Note to self

Try making my second review shorter and snappier if I can! Perhaps easier said than done but we'll see.
Henry

Francis Ford Coppola's "Apocalypse Now" considered as a reading of Joseph Conrad's "Heart of Darkness"

(NOTE: Here I'm publishing an essay that I actually wrote in Year 12. This was not a marked piece of coursework counting toward the English Literature A-Level, but was still a piece of work we were asked to complete. For this particular assignment we were discussing how and where Heart of Darkness's influence can be felt in Apocalypse Now; whilst the actual coursework involved comparing Conrad's Heart of Darkness with Laurie Lee's A Moment of War.* Never the less, this was a project that was still useful as well as interesting. Useful in that Apocalypse Now could be used as an interpretation of Heart of Darkness in the wider coursework essay; and interesting given my own fascination with literature/cinema! I'll admit I am rather proud of this essay, and having written it for school it might sound slightly more academic than anything else I might post? Anyway, I thought it would be an apt piece of work to publish as obviously it comes under my aim in starting a blog: discussing novels and films; and besides its something I've already written! I have not altered the essay at all; it is exactly as it was when I handed it in**. I hope you find it as interesting to read as I did to write!)

*I was tempted to briefly offer my thoughts on both these novels here. However, I feel it would be unfair to the authors to summarise my thoughts on their work in a single sentence; so I may come back to these books later.

**Lord knows how I got a decent mark for this essay when I repeat the word 'Ludicrous' in paragraph 4 about a hundred times! Oh well.

Film: Apocalypse Now

Director: Francis Ford Coppola

Genre: American Epic War Film

Release: August 1979

Novel: Heart of Darkness

Author: Joseph Conrad

Themes: Civilisation, Imperialism, Racism

Published: February-April 1899 (Originally published as a three-part serial in Blackwood's Magazine)

Heart of Darkness (HoD) served as the source for director Francis Ford Coppola’s 1979 American epic war film Apocalypse Now; a film set during the Vietnam War and now widely regarded as one of the greatest films ever made. Coppola used the same primary plot and themes of HoD, but shifted the story and setting from The Belgian Colony in the Congo, to The Vietnam War. As HoD is a searing indictment of colonialism, so Apocalypse Now similarly accuses the American war effort in Vietnam of hypocrisy, insanity and emptiness. 

Hypocrisy in both Conrad’s company and the American army in Vietnam is highlighted in a similar style. The army (embodied by General Corman and Colonel Lucas,who give Willard his mission) pretends to be disturbed by the fact Colonel Kurtz has broken from their command; and in a similar manner, in HoD; The Manager feigns concern over Kurtz’s health. Willard see’s right through the army’s hypocritical facade and remarks to himself that ‘charging someone for murder out here was like handing out speeding tickets’. Both the Company and the Army want their respective “Kurtzes” dead, because both Kurtzes expose their motives and methods, and this again highlights the hypocrisy of the so called civilising forces in both stories. Just how far each Kurtz is willing to go to achieve their goals terrifies the Company and the Army respectively; who do not want their real goals to be revealed and reminded of; the wealth found in ivory in HoD and expanding America’s power in Apocalypse Now; and both instead want to keep up the facade of being philanthropic and civilising ‘light bringers’. Just as Conrad’s Kurtz brings in more ivory than all the other stations combined, his Vietnam counterpart is said to have kept winning battles and becoming stronger. The growing strength of each Kurtz unnerves and threatens their superiors. Both Kurtzes are arguably the methods and motives of the Company and the Army taken to each of their logical extremes; so much so that this terrifies the Company and the Army into wanting their version of Kurtz dead.

