ambiguous end to "Apocalypse Now"

I recently watched the "Hearts of Darkness : A Filmmaker's Apocalypse" documentary that was compiled from footage shot by Eleanor Coppola during the making of "Apocalypse Now".

One thing that surprised me during the documentary was that Francis Ford Coppola didn't have a clear idea how he wanted his movie to end... constantly trying to write, and re-write a conclusion that made sense.

Maybe that's normal for Hollywood, with nothing considered "final" up until the premiere... but in this case, it seemed extra odd because the ending of the film didn't remain constant after it was released.

I'm specifically talking about early prints of the film... I believe the 70 MM prints that were screened in late summer of 1979 ended quietly, with a simple shot of Martin Sheen's face - after he left the compound. No final credits. The movie just suddenly ends....

The 35 mm prints that were seen by a much larger set of people (when the film was distributed nationally later in the year), ended with film footage of explosions... with film credits layered on top. I believe this is what I saw in the theater in December of 1979.

What's odd is Francis Ford Coppola then REMOVED the film footage with the explosions...

I'm not sure if this was done for a theatrical exhibition, or if the removal happened when the movie was converted to a video format in the early 80s.

My guess is that the explosions were removed when the movie was prepared for release on video...

I think the credits stayed, but they rolled over a dark background.

Coppola's official explanation is that he didn't INTEND for the footage of explosions to be interpreted as extra destruction by the US military (i.e., Sheen called in an air-strike and the entire compound was destroyed).

But I really don't know why or how he could have expected anyone watching the film to think otherwise (?)

Coppola has since since said... "Oh... I had some interesting footage, and I just wanted to use it..." but that explanation rings hollow. This wasn't like a "blooper real"... it seemed pretty darn clear (to me in the theater) that the entire sorry mess was being destroyed... even if that destruction would probably be considered a war crime.

What's odd watching the later video releases - with the explosion footage missing - is that there are STILL references to an air strike... one, when Sheen tells Chef something like "If I don't come back, it's your job to call in the air-strike... here's the code..." two, when we hear the radio trying to contact "PBR street gang" (to no avail, because Kurtz had eliminated Chef).

I just don't buy the idea that Sheen just wandered off quietly... it was his job to eliminate Kurtz and any evidence of embarrassing / criminal behavior by Kurtz... simply killing him wouldn't be enough.

In my mind, that's what "extreme prejudice" meant.

I can accept that maybe Coppola changed his mind about SHOWING the destruction that would follow an air raid strike to the Kurtz compound... but either way - I think Sheen eventually called in the air-strike... probably after he was a good distance from the location.

It wouldn't make sense to call it in EARLY... because Sheen had to make sure Kurtz didn't avoid his fate and emerge somewhere else.


I wonder if Coppola was pressured to take the footage out...

The conspiracy theorist in me can imagine an awkward conversation with the US government where Francis is strongly urged to modify the film... but that seems too odd, because the feds could always choose to say that the film was a work of fiction (even if hit an exposed nerve)...

I suspect maybe the bean counters were scared that the ending needed to be less dour and suggested the footage be removed for video....

Or maybe the simplest explanation is the most likely: Francis couldn't make up his mind.


And since he apparently felt the movie was HIS personal hell... it doesn't seem at all odd, that he destroyed the compound (in reality) using explosives... when it would have been probably easier to just dismantle the set in some less demonstrative way.

 

Your own definition of 'extreme prejudice' is off, here's Wiki, and my remembrance of it also echoes Wiki:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terminate_with_extreme_prejudice
Capt. Willard was sent to kill Kurtz and he did so, the airstrike was a backup(IMO) in case nobody could get close enough or if Willard was killed.

 

Have to agree with PHILLYQ: Willard's mission was to terminate Kurtz's command. The airstrike was a fail-safe; Willard told Chef to call it in only if he did not return to the PBR by 2200. Left leaderless there was no reason to kill all the Montanards. Willard completed his mission and with Lance debarked downriver. He never wanted another.

I've seen every cut of the film multiple times and never interpreted the explosive ending as anything other than a general commentary on the violence of war and a reference back to the beginning of the movie.

Cool site for lovers of this film:
http://apocnowfiles.blogspot.com/

 

Were the original camera negatives for Apocalypse Now 35mm?

Only the 35mm prints had a superimposed United Artists logo (the film's original distributor) at the end of the film. Really weird to see such logo on this film. Nowadays, you'd see a Paramount logo.

 

The first couple of times I watched the film (in the early 80s) I thought the closing explosions were an airstrike on the compound. It really makes more sense than "a general commentary on the violence of war". Regardless, he removed them for "Redux" and I now suspect he just included them 'cause the scene cost so much money to shoot (and looked cool) and he had already had to leave so much out of his theatrical release. I do agree that Willard's mission did not require destroying the compound.

