Apocalypse Now (Francis Ford Coppola, 1979)

Discussions of specific films and franchises.
Message
Author
User avatar
HerrSchreck
Joined: Sun Sep 04, 2005 11:46 am

#26 Post by HerrSchreck » Fri Oct 26, 2007 4:51 pm

Sorry sausage (I never would have thought I'd join those two words together prior to the summer of 05 via joining this board), I forgot to address the issue you raised.

To be honest, I really do prefer the old cut vis a vis Kilgore. The same way that we view so much of the war, and all the happenings in the flick, thru Williards eyes, so too should we meet Kilgore the same way.. and since Williard comes into the beach assault smack bang in the middle with no setup whatsoever, so too do I see it as perfectly appropriate that we encounter the man responsible for the assault with the same randomness, abruptness, and matter-of-factness. We're not properly introduced to the assault, we don't expect to be greeted by all that onscreen hell, and BAM-- there it is. I think it creates an authenticity by removing the "more proper means of introduction". We're plopped into the middle of chaos and senseless bloody murder-- then OH YEAH there's the guy in charge. SO much of the film is about disorganization and chaos, and senselessness, the lack of a known purpose, hypocracy (and tons of american money and style). So I think the fractured nature of our first view of Kilgore is entirely appropriate.

I also think the whole stolen surfboard thing, with Kilgore flying overhead on the bullhorn "Come on Captain, I wont get mad, just give the surfboard back" etc, just rampant silliness. It stilts Williards detachedness from the unfoldings, gives him a grabassing sense of humor just like Kilgore and the crew of his pby, and in some sense disqualifies him from spectator status. Throughout the film he is our eyeballs, he registers for us-- America and the world-- the lunacy of everything going on. He has a not quite Melvillian remoteness-- we know he's fucked in the head, we know he suffers from the furies, but we're left out of the backstory for the most part. He spends the bulk of the film gazing off to the side while digesting, gulping in muted disbelief, nodding in tamped astonishment, widening his eyes in stunned disgust, etc. I found the whole surfboard vamping affair wildly off key, particularly since he spends so much of the boat ride upriver patently apart from the vamping antics of the crew. His strength and fighters discipline, we are led to believe, do not permit such displays, at least in public. Not to mention the stone cold seriousness of the man.. furchrissakes he wont even participate in FUCKIN PLAYBOY PLAYMATES! Thus the surfboard game is a huge gaffe to my mind, a howler really that absolutely deserved to be edited out for the theatrical cut, and further evidence of the majestic instinct of the younger Cop and weakness of the elder.

User avatar
Mr Sausage
Not PETA approved
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 9:02 pm
Location: Canada

#27 Post by Mr Sausage » Fri Oct 26, 2007 6:55 pm

Ishmael wrote:
Mr_sausage wrote:You seem unaware of the ridiculousness of this line argument.
What is the purpose of this hostility? In two out of three of my posts here, I've said "I think" or "I prefer." Let me make this clearer: I'm not trying to establish some absolute and final judgment on what the best way is to introduce a particular character. I'm just doing what you were doing: stating a personal preference on an Internet message board. Is there some personal issue here for you? Are you Francis Coppola or Walter Murch?
It's not hostility, it was me pointing out that I found that line of argument ridiculous. I do not have to be angry or hostile to find something ridiculous.

