Apocalypse Now: Parallelisms Revealed in the Film

I have special fascination with the film, Apocalypse Now. One thing is that it is shot in the Philippines. Another thing is that the title, Apocalypse Now, captures the end of what is as described in the Revelation. The title itself is able to situate the dreaded future in the history of war/conflict in the mind of person. In their book The Hollywood War Machine, Boggs and Pollard (2007, p.134) has a better term for it, "crisis of conscience."

The film was made in the Philippines during the dictatorial and martial law regime of Ferdinand Marcos in the 1970s. I read that many international and popular events were held during these turbulent times in the Philippine history. Some of which were Miss Universe in 1974, the greatest boxing match between Muhammad Ali and Joe Frazier dubbed as Thrilla in Manila in 1975, world chess title match between Karpov and Korchnoi in 1978, Pope John Paul II visit in 1981, the filming of this movie, and other big events. While these international events were happening in the country, domestic events such as the growing rebellion by the communist movement, numerous human rights abuses, and massive corruption were being obliterated in the international and local media. I think that was the main objective of these international and big events - to project the Philippines as a land of beautiful things and wonderful events to the world. To the millions of Filipinos, hellish conditions surrounded them with grinding poverty, military violence and abuses, thousands of killings and disappearances, controlled media, and no fair and credible election since 1965. It was an apocalyptic period under Marcos in the Philippines.

In Revelation 13: 13-14, "And he performed great and miraculous signs, even causing fire to come down from heaven to earth in full view of men. Because of the signs he was given power to do on behalf of the first beast, he deceived the inhabitants of the earth." The "great and miraculous signs" can be the visitation of well-known people and stars including the Pope and people are deceived or blinded by these ephemeral fanfare. Marcos epitomized the beast coming out of the earth.

In his analysis of Apocalypse Now in his Strategy Pedagogy and Pedagogic Strategy, Gow (2006, p.403) states that madness in many ways "is the perfectly rational and logical extension of the decision to apply violent means to political purposes." Marcos used this madness. The United States applied this madness when it went to war with Vietnam probably without knowing what it was getting into. Col. Kurtz had this madness. Capt. Willard exhibited this madness when he shot the dying Vietnamese girl. The film portrayed these as the nature of war.

Psychologist Sigmund Freud argued that human instincts cause the war-thinking of man. He presented two human instincts; those that care and those that destroy. The latter obviously is responsible to spark the war thinking of man. In the film, a French woman talked about man's capability to love and kill. It presented the dichotomy of human capability.

Apocalypse Now is a film shot in the Philippines which also reflects the historical and apocalyptic moment of that country when the film is being made. Is it coincidental? I think Francis Ford Coppola is a genius.

Innocent Voices of conflicts: Childrens' muted cry

The film, Innocent Voices, presents a story of Chava, an 11-year old boy, in a small village in El Salvador during the outbreak of civil war in the 1980s. The film is a departure from the previous films the class has watched in which they depict the characters are deeply involved in the conflict as soldiers, rebels, and suicide bombers. In Innocent Voices, it depicts the story of victims; those who are trapped in the midst of a conflict. It takes the perspective of a child who is on the verge of being recruited in the El Salvadoran army, who becomes "a man in the house" when his father has left them, and who falls in love with a classmate.

In his Strategy Pedagogy and Pedagogic Strategy, Gow (2006) defines war as "contest underpinned by violence between politically motivated groups using it as a peculiar decision making tool" (p. 394). The civil war in El Salvador in the 1980s pitted the US-backed and financed El Salvadoran army versus the Frente Farabundo Marti para La Liberacion Nacional (FMLN). The film through its presentation of the journey of an 11-year old boy caught up in the web of civil war is able to deepen the understanding of the social and historical contexts of the war itself (ibid, 2006).

In the same article, Gow (2006) points out that "there is a long tradition, dating back to Aristotle, which holds that narrative (and symbolic) representation, including acts of violence, can be cathartic and even therapeutic" (p. 396). The question and answer part of the class with the writer (Torres) on which the story of the film is based is the highlight of the film class. Torres considered the filming of his story as a healing process of the wounds and bitter memories brought about by the civil war in his life. He repeatedly recognized the tool of the film as such for himself and for the others who experienced and witnessed similar images and realities of war.

Many realities of war are depicted in the film. One of which is the recruitment of child soldiers. I think this is the advocacy of the film. Child soldiering is prevalent in other war-torn countries such as Sierra Leone, Angola, Sudan, Uganda, Sri Lanka and Burma. In the film, it estimates the number of child soldiers around the world to be at about 400,000. This is the part I like about the film. It carries an advocacy, an added meaning to the story. It touches those who watch it to think about the children who are robbed of their innocence and childhood. It is hoped that the thinking leads to action against the recruitment of child soldiers in the conflict.

G.I. Jane Story: Losing femininity

Films take us to view social issues with certain perspectives. One of these is a gender one. Let's see how a film is viewed with a gender perspective.

The film G.I. Jane follows the story of the first woman who is selected to undergo a "test case" in the rigorous Navy Seal training. Her name is Lt. Jordan O'Neil (Demi Moore), a Navy Intelligence officer. As a test case, she is not expected to finish the whole training which is physically and mentally demanding for both a woman and man. In the history of the training program, only 40% of the applicants make it to the end and become full-pledged Navy Seals.