In both tales, operating beyond the constraints of civilised society for an extended period is portrayed too lead down the path to insanity. As both Marlow, and his Apocalypse Now alter ego-Willard, make their respective journeys up respective rivers; they are both witness to acts of absurdness and insanity. Acts of absurdness and insanity, which HoD divulges to be universal in occurring whenever man attempts to conquer other peoples, and finds himself without the safeguard of civilisation and the sanity that comes with it. So not only are both colonialism and interventionism portrayed as hypocritical, but unhinged and illogical. There are several scenes from HoD which highlight this ludicrous nature of western imperialism; scenes that have also been contextualised and updated into the Vietnam War setting of Apocalypse Now. As a first example of absurdness in both tales, when Marlow first arrives in the Belgian Congo, he witness acts he sees to be pointless and wasteful. A cliff face is being detonated to apparently make room for a railway track, but as Marlow perceives it the cliff is not in the way of anything! However, the ‘objectless blasting was all the work going on’. Everything in this scene is described as being equally as wasteful and pointless-‘pieces of decaying machinery’ and an ‘undersized railway-truck lying there on it’s back with it’s wheels in the air’. Whilst neither directly linked, nor a direct mirror of this scene; similar in that is also Willard’s first experience along his journey too Kurtz, there is a sequence in Apocalypse Now where texan Lieutenant Colonel Kilgore chooses between which of two VC strongholds to attack by picking the one that has a beach with better waves for surfing.

The ensuing scene, showing soldiers attempting to surf amidst enemy fire whilst a sea-side Vietnamese village is attacked simply to clear the beach for surfing; is a world away from the scene of pointless cliff detonation in HoD in terms of action and setting; but is just as ludicrous and obscene. Both scenes paint a picture of similar absurdness. Of proceedings that seem wasteful and ludicrous in equal measure; Men wasting not only ammunition but risking their lives just to get a chance to surf; and in HoD machinery and explosives being pointlessly used to clear way for a non-existent railway line. Both men in charge of these proceedings are also portrayed as being just as inane and preposterous as the scenes themselves. The company’s chief accountant can be compared too Colonel Kilgore. Marlow distinguishes the chief accountant as a ludicrous figure, describing him as a ‘miracle’ with ‘such an unexpected elegance that in the first moment I took him for a sort of vision’. Colonel Kilgore is similarly painted as a figure of lunacy; standing bare-chest astride a beach, hardly flinching as shells detonate all around him. Whereas both these characters should stand out due to their absurdness; they in fact only seem at home amongst their equally ludicrous and farcical surroundings; further emphasising the bizarreness and wastefulness of each scene’s action. 

An example of absurd behaviour in Apocalypse Now, that is more clearly a reflection of a scene in HoD, is when Willard and his men are sat in the boat, and can hear the sounds of B-52 Bombers taking part in a strike. However, neither the characters nor the viewer see these afore mentioned bombers; we only hear them in the distance. And, according to one of Willard’s men ‘Charlie don’t even see nor hear them’. The point is that these B-52’s don’t seem to be attacking anyone; rather they seem to just be pointlessly shelling the jungle. This scene of pointlessness directly mirrors that of a scene in HoD; where a French Warship is seen by Marlow also firing into the jungle-‘shelling into the bush’. Exactly like the B-52 strike; the French Ship is perceived as pointlessly ‘firing into a continent.’ Marlow writes that somebody on board the ship assured him there was a camp of enemy natives in the jungle; but like the B-52 strike no enemy can be seen. The ship is pointlessly firing it’s cannons into the jungle and making no difference too the impenetrable jungle nor seemingly affecting an unseen enemy-‘A tiny projectile would give a little screech-and nothing happened.’ Marlow himself comments that there was a ‘touch of insanity’ in the proceeding. Both attacks against unseen enemies are made to seem pointless and unreal; absurd and insane. Doomed Attempts to attack and conquer an impenetrable, unconquerable and alien jungle, which reflects the greater nature of not only African Colonialism and The Vietnam War in particular, but western imperialism itself; or so the message of both tales wants us to think.

