Did Kurtz have anti-air capabilities? Those crashed B-52s (the one in the movie and another from a cut scene) seem to suggest that someone was shooting down these bombers. I suppose it could have been implied that this was the NVA's doing, but it seems like it's no coincidence that they send in an assassin via river boat, rather than just saturation bombing Kurtz's compound. Or parachuting Willard Airborne style into the area.
If you disagree, well, so be it.
[deleted]
I don't see any indication that the Kurtz compound had any anti-aircraft, or any heavy weapons for that matter.
Kurtz's compound was in Cambodia. While US special forces were operating in Cambodia, the US was not conducting Arc Light or bombing operations on that territory. It was more a matter of lighter air-to-ground attacks on supply convoys on the Trail. The shot down B-52 was probably while they were still in Vietnam, or it might be considered a continuity error if not. The idea of bombing Kurtz's compound and Willard air-dropping in are both discussed in an earlier script, but there's no indication of Kurtz's unit having anti-aircraft guns or firing on US aircraft.
shareThis movie takes liberties with history, so I don't think it's unreasonable to presuppose that someone like Kurtz, who had access to substantial US Army weaponry, could have snagged some AA guns or ground-to-air weaponry prior to going off the reservation. It's always bugged me that they come to Willard, who I'm sure they know is not in the best shape, instead of just eradicating Kurtz's compound with an air assault. If he's as big a threat as they make him out to be, why wouldn't they go with that kind of attack? I know the movie had to have them go up river, as it's an adaptation of Heart of Darkness. Still, it would have been so easy to mention in passing, perhaps during Willard's briefing, how AA emplacements made air drops and B-52 strikes hazardous.
It would also explain why Willard's orders are to call in the air strike only after Kurtz is eliminated. There's got to be a reason why they were either unwilling or unable to do so before Kurtz is taken out. The only reason I can think of is an anti-air threat.
If you disagree, well, so be it.
The camp was of no concern to Washington as it was simply a hideout and in Cambodia, and had no US troops.
They were only concerned with what Kurtz might TELL so it was only him they needed to Terminate.
They certainly did not want MORE slaughter, espec friendly fire as Washington was already on the nose.
Note they needed to call in the CIA on this one
http://www.kindleflippages.com/ablog/
All possible, but also outside of the scope or concern of the film. The whole thing is allegorical and the river itself is a character, so the trip up the river, and Willard's interaction with Kurtz, are integral. Operational and tactical questions, while interesting at some level, are ultimately irrelevant to the film.
I don't know about that. Ignoring the relative ease of launching an air strike against Kurtz amounts to a significant plot hole, especially since the air capabilities of the US military are so well documented with this war. Any well thought out story needs to explain why a military power like the US would go this low tech, delayed route to targeting such a immediate threat when there were far more expedient and probably definitive ways to take him out.
If you disagree, well, so be it.
Given the nature of the film, I don't think that can really be called a plot hole. Everything I'm about to say is my opinion of course, but I think the plot is the least important part of this film. It's just the frame that the film's subject hangs on.
This film is Milius's attempt to bring Heart of Darkness to the screen, something a writing professor at USC told him had never been successfully done. Heart of Darkness is set in the 19th century on the Congo, but it's subject is ethical and moral philosophy. Milius reset the story to 20th century Vietnam, but it's not about Vietnam or even about war. He uses war to focus the moral issues and philosophies that he addresses. Kurtz and Kilgore represent the moral extremes being examined and Willard guides us along the path between them. Whether there could have been a more efficient method of destroying Kurtz is irrelevant to the purpose of the film.
Given there were lots of kiddies there the CIA COULD have used it as an alternative to the Napalm Girl gig, and when you look at all the Hollywood imitation airstrike of Napalm Girl, maybe that was what FFC was alluding to here, ie blow up another innocent village just to keep J Doe happy watching TV.
Was it not enough for you that Kilgore wiped out that whole bunch of school kids with his Hail Bomb [which smells good in the morning]
http://www.kindleflippages.com/ablog/
There is no plot hole and there is no way that Colonel Kurtz could have been responsible for shooting down a B-52. There was no anti-aircraft capabilities to be found in either Special Forces or among the Montagnards. Therefore, he would have to have a regular army unit with him to do it. There is no indication that he ever had any access to boats either and SAMs that large would have been impossible to transport through the jungle.
I've lived upon the edge of chance for 20 years or more...
Del Rio's Song
Yeah I agree with you it's logical, but the film's script partly grew out of the apocryphal stories about CIA operations in Vietnam. The idea was that Kurtz had to be taken out quietly so that word didn't get around that the U.S. was killing its own rogue officers. If they bombed the hell out of his compound, word would get around. Although it wasn't the internet age, by the late 60s (this was supposed to be 70') there was feedback between how things were going in the field and public opinion reigning things in. In other words, bombing Kurtz would have been a threat to the whole war. They could have somebody quietly slit his throat and act like he was still doing God's work out there all along. And it had to be somebody who is sort of a soloist, somebody expendable who was "not even in their *beep* army anymore."
shareZelena makes several good points, especially about how the military would not want it to get out that they would use an operation with significant collateral damage, that would in turn bring more attention to it, in order to take out a rogue officer. That objective they would want to not even acknowledge - hence the several references to the classified nature of Willard's mission, that it did not in effect even exist.
The other angle is that both internationally and due to anti-war opinion in the US, there was a decided opposition to expanding the war into Cambodia. In fact the Air Force had been using B-52's to bomb in Cambodia before the time period covered by the film (it started on March 18, 1969). But the attempt, which was incredible, to keep the bombing campaign secret was reported on by May of that year, to the considerable displeasure of the Nixon Administration.
I think it is important to note that the bombing that did occur was of NVA forces on the other side of the border that were attacking the US and allies in South Vietnam. And it was with the apparent tacit agreement of the Cambodian government. That agreement would go away if the B-52's were actually targeting Cambodian citizens, as the people with Kurtz clearly were. In short there was no chance the Air Force would risk it's still mostly secret program at the time and the tacit approval of the Cambodian government by expanding their air mission to take out a bunch of Cambodians.
Now to be clear it is also true that there was an option to call in an air strike. But that was also clearly a fallback, to be used presumably if Willard failed to kill Kurtz.
But that was also clearly a fallback, to be used presumably if Willard failed to kill Kurtz
---
exactly, but "drop THE bomb" was the ATOMIC bomb - Kurtz was making the comparison to Hiroshima case still debated today, so he was saying why not simply do the same on Hanoi to END the war.
It was in jest as Washington had no intention of ending the war [and losing office].
http://www.kindleflippages.com/ablog/
bombers crash all the time
[deleted]