Dependency School of Development: Summary and Critique

Dependency School of Development: Summary and Critique In this essay I address the claim that the dependency school sees development from a Third World perspective.[1] I focus on two dependency theorists, Andrà © Gunder Frank and Fernando Henrique Cardoso, as a way to examine such a statement. First, I describe dependency theory in a historical context as well as in general terms, in order to clearly situate the school within Third World discourse. Second, I examine the specific theoretical characteristics of Frank’s theories, and some of the criticism of it and how they relate to Third World issues. Third, I discuss Cardoso’s scholarship in relation both to the dependency school and to Frank’s research by emphasizing his theoretical divergence from orthodox dependency theory. Next, I comparatively discuss Frank and Cardoso’s theories in relation to an overall discussion on dependency and development. In conclusion, I review the reasons why the dependency school incorporates a Third World perspective, particu larly a Latin American perspective. Throughout this essay I refer to ‘dependency theory’, yet I would like to point out, as Roxborough (1979) has stressed, that rather than viewing the notion of dependency as a â€Å"specific theory† or a â€Å"theory of dependency† it be seen as a paradigm (p.43).[2] This is because there are many competing theories and definitions of dependency as well as several historical intellectual shifts and revisions among dependency scholars (Hout, 1993). The dependency school of development is also variably referred to as the ‘structuralist’, ‘world economy’ and ‘underdevelopment’ schools (Bosch, 1997). It has its roots in theoretical debates discussing capitalism and Marxism (Gardner and Lewis 1996; Chilcote 1981; Roxborough, 1979; Frank, 1967). The earliest discussions emerging from the dependency school can be traced to the ECLA (Economic Commission of Latin America), established by the United Nations in 1948 whereby a radi cal group of scholars examined the inequities of North-South relations and trade. This enclave of scholars specifically focused on Latin American issues and the paradox of why these countries so rich in natural resources are so economically poor. The need for the ECLA forum arose from an academic and political reaction toward the inability of Latin American countries to halt the â€Å"imperialist siphoning-off of the surplus value produced by their working classes†, hence, the association of dependency theory with a Third World perspective (Johnson 1981, p. 58). The ECLA theorists argued that Latin American countries are subjected to an international system that manipulates and controls them from beyond their own borders (Staniland, 1985). These ideas, moreover, offered a critique of modernisation theories that view less developed countries in terms of an evolutionary process whereby industrialization and economic development are seen as stages that they must undergo in order to achieve higher incomes and living standards. In contrast, dependency theory views less developed countries as resulting from conditions generated by a broader global system of exploitation set within wider social and historical processes (Bilto n et al., 1996). The theoretical debates surrounding dependency theory hinge upon the central idea that it is pointless to study the development of Third World societies in isolation from more developed countries. Debates further the notion that western capitalism in the industrialized world is built upon its ability to dominate and control the resources of non-industrial less developed countries and must thus sustain its dominant position to advance its own interests. The historical basis for such domination is the significant accumulation of capital that occurred during colonization and the industrial revolution. The continuation of such domination transpires through neo-colonialism. As such, dependency theorists primarily focus on the political structures that shape the relationships between the First and Third World (Staniland, 1985). This main tenet of dependency theory is closely tied to what is widely refereed to as ‘world systems theory’, established by Immanual Wallerstein. In fact, ‘world systems theory’, is commonly viewed as an adaptation or extension of the dependency school (Chirot and Hall, 1982). Wallerstein (1974) views the world as an interrelated system, a world-economy, whereby each country is perceived in terms of its relationship to the whole. It is precisely through a world systems analysis that notions of ‘First† and ‘Third’ worlds have materialized as a way to portray the simultaneous differentiation and interdependency of distinct parts. Dependency theory suggests that the Third World â€Å"is not natural, but created through economic and political processes†(Gardner and Lewis 1996, p.17). Like dependency theory, ‘world systems theory’ is often criticized for being overly deterministic (Staniland, 1985). Two of the most prominent dependency theorists are Andrà © Gunder Frank and Fernando Henrique Cardoso. Frank and Cardoso are both ECLA scholars and associated with Latin American issues and the dependency school to the extent that they are often referred to as ‘dependistas’. Frank (1967) introduced the popular