S-E-R-G-I 2 da O!

Abstract

The question that this essay is looking foward to answer is at what extent are the themes, narrative style and characters of the book, Heart of Darkness, by Joseph Conrad, reflected in the film, Apocalypse Now, directed by Francis Ford Coppola.

Many personal examinations have been made to give a develop structure to this answer. Thereby, proof, relationship and explanation of the mentioned distinctiveness are made profoundly in this essay. This was supported by reading Josephs Conrad’s book cautiously, watching carefully Coppola’s movie – with the help of the original screenplay in hand - having in mind the relations that it shares with the book, reading background information about the production of the movie, witnessing a real interview of the sound designer and editor of the movie, known as Walter Murch, reading critics about the book and the movie... All of this to develop in this essay a strong answer over the plotted thesis.

This will definitely put in clear how well adapted is the screenplay based on Conrad’s novella opening other results yet to be told, ending with an amazing comparison of book and of the movie. It will demonstrate, in its conclusion, if these two masterpieces are good pieces of art.

Contents

Introduction.................................. p4

Narrators: Marlow and Willard................. p4

Racism........................................ p6

Similarities of characters.................... p7

Conclusion.................................... p10

Bibliography.................................. p11

Introduction

Heart of Darkness is a novella written by Joseph Conrad in the beginning of the twenty-century that tells a narrative story about an individual, known as Marlow, who is fascinated by the jungle and, consequently, decides to fulfill his dream by working for an ivory company in the deep jungles of Africa. In this adventure he will have the assignment in search of one of the members of the company that has been missing, kwon as Kurtz, to bring him back to civilization. In this voyage he will be forced to look into his own soul and reconsider his values.

In the mid-twentieth century, Francis Ford Coppola inspired him self on this amazing book of Joseph Conrad, adapted it– with the help of John Milius – into an unforgettable and thrilling and best motion pictures made in the film of history. In 1979 Apocalypse Now was released. This epic war film set during the Vietnam War is about Captain Benjamin L. Willard, played by Martin Sheen, who gets the journey to the “uncivilized” world, Vietnam 1968. Assigned by the U.S. Army to hunt for Colonel Walter E. Kurtz - who has gone insane in the rivers of Cambodia - will travel thru the jungle in a small boat up to his classified destination. In this expedition he will discover more about Kurtz than he already knows about himself, will feel penetrated by his amazing personality, skills, persona up to the point in understanding him, where he will conclude with an unreasonable question that will disturb him trough the entire movie: Will I kill this man?

This Extended Essay is going to show in detailed the contrast and similarities of these two masterpieces and wonder how much the book is reflected in the film.

Narrators: Marlow and Willard

First the similarities between the main narrators of the book and film will be analyzed. The first link that could be opened is the relationship of the two main characters in the stories: there’s Mr. Marlow in the book and Captain Willard in the movie. Their personalities are very alike, and as a result they both share the same thoughts in many aspects. For example, both characters are fascinated, or drawn to, wild places. In the book, Marlow looks for a way to head to the undiscovered areas. He says that when he "was a little chap" he had “a passion for maps", like when he mentions:

“I had a passion for maps. (…) But there was in it one river especially (…). And as I looked at the map of it in a shop-window, it fascinated me.”

So he shows passion for the jungle, of being some sort wild person that admires it. Later on, he mentions that he “remembered [that] there was a big concern, a Company for trade on the river”. Asking him self “Why shouldn’t I try to get a charge of one [steamboat]?” He demonstrates that he is concern of heading into the jungle; therefore he takes the serious decision in finding a way to get up to it by working for a company that travels to that area. Also, he shows the idea of being drawn to the wilderness (represented by the river that he sees on the map), by saying:

“It fascinated me as a snake would a bird — a silly little bird.”

Comparing his inspiration in the anxiety of a snake attacking his prey – with the prey not having no escape, like if he would be enchanted to the wild. Therefore, he is a victim of the jungle.

