| |
|||
 |
|||
|
|||
| |
Farewell to the King
In Hearts of Darkness, the documentary about the making of Francis Ford Coppola's Vietnam epic Apocalypse Now, we learned that the original writer of that film's screenplay, John Miluis, had originally envisioned a much more action-packed ending than the dark, poignant finale that Coppola finally went with. That film, of course, is a postmodern update of Joseph Conrad's Heart of Darkness, and it concerned Captain Willard's (Martin Sheen) attempt to locate an AWOL solider named Colonel Kurtz (Marlon Brando) and "terminate with extreme prejudice." When Willard finally finds Kurtz, the mad colonel has set up a sort of kingdom in which he governs over the locales, having turned his back on God and country and established his own divinity among the natives. Mulius ended his script with a gung-ho battle in which Kurtz and Willard joined forces to destroy an attacking army of Vietcong. Coppola was not satisfied with this ending and altered it into the dark, surrealist masterpiece that it is today. I mention this bit of film history because it is essential in understanding why Mulius' Farewell to the King is such an effective movie. It is based on a novel by Pierre Schoendoerffer, but Mulius has more or less reworked the story so that it reads like Apocalypse Now's anti-thesis. The plot here is more or less identical to Coppola's film, except now, Mulius gets his gung-ho ending. Farewell to the King never reaches the poignancy or vision of Apocalypse Now, but it's clearly not reaching that far. Rather, Mulius creates a gripping action movie that simply would not have worked with Coppola's themes, and he succeeds with flying colors. Farewell to the King opens with United States army men shipwrecked on the shore of the South Pacific island of Borneo. The title card reveals that this is World War II, and dialogue between the men indicates that their ship was sunk by the Japanese that are probably inhabiting this island. This is all Sgt. Learoyd (Nick Nolte) needs to know--citing that he's "done enough for the war" and longs for freedom, he abandons the men and goes his own way. In a few hours, the other men have been captured and killed by the Japanese, and Learoyd, driven mad by the sight of his comrades murdered, has wandered into the jungle and is rescued by local natives. One year later, Sgt. Fairbourne (Nigel Havers), a British paratrooper, lands on the island to try to persuade the local tribes to help in the war effort and rid the island of the Japanese. Much to his surprise, he finds that an American deserter has already united the many tribes together and now rules them as king. We quickly recognize this man as Learoyd, who seems to have found his thirst for freedom quenched as the ruler of this island. Learoyd eventually comes to trust Fairbourne, but he still wants nothing to do with the war. However, when the Japanese finally locate the tribe and attack, Learoyd decides to make a deal: He will rally his men to war only if the Allied Forces leave him alone and allow him stay on the island as king. Treaties are signed, a battle begins, but America is not willing to let a deserter off the hook so easily. Fairbourne knows this and regrets it, because he soon comes to respect and love Learoyd as his king. It's no wonder that this is the case--Learoyd is a fair king who wants harmony among his people, and his kingdom is a virtual paradise of peace and tranquility, especially to a war-scarred man like Fairebourne. It should be clear by now that Miluis has recreated Apocalypse Now with this movie: Faireborune is Willard, a lone man whose mission leads him to a war deserter who points him towards the direction of his own self discovery. Learoyd is Kurtz, whose time in the war has created in him a hostility towards modern society that leads him to extreme measures to escape it. Mulius has simply placed an emphasis on different characters, changed the location, and set his original vision in a different period. But these changes are enough to change the tone and theme of these similar storylines. Consider first the contrasting natures of the Vietnam War and World War II. Vietnam was a controversial war in which Americans both at home and on the front wondered what they were there for, and whether or not such bloodshed was necessary. In World War II, there was no question that the war was noble. We fought it to stop fascism from sweeping throughout the world. As a result, Farewell to the King cannot have the dark, pessimistic tones of Apocalypse Now. In Coppola's film, Kurtz is driven to madness and murder because Vietnam forces him to see the depravity and horror that exist in all men. Mulius' film is set in a war much nobler and clear-cut, so Learoyd's madness is not created out of war so much as it is