term ‘the development of underdevelopment’ and wrote specifically about how â€Å"the domestic, political and social structure of Chile was and still remains determined first and foremost by the fact and specific nature of its participation in the world capitalist system† (p.29). His work also attempted to address a major gap in the ECLA discussions: the role of class interests within Third World countries in creating cycles of dependency. To do this, Frank developed the notion of metropolis-satellite links whereby capitalism produces a developed center and its underdeveloped peripheries. He purported that the ties between metropolis and satell ite can also represent links between advanced capital cities and their hinterlands. This metaphorical binary aims to examine the relationships between industrialised and non-industrialised countries. Although revisionist dependency theorists now refer to these as core-periphery relationships, this metaphor still forms the basis for many contemporary critiques of global capitalism. According to this view, the peripheries supply cheap raw materials and labour to the core. In return, the core supplies them with obsolescent technologies, manufactured goods and debt. This results in peripheral economies being oriented toward the outside whereby resources flow toward the core and, in turn, continue to flow toward the more dominant economic interests of other cores. Capitalism is seen to necessitate the core-periphery division for the efficient allocation of resources in favour of dominant countries. . Despite, Frank’s intentional focus on class interests, he ignores questions of class formation and behaviour. In his analysis, the flow of resources between the divergent metropolis and satellite regions takes social classes as a given without specifically analysing their structures and roles in contributing to a system of domination. Hence, in Frank’s analysis, spatial relations are conflated with social class relations, a contentious point in criticisms of his work (Chilcote, 1981; Cardoso, 1972; Laclau, 1971). In other words, the shift of value from satellite to metropolis cannot always be viewed as an identical phenomenon to that of the exploitation of labour (Roxborough, 1979). Another point that provoked much commentary in Frank’s analysis of Latin American underdevelopment was his claim that Latin America has been a capitalist society ever since the sixteenth century. For Ernesto Laclau (1971), an Argentinian scholar, Frank had misread Marx’s definition of capitalism and was thus mistakenly reducing capitalism to a mere equation of exchange and enterprise omitting the equally important emphasis on modes of production. This was particularly important in regards to labour since, at that time, much labour in Latin America consisted of slavery and debt peonage as well as other pre-capitalist forms. Laclau does not question the premise that at the time of colonization, market economies became tied in with those of First World countries; his main point is that the participation of a country in a world economic system does not necessarily render it as being capitalistic. As such, he indicates that Frank confounds the production of commodities with the commoditization of labour, a criticism which led Frank to revise his work.[3] Fernando Henrique Cardoso, a Latin American sociologist who later served as the President of Brazil, draws ties between dependency theory and imperialism.[4] Using the work of Leninist theories, Cardoso (1972) makes parallels with the dependency school over their mutual use of the term ‘dependency’ and their shared observations about how imperialism furthers the capitalist agenda and necessitates economic domination over less developed countries. Cardoso’s analysis attempted to address those issues of social class that the dependency school had allegedly ignored. He looked at the social and economic as being inextricably tied together, stating, for instance, that â€Å"an economic class or group tries to establish through the social process a system of social relations that permits it to impose on the entire society a social form of production akin to its own interests† (ibid, p. 15). Cardoso went beyond the metropolis/satellite metaphor and the perceived asymmetry between First and Third Worlds by examining the political, economic and social links between the dominant local social classes within and between Third and First World countries (Cardoso and Faletto, 1979). For Cardoso, â€Å"political institutions at a given moment can only be fully understood in terms of the structures of domination because these express the class interests behind political organization† (ibid, p. 14). He thus envisioned the capitalist economy as growing toward an internationalization in which societies become divided into antagonistic classes. Cardoso’s delineation of class interests between and within countries departed from the more deterministic model offered by Frank, seeing dependency as varying by degree and thus allowing for a more unconstrained view of international relations. Furthermore, by placing dependency into situation-specific contexts, his position is a more relativist departure from that of Frank’s. Most importantly, Cardoso’s perspective is optimistic about the possibility that dependent relations