything for money.
-Aiden Kahn, 1/2
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI haven't really watched any war movies but I will use Apocalypse Now as my movie reference. 1. What does the film say about what it means to be a male person? A female person?
ReplyDeleteTo be a male person is to be tough and to be the one who fights and participates in war. Their duty is to protect their country
and to do what they were told by their commanding generals. The women are percieved as the innocent who remain within the houses
and kind of watch the war from the sidelines where as the men are actually participating in it.
2. How is "the Other" presented? Are they foils for the central characters, victims or real people?
In the case of Apacolypse Now the Vietnamese are the ones that are considered the Other because no one understands how they live
and their way of living was presented as an alien lifestyle in the movie. For example, when they cut the cow towards the end of the movie,
the movie presented it as such a strange custom yet we butcher animals for food all the time. I feel that the Vietnamese in this case were victims becasue
in the movie they never really showed them fighting back as much as the Americans did. The movie only had a few instances, like the attack where Mr. Clean gets
shot, does the film depict them fighting back.
3.Does the film present violence and aggression as the only way to solve problems?
Yes, I think Apocolyspe Now definitely uses violence to because with the invasions, the Americans never really showed like they could negotiate with the Viet,
rather just go there and attack and destroy villages killing people.
4. Is war presented as an exciting alternative to everyday life?
Not at all. I think war in this movie is presented as a gruesome and tiring part of life because they are always fighting and always carrying weapons
incase of a sudden attack.Most of the soliders looked tired of the war and wanted to go home for example Mr. Clean but as gruesome and gruelling as it may
be, it was their life.
5.What are the main characters fighting for? Does the film question their values, or just assume an unquestioning
acquiescence to everything in society?
The main character is sent on a mission to kill a fellow solider who is predicted to have gone crazy. The film never really questions his values
but at the end it shows his transformation from one being to another.
6.Does the story really tell us what's bad about the "enemy?" Or are we expected to take their evil nature for granted?
In Apocolyspe Now, I don't think it really emphasizes on what makes the Vietnamese/Cambodians enemies. The movie really just shows them being the enemies and focuses
on the generals' mission. The director makes the motives of the "enemy" some what unclear.
I chose Apocalypse Now.
ReplyDelete1.The film says that being a male means that you are a soldier. Even the pretty boy surfer fights. The only woman in the film is an object of desire, and some shots in the film accentuate this.
2.The others in this movie are Kurtz’s followers. The mystery behind the followers is why they are brainwashed to follow Kurtz. The other here looks like a foil for the victims. The victims are the soldiers who are so hopeful to just make it through their tour.
3.The film presents violence as the only answer in this movie, but it doesn’t end up well emotionally for the attacker. During the weapons check, after finding the puppy on the boat, the soldiers were mortified to find out that they shot so many civilians for no reason.
4.War is not presented as an alternative to everyday life, because almost all of the characters in the movie die, and the only ones that survive might stay in the jungle forever.
5.Willard is fighting to complete his mission, and the rest of the soldiers on the boat just want to live through their tour of duty. The film questions what Willard values, because he decides that he doesn’t even want to be in the army anymore by the end of the movie.
6.The story tells us that Kurtz was bad for not following orders, and it shows all of the bodies strewn around his camp. The film asserts that Kurtz is an evil man with these two things.
Connor 5/6
1)In Apocalypse Now, the men are shown as the ones that fight and that are tough. They are also shown to have very little emotion, besides the scene that Clean dies as Cheif did shed some tears for his comrade, and this gave them sort of a robot personality. The women in the movie were shown more as bystanders who had no role in the fighting, showing them more as fragile.
ReplyDelete2)The "Other" in Apocalypse Now is the Vietnamese civilization because of their inablility to fight back effectively and to communicate with the Americans. The Vietnamese are presented as an unorthodox civilization throughout the movie, from running to the back of the boat to save a puppy and getting killed to living in the jungle as uncivilized barbarians.
3)In Apocalypse Now, they do show violence and aggression as the only way to to solve the problem because at the end of the movie, Captain Willard chooses to kill Kurtz himself rather than call in the air strike like he ordered Chef to in the first place. Although violence is the only way against the Other in the movie, when the party meets the French people, they solve their conflict using words rather than fighting, showing how the Vietnamese are percieved as barbarians since they are shown as dirty and the French are clean-cut.
Mark Rangel, 5/6 Period
4)I personally saw the war in the movie as an alternative way to everyday life because I was in a trance with all of the action that happened, but in reality I am too gutless to kill anyone. The movie showed the hardships of war as well, but it still caught my attention despite these hardships.
ReplyDelete5)Captain Willard is fighting to complete his mission in assassinating Kurtz because of his determination, but at the end his determination drives him to insanity and committing the very acts that Kurtz was wanted dead for. As the journey progressed, Willard became so focused on getting to Kurtz that he allowed Chief to be killed. There was a slow dehumanization process that occured as they traveled further down the river.
6)Kurtz is shown as evil in the movie because of the people he has murdered. He not only murdered these people but he also did not dispose of their bodies properly. He just hung them from trees and threw them to the side, like garbage.
Mark Rangel 5/6 Period
1) In Apocalypse Now, the male characters are seen as the thinkers and the fighters. Willard is a great example of this, for he spends most of his time considering his actions and their ethics and circumstance, but ultimately is very powerful in his violence. The few female characters that we do see in the film are not part of the violence. The french woman is separate from the fighting even though it effects her home because she has chosen to enjoy her drugs and further remove herself than to get involved.
ReplyDelete2) The "others" are presented first as the victim, but the ethical questions arise when that status is questioned by Willard. The native people seem like the other, separated from him by their strange uncivilized culture, but Willard has also been transformed in his journey up the river and even identifies with Kurtz at the end of the film. The ambiguity of the "other" in war films is what brings forth the questions of purpose and morality in the violence.
