Coppola makes his film like the Americans made war - in this sense, it is the best possible testimonial - with the same immod
eration, the same excess of means, the same monstrous candor . . . and the same success. The war as entrenchment, as technolo
gical and psychedelic fantasy, the war as a succession of special effects, the war become film even before being filmed. The 
war abolishes itself in its technological test, and for Americans it was primarily that: a test site, a gigantic territory in
 which to test their arms, their methods, their power. Coppola does nothing but that: test cinema's power of intervention, te
st the impact of a cinema that has become an immeasurable machinery of special effects. In this sense, his film is really the
 extension of the war through other means, the pinnacle of this failed war, and its apotheosis. The war became film, the film
 becomes war, the two are joined by their common hemorrhage into technology. The real war is waged by Coppola as it is by Wes
tmoreland: without counting the inspired irony of having forests and Phillipine villages napalmed to retrace the hell of Sout
h Vietnam. One revisits everything through cinema and one begins again: the Molochian joy of filming, the sacrificial joy of 
so many millions spent, of such a holocaust of means, of so many misadventures, and the remarkable paranoia that from the beg
inning conceived of this film as a historical, global event, in which, in the mind of the creator, the war in Vietnam would h
ave been nothing other than what it is, would not fundamentally have existed - and it is necessary for us to believe in this:
 the war in Vietnam "in itself" perhaps in fact never happened, it is a dream, a baroque dream of napalm and of the tropics, 
a psychotropic dream that had the goal neither of a victory nor of a policy at stake, but, rather, the sacrificial, excessive
 deployment of a power already filming itself as it unfolded, perhaps waiting for nothing but consecration by a superfilm, wh
ich completes the mass-spectacle effect of this war. No real distance, no critical sense, no desire for "raising consciousnes
s" in relation to the war: and in a sense this is the brutal quality of this film - not being rotten with the moral psycholog
y of war. Coppola can certainly deck out his helicopter captain in a ridiculous hat of the light cavalry, and make him crush 
the Vietnamese village to the sound of Wagner's music - those are not critical, distant signs, they are immersed in the machi
nery, they are part of the special effect, and he himself makes movies in the same way, with the same retro megalomania, and 
the same non-signifying furor, with the same clownish effect in overdrive. But there it is, he hits us with that, it is there
, it is bewildering, and one can say to oneself: how is such a horror possible (not that of the war, but that of the film str
ictly speaking)? But there is no answer, there is no possible verdict, and one can even rejoice in this monstrous trick (exac
tly as with Wagner) - but one can always retrieve a tiny little idea that is not nasty, that is not a value judgment, but tha
t tells you the war in Vietnam and this film are cut from the same cloth, that nothing separates them, that this film is part
 of the war - if the Americans (seemingly) lost the other one, they certainly won this one. Apocalypse Now is a global victor
y. Cinematographic power equal and superior to that of the industrial and military complexes, equal or superior to that of th
e Pentagon and of governments. And all of a sudden, the film is not without interest: it retrospectively illuminates (not eve
n retrospectively, because the film is a phase of this war without end) what was already crazy about this war, irrational in 
political terms: the Americans and the Vietnamese are already reconciled, right after the end of the hostilities the American
s offered economic aid, exactly as if they had annihilated the jungle and the towns, exactly as they are making their film to
day. One has understood nothing, neither about the war nor about cinema (at least the latter) if one has not grasped this lac
k of distinction that is no longer either an ideological or a moral one, one of good and evil, but one of the reversibility o
f both destruction and production, of the immanence of a thing in its very revolution, of the organic metabolism of all the t
echnologies, of the carpet of bombs in the strip of film . . . Coppola makes his film like the Americans made war - in this s
ense, it is the best possible testimonial - with the same immoderation, the same excess of means, the same monstrous candor .
 . . and the same success. The war as entrenchment, as technological and psychedelic fantasy, the war as a succession of spec
ial effects, the war become film even before being filmed. The war abolishes itself in its technological test, and for Americ
ans it was primarily that: a test site, a gigantic territory in which to test their arms, their methods, their power. Coppola
 does nothing but that: test cinema's power of intervention, test the impact of a cinema that has become an immeasurable mach
inery of special effects. In this sense, his film is really the extension of the war through other means, the pinnacle of thi
s failed war, and its apotheosis. The war became film, the film becomes war, the two are joined by their common hemorrhage in