It's
impossible for words to describe what is necessary for those who do not
know what horror means. Horror. Horror has a face. And you must make a
friend of horror. Horror and mortal terror are your friends. If not,
then they are enemies to be feared. They are truly enemies...I remember
when I was with Special Forces—it seems a thousand centuries ago—we
went into a camp to inoculate the children. We’d left the camp after we
had
inoculated the children for polio and this old man came running after us
and he
was crying, and he couldn’t see. We went back there and they had hacked
off
every inoculated arm and there they were in a pile, a pile of little
arms and I
remember I...I...I cried. I wept like some grandmother. I wanted to tear
my teeth
out. I didn’t know what I wanted to do and I want to remember it, I
never want
to forget it. I never want to forget, and then I realized like I was
shot, like
I was shot with a diamond—a diamond bullet went through my forehead—and I
thought, my God, the genius of that. The genius, the will to do that.
Perfect,
genuine, crystalline, pure. And then I realized they were stronger than
us,
because they could stand it. These were not monsters, these were men,
trained
cadres, who have children, who are filled with love. But they have the
strength,
the strength, to do that. If I had ten divisions of these me then our
troubles
here would be over very quickly. You have to have men who are moral and
at the
same time able to use their primordial instincts to kill without,
feeing,
without passion, without judgement, without judgement. Because
it’s judgement that defeats us...I worry that my son might not
understand what I've tried to be. And if I were to be killed, Willard, I
would want someone to go to my home and tell my son
everything...Everything I did. Everything you saw. Because there's
nothing I detest more than the stench of lies. And if you understand me,
Willard, you will do that for me.
We
train young men to drop fire on people, but their commanders won't
allow them to write "fuck" on their airplanes because it's obscene.
Much
of what Kurtz says in the last 30 minutes of the movie was improvised
by Brando. That was partly because Coppola had no real end to the film
(so the story goes): or at least an end that tied up what he was doing
with the hours and hours of footage he had already shot. Partly this
happened because Brando was screwing with the man who directed him to an
Oscar for The Godfather—Brando was notorious for not taking
acting seriously (he got paid the unheard of sum in 1978 of $2 million
for what was essentially 30 minutes of screen time). The ending has
always been criticized for many reasons—Mira, you're not alone in criticizing the ending. Yet it also remains strangely
and stubbornly true to Conrad's vision. As the photojournalist says,
"This is the way the fucking world ends. Look at this...shit we're in,
man! Not with a bang, a whimper," quoting "The Hollow Men" by T.S.
Eliot. In Heart of Darkness, perhaps, as we discussed, the true
darkness is not back there in the jungles, but in London, where Marlow
chooses to lie about the way he saw the world end. Arguably, Apocalypse Now ends on a much more optimistic note than its forebearer.
This
is a difficult film, no doubt. It's relentless: like its source, it
offers little light. Its
relentless intensity, its commitment to a singular vision, its unsparing
take on a vision of the world that seems to offer little hope—no
tending your garden here—is exhausting. More so than ever today, where a
popular film would never attempt to challenge its audience the way this
did (again: this was nominated for several Academy Awards; it was a
relatively successful film—I certainly saw it in a packed theater).
Crowds chose to see this—pundits and critics and academics debated this
seriously. It pushed the envelope—but it remained mainstream. There is a
good chance that had you been 17 or 18 in 1978, or 19 or 20, you would
have gone to see this movie. Now is a different story.
So:
The long italicized passage quoted at the top—the polio speech. I think
it's the most important passage in the film. It is Kurtz's epiphany:
it's the moment he decides to go all the way. (In Chef's terminology,
it's the moment he "gets off the boat") What's your response to the
position Kurtz states here? Does it make any sense whatsoever? Does it
follow any degree of logic, of rationality? Or is the ravings of a
madman? Or can it be both rational and insane? Here it is—go ahead and watch it.
Take some time to answer this question. This is the last blog you'll have until we start Black Ice next week.