3) In the scene with the puppy and the boat search, violence is avoidable yet occurs anyways. The search of the boat surely could have happened without the shooting of the natives but the soldier got spooked and shot them up to be safe. There are other moments that are peaceful, yet still tense, such as Willard's initial arrival to Kurtz's village. There is no violence as the boat approaches the water, and again as the boat leaves, it is suggested that Willard has become Kurtz and will not command an air strike on the people. This shows that violence can be avoided even in tense situations and is not the only solution.
4) War is definitely not presented as an exciting alternative to everyday life. Lance, the all american boy from california is a good example of an innocent character thrown into something horrific, and is not excited by the war but understands that it is dangerous and terrible as he watches his friends die. The war is not exciting at all. Every bloody detail is shown, and when the captain dies, the sorrow on the other men's faces is clearly nothing glamorous and exciting.
5) The way war is portrayed in Apocalypse Now is very dark and without clear motives. The lines between good and bad are not clear and in scenes such as the helicopter bombing of the village, it is not apparent what the motive towards killing innocent people is at all. War is shown as brutal reality without golden morals to justify it.
6) Kurtz is an interesting character because the Army deems him both perfect and yet wants him dead. It is never clear why they want to kill him, and as Willard questions the Army's motives so does the audience. Kurtz is never really explained, only that he has turned against the army's morals and instead is operating under his own "methods". Ultimately WIllard decides that this reason is sufficient and kills Kurtz, almost to save him from his own lack of civilization.
Hannah Bangs 1/2
To answer these questions I am mostly thinking about the movie The Patriot and the TV series Band of Brothers.
ReplyDelete1) What does the film say about what it means to be a male person? A female person?
Like most war films, the men are the ones who go to battle. They are tough, strategic, and are fighting for what they believe in. In The Patriot, Benjamin Martin doesn't originally want to go to war, he wants to stay home and protect his family while the country is at war. This is a rare sight for a war movie, the men are almost always happy to join in the fighting. The women are expected to be supportive, understanding, and take care of the home while the men are away. The women are occasionally in the war zone, but that is almost always because they are a nurse or helping the wounded.
2) How is "the Other" presented? Are they foils for the central characters, victims or real people?
In The Patriot, the "other" is represented as a foil. They use violence as intimidation instead of only using it for protection or a means of fighting for what they think is right. The "others" use it to be cruel. In Band of Brothers, the "others" are definitely portrayed as real people. There are scenes within the show where the enemy sides converse with each other and become acquaintances. They find things in common with one another and you see that they are people too. Generally, war films tend to go with The Patriot's take on the "other."
3) Does the film present violence and aggression as the only way to solve problems?
I don't think these films present violence and aggression as the only way to solve problems. I don't remember if there is any part that says something about an alternative way to solve problems, but most of the characters seem to feel that there is. They want to fight for their country but they feel, or hope, that there is an alternative to war.
4) Is war presented as an exciting alternative to everyday life?
I think war is presented as an exciting alternative to everyday life, but that doesn't mean it's represented as being better or more fun. I think war is shown as being exciting, because in truth, it is. The soldiers may not enjoy war, or want to fight, or sit in trenches for days while it is freezing outside, but it is still exciting.
5) What are the main characters fighting for? Does the film question their values, or just assume an unquestioning acquiescence to everything in society?
In The Patriot, the main character is fighting more for the protection of his family than anything else. He goes into war after his sons enlist without his consent, and he feels like he should protect them. In Band of Brothers, I think their reasons change. At first, it's to go out and kill Germans. As the show goes on, it is more to keep each other alive and and fight what was going on in Germany, not just the German people.
6) Does the story really tell us what's bad about the "enemy?" Or are we expected to take their evil nature for granted?
In The Patriot, the enemy is shown as evil from the unnecessary violence they create. Other than that, it's taken for granted. In Band of Brothers, it explains what is bad about the enemy, and it is illustrated throughout the entire series.
Sam Kaspar 5/6
To answer my questions I used Apocalypse Now
ReplyDelete1.All of the fighters that we see in Apocalypse Now are male. The few females who we see throughout the entire movie are very separate from the atmosphere of fighting. This implies that females in general are separate from fighting and are expected to stand back and watch while the action happens.
2.The “Other” in Apocalypse Now would have to be the Vietnamese because they are so utterly different from the American fighters. There is one part in the movie that expresses this completely and that is when the Vietnamese civilization at Kurtz’s kingdom sacrifices a bull. That is something that we as viewers have not experienced and so it is alien to us and we assume that it is also alien to the crew. In most of the movie they are portrayed as victims because they are fighting with technology that is nowhere near as advanced as the American and French.
3.Yes because in the movie the characters never solve anything without violence. For example when they stop the boat on the river to search it, they shoot everyone on the boat when there is a slight disturbance.
4.War is definitely presented as exciting, but not something that anyone would want. Especially after Chef encounters the tiger it seems like everyone on the boat just wants to survive their time and then go home.
5.Willard is fighting to complete his mission that he was given and the rest of the crew is just fighting to stay alive. Towards the end of the movie, Willard’s values start to come into question, as he comes to listen and become more understanding of Kurtz’s values and imitate Kurtz in a way.
6.Kurtz is the obvious bad guy, mostly because of all of the dead bodies that are shown when Willard gets to his kingdom. Also because he decapitates Chef, and throws the head in Willard’s prison/cage that he is kept in. That is almost worse to the viewer because it’s more personal and in your face. So although we are given some of the redeeming qualities of Kurtz, we are also given plenty of reasons to hate him.
1. In Glory there were few female roles involved. The story is mainly focused around a group of black men and their white general on the Union side during the Civil War. The point of the story is obviously not to discredit the role of women in war, but rather to focus on a real life relationship that existed during a time where it was not considered appropriate for blacks to participate in war efforts, even tif hey were in an effort to help them gain rights. Women were simply not crucial to the making of the film's plotline and if they had been focused on it would've changed the persona of the film entirely. Nonetheless, in general, war is seen as a very masculine event and is often disassociated with women for this very reason.