Which brings me to the next point: why would you think this is about you? None of this is about what you do and do not like, it is about your reasoning behind your argument. There is no personal issue, nor does there need to be for one person to pull apart the argument of another and show its defects. If my own arguments came on strongly, that is because the tone I adopt when arguing tends toward the forceful. Old habit, and one I'm not likely to change. But the point here is that how my words sound is in no way determined by my actual mood.
Ishmael wrote:
Mr_sausage wrote:Namely, you wish me to believe that the Kilgore of the helicopter entrance and the Kilgore of a few minutes later are different people (Schwarzengger vs., I don't know, Steve McQueen?) doing remarkably different things.
I'm not talking about the character, I'm talking about how the character is introduced. Obviously the character is the same in both cuts. I just think the original film's introduction is more subtle and less cliched: it's like he's a human being rather than a professional wrestler. He may behave the same way later, but what Coppola is telling me to think about him in each introduction is different. Essentially, I'm not being force fed the idea that he's a macho stereotype in the original introduction. I may decide that on my own later--and you may argue that that's what he is regardless of how he's introduced--but I find that little bit of ambiguity to be a better directorial choice. Or, look at it this way: if Coppola had introduced him in the heroic pose (like John Wayne's intro in Stagecoach) but then later showed him to be anti-heroic, then there would be some irony--and therefore, complexity--in introducing him as a superhero. But if he's just going to be introduced as Mr. Macho, then he goes on to behave as Mr. Macho... well, what have I learned except that I've seen Coppola repeat a shot I've seen a thousand times elsewhere without adding any new emphasis to it?
The point is that you were treating Kilgore, in your little analogy, as tho' he were two different characters with two different manners. This made no sense, especially because he neither walks in with a gun in Redux nor stands around looking cool in the theatrical cut.

Your complaint is also moot, because the idea that you're "not being force fed the idea that he's a macho stereotype in the original introduction" has no aesthetic basis. Yes, you are. There's no ambiguity about his character (hell, the beach-front scene alone and what Willard surmises about Kilgore because of it tells you everything already before you meet him); Coppola gives you his bravado from the moment he opens his mouth. The difference is, with Redux, as I argue, you get the bravado in a real character introduction, not just pick it up mid-scene as a workable introduction.
HerrSchreck wrote:To be honest, I really do prefer the old cut vis a vis Kilgore. The same way that we view so much of the war, and all the happenings in the flick, thru Williards eyes, so too should we meet Kilgore the same way.. and since Williard comes into the beach assault smack bang in the middle with no setup whatsoever, so too do I see it as perfectly appropriate that we encounter the man responsible for the assault with the same randomness, abruptness, and matter-of-factness. We're not properly introduced to the assault, we don't expect to be greeted by all that onscreen hell, and BAM-- there it is. I think it creates an authenticity by removing the "more proper means of introduction". We're plopped into the middle of chaos and senseless bloody murder-- then OH YEAH there's the guy in charge. SO much of the film is about disorganization and chaos, and senselessness, the lack of a known purpose, hypocracy (and tons of american money and style). So I think the fractured nature of our first view of Kilgore is entirely appropriate.
That's a good answer. Although I think you can make an equally convincing case using Kilgore's character as a basis. So much of what Kilgore does is theatrical in the old heroic "John Wayne" sense. So his coming off the copter that way reinforces from the start this incongruous attitude. The irony then comes from the contrast between this American sense that things can and should be put into order with good old fashioned heroism, with the clear sense that such ideals are a delusion next to the real nature of the conflict.

I also think the "order" implied by Kilgore's command, however ironic and qualified, is useful at the start as a contrast to the even further break-down of sense and order and even logic as Willard goes farther up the river. So the insanity of Kilgore's over-command stands antithetically to the insanity of no-command at bridge at Do Lung. Perhaps this implied structure will stand in sharp contrast to what you see as a deliberate attempt by the movie to be, and not merely represent, chaos. Fair enough. Nevertheless, I like the idea that what Kilgore represents actually comes to seem sane next to what happens in the latter half of the movie.

Lou Ming
Joined: Mon Oct 22, 2007 8:56 pm
Location: Brooklyn, NY
Contact:

#28 Post by Lou Ming » Sun Oct 28, 2007 11:52 pm

Well, I have to put my first post somewhere on this sprawling land of obsession (I almost posted to the "rights vs fair use" MoC thread. But then I saw how it ended).

With regard to the original vs. the re-do, I can't say that Redux does more than satisfy the curiosity of those who'd always wanted to see the french plantation scene in context. And actually, the film has been reworked more than once. When I first saw the film , it ended with the strike being called in and the compound being Napalmed. When I saw it later on cable the boat just leaves. Pretty significant change.

I've always felt that a film is done when released, barring last minute studio tampering. If the director wants to revisit and recut his own work in a major fashion, that's his right. But it's no longer the same film, especially years and years after the fact.

I have the Dossier set. I got it so I could have both versions (and I agree with those who think not including the "Heart of Darkness" was possibly cynical, probably greed-driven, and just plain wrong, no matter what the reason.