can transform over time. In fact, Cardoso (1973) argues that in some contexts development and dependency can actually be compatible. This is a clear departure from Frank and other dependency theorists who are often labeled as having a stagnationist view toward development. Both Frank and Cardoso agree that exploitation from dominant states is a key operating factor in how regional economies develop but whereas Cardoso might focus on class interests, Frank will more broadly hold the forces of capitalism accountable (Bosch, 1997). In fact, Cardoso’s critics accuse him of not detailing the more general conditions and mechanisms by which global capitalism operates (Staniland, 1985). Whereas Frank is pessimistic about liberal and neo-liberal trade theory’s claims to create equality and more fairly distribute resources and the access to them, Cardoso is optimistic. Although Cardoso accepts the basic premise of dependency theory as describing third world countries as being conditioned by global agendas and constraints, he does not call for a socialist revolution, as does Frank, as a means to remedy these problems.[5] Yet Frank is also critical of his own former position that assumed that in order for Third World countries to achieve economic independence from the First World they could voluntary de-link themselves from broader economic systems thus controlling their own internal resources, such as raw materials and labour, to develop their own economies. Frank claims that â€Å"experience has shown it to be extremely difficult, if not impossible for voluntarist political action to de-link particular countries from the world economy† (Frank, 2002). Undoubtedly, as I discussed previously, the intellectual roots, vitality and application of dependency theorists have fostered around Third World issues and debates that, in turn, have greatly influenced development studies at large. I would make the case that even more specifically, dependency theory is also distinctively Latin American.[6] First, its origins emerge from a think tank focused on Latin America as a region. Second, its main proponents are Latin Americanists of which many are also Latin American nationals. Third, the application and analysis of the dependency school of thought has been on Latin American development. Fourth, its popularity among Latin American scholars and policymakers has made it an important intellectual school of social thought within Latin American academia and politics. Through Latin American intelligentsia, such as Cardoso, dependency theory has even entered mainstream Latin American politics. Overall, Latin Americanists have used the main argument s of dependency theory to stress how the structural climate of the world economy shapes Latin American economies. As such, through dependency theory, they have strongly influenced the international scholarship on development. In conclusion, the dependency school, unlike other development perspectives, distinctively represents a Third World view. The debates inspired by the dependency school have given voice to a Third World perspective, in terms of focus, point of view and representation. As I have shown, there are equally as many excellent expositions as there are criticisms of Frank and Cardoso’s studies and the dependency school at large (Smith 1981). What is significant is how these provocative and critical debates ultimately touch upon broader themes that, like the dependency school itself, address expansive global, economic, political and social issues. References: Bilton, Tony et al. (1996) Introductory Sociology, 3rd edition. London, Macmillan. Ahiakpor, James C.W. (1985) The success and failure of dependency theory: the experience of Ghana. International Organization, 39(3), 535-552. Bosch, Gerald R. (1997) Eric Williams and the moral rhetoric of dependency theory. Callaloo, 20(4), Special Issue: Eric Williams and Postcolonial Caribbean, p 817-827. Cardoso, Fernando Henrique (1972) Dependency and development in Latin America. New Left Review, 74,83-95. Cardoso, Fernando Henrique (1973) Associated dependent development: theoretical and practical implications.In: Alfred Stephen (ed) Authoritarian Brazil: Origins, Policies and Future. New Haven, Yale University Press, p.142-76. Cardoso, F. H. and Faletto, Enzo (1979) Dependency and Development in Latin America. Berkeley: Pergamon Press. Chilcote, Ronald H. (1981) Issues of Theory in Dependency and Marxism. Latin American Perspectives, 8 (3/4), dependency and Marxism. 3-16. Chirot, Daniel and Hall, Thomas D. (1982) World-System Theory. Annual Review of Sociology, 8, 81-106. Frank, Andrà © Gunder (1967) Capitalism and underdevelopment in Latin America: historical studies of Chile and Brazil. London, Monthly Review. Frank, Andrà © Gunder (1984) Critique and anti-critique: essays on dependence and reformism. New York, Praeger Publishers. Frank, Andrà © Gunder (2002) Interview. In: Practical Strategies For Social And Economic Development. Aurora online (Simmons, Tony). February 2002. Available from: http://aurora.icaap.org/gifs/frank.gif [Accessed July 7, 2005]. Gardner, Katy and Lewis, David (1996) Anthropology, development and the post-modern challenge. London, Pluto Press. Hout, Wil (1993) Capitalism and the Third World: development, dependence and world system. Aldershot, Edward