American Films of the 70s: Conflicting Visions

Chapter 7: General Patton and Colonel Kurtz: Patton, Apocalypse Now

Chapter 7 General Patton and Colonel Kurtz Patton Apocalypse Now Patton (1970) and Apocalypse Now1 (1979) bookend the decade of the 1970s with two very different pictures of the American military at war. The first, a studio epic from Twentieth Century–Fox, gives a portrait of an eccentric general within a generally positive view of the U.S. Army in World War II. The second, made independently and at great expense by director Francis Coppola (though with financial backing—mainly loans—from United Artists ), presents a complex and far more negative portrayal of the U.S. Army in Vietnam. Although the films explicitly address different wars, and this is important, they are also about contemporaneous issues of war and foreign policy. From this standpoint, both films could be seen as commenting on the Vietnam War. Patton is a film from the period when the Vietnam War could be addressed only indirectly in American cinema. (The Green Berets, made in 1968, is an interesting exception to the ‘‘rule.’’) Auster and Quart call this period ‘‘The War That Dared Not Speak Its Name.’’2 Apocalypse Now, on the other hand, is one of the first films to directly confront the American experience in Vietnam. If Apocalypse Now is to some extent confused, this may be because it tries to fit into one film all that had been left out for more than a decade. Francis Coppola had major creative roles in both films. He was coscreenwriter of Patton, with Edward North; both writers won Academy Awards for their efforts. He was co-screenwriter, director, and producer of Apocalypse Now, and therefore had a much broader influence on this later film. Although Coppola’s creative personality certainly had an effect on the two films, my essay purposely does not treat him as an auteur. Instead, it will analyze the representation of the military, and the military hero, in relation to issues of history, of sources, and of collective authorship, for both films. A key point to consider is the relation of fiction and nonfiction in both films. Patton is a Hollywood biography, a selective, scripted, acted retelling of a historical figure’s life. Apocalypse Now is at first glance all fiction, a transposition of Conrad’s Heart of Darkness to the Vietnam War. But Apocalypse Now is based on nonfiction sources as well, including Michael Herr’s Dispatches and news reports on the case of Colonel Robert Rheault. Col. Rheault, commanding the U.S. Army Special Forces in Vietnam, was arrested in 1969 for the murder of a Vietnamese agent. The ensuing news coverage suggested that the Special Forces were involved in both espionage and guerilla warfare in Vietnam and neighboring countries, with very little centralized oversight or control. Colonel Rheault is one of the sources for the film’s Colonel Kurtz. So, both Patton and Apocalypse Now are mixtures of the fictional and the real. Patton leans towards docudrama, whereas Apocalypse Now is more symbolic and allusive in its construction. Patton has usually been discussed as a film with a dual meaning. It can be construed as patriotic, pro-Army, pro-war—presenting Patton as a hero. Or it can be interpreted as antipatriotic, antimilitary, antiwar—presenting Patton as a knave, fool, or psychotic. The film appealed to both pro-war and antiwar audiences in 1970, quite a trick given the polarization of the United States at that moment of the Vietnam War. My view is that the film is primarily a pro-war piece, a portrait of an unorthodox military hero. This is the perspective of the film’s major source, Ladislas Farago’s biography Patton: Ordeal and Triumph.3 However, the points of view of the film’s main collaborators are interestingly mixed. Also, in the charged atmosphere of 1970, the film’s presentation of Patton’s eccentricities could be interpreted as criticism of the military in general. 108 american films of the 70s Vincent Canby, the influential critic of the New York Times, makes the point that Patton is primarily the creative product of its sponsoring studio, Twentieth Century–Fox. Canby notes that Darryl Zanuck, longtime production chief of Fox, ‘‘always has had a soft spot for the military . . . and Fox has often had military brass on its board of directors.’’4 This orientation explains the presence of Frank McCarthy, producer of Patton, as an executive at Fox. McCarthy, a high-ranking staff...