Relatedly, I'd like to recommend The Conversations: Walter Murch and the Art of Editing Film, in which film editor Walter Murch discusses the edit, and re-edit of Apocalypse, among other great films.

p.s. The stolen surfboard scene was, for my money, totally meaningless, a complete distraction from the flow of the film, and pretty nonsensical as well.

User avatar
Joe Buck
Joined: Mon Dec 05, 2005 6:59 pm
Location: New York

#29 Post by Joe Buck » Thu Nov 01, 2007 3:10 pm

I find Redux an interesting curio, but I think Coppola's original instincts were correct at the time. It was cool to revisit the film and see it from a different angle, but there is not replacement for the original. When I put the disc in and am given a choice, I hesitate for a moment, but then choose the original, every time. I don't care for the plantation sequence nor the Playmates in the chopper sequence. These guys were not cool enough to get a bunch of hotties to engage with them alone in a helicopter during a typhoon. It didn't seem to fit with the film.

I'd be interesting in talking about the contrasts between the original Outsiders and the Outsiders- The Complete Novel.

User avatar
godardslave
Happy-Fun Sunshine Minion of Intolerance
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 4:44 pm
Location: Confusing and open ended = high art.

#30 Post by godardslave » Thu Nov 01, 2007 4:17 pm

i think the workprint is the best version of Apocalypse Now. Unfortunately, the bootleg dvd i saw has appalling picture and sound.

Romat
Joined: Thu Oct 11, 2007 4:50 pm
Location: Cambridge, MA

#31 Post by Romat » Mon Nov 05, 2007 7:23 pm

godardslave wrote:i think the workprint is the best version of Apocalypse Now. Unfortunately, the bootleg dvd i saw has appalling picture and sound.
Is the workprint the 5 hour plus cut?
Was the narration on it?

User avatar
HerrSchreck
Joined: Sun Sep 04, 2005 11:46 am

#32 Post by HerrSchreck » Tue Nov 06, 2007 2:24 am

Here's a trailer for the workprint.

So immature. But when captain Williard is doing in zen/judo/relaxation moves early in the trailer, I confessed I laughed a dot of saliva onto my own knuckles, it was so unexpected.

User avatar
godardslave
Happy-Fun Sunshine Minion of Intolerance
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 4:44 pm
Location: Confusing and open ended = high art.

#33 Post by godardslave » Tue Nov 06, 2007 3:14 am

Romat wrote:
godardslave wrote:i think the workprint is the best version of Apocalypse Now. Unfortunately, the bootleg dvd i saw has appalling picture and sound.
Is the workprint the 5 hour plus cut?
Was the narration on it?
Yes the workprint version is approximately 5 hours or so i believe.
Among other highlights its opens with a full 10 minute version of the Doors "the end". Also the kurtz compound scenes at the end are much longer and feature much more Brando.

User avatar
tryavna
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 4:38 pm
Location: North Carolina

#34 Post by tryavna » Tue Nov 06, 2007 11:48 am

godardslave wrote:Also the kurtz compund scenes at the end are much longer and feature much more Brando.
I hope it included Brando's mind-blowing line about swallowing a bug.

Once you've heard it, you'll never think about swallowing insects the same way again.

rlendog
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 6:30 pm

#35 Post by rlendog » Thu Nov 08, 2007 4:55 pm

Mr_sausage wrote:
HerrSchreck wrote:every single piece that the elder Coppola put back into the film in REDUX, I looked at those in HOD back when it came out and absolutely 100% thought removing them was the right decision.
Including the new Kilgore introduction? I agree that the rest of the additions are superfluous, but Kilgore's appearance is much improved. In the original film a soldier points him out and Sheen and co. merely walk over and find him standing there. In Redux, however, he comes off a chopper and with bravado immediately begins hollering orders. It's a great introduction to a memorable character, and it makes the original version of this seem limp by comparison. I can only account for the excised introduction as an issue of running time.
I agree. Most of the restored material seems superfluous to me - but it is almost worth it to get the extended Kilgore scenes. As far as I am concerned the ideal cut of Apocalypse Now would be the orginal except with the Kilgore section taken from Redux.