ReplyDelete2. I think the way the "Other" is presented depends entirely on the movie. In Glory, the "Other" is portrayed in few different lights. It mostly depends on who the viwer defines as the "Other". If going off the idea of the actual enemy, then there is not much that can really be said, as they only appear throughout the movie about three times. There is more portrayal of the individual soldiers being indifferent and "other" to one another. For example, one soldier is portrayed as being a complete dumb, and a jerk while another is protrayed as a well-mannered book lover.
3. At first some of the soldiers in the film think violence is the only way to get what they want. But after they get to know one another they realize there are other non-violent ways that they can accomplish what they want as well.
4. War is not presented as an alternative to everyday life in Glory. It is seen by all the main characters as something that has to be done in order for them to be able to live a normal day-to-day life.
5. The main characters are fighting for the same rights as every other person and will not give up until they acheive them. Glory takes place during the civil war, so as black soldiers, the main characters are often mistreated and unrespected.
6.The movie expects for the viewers to empathize with the main characters and for them to be able to see the corruption that they have to endure from their white counterparts. The enemy is never directly shown doing evil things, but their effects are.
The movie I chose was Inglorious Basterds.
ReplyDelete1) The movie shows males as more powerful both physically and politically but it shows women to be more powerful socially. It also shows men to be more upfront and physical with their fighting and women to be more sneaky and do behind the back fighting.
2) the "other" is presented as real people (Hitler and the Nazis) and while their characteristics aren't complete foils of our heroes, their ideals are.
3) The film presents violence as one way to solve problems but also strategic planning and intelligence as a way to win wars.
4) War is presented as an exciting alternative to everyday life. Our heroes who are fighting against the Nazis are presented as bad asses and it glorifies their violence.
5) The main characters are fighting for the anti-Nazi capitalistic ideals, but also more so in the movie they're fighting to bring down Hitler. Their values are never questioned since the audience is so familiar with the history behind the movie and the ideals that they are fighting for are widely accepted as the right ideals.
6) The story, unlike most war films, shows us what's bad about the enemy. One of the establishing shots is an SS officer finding and killing the last hiding Jews in the village. As an audience most would take their evil nature for granted anyway but we are also presented it.
Gabby McRoberts 5/6
I am not a big fan of war movies thus I do not know very many, so I will be using Apocalypse Now to answer the questions.
ReplyDelete1. What does the film say about what it means to be a male person? A female person?
I feel that the men are represented as barbarians. When we see them they are either cursing or killing and they always have a gun in their hand. The women are represented as sex objects. We only see women twice in Apocalypse Now. The first time they are from the playboy company and they are under-dressed and doing ridiculous sexy dances. The second time is the French women with who Willard sleeps with and then we never see her again. It’s as if a movie couldn’t sell without a sex scene so the director had to add that scene by throwing a female character that has no depth or reason.
2. How is "the Other" presented? Are they foils for the central characters, victims or real people?
The “other” in Apocalypse Now is of course Charlie. They are definitely foils for the central characters since they are trying to kill them, but they are are also victims as they are trying to change their country and protect their lives from the unfair attacks of the Americans.
3. Does the film present violence and aggression as the only way to solve problems?
The first part is very violent, especially the part where the Americans attack the village while playing “Ride of the Valkyries”. As the captain says “it freaks the hell of out them.” He sees this more as a game than anything else. The rest of the movie is young clueless Americans randomly shooting at every moving thing. The entire moving is about killing, even the main plot of the story is about killing Kurtz.
4. Is war presented as an exciting alternative to everyday life?
Not at all. It actually shows the negative affects it can have on you. It actually shows you only two outcomes. You either die like the young African American, like Chef, or the driver of the boat. Or you go crazy like Kurts, Willard and Lance.
It is nice that this is a more realistic side of what war is really like. My father was in the Vietnam war and he said that's this movie gave him flashbacks. Most other war movie are very “cheesy” (as far as I have seen.)
5. What are the main characters fighting for? Does the film question their values, or just assume an unquestioning acquiescence to everything in society?
I don’t believe the main characters are fighting for anything at all. The crew that is on the boat specifically isn’t fighting for anything, they are just following Willard. They might once in a while kill one of “Charlies” people but that's about it. Willard is not fighting for anything either he is just on a mission that doesn’t even make since to himself. When the crew finds out about the mission they do say it is ridiculous and that it makes zero since but by the time they arrive at Kurtz location they are so fed up with the war that that they would do anything to get out Vietnam.
6. Does the story really tell us what's bad about the "enemy?" Or are we expected to take their evil nature for granted?
The movie doesn’t say anything about the enemy, it doesn’t eve say why there is a war. I don’t think the director expects us to think they are evil of nature. Never do they show the Vietnamese like the big bad boys. We just see them peacefully in their villages doing their thing, or as the Americans are attacking they are bleeding to death, dying of thirst or have a hurt child in their arms. Maybe we director was expecting us to know the history of the war.
Sandra Norwood
Period 1/2
For my 'film' ('movie' is a better term) I decided to pick the first Star Wars movie. I guess this goes to show how many war films I see... :)
ReplyDelete1. This movie portrays all of the male characters as battle hardened, tough, stoic soldiers. Even Luke is not fazed by all the war, even though he is an upstart from some small town on an irrelevent planet. Females are portrayed as either housewives, or as scantily-clad slaves chained to Jabba. The one exception would be Leia, who at certain points does hold a gun. But even then, she is not portrayed as being tough, unlike all of the males.
2. "The Other" is presented as, for the most part, foils of the main trio (Luke, Leia, and Han). Sure, there is some amount of "real people" material in Grand Moff Tarkin, but he is really just another crazy "let's just attack the rebels and beat up the princess" advisor.
