Battle of the sheens: Farther vs. son, Apocalypse now vs.

Platoon They say youth is wasted on the young, and I find it hard to disagree. Just like your average teenage, I had the whole world in front of me, and instead of exploring and living everyday to the fullest, I found myself on a Friday night, in a dark room with a computer in front of me. I wanted to watch a few films, I was in the, I want to see people getting shoot at, so I decided to go for a war film and just by chance I stumbled upon two masterpiece, then after watching them, and seeing the credits after, I realized that one stared a farther and the other one stared a son, and they were both war films based on the very same war, Vietnam. So with so many Coincidences, I just had to take up the opportunity to compare the two films, on such things as story, cinematography and sound, but also to compare the performance of the two leads of each film, Martin and son Charlie Sheen. If this was a competition of who had the worst soul destroying addiction, an alcoholic or a drug and prostitute one, it looks like the son would win on this one, and out do the master. But when you look at the flip side and see whose career has out shone whose, its not really much of a competition. With Martin boosting the likes of; The Precedence men, Badlands, Ghandi and JFK, and then you have Charlie with career highlights well Hot Shots! Hot Shots! Part Deux, Scary Movie 3 and 4. Well its safe to say Martin wins on that one. But this article is isnt really about, their careers in general otherwise Martin Sheen would have even before I started typing this. But instead subjected to which was better Apocalypse now or Platoon and who gave the better performance in the lead role, Martin or Charlie. It terms of comparing the two films to determine which was better, but just like in everyday life, the first thing you see is the surface the superficial. In terms of films the superficial is the awards received and the profit made. Well firstly on the amount of awards front they are relatively similar, 4 awards (3 Oscars and 1 Palme dOr) just for France Ford Coppolas film Apocalypse now, just piping Coppola to the post is Olive Stone and his Platoon with 5 big award (4 Oscars and 1 BAFTA If you can call it a big award) just for the film itself. But then Apocalypse now levels the playing field on the prestige of the wins. Yes Platoon won the Best Picture Oscar, but Apocalypse did what very few mainstream big budget (more on budget later) American films do and win the Palme d'Or. Placing the film in the same bracket as The Conversation, (Another one from director Francis Ford Coppola) Taxi Drive and Pulp fiction, a very select group indeed. But people may say that the Academy Award is the greatest honour film, which is true in the opinion of the average Joe on the streets, but if you were then to ask a true film connoisseur or anyone who would consider themselves highly film literate, bordering on film obsessive. 9/10 time they would point to the Palme dOr. The awards committee for Palme choose to honour mainstream but mostly independent films based on true artistic merit and real class, rather than their bigger more glamorous Academy award brother, who chose a film on the hopes of getting a signature from the big star in it Argo, really? So this round goes to Apocalypse now. But dont get me wrong Im not rotting for Apocalypse now; Platoon still has some tricks up its sleeve So getting up from that one two punch, Platoon comes back swinging with an almighty profit margin. Grossing a mammoth $138 million on poultry budget of just 6 million, and I certainly felt it deserved every dollar it earned, because it certainly gave more than 6 million dollars worth of genius. Whilst on the other hand Apocalypse now was only able to rustle up and average performance, and slightly disappointing $83 million on a budget of $31 million, barely making a profit when you account for

marketing aswel. But to make it a fair fight and play devils advocate as I have to back both corners all though I prefer Platoon and later when I review the films technically you will see why. But the reason I felt why Apocalypse now didnt perform to its best was because it was widely reported from a verity of different sources about the hardship endured by the production team. Such as shooting in a country notorious for typhoons, then out of nowhere and completely unexpected storing the film burnt down, but luckily it remained safe, and the little fact that the main character Martin sheen was a supposed alcoholic, and would turn up on set with hangovers. All this helps to perpetuate the legend that is apocalypse now, and the irony that they were facing their own war, just at the same time they were filming it. But all these evidence helped drive the production budget from