Doing this at 7 in the morning is not a good idea. Or if you do, don't
rush through it. Again, this is as intense a film as we will watch this
year. Next up: Lorene Cary goes to prep school in New Hampshire. It isn't as easy as it sounds. See you guys tomorrow.
In terms of logic, I can see how this argument initially makes sense. Yes, if you have a goal, and you can discover the most efficient way to achieve that goal, and then you can carry out that plan without mercy, then yes, you will have reached your goal in the 'most efficient and best way' possible. However, the claim break down when Kurtz claims these men are both geniuses and moral. I understand the argument, however, I disagree with it (as I'm sure many of us do). My disagreement stems from the fact that, in my opinion, no 'moral' human can restrict themselves to only one such goal. Humans have complicated lives, and we have to carry out our actions with multiple goals in mind in order to be moral. I looked up the word moral and one simple definition of the word is this: concerned with the principles of right and wrong behavior and the goodness or badness of human character. You cannot have just one goal because to remain moral, you must always keep in mind your concern for right and wrong and your concern for others. We all may have different definitions of moral behavior, but I think it is unjustifiable to murder of maim others for personal gain, or a motivation of your own. We can all do whatever we want to be happy unless it significantly hurts others (we can debate what constitutes significantly some other time I guess). What Kurtz calls 'genius', I would call 'blinded'. Men who can kill dozens of people for some vague and personal goal, have been blinded by their determination. They have lost perspective and have perhaps lost sight of any of their other 'goals' that would preserve their morality. I think this argument has the façade of logic, but it based on the ideas of a psychopath. And I think Kurtz fits the definition of a psychopath almost perfectly.
ReplyDeleteThis quote shows the psychotic nature of Kurtz, the madness that has taken over. He personifies horror: “Horror has a face. And you must make a friend of horror.” Horror has become commonplace in this world—Kurtz has welcomed horror into his life. To me, he seems to be saying that being evil is better than being afraid, that if we do not welcome horror and mortal terror as friends they will become our enemies, enemies to be feared. So is this the epitome of what it is to be a man, an American soldier fighting for his country? Cruelty and stoicism over vulnerability and fear? Is the risk of appearing weak greater than the happiness—the lives—of others? Kurtz revels in the purity, the beauty, of torture, of monstrous behavior. He says that they—the men who cut off the arms of children with polio—are not monsters, but men. I think he is saying that men have become monsters. War has turned us into violent, unfeeling creatures. Instead of feeling disgust at the brutality of the men, Kurtz feels awe, wonder—he is impressed by them, by their strength. He says that they are moral yet can harness their primordial strength, but I would argue that it is the ability to suppress our primordial instincts, our animalistic missions, that makes us moral beings. We can control ourselves because we see a higher purpose, are able to reason towards a distant yet achievable outcome instead of responding to our immediate desires or emotions. Kurtz says that he hates lies, and I think that makes him a hypocrite because he is living a lie. He has lied to the hundreds of people who follow him. He has lied to himself, convinced himself that strength and power are better than kindness and empathy and justice.
ReplyDeleteIn his own way, Kurtz is making sense, but in the larger scope of things he’s forgetting why he’s really supposed to be fighting. The idea itself makes sense because all Kurtz cares about is winning the war, so it fits his goals and mindset. He doesn’t want people to hesitate, deliberate, consider the moral ups and downs to the conflict, he just wants decisive, clear action. If your goal is to win the war, then Kurtz’s fascination with this “genuine, crystalline, pure” approach is definitely efficient. However, if you care at all about human life and its preservation, if you want soldiers to hesitate before killing (as I’d assume many of us do), then Kurtz’s ideas are ludicrous. He accomplishes without really understanding what he’s accomplishing - winning the war is not its own self-contained goal: winning the war is expressly to keep people safe. Kurtz knows what he’s supposed to do, but has completely disregarded why. Kurtz marvels at human capabilities; he loves what people can accomplish when they devote themselves entirely without letting anything getting in the way. Action without thought certainly accomplishes a lot - mindlessly hacking away with only a single goal in mind would be incredibly efficient, but mutilating children is not something I’d call constructive. Again, he values the end goal over why the goal is present in the first place. Kurtz is obsessed with the human capacity complete a task, but he doesn’t care WHY the task is being completed - never mind that people hacked off children’s arms to purge their inoculations, what’s MORE important is how good they were at it! It’s horrible - we KNOW it’s horrible, but Kurtz doesn’t see that anymore. The efficiency is logical, but the real application of it, and Kurtz’s love of it, is what makes it insane.