Against all odds including the suspicion on her sexual orientation as a lesbian which is a ground for expulsion in the training, Lt. O'Neil surprises everyone especially the skeptics. She becomes a member of the elite force of Navy Seals.

Did Lt. O'Neil lose her femininity during the training? Did she become one of the boys on the way of becoming a Navy Seal? These two questions cause me to revisit various scenes to answer the questions. I would argue that she lost her femininity during the training and that she became one of the boys.

Prior to her entry to the training, Lt. O'Neil had a boyfriend. They had a misunderstanding when she decided to undergo the training. Upon arrival to the training site and meeting the superior, she was obviously different among the rest. She was a woman in a wrong and man's place. And Lt. O'Neil felt and complained about having a double standard just because she was there with the rest. She asked and pleaded for one standard for all. To stress her point, she shaved her hair to look like the rest. Without her hair and in uniform, there was no trace of her being a woman in the training.

However, one man knew that there was a woman inside Lt. O'Neil during the training. It was the Master Chief. From the beginning, he gave gender-norming to her. When he was trying to physically subdue Lt. O'Neil to confess, he tried to pull down her pants from behind. This was a manifestation that Lt. O'Neil was a woman in the eyes of the master Chief because it would never be done by the Master Chief with any applicants except to a woman. But Lt. O'Neil dismissed the act and challenged the Master Chief and said, "suck my dick." For me, this is the ultimate demonstration that Lt. O'Neil lost her femininity.

Another instance where the Master Chief saw Lt. O'Neil as a woman when he shot an enemy closing to Lt. O'Neil. It was a scene of a knight shining armor saving a maiden. But Lt. O'Neil returned the favor when she carried and saved the Master Chief from a hostile ground to a safe ground. Again, she was a knight too.

I believe that the Master Chief acted splendidly and outperformed the rest. There was a scene after his fistfight with Lt. O'Neil that struck me. Recognizing that there was a woman in the training, the Master Chief admitted to his teammate that there was something wrong in them.

Another scene near the end which is one of my favorite moments in the film was when Lt. O'Neil received a little book written by D.H Lawrence. The book was marked by a medal and a poem on self-pity which was the opening salvo of the Master Chief during the training. Walking out of a door and smiling wryly, the Master Chief realized that he was wrong and sorry for treating and seeing Lt. O'Neil as a woman; thus,·

Self-Pity

I never saw a wild thing
sorry for itself
A small bird will drop frozen dead from a bough
without ever having felt sorry for itself.

Did Lt. O'Neil regain her femininity? There was no scene that would suggest that she did.

Power of films in peacebuilding: The good war formula in the film Michael Collins

As an advocate and believer of international peacebuilding, I believe that films have the power to shape my ideas on peace and conflict. The influence of films is undeniably rooted in the pervasiveness of popular culture in our society. A walk on the streets of San Jose would present the high popularity and profitable business of selling "pirated" digital films. This scene and long lines and stalls of film vendors are no different from the streets of Manila where I come from.

I have a deep interest in films that appeal to nationalist or patriotic sentiments. Michael Collins released in 1996 does fall into this category. It is a story of an Irish hero who inspired and led a revolutionary struggle for independence against the British empire. He was assassinated by a young patriot. He died without seeing the Irish Republic, a dream he would have loved to see. In the book The Hollywood War Machine (2007), Boggs and Pollard portrayed the hero, Michael Collins, as the same as the "warrior champions" who exemplify the virtues of "tenacity, tough-mindedness, honor, selflessness, nobility, and of course patriotism."

My fascination of patriotic films hinges on my belief that it is noble to fight for independence under a colonizing power. I believe in the self-determination rule as a better set-up for separatist ethnic groups. The film has traces of the good war formula by Boggs and Pollard. Indeed in the film, the conflict is projected as noble, imperative and heroic. The executions of the atrocious British spies are depicted as necessary to advance the cause of independence.

Also, the film is about the fight between good (Irish as the freedom fighter) and evil (British as the occupier). The scene on the football field where the British soldiers suddenly emerged and randomly shot the Irish spectators creates an evil image on the British soldiers. Another feature that makes the film fits into the good war formula is that the story is typically about (white) male heroism. The actor that played Michael Collins is Liam Neeson who has a reputation of playing hero in the movies Rob Roy, Schindler's List, and Star Wars.

As a biographical and epic film, Michael Collins, how historically authentic is the film? I think this is the biggest challenge for any biographical films that are based in real people, places, time and events. According to Scott (2002) on his From Heroism to Obscurity: A Critique of Michael Collins, he indicated that the film was very accurate and did not romanticize the events and characters.

I am glad to know that the film is truthfully done. The dramatic licenses invoked by the director who is an Irish could be seen as fashionable formula for Hollywood and commercial movies. The inclusion of bankable movie stars such as Liam Neeson, Julia Roberts, Aidan Quinn, Allan Rickman, and Stephen Rea is to attract moviegoers to watch the film. The romantic flavor between the hero and a lady gives the story a human touch. It adds to the drawing power of the film.

However, the main objective of the film, to my mind, is the introduction and presentation of the life of a real Irish hero who is not widely and popularly known in the world and the historical narrative of Irish independence from Britain. I think the film has succeeded in this respect while not compromising with the authenticity of the events, places, and people depicted in the film itself. This is aside from the good war formula that most Hollywood war movies follow.