3. This movie never once question violence as the only way to solve the problem. For the entire movie, the main characters just grab their lightsabers and hack their way through the Death Star. Nobody ever says anything about, say, possibly talking to the Empire instead of trying to kill them all.
4. War is definitly presented as an exciting alternative to everyday life. The movie opens with Luke and his friends arbitrarily running off of the (boring) farm to join the rebel forces. This is never questioned, even when all of his friends die (except Wedge).
5. The main characters are fighting for freedom from a large, oppresive empire. Again, like everything else, this is never questioned. The main characters just take this as the way of life, and fight against the empire despite having the hopelessness of, for example, me trying to win an arm wrestling match.
6. The story sort of references why they're evil. The movie says more or less that Darth Vader is evil because he rules a large portion of the galaxy, and wears a noisy ominous black suit. Apart from this cursery information, there is no real reason to assume that the bad guys are bad.
I answered these questions based on Apocalypse Now:
ReplyDelete1) All the men in the movie were perceived as very tough (basically the stereotypical male) but also strong fighters. They’re the ones directly involved in the war, in contrast to females who were just side-lined. I feel like the women were simply benched, forced to stand aside and simply watch or support, but nothing more. The males are obviously the vanguards.
2) The “other” is simply the opposing side in the war. Generally the “other” tends to be the antagonist in a film, which in this case was the Vietnamese as well as Kurtz. This is because they’re the most distinct characters, and are completely different from Willard.
3) The film presents violence and aggression as the most appropriate way to solve problems, but this doesn’t mean that it’s the only solution. However, the film does a pretty good job of emphasizing both violence and aggression as major themes, especially towards the end of the movie.
4) War is definitely more exciting than everyday life, and is generally very interesting because of the conflict. Unfortunately, war also brings out the worst in both sides. Everyday life is very boring and typical, so it’s obvious as to why war seems much more interesting.
5) The typical answer would be that any soldier fights for his freedom and country, however, in Apocalypse Now it’s slightly different. I got the impression that they were mainly fighting for the sake of being victorious, and so they could return home knowing they’ve successfully completed their task. The film definitely questions their values, especially since Willard is an entirely different person by the end of the movie.
6) The film hints at at the fact that Kurtz is an evil man, but it also allows the audience to generate their own perspective on Kurtz. The way in which Kurtz is introduced also indicates at his malevolent personality. Plus, the audience usually sides with the protagonist, so it makes sense that they make Kurtz appear so cruel and monstrous.
Ivana Correa 5/6
1. What does the film say about what it means to be a male person? A female person?
ReplyDeleteIn Apocalypse Now all of the soldiers are male, and the few females in the movie are there for the males pleasure. This implies that females can't fight or at minimum aren't allowed to and that war is a males business to take care of.
2. How is "the Other" presented? Are they foils for the central characters, victims or real people?
The other to me would be the Vietnamese due to their large role as the enemy, and the unknown. They were shown as victims throughout the film and you always saw them either dead, or getting attacked by the soldiers.
3. Does the film present violence and aggression as the only way to solve problems?
Apocalypse now definitely presents violence as the only problem solver. The whole point is to kill Kurtz because they can’t control him anymore. Many aspects of the movie rely on violence to solve everything.
4. Is war presented as an exciting alternative to everyday life?
Overall, I would say its not presented as such in Apocalypse now because the boat crew is always dreaming about going home and are sick of the river and the war.
5. What are the main characters fighting for? Does the film question their values, or just assume an unquestioning acquiescence to everything in society?
Willard is fighting to complete his mission, which seems to hold very little of his own personal values in it. The crew on the other hand is fighting to stay alive and to be able to see their homes once more. To me Willards values are not entirely on par with the rest of societys’ whereas the boat crews values are that of the average person which.
6. Does the story really tell us what's bad about the "enemy?" Or are we expected to take their evil nature for granted?
In Apocalypse Now they never fully explained what was bad about the enemy but rather just said it was so. War is not always questioned which seemed to be the case in this film. As a viewer we’re expected to take their position for granted. Willard doesn’t even really know why hes fighting or what Kurtz truly did.
Chirstopher Delgado 1/2
For this blog post, I analyzed The Killing Fields, a film about the tragedies an American journalist and his Cambodian friend in Cambodia.
ReplyDelete1. There are a wide variety of characters in this film, but the men and women in the film are completely different. The men primarily the action-takers who make the decisions. The women, on the other hand, are caught up in the conflicts of the terror (typically throwing themselves upon the men).
2. The other is the rising Khmer Rouge who enters power through a peaceful front, but in truth he creates chaos in the country. This is an interesting variant of a war film because the main characters are indeed caught up in the politics of it, but in The Killing Fields the main characters never win or lose to the conflict, but they succeed in making it through it.
3. The film presents violence as this thing that humans have to work with and overcome. Humans are violent, and violence exists in the world; The Killing Fields' message is that it is our job to learn how to cope with it.
4. War is presented as an atrocity. It hurt everyone. War is painful, hateful, immoral, and ignorant of humans. War is economics, money, etc, but incapable of realizing that it's largest effect is completely negative.
5. In this film, it's about the right to survive. Are they going to make it, even if they put in everything they have? Can they make it through this war? Can they make it through the "Heart of Darkness" where they might see violence and corruption and the most evil things? This film is about overcoming war situations, and presents an interesting story of how it is not our job to be immune to the Heart of Darkness, but to have the strength to withstand through it.
6. This situation is interesting because there is no one enemy, it is a collection of the evils in war. There's one scene where Pran is walking through a field where it's obvious that everyone has been massacred. He starts crying, but in a feat, he makes his way through these corpses. Pran loses all that could keep him human, his companions are exploded, he's in the jungle, and he doesn't even know if there's actually a place to go on the other side of the jungle, but he has the will to keep going, if only to someday meet his friend, Sydney.