This links up to Willard’s personality in the movie. But, instead of working out a chance to head to the jungle, the jungle, in a way, finds him. To relate this point a bit with Marlow, Willard also relates the river with a snake, but compares it with a “main circuit cable and plugged straight into Kurtz”. The cable represents this attachment throughout his final destination, Kurtz – his destiny was to seek out for him. Although, in the very beginning of the film, with the music of The Doors in the background, the viewer observes Willard, drunk, headiest and, after a moment, they hear his voice repulsively saying:

“When I was here I wanted to be there. When I was there, all I could think of was getting back into the jungle. (…) Everyone gets everything he wants. I wanted a mission, and for my sins they gave me one. Brought it up to me like room service.”

Speaking desperately the need of going back to the jungle and, so far, for his qualities of being a excellent solder in the past he got what he was hopping for, resembling like if the jungle was calling him, like if the jungle needed him and so did he.

This can link the relation that Marlow and Willard share, like if both of them were born to be in the wild. Their number one priority was to be in the jungle.

Also to mention about these two characters are the same personalities they share: their idea of their place being in the jungle (the “uncivilized” world) and their home being the place they most dislike (the “civilized” world). In the novella theirs the fact that Marlow feels some kind of repulsive rejection over the city when he says in the beginning of his story to the listeners on the boat, describing the city like if it had “been one of the dark places of the earth”. The use of the word dark can mean many insightful metaphors of the city being something gloomy, unadventurous and maybe too “civilized” for him and, hence, mind-numbing for a man of his like. In the movie, this sort of denial of home to Willard is felt by the viewer in the first scene, when he mentions:

“Every time I think I'm going to wake up back in the jungle. When I was home after my first tour, it was worse. I'd wake up and there'd be nothing.”

Usually, when somebody is homesick, they would wake up and think they are home. This is what Willard describes, but he doesn’t wake up at home, he wakes up in the jungle. Does this mean that he feels home when he is in the wild? Underlining this point, he actually mentions that when he was at “home”, probably somewhere in the U.S., things were worse.

Subsequently, these scenes show that these two characters are disgusted by what is called home. Therefore, theirs no such thing as home for them, they are attracted by in the wild, that’s their place, the jungle, the uncivilized.

So, it could be said that Marlow and Willard have the same idea of what they feel of the jungles and both of them, thanks of destiny, are approached to it, and this is how the story or to movie is continued. For this reason, the book and the movie are aiming to the same plot.

The book has a very particular narration structure, so does the movie, and they can be classified in different type of narration. In the book, it is known that the writer of the novella is Joseph Conrad, he is not an active voice in the novel. In the movie, it is similar this is reflected by the director, Francis Ford Coppola. The difference of these two is that in the movie, you see how it can be focus the fact that Coppola uses the camera as a deciding comment, focusing on the screen different camera angles, movement, etc. to give the audience a subjective way of seeing what he is transmitting. Thereby, in the book, Conrad uses his word, changed trough out two characters to share to the reader the message that he is giving. Making it very difficult what Conrad is feeling. What feeling that he have when he wrote this book? Chinua Achebe, for instance, opinions on this subject in his article of “An Image of Africa: Racism in Conrad’s Heart of Darkness” that “Certainly Conrad appears to go to considerable pains to set up layers of insulation between himself and the moral universe of his history. He has, for example, a narrator behind a narrator. The primary narrator is Marlow but his account is given to us through the filter of a second, shadowy person.” So in a way, he kind of says that Conrad is a coward for using so many layers to hide himself over the writer – to look innocent and to try to be neutral over his opinion.

Then, in the book, we have an unnamed character - the second omniscient narrator in first person – that wideness the story of what Marlow is narrating. Now, Marlow is the character that’s telling the story – the first omniscient narrator in firs person – but being told by the unknown character. This can linked to the movie of the fact that it is been told in firs person – first monition narrator – by Willard. In addition, Willard is in almost every seen and we constantly see him reacting to what’s happening around him Therefore, the film and the book provide subjective narrations ware the filmmaker all writers seem to be absent.

Racism

Another important theme of the book and the film are their racist mentality. They both share the idea of racial discrimination in different ways. Firs in all, the main character in the book, Marlow, shows his opinion of what he thinks of the native Africans as “savages”, describing them in one point like “strong, lusty, red-eyed devils, that swayed and drove men”, being obsessed by the fact that these “savages” can be so similar to “humans” (white people in other words). That shocks him – the impression of them not being “savages” for a moment and, therefore, feels he some pity for them.

