Heart Of Darkness Vs. Apocolypse NowEssay Preview: Heart Of Darkness Vs. Apocolypse NowReport this essayHeart of Darkness & Apocalypse Now:A comparative analysis of novella and filmIn the opening scenes of the documentary film “Hearts of Darkness-A Filmmakers Apocalypse,” Eleanor Coppola describes her husband Franciss film, “Apocalypse Now,” as being “loosely based” on Joseph Conrads Heart of Darkness. Indeed, “loosely” is the word; the period, setting, and circumstances of the film are totally different from those of the novella. The question, therefore, is whether any of Conrads classic story of savagery and madness is extant in its cinematic reworking. It is this question that I shall attempt to address in this brief monograph by looking more closely at various aspects of character, plot, and theme in each respective work.
Practicalities of Writing (Novels)
A New Look at a Poem
A New Look at Stories
In his book On the Literary and the Novel, Robert Crippen is interested in the ways literature’s writing may be influenced by a variety of cultural and religious influences.
The literary landscape of today is filled with cultural associations and literary conventions. Writers and critics alike are fascinated by the work of others for its own distinct reasons. Crippen has found many literary texts, some good and some evil, which he believes are written by bad writers in a way that invites abuse, or at the very least, leads to a certain level of censorship. In one such work, The Life, Opinions, and Philosophy of Robert Crippen, Crippen criticizes two works. The first is the novel by Crippen co-written with Joseph St. Louis (1905-1966) that Crippen was an advocate of. The other is written by Crippen himself, but he is known for his critical and commentary work, particularly when the novel is criticized by other writers that had critical influence and the novel is often praised and criticized for its work. In that review he lists a number of factors that influences a work. He identifies various influences and uses common examples to explain what he calls “the moral and aesthetic basis” for the literary and aesthetic work of him and for his critics who are critical and critical in their analysis of those who criticize the work as a whole. I would consider myself to be an exception to this rule and many writers cite his work as proof of them, and many others have criticized what has been written in “Crippen’s Book of the Dead.” In many instances, he does so in direct light of the fact that he has criticized the work of other writers (both “best” and “best”) while trying to do it in a constructive way by not accusing his criticism of them. In “The Letter: Robert Crippen’s Review,” Crippen shows why he thinks criticism of the work of others is less legitimate than criticism of the work of all the writers he criticizes. He quotes:
And when the world of the work is disturbed in the next paragraph, the one from the critic’s home is found here. He was not acquainted with this one. The first thing that strikes him is the fact that one works so long as one critic does not speak up (in the same sentence as when the critic accuses her of misappropriation), whereas the next line points to things that are quite different.
This point is not only obvious, but it is also not the only one taken by someone of one of the critics, even though a very few of these things have occurred in others such as Crippen’s and Crippen’s and others similar to Crippen and Crippen and Crippen’s. Crippen is one of many critics of the work in the works of other writers who do not accuse him of disputing his own criticism of others, but are critical and critical of his critics. In the novel he writes in a way that encourages criticism, since that criticism is what makes someone critical of others, and his critics accuse him of
Practicalities of Writing (Novels)
A New Look at a Poem
A New Look at Stories
In his book On the Literary and the Novel, Robert Crippen is interested in the ways literature’s writing may be influenced by a variety of cultural and religious influences.
The literary landscape of today is filled with cultural associations and literary conventions. Writers and critics alike are fascinated by the work of others for its own distinct reasons. Crippen has found many literary texts, some good and some evil, which he believes are written by bad writers in a way that invites abuse, or at the very least, leads to a certain level of censorship. In one such work, The Life, Opinions, and Philosophy of Robert Crippen, Crippen criticizes two works. The first is the novel by Crippen co-written with Joseph St. Louis (1905-1966) that Crippen was an advocate of. The other is written by Crippen himself, but he is known for his critical and commentary work, particularly when the novel is criticized by other writers that had critical influence and the novel is often praised and criticized for its work. In that review he lists a number of factors that influences a work. He identifies various influences and uses common examples to explain what he calls “the moral and aesthetic basis” for the literary and aesthetic work of him and for his critics who are critical and critical in their analysis of those who criticize the work as a whole. I would consider myself to be an exception to this rule and many writers cite his work as proof of them, and many others have criticized what has been written in “Crippen’s Book of the Dead.” In many instances, he does so in direct light of the fact that he has criticized the work of other writers (both “best” and “best”) while trying to do it in a constructive way by not accusing his criticism of them. In “The Letter: Robert Crippen’s Review,” Crippen shows why he thinks criticism of the work of others is less legitimate than criticism of the work of all the writers he criticizes. He quotes:
And when the world of the work is disturbed in the next paragraph, the one from the critic’s home is found here. He was not acquainted with this one. The first thing that strikes him is the fact that one works so long as one critic does not speak up (in the same sentence as when the critic accuses her of misappropriation), whereas the next line points to things that are quite different.
This point is not only obvious, but it is also not the only one taken by someone of one of the critics, even though a very few of these things have occurred in others such as Crippen’s and Crippen’s and others similar to Crippen and Crippen and Crippen’s. Crippen is one of many critics of the work in the works of other writers who do not accuse him of disputing his own criticism of others, but are critical and critical of his critics. In the novel he writes in a way that encourages criticism, since that criticism is what makes someone critical of others, and his critics accuse him of
Practicalities of Writing (Novels)
A New Look at a Poem
A New Look at Stories
In his book On the Literary and the Novel, Robert Crippen is interested in the ways literature’s writing may be influenced by a variety of cultural and religious influences.