 

I recall seeing AN in a nearby theater while I started my freshman year at USC in 1979. I do recall the explosions at the end of the film. The credits were synced up so the title of the film was at that end point, and when the title Apocalypse Now appeared on screen, the first explosions took place. To me, that made sense because the destruction happened right at the end of the film, so starting the opening credits at that point made sense.

 

I think part of the "problem" is that Coppola couldn't make up his mind *what* he wanted the ending to be.

That part is very clear from what's in the "making of" documentary shot by his Eleanor Coppola.

I read somewhere that in one of Coppola's earlier draft(s?), Willard joined forces with Kurtz....

I guess the idea was that Willard decided that the previous assassin (Colby) had a point - and he followed his precedent.


The scene where Willard got his orders had a lot of sub-text... things that were hinted - but not said clearly.

For example, one of the first things they did was quiz Willard about a previous mission - to see if he was able to keep his
mouth shut... he passed that test.

Willard was then told to "terminate the Colonel's command" (at which point Harrison Ford coughed - like he was uncomfortable
saying it in plain English)... in disbelief, Willard repeated the words - but was careful not to expand on them or use different
words... "terminate the Colonel?"

Note that Willard didn't reply "kill the Colonel?"

I'm guessing there was some unspoken hope that Willard could just walk up to him, say "You're fired." or "You're under arrest." LOL

But by not using direct words - the ranking people in the room could invoke the concept of plausible deniability if they were ever called in front of a congressional panel (or a war crimes tribunal).

The words "with extreme prejudice" have always struck me as mysterious.

I've brought this up before on here and the phrase apparently pre-dates "Apocalypse Now" - but that's where most people became familiar with it. Reading about the phrase again (via a google search), the phrase seems to have its roots in lawyer speak - which of course makes it impossible for non-lawyers to discuss - LOL

I still believe there was a lot that was said (and NOT said) in the room where Willard was offered a nice meal and a new objective.


But apart from parsing the words... you have to ask yourself one question ?

What was their beef with Kurtz ? Why were they sending yet another trained assassin up the river to find one of their best ??

The answer is pretty clear.

They were worried that he would EMBARRASS his ranking officers, the CIA, the Secretary of Defense, the President, etc.

In that context, anything Willard would do - or might do - is considered fair game... including an air strike...


I would assume that a typical assassin is told to kill (exactly) one person - and that one person is clearly not playing for the same team as the assassin.

In the case of Kurtz, his potential to embarrass was almost limitless.

For example, if Willard kills Kurtz but leaves Colby and the photo journalist standing... who knows what might happen ?

Yes, I completely agree that the tribes people should have been harmless - and there was no reason to wipe them out.
But that doesn't mean that Willard didn't have the authority to DO it.

He clearly did if he had the code to call in an airstrike.


As for my original concern about the structural changes to the film, there is a simple explanation that fits with my theory that Willard called in an airstrike. Just assume the first few minutes of the film are the actual "end" of the film.

My interpretation of the film is that it does what Pink Floyd did at the beginning and end of the "The Wall" album... where the words "Isn't this where we..." are heard at the end of Side 4... and the words "... we came in?" are heard at the beginning of Side 1.

Coppola explains the genesis of the film's opening footage quite well on the video commentary. Yes, it was an accident - but he said he was immediately tickled with the thought of using the song "The End" at the beginning of a film... as kind of brilliant insider joke.

My thought is Willard did so many of these oddball missions that they all start to blend in and he isn't thinking like a human anymore.

Note how cold Willard was when he kills the woman on the boat... with a simple message "I told you not to stop."

He's not willing to bring her back and get medical assistance because the whole episode was embarrassing... he doesn't need to call
attention to what happened. He just needs to move forward, silently - and never look back.


If Coppola wanted me to believe that Willard wasn't capable of wiping out an entire village - he could have easily avoided both the suggestion that it was possible - AND - the film footage that appears to show it happening.


I realize that arguing this is like arguing what happened at the end of the Sopranos. Everyone has their own interpretation.

But my interpretation was forever colored by what I saw in the theater in December 1979. It would be as if the last episode of the Sopranos had slightly different footage depending on when you saw it.


My intent is not to point out that I have the correct view... just that Coppola seems to have left the door wide open... and we are lucky it isn't wider....

 

I also saw this movie in a special pre-screening early in 1979 at Norris Auditorium at USC. It was completely different then the final released version. The ending was totally unexpected and I really felt let down. It is an amazing movie up until they get to the compound and I think Dennis Hopper is a complete failure as a burned out hippie photographer. He ruined the movie for me.

All in all though, it was totally exciting to be a part of the first public screening of this landmark film.