Coppola was convinced by Joseph Conrad’s Heart of Darkness that the book was an appropriate template in which to construct his anti Vietnam War critique. The reason for this being that, despite Coppola replacing European Colonialism with American Foreign Interventionism, these two ideals coming from two different societies still fall from the same tree. They stem from the same fundamental idea-that higher civilisations see it as their right to conquer and impose themselves and their ideals upon lesser developed peoples. This is the same whether it be Europeans attempting to control Africans in the Congo, or America seeing it as their responsibility to defend the Vietnamese from Communism and impose a democracy upon them. Thus, the message of Conrad’s book is still clear in Apocalypse Now; despite the changed setting. The message and detail in Conrad’s work is the same message of anti imperialism that Coppola also sought to tell, just in a different time and place. Coppola decided that the story of one man journeying up a river to take out another man who has gone insane due to his position of power was a suitably cinematic tale for his film to portray as well. In fact, both the story and themes of HoD were arguably never intended to belong to any particular context, time or civilisation. The text begins with Marlow, the narrator, comparing the European colonists in the Congo too the Roman civilisers arriving in Britain for the first time; underlining that there is a universal significance too the message and themes of HoD; which allows these two civilising parties too also be compared to the American’s in Vietnam. This is exactly what Apocalypse Now does. The same hypocrisy and absurdness; applicable to the civilising missions of both the Ancient Romans and the Belgian Colonists; Coppola intended to also make apparent in America’s intervention in Vietnam; the universal nature of the book’s message allowing him to do so. The film portrays the American presence during the Vietnam war to be yet another version of this hypocritical and nonsensical western imperialism.

A note on my film rating system

This is just a quick post about the manner in which I will be rating films I review on here.

Firstly, I'm going to be using a graded rating system, from:
A* (a cinematic masterpiece),
A (an excellent movie),
B (a GOOD movie),
C (Not a bad film, but a flawed one, a respectable effort),
D (a film with more than it's fair share of flaws),
E (A bad/boring movie i.e. a snoozefest/crapfest), 
F or below (A flat out terrible piece of cinematic trash).

(N.B These loose criteria I am throwing out here will not at all be definitive or objective, I'm just roughly and quickly explaining what each grade whill equate to. Besides, I think slotting complex works of art, that hundreds of people have worked tirelessly on; into such narrow, simplistic rating systems does not always do the films justice BUT I guess I should use a ratings system if I am going to be reviewing a lot of movies)

I'll try explain this next point as best I can. Secondly, I will be judging films on what they try to be; not what they clearly aren't trying to be. In other words, if a movie does not provoke much deep though but was clearly intended to simply entertain rather than provoke philosophical debate, I will judge it on these terms. For example, Jurassic World earned a high rating from me because as a film designed to entertain it achieved exactly this. Whilst perhaps not as 'great' a film as say, Citizen Kane or 2001: A Space Odyssey, Jurassic World succeeded on it's own terms, and so I couldn't criticise the movie for ambitions it never had. I see it as a somewhat pointless exercise scrutinising a dumb movie which knows it is a dumb movie! A great comedy film need not contain the same qualities as a great biopic, or a great war drama.

I realise now that everything I have just said is perhaps fairly obvious. However, I wanted to make clear at this early stage the fashion in which I shall go about discussing and rating movies.
That's all for now,
Henry

"Jurassic World" film review

(NOTE: This is my first ‘film review’ if it can be called that; and I will apologise now for it’s long length and rambling/ranting nature. I have really written what you might call an essay here, and I am sorry if it is hard to read. I know I have probably repeated myself to death, and I should probably have refined this review more but I was eager to get my blog going! Hopefully my reviews will improve with time, they say practise makes perfect! This is all my own opinion and feel free to agree or disagree on everything and anything I discuss.) 

Film: Jurassic World

Director: Colin Trevorrow

Genre: Science Fiction/Adventure

Release: June 2015

Summary: Jurassic World is a rumbling, roaring prehistoric thrill-ride, that also manages to be a smart and subversive blockbuster with a brilliant sense of humour. Kudos, Colin Trevorrow!

Grade: A

WARNING: SPOILERS FOR JURASSIC WORLD FOLLOW

Review: You could easily nitpick Jurassic World if you wanted to but that is beside the point. Exactly like the antagonist Indominus Rex being a product of genetic modification; this movie has been engineered to be pretty much critic proof. It knows it cannot surpass the original, it knows it is trapped by the restrictions of the modern blockbuster, and by this point it has become an unstoppable, merciless box office beast anyway. 

I did not expect Jurassic World to be so self-aware. I did not go into the theatre apprehending such a 'meta' approach to proceedings. Whilst perhaps not a meta movie in the same sense that films such as The Cabin in The Woods are, and certainly not a parody; the film is never the less significantly self-conscious. At the most, Jurassic World could be described a deconstruction of the modern blockbuster. At the least, it is still self-referential and knowing to a significant degree. After the film finished, I came out of the cinema unsure as to what I made of this tone. As I have said, I was not expecting it. In fact, I am not sure what I was expecting. I was certainly excited, being too young to have seen the original Jurassic Park in cinemas; this would be the first time I would see a Jurassic Park film on the big screen. The trailer had me fairly hyped, and to be honest, I think I just expected a standard pop-corn flick; entertaining and big on action with the added bonus Jurassic World gains from nostalgia.

