that speaks to the neocolonial aspects of the event.

it isn't up to me to help coppola choose where it was most appropriate to film. circumstance doesn't serve as an excuse in my book. i know i'm taking a bit of an unrealistic approach, since i'm not considering the filmmaker's decisions, etc.

but to me, those kinds of practical arguments become alibis for exploitation and power. colonialism traded on such alibis: economic opportunity, religious missions, spread of democracy, educating the uncivilized. but ultimately these just covered up the power play and subjugation of people the world over. we could ask, well, what were the europeans supposed to do, given all their economic and political theories? but i don't think we need to be apologists for colonialism or coppola.

you suggest that coppola wasn't thinking about race, and that's exactly it. why wasn't he thinking about race? could it be because it's not his domain as a white man? why is that not his responsibility, or why aren't we holding him accountable for that, especially since he chose to go abroad? his task as a filmmaker does not trump his social position as a white american man. or we could ask, in what ways was the use of cheap labor in the philippines and political rapport between the u.s. and the philippines already taking advantage of racial hierarchy? in what ways does he not need to think about race because it's already been thought in the racial structures which helped organize the project unconsciously?

and i'm not asking these question to take away from coppola's filmic genius or even him as a person. i'm not attacking him at all. i think these are useful questions with which to consider how power finds itself in things as seemingly apolitical as making a film, with the understanding that if we want to make incursions into that power, if we desire to rebuke colonialism because we are concerned with what to do with the philippines, then we need to trace power in all its guises.

>cambodia and vietnam were off-limits. Thailand? Indonesia?
>Perhaps.
>
>what we have here is a combination of many different issues
>and like i said in my post previously a lot of the issues were
>a result of circumstance. i don't even think coppola was
>thinking about the racial implications of using the
>philippines/filipinos as part of the film when he chose the
>philippines. from a director's standpoint - it was probably
>just a location that best fit the geographical topography he
>was looking for and all the other issues came to light as
>production dragged on and problems started to spill out.
>furthermore, i wonder how much Marcos' influence had to do w/
>Coppola needing to use Filipinos throughout the film as
>Vietnamese.
>