Apocalypse Now vs Heart of Darkness Essay -- essays research papers

Francis Ford Coppola’s Apocalypse Now lacks the impact of its inspiration, Joseph Conrad’s Heart of Darkness. While the basic elements of imperialism and human nature remain intact, the characters of the film bare little resemblance to their literary counterparts. The film serves as a re-interpretation of Conrad’s novella, updated from 19th-century British imperialism in the Congo to a critique of 20th-century U.S. imperialism in Southeast Asia. Coppola’s changes in setting and plot structure, however, force the film to sacrifice the character development so crucial in the literary work. This detracts from the overall effectiveness of the film. The most important difference between novella and film is the development of their main characters, Marlow and Willard, respectively. In Heart of Darkness, the reader is introduced to Marlow through his various philosophical ruminations about imperialism, morality, and human nature. He learns of the mysterious Kurtz through first-hand accounts of his accomplishments and his bizarre behaviour. As Marlow spends more and more time in the jungle, his pre-occupation with Kurtz becomes an important refuge from the brutality of the Belgians for whom he works. Although critical of the Belgian bureaucracy, it is unclear whether his displeasure stems from their immoral practices or their incompetence and inefficiency. Conrad never reveals Marlow’s true feelings, forcing the reader to confront the issues of racism and human nature themselves. Willard, on the other hand, is a psychological mess from the beginning of the film. The opening scenes depict him confessing his own mental imbalances as a result of prolonged service in the Vietnam War. While Conrad’s Marlow borders on complacency, Coppola’s Willard behaves erratically and without reason. His fascination with Kurtz is also less profound than in Heart of Darkness. According to literary scholar and cinema aficionado Mark A. Rivera, â€Å"In Conrad, Marlow is in awe of Kurtz, comes to identify with him in some dark recess of his own psyche; Willard, on the other hand, is more impressed with Kurtz's credentials than moved by his force of mind and will.† Despite the fact that the film is told through Willard’s eyes, his skewed perception does not affect the film’s clear moral intentions. Copp... ...e horror!'") and Kurtz's memory for the rest of his life. By turning himself into an enigma, Kurtz has done the ultimate: he has ensured his own immortality.† Kurtz’s status as an enigma serves to propagate an endless number of interpretations. Could his words be a declaration of the horrific dark side of man that lives within us all? Could they be a reaction to his first glimpse of the afterlife? Could they be a regretful look back on a life of sin? Kurtz’s last words leave the reader to draw his or her own conclusions about their meaning. Conrad does not tell us what to think, he makes us think. That is the sign of great art. Those very same words, however, when spoken by Marlon Brando in Apocalypse Now, hold far less meaning. The fact that Willard makes the decision to kill Kurtz convinces the audience of Kurtz’s insanity, and his words can be most literally interpreted as a reaction to his own murder. These words, meant to hold the most impact of all dialogue in either work, serve as an accurate metaphor for the works as a whole. Conrad’s Heart of Darkness forces its reader into meaningful introspection, while Apocalypse Now fails to capture the depth of Conrad’s vision.