Oh that thing I just posted, it's from me:
ReplyDeleteC. Testa 5/6
I choose to do the Mel Gibson movie The Patriot.
ReplyDelete1)Women have little to no role in this film. Not a single one is considered for fighting and the one female character present is Mel Gibson’s love interest. The Father’s sons are obsessed with war and only see its glorified image, it is only when one of the sons is killed by the antagonist that the father finally relents and responds to the action.
2) The other is this ridiculous British man who represents everything evil about the enemy. He disregards laws and helps no one but himself—a complete antithesis of all of Gibson’s traits. He has no motivation other than “beat that dude who kind of humiliated me” and goes out of his way to kill towns in order to get to who he sees as his arch nemesis.
3)The main character is actually a pacifist (surprise surprise!) and even though throughout the movie Gibson preaches morality he the battle scenes are still clear and the villains pride and dirty fighting helps create a situation in which the only things the Americans can do is to fight back.
4)The Protagonist’s sons see war as an exciting and patriotic thing but the protagonist insists it is anything but. It is important to note that, as this movie is patriotic, even when men say “war is a terrible thing” that the battles are often glorified and peoples deaths, while unfortunate, are seen as events that spur the survivors on the survive.
5)The whole point of the movie is one man’s personal fight to save his family while the war for independence is going on in the background. The main character acknowledges that he has a dark history that he is ashamed of and will not tell his family but in the end, while most people glorify him for his roles in previous wars, they thank him in his involvement with the Revolution by building him a new house.
6)The enemy is the British but the two main villains, one a general and the other a colonel, are brash, proud, and self indulgent. The colonel is just a “bad man” willing to kill innocent people in the name of personal revenge but the general just represents pompous people full of disdain who are more unlikable than evil. The British are just seen as an obstacle in Gibson’s quest to save his family and gain America’s independence.
Kira Strzepa
1/2
1) The lack of female roles in the movie demonstrates the films view of females in war. I found this interesting because the director of the film was by in fact a woman but decided not to include many in it. Maybe this was because she did not want to include bias into her own film towards woman and decided to leave them out. However, women are seen in this movie, not in war but rather at home waiting for there soldiers to come back. For males, this film demonstrates the wanting to get back home and quickness of it. It demonstrates that they are not only tough but loyal to there spouse and want to do everything possible to get home safe to them. On the other hand, there are a handful of men who are shown as tough hardworking soldiers. They do not fear anything, such as one of the main characters and for him being a male means that he must be tough and be a jerk in the process.
ReplyDelete2)“The other” in this film is Iraq. The film does not single out one specific character but rather uses the image of Iraqis as dangerous. Mainly, the film is based on a group of soldiers that deactivate bombs and therefore “the other” is those bombs. The slightest mess up or flinch may be the difference between life and death.
3) Violence and aggression is not seen as much in the film compared to other war films. Rather it is more based on the defusing of bombs and trying to prevent Iraqis from blowing up U.S. soldiers. The film tries to make Iraqis seem as dirty people who don’t use violence but rather “cheap” tactics by blowing people up with I.E.D’s
4)For the main character war is presented as an exciting alternative to everyday life, while every other soldier can’t wait to get back home. For the main soldier, even though he has a family back home, can’t resist the feeling of defusing a bomb. When his first tour finishes up he is shown being back home, to end the film however it shows him returning back to war, adding to his view of war being an exciting alternative to every day life.
5)The main characters are fighting for America but also for there own life’s. They never know when something may go wrong when defusing a bomb, as can be seen in the opening scene. The film questions the main characters values, not seeing the consequences he is putting on himself and others, by not listening to his commander and therefore isn’t fighting for anything in specific.
6)The story tries to make Iraqis seem “dirty” with there tactics of bombs and trying to blow up the enemy when they aren’t expecting it. It never really shows what is so bad about the enemy.
-Sebastian Canizares
1/2
1.The film presents a different family environment than what is conventional, because Benjamin Martin is a widower with 7 kids. This expands his role from being the father to being a “mother” as well, something you wouldn’t expect from a movie based in the late 1700s. Also contrary to the role of masculinity, Benjamin Martin refuses to participate in the war. This is unexpected because most men, according to popular belief, would eagerly enlist themselves to fight for independence. While there is generally no specific highlighting of the role of women characters, it is assumed that the women of the time, as portrayed by the movie, were simply the caretakers of the household.
ReplyDelete2. “The Other” is presented as a ruthless, cold-blooded human being, Colonel Tavington, who breaks apart Benjamin Martin’s family. He is provided as a foil to Martin’s character.
3. This film is a perfect example of violence and aggression as the only solution. After Colonel Tavington burns down Martin’s house, Martin begins to manifest his hatred in violence towards the British, focusing on defeating them in the War. It becomes instantly clear that the film will not end until either Tavington or Martin is dead, because that is the only way to end the conflict, which has grown to become so much more than the war itself.
4.War, in this film, is presented as a tragedy, a destructive force of humanity. Everything adds up to more and more destruction in the film—only at the very end, when Martin is rebuilding his house with the help of other men, is there any sign of reconstruction, of progress. This shows that while war is destructive, its outcomes and purpose still may be constructive.
5.The protagonist, Benjamin Martin, is fighting to avenge his sons’ deaths. It is easy to see his transformation—from a timid, peaceful family man who doesn’t care, and is even afraid of, the war, to a bloodthirsty soldier who is full of hatred at the deaths of his sons and wife. During the entire war, he is never fighting for America’s independence, only for the death of Colonel Tavington.
6.In this film, there is black and white, and we are clearly able to distinguish the bad from the good. Even though Martin is slaughtering just as many people as Tavington, Tavington is the one who is portrayed as the antagonist. Why? Perhaps because he began the onslaught of events with Martin’s family, or perhaps because his own family is never portrayed. Tavington is the stereotypical commander of the bad guys’ army—brutal, savage, and unreasonably violent.
