Why was Harvey Keitel fired from this movie? - Apocalypse Now (1979) Discussion

[–] Wuchakk 9 years ago

I don't have anything specific, but the documentary "Hearts of Darkness" shows Coppola sitting in solitary thought staring out at the jungle after three weeks of filming with Keitel as the protagonist. It just seems to me that he decided Harvey wasn't the right person for the role; for some reason it just wasn't working to Coppola. And he thought he'd better make the change at that critical time before they reached the point of no return.

I like Keitel and I'm sure he would've done a serviceable job, but in light of Sheen's incredible performance as Willard, Coppola made the right decision.

My 150 (or so) favorite movies:
http://www.imdb.com/list/ls070122364/

reply

[–] etabacek 9 years ago

Thanks for the response.
I dunno, I wasn't very impressed with Sheen. He didn't intimidate me like an assassin should.

Keith Moon was the greatest 'Keith Moon Style' drummer ever!!

reply

[–] Steadybox 9 years ago

But Willard's no assassin. He's an errand boy, sent by the grocery clerks, to collect the bill.

(hehe)

reply

[–] etabacek 9 years ago

Touche'🔪

Keith Moon was the greatest 'Keith Moon Style' drummer ever!!

reply

[–] Wuchakk 9 years ago

I dunno, I wasn't very impressed with Sheen. He didn't intimidate me like an assassin should.

An assassin isn't supposed to intimidate like, say, mob heavies; he's supposed to sneak in and get the job done without drawing too much attention to himself. Willard, as played by Sheen, captured this quality. Besides, when Willard shoots the wounded Vietnamese girl in the boat he shows that he has "the strength... the strength..." to kill anyone decisively when required. Quoting Kurtz, Willard was "moral... and at the same time able to utilize (his) primordial instincts to kill without feeling... without passion... without judgment... without judgment!" This explains why Kurtz granted Willard the 'honor' of taking him out; he respected him as an example of the very type of men he needed to win the war (remember Kurtz said, "If I had ten divisions of those men, our troubles here would be over very quickly").

My 150 (or so) favorite movies:
http://www.imdb.com/list/ls070122364/

reply

[–] ck1-5 9 years ago

True. It's like James Bond...a real spy should be the polar opposite, and just melt into the general populous. What should Willard have done, wear a black T shirt with BADASS ASSASIN printed on it?

reply

[–] Wuchakk 9 years ago

What should Willard have done, wear a black T shirt with BADASS ASSASSIN printed on it?

I busted out laughing; thanks!

My 150 (or so) favorite movies:
http://www.imdb.com/list/ls070122364/

reply

[–] etabacek 9 years ago

No, I wanted a little bit of emotion. It seemed to me like Sheen walked through the part. Even some of the Bonds put a little effort into it. (sans R. Moore)

Keith Moon was the greatest 'Keith Moon Style' drummer ever!!

reply

[–] Cookie.L.A. (2117) 7 years ago

<< I wanted a little bit of emotion. It seemed to me like Sheen walked through the part. Even some of the Bonds put a little effort into it. >>

Martin Sheen (along with his sons) is not that type of actor. He isn't capable of that, and that's probabvly why his career never went further.

Though he is touching at the end of Badlands.
.

reply

[–] [deleted] 6 years ago

I took from the opening scene (the hotel scene) that Willard was largely emotionally detached from what he had seen and the problems in his life. It's been a long time since I've seen it but I recall him being more or less burnt out and uncaring even about his own future.

reply

[–] ewd76 (1219) a month ago

The business of an assassin is assassination, not intimidation.

reply

[–] 9 years ago

[deleted]

[–] tyrexden 9 years ago

I read something recently, i think from a producer on the film, and he stated that the character of Willard is tasked to observe all the events in the films, allowing the audience to see the film through his eyes. Keitel was reportedly antsy on set, feeling he wasn't given enough to "do". Him "doing" stuff was in conflict with the character, which he didn't understand. Willard pretty much just kills the woman on the boat, then kills Kurtz. Everything else he does is simply observation. Then, it was pointed out that while the audience sees through Willard's eyes... Martin Sheen's eyes are big and expressive while Keitel has beady eyes.

reply

[–] jbaddock 9 years ago

It's a similar role to the narrator of the book Heart Of Darkness. Marlowe (IIRC) simply observes events as he travels up the Congo to find Kurtz - he's almost characterless, simply an observer, who has virtually no impact on what happens. Compared to Marlowe, Willard has considerably more to 'do' in the story, but, like Marlowe, we never really find out much about him behind the fact that he's clearly a trained assassin. (Marlowe, IIRC, was simply a middle level company rep.)

reply

[–] kmags84 9 years ago

Yup. I love Keitel, one of my favorite actors of all time. Mean Streets, Taxi Driver, Bad Lieutenant, Reservoir Dogs, Pulp Fiction... I mean, his contribution to Cinema is one I'll never forget.