Elgar. Johnson, Carlos. (1981) Dependency theory and the processes of capitalism and socialism. Latin American Perspectives, 8 (3/4), Dependency and Marxism, 55-81. Kleemeier, Lizz Lyle. (1978) Review: Empirical tests of dependency theory: a second critique of methodology by Vengroff, Richard. The Journal of Modern African Studies, 16 (4), 701-704. Laclau, Ernesto (1971) Feudalism and capitalism in Latin America. New Left Review, 67, 19-38. Roxborough, Ian (1979) Theories of Underdevelopment. London: Macmillan. Smith, Tony (1981) The logic of dependency theory revisited. International Organization, 35 (4) 755-761. Staniland, Martin (1985) What is political economy? A study of social theory and underdevelopment. New Haven: Yale University Press. Wallerstein, Immanuel (1974) The modern world system: capitalist agriculture and the origins of the European world economy in the sixteenth century. New York, Academic Press. 1 Footnotes [1] The analytical categories of First World, Second World, and Third World are used to make a distinction between the different levels of economic development among nations/states. [2] The dependency school is similarly also refereed to as a ‘perspective’ (Kleemeier 1978, 701). [3] Frank (1984) later incorporated Laclau’s criticisms, which strongly influenced the direction of his future work, particularly in his volumes on world capitalist history. [4] Cardoso also served as the President of Brazil from 1994 through 2002. [5] Frank has revised his former position that once assumed that â€Å"significant political change could free any people from these economic and historical determinants.† (Frank, 2002) [6] I am not implying that dependency theory is exclusively debated around Latin American issues, see for example Kleemeier (1978) and Ahiakpor (1985). Apocalypse Now: An Anti-War Message Apocalypse Now: An Anti-War Message The 1979 movie Apocalypse Now was created in an extremely deliberate and thought out fashion by Francis Ford Coppola. There is a purpose behind how he filmed and what he filmed. Each edit, angle, shot, sound, transition, and lighting technique was filmed in such a way in order to convey meaning. The cinematic tools that Coppola utilized in the making of Apocalypse Now encouraged the American public viewing the film to take an honest look at how warfare is really conducted. Like many other movies created about the Vietnam War, such as Platoon and Full Metal Jacket, Apocalypse Now has an anti-war message within it. This attitude is a shift in the way the American public had viewed war, since usually they were very patriotic and supportive. By making films that raise up issues regarding war, directors were taking advantage of the already troubled public and challenging them to look deeper and question the way in which they had previously viewed warfare and the preparation given to soldi ers for it. The film techniques allowed Coppola to condemn military recruiters as well as army officials who did not properly prepare and condition soldiers to withstand the psychological affects of warfare. His method of filming also displays a critique of politicians who mandate warfare for political expediency. In this paper, I will discuss how Coppola used cinematic tools strategically in his film Apocalypse Now to show warfare for what it truly is and the effect on soldiers that combat had in order to inspire society to re-evaluate and change its attitude towards war. Apocalypse Now is a film that follows Captain Benjamin Willard on his second tour in the Vietnam War. When the film begins, it finds Willard in a hotel room in Saigon, Vietnam waiting for his next mission. In this scene, Willard offers a vague picture of his first tour in Vietnam and expresses how desperate he is to return to action. In the following scene, Willard is sent for by army officials and given his next mission which is to locate and murder Colonel Walter E. Kurtz, an American green beret who went rogue, created his own army of native Vietnamese people and subsequently appointed himself as a god over them. To complete his mission, Willard is accompanied by four soldiers who do not know the purpose of his mission, as it is classified information. On their expedition to find Kurtz, Willard and the crew come across Lieutenant Colonel Kilgore, who commands them to take part in a brutal and merciless attack on a small Vietnamese village. As Willard and his crew continue on their journey upriver towards Kurtz, they attend a Playboy show, massacre a crew of Vietnamese fishermen, and fall under the surprise attack from natives on shore. When they finally reach Kurtzs camp, Willard is taken captive by Kurtz and forced to listen to Kurtzs philosophical concerns at length, for days. Upon being set free, Willard enters Kurtzs private rooms and fulfills his mission, finally killing Kurtz. When the natives realize that Kurtz has been killed, they bow to Willard and accept him as their new leader and god. However, Willard passively rejects the role of their leader by taking the remaining member of his crew, boarding their boat, and riding away from the native camp as the film ends. Within the film, there are various scenes that show the chaos, uncertainty and absurdity of warfare that often leave soldiers in a state of psychological trauma long after their time in