Michelle Zhang, Pd 1/2
Sorry, I forgot to mention, these answers are based on The Patriot with Mel Gibson.
ReplyDeleteMichelle Zhang
My post focuses on Apocalypse Now
ReplyDelete1. I agree with many of the previous blog posts that men are the ones with the brutality, and the tough ones who are expected to leave and be the fighters. In Apocalypse Now, it didn't matter where you came from. Every character on the boat was distinct. If you were a man, you were expected to fight. However, I disagree that the women's only role was to sit aside and watch the action. The woman with the largest role was Kurtz's mistress who did was not complacent and dainty. She was a bold African woman who had the same ideologies and craziness as Kurtz. To me, his mistress played the role of showing how Kurtz's ideas projected towards everyone else. Kurtz thought "there was something ominous . . . in her progress" and that her face "had a tragic and fierce aspect of wild sorrow and of dumb pain mingled with fear of some struggling, half-shaped resolve." This sound a lot like Kurtz and I think it was intended to be so. (This is in Heart of Darnkess, not Apocalypse Now). Because Kurtz didn't show up until the very end, it was hard to develop his character, but having his mistress made it easier to see what Kurtz had created, and who he was.
2. It was hard to tell who was the other in the film. The Vietnamese was an "other" for the Americans, as was Kurtz, but they all were so similar because of war, that it is hard to say that anyone was an "other." I think the meaninglessness and the lack of distinction between "good guy" and "bad guy"were one the main themes explored in the film. It made a point that the "other" (Vietnamese) may not be as other as we expect. We think the "other" is the more evil, but Apocalypse Now shows that this isn't true in the "Flight of the Valkarie" scene. In the bridge scene, no one knows who they are shooting at. This is another example of not knowing the other. At the end of the film, Kurtz no longer is the other, because Willard turns practically turns into him.
3. That is the only way that I can think of problems getting solved in the film. Kurtz is the only one who diverges from complete genocide with the military, but even his tactics are ridiculously violent. He pillaged other tribes, made himself the leader of one, and everywhere there were severed heads. To fix his insanity, the military proposes to have Kurtz killed. Every scene where there is major conflict, violence is used. The war made the soldiers so desensitized, that that was the only way they knew how to solve problems.
Sofia Dyer
period 5/6
4. The film was particularly realistic so it didn't include the general patriotism seen in many war movies such as in "The Marine."The film, even though it was expressionistic showed the true violence and fear from war. Killing innocent women out of paranoia, and getting decapitated doesn't seem like the romantic thrill that many war movies give off.
ReplyDelete5.The film definitely questions the characters' values. Willard is supposed to be helping society by killing Kurtz, but at the end, he questions himself because he knows that it was unnecessary. I think Willard went forward with the mission because of his increasing curiosity about Kurtz. At first, it was only a mission, but as he discovered more and more about his eccentricity, he became more fascinated about who he was. War in general questions values. The soldiers on the ship all assumed that shooting Vietnamese was the right thing to do, but it obviously isn't. At first, maybe they were more unwilling to kill, but at the end, their fear and insanity built causing them to shoot in any direction regardless if they knew whether or not they were killing something innocent.
6. The movie never mentions what is wrong about the enemy. People in the western world are so afraid of change that these natives automatically seem evil. The biggest crime would be betrayal, if that is what Kurtz actually did. To me it is a mix of Kurtz realizing the hypocrisy of the government and his own insanity. People are also afraid of insanity because they are afraid of irrationality. To people, bad means evil and if insanity is bad, then it clearly must be evil. This is the message that we have heard throughout our childhood (whether consciously or unconsciously) and because of this, the director didn't have to tell the audience what made the natives evil. It was presumed by how different they were.
Sofia Dyer
5/6
Correction:In my first answer, I wrote Kurtz thought she was "ominous . . ."
ReplyDeleteYou should replace Kurtz name with Willard's.
1. The film Platoon, directed by Oliver Stone, goes against the classic archetype of the American Warrior. The main character, portrayed by the great Charlie Sheen, drops out of college to enlist in the Army and is sent to Vietnam, which is considered a classic patriotic thing to do. However, most of the soldiers in the film are portrayed either as somewhat psychotic, over-stressed murderers and rapists or drug-taking hippies. Neither of these groups perform particularly well in combat. This goes against the standard view of an American soldier, where more well-trained and motivated troops defeat Charlie with ease, such as in the Vietnam war film We Were Soldiers. There are few if any women portrayed in Platoon, so Stone doesn’t pass judgment on the female role in war.
ReplyDelete2. Very few of the VC or NVA are actually shown in the film, passing them off as a faceless, inhuman enemy. However, Stone takes a radically different viewpoint on the Vietnamese civilians shown in the film. The civilians are victims of meaningless brutality and rape by members of the platoon. Stone uses the civilians to show the bad side of the American troops.
3. Platoon gives off a strong and at points, painstakingly obvious anti-war message. The Americans are more or less completely unsuccessful in their missions, which almost always result in civilian casualties and/or friendly fire “accidents.” Stone shows that war is probably the worst way to solve a problem. Charlie Sheen doesn’t do as much “winning” in this film as he does in his later years.
4. Stone takes a stance showing the dehumanization and loss of innocence caused by war. Although Sheen’s character enters the war thinking that serving in the infantry will be an “exciting alternative to everyday life,” he definitely doesn’t leave Vietnam that way.
5. Unlike in generic war movies, the soldiers in Platoon aren’t fighting for victory but rather for a way out of the war. The viewer easily sympathizes with the members of the platoon after witnessing what the soldiers go through every day. Platoon never shows any reasons why the war is worth fighting, so the viewer is forced to assume that America’s involvement in the Vietnam War had no redeeming values whatsoever.