around $17 million to an inflated $31 million, possibly eating deeply into the marketing budget, not helped by the fact that once seeing the official trailer that lasted for almost 4mins, leaving people feeling they already so the film, which defiantly accounts for poor box office readings. I just have state that the tackling of the Vietnam War by Ford Francis Coppola, and Oliver stone. Was particularly a brave decision, more so when you see the years they where maid, 1979 and 86 respectively, were very brave decisions, which they handled with care and respect. As it was a war that America lost, so it was fin ground, but out of the flurry of war films that were born out of it such as; The Deer hunter, Full metal jacket and coming home. Apocalypse now and Platoon stand heads and shoulder above the rest. And were beyond doubt the inspiration for all war films to follow, naming the likes of; Saving Private Ryan, The thin red line and most recent The Hurt Locker. But with all the names listed above its no coincident that the war genre is one of the most celebrated and averred in the hall of film, boosting probably more Oscars then another, because a they paint a sincere picture of the human condition, that we dont always get to see in the safety of the cocoon that is our lives, and only when we turn on the TV are we reminded about the atrocities going on everyday in some parts of the world, but unlike us they cant change channel, or even turn the TV off any time the images of pain and suffering get a little too much, because its their reality, their living and breathing it, instead of just witnessing it. So I felt it was interesting to see how each film was able to take the very same war and draw completely different elements and ideologies from it, making it completely unique, and powerful each for different reasons. Now its time for my favourite aspect of the article, the technical. Firstly Apocalypse now, it belongs to a very rare occurrence thus highly sort after, that a film can possess the holy trinity of a combination of a; great script, a legendary director and an almost god like actor. But such is the elusive nature of this endeavour, it never quiet has been attained in the history of film well thats before a certain mater piece going by the name of Apocalypse now graced our screens with this almost mythical alliance of this magnitude. The director: Francis Ford Coppola (Godfather trilogy). The story: a tale of a world teetering on the edge of Darkness almost ready to descent into primal madness, as Capt. Willard (Martin Sheen) has to navigate his way through hell on earth to find and kill AWOL Col. Kurtz (The actor:) Marlon Brando (On the Waterfront and Godfarther 1) - whose very name is translated into greatness in almost every language known to man. The epic tale of this coming together will probably never happen again or would even have another three components assembled that will ever parallel it. So it something to be marvelled at, as you sits down in your comfortable chair to watch such a spectacle.

The on the other hand we have Platoon differs in its story line, as the main character is far younger, so the story is told from a more naive perspective as of a student Charlie character named Chris Taylor in the late 60s who joins up for the army believing in his heart that he is fulfilling his patriotic duty, and I feel in some part of him, deep down he believes that he will go to Vietnam fire a few bullets and return as a hero. But upon reaching, he joins up with a diverse platoon of men, in the outside world would probably never rub shoulders with, but here they move as one, lead by two men; Sgt. Barnes (Tom Berenger) a man with a scared appearance, that adds to his mystical aura of being a man that cannot be killed and the other Sgt. Elias (Willem Dafoe) who through the use of mind altering drugs is able to maintain an air of calm. But Chris Taylors dreams of heroism are quickly obliterated as they delve deeper into enemy territory, witnessing acts of despicable evil towards his fellow man by the very same men he serves within the same platoon, making him quickly realizes how naive his ideas of war as they are not a rite of passage he once thought but instead war is actually hell on earth where no side wins. So from the synopsis you can see that from the onset the two characters see war in completely different perspective and ages, and it is conveyed in the narrative style of both films, and their focus. Apocalypse now focus on the bigger picture and the much older character Capt. Willard and obsessive pursuit of Col. Kurtz, whilst Platoon focus more on a younger mans need for companions ship, as it the film focus on getting to know of each of the characters in the platoon, whilst the other character on Apocalypse now are just bystanders, and its