User avatar
aox
Joined: Fri Jun 20, 2008 12:02 pm
Location: nYc

Re: Apocalypse Now (Coppola, 1979)

#36 Post by aox » Wed Feb 11, 2009 9:50 am

As per the Godfather, will this film also see a "Coppola Restoration" for Blu-Ray? or was this pretty much restored to pristine condition with the release of Redux in 2001 and the Complete Dossier DVD a few years ago?

This is my most anticipated film for hi-def (of any film; not just Coppola's). I simply cannot wait to see it.

User avatar
dad1153
Joined: Thu Apr 16, 2009 10:32 am
Location: New York, NY

Re: Apocalypse Now (Coppola, 1979)

#37 Post by dad1153 » Wed Dec 08, 2010 5:36 pm

During the Thanksgiving holiday I (gently) co-erced my folks to watch a movie a day on their 52" Samsung LCD. Click HERE for details, but all you need to know is that they're not cinephiles but their TV/Blu-ray/surround sound set-up (which they never use) is cool.

For "Apocalypse Now" (theatrical cut, Blu-ray version) I forced my dad and his wife to sit in a slightly-uncomfortable bench directly in front of the TV because the comfty couches in the back of the room would have definitely put them to sleep early (and once you fall asleep watching "AN" there's no getting you back in the story). I didn't even tell them what kind of movie it was or even the name. Overall they liked it but my stepmom almost bailed out during the wounded soldier in the helicopter/village attack scene and when the cow gets you-know-what toward the end (what kind of movie is this? she said with her hands covering her face). They were riveted though (I could tell since half the time I was looking at them) and even started yelling 'when is this Kurtz guy gonna show up?' an hour before he did. My father said outloud 'holy s***, that's Marlon Brando' when Kurtz finally emerged from the shadows; he didn't recognize him from the voice or the earlier pics of young Brando-as-Kurtz that Martin Sheen was looking at on the boat. And even though they had no idea who he was my folks were both riveted by Hopper's drugged-up dude. Afterwards they were making noises about whether Willard or Chef called the air strike on Kurtz' compound (yep, that was their main beef with the movie's narrative) so I showed them the YouTube video of the theatrical credits on my laptop. Only when they saw the title in the YouTube video's credits did they know the name of the movie they had just watched. :)

User avatar
Roger Ryan
Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2010 12:04 pm
Location: A Midland town spread and darkened into a city

Re: Apocalypse Now (Coppola, 1979)

#38 Post by Roger Ryan » Wed Dec 08, 2010 5:58 pm

I know your parents aren't cinephiles, but it still blows me away that they recognize Diane Keaton, Robert Mitchum and Marlon Brando and yet have never heard of films like ANNIE HALL and APOCALYPSE NOW. It would be easier to understand if they had no idea who the actors were. Specifically to AN, I'm not sure I would have recognized Brando if I only knew him from ON THE WATERFRONT or THE GODFATHER.

I guess what I'm saying is that you're in a unique situation in being able to expose your parents to all these great films.

User avatar
dad1153
Joined: Thu Apr 16, 2009 10:32 am
Location: New York, NY

Re: Apocalypse Now (Coppola, 1979)

#39 Post by dad1153 » Wed Dec 08, 2010 6:13 pm

^^^ Plus they've spoiled me, so I take advantage of that by forcing them to do/watch stuff they normally wouldn't try. I actually had to trade-off to get them to watch the movies by walking alongside them as they walked their dogs five miles, playing ping-pong in the garage, etc. No pain, no cinematic gain! :wink:

User avatar
tenia
Ask Me About My Bassoon
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 11:13 am

Re: Apocalypse Now (Coppola, 1979)

#40 Post by tenia » Thu Dec 09, 2010 1:49 am

They made me a bit think of my parents, except that mine usually end up saying the movie was godawful.
But still, we watched the first half of the Leopard yesterday, and it was like "Hey, but that's Reggianni ! Hey, but that's Terrence Hill ! Hey ..."
Last time, it was with Godard's Comtempt. "Hey, but that's this old German director who made Metropolis !"

The only problem, as I said, is that they usually don't like any movie I show them (even a good old Modern Times).