Whilst Jurassic World is all of these things; it's critiquing of these tropes, for me, stands the movie apart from both similar summer blockbuster fare, and the numerous reboots and franchise revivals Hollywood feeds us: Robocop, Total Recall, Rise of the Planet of the Apes etc. Was this level of mockery hypocritical, I wondered? Was Jurassic World 'biting the hand that fed it' so to speak, in mocking the industry that created and funded it? Was the director trying to have his cake and eat it too? The film is hardly a quite, low budget indie flick critiquing big, noisy action packed blockbusters. Jurassic World is a big, noisy, action packed blockbuster critiquing big, noisy, action packed blockbusters. Was this arrogant?pompous? bitter? cynical? However, after sleeping on it, I began to feel admiration for this direction which the film's creators decided to take. I decided that Jurassic World's self-awareness was neither hypocritical or cynical: because it was self-deprecating.

The film acknowledges how much cinema has changed since 1993 and it acknowledges that audience demands have changed. Best of all, it openly admits and recognises that it is not as good as the original Jurassic Park. That it cannot be as good. Or rather, it knows that no matter it’s own quality, the fandom would never rank it above the original. So many ‘reboots’ arrogantly erase or replace the original/originals/better films in the franchise. Take Terminator Genisys, a movie which milks the love for Terminator and Terminator 2 for the sake of cheap laughs and beating you over the head with iconic catchphrases; before wiping those films from the franchise continuity. I am not saying that Jurassic World does not play on nostalgia. Obviously, a huge part of the movie’s appeal is the fondness many feel for the original. I’m not immune to the feelings that iconic music conjures. And I’ll admit it, it was amazing having John William’s theme rush triumphantly out of the speakers as the camera pans over a fully working dinosaur theme park. The last shot of the film sent shivers down my spine, as the Tyrannosaurus Rex was restored to it’s rightful position as king of the Jurassic Park universe.

Jurassic World honestly left me feeling struck with awe, and again this is where I can compare it to Terminator Genisys. The new Terminator to me feels very much like a soulless attempt to cash in on past glories. However, Jurassic World managed to fill me with the same sense of majesty and wonder that the first Jurassic Park did, and I’m not afraid to say it. Perhaps due to it being my first time seeing a Jurassic Park movie on the big screen; I was captivated by a film filled with moments that should easily become iconic. Scenes which I still haven't forgotten weeks later: The Indominus Rex escaping it’s paddock and the genuine sense of dread I felt during this scene, the pterosaurs storming the park, the final showdown, the moment where the Indominus ripped the roof of the garage and I shit my pants, and of course the aforementioned ending scene. It all felt pure Spielberg to me. The only reason I feel these moments will not go down in cinematic history, is both because of the shadow the original Jurassic Park casts; and the fact that many films today, using computer effects, can create breathtaking and amazing moments at a frequency that somewhat dilutes their impact. When the original Jurassic Park came out, it was utterly one of a kind- the first time such realistic creatures had been brought to life. However, for today’s audiences dinosaurs are nothing too special that can quite easily be created in a computer; and whilst Jurassic World’s dinosaurs do look amazing they are unfortunately no longer unique. 

However, the film does not allow this to work entirely in it’s disfavour, again seeing an opportunity to demonstrate it’s incredible self-awareness. Within the movie, the Park’s numbers are dwindling because the world has got used to coexisting with dinosaurs. As Bryce Dallas Howard’s character put it’s (to paraphrase): ‘Kid’s nowadays look at a stegosaurus like it’s an elephant’. There are very obvious parallels to be drawn here with cinema goers desensitised to the thrill of photo-realistic cgi creatures; and both in universe and out people have to be drawn back to Jurassic World by something ‘bigger, louder and with more teeth’: The Indominus Rex. Ultimately however, the Indominus is beaten by the same Tyrannosaur from the first film: an act that scorns shallow studio efforts to make every film bigger and badder; and also rather unsubtly agrees with the fandom. Jurassic World agrees that it is not as good as the original. It knows that despite it’s best efforts, the corporate designed, genetically engineered Indominus Rex cannot defeat the superior, more genuine, original Tyrannosaurus Rex. Or to put it another way, the Indominus is killed by a team-up of the more 'legit' dinosaurs. The original will always win, no matter how close Jurassic World comes. At one point a character complains: ‘Hammond's original park was legit! They didn’t need hybrid dinosaurs!’ It’s incredibly meta. Is he talking about the park within the film? Or the film itself? It doesn’t matter.

