A Comparison of How War is Represented in Apocalypse Now (1979) and Kong: Skull Island (2017)

---

Comparison of the theatrical film posters for "Apocalypse Now" (left) and "Kong: Skull Island" (right)

---

In a review from Sight and Sound, Kim Newman described Kong: Skull Island (Jordan Vogt-Roberts, 2017) as ‘a fairly standard ‘lost world’ jaunt, with cribs from Apocalypse Now to add a relatively fresh psychedelic Nam trip vibe’ (2017: 81). When viewed at in a general perspective, these two films do differ. Apocalypse Now (Francis Ford Coppola, 1979) is a mysterious drama that follows US Officer Willard (Martin Sheen) who is tasked with assassinating a rogue Colonel, named Kurtz (Marlon Brando), and embarks on a journey with a PBR crew, descending through the chaotic war-torn jungle, and through the moral debates of the human condition. On the contrary, Kong: Skull Island is an action blockbuster about soldiers fighting a large ape and monstrous lizards (called Skullcrawlers). However, despite their variations tonally, these films share many similarities. Aside from the intertextuality used in Skull Island to homage Vietnam War films, specifically Apocalypse Now, both the films also employ themes on authority, masculinity, morality, perpetuation of the frontier myth, and subjectivity in their pro or anti-war stances. This essay will aim to compare in detail these similarities and differences in how war is represented in these two films.

Context of the Film’s Release

Apocalypse Now and Kong: Skull Island are different in the context in which they were made, being separated in release dates by 38 years. Apocalypse Now was released in 1979, at the end of a decade characterised by experimentation, complex narratives, and often flawed characters. This is due to the changes in American culture which shifted away from the clear-cut, ideologically-sound characteristics of Classical Hollywood before the late 1960s. As Robin Wood states, this is mainly because of Vietnam as ‘the obvious monstrousness of the war definitely undermined the credibility of “the system”’ (1986: 49). Therefore, films of this period, Apocalypse Now included, often feature themes of authority, power, masculinity, morality, and subjectivity. This also meant the production of the film coincided with the aftermath of returning soldiers from Vietnam when the US exited in 1973, further supplementing the anti-government ideals and psychological trauma seen in the film.

Kong: Skull Island was released in 2017, characterised in the Hollywood landscape as being dominated by blockbusters. Anita Elberse states: ‘Rather than dividing its resources evenly across the products in its portfolio, a movie studio following a blockbuster strategy allocates a disproportionally large share of its production and marketing dollars to a small subset of products in the hope that they will bring in the lion’s share of revenues and profits’ (2013: 18). These films are designed to appeal to the largest target audience, often featuring ‘A-list talent [and], elaborate visual effects’ (Elberse, 2013: 19). In terms of notable stars, Skull Island features Tom Hiddleston, Samuel L. Jackson, John Goodman, Brie Larson, and John C. Riley who were all well-known at the time, and feature in the most prominent roles. On the contrary, Martin Sheen, the lead actor in Apocalypse Now, was not widely recognised (although Marlon Brando and Robert Duvall (Kilgore) were well-known due to another of Coppola’s films, The Godfather (1972)).

Alongside the stars from Skull Island, the other notable figure could be classified as Kong himself. As Neil Archer discusses, blockbusters include a ‘massive ‘pre-awareness’, established and extended narrative, [and] a huge existing fan base’ (2019: 16). These factors make Kong appeal to the blockbuster strategy. This is due to him being well-known in the public conscious, as his first appearance was in the 1933 film King Kong (Cooper and Schoedsack), which due to its status has made the character famous. It also contains iconic scenes, such as Kong holding Ann Darrow (Fay Wray) as he fights biplanes. This is referenced in Skull Island as this iteration of Kong holds Mason Weaver (Brie Larson) as he fights the Skullcrawler. As Archer explains: ‘The system is powered by the production of specific content, serving the prevailing demands and logic of industrial intertextuality’ (2019: 26). This relates to the links to famous films that spawned the characters, the homages to other Vietnam war films, and the use of franchising to create an extended narrative through a saga. Skull Island was the second film in Legendary Picture’s MonsterVerse, started by Godzilla (Edwards, 2014). Both these films attempt to establish the crossover event Godzilla Vs Kong (Wingard, 2021), which are often appealing to fans and therefore companies.