But at the end of the day, he's a Method Actor and generally they do better with Active Roles. That's not what was needed here. Sheen's presence is enough. He had the ability to pull off the needed emotion(Or lack thereof) to pull us into the World that he is getting submerged in. Hell, the opening Hotel Room scenes are some of the best ever in introducing a character IMO. This film wouldn't be what it is without the madness that got it made. Sheen and his drinking, Hopper and the drugs, Brando and his weight. It's absolute chaos... But ORGANIZED Chaos. Keitel getting canned was just another part to that.

reply

[–] kenny-164 9 years ago

I appreciate the connection to the Marlowe character in the novella pointed out above. Yes, that character was drawn by Conrad to be the reader's presence in the story. Unlike say Lord Jim Conrad wrote HoD with Marlowe as our literal presence in the story, unlike the third person narration in LJ. Marlowe's reactions to what he sees are included, but never in a way that require the reader to have exactly the same take on the story that Conrad might choose for us. How Marlowe interacts is open ended enough while still present in the unfolding events to allow that mix of perception and assignment of meaning.

Harvey Keitel I have great admiration for, but his strength is in developing a kinetic, building physicality alternating with repose, a mix more physical than others, while still retaining insight. This frankly made him probably a poor choice to play Willard from the get go, imo. Perhaps FFC felt he could find some improved interpretation with an actor differing from Conrad's Marlowe. But Sheen's performance allows us to glimpse what would then have most likely been missing - in his phlegmatic if not downright sometimes bored portrayal, we the viewers can perceive that mix of the meaning of the events, from the banal to the shocking, without focusing too much on Willard's own kinetic involvement in the events.

reply

[–] libertarian45 8 years ago

Tyrexdon's explanation is what I have also heard - Willard is meant to be an observer. Keitel has stated that there was some friction on set as he was the only cast member who had ever been in the military (USMC - early '60s, did not serve in VN). He's quoted as saying, "I was the only one who actually knew what it was to be like. I was the only one who had been in the jungle...and I kept reminding them of that". I think he felt contempt for a bunch of drug-taking hippies playing at soldier.

reply

[–] !!!deleted!!! (50578328) 8 years ago

I think he felt contempt for a bunch of drug-taking hippies playing at soldier.

Wouldn't that be the 'method' way of making a movie about the Vietnam war?

reply

[–] telegonus (738) 7 years ago

I agree totally re Martin Sheen, didn't care for his performance the first time around due to his lack of charisma, especially as compared to Duvall, Hopper Brando, and in the beginning, G. D. Spradlin, who was downright frightening to look at and listen to. Yet in my second and third go-rounds with the movie Sheen blended in. He had presence. Also, there was an air, as there so often seems to be with him, of innocence. Perfect casting. A huge, admittedly unfair but that's the way the world is advantage of Sheen over the fired Harvey Keitel: Martin Sheen was a good looking guy. Handsome. Keitel wasn't. Sheen looked like the leading man of the movie, but was he? His looks, like his presence, created ambiguity in the film, gave it texture.

reply

[–] vicky_lc2001 (1907) 8 years ago

I can see why Coppola wanted Pacino in this now, Pacino somewhat resembles Sheen in a Sicilian way. Boyish with big expressive eyes and can project a quiet watchful demeanor.

reply

[–] Melton (4669) 3 months ago

‘She’s. got. a. GREAT ASS!!’

reply

[–] BourbonKing (5778) 7 years ago

My feeling is that Keitel's persona, as well as his voice, weren't going to work well in front of the camera and in the voice-over narration. Harvey has always a bit of a flat, deadpan delivery to his speaking voice. For my money, I would have kept him for the final segment and cast him as one of the former assassins like Scott Glenn's character who had no speaking part, but for Harvey they could have thrown him a minor role to compliment Kurtz' cadres.

reply

[–] TandyMan (11119) 6 years ago

Keitel is kind of an extreme actor. Sheen came across an every man that most could relate to. With Keitel the movie might have come across as two psychos facing off. Rather than the good solider wrestling with a hard job.

reply

[–] ebhaynz (3689) 6 years ago

Sheen definitely fit the role perfectly but there were so many elements of the film that were put together so perfectly as well. Still, without Sheen's screen presence and narration this film would have turned out very different and probably not nearly as good.

reply

[–] degree7 (821) 5 years ago

without Sheen's screen presence and narration

Weirdly enough, Martin sheen didn’t even provide the narration. His brother Joe Estevez did the voice over for Willard.

reply

[–] [deleted] 5 years ago

I'd have to see some attribution to believe that. It sure sounds like Sheen's voice. Please provide source for this. Thank you...

reply

[–] degree7 (821) 5 years ago

imdb trivia, or listen to him talk, they sound identical. He just wasn’t credited for it.

reply

[–] [deleted] 5 years ago

Thanks for the info...did some research and found out that Joe Estevez filled in for body double shots and did do some of the voice over after Martin Sheen had his heart attack.

Now I'm going to have to go back and see if I can tell a difference.

It's odd....I've found this movie gets better as one ages. It makes more sense to an older viewer, I think.

Thanks again..

reply

[–] L1 (1316) 5 years ago

Their morality in a nutshell

reply

[–] Cognoscente (2662) 4 years ago

This article sheds a bit more light on it than most articles: https://popcultmaster.com/2018/04/22/apollos-apocalypse/

reply