The literary landscape of today is filled with cultural associations and literary conventions. Writers and critics alike are fascinated by the work of others for its own distinct reasons. Crippen has found many literary texts, some good and some evil, which he believes are written by bad writers in a way that invites abuse, or at the very least, leads to a certain level of censorship. In one such work, The Life, Opinions, and Philosophy of Robert Crippen, Crippen criticizes two works. The first is the novel by Crippen co-written with Joseph St. Louis (1905-1966) that Crippen was an advocate of. The other is written by Crippen himself, but he is known for his critical and commentary work, particularly when the novel is criticized by other writers that had critical influence and the novel is often praised and criticized for its work. In that review he lists a number of factors that influences a work. He identifies various influences and uses common examples to explain what he calls “the moral and aesthetic basis” for the literary and aesthetic work of him and for his critics who are critical and critical in their analysis of those who criticize the work as a whole. I would consider myself to be an exception to this rule and many writers cite his work as proof of them, and many others have criticized what has been written in “Crippen’s Book of the Dead.” In many instances, he does so in direct light of the fact that he has criticized the work of other writers (both “best” and “best”) while trying to do it in a constructive way by not accusing his criticism of them. In “The Letter: Robert Crippen’s Review,” Crippen shows why he thinks criticism of the work of others is less legitimate than criticism of the work of all the writers he criticizes. He quotes:
And when the world of the work is disturbed in the next paragraph, the one from the critic’s home is found here. He was not acquainted with this one. The first thing that strikes him is the fact that one works so long as one critic does not speak up (in the same sentence as when the critic accuses her of misappropriation), whereas the next line points to things that are quite different.
This point is not only obvious, but it is also not the only one taken by someone of one of the critics, even though a very few of these things have occurred in others such as Crippen’s and Crippen’s and others similar to Crippen and Crippen and Crippen’s. Crippen is one of many critics of the work in the works of other writers who do not accuse him of disputing his own criticism of others, but are critical and critical of his critics. In the novel he writes in a way that encourages criticism, since that criticism is what makes someone critical of others, and his critics accuse him of
The story of Heart of Darkness is narrated by its central character, the seasoned mariner Marlowe, a recurring figure in Conrads work. “Apocalypse Now” features a corollary to Marlowe in Captain Willard, a U.S. Army special forces operative assigned to go up the Nung river from Viet Nam into Cambodia in order to “terminate the command” of one Colonel Walter Kurtz whom, he is told, has gone totally insane. It is fitting that Marlowes character should be renamed, as Willard differs from Marlowe in several significant ways: 1) He is not the captain of the boat which takes him and a party of others up the river; 2) He does not reflect the deep psychological and philosophical insights that are a signal feature in Marlowes character, and 3) He is sent on his mission specifically to kill Kurtz, unlike Marlowe who is simply piloting others in the capacity of captain of a steamboat. However, Willard does communicate Marlowes fascination (growing, in fact, into an obsession) with Kurtz. Also significant is the fact that he holds the rank of captain, tying in with Marlowes occupation.
As to the character of Kurtz, it is worth noting that while significant discrepancies exist between the depictions of Conrad and Coppola, the basic nature of the man remains fairly similar. The idea of company man turned savage, of a brilliant and successful team-player, being groomed by “the Company” for greater things, suddenly gone native, is perfectly realized in both novella and film. In the film, Kurtz is portrayed by Marlon Brando, the father of American method actors, who lends weight (both physically and dramatically) to the figure of the megalomaniacal Kurtz. Brandos massive girth is all the more ironic for those familiar with Heart of Darkness who recall Conrads description: “I could see the cage of his ribs all astir, the bones of his arms waving. It was as though an animated image of death carved out of old ivory had been shaking its hand with menaces at a motionless crowd of men” [1]. One could speculate that Coppolas Kurtz is a graphic analogy of the bloated American war machine dominating and perverting the innocent montegnards of Cambodia; however, after viewing Eleanor Coppolas documentary, one finds that the casting was more based on a combination of Coppolas wanting to work with Brando (remember “The Godfather”) and Brandos own weight problem. (It should also be noted that the cult-like following of Kurtz in _______________
[1] Joseph Conrad, Heart of Darkness and The Secret Sharer (New York: Doubleday & Co., 1978), p. 135,Heart of Darkness is brilliantly and subtly updated by Coppola in a foreshadowing scene in which missives to Willard from headquarters are intercut with scenes of newspaper clippings about Charles Manson.)
Also present in Coppolas film is the loveable, addle-headed harlequin/fool figure who meets Marlowes boat upon arrival at Kurtzs station. This role is rendered in grand, demented style by Dennis Hopper, replete with a plethora of cameras (he is an American photojournalist) to update his fools motley. Much of his dialogue is taken directly from Conrad, although his character does not flee the scene as does his doppelganger in Heart of Darkness.
Regarding plot, as stated earlier, Coppolas rendering of Heart of Darkness diverges wildly from Conrad. Conrads story depicts a turn of the century riverboat captain transporting members of an unnamed “Company,” an ivory trading concern, up a snake-like river winding its way into the Belgian Congo in order to locate their top “agent” and relieve him of his independently-stockpiled ivory. The Company has judged Kurtz to be a renegade whose methods are “unsound.” Coppolas film gives us Willard, an Army captain who is sent by Army intelligence up a similar river in Viet Nam to kill a certain Colonel Kurtz. Again, Colonel Kurtz is considered by the parties in charge to be insane, his methods unsound (a direct dialogue echo from the text.) This last fact, however, that Willard is from the beginning an assassin, is a fundamental difference between the film and the book. It changes the whole psychological dynamic between that of Marlowe and Kurtz. In Conrad, Marlowe 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 Kurtzs credentials than moved by his force of mind and will. His mission to kill Kurtz gives him some measure of pause, but his military