Classics Without All the Class discussion

Apocolypse Now (1979) was inspired by but not based on Heart of Darkness (1899). There are deliberate similarities and stark differences. If you read the book and saw the film, share your observations on any of these elements or add your own if something else grabbed you. This book and film are fascinating to contrast and compare.

- 19th Century Belgian Congo vs. Vietnam/Cambodia
- Difference in how the Congo vs Nung River were viewed.
- Role of the jungle in book and film
- Kurtz in the book vs Kurtz in the film
- Marlow in the book vs Willard in the film
- Russian "Harlequin" in book vs Photojounalist in film
- Racism and Western Imperialism in book vs film
- Influencial life experiences of the author (Conrad) vs
filmmaker(Coppola / Millius)

I thought it was interesting that in the movie, the mission is to kill Kurtz. In the novel, there is a fascination with him (although he does die).

Maybe that mirrors our views of the imperialist attitudes of the times these works were complete. In 1899, the world still was fascinated by imperialism and wasn't sure where it would go or what good it was doing (on both sides). In 1979, we were realizing what one country's control of another could do, and our mission is to stop it. That's kind of why the US war with Viet Nam happened (to stop the communist part of the country from overtaking the other part).

There's something of a misleading misstatement in this comment. Vietnam was really one country or nation that had been divided by a revolution that had stalled in the middle of the country, much like Korea. The later statement "the communist part of the country" is accurate.
The Belgian Congo and Vietnam had much in common in that they were both colonies- the French left Vietnam much as the Belgians left The Congo. Both countries had a great deal of upheaval afterwards; though there was no communist revolution in the Congo there were rivals to govern. Just as Conrad's protagonist Marlow viewed the native Africans as niggers, many Americans viewed the Vietnamese as gooks. Hopefully we know better now, and have abandoned both our racist and imperialist pasts.

Regarding racism: We have come a long way ... with a long way to go. Keep the contrasts and comparisons coming. Great observations. I missed a lot of them when reading and gain from reading what others found.

Yes, the way Kurtz was perceived was really different in the book. In both, he was a individual who was idolized by indigenous people, making him dangerous and powerful. But in the movie Kurtz was a larger than life kind of guy while in the book he was more average in appearance and demeanor. I read that Coppola wanted Kurtz to look like a physically large powerful man but not overweight (sorry Marlon, RIP) so he did all the shadowy facial shots. I thought this was really creepy and you certainly got the message that Kurtz was powerful and dangerous in his position but also sad and deeply disturbed. In the book I felt this was more subtly portrayed.


Daniel wrote: "I thought it was interesting that in the movie, the mission is to kill Kurtz. In the novel, there is a fascination with him (although he does die).

Maybe that mirrors our views of the imperialist ..."

In terms of film -book plot differences, I was thinking about the Kurtz- Marlow relationship. Having finished the novel now, I'm more aware of how Capt Willard in the film [Martin Sheen] was told beforehand that Kurtz had gone "mad" [by the way did you remember that one of the officers briefing Capt Willard in the film was played by young Harrison Ford?], while in the novel, Marlow knew little or nothing about Kurtz until he was in the forward camp trying to fix the boat, and only learned how "mad" Kurtz was when he got to him. I think this helped give the film an ominous mood.

That's a good point. I forgot that Willard had been warned about Kurtz. And yes, a very young Harrison Ford was in the briefing. Marlow had not formed the same kind of picture in his mind that Willard would have.

Has anyone seen the 1993 Heart of Darkness film starring Tim Roth and John Malcovich?

For me, the key differences between Apocalypse Now and Heart of Darkness are these:

-The setting: The Vietnam War really was a war - both sides were capable of putting up a fight. The Congolese offered no meaningful resistance to the Belgians and thus Belgian colonialism was a massacre and pillage, not a war.

-Kurtz: In AN, Kurtz is essentially an advocate of Nazi-style, all-out brutality to win the war. Book Kurtz would not have disagreed, but all he cared about was ruling over the Congolese like a living god, and clearly had no loyalty to Belgium or anyone else. "Exterminate all the brutes" was, in the film, the executive summary of Kurtz's methods; in the book, it was the product of exasperation.

-Kurtz's death: In the film, Kurtz basically lets himself get killed. That, and how he whispers his final words imply he's at least fed up with his own cruelty, and hint at him seeking a "redemption equals death" ending. In the book Kurtz dies of disease and his final "The horror! The horror!" seems more an expression of anguish at his own death and all the horrors around him - there is no redemption. For me this was the weakest part of the film.

Great observations! You mentioned the movie ending being weak. Did you object to the movie Kurtz showing something like regret for his deeds when the book portrayed him as someone who was narccisitic to the end?

I saw evil in both portrayals and agree the movie Kurtz was more of a tormented soul than in the book. I thought his unbalanced emotions made him scary and unpredictable where as book Kurtz was charismatic, cold and calculating ....equally chilling!

Thnaks! For me, the book is about the darkest places in the human psyche - the characters aren't corrupted by Africa, they already had that corruption in them (as is made clear in the part about Brussels, for example) and it is released by the lack of constraints or accountability. This theme is more interesting to me than war. Also, people who embrace the darkness don't usually turn back, and in this sense the death in the book seems far more real. That Kurtz, who had set himself up as a living god, dies not some glorious death in battle or gets smitten by lighning, but dies a mundane death of tropical disease, which is both ironic and highly realistic. But in AN, Kurtz's death seems out of place - he's a man of action, one who advocates extreme violence, whose aspirations have never been on a conventional nature and who has never really done his superiors' bidding. He hardly seems likely to meekly let himself get killed by someone sent by them. Even if he decided to end it all, it seems more likely he'd either do it himself (after executing the man sent to kill him) or that he would seek death in battle or in some suicide mission. Showing something like regret doesn't really ring true to me, and thus I strongly prefer the desperate death in the book.

Thanks for this interesting discussion. It has been quite a while since I saw the movie, and much longer since I read the book. It makes both of them make more sense to me now than they did at the time I read and/or saw them.

I Iike your comments Lohengrin. On the issue of Col. Kurtz in the movie letting himself be killed, I don't think that's completely incredible-people do a lot of irrational things. It happens that I am also reading the old gringo by Carlos Fuentes, in which the main character in the story is a man who goes to fight in the Mexican revolution, hoping to be killed in battle. A story need some plausibility but people doing the unexpected sometimes makes for a good story.

Lohengrin’s comments have definitely taken this thread to another level—thank you for that! I do agree with George about the plausibility of movie-Kurtz letting himself be killed. It seems to me that people who hate the world often really hate themselves, and in moments of emotional fatigue just want it all to end.

Thanks to everyone who has participated in a lively discussion of Heart of Darkness/Apocolype Now. I cant believe November is over. This thread will remain open for continued comments.

Abigail wrote: "Lohengrin’s comments have definitely taken this thread to another level—thank you for that! I do agree with George about the plausibility of movie-Kurtz letting himself be killed. It seems to me th..."

*blushes* Thanks!
It's not that I think Kurtz wouldn't want to end it all, but I don't find the manner of doing it very plausible. I've known of people who seek death, but it's usually death in battle rather than meekly letting themselves be killed. Kurtz was a man of action, a military man in a war, and someone who advocated victory via unfettered violence. I think if he had wanted to end it all he would've sought death in battle, not let himself be killed.

I came across this excellent two-part analysis of the film - it doesn't dwell on comparing it to the book but I still thought it would be interesting for folks here.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r23wO...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LUpAI...