combat. As a result of this story being told through the medium of film, Coppola is able to use cinematic tools he would otherwise not have had at his disposal. There are two particular scenes in which the tools he employs help to convey the significance of the scene with more impact. These two scenes are the opening scene of the movie and the scene known as Ride of the Valkyries. These scenes and the five cinematic elements employed in them, will be the focus of this paper. In the opening scene of the film, Coppola employs elaborate editing techniques in order to show the phycological damage that Willard has been suffering from since his first tour in Vietnam. Although the focus is obviously only on the character of Willard, Coppola means for this to be a display of what happens to the mind of any soldier after returning from combat, where their minds are in a state of psychological turmoil.   The scene shows a green, peaceful treeline in Vietnam and then shows it exploding in flames as numerous helicopters fly close by (Apocalypse Now, 0:01:10). The film then transitions from this image in a smooth fade away to Willard lying in his hotel room (0: 03: 55). As the transition continues, it shows Willard take a long drag from a cigarette as the ceiling fan above him rotates fast and loud. The fade in this scene is significant because of its smooth transition from one picture and place to another; the helicopters in the scene with the trees make an n ear identical sound to the ceiling fan and the propeller of the helicopter looks like the ceiling fans blades rotating in Willards room. The way Willards cigarette lights up has the fading image of exploding fiery trees in the background. The editing is magnificent. It is clear from the scene, that the explosions and helicopters are memories from Willards first tour in Vietnam. The images of the blown-up trees cut and edited into the images of Willards tortured face in the hotel room portray a man who is really struggling with what he has experienced. While most memories fade over time and details are forgotten, victims of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder often remember their traumatic experience vividly and the same way every time they think about it (Vees-Gulani 55). For many, it is not even that they are remembering but rather they are living in a continual presentà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦ [and] an endless present (Vees-Gulani 55). The memories that Willard cannot escape from, from his first tour, are persistently intrud[ing] on him (Vees-Gulani 62).   For him, something as mundane as a ceiling fan materializes into a combat helicopter and the burning of a cigarette is an explosion. Often throughout the movie, it seems as if Willard is one of the only men still sound of mind, but the first scene with its masterful edits to Willards first tour flashbacks clue the viewer in on the fact that Willards PTSD made him bound in the timelessness of warfare (Vees-Gulani 89). For the viewer to fully appreciate the genius of Coppolas use of editing in this scene, one must recognize that PTSD is an illness that plagues the victim relentlessly and constantly. By displaying this scene and these ideas in one seamless transitional edit, Coppola is indicating to the viewers that soldiers who return from war may look physically unscathed, but that does not mean they are not haunted and harmed by their experiences in combat. Another technique utilized in this first scene is that of lighting. Coppola strategically uses it in order to set a certain mood and feel for the scene. As Willard lies on his bed, he looks at the ceiling fan, which is black and yet there is a slight flicker of light from the fan. It catches the viewers eye and helps to create a more ominous scene, really giving the viewer a feeling for what was happening within the scene. It is fascinating that something so small as a flicker of light can add so much insight to a scene and enrich ones overall understanding of a story. In a captivating interview with Apocalypse Nows production designer, Dean Tavoularis, Tavoularis described how the films cinematographer Vittorio Storaro purposely choreographed the lighting cues on many shots to add an extra level of significance to scenes and that the speck of light in the opening scene from the fan was one of such times (Gentry 96). He described how the flicker of light in this scene is like an irri tation, an insect, an element that gets across to the viewer and adds to the chaotic scene to help display the psychological trauma that Willard is dealing with.   The flicker lasts for hardly a second, but it was intentionally put in at that time to help further the story and its message. Attention grabbing, this cinematic tool is used to its fullest potential in this scene. The music in Apocalypse Now is also a cinematic technique that Coppola capitalizes on. Coppola deliberately chose the song This is the End to critique the sentiments preached by many of the benefits one receives when they serve in the army in order to ignore their societal duty to look after the wellbeing of veterans. Coppola is criticizing the way in which soldiers are prepared, or in from his standpoint under prepared, for war and how upon their return from combat, with their physical and mental scars, society neglects them. The song This is the End begins slow with pleasant guitar and a soft melody. The song fades out for a bit but then plays again as the scene transitions to Willard intoxicating himself in his hotel room (0:05:58). However, when the song fades back in, it sounds dramatically different. The guitar has picked up speed, the tempo is faster and the singer screams, Fuck! Fuck me!. As the songs intensity increases, the scene shows Willard strip naked, cut himself and c ry uncontrollably. Coppola used the feeling given off from the crazed music to increase the intensity of the scene.   