Themes of Power and Masculinity

In the decade that followed the US exit of Vietnam, filmmakers used this uncertainty of the government and dissipated it to involve ‘a questioning of the entire social structure that validated it, and ultimately to patriarchy itself’ (Wood, 1986: 50). For this reason, authority figures and masculinity were often seen as flawed and confused, especially within the context of soldiers. In Apocalypse Now, the authority is portrayed as lacklustre and disjointed. For example, in the Do Long Bridge scene, it is revealed that the soldiers protecting this heavily attacked strategic location have no commanding officers, and thus are fighting a ‘futile and apparently endless battle […] fought merely so the generals can say the bridge is open’ (Hellmann, 1991: 73). The ridiculousness and distaste towards the foibles of the system is echoed in the music in this sequence, as it mirrors that of circus and horror scenes, implying that the soldiers in this scenario are clowns being manipulated in a nightmarish area. Therefore, the military systems have failed the soldiers, treating them as commodities and undermining the patriotic foundations the systems were founded upon.

Masculinity and patriarchy are also questioned through the flawed nature of Willard. As the central character, Willard is portrayed as an observer to incidents rather than assisting or preventing them, instead opting to read the mission dossier and contemplate the morality of Kurtz compared to his own war fatigue. The only situation Willard has a clear viewpoint and reaction to, is when the PBR crew do a routine search of a sampan, against Willard’s orders, and the PBR crew end up firing upon the locals in paranoia. When its revealed one of the locals survives, Willard murders her to ensure time is not wasted taking her to a hospital. This portrays Willard’s leadership, and in turn patriarchy, as apathetic and selfish, yet also ‘with a strict integrity on a personal code of ethics’ (Hellmann, 1991: 69) as Willard’s initial dismissal of the search would have avoided the situation.

In contrast, Kong: Skull Island had a long separation between the period the film was set, 1973, and the filmmakers own lives leading up to the film’s release. This means that the historical accuracy is questionable. This is not only due to the fictious nature of the story, but due to information and opinions regarding the Vietnam War being distorted by the media that succeeded it, especially those directly after the conflict such as Apocalypse Now. Frank P. Tomasulo states: ‘The establishment of these false antinomies […] and the mixed messages of the films rewrote that period’s history for those who lived through it and for those who will come to know it mainly through its media representations’ (1990: 157). Therefore, the uncertainty in the government, and unfavourable depictions of masculinity are in direct result of Vietnam films from the 1970s, as this is perceived to be the overall sentiment of the period, regardless of the complex political and societal issues that also affected the US’s involvement and defeat. This is notably shown through the two main authority figures, researcher Bill Randa (John Goodman) and Lieutenant Colonel Packard (Samuel L. Jackson), who both have selfish desires and are caricatures of masculine urges to hunt and kill, evident with their opinions on studying and killing Kong. This is similar to that of Kilgore in Apocalypse Now who was portrayed with a bloodlust and selfish desire, evident when he used excessive force to destroy a village, partially due to Vietcong in the area, but also partially in order to surf.

Both films also represent the idea of authority in a god-like way. Looking at similarities in their posters (which further demonstrates Skull Island’s homage visually to Apocalypse Now), the positioning of Kurtz and Kong as the central figure highlights their dominant presence. Furthermore, the sun is often regarded in mythology as being an unstoppable and mysterious force, so, by having the characters obscure it, it indicates they are powerful beyond reason. As well as this, Tatiana Prorokova explores the idea that ‘Kurtz’s appearance is similar to the image of Buddha. Moreover, the house he inhabits reminds the viewers of an ancient Orient Temple’ (2018: 95). This further shows his authority, as Buddhism is a major religion in Southeast Asia, suggesting that, to the locals, he is an oracle superior to them. Kong could also indicate a basis in religion. Not only do the native Iwi tribe on Skull Island worship Kong as a god, evident by the murals in a shrine dedicated to him, but in another religion common in Southeast Asia, Hinduism, gods are often depicted as anthropomorphic animals. For example, Hanuman is portrayed as a monkey, and is the god of wisdom, strength, and courage, attributes that apply to Kong.

