I like making interesting points, though maybe not ones that disprove the main bulk of an argument I'm trying to make. Or does it? Thoughts please?
Postmodern American war films choose to defy war, not to topple American hegenomy through means of aggression. Apocalypse Now is an illusion, it is a paradox, it chooses to end war by ending war through violent means. Apocalypse Now is not a postmodern film in the truest sense, in some ways it is a modernist war film. Williard kills Kurtz on the orders of the American Government, in order to protect American security. The situation mirrors that of Iraq and Afghanistan because in the grand scheme of things, Kurtz is of little consequence yet he is eliminated anyway. Apocalypse Now only represents the beginning postmodernism starting to take shape, it is not postmodern in a fully formed sense. Three Kings, Redacted and Letters from Iwo Jima are true postmodern war films because their intent is based on a defiance that does not conclude with them literally killing American hegemony. Parricide at its most literal definition cannot be classed as a term to describe postmodernism. For parricide to be the true definition it must be defiance towards to an older generation, not the physical murder of them.