KILLING KURTZ: THEMATIC AND NARRATIVE IDEAS ON THE ENDING OF APOCALYPSE NOW

The ending of Apocalypse now did confuse some critics at the time, who expected less ambiguous ending. The director, Francis Ford Coppola, was aware that the ending may not be dramatic enough and an alternative ending was shot and has been shown in some cinema screens at the time of the film's release. In this alternative ending, General Kurtz's compound is napalmed and destroyed in a blaze of flames. This dramatic ending is hinted at from the very start of the movie which has explosions and the song The End by The Doors which gives a clue about the film's finale. Although the bombing of General Kurtz's base is not seen in the final cut of the film shown theatrically as Coppola decided it was too harsh and brutal an ending, we still assume this is how the narrative ends. Captain Willard has already issues instructions that the base be destroyed if he does not return and the sight of flame from Kurtz's temple at the end of the film, even without the bombing shown, does hint that Kurtz's power is to be finished along with his death with the destruction of all he had built up, and destruction of the evidence of his brutal crimes and punishment of his enemies. 

The ending is sombre and the death of Kurtz is languid and atmospheric. Captain Willard does not show any high emotion on his face. He almost looks regretful, but also very determined to carry out his duty. It was his mission to kill Kurtz and this has been achieved. Kurtz's death is linked to the death of the animal, and is almost sacrificial. His death could represent the fact that this war has no winner. There is power and battles won, but the war itself achieved nothing. Kurtz is seen by the army as being insane, but the words he speaks about the devotion to his mission and determination to gain power is only him following instructions to the extreme. His insanity is viewed as insanity by those who have also been driven insane by the horrors of this war. This insanity is shown by the mixing of brutality with an obsession on surfing and relaxation earlier in the movie. 

Kurtz was seen as a godlike figure and with his death the ending of the film shows Willard walking through Kurtz's followers who drop weapons and almost seem to see Willard as their new god. The film indicates that the horrors of this war have driven those involved to seek escape or justification in a godlike, all powerful figure, perhaps indicating the abandonment in some way by the US army. With Willard's face superimposed over the compound and the statue and Kurtz's followers, we could think that Willard is just the next Kurtz, and not any better. Kurtz died easily, and the ending of the film has no great battle: he dies like the slaughtered animal, very easily and almost pathetic in the resistance he offers up. Kurtz wants to die. He wants to be free of the horrors he has been forced by circumstance to commit. He held power but a reference is made in the film to how he took on his mission as a sense of duty, when he could have stayed in an office and risen in the ranks. Kurtz is seen by some critics to be a voice of sanity about the pointlessness of their mission, a reluctant outcast. If Willard is insane himself, how can he view Kurtz as inane. Kurtz's crimes are the outcome of being given instructions to carry out missions in a war that had no ending; his carrying on the war is a crime and his actions barbaric, but Willard's carrying out of instructions to kill one of their own in an emotionless way and fight for the same cause, hints at also sinking towards insanity. Kurtz saying "The horror, The horror.." is perhaps about the war itself, and the crimes he and Willard have committed (or Willard may still commit) and in this understanding, he may be less of a villain and more a realist of their fate: both his and Willard's and all those involved in this war without end or mercy - a war only of horrors. 

General Kurtz's quiet and melancholy, almost accepting death, and Willard's slow and stone-faced and resigned execution, and new sense of power shown in Kurtz's followers perhaps now following Willard as their way out of hopelessness is strong and poignant and shows us the hopelessness of this war in Apocalypse Now. 

Analysing social realism

Arnold highlights the gritty realism of living in poverty. This is shown when their kitchen is full of mouldy bread and how unsanitary they're whole flat is in general. The children are having to share a bag of sugar at the beginning and a packet of crisps when she's at the pub which she just managed to afford. This makes us symphasise with Zoe as she's barely managing to get by and helps her children the best she can even if sometimes it leads to the children getting into trouble. The audience can already guess they're living in poverty and are struggling to afford food and clothing for the children as when the family go outside the baby has no nappies on and they have no shoes on. The camera is quite shaky as it uses a handheld camera which makes it more realistic like its actually happening right in front of us as its filmed in a documentary style way. There is no sound used which makes the fight scene at the beginning more intense and realistic. They are shown to be quite a dysfunctional family as they don't walk down the stairs together in one wide shot instead of individually.  Arnold also uses close up shots which highlights the poor state they're in and that they're living in poverty. Arnold highlights social realism with the close up shots.

The children are also shown to be playing outside while the mum is in the pub showing they're a dysfunctional family as the mum is not around to supervise the children. This highlights the social realism of a family in poverty with the mum not having enough time to look after her children and her having to tell them to wait outside. The editing is fast paced as it keeps cutting back from the children outside to the mother in the pub. This sets up for the rest of the story as the children are later to be seen eating a bag of ribs on the floor. The acting is naturalistic as it shows a family getting into a fight and as well as the mum getting quite angry with her children at times with Danny Dyer playing the ex boyfriend of Zoe very well and with an accurate performance. Arnold also demonstrates social realism with the accents make it accurate to the setting of the film with a family living in a council flat. The location is naturalistic as it shows a block of council flats with her having a dirty kitchen with gone off food, highlighting the social realism with the dirty flats and the mouldy bread. As the film goes on the lighting becomes more darker as so does the story as the wasp goes into the baby's  mouth. Zoe is seen to be caring in this scene as she gets out the car with Dave which  exposes the fact her children are here to him but she doesn't care as she just wants to make sure her children are safe and make sure nothing bad has happened to them as it was her who told them to wait outside in the first scene so is rightfully responsible for any disasters.