 

I just recently watched the movie and Hearts Of Darkness and all the special features on the blu-ray. Coppola never intended the footage of the destruction of the Kurtz compound to be part of the story. Willard doesn't call in the air strike. It was footage they shot of them destroying the set and Coppola just stuck it at the end to serve as an cool looking scenery, not part of the story. No airstrike. Coppola says all this explicitly. He never meant for people to take that as having happened in the story.

Apesbrain (above, post #6) has it exactly right.

 

heres a movie that fascinates me for the first couple of hours....

 

I saw the original release that had no credits at all at the end, and the audience was left very subdued and disappointed. (We were handed printed credits on the way out.) Critics were mostly bewildered and the movie didn't make any money.

Wikipedia says:

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

I always went with the latter theory, that a day or two later, the U.S. government blew up the entire base. But the article goes on to say:

...when Coppola heard that audiences interpreted this as an air strike called by Willard, Coppola pulled the film from its35 mm run, and put credits on a black screen. (However, prints with the "air strike" footage continued to circulate to "repertory" theatres well into the 1980s.) In the DVD commentary, Coppola explains that the images of explosions had not been intended to be part of the story; they were intended to be seen as completely separate from the film. He had added them to the credits because he had captured the footage during the demolition of the sets (required by the Philippine government), which was filmed with multiple cameras fitted with different film stocks and lenses to capture the explosions at different speeds.

So Coppola himself says, no, the explosions at the end were not part of the ending. I like to believe it did in the version in my head, but it's a badly flawed movie, no matter what you do. There's some incredible moments in the film, but so many problems it's a totally mixed bag.

 

I'm very familiar with what Coppola claims on the "special features" section of the DVD and Blu-Ray.

I also understand that as the person who was constantly WRITING the script - Coppola's interpretation would SEEM to trump all others.

But the feeling I got watching "Hearts of Darkness" is Francis really didn't have a clue what he wanted - and he was very willing to change things as he went along.

Case in point, the script never called for Sheen to cut his hand in the hotel room in Saigon, but Coppola "went with it"... clearly not the most Kubrick of moments for Francis Ford Coppola.

The idea that Coppola *accidentally* left some footage at the end of the film and then pulled it later because the audience was not seeing it as a "blooper reel" sounds disingenuous (to me). In my mind, its on par with statements from his buddy George Lucas about how he always intended to have Greedo shoot first.

Consider the following... if my kid hands in a paper to his college professor and she gives it back to him with a bad grade saying that she couldn't follow along, my kid doesn't get to go back and tell her that since he WROTE the paper, he knows more than the person who read it. His professor can only judge what she read. My son's commentary after the fact isn't relevant.

My thoughts on the film are colored by what most people saw on the screen when it was widely distributed.

The scenario is somewhat complicated by the fact that the "accidental" footage started showing up after the first set of theatrical exhibitions.

But, that footage didn't get there because of a rogue production assistant... I believe Coppola added it, even if he wasn't consciously *aware* of how it would be perceived by the general public when the film went into wider distribution.

Thinking about this logically, within the context of the film, would the people who ordered the termination of Kurtz and gave Willard the ability to call in an airstrike have been satisfied to leave "well enough alone"... or would they have been likely to call for a more thorough "clean up" activity ???

If you don't believe Willard did it, or Colonel Lucas (Harrison Ford), or G.D. Spradlin (General Corman), so be it. But I don't trust that mysterious Jerry guy in the room who said only three words in the whole film. That guy wasn't going to let Scott Glenn or Dennis Hopper show up some day with further details about what happened in the Kurtz compound.


I'm not saying this because I'm paranoid about our military leadership. I'm saying this because the destruction of the compound was the next logical action - within the construct of the world created by the movie - and Coppola decided - after considered thought - that it was problematic to SHOW this happening. And I don't think it's because someone pulled him aside and told him to tone it down... I think Francis just decided that it was too disheartening to show THAT much horror.... even if at one point, he considered it.

I honestly think the film is MUCH more powerful if you think something happened after the last visible image of Willard.

And for me, the movie is perfect if you assume that the end of the story is really shown at the beginning of the film... with Willard waiting in his hotel for an even more horrifying mission (the one AFTER he killed Kurtz).

 

Hmmm, that works for me.

Note there were tons and tons and tons of drugs being consumed during the production (enough to give Martin Sheen a heart attack, among other problems). I think this accounts for the confused state of the script and the production. I think Coppola was (and is) a great writer and a great filmmaker, but this wasn't a great period for him personally, and the "Heart of Darkness" documentary shows this.

 

I don't doubt what people are saying here concerning the explosions at the end of the movie (during the credits) having no relationship to a called in strike, but at the same time I am surprised some would find it hard to understand why it appeared to some of us that a strike was called in on the compound. I am also reminded of George Lucas's claims that he had mapped out the story of Star Wars well in advance (including Vader being Luke's Dad) -a story right from the horse's mouth that I never bought.

