The graphic novel “Un tournage en enfer – Au coeur d’Apocalypse Now”.
The graphic novel “Un tournage en enfer: au cœur d’Apocalypse Now” takes us right to the heart of the creation of Francis Ford Coppola‘s famous film, brought to the screen in 1979. As the director points out, [my translation] “[…] we were in the jungle. There were too many of us. We had access to too much money and too much material, and little by little, we all went crazy…”.
It didn’t start well. Right from the start, the director was unable to convince well-known actors to get involved in his film. In turn, actors such as Jack Nicholson, Al Pacino, Robert Redford and James Caan refused to join the adventure. Coppola continues his research and interviews.
As readers, we go behind the scenes of the production and hear from those close to the filmmaker. Filming begins in the jungle of the Philippines, even though Coppola has no idea on how the film will end. This would haunt him throughout the production, causing him sleepless nights when he was already quite exhausted.
A page from the graphic novel “Tournage en enfer – Apocalypse Now”.
Cost overruns followed, and the pressure on the director from financial backers increased. He was asked to complete his film as quickly as possible, which he proved unable to do. Coppola came to guarantee the required funds by pledging to pay off the debt himself if box-office receipts failed to reach $40 million.
In addition, it was taken for granted that the U.S. government would provide the helicopter gunships required for the film’s action. But in the aftermath of the Vietnam War, the interest of American politicians in such requests waned. The director had to turn to the then President of the Philippines, Ferdinand Marcos, to obtain helicopters and personnel, in return for certain fees and compensation. But these aircraft sometimes left the scene on Marcos’s orders to go hunting for the regime’s enemies. Coppola was falling behind again…
A page from the graphic novel “Tournage en enfer – Apocalypse Now”.
They thought that Harvey Keitel would be the ideal actor to play Robert Duvall. Many sequences later, the obvious becomes clear: the man just didn’t cut it for a number of reasons. On the verge of disaster, they urgently contacted Martin Sheen and beg him to replace Keitel. Multiple scenes had to be reshot with the new actor, and the delays and associated costs continued to mount.
All sorts of other pitfalls awaited the director and his crew throughout the shoot, including the language barrier with the Filipinos and a storm that destroyed the set. The widespread use of drugs and alcohol by staff and helicopter pilots didn’t help matters either.
The mosquitoes, the heat and Coppola’s constant demands took their toll on the actors. Martin Sheen fell seriously ill, and his brother had to be used for some of the secondary scenes. Rather than use only actors to simulate deaths, a staff member went to the morgue and returned with a corpse. This prompted the arrival of the police force, and the problem was solved with generous sums of money.
There were many other factors that delayed the end of the shoot and increased costs. Marlon Brando’s demands were a case in point. They managed to get him back on set for an extra day, provided that he received $70,000 more than planned.
Shooting finally ended in 1977. The team chartered a private plane to fly 381 kilometers of original film to the United States. Editing the film proved to be an ordeal. There was too much material to analyze. In 2001, Coppola presented a modified version of his original 1979 production. In 2019, he finally delivered a final 182-minute version, Apocalype Now “Final cut” , more than forty years after the initial release.
Earnings met the director’s expectations, and he ultimately won his bet. In all, the film generated $140 million from a total budget of $30 million.
The transformation of Business, Democracy and Everyday Life
Robert B. Reich “Supercapitalism”
Robert B. Reich is a professor at the Berkeley University in California. He also worked for the American government under President Bill Clinton as secretary of labour.
Here is a quote from the New York Times on their review of “Supercapitalism”: “Reich documents in lurid detail the explosive growth of corporate lobbying expenditures and campaign contributions since the 1970s. . . . Supercapitalism is a grand debunking of the conventional wisdom in the style of John Kenneth Galbraith”.
Ferocious competition on an international scale
During the first few decades that followed the Second World War, before the globalization of the economy, the author shows that in United States, profits derived from mass production were based on rules that insured stability. There was a better redistribution of a company’s profits between workers, shareholders and managers. The CEO even had the possibility to take decisions that would benefit to both the society and his company. The middle class was in better shape.
At the same time as capitalism progressively gained terrain around the planet, increasing inequalities of incomes and wealth followed. The rise of supercapitalism, around the 70s, is due to the globalization of the economy and, consequently, to an increase of the international competition. Consumers and investors have been benefiting a lot from supercapitalism, but the citizen who feels a social responsibility and looks for the common good gradually lost ground.
The “consumer/investor” versus the “citizen”
The author writes that each person is of two minds: a “consumer and investor” but also a “citizen”. The consumer wants to acquire quality goods at low price and the investor wishes that the money invested towards his retirement provides a great rate of return. If the consumer finds a better price somewhere else, and if the investor considers that the return on investment (ROI) is not adequate, both will look towards the competition.