Secondly, in the movie, Willard shows some characteristics of racism too when he questions himself in a scene after accepting the mission that the U.S. Army applied to him, he says:

“How many people had I already killed? There was those six that I know about for sure. Close enough to blow their last breath in my face. But this time it was an American and an officer. That wasn't supposed to make any difference to me, but it did.”

He begins with a question, like if he didn’t care about the amount of people he killed. He tries to remember, referring to one scene when he killed half a dozen, like if actually the amount does not matter, he claims. But it is wrong, according to him, to kill an American – an officer in this case. He generalizes that he does not care of killing, but fears the fact in this case it is an American. Therefore, he feels some shame in killing an American but doesn’t feel any feeling what so ever in killing a couple of non-American. This can be analysed as racism. This point out that Willard is giving a racist point of view in his personality. This also is reflected in Marlow’s point of view of his idea of “savages”.

These characters having a racism mentality, they bring up the fact that they feel some kind of pity or sympathy over these “savages”. In the book, for example, Marlow refers this aspect when he has over his feet’s wounded African, waiting to die. He then mentions, saying:

“I found nothing else to do but to offer him one of my good Swede’s ship’s biscuits I had in my pocket. The fingers closed slowly on it and held—there was no other movement and no other glance.”

Like if he hade mercy for these “creatures” he actually offers this wounded African a biscuit that was “accidentally” in his pocket, offering it to the African like if it was a spare token that he hade. Then, when he describes the way this individual dies, it sort of looks like if he could of have more empathy over him, but, instead, he kind of shows that he died all he could in his will – he help him by giving him a biscuit but he couldn’t save his life. In a way, the entire theme of the movie and the book, the U.S. vs. Vietnam and England vs. Africa, shows that the “civilized” people want to help but they achieve it by killing and conquering.

So then, what Marlow does is help, in some way, the creatures he most hesitates, supporting him with some supplies. But the biscuit is a token to feel that he (tried to) help him.

Marlow shows racist attitudes towards Africans, using words describing them as “savages” referring to them not being civilized. Also he refers to them as not being human. For example, he sees “a mass of hands clapping” from the boat and says:

“Well, you know, that was the worst of it - this suspicion of their not being inhuman.”

What’s so bad about not being inhuman? Marlow mentions this quote in a very shocking way, like if it was outrageous that these “savages” being so alike to him self, to human kind; there fits, the way the move, there body, there head all lead up to the fact that they are almost human, almost civilized, that maybe they could be like humans, but only there peculiar color isn’t in favor. Therefore, Marlow dehumanizes the Africans contrasting them of being some sort of curs that they have and that, in a way, it paralyses him to almost think that they actually are humans, when they are.

This image of discrimination can be compared with Willard’s point of view of the Vietnamese’s in the film.

Similarities of characters

The book and the movie have several similar characters. First in all, like it has been mentioned before, the similarities of Marlow and Wilard. But, there’s other secondarily details that can be pointed out in the book and in the film. For instances, the similarities of the Companies chief accountant that Marlow meets in the jungle in the book with Lieutenant Colonel Kilgore in the movie. In the book, when Marlow finds himself in one of the company’s base in the jungle, he meets with this particular character, calling him at first a “white man”, describing him “in such an unexpected elegance of get-up”. Later he adds a further complement, saying:

“I saw a high starched collar, white cuffs, a light alpaca jacket, snowy trousers, a clean necktie, and varnished boots. No hat. Hair parted, brushed, oiled, under a green-lined parasol held in a big white hand. He was amazing, and had a penholder behind his ear.”

Marlow describes this character as a typical European but stuck in the middle of Africa. His physical image of being a well dress person that doesn’t adapt himself to the averment where he is leaving, he brings his culture with him – shows that he is isolated individual, he lives in his on world.