Jurassic World even finds time to poke fun at palaeontologists complaining about it's supposedly inaccurate portrayal of some species of dinosaur. The film has found some controversy amongst scientists claiming it fails to recognise new discoveries about the creatures; particularly the now well-established idea that a lot of dinosaurs were covered with feathers. However, at the end of the day Jurassic World is not a documentary, it is essentially a monster movie. And It is not ashamed to put it's hands in the air and admit this. The movie agrees that it's dinosaurs are inaccurate; but it in fact shifts the blame for this off of itself and onto the audience. Under accusations of deliberately making the Indominus excessively violent and aggressive, Jurassic Park Geneticist Dr Henry Wu hits back by claiming that he has only done with the Indominus what he's always been doing. 'Nothing in Jurassic World is natural!' he retorts. The audience expects dinosaurs to look big, scaly and scary. Nobody is scared of a giant chicken with claws. As Dr Wu puts it: 'we were going for cool, not realistic'. So were the directors of this film.

What Velociraptors actually looked like

The audience watching Jurassic World wants movie monsters so that's what they're given.This idea does not just explain the appeal of the I.Rex; it also accounts for all the scientific discrepancies in all the Jurassic Park films. Why would a Spinosaurus relentlessly pursue human prey far beyond the point of exhaustion? Because Jurassic Park's scientists deliberately engineered it to be much aggressive than it ever actually was. Yes, Mososaurs weren't actually that big, but Jurassic Park's scientists made it so enormous to attract a larger audience. Why don't the dinosaurs have feathers? Because they look scarier without, and cinema goers want to be scared. Jurassic World hits this point squarely on the nose, when Dr Wu adds that had the scientists not mixed the dinosaurs DNA with other animals they 'would look very different'. Once again, Jurassic World finds not just a clever, but a hilarious way to render any criticism of any aspect of itself mute. Bravo I say! I find it impressive myself! Of course, the Jurassic Park franchise’s very premise is what allows this self-critical tone to exist so successfully. Much like the film’s directors, the characters in the film are able to bring dinosaurs to life. Audiences within the film flock to a real life ‘Jurassic World’, and real life audiences flock to the film Jurassic World. The series was ripe for this kind of tone, and respect to the director for attempting it.

Jurassic World did not have to go in this direction. Without such a tongue-in-cheek manner it would still likely have made a stupendous amount of money, and have been a solid if slightly forgettable affair. All it had to was be better than JP2 and JP3, and hit all the action movie tropes. Whilst the film easily achieves this, Jurassic World strives for more; and I cannot help but consider the  deliberately self-conscious direction they did take a brilliant, daring and ballsy move from a major ‘tentpole’ movie. A risky move, that for me personally has payed off; and seemingly has payed off for fans the world over with the film having had the biggest opening weekend of all time; $500 million worldwide over a single weekend. Of course, this can largely be attributed to many factors: nostalgia for the franchise, amazing effects, solid acting etc. However I’d like to think a large part of what will hopefully be Jurassic World’s enduring success is thanks to it’s self-referential and self-deprecating character.

