Comments for Apocalypse Now
Apologies to those who have tried and failed to post comments at Insurgent American for the “Apocalypse Now” theological study. My web guru tells me that comments have been disabled there; so we will post comments here in relation to that study.
Comments for this will be strictly limited to those who are participating in the study, here or elsewhere — this will not become an open forum to debate the merits of theology itself. Participating means watching the films and reading the readings, and talking about the them. There will be no open debate about religion/theology itself, i.e., the existence of God etc. etc.
The decision to place it as Feral Scholar is a technical necessity, but its an intramural game.
James M:
Hi Stan,
Wanted to say I am really grateful for, and enjoyed this exercise. Being well acquainted with your work of examining / deconstructing cultural narratives as embodied by Hollywood, I was not terribly inclined to go deeply into study of the films Volcano and 28 Days. I’d seen them, got what they were about, and was already (even before I came into contact with your work) especially disappointed by the latter’s final-act switcheroo into championing lone-wolf redemptive violence.
But I was really drawn into your critical interpretations of Children of Men. Thank you for revealing a depth in it I’d barely suspected upon initial viewing. I’ve since seen it twice. If Cuaron’s aim with the film was, partially at least, to draw us out of our “green zones” for a time, then he can rightly claim “mission accomplished” — that lengthy walking tour of Hell at the end (through the fugee camp warzone) was, I thought, probably not dissimilar to the experience of being a civilian trapped in Fallujah during the siege. And it’s sad to say that when I first saw it there was a bit of that comfortable, objectifying detachment you refer to, even in that scene — because there was so much press about the difficulty of staging that continuous long shot, with all its effects, perfectly timed cues, etc. It became something to marvel at, rather than be horrified by. Possibly because the media surrounding the film (and even Cuaron himself) placed so much emphasis on the film’s technical achievements, it was that much easier to miss the human narrative.
One of the obvious things I did get, and enjoy very much, was the way the Fishies - ostensibly a popular movement engaged in a noble crusade - were ultimately more concerned with their own glorification, and more seduced by and devoted to violence almost as an end in itself, than their founding principles. I suppose this group could be thought of as a modern version of the Zealots … and probably a good example of dogwaggery among leftist revolutionary cliques.
One last, fairly trivial thing: You ask, is this condition of extremity re-creating them [the main characters] into something they were not, or is it magnifying something that was latent in each personality?
I think the answer here with Theo, at least, is definitely that something latent was brought out. Because if for no other reason, I cannot fathom why the writers would make such a point, at multiple places throughout the film, to show animals (first a cat, then dogs, then kittens, then another cat) being (sometimes unusually) affectionate toward Theo. The dogs’ owner even says “They like you. They never like anyone, but they like you.” I think one could take this as a subtle hint that a saintliness resides in Theo, which those creatures can see or feel if humans mostly can’t.
Plus, the guy’s name is Theo, fer cryin’ out loud.
–James
7 May 2009, 1:42 amStan:
I hadn’t picked up on the dogs and Theo the unlikely saint. Good one.
Suburbia is a kind of Green Zone. I’ve probably said that before.
7 May 2009, 5:11 am