This image kind of resembles Lieutenant Colonel Kilgore in the film. Underlining the fact that Kilgore in the movie plays a character that it is in the wild but always intact he describes him as having a “weird light around him.” Mentioning that “You just knew he wasn't gonna get so much as a scratch here…” The same thing with the accounted: so well dressed, so into the detail of maintaining his appearance of a European gentlemen. Therefore, both of these characters do not grad absorbed they culture they live in. They bring there culture to another place and, like what Willard says in the film, they try “to make it just like home”.

Beside this, Marlow mentions that this character, after coming out of the station, says:

“To get a breath of fresh air”

Mentioning that this “expression sounded wonderfully odd”. This resembles the expression that Kilgore mentions in the movie:

“I love the smell of napalm in the morning”

It really gives the viewer a wonderfully odd expression of napalm, and it pretty much connects these two characters together, but Kilgore words are more warlike and violent; here, Milius changes the novel to reflect the different settings of war.

Anyhow, the book carries some other interesting similarities with other secondary characters that can be found in the film. For instance, the individual that meets Marlow in the port of Kurtz destination, describing him as a “harlequin” and mentioning that his clothing “had been made of some stuff that was brown holland probably, but it was covered with patches all over”. This follows up with a very similar description of the photojournalist that aperies in the film in the port of Kurtz destination meeting up with Willard in the ship.

Discussion about Kurtz, he is one of the characters that stronger appeals in the film and in the book. He shares the same insanity, the fact of him actually being in the middle of nowhere – escaped from civilized society – and he also shares the same character. But there’s a few comparison to make to find out more about the contrast of these two characters – the one in the book and the one in the film.

Firs in all, in the book he is shown for being a smart character for his way of knowledge speaking. Like when the guy from the port describes him as not an “ordinary man” or when Marlow describes him as a “remarkable men”. In the film, this can bee seen when the photojournalist describes him as a “genius” and Willard starts admiring this man in his journey finding him, like when he reads Kurtz' dossier in the boat and exclaims:

“I couldn't believe they wanted this man dead.”

Being shock for seeing a dossier so remarkable that wondered why they wanted this mean dead, why did he have got insane.

Also, the book and the film shows how strong is Kurtz’s background. In a conversation in a book with Marlow, there’s an interesting detail they describe about Kurtz, saying:

“Today he is chief of the best station, next year he will be assistant-manager, two years more and … but I dare-say you know what he will be in two years”

In the film, this characteristic of Kurtz can be found when Willard start reading Kurtz' dossier. When he finish reading it, he says in a voice-over:

“Like they said he had an impressive career. Maybe too impressive... I mean perfect. He was being groomed for one of the top slots of the corporation. General, Chief of Staff, anything...”

Thereby, it can be seen that Kurtz is in impression person, but it really questions the reader or the viewer: what mead him go so insane?

Another interesting detail of Kurtz in the film and in the book is his way of speaking that makes him look so intellectual gathering him respect over the audience and over the rest of the characters. Like for example, when in the book he quotes out to Marlow in his last breath of life:

“You show them you have in you something that is really profitable, and then there will be no limits to the recognition of your ability.”

This suggestion shows that proof is what is important in life; if you don’t have proof you can show nothing. Smartly said, this show how remarkable Kurtz can be in his speeches and how impresses does Marlow reacts after hearing them.

In the movie, Kurtz shows this same quality, but he is focus in being a smarter person than he his described in the book for having the ability to read and write. This is demonstrated in some camera shots that show some of the books that lay down in his stay, like the Holly Bible, the From Ritual to Romance by Jessie L. Weston and The Golden Bough: A Study in Magic and Religion by Sir James George Frazer. This gives the viewer an image of the culture that Kurtz haves and, therefore, gives the reason of why his speeches are so profound with poetry. This is scene is shown in the morning, when Willard, being under lock in as a prisoner, is carried again to meet Kurtz in his home. There, Kurtz sits in the temple and reads out load to Willard the first frame of the beginning of The Hollow Men by T.S. Eliot.