Themes of Morality

Often in war films, the theme of morality due to the psychological effects of combat is explored. Prorokova explains: ‘From unusual geographic environments, to the first kill, to the problem of veteran’s reintegration in society, film has widely illustrated some of the most intricate issues related to war, attempting to clarify the complex philosophy of war to its viewers’ (2018: 90). In both films, the theme of morality is the central idea that motivates the characters and the narrative. In Apocalypse Now, the plot revolves around Willard contemplating whether to terminate Kurtz, a man that, through reading his dossier, he begins to respect. This is due to Kurtz many accolades, as well as Willard identifying with him on a personal and psychological level. The chaos of war results in Willard’s mental decline, and questioning of the government’s ability to lead, in a similar way to how Kurtz ultimately decided to relinquish the army. In Kong: Skull Island, the moral divide is split between two factions, both with different plans of whether to help or kill Kong. Those with Conrad (Tom Hiddleston) and Weaver (Brie Larson) want to help Kong, after learning from Marlow (John C. Riley) and the native Iwi tribe that Kong is the only protector against the Skullcrawlers.  Those with Randa (John Goodman) and Packard (Samuel L. Jackson) want to kill Kong as revenge on his slaughter of the soldiers when they first got to the island. This desire for murder and control without responsibility is a common trait. Mark J. Lacy states that: ‘Vietnam becomes a space where men like Kilgore can explore the libidinization of technology and bodies (through helicopters, female bodies, and surfboards), enjoying a fantasy of control and mastery of the territory and its people’ (2003: 627). This is further illustrated by Kurtz’s control over his Indigenous militia in Cambodia, or the soldier’s from Skull Island triumphing their technological abilities of missiles, guns, and napalm against everything they come in contact with, to the extent Packard orders his men to detour to a crash site to find more explosives to use against Kong instead of leaving the island.

Where these films deviate in their depictions of morality is in their ambiguity. Kong: Skull Island is explicit in its portrayals; characters depicted as violent are evil, and those depicted as helpful saviours are heroes. This is evident as all the characters who wish to harm or exploit Kong and the island for personal gain are killed unceremoniously, whilst those who wish to protect Kong either survive or die with valour. This is because, being primarily an action blockbuster, the split in morality is between protagonists and antagonists, allowing for audiences to support the heroes and despise the villains more easily, and thus focus on enjoying the spectacle. In contrast, Apocalypse Now has its moral divide through the main character, Willard, and his reflection on Kurtz, the military, and the inhabitants of Southeast Asia.  As mentioned, Willard is a flawed character who simultaneously is heroic in his journey to terminate a renegade murderer, and villainous in his own murder of the natives in the sampan due to his personal apathy. When we are first introduced to Willard, he is shown upside-down, with chiaroscuro lighting blocking half his face. This is symbolic of his warped and divisive perception of the Vietnam war, while he is off duty in a hotel room in Saigon, as he has become traumatised by and acclimatised to his life as a soldier. As Prorokova explains: ‘He is both physically and emotionally unable to be on a peaceful territory, where his evil side is especially noticeable’ (2018: 93). Therefore, as he witnesses more chaos and horrors of the war on his boat trip, the film explores Willard’s mental state in more detail rather than focusing on action. Ultimately, the final scene with Willard, after he has assassinated Kurtz, mirrors the opening with the same chiaroscuro lighting on his face, demonstrating that his decisions hasn’t changed his psychological divide. However, as he appears the correct way up, it indicates that his journey has made him more certain about his distasteful views towards the war and the systems that govern him.

The Frontier Myth

Roland Barthes made prominent the idea of the myth, a ‘system of communication’ (1957: 109) that popularises beliefs made prevalent across generations and society. As he states, it is how the media will ‘constantly dress up a reality which […] is undoubtedly determined by history’ (1957: 11). This was true of the representation of Vietnam, both during the conflict and after it, as the idea proliferated across media was reminiscent of the “Frontier Myth” that had been prevalent in American history from its beginnings. As John Hellman explains: ‘The most important mythology of the United States, […] has been that of the frontier. The frontier mythology is a complex of narratives constructed in triumphant, if sometimes vaguely troubled or regretful, affirmations of the American expansion. […] Americans have remembered their history within a master-narrative shaped by their ideology of individualism, freedom, success and special mission’ (1997: 177). From its creation, the idea of manifesting destiny has been vital, inspiring those during the frontier travelling west across the continent, to the conflicts over freedom during the Civil War, to that of supporting capitalism against communism in the global Cold War of the twentieth century. Hence forth, from the offset of American involvement in Vietnam, a similar national identity was reinforced to inspire the soldiers to fight for this belief.