User avatar
dad1153
Joined: Thu Apr 16, 2009 10:32 am
Location: New York, NY

Re: Apocalypse Now (Coppola, 1979)

#41 Post by dad1153 » Thu Dec 09, 2010 11:17 am

That's why I don't plan ahead what movies I'll show my parents when I visit. I let their mood, the time of the day (who wants to see "Apocalypse Now" in a bright sunny room?) and the general vibe dictate what to watch. I would like to introduce my parents to Godard, but "Contempt"? That one took me two or three viewing before I warmed-up to it, let alone like it (which I do now), but maybe your folks are more receptive to that kind of movie. Personally I'd first show my folks "Bonnie & Clyde" or some well-known 'lovers on the run' movie, then "Pierrot le fou" so they can associate Godard's de-construction of the genre with a prime example of that genre ("B&C") fresh in their minds. Then, and only them, I might think of showing them "Band of Outsiders" or "Vivre Sa Vie" (the latter after I find time to show them "Joan of Arc" first) so they can begin to appreciate Godard, after which (if they asked for more) I'd then unleash "Contempt" on their lives.

I had 30+ movies with me when I visited my folks (among them: "The Usual Suspects," "Sansho the Bailiff," "Goodfellas," "The Iron Giant," "Atonement," "Paths of Glory," Ozu's "The Only Son," "Tin Cup," "Suspiria," "North by Northwest," "The Third Man," "Back to School," etc.) and, of the eight that we ended up watching, two ("Annie Hall" and "Mon Oncle") were last-minute movies I picked out from their local library because they would be easier for them to watch than any of the discs I brought. You gotta read your folks, accept them as different people than you and not try to force a movie they're not in the mood for on their lives. You're doing a disservice to them and to the filmmaker/movie itself, poisoning their potential appreciation of a great work of art because (a) it wasn't the right moment and/or (b) it just wasn't meant for them to see/like it.

User avatar
tenia
Ask Me About My Bassoon
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 11:13 am

Re: Apocalypse Now (Coppola, 1979)

#42 Post by tenia » Thu Dec 09, 2010 1:18 pm

dad1153 wrote:You're doing a disservice to them and to the filmmaker/movie itself, poisoning their potential appreciation of a great work of art because (a) it wasn't the right moment and/or (b) it just wasn't meant for them to see/like it.
I always let them choose between, let say, aout 8 movies or so, which I usually sum up a bit for them so they know which type of movie it is. Last time, it was between Kick Ass, Funny People, The Exorcist, Il Generale Della Rovere, The Third Man, Where The Wild Things Are, and Enter The Void.

My father was intrigued by the technoid inspiration coming from Enter The Void, so we started with that, but he couldn't bear it more than 30 min, so we switched to the more peaceful Funny People, which he actually liked.

I don't come and say "Tonight, it's The Leopard". I did it back in the times, when I was younger. As you said, it's not a good idea.

But, well, you don't know how difficult my parents can be with movies : only dubbed movies, not too old, no B&W, my mother seems to dislike any French actor/actress, and of course, no Asian movies.

So, you know, ...

Moreover, they're always is the same mood : tired and sleepy. But still, "Tonight, find us a movie."

Oh, well...

User avatar
barryconvex
Joined: Fri Aug 24, 2012 10:08 pm
Location: NYC

Re: Apocalypse Now (Coppola, 1979)

#43 Post by barryconvex » Mon Mar 10, 2014 12:01 am

does anyone know why Harvey Keitel was fired from AN? i mean the real reason...i rewatched hearts of darkness about a year ago and i recall coppola saying something along the lines of it "just not working out..."...but you don't hire and then fire an actor of keitel's stature after a few days of shooting just because you can't see eye to eye. i know there's alot more to it but i don't know if anything was ever made public. anybody have any idea?

User avatar
Cold Bishop
Joined: Tue May 30, 2006 9:45 pm
Location: Portland, OR

Re: Apocalypse Now (Coppola, 1979)

#44 Post by Cold Bishop » Mon Mar 10, 2014 12:19 am

I believe it: Coppola's always sounded genuinely apologetic about the effect that must have had on Keitel and his career. And while Keitel doesn't do too many interviews, I distinctly remember him once stating that, in retrospect, they weren't on the same frequency. Lets not forget the script was constantly being reworked from Milius's more gung-ho film. In fact, that's what I've always heard: Keitel was simply too assertive and forceful where as Coppola began going for something more passive and alienated.

