The theatrical/original cut of this film is the best, definitive version.
Prove me wrong, fuck-os
>>69190160
I can't really. I understand the grievances with the plantation scene, but I love it too much and the pacing doesn't bother me at all.
>>69190218
How can you like the Plantation scene?
Throwing pacing aside, it's just fucking with Willard's character and feels out of place.
I've never actually seen the theatrical version
>>69190160
>M-M-MUH PACING
>>69190307
>pacing not important in an already 2h+ movie
>>69190242
>it's just fucking with Willard's character
And that shit was great. They're invited into this seemingly nice place, which is actually being torn about by the family's internal struggles because of their opposing viewpoints on the war. Instead of a break, Willard is just exposed to a different kind of madness: Cabin fever. I just don't have a single problem with it, the dialogue is great, what they actually SAY is great, the blocking is great, the progression of the scene is great; when the accordion player starts playing the national anthem of France, and the head of the household throws him because he's sick of that shit good GOD it's so good.
I get when other people go "what the hell I was watching a movie about Vietnam madness," but instead of thinking about that they oughta just let the scene play out and get absorbed in the performances. It's just great stuff I dunno what else to say. I watch the scene by itself very often and I look forward to it on repeat viewings of Redux.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9L3EXLfgIYw
>>69190307
>muh hamfisted 30 minute historical context scene in a story that isn't even supposed to be about the vietnam war
>>69190438
It's a good scene I just don't think it's right for the movie as a whole. It's a prime example of directors cuts should exist
>>69190546
*why director's cuts should exist. For all the extra stuff that doesn't quite work
>>69190510
>Apocalypse Now isn't about the vietnam war
>>69190732
Not the literal war. It's about the darkness in men and all that jazz
>>69190732
>>69190781
Both wrong
It's based on the novel Heart of Darkness by Joseph Conrad. Apocalypse Now lifted the basic elements from it and placed it in a Vietnam setting, because obviously in the late seventies that was going to resonate with people a lot more.
There really is no need for the plantation scene because it doesn't really equate to anything from the novel, and it only serves to divert from the main purpose for the sake of jerking off some people's history boners.
>>69190781
But it is indeed also about the war. Kurtz talks at length about it: The bulk of Kurtz' problem is that the United States was holding back under the guise of being "humane," or "peaceful," when if you're fighting a war you can't do that. You have to give the enemy hell if you want to win.
>>69190856
>and it only serves to divert from the main purpose for the sake of jerking off some people's history boners.
Good god that is a gross simplification. It contextualizes the France position on the Vietnam War, and is a wonderful talking point.
>>69190878
Clearly it isn't an oversimplification, since you justify it solely on the basis that it's a cute little historical tidbit.
>>69190930
No, it is. I mean goddamn how immature can you get? The performances are superb, the writing superb, everything about it is superb. It even gives a little bit more madness, (one that kills and one that loves), before going back on the river.
>>69190987
>I mean goddamn how immature can you get?
I haven't thrown a single insult, pal. Why so flustered?
>The performances are superb, the writing superb, everything about it is superb.
That may be true, but It's also overlong and doesn't alter or even move along the narrative even slightly. It is the archetypal example of a scene from a movie that should be deleted.
>>69190856
How am I wrong, you said the same thing as me. The point is to put the themes of Heart of Darkness in a modern setting
>>69190878
That's not specifically about Vietnam though. I don't need to know the history and social context of the war to appreciate those themes.
Again, I don't think it's a bad scene at all but it's totally superfluous to the movie at large
>>69190242
You're right outside of the pacing issue. It ruins Willards character.
>>69191046
>I haven't thrown a single insult, pal. Why so flustered?
I'm not saying you insulted me, but the summing up of a scene as intricate as the plantation one as "for the sake of jerking off some people's history boners" is petty and immature. It does nothing to productively discuss the scene itself whatsoever, which is what is actually important.
>but It's also overlong and doesn't alter or even move along the narrative even slightly
Yeah true.
>>69191086
>but it's totally superfluous to the movie at large
Oh I can agree with that.
>>69191086
I just didn't understand why a person would say "It's about the darkness in men and all that jazz" instead of just saying "It's based on Heart of Darkness" if they actually knew the latter.
>>69190160
+1 for theatrical.
