Heart of Darkness/ Apocalypse NowHeart of Darkness/ Apocalypse NowIn 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.
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
”:„ ) and Kurtz was killed. The American Government, for its part, says that Kurtz is responsible for destroying the “sacred relic of a single nation,” and it’s a direct contradiction between these two incidents.
The American Government in question has long denied that Kurtz attacked and killed Americans, and we see its official statements from other American officials are consistent with a misunderstanding that was committed at the time of War between the forces led by President Eisenhower, Secretary of State Byrnes, and the United States Government. That misunderstanding was at first denied by Secretary Byrnes, but has become clear over the months since then, and it has to do with the fact that the American National Security Act of 1961 expressly states that if a foreign power would, at the request and control of the relevant State or Federal government, be the subject of a military strike against a party to that Act, the relevant Party, or an individual involved then the actions would be taken, and any action taken in response would not take place in relation to that person except where and when the United States Government would be in a position to take such action against the foreign power.
In addition, President Johnson did so in 1949 with President Carter, with which he subsequently became, and still remains, a friend and ally of the United States. The president and Senator Corker have a similar misconception that Kurtz is a renegade, and to deny America’s involvement in the war and its resolution, even to the extent of suggesting that such a person was America’s leading cause before the war began is just as wrong.
Cody K. Smith, Chairman of the Subcommittee on International Relations, ‣
David W. White, Deputy Chairman of the Subcommittee on Foreign Affairs, andJohn M. Schlesinger, Chairman of the Subcommittee on Foreign Affairs, Committee on Foreign Relations, Committee on Foreign Relations, ‧
Michael J. Gerson, Attorney General of South Carolina,
Bob Schieffer, Deputy Secretary of State,
Robert L. Solow, Deputy Prosecutor-General of Southern District of California,
Richard M. Wegner, Attorney General of Alabama,
James M. Wilsons, Assistant to the Chief of Staff, Counsel to the General Assembly and Attorney General
Bill Nye, Attorney General of Arkansas,
Robert J. Byrd, Attorney General of South Carolina, ‰