This Eliot’s poem, talks about war. Therefore, perhaps, Kurtz reads out laud this poem showing how insane is war. This can be reefer in how unintelligent solders are, using repetition of words and mentioning in the poem words as “hollow men” or “stuffed men” referring to the soldier, in this case to Willard – considering him self a “soldier” instead of a “assent”. Also in the poem Kurtz refers in how unconscious are these solders, referring to them in third person plural, like the word “we” in repetition and specially when in the poem when he refer to them as if there mission “are quiet and meaningless”, referring to solders and indirectly to Willard in doing what they are order to do, without the ability to do what there own will tells them to do even dough if they don’t have any sense. In the ending of this scene, Kurtz throws the book angrily at him. Thereby, what he is tiring to show Willard is to do what he feels doing, not what he is meant to do. Kurtz is tiring to free Willard.

So, the poem The Hollow Men can also refer to Kurtz himself, referring to him being someone unknown, no one doesn’t really know how to describe him – some describes him as “extraordinary” others as a god and other just say that he’s gone insane. Who really is Kurtz?

Kurtz insanity can be seen, very similarly in the book and in the film when Marlow/Willard has a look in Kurtz writing. Firs in all, in the book this is shown when Marlow sees a report that Kurtz made for the International Society for the Suppression of Savage Customs. Marlow describes it as being “eloquent, vibrating with eloquence, but too high-strung”. But, the fact that actually links up to the film is when he reads in the ending of this article “Exterminate all the brutes” referring it to the Africans – to kill the Africans.

In the film, this article is shown in one particular scene when Willard searches Kurtz personal stuff in his home. Consequently, he sees a Kurtz diary, all typed in with a writing-matching, opening it to the final page, he reads Kurtz handwriting, saying: “Drop the bomb, exterminate them all”. Referring, in this case, to the Vietnamese’s.

These extracts shows the idea of Kurtz wanting to help, but becomes a killer.

Conclusion

As a conclusion, Heart of Darkness is an intelligent written literature and it is very much resembles with the film of Apocalypse Now. Nevertheless, there is some obvious deferens between them but have, in a way, some similar paradox – the book is based in England and Africa, it is in a time of colonization and the film is based in the U.S.A. and Vietnam in a time of war. But, generally, the novella is reflected quit faithfully in the film. These extend includes themes such as civilization vs. savagery, madness, destiny, racism; they also show a very similar intensity of narration and most of all the characters are almost alike. Ended, this shows how well adapted is the screenplay in the film – they way they managed to change different cultures to relate the main plot with the subject of the book - and how it maintains a establish relation making the film even more intriguing if you have read the book that has been inspired with.

The naive theme of these two wonderful pieces of art is that they received many critics – the book for example was called to be a racist or the production of the movie was thought as madness. But does it take some contrast in thinking to make a masterpiece?

Bibliography

* Conrad, Joseph. Heart of Darkness. New York: Penguin Books, Limited, 1994.

* Apocalypse Now. Dir. Francis F. Coppola. Perf. Marlon Brando, Martin Sheen, Robert Duvall, Laurence Fishburne, Albert Hall, Harrison Ford and Dennis Hopper. 1979.

* "Apocalypse Now." The Internet Movie Script Database (IMSDb). 3 Dec. 1975. 31 July 2008 . Original screenplay by John Milius. Inspired by Joseph Conrad's "HEART OF DARKNESS". Draft by Francis Ford Coppola.

* "Apocalypse Now." Internet Movie Data Base (IMDb). 1990. 31 July 2008 .

* "Apocalypse Now." Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. 31 July 2008 .

* Murch, Walter. ""Diálogo con los notables del cine mundial"" Interview. • Escuela Nacional de Experimentación y Realización Cinematográfica (ENERC). 5 June 2008. 28 June 2008 .

* Achebe, Chinua. ""An Image of Africa: Racism in Conrad's Heart of Darkness."" Collage of Humanities and Social Studies. 28 Aug. 2008 .

S-E-R-G-I 2 da O!

miércoles, 26 de agosto de 2009

"El día que te mueras" de Gustavo Gabriel Crovella

miércoles, 10 de junio de 2009

To what extent are the themes, narrative style and characters of the book, “Heart of Darkness”, by J. Conrad, reflected in the film, “Apocalypse Now"?

miércoles, 4 de marzo de 2009

Gone Jackals - DISCOGRAFIA

miércoles, 14 de enero de 2009

Vos también quieres entrar en la ENERC? (eBooks)

Seguidores

Archivo del blog

Datos personales