2 posts in One (class hw + assigned day at the same. time.)

1)
when reading the book, one thing in noticed was how effectively Conrad used metaphors and similes to describe the senses in order to bring the reader in and let them 'experience' along with Marlow. I think the use of sound in the movie did a really good job of harassing the different senses, and really makes the experience of the journey 'real' the viewer, as it is in the book. The chopper sounds, the ominous music, the gunfire and explosion, the screaming; everything came together to create the confusion and insanity described in the book.

2)
One thing we talked about in class (and I blogged about earlier) was whether Heart of Darkness is a psychological journey into Marlow's mind, or a commentary on European colonialism. The first thing i noticed about the movie was how it also could be separated into both these paths. In the opening of the movie, Captain Ben's face is faded over scenes of explosions and concealing smoke. The close up of Ben's eyes and face indicate a psychological experience taking place, but at the same time it is a literal representation of colonialism in Vietnam.

Thesis

To accurately adapt something from one medium to another the adaptation must contain and be able to convey the same feelings as the original, even if the setting and characters are changed. In both Joseph Conrad's Heart of Darkness and Francis Ford Coppola's Apocalypse Now there is a feeling that our main character could snap at any time. Ultimately his adaptation is successful because even though almost everything about the story is changed except for the bare bones of the plot through his use of light and sound Coppola is able to capture the same sense of mystery and fear of the unknown.

A Thesis Statement

An “adaptation” is something that while having name changes, story changes, or even setting, still manages to echo themes of the work it is adapting. In this regard, Francis Ford Coppola’s Apocalypse Now manages to be an adaptation that differs from Conrad’s Heart of Darkness with its transplantation from Darkest Africa to Vietnam, yet still manages to capture the sense of dread, darkness, and fear that such primitive places have over men. Like in Conrad’s seminal novel, the end result of the movie is an apocalypse where the mind, physical body, and souls of men are completely and utterly destroyed by their situations.

Any suggestions would be helpful.

Melina

Apocalypse Now is filmed in a way where structure and sequence play an important role. At first I was distracted by the superficial scenes such as the scene where Captain Willard strips off his clothes, depressively dancing, and then punches a mirror. However, as the storyline developed I realized the importance of the self-destructive episode--it transcribed the outside description of the charcter Marlow mentioned in Heart of Darkness. Only the audience and Willard know what happened in that room, therefore we become the omnious narrator describing Marlow as "not typical (if his propensity to spin yarns be expected), and to him the meaning of an episode was not inside like a kernel but outside, enveloping the tale which brought it out only as a glow brings out a haze" (pg.6). Likewise, almost all the other scenes are introduced in a confusing way, where we don't quite understand until another scene explains its importance. This occurs all throughout the novel, where many moments are unrecognizable until another occurence makes the light bulb go on. So far, it's been faithful.

Adaptation?

As we've gotten further and further into Apocalypse Now I've begun to question whether it is truly an adaptation at all. Since the movie started I had a hard time distinguishing what parts of the movie related to Heart of Darkness and which were a reference to Vietnam. Part of doing an adaptation is being able to work with time period/setting, reoccurring images, characters, and speed amongst many other things. I happen to think that Coppola didn't think wisely when he decided to shoot Apocalypse Now in Vietnam. The movie portrays Vietnam does feel like this dark, fearful place that stems from war. I found that there were multiple times when I was cross referencing and thinking about history class. The Vietnamese weren't savages who lived in the jungle and needed to be civilized, they were indigenous people who were fighting for their independence. Apocalypse Now shouldn't have been about war, it should have been about an adventure gone wrong because war has too many different denotations to it. All in all, I did find one director's choice that I agreed with, and that was the use of lighting in the movie up until now. The lighting was most effective during the scene at the bridge when the soldiers were under fire. The way each blast lit up the sky and each soldier's face until it passed and went back to darkness, was great. The audience really got this feeling of desperation and chaos that surrounds war; that was pretty realistic.  