Both Apocalypse Now and Kong: Skull Island express this ideology in the motivations of the soldiers and the mission they have been tasked to fulfil. One of the key elements in this myth is ‘the racist dispossession of the native inhabitants [whereby the Western hero is] shown bestowing a liberal protection and improvement upon the native inhabitants of this New Frontier’ (Hellmann, 1997: 178). In Apocalypse Now, this comes in the form of Willard’s mission to execute Kurtz to free the Indigenous people of Vietnam and Cambodia from his rule. In the final scene, after Willard has murdered Kurtz, a shot depicts him standing at the top stair of the temple where Kurtz resided, being watched by the natives similar to being worshiped as a leader. Willard then literally, and metaphorically, steps down to their level, walking through the silent crowd to leave. This symbolises that Willard sees himself as equal to the Vietnamese troops part of this militia, and that they are now free from dictatorship, as well as himself descending into a similar state of psychosis. However, this is despite the fact the native people appear to respect and worship Kurtz (although they are also still negatively affected by his tyranny), and therefore the fact that American soldiers make it their duty to kill him effectively shows that the Vietnamese are changing from one US imposed ideology to a different one. As the character Jerry (Jerry Ziesmer) states during the initial briefing, Willard mission is to “terminate with extreme prejudice”, showing this group of US soldiers also have strongly held ideologies and only consider this in a state of war, rather than that of freedom for the natives.

Kong: Skull Island is less morally unclear in this regard. The native Iwi tribe’s enemy, originally believed to be Kong, is instead the Skullcrawlers. The US soldiers who discover this have no issue and fulfil the desires of the natives to protect Kong and kill the Skullcrawlers. However, the “Frontier Myth” is still clear, as the Iwi tribe are seen as being less advanced than the American soldiers, alien in the fact they do not speak, and in need of the American’s help (albeit to stop the other American group from killing Kong). This links to the freedom and individualism aspect of the myth as well, as each faction has their own personal ideologies separate from what may be the best outcome for the island and its natives, and thus their presence makes them the force giving or taking Kong’s freedom. The reason the soldiers are there in the first place also perpetuates the myth, as their mission is to explore and claim a newly discovered land, to acquire the success that may come as a result. This is similar to the westward expansion of the United States.

Subjectivity in Pro or Anti-War Stance

In terms of their stances on being for or against war, both films have a subjective approach allowing them to be interpreted in either way. Tomasulo explores this idea, saying that: ‘On the one hand, Apocalypse Now has been read as an antiwar statement because many scenes depict the absurdity and outright lunacy of America’s Vietnam policies, as well as the machinations of high-level military commanders’ (1990: 149). This can also be said of Kong: Skull Island. Throughout both films, as previously mentioned, the government, military, and those in charge are seen as selfish, stupid, or corrupted, and often receive their comeuppance, whether that be Kurtz’s termination by Willard, or Randa’s and Packard’s death by Skullcrawlers and Kong respectively. The tactics employed are also portrayed as ridiculous and futile. This includes: the use of excessive napalm to clear a forest in Apocalypse Now, the use of napalm to unsuccessfully kill Kong, when in Skull Island Captain Cole (Shea Whigham) attempts to sacrifice himself via suicide bombing against a Skullcrawler but is instead tossed aside and killed on a cliff face, or when, in Apocalypse, a playboy bunny performance is held in the middle of the jungle to boost morale, but quickly divulges into chaos with soldiers charging the stage.  The absurdity of these events organised by high-ranking individuals, and the disapproval to the plans by the lower-ranking main characters (who the audience are compelled to identify with), perpetuates the idea that those in positions of power often mishandle war, therefore criticising its historical and political real-life basis.

