from July1, 2006
The French sequence doesn’t fit for many reasons. Here, they get explicit (no longer subtle) about the Vietnamese conflict, unlike the rest of the film. Here, they are trying to make a comment about that particular war, and have moved away from the themes of the rest of the film. It is a sequence that only relates to itself. {Cinematically, Capt. Willard spent almost the whole sequence sitiing directly in front of the open window with his hand over his eyes, “blinded by the light.” Of truth? He was unable to respond to the Frenchman. He had no words. Maybe in the light of the the Frenchman’s truth, he was unable to respond. He had no answers. Again, a great scene, but a commentary on Vietnam that was out of place in this film.}
Secondly, it doesn’t fit on the river. They have been slowly descending into madness. Every stop has been less ciivilized than the first, leading into the ultimate surrender of humanity, Brando’s native idyll, where the men are half clothed, corpses hang everywhere, idols are worshipped, and animals sacrificed. Just watch Lance, who has slowly been abandoning his civilized ways and becomes one of Brando’s minions, without ever meeting him. It was “the horror,” or the nature of war that brought him there. The drugs helped, but it’s implicit that it was the war that brought him to the drugs. However, the French plantation was the height of civilization, plopped into the river at a point where they are nearing the apex of “uncivilization.” They have left the american army behind, and, are next attacked with “primitive” weapons (spears and arrows) by “primitive” people. I don’t see this as an intentional juxtapostion because it doesn’t seem to make any points in that regard, “primitive” versus “civilization.”
It would be more palatable if it took place earlier on the river, but since the rest of the river was under American Army control, it couldn’t exist there. Plus, we hadn’t seen the horrors of war yet, so it would not have as much impact.
Thirdly, at a more basic level, I find it hard to believe that that band of hardy Frenchmen could keep the farm running, even just in a small way for pride’s sake. They were so divided in opinion (and anger) that some of them MUST have wanted to return to France. Why would the men who left the table early stay? What could the quality of life be there? In that country at that time, where were they getting food, clothes, music, anything that they were accustomed too? Who were the men with guns? Some of them were clearly Vietnamese. They are loyal only to the farm, not their country?
Still considering the Dennis Hopper “character” (Isn’t he just playing himself?) He was not in his right mind, and totally loyal to Brando. Is this an example of the blind love Brando engendered in his people? His madness was supposed to be the opposite of Brando’s quiet sanity. As you said, here we have to doubt everything we’ve been told about Brando. However, the things Hopper tells us make us feel more and more that Brando is insane. When we finally see Brando, though, he doesn’t seem insane, but he does seem to have an extreme god-complex, one that was never hinted at in the course of the movie.
Bottom line, Hopper was loud and distracting, very annoying. In a place of insanity, he was the only one who seemed truley insane. Maybe because he was a random element, a civilian who wasn’t a part of Brando’s army. Strangely, he was also the only one who saw Brando clearly, making him the only sane man there at the same time. (Hmm. Now that I write this, there seems to be more to Hopper’s character than meets the eye. Maybe more on him later.)
“Charlie don’t surf!”




Have something to say? Let's hear it!