6. Platoon is somewhat unique in that most of the conflict is between the members of the platoon, going against the classic concept of “men from different backgrounds rallying together to fight for a common goal.” Stone shows many of the reasons why the “bad guys” in the platoon are in fact the “bad guys.” The VC and NVA are somewhat unimportant to the plot of the film, and Stone doesn’t paint them as “evil,” especially not in the face of the atrocities that some of the soldiers commit.
Sander Trubowitz
5/6 Period
I am definitely more of a romantic comedy girl (sorry) and I can’t seem to think of the other war films I’ve seen. My analysis will have to be on Apocalypse Now.
ReplyDelete1. The man is the power holder in this film as in many war films. It is just more common and traditional for men to be in the military. The males are the people who fight on both sides and the women are weak and innocent like the children. They are cared for but not really seen as helpful contributors when it comes to fighting.
2. The main “other” in Apocalypse Now is presented as the mysterious bad guy. The “others” are also the people that the Americans are fighting against. The “other” can be similar but they have some big quality that is so foreign and/or crazy that the audience can’t relate to which makes them the other.
3. The characters in this film strongly believe that violence is the only way to solve problems. On the boat, they machine gun the “others” on the boat because one girl was moving. Kurtz in the end gets killed by getting stabbed by Willard. The only way Willard can solve his problem is by killing Kurtz which was his mission to begin with.
4. War seems dangerous, and hot in this film. Everyone yells at each other angrily and there is no glory in the war in this movie. The captain on the boat doesn’t want to continue up the river because he’s seen the terrible things that could happen to them and he ends up dying anyway.
5. Willard isn’t actually fighting in the war. He is aiming to kill a former American solider as his top secret mission. When Kurtz talks to him he questions his values. His sanity changes the farther he goes.
6. The General in the beginning says that Kurtz was insane and needs to be terminated. Kurtz asked why he was being terminated and Willard just repeated it like he memorized it. We are partially expected to take his evil nature for granted especially when we see the decapitated heads and nothing is really explained to us. When Willard talks to Kurtz he starts to sort of understand him and that’s when he starts to question his values.
Makala Kuhr
I'm analyzing Keith Gordon's "Mother Night" for this blog post. The main character's name is Howard Campbell
ReplyDelete1. Gender roles aren't dealt with very much in this movie. Resi and Helga are both prominent characters, but only in their relationship to Campbell. I suppose you could say that women are shown as more timid, but Resi is clever enough to disguise herself as Helga and fool even her sister's former husband.
2. The subject of "the Other" is a difficult one to tackle in "Mother Night." The Nazis are definitely shown to be the bad guys, but there really is no foil to the main character. Campbell is, however, seen as evil by his "normal" neighbor, and it is interesting to note that he can almost be seen as his own "other" during the time when he broadcast ideas completely opposite to his as an American spy.
3. In this film, violence and aggression are shown to be more the source of the main character's problems rather than the solution to them. There is actually very little actual combat footage in this movie, and what violence happens is shown in very negative context with extreme consequences.
4. War in "Mother Night" is presented as the cause of the main character's alienation. Campbell feels very guilty and ashamed of his actions during the war even though he was acting as a spy for America. The war is a constant struggle for him against his true self, and it causes him great personal loss and psychological trauma.
5. The film is about a man who had to put aside his own values for the sake of winning a war. We as viewers know Campbell's true values and intentions, but to the rest of the world he will always been seen as a villain and in contrast to everything American society prides itself on.
6. The Nazis are pretty much always assumed to be evil, and this movie is no exception. The main character's trauma comes form the evil that he committed while working under the Nazi party as a spy, and he can't even forgive himself for the things he did even though he was working for America the whole time. I would definitely say that we are asked to assume the evil of the Nazi Party, as this is the main part of Campbell's conflict.
Olivia Nanyes
5/6
1. Although i don't generally watch war films, i can say that after watching Apocalypse Now, men are seen as strong, fearless and tough individuals who are willing to do whatever to get the job done. Women on the other hand, are not really popular in war films and as a result, when present, they are put to the side, away from harm and danger. They don't generally fight.
ReplyDelete2. The other is presented in war films, because the film reveals isolated individuals who are often somehow disturbed. Furthermore, the soldiers are given high expectations, as they are meant to do whatever they have to, to survive, as well as accomplish their mission or overall goal. This is the point in which their tenacity and strong will kick in to help them overcome any challenges that may be faced in order to do what we (normal citizens) would consider inhumane or extreme.
3. The film does not present violence and aggression as the only way to solve problems, but to most, this is generally whats seen as the only way to solve problems. There are parts of Apocalypse Now which show a simple confrontation which results in conflict when in fact the problem could have been easily dealt with. In the end, whats done is done.
4. Apocalypse Now reveals the negative affects of war, which are basically dying or becoming insane (PTSD). The film is portrays the seriousness and severity of war which is something i appreciate.
5. The main characters are fighting to avoid the acts of modern society, as they realize that we are becoming self-destructive. As Apocalypse Now progresses however, it becomes clear that the men are also fighting for their freedom (as the jungle becomes thicker, they plunge deeper and deeper into the heart of darkness. this makes the men realize their slimming chances of returning to society and makes them oppose one another much more as they soon realize that their goals and morals, ideas and opinions of their mission are quite different as they have changed over time).
6. The movies does a decent job of showing all of the enemies in Apocalypse Now. Although not easily told (thinking is required at times haha), all of the enemies are described and revealed as the story progresses and each character slowly changes.
Raeneisha Cole
5/6
I will be using Apocalypse Now to answer the questions.
ReplyDelete1. In Apocalypse Now, the males are the definite dominant gender because both of the main characters(Kurtz and Willard) are male. Females were mostly used as tools instead of actual living things.The only scene that I can think of that portrayed a female as an important person was when Willard was with the French woman that lived with the settlers.