ReplyDeleteIn both Heart of Darkness and Apocalypse now we hear that Kurtz's mind is clear but his soul is mad. However, this may not be totally correct. He has broken away from conventional morality and devoted himself to his goals. In the scene above we see a bizarre example. He says that his moment of inspiration was seeing this pile of arms cut off. Kurtz admires the devotion to a cause. He has a somewhat Machiavellian system of morality now, and we see this in how he commits atrocities to further his own aims. At this point, we see a man who simply goes too far. However, if we look deeper into this and challenge his goals, it is more complicated. Why is it so bad to have gotten Polio vaccines. The determination of these people is remarkable, but rather than being pitted against the Americans, their enemies, they attack the few good consequences of American involvement. The goal doesn't make much sense. Similarly, Colonel Kurtz is fighting in a war with no clear goal, no clear enemy, no clear boundaries. Kurtz has broken away even from this misguided war and is fighting for who knows what. Kurtz is logical, but only when you accept his goals as logical.
ReplyDeleteIn a way, this speech mirrors the saying, “if you can’t beat them, join them.” Kurtz, over the course of his time in the military, witnessed such horrors time and time again that, rather than being hurt by them, he decided to embrace them. In this sense, it seems as though Kurtz’s affinity for power and brutality evolved as a sort of psychological defense mechanism. Later on, Kurtz also reflects upon his experience administering vaccinations to children, the unfortunate consequence of which was that other villagers chopped off the vaccinated arms. I can’t even imagine how defeated I would feel in this situation, how this would make me call into question whether or not I could ever do any good in the world or if my efforts were futile. I think that this event was one of many tipping points for Kurtz; his helplessness in this situation led him to seek power, leading to his dictatorship. In this moment, I think the character of Kurtz in the movie really mirrors the Kurtz in Heart of Darkness, who grew up poor and helpless, causing him to thirst for power later in life. In this speech, we also get a glimpse of Kurtz’s vision of the ideal man, someone who is “moral and at the same time able to use their primordial instincts to kill without, feeling, without passion, without judgement.” In other words, what he is looking for, what he strives to be, is someone who can act ruthlessly while still understanding the gravity of his actions and the humanity of his victims. I suppose that, overall, I can definitely follow Kurtz’s train of thought. However, I wouldn’t go so far as to call it rational, since we often base judgements of rationality in a concept of morality, which is conspicuously lacking here.
ReplyDeleteThere are aspects of Kurtz statements that make sense. I followed what he was saying easily, even if I didn’t agree with it. One response I have to some of what Kurtz states is ‘agreement’ (I think) for his apparent understanding of the complexity of humans. I think that he understands that humans are more complex than at first glance (and that this goes hand in hand with the idea of withholding judgment), and I think this is important to grasp. But there is something about Kurtz’s monologue that is black and white, which contradicts the more complex statements he asserts: “Horror and mortal terror are your friends. If not, they are enemies to be feared”. I think when Kurtz reveres the “men” and their actions that he respects so much, he is ignoring the pain they are inflicting and the hurt they are spreading. In my opinion, these men’s actions do not fit with my definition of moral. But I like how this passage gives us more insight into Kurtz’s mind and thoughts and allows us to more fully understand him.
ReplyDeleteI don’t understand how a person can be moral while at the same time not judging. Inherently, morality is a concept that involves the judging and comparing the rightness or wrongness of different actions. I am not sure that “men who are moral and at the same time able to use their primordial instincts to kill without, feeling, without passion, without judgement” can exist. Kurtz’s idea of morality could be completely different than civilization’s version of morality, and he could be criticizing the American idea of morality. However, I do see a kind of insane power hungriness in Kurtz’s dialogue because he is imagining how powerful he would be if he had an army of men who were moral and unjudging. I think Kurtz is trying to become this sort of man, and I am unsure if he has succeeded completely because he is definitely able to kill without judgement, but I’m having a hard time seeing how he could be moral.