Meanwhile, the “citizen” in us wishes only good things for the society and the planet: companies must respect the environment; workers must have decent working conditions, etc. The paradox is that while we want the best, we encourage the worst.
Wishing the best while encouraging the worst
The fact that a superstore does not offer good working conditions to his employees irritates the “citizen” in us. However, the superstore’s lower operating costs allow us to save money. If prices go up, we will buy somewhere else.
As investors, we possess, through our mutual funds, numerous financially performing companies. In many countries around the world, profits redistributed to shareholders are the result of minimal working conditions given to employees and abuse on the environment. The investor regularly compares the rate of return of several mutual funds and other investments and he will not hesitate to sell his shares if profits are insufficient.
Increased pressure on the company’s CEO
Globalization and increased competition are forcing managers to think only in terms of return on investment. The CEO is accountable to his dissatisfied shareholders and mutual fund managers who both can sell their shares of an underperforming company.
Consequently, the role of a CEO is not to spend for reasons that would please the “citizen”, but instead to maximize profits using all the legal means at his disposal. This way, he satisfies the consumer and investor. He knows that all his competitors do the same.
As citizens, our role is to forbid companies to establish the rules of the game. Those rules must be set by the government in order to preserve democracy and encourage social responsibility.
Companies are not against new rules that would apply globally to all competitors. What they want to avoid is that a specific company benefits more than another one in the new deal.
Winning or preserving a competitive advantage because of lobbyists
Considering the strong international competition between companies, it is easy to understand that massive amounts of money and other efforts deployed to gain a competitive advantage are in constant growth.
After having worked in Washington, the experienced politician is hired by big corporations as a lobbyist (3% in 1970, 30% in 2005). While the politician’s attention is focused on consumers and investors, the citizen’s voice wishing a greater social equality is not heard.
Supercapitalism thus modifies the way the democratic system operates.
Mutual benefits between politicians and lobbyists
Politicians use that competition to demand important amounts of money to finance their political campaign. In exchange, they support and help push the agenda of a specific company: “That’s how politicians keep their hold on power, and lobbyists keep their hold on money”.
Democracy is perverted by the actions of lobbyists and the attraction that money and other advantages has on politician’s decisions. The government is not managed from the inside but by external powerful economic interests.
Better regulations can improve democracy
The author writes that companies cannot take personal initiatives to correct the situation since it will undermine their position towards other competitors in a global market. “Supercapitalism does not permit acts of corporate virtue that erode the bottom line. No company can “voluntarily” take on extra cost that its competitors don’t also take on, which is why, under supercapitalism, regulations are the only means of getting companies to do things that hurt their bottom lines”. Regulations can only be imposed by political actions.
Learn to recognize the actions used to distract the population
It is necessary for citizens and Medias to recognize the half-truths and distortions that “confound efforts to prevent supercapitalism from overrunning democracy”. The author names a few:
The public blame that changes nothing: beware of politicians who publicly blame corporations for actions that respect the law but that the public despise. The corporation works for the consumer and investor, not for the citizen. A public blame is easy and makes the politician look good. The latter must instead work at improving the law and corporations will then be forced to respect the new parameters.
The corporation that pretends to act on behalf of the public interest: do not believe a corporation that says it works for the public good. It is not its role. It is possible that, in order to improve its image or to satisfy the consumer (and ultimately its shareholders), it does something that looks like it is good for the public. But, basically, there is no acknowledgment of the public good, only a desire to preserve or improve its competitive position.
Lobbyists who pretend to look for the public good: lobbyists and experts who pretend that their initiatives are in the public interest only detract attention from their real objectives that are to protect or advantage a specific corporation.
The private sector and the “voluntary” cooperation: beware of politicians who claim that the public can count on the voluntary cooperation of the private sector in order to protect the public good. It is not the private sector’s role and it will not spend any money unless all of its competitors do the same. Those are only words aimed at buying time and confuse the public. If the public good is so important, then a law must be voted.
Public relation campaigns aimed at one specific corporation: beware of public relation campaigns and pressure groups working to force a specific company to be more socially virtuous. Try to discover the real goals behind those efforts. If all this seems reasonable to you, then ask yourself if a new law or new regulations forcing all the competing corporations to modify their behaviour would better serve the public.
Conclusion
A final quote summarizes very well the author’s thoughts: “In general, corporate responsibilities to the public are better addressed in the democratic process than inside corporate boardrooms. Reformers should focus on laws or regulations they seek to change, and mobilize the public around changing them”.