2. The Other person is presented by the Vietnamese and Kurtz. The Vietnamese seemed to be the starting problem but as Willard traveled down the river Kurtz seemed to become the more distinct "other." They both are a threat to Willard because both want to kill him.
3. Yes, because the whole plot of the film is that Willard needs to find Kurtz and kill him. Also for many parts of the film the scenes involving war were very raw and intense which highlighted their importance.
4. Yes, war is presented as an exciting alternative to everyday life because both of the main characters lived for it. War was all Willard and Kurtz would think about 24/7 and it became almost like an obsession.
5. Willard is fighting for a way to kill Kurtz. That is what he was assigned to do and he wanted to follow through with the order. His values are not questioned but we do see him completely change from the person we saw in the beginning till the last moment in the end.
6. The film gives us an idea about what's bad about the enemy but it leaves room for a person's interpretation. For example, we know that Kurtz is an evil person that has gone completely insane but when he says his last words,"The horror, the horror" it leaves the viewer thinking of what exactly that "horror" is.
Elizabeth Mendez pd.1/2
1. What does the film say about what it means to be a male person? A female person?
ReplyDeletethe sterotype male in in most war films are the non-emotional, strong, hero kind of guys. female in most film are reprsented as the stay at home kind of person that are just in the background suporting the guys.
2. How is "the Other" presented? Are they foils for the central characters, victims or real people?
the other i think in Apocalypse Now were the americans and the Vietnamese, not just because they are different civilizations but their customs and cultures are different. i think that they are real people because they have their rituals and things they dont really have a sterotype.
3. Does the film present violence and aggression as the only way to solve problems?
i think that this movies presnts violence adn aggression but that was not the only way the solved their problems. they also made compormise to join the Vietnamese and others
4. Is war presented as an exciting alternative to everyday life?
war is presnted as exciting but its not and an everyday life choice unless you are willing to risk your life for your country.
5. What are the main characters fighting for? Does the film question their values, or just assume an unquestioning acquiescence to everything in society?
the main characters are fightign to kill Kurtz because he is this "heart of darkness". i dont think that they question their values but they do assume that an unquestioning acquiescence to what now we think what is happening in the war.
6. Does the story really tell us what's bad about the "enemy?" Or are we expected to take their evil nature for granted?
no it doesnt tell you straight forward whats bad about the enemy but they do expected us to take his background evil nature and figure out that he was evil.
danni
5/6
1. Usually war films display the male as the protector, the provider and the one who does all the fighting, while the females give support and are expected to stay home. Like in the film Tora! Tora! Tora! the females were sub-characters, they were only the wives and girlfriends of the men and were shown in intimate scenes. They gave the men something to fight for, and something to come home to.
ReplyDelete2. In Tora! Tora! Tora! "the others" were the Japanese. They were depicted as the enemies and the aggressors. This displays the American soldiers as the heroes and the victims, which contributes the movie's appeal. Viewers always prefer to see a film about a hero and their trials. In this case the two heroes General Short and Admiral Kimmel are shown taking defensive measures against the Japanese aerial attack.
3. The film presents the solution of violence and aggression as the only way to solve problems on both sides of the attack. The Japanese launched a sneak attack at Pearl Harbor while they were supposed to be signing a peace treaty, believing it to be their only hope of annihilating the U.S. Pacific fleet, and in response by entering the war and went after them, our main goal to decimate them.
4. The display of the Japanese scheming to attack Pearl Harbor, builds suspension, leading to the climax of explosions ripping through the air, the planes and their bullets raining down, as an air of panic and the shock of it all takes over, appeals to the human nature of violence, making it very entertaining.
5. The main characters are fighting to protect themselves and their country. The film assumes an unquestioning acquiescence because they were attacked first.
6. The story tells us to take their evil nature for granted, with scenes of the Japanese commanders planning their attack on Pearl Harbor, followed by the sneak attack against us while signing a peace treaty. Scenes of men on fire, screaming for help and battleships sinking and turning over with men still on board, invoke emotions of rage and sympathy.
-Amber Mangalindan 5/6
1. The Males are seen as strong, manly men that'll do anything for their country. Females, especially in WWII movies, don't do much.
ReplyDelete2. The Others are normally the enemies. They are not represented as people like the men on our side are, but faceless drones that just kill.
3. It serves violence as a thing that can solve problems, although it does create problems like PDSD.
4. I would say so. Most pro war films especially just make you feel like you aren't doing anything important.
5. Normally it is implied. For example, we all know why people in a WWII movie are fighting.
6. They are presented as enemy's with no emotion or life beyond the battle field
((blogspot deleted my comment, so here's my repost))
ReplyDelete1.)There are no real female characters in "Apocalypse Now" except for the playboy bunnies who are treated as objects. this shows the male as the hero, and discourages any female presence in war.
2.) Kurtz, the other is a foil for Willard. He was also in the special forces and achieved far more than anyone would have thought possible. Although Kurtz is not directly attacking Willard, he is wreaking havoc in Vietnam.
3.) Violence is always the first response, from shooting the innocent people in the boat to the expected killing of Kurtz. At the end even though Willard seems to respect Kurtz, he doesn't consider negotiating with him and goes straight to killing him.
4.)At the beginning when Willard meets the members of the patrol boat he says that they hold an idealistic view of the war, but he knows that it is the "worst place in the world." As the movie goes on it becomes clear that the war is an evil, crazy place.
5.) Willard is following orders in a very typical subordinate fashion. he is doing it for the people who go to war for "the sake of their country," and doesn't question it very much. He is a bit confused as be begins to respect Kurtz, but ultimately follows his orders and kills the man.
6.) Although the movie highlights many of Kurtz's achievements, Willard is working under the assumption that Kurtz is insane. There is never a point in the story where Kurtz is shown as the good guy, he is always the tragic evil mistake.
Shannon Plunkett 1/2