ReplyDeleteI think it kind of makes sense, but only if you're looking at the surface of his argument. I noticed he separates horror, mortal terror, and fear. He personifies the first two and leaves the last as the feeling it is. This was interesting because I feel like this idea of separation stays throughout the passage. He talks about separating yourself from certain certain emotions in order to the job down, in order to be relentless and to act out of necessity when the time calls for it. He explains how some of the people had families, yet they were still continuing on with the mission and I think this part of the passage is Kurtz arguing that mental strength is stronger and more powerful than physical strength. He says how they weren't monsters and I think this is him saying that they were just really smart and the had the mental capacity to isolate their feelings and their judgement as a defense mechanism (kinda like Vivian). I think this is rational thinking, but I think it's too idealistic and potentially leads to this palace that Kurtz has created for himself. I think this idea of separating yourself is harmful and also not entirely possible to do without losing yourself.
ReplyDeleteI think that a lot of what Kurtz is saying has some merit to it in that I think it does take an obscene amount of will and strength to hack off the arms of children, yet at the same time, I don’t think that this particular will, the will to sacrifice the lives of kids, is one to emulate. I do believe what those men he described did took courage, but, arguably, it takes greater courage to not kill, to accept the help of the enemy, to sacrifice a degree of pride. In that sense, these “primordial instincts to kill” are a step back in the evolution of mankind. Kurtz has become the simpler being of centuries ago. His “kill or be killed” mentality is one that sees the world as black and white, “you either love someone or you hate them,” as the photo journalist says, but if there’s anything we learn from war, it’s that nothing is that simple. Innocent people die everyday, and while that’s not a good thing, if one happens so also kill members of some threatening guerilla group, then it’s not exactly a bad thing either. There’s a gray area. Just because Clean fired off his machine gun at those fishermen, it doesn’t make him a bad person, he just did a bad thing. No one is all good or all evil, and I think that’s where Kurtz gets it wrong. He has this perverse sort of belief that the will to kill “without, feeing, without passion, without judgement, without judgement” is the ultimate test of strength, but how absurd is that? Life can’t just be dumbed down to strength, and strength can’t be made equivalent to murder. This is not the true test of man. Kurtz gets it wrong, but that’s not even the most important part here. What’s really striking is how he became this way. He was a highly decorated soldier, an admirable general, and a family man, so how did he become this animal? War. War did this to him. He saw things he couldn’t explain with the logic and reasoning of a peace time mentality, and he lost his mind over it. He couldn’t turn a blind eye to the horrors he witnessed his fellow soldier, his fellow man, commit, so in turn, he attempted to explain them, to rationalize them, and that’s what led him to this obscene epiphany. Willard could have become Kurtz; we could have become Kurtz.
ReplyDeleteTo an extent, what Kurtz is saying makes a lot of sense. Not only is "the horror" ever-present in Vietnam, where death and destruction greet you at every corner but it is ingrained into all of our lives. Racism, heartbreak, just simply being overworked, you name it. Thus, it feels necessary to shield ourselves from life's innate suffering. And becoming numb to emotion and becoming a mindless machine, like Kurtz's ideal soldiers, is a valid way to do this. It's the only way to shield yourself, because if you don't match the enemy's fervor then they will overwhelm you. Yet, do we really want to live in a world where everyone is capable and possibly even feels comfortable cutting the arms off of recently inoculated children? Even if becoming numb to your emotions and morals allows you to not become crushed by the suffering you have to endure, what if that just inflicts more suffering on everyone else? I think the journalist is wrong; you can't either love someone or hate someone. There has to be a middle path; but then how do you find that path? When Willard tries to live in between the outside world and Vietnam he finds himself hopelessly stuck in between. Willard can't really function in the normal world; he becomes an alcoholic that smashes his hand into a mirror. Yet, he can't really be himself in the darkness either because of some sort to morality, as evidenced by the killing of Kurtz. So is there a middle ground? Probably not. But no matter what we still have to strive to find it. The alternative of a world in which people commit atrocities because they have numbed themselves to emotion, or a world where no one can withstand suffering and breaks down, are just too horrific to bear.