However, the action scenes imply a more jingoistic view that questions whether this ridiculousness is beneficial. Tomasulo explains: ‘This aestheticization of violence contributes greatly to the film’s appeal to a twisted patriotism. The use of wide-screen […] creates a grandiose, romanticised, and even heavenly aura of battle that changes destruction and death from acts of horror into Armageddon-like sights of awe-inspiring beauty’ (1990: 149). For example, in Apocalypse Now, one of the most famous scenes is the battle at “Charlie’s Point” in which, at the command of Lieutenant Colonel Kilgore, a fleet of helicopters bomb a Vietnamese village, and then burn the jungle with napalm. This is all to the triumphant, orchestral sound of Wagner’s Ride of the Valkyries. In a similar scene in Kong: Skull Island, as soon as the troops arrive on this untouched landscape, a fleet of helicopters drop seismic charges on the flora and fauna in an attempt to prove the hollow earth theory. This is accompanied by Black Sabbath’s Paranoid. For both scenes, the spectacle of witnessing these machines and weapons in close-ups and personal interior shots, before seeing the wave of destruction that ensues, instils an excitement and adrenaline into the audience. Furthermore, seeing the joy in the soldiers, with shots following their point-of-view to the damage they cause, creates a sense of comradery between them and the audience. Despite the absurdity of it, in both cases, the film argues that the soldiers are doing the right thing. Even though in Apocalypse Now, the village they destroy has woman and schoolchildren, it is shown it is a Vietcong base as well, and some of the perceived innocents are enemies too, such as a woman who conceals a grenade and destroys a helicopter. Therefore, the death and destruction caused is valid as sacrifices for the US were also made to weaken the enemy. In Skull Island, the destruction benefits their cause as well, as they prove the hollow earth theory as a result. Their sacrifice occurs when, shortly after, Kong attacks the helicopters as he perceives it as an invasion of his homeland, resulting in more violent spectacle. This instead, as Van Ginneken states, turns ‘the whole experience into a timeless literary-artistic tragedy’ (2007: 160), whereby action scenes create a universal and temporal depiction of glorified and patriotic violence, and the consequences provide the tragic moral justification.

Conclusion

In conclusion, Apocalypse Now and Kong: Skull Island undoubtedly differ in their overall plot, character development, and appeal, as they have different approaches in the narratives they portray. However, whether this is due to purposeful intertextuality, similarities in the view towards the Vietnam War, or by coincidence, Kong: Skull Island shares more than just aesthetics and references with Apocalypse Now. The depictions of the representation of Western society, ideas surrounding power, themes of morality, perpetuation of myths, and subjectivity in war sentiments are all similar. Overall, despite these films certainly being different, the subtextual messages echo each other and the opinions and ideologies of the filmmakers’ perspectives on Vietnam, whether they lived through it or not.

---

Bibliography

Archer, Neil (2019) ‘Twenty-First-Century Hollywood: Rebooting the System’, New York: Columbia University Press

Barthes, Roland (1957) ‘Mythologies’, Paris: Editions du Seuil

Elberse, Anita (2013) ‘Blockbusters: Why Big Hits – and Big Risks – are the Future of the Entertainment Business’, New York: Henry Holt and Company

Hellmann, John (1991) ‘Vietnam and the Hollywood Genre Film: Inversions of American Mythology in The Deer Hunter and Apocalypse Now’, in Anderegg, Michael (ed.) ‘Inventing Vietnam’, Philadelphia: Temple

Hellmann, John (1997) ‘The Vietnam War and American Memory’, in Evans, Martin and Lunn, Ken, ‘War and Memory in the Twentieth Century’, Oxford: Berg Publishers

Lacy, Mark J. (2003) ‘War, Cinema, and Moral Anxiety’, in ‘Alternatives: Global, Local, Political’, vol. 28, no. 5: SAGE journals

Newman, Kim (2017) ‘Kong: Skull Island’, Sight and Sound, Vol. 27 Issue 5

Prorokova, Tatiana (2018) ‘Human Duality, Moral Transformation, and the Vietnam War in Apocalypse Now and Full Metal Jacket’, in ‘Ex-centric Narratives: Journal of Anglophone Literature, Culture and Media’, Vol. 1 No. 2, Thessaloniki: School of English, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki

Tomasulo, Frank P. (1990) ‘The Politics of Ambivalence: Apocalypse Now as Prowar and Antiwar Film’, in Dittmar, Linda and Michaud, Gene (eds.) ‘From Hanoi to Hollywood: The Vietnam War in American Film’, New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press

Van Ginneken, Jaap (2007) ‘Screening Difference: How Hollywood’s Blockbuster Films Imagine Race, Ethnicity, and Culture’, Lanham, Rowman & Littlefield Publishers

Wood, Robin (1986) ‘Hollywood from Vietnam to Reagan’, New York: Columbia University Press

---

Filmography

Apocalypse Now (Francis Ford Coppola, 1979)

The Godfather (Francis Ford Coppola, 1972)

Godzilla (Gareth Edwards, 2014)

Godzilla Vs Kong (Adam Wingard, 2021)

King Kong (Merian C. Cooper and Ernest B. Schoedsack, 1933)

Kong: Skull Island (Jordan Vogt-Roberts, 2017)