this very same reason I felt in terms of the narrative, Platoon gets points, because war isnt just about killing, there is a very human side to it, because the ones doing the killing are often young scared men, who think its their duty and honour to die for their country, and I just felt Apocalypse now missed a trick, particularly when it came to the Lawrence Fishbuornes character, who was just 17, so it would have been interesting to hear things from a black boy fighting in a white mans war. Next in terms of Cinematography, this is when Apocalypses nows looking at the bigger picture comes into play as aesthetically it comes into its own. I would go as far as to say that Vittorio Storaro cinematography was as if watching a walking and talking Picasso piece, such was the extent of the visual art mastery he conjured up in Apocalypse Now, as if he were the of spring of Gandalf and Dumbledore. The final few scenes with Marlon Brando were simply captivating, short but sweet. Vittorio Storaros blending of darkness and shimmers of light streaking across Brandos face was simply breath taking, giving Brando an almost god like aura. The scene itself probably belongs hanged up on a wall in the Tate Modern as much as it deserves to be on a film screen. All though Platoon next to any other film would look impeccable with its dark gritty colours, that capture the real sense of war, its no match for Apocalypse now, and shouldnt be a surprise to see that its won an Oscar for Best Cinematography. With another blow to platoon is sound. Although both films won awards for both sound mixing, Apocalypse now comes out on top again, which is also represented in that fact its won an Oscar for Best Original score. Songs such as The End where used to a haunting affect, resonating in me far past the end of the film, and you simply cant forget The Ride of the Valkyries over the helicopters flying - which would go down as one of the greatest scenes in cinema history. On another day, and up against any other film, Adagio for Strings by Samuel Barber would have won it for Platoon.

Drawing from an earlier reference too Lawrence Fishbourne, both films boost huge list of star names. Platoon with likes of; tom Berenger, Willem Dafoe (Born on the Fourth of July), Forest Whitaker (The Last King of Scotland), Keith David (The Thing), Johnny Depp (Pirates of the Caribbean) and Kevin Dillon. You are guaranteed to find a name amongst them that is one of your favourite actors. Then you have Apocalypse now with the likes of Marlon Brando, Robert Duvall, Dennis Hopper and Harrison ford. On the Talents stake I would say they are both completely even, because between them they hold some of the most talented and biggest stars ever to grace the silver screen. The previous paragraph leads me now nicely into the comparisons of farther and son, Martin and Charlie. I still that Charlie Sheen (yes the same guy from Hot Shots) was able to stand out and deliver a convincing portray of a conflicted man, caught up in the ultimate battle with himself as he has to choose between whats right and doing whatever it takes to survive, so basically choosing between safety of the body or safety of the mind. I also felt with such complex emotions he had to show at a drop of a hat, and doing them so well that it was a surprise and travesty that he wasnt nominated for a single big award. But then again I felt that Martin was as captivating as he played a man with illusions of morality and believing that he was able to distinguish between good vs. Evil as if it was between black and white, but then when he entered the battle field it seems his civilized self got left behind as lines got blurred. And just like Charlie, he was a man conflicted, but slightly more than Charlie, Martin made me believe with every ounce of my being that he was a man torn and destroyed by war. So on that note the Farther takes the prize. But now as you could probably tell I had to give the battle of Apocalypse now and Platoon to Olive Stone and platoon, although Apocalypse now won in terms of cinematography and its was beautiful and sound which was majestic, Platoon won on narrative, and for me story and narrative are the most important thing, and thats why I so adamantly feel that Platoon is so special because unlike previous films based on the war in Vietnam even like Apocalypse Now or The Deer Hunter and Coming Home. Platoon is the very first not to look at the war from the wide perspective, and not get caught up in the big budget special effects. Instead it takes a profound and uncompromising leap into the very depths of the human condition; never shying away from exposing the sinister side to us such is in the case of Sgt. Barnes (Tom Berenger) and penetrating through the sense of false bravado to leaving a film offering a sincere exploration of self.