He uses the music almost as a metaphor for a soldier in their war experience. The soldier starts off by being told the war will award them with lifelong skills, such as loyalty and respect. However, they are not equipped for the psychological and emotional suffering from being in combat, the effects of PTSD, or the high suicide rates amongst veterans. The music starts out slow and pleasant but they soon find out on their own that the music changes, it is not predictable, it can become violent. Using music as a cinematic tool in Apocalypse Now, Coppola presses Western societies to stop romanticising the idea of war. Towards the close of the scene, Willard is bleeding and crying on the floor of the hotel room (0:07:16), and the viewer can hear the song This is the End playing but cannot hear Willards crying. The silence of Willards cries is a message as well. The unheard cries of Willard can be seen as the unheard soldiers upon their return from war. They come back from combat scarred physically and mentally. Their minds cannot rest, they are never completely at ease and the constant suffering leads many to turn to destructive substances, like alcohol and drugs, just to escape from their own minds for a time. This is not a case of one veteran but rather a horrible trend that occurs to many, and it can be seen as a clear sign that they are calling out for help. Yet, it seems that Western society chooses to close their ears to their cries. The Music in the scene is used to send a message from Coppola that he condemns Western societies who promote war but deafen themselves against the cries of the s oldiers suffering, which they helped to create. Coppola is highlighting how there is a great need for honesty about what effect the army can have on ones life before soldiers are enlisted and how adequate resources are needed for their recovery when they return from combat. In the scene known as March of the Valkyries, Lieutenant Kilgore orders an air attack on a Vietnamese village. It is in this scene that Coppola uses the tool of camera shots and angles to showcase to the viewer the absurdity and violence that soldiers endure during warfare. It is clear from the contrasting shots that Coppola used that he wished viewers would re-evaluate their opinions on war and question politicians inclination to engage in war. Coppola uses close-up camera shots in order for the viewer to feel as if they are in the sequences in the March of the Valkyries scene. As the helicopters approach the village, the viewer is privy to a conversation between Lieutenant Kilgore and a soldier named Lance, an expert surfer, as they discuss the different types of surfboards they prefer (0:36:20-0:36:55). The absurdity and backwardness of this conversation at that time is dumbfounding. They are in a helicopter that is about to attack and kill an entire village of Vietnamese soldiers and innocent civilians and yet, the Lieutenant does not review the battle plan with his crew or tell them to reflect on what they are about to take part in. Rather then do any of these normal and expected things, he is instead choosing that particular time to talk about one of his favourite hobbies. The only people in the frame of the shot are Kilgore and Lance, from their shoulders up, making the viewer feel as if they are part of the conversation as well. This is a strategic tool use by Coppola to get his audience to understand the soldiers who have these mundane conversations at inappropriate times and how these interactions skew with the soldiers sense of morality. It becomes clear that the soldiers have a hard time dealing with the guilt of murdering entire villages when it is equated to regular past times by their officers. The contrast of what they are going to do in the scene and what they are discussing is made evident through the cameras close shots. It is another example , by Coppola, of how army officials do not prepare soldiers for warfare since they make it less serious and make the consequences less harsh with conversations such as the one Coppola zooms up on. Another example of a shots that Coppola uses to showcase the absurdity of war it close to the end of the March of the Valkyries attack, is when he shows two long shots. The first is of rockets and ammunition hitting the water, causing five enormous explosions of water to shoot up (0:44:55), and the second is of napalm bombs being dropped on the village, producing a huge fire (0:48:55). By zooming out on this shot, Coppola is showcasing the violence and devastation of war in all its totality as well as the beauty of nature. The blending of the beauty and the destruction enters the soldiers awareness, making them flinch and recoil in horror and