ReplyDeleteI believe that Kurtz's epiphany is first and foremost an appeal to Willard to preserve his legacy as he would like it: a memory of a man who tried to be strong, to disregard morals, to befriend horror, all in order to win the war. So in this perspective, everything Kurtz does at the end of the film is rational. He tells Willard why he believes what he has done is right, or at least not crazy, knowing that Willard will understand him. He then invites Willard to kill him so that Willard may finish his mission and return home without forcing the brass to “terminate” Willard as well, preserving some sort of image of Kurtz that disputes the “lies” told by the general. So ultimately, Kurtz beats the generals again- his self-image will live on, interminable.
ReplyDeleteKurtz also asks Willard not to judge him. He repeats his disdain for judgement at the end of his speech: “It's judgement that defeats us.” It reminded me of Conrad's Kurtz, and how he seems to occupy two ends of the spectrum of morality: the great Kurtz of Europe, and the savage Kurtz of Africa. It made me realize how difficult it is to judge nearly everyone presented in both Heart of Darkness and Apocalypse Now, nearly every character has both a good and bad side. Even Kilgore gave a VC soldier a drink of water. Maybe people don't have a “heart of darkness,” humanity is not inherently evil, but rather one should recognize that each person has an equal capacity for evil as the next.
I think that Kurtz himself is having a hard time putting the pieces of war and what it means and what the end goal is. I suppose part of what he is saying makes sense, but there are major contradictions that he says are not. It makes sense that it takes a certain strength to be able to kill without emotion and to not be affected. I understand his statement about embracing horror and ultimately becoming apart of the horror to be able to get the job done. But this raises a question: what is the job? Is it killing everyone in sight? Is it winning the war, and does that mean killing everyone? What doesn't make sense to me is the idea that this ability to commit this kind of horror and morality can exist in a person. If this were to make the slightest bit of sense, it could mean that a person who is moral has to suppress it and embrace the horror which is not the same as being both moral and being able to kill without judgement. I don't know if Kurtz is trying to make the two compliment each other in order to justify his actions or if he truly believes this to be true. I suspect that he realized that judgment is what stops people from going all the way and truly believed that morality can and should be compromised to allow “moral” men to kill.
ReplyDelete1) I agree that it's the most important section of the movie. It wraps up most of the themes the film has been working on. Im going to separate the passage into two core themes that I want to talk about: The Horror and The Lies. I think The Horror is Human beings capability of evil acts. Kurtz described the soldiers “will” to cut off the children's arms, the event that changed him, as “genius…Perfect, genuine, crystalline, pure.” These are the men Kurtz believes can win the war. He believes that the characteristics these men have, the Horror, “are your friends. If not, then they are enemies to be feared.” The Horrors lies in the mindset that people like them have, not in the action itself. These men had the capability of being “moral and at the same time able to use their primordial instincts to kill,”even if they never actually killed. That is the horror.
ReplyDelete2) Next are the lies that Kurtz hates so much. The lie is when people of the war prevent themselves from killing, from winning, because they want to protect some sense of morality they think they have. The Chief, during the scene with the civilians on the boat, is irrational, illogical, and definitely not moral. But after the lady is near dead, he tries practice kindness, wanting to take the woman back to be treated. He tries to fix his immoral action by attempting some moral right of helping the lady. This is no different than what the US military does in war. They kill an insane amount of people, and there is no way around that fact. But they try to convince themselves that they have some moral high ground over the people they're killing even though they've repeatedly committed what most would view as the most evil act possible. There is no morality in that. I they accepted that, winning the war would be no problem, like Kurtz said. When Kilgore just kills everyone, taking over that village was easy. He doesn't spare the civilians because he's “moral,” he just kills everyone. But the military is preventing themselves from winning by just not killing everyone. They're lying to themselves.