 

I think if we step back and review at the journey into Kurtz's compound, it was pretty clear that Willard was not most likely going to make it back in one piece regardless of an air strike killing him or not...

 

Coppola only stuck on that end footage because it was impressive and it was never the ending for him ,its a directors cut without that footage

 

The only American at the compound who was even coherent was Kurtz- if you kill him, it's very easy to discredit the other guys as raving lunatics not worthy of belief. Also, considering that Willard had done jobs like this before, it would seem that his MO is to arrive quietly, do his kill and get out. The airstrike, to me, is a last resort of last resorts. On the other hand, I can appreciate how someone could watch it and get a different interpretation- that's part of the beauty of the film, it's not all wrapped up in a bow and forces you to think about what you watched.

 

For those of you who like to pretend the footage is an airstrike and part of the story, how much later is this occuring? There doesn't seem to be any people there. If Coppola intended the footage of the set destruction (and that's all that is) to be taken as events in the story, don't you think he would have done something to make it look like that actual event? Where are the people? Where are all the bodies? Where are all the things that were all over the compound? And how do you imagine the military got the exact coordinates anyway?

 

The funny thing is the mysterious "civilian" in the room with General Corman (G.D. Spradlin) and Colonel Lucas (Harrison Ford) was played by Jerry Ziesmer... an assistant director with a very long impressive resume.

I'm not sure how much power an "assistant director" has, but Ziesmer probably had a lot more to do with THIS specific film than most of the others he worked on, given the well documented distractions encountered during this production.

So - in reality - Ziesmer might have had some real control over the footage that popped up and was then removed.

It's funny to think that the guy who played a mysterious "civilian" in the movie, might have also been the one who worked on the credit sequence that was then later pulled. Kind of adds extra weight to to the role...

I can remember driving to work one morning and having a 90 minute discussion about Zeismer's 9 minute appearance in this film. LOL

 

The funny thing is the footage is like a ghost at this point in time.

I haven't seen it since 1979.

 

It is impressive. Despite its quirks, this is a powerful movie (not "Redux").

 

The photojournalist would be the biggest problem.

It wouldn't matter that he was a loon.

If his photos ever made it out of that compound - his testimony wouldn't matter.

The photos would do his talking for him.


As for Willard calling in the coordinates, it's possible that the still functioning radio could operate somewhat like a beacon.

Assume the unanswered call *to* the "PBR Street" gang represents a "get the heck out of there because we are on the way" message.

Did the civilian know about the photojournalist ? Possibly. He was able to intercept Colby's mail home... all it would take was to have seen a photo that Colby tried to send via mail to his family.

It seems interesting to me that HQ felt compelled to send a courier (to the "*sshole of the universe") with additional information to Willard in the MIDDLE of his journey. I believe that's when they told Willard about Colby... but why would that be SO important ?
Was that really relevant to his mission? I don't think they were just telling Willard as an FYI...

What I suspect happened was the courier message instructed Willard to call in an airstrike - and told him what the code was to do this.

Now *that* would be a message that needed to be sent - no matter what - no matter where....

Even with all of that, it's possible Willard didn't want to send the airstrike - because he realized how small the threat was (basically Hopper and Colby), and how many innocent civilians would be killed during the process...

But it's possible Willard never made the call, simply because he "wasn't even in their f*cking army anymore"...

But I don't trust that Jerry, the civilian, was willing to walk away from this problem.

 

Did he even have film? he was so out of it that it's possible he hadn't had film in years. Where would you get it, too? No Photomarts in the jungle

 

I tried to see if I could find the original footage on youtube.

What I think I found was the DVD - where someone mixed out the director commentary.

No corporate logo at the end, no title credits... for every clip I looked at.

Reading the comments on youtube, someone mentioned that they remembered the credits displayed in yellow against a dark background.

But what's even more odd, someone mentioned the note Willard found that seemed to be from Kurtz... the one that read something like
"Drop the bomb - kill them all"

What was that supposed to represent ??? Kurtz's last attempt at being a good U.S. soldier ? Kurtz completely aware that his mess needed to be cleaned up ?? and instructions to Willard from deep inside that he understood what Willard had to do ???

Watching the footage, Coppola's comments about it not being an airstrike are completely bizarre - especially since the sequence starts with bombs falling from the sky.... It was more than just a normal demolition....

Yeah, the compound is disturbingly quiet in some of the views... but he didn't have a good way to blow things up and keep people in the camera lens... and honestly the solitude makes it even more disturbing to watch...

 

That was probably pretty close... but no United Artists logo.

And Jerry Ziesmer is officially credited as "civilian".

A "civilian" who sits in on very sensitive meetings with generals giving very sensitive orders.

Yeah....