I accept that some might find it a bit much that Jurassic World mocks summer movie conventions before going on to indulge in them; but for me this is part of it’s appeal. I find it hilarious yet intriguing that the movie seems to even make fun of the audience itself. We both know what Jurassic World is, and we both know what we expect of it. Jurassic World does not fail to wink at us and laugh at itself before ticking off every cliche in the book. A blockbuster with a real sense of humour. During the finale a character even outruns a Tyrannosaurus Rex in high heels and I can’t help but see a degree of self-mockery in scenes such as this. None of it is taken seriously. Jurassic World is in on the joke of how ridiculous and absurd all this is. It knows it is a film; a work of fiction. Chris Pratt's character laughs at the supposedly scary name the scientists have come up with for their hybrid. Indominus Rex? 'Sounds stupid!' he smirks. Furthermore, he immediately points out that 'making a new dinosaur' can only end one way: badly. Of course the Indominus will inevitably escape, or else we’d have a pretty boring film. The hybrid dino is literally the catalyst of the film. Every character's seemingly stupid decision, and every miraculous turn of events (i.e. Some kids being able to start up a jeep that has not been driven in 20 years), is there specifically to drive the plot forwards. The thing is, Jurassic World is not ashamed of it's ludicrousness; in fact it practically revels in it (Although it is never quite as dumb as some moments in JP3!). Unbelievable things need to happen to set the film's events in motion or else it simply won't be entertaining. Both the audience and the studio know this, so why bother hiding it? We are here to be entertained after all.

This level of awareness ultimately mutes most of my grumbles with the plot. Sure, the whole sub-plot of Dinosaurs being used as weapons struck me as dumb, and some of the characters and dialogue was a bit silly and embarrassing. The whole affair is contrived as hell. But, whilst some film’s wholly ignore their plot holes and stupider ideas: Jurassic World knows when it is being cliched, and not so much apologises for it as mocks itself for it. Better a film do this than outright ignore how silly it is. Besides, I just can’t help but love a movie that derides blockbusters and modern cinema, before going on to tear every record in the book to shreds, and storm it’s way into the list of highest grossing movies. Jurassic World  knows how to play the game, showing itself as an expert in what it critiques. It mocks the rest of Hollywood for what it does, and quite frankly embarrasses other efforts by demonstrating how easily the blockbuster formula can be used to enormous success. Jurassic World works because it is truly aware and deconstructive of what a 21st century blockbuster needs to be. 

To conclude, I am aware I haven't talked in any great depth about the actual plot or the characters in the film. However, in this aspect I seem to agree with Jurassic World ’s creators that these elements are perfunctory to the movie’s success. I went to this movie to see dinosaur carnage, to be thrilled and scared, and to feel nostalgia and wonder; and Jurassic World did not dissapoint in any of these regards. That the movie is topped with a healthy dose of awareness and self-mockery is the icing on the cake; and enough for me to overlook it’s few flaws. This is the main idea I have tried to get across, more so than attempting a standard film review, and I hope I have been successful. Whilst the response of many will likely be something along the lines of ‘It was better than the other sequels but not as good as the original’; Jurassic World already predicted and fine-tuned itself for such a response. If this had been the first Jurassic Park film, released in 1993 or today, it would likely be just as influential and game changing as Steven Spielberg’s Jurassic Park was, and be thought of just as fondly. However, the movie does not get down on it’s unlucky timing. Instead Jurassic World turns the fact that it is not the first of it’s kind to it’s advantage; delivering a movie that is both a rumbling and roaring prehistoric thrill-ride whilst at the same time a smart and subversive blockbuster with a brilliant sense of humour! Kudos, Colin Trevorrow!

Hello World!

What's good Blogger? My name's Henry Fernandez, I'm 17 years old, half Spanish half English, live in Ilkley (near Leeds) and this is my first blog post! I'm studying English Literature A-Level at Ermysted's Grammar School in Skipton, and it's a subject I'm considering studying at university level; hence the blog. I thought starting a blog would be a good little project for over the Summer holidays (and to talk about on my personal statement) and what I'll be doing on here is offering my thoughts on various books and films. Books I'm reading as part of the Eng Lit A-Level, books I'm reading/have read at home, and hopefully looking at a few films as well (given my passion for cinema)! I'm not sure how regularly I'll use this due to coursework/holidaying etc. but I'll aim to get something written perhaps every week or fortnight? We'll see how it goes! In addition, I'm not sure how good the content I post here will be initially, and I'll say now it will likely be very rambling! However, this is my first try at writing reviews etc. so yeah hopefully they'll only get better and I'll see how it goes! If anybody is reading this I'd really appreciate it if you had even a quick look at whatever I've posted, and if you have the time please share with me with your own opinions/give me some feedback, whatever! I think that's everything for now, so I'll see you hopefully with something to post pretty soon!
Peace out,
Henry