And I'm not sure Keitel was that big of an actor at the time. Respected? Sure, but it always seemed that AN was meant to be his ticket to stardom, which is why the fallout of being fired was so painful. He really didn't get his due until the early '90s.

User avatar
bdsweeney
Joined: Mon Apr 07, 2008 7:09 pm

Re: Apocalypse Now (Coppola, 1979)

#45 Post by bdsweeney » Mon Mar 10, 2014 12:28 am

dad1153 wrote:You gotta read your folks, accept them as different people than you and not try to force a movie they're not in the mood for on their lives. You're doing a disservice to them and to the filmmaker/movie itself, poisoning their potential appreciation of a great work of art because (a) it wasn't the right moment and/or (b) it just wasn't meant for them to see/like it.
Sorry, not the point of the thread, I know.

But you're completely right.

Which is why I was so gutted when I lent A Matter of Life and Death to my parents and their response was along the lines that it was too twee for them.

I thought it was perfect for them:
* they're both in their 70s with my mum having been a wartime child (just outside of London, with the bombers overhead when she was born)
* they both thoroughly enjoyed (or at least they seemed to) the two Humphrey Jennings' shorts I showed them (Words for Battle and Listen to Britain -- the latter of which I particular adore)
* Mum has fond memories of both The Red Shoes and Black Narcissus
* and, quite simply, it's riveting from the word 'go' and one of the best examples of sustained romantic fantasy I've ever encountered.

Meanwhile, when I showed it to my wife (in her early 30s), she thought it was wonderful and had just about the best opening scene she'd ever encountered.

My parents didn't even watch it to the end. Instead, they watched repeats of an André Rieu concert.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EJqiV55JnX0

Are these people even my parents? :shock: Yes ... very much so. :wink:

User avatar
dad1153
Joined: Thu Apr 16, 2009 10:32 am
Location: New York, NY

Re: Apocalypse Now (Coppola, 1979)

#46 Post by dad1153 » Mon Mar 10, 2014 1:22 am

^^^ Thanks. The 'forcing my parents to watch' saga has gone on through the years since that article. Some years were bad (Romero's "Dawn of the Dead" and "Dr. Strangelove" turned them off so badly they either outright walked out or fell asleep watching on purpose to try and not see them), others were better (they really liked "Broadcast News" and "Psycho"). The only filmmaker that they've completely been won over and truly like (not enough to seek his movies on their own though) is Woody Allen. Between "Crimes and Misdemeanors" and "Manhattan Murder Mystery" (which I sold to them as an unofficial sequel to "Annie Hall," a 'what if' alternate timeline in which the couple remained together instead of breaking up) they really like the Woody Allen sense of humor, vibe and overall movie world he creates.

Last November I visited them at their new home and they had just bought an 80" Vizio... WOW! :) We watched:

Pina 3D (Blu-ray): First film out of the gate to test the set's 3D glasses/capabilities. They kind-of hated it but they and the friendly neighbors were impressed by the outdoor 3D scenes.

Tin Cup (DVD): A complete bust. They barely laughed, didn't understand golf (even though they live in golf country, aka Arizona) and couldn't wait for it to end.

Psycho II (DVD): Following on the goodwill generated by "Psycho" the year before I took a leap of faith. They liked it but admitted afterwards they didn't take it seriously and were enjoying it as a comedy of sorts up until the ending, and that kind-of blew them away.

Harold and Maude (Blu-ray): Neither of us had seen it, and we all kind-of loved it. They couldn't stop singing Cat Stevens' catchy theme song for days. :)

Good Night and Good Luck (HD-DVD): My father liked it since he's into politics, his wife fell asleep. I loved that they both, on their own, remarked that Joe McCarthy looks an awful lot like Texas Senator Ted Cruz. :)

The Skin I Live In (Blu-ray): Dad's wife hated, hated, hated the movie, but at least she sat through the whole thing fuming as it went along. Dad didn't love but, growing up in a Latin country, he understood where the over-the-top melodrama Almadovar traffics on comes from and enjoyed it on those soap operatic terms.