at the same time exclaim, Its really exciting, man! (0:45:00). The contrast can add to soldiers mixed feelings about the war, morally and emotionally. Its exciting and incredible and its also terrible and monstrous. These long shots are used by Coppola to show that when you zoom out fighting for ones country seems brave and courageous but up clo se it can hurt the soldiers in ways that are ignored by society. The camera angles that are used in Apocalypse Now are also used by Coppola to critique war and its effects on soldiers. Kilgore and his helicopter unit land by the shore as the March of the Valkyrie battle ends. As they all try to take cover in a ditch, Kilgore stands above ground in the open and shouts orders. (0:46:02). The angle that the camera shoots Kilgore at is at level with the soldiers in the ditch, so it is as if the viewer is in the position of the soldier. He is shown to be glorious leader that none of them would disobey, even if his command seems insane such as when he says, If I say its safe to surf this beach, Captain, its safe to surf this beach! (0:47:10). During war, it is expected that soldiers will obey their commanding officers without question. There are times when this is absolutely necessary, however it can also lead to issues with trust. In an instance where a soldier witnesses his officer commanding a fellow soldier to do something that in turn leads to his death, the soldier may have issues trusting the judgement of his commanding officer. When officers in leadership positons, and by extension, the politicians who declare war, are given all knowing and godlike statuses among soldiers and society, it can create psychological trauma for soldiers and questions of faith within larger society. The camera angles used by Coppola are to put the viewer in a soldiers shoes and to understand that leaders should not be seen as all knowing and all powerful and that it is important to question their choices before accepting them. It is clear that Francis Ford Coppola used many cinematic techniques in Apocalypse Now in order to convey to society that they must re-evaluate their views on war and be more considerate of the soldiers who have been hurt physically and mentally by it. The way in which he cut and edited scenes showcase the trauma that continues to haunt soldiers even after they return from war. Lighting is also used as a technique to further this message. The use of sound in certain areas and not in others is employed to accuse society of turning a blind eye and a deaf ear to the veterans who do not receive proper rehabilitation upon their return. Another technique Coppola used was to zoom in or out on specific camera shots to display the absolute absurdity of war and the effects that has on soldiers. Lastly, Coppola utilized camera angles to encourage society to think for themselves and never trust a leader without first questioning their true intentions, especially in the context of war. These five cinematic elements help to tell the story of Apocalypse Now in a way that a novel never could, since it is not just a film with a captivating plot but rather a movie in which cinematic techniques force the viewers to reconsider some troubling societal issues. References Apocalypse Now. (1979) . Retrieved March 20, 2017, from https://solarmoviez.to/movie/apocalypse-now-6743/74126-8/watching.html Gentry, R. (2010, Winter-Spring). Dean Tavoularis. Post Script, 29(2), 93+. Retrieved from http://go.galegroup.com.ezproxy.library.yorku.ca/ps/i.do?p=EAIMsw=wu=yorku_mainv=2.1it=rid=GALE%7CA247223175asid=3fccc0d830aca85bdf6a33f51c16a1bf I found this source to be very helpful in my understanding of the movie Apocalypse Now since it is an interview that addresses not only the movie, but also some of the cinematic techniques used to create it. The interview covers a variety of topics about the film like plot, symbolism, character development and the tools used to showcase all of these ideas in the best possible way. Although I did not end up using many quotes from it, I found that it expanded my knowledge of the way in which the director and those who advised him chose to portray certain scenes. This source backed up the most essential of points for my essay, that everything Coppola did was deliberate and in order to draw the audiences attention to certain things. Vees-Gulani, Susanne. Diagnosing Billy Pilgrim: A Psychiatric Approach to Kurt Vonneguts Slaughterhouse-Five. Critique: Studies in Contemporary Fiction 44.2 (2003): 175-184. Retrieved from http://literature.proquest.com.ezproxy.library.yorku.ca/searchFulltext.do?id=R01664027divLevel=0area=abellforward=critref_ft I found this source to be incredibly useful on the topic of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder and Soldiers. The source is an analysis of an antiwar novel in which the author wrote about their own experiences in World War II. I found that many of the points that were made about this man and his novel also applied to the soldiers in the film Apocalypse Now. When discussing PTSD and how it feels for an individual, it really seemed to be in complete conjunction with the way Coppola portrayed Willard in the opening scene of the movie. This article helped me to see the techniques that Coppola was using were in order to show PTSD as realistically as possible.