created out of his own need to be free. To him, the war is like a prison, and it is only as the king of these native tribes that his sanity is recovered. Once he understands that there does indeed exist a greater need and that the Japanese threaten to imprison him and his kingdom, Learoyd takes action. Thus, Kurtz becomes king to isolate himself from the madness of the war. Learoyd becomes king to isolate himself from the restrictions of war and to save himself from madness. Kutrz has been driven as far as he can go after being forced to fight a war of no method. Learoyd is still a dynamic character, capable of realizing that in some few, special cases, war cannot be avoided. Farewell to the King is also more progressive than Apocalypse Now. Coppola creates a stark, depressing reality that lives up to its title. He argues that the darkness and bloodlust of modern man has reverted him back to his raw, primitive nature, which is why Kurtz goes mad. On the other hand, Miluis has Learoyd educate the natives, allows Fairbourne to discourage their cannibalism, and turns them into a group of freedom fighters that use modern-day weapons and technology. Therefore, while Apocalypse Now wonders where freedom has gone and if America has abused its privileges as a free nation, Farewell to the King is clearly more patriotic in its nature. It speculates on the nature of freedom and the lengths that man will risk to keep it. It also argues that a war should only be fought when such freedom is threatened, a truth that Learoyd understands, ironically, only after deserting the war in the first place. I suppose that there is a paradox in the fact that in World War II, a noble war that had to be fought, the deserter is a hero, and in Vietnam, a misguided and ill-conceived war, the deserter is mad and villainous. Mulius does not concern himself with addressing this question in too much detail here, but he doesn't need to. Learoyd is a flawed man who leaves the war to find freedom and, having found it, reenters war to keep it. The simplicity found in this character creates a metaphor for any reasonable person who doesn't want to fight a war but knows that they must. On top of that, Nolte is fantastic, playing Learoyd as a wild man with a lion-like mane who is just at home firing a machine gun as he is stomping around in loin-clothe, leading his tribe in a religious ceremony. That we know Nolte's face and never question that he is anything less than king is credit to his acting ability. Brando says that Kurtz was the closest he ever came to being lost in a character; after watching Nolte as Learoyd, I could believe the same of him. At its heart, Farewell to the King is an adventure story, using its complex characters to lead us to rousing action spectacles which are both exciting and tragic. Mulius finds the balance of showing war's glory and its devastation by creating clear, colorful action sequences and then following them up with thoughtful meditations or sad images of their aftermaths. The scene in which Learoyd and Faireborune return to their village after fighting the Japanese and survey its desolation is probably the best in the film: After a breathtaking battle sequence, it reminds us that war comes with sacrifice, and it is a moment as honest (if not as bleak) as anything in Apocalypse Now. Watching this film, you realize why Mulius' original ending could never have worked in a Vietnam film but why it works perfectly for a film about World War II. This is not a thesis on the darkness of man, because such a thesis was what the Allies of World War II were fighting against. Only when Vietnam came did America fully realize that it was guilty of the same depravity that had previously overtook the Nazis and the Japanese. If you haven't seen Apocalypse Now, you will need to before you see Farewell to the King. In a way, it is a prequel to Coppola's film, and its greatness can only be realized when you understand the different vision that Miluis creates with the same material. Here are two completely different films that appropriately sum up the eras in which they are based. To watch them together creates a stark contrast between Vietnam and World War II, and after the dark stain that was Vietnam, perhaps we needed a film of similar devices to remind us of happier times when wars were still horrible but nevertheless necessary to maintain freedom. Click
here to read my review of Apocalypse Now. Cast: Orion Pictures presents a
Ruddy & Morgan production. Written and directed by John Mulius,
from a novel by Pierre Schoendoerffer. Rated PG-13 for brief sexuality,
a few swear words, and some intense action sequences. Running
time: 114 minutes. Original United States theatrical release date:
March 3, 1989. Questions? Comments? E-mail me: danel_the_tinman@hotmail.com |
||