Manhattan (Blu-ray): They fucking loved it, as they do any Allen movie I show them now. Since they're so enamored of the sweet and innocent Diane Keaton persona her character in this one really surprised them. Once I run of Allen classics or ones with Keaton (I still haven't shown them one with Mia Farrow) the true test of the man's appeal will come.

Blue Jasmine (theater): Took dad, his wife and four friends of theirs to see it in the only independent theater in Phoenix (FilmBar), except I didn't tell any of them what the film was or who was in it. After the film ended dad turns to me and asks 'So, how many years ago did he make this movie?' :p They all said they loved it. This past Monday Dad and his wife called me, all excited that Cate Blanchett had won the Oscar because they were totally rooting for her.

Young Adult (Amazon Prime streaming): As big Patton Oswalt fans (mostly from his work on "King of Queens") they liked it, and were suitably impressed with where the movie went with the Charlize Theron character. It was also testing the 80' set's smart features and Amazon app, which it failed as the movie kept breaking-up for loading breaks; had to attach my laptop to watch the last 30 min.

In conclusion, to tie it with the movie in the title of this thread (I know it's been a big detour), I'm going back for a visit my folks a week from Tuesday and I'm choosing now which batch of films we're going to watch. And, though it might tax them too much, I'm really thinking of pushing "The Godfather Trilogy" hard on them. Mostly because they're great classics they haven't seen and because, as big Diane Keaton fans, she could be the through line in all three films (I really like Keaton and Pacino's scenes in "III," especially when they're in Italy and Michael shows him the old Italian town his father grew up) that could keep them hooked from start to finish. Plus, since they're not cinephiles, they haven't been poisoned by the "Godfather III" is crap' mentality and might actually enjoy it as a worthy conclusion to the trilogy with characters that end up close to their current age.

Plus... fuck, man! "The Godfather I & II" on a freaking 80" HDTV in Blu-ray! :)

User avatar
Roger Ryan
Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2010 12:04 pm
Location: A Midland town spread and darkened into a city

Re: Apocalypse Now (Coppola, 1979)

#47 Post by Roger Ryan » Mon Mar 10, 2014 7:53 am

barryconvex wrote:does anyone know why Harvey Keitel was fired from AN?...
This was on my mind when watching Scorsese's WHO'S THAT KNOCKING ON MY DOOR? recently. Had Keitel stayed on APOCALYPSE NOW, would we have two films with the actor lying in bed while The Doors' "The End" played on the soundtrack?

User avatar
feihong
Joined: Thu Nov 04, 2004 12:20 pm

Re: Apocalypse Now (Coppola, 1979)

#48 Post by feihong » Mon Mar 10, 2014 3:40 pm

My impression from what Coppola has said is that the footage they shot with Keitel didn't seem to be working the way they wanted it to. Keitel at that time was really an interesting actor, so I can see why they wanted him, but I wonder if he was somewhat less convincing as a sleek, spacy soldier than they needed him to be. It was hard to avoid Keitel's hyper-alertness in that time. He was an actor who seemed to notice everything that was going on around him. Whereas Sheen seems as if he's staring into a dream. My guess is that was closer to the "psychadelic soldier" that Coppola was going for.

User avatar
barryconvex
Joined: Fri Aug 24, 2012 10:08 pm
Location: NYC

Re: Apocalypse Now (Coppola, 1979)

#49 Post by barryconvex » Tue Mar 11, 2014 12:05 am

yeah, no doubt it would've been a different animal with Keitel in the lead role. and i can se why coppola would've wanted to make that change...i just thought there was more to it than that...that might make a good thread topic though: recast leading roles...

User avatar
aox
Joined: Fri Jun 20, 2008 12:02 pm
Location: nYc

Re: Apocalypse Now (Coppola, 1979)

#50 Post by aox » Sun Nov 04, 2018 8:55 pm

Was Apocalypse Now Redux eligible for any Oscar nominations upon its release? I know it is a special circumstance given the original was released in 1979 and was nominated for numerous categories, but how did the Academy approach this rule-wise? I realize it wasn't nominated for anything in 2002.

Post Reply