Henry

Until today, I didn't consider Apocalypse Now to be an adaptation at all. The Rolling Stones/ water skiing scene felt out of place, and the presence of many other Americans at war doesn't give off the feeling that "Marlow" is an outsider at all; many others are in the exact same position as him. The Playboy performance also felt wrong. Women play a huge role in Heart of Darkness; the women we encounter on the river are mysterious natives. Here, the models in the show are clearly flown in from overseas, and while they are clearly "out of touch" like the women in Heart of Darkness, they do not give off the same mysterious vibe.

I thought the attack scenes were done well though. Coppola chose not to show any of the natives; we only see the arrows coming towards the boat. The sound of the arrows contrast well with the silence beforehand, which only emphasizes how scary it is for the men to be on a boat by themselves. The second attack was interesting as well. While the arrows were toys, there was also a real spear in the mix. We see that something that seems harmless in Vietnam can be harmful.

Kurtz

The biggest difference I’ve noticed between Heart of Darkness and Apocalypse Now is the way in which Kurtz is depicted. In the book Kurtz is a mystery up until the moment we meet him. Even once Marlow has interacted with him it is hard to tell exactly what his intentions in the Congo were and the intended only makes our idea of him less clear. The descriptions of Kurtz in the beginning of the book make him out to be a hero, while the descriptions at the beginning of the movie make him seem mad. I am not sure if our perceptions of Kurtz is going to shift as the movie continues but right now I feel that the mystery surrounding Kurtz is gone; he is no longer a voice. In both the movie and the book Kurt’s “methods become unsound” and there was even a photograph in the folder of Kurtz standing near many heads on sticks. These two characters are obviously meant to resemble each other but I can’t help but feel like the ways in which the other characters relate to Kurtz are too different for him to be the same man.

Welcome to the Jungle

From what I've seen so far, I'm finding "Apocalypse Now" to be both a strange and dark experience. I feel like so far the parallels between "Heart of Darkness" apply here. The wanton destruction of the natives, set to an epic Wagner piece that is both thrilling and dreadful, Kilgore discussing surfing with Corporal Lance, the tiger attack- These reflect a sense and fear of the unknown, of shooting Charlie just for the hell. I found Killgore's attack to be like hunting the Vietnamese as less than human.

Kill the Wabbit

When we first started watching Apocalypse Now I thought that instead of being an adaptation it was a movie with a few references to Heart of Darkness, but as we get farther in I am starting to see more similarities. After the helicopters fly in to Wagner's the Valkyrie and bomb the village there is a moment when Lieutenant Kilgore is talking about surfing and in the background, slightly out of focus, is a line of Vietnamese people who have been roped together being taken somewhere. Although it doesn't have quite the same effect as in Heart of Darkness when Marlowe sees the criminals when he is on his way to the first station, there is the same sense of blatant disregard on behalf of the people who are coming in to a strange new land. In Heart of Darkness Marlowe acknowledges the criminals but the man who is marching with them seems like he could not care less.

I Can't Get No Satisfaction

As I mentioned in class today one aspect of the movie that I have been very focused on is the use of sound (synchronous and asynchronous) in the film. The first sounds the audience hears are the helicopters, and we see them hovering above the ominous, burning, beautiful jungle. The sound of the helicopters continues throughout the movie and seems to be the overpowering sound. Yet what is interesting is Copola's choice of transitioning with sounds.
When we first meet the young, comical crew we see Laurence Fishburne turn on a small transistor radio and I Can't Get No Satisfaction by the Rolling Stones comes on. First the sound is very quiet and then quickly gets louder and louder until that is all the audience can hear.
Similarly the scene in which the general says "Put on the music!" as the whole crew is bombing another place up the river, the audience hears that famous song along with the helicopters, and then later on an opera song also takes over.
In Heart of Darkness this idea of VOICE is extremely important to the novel. The main voice discussed in the novel is Kurtz's, and Copola captures it right from the start of the film by playing it on a tape recorder, and having it eerily linger in the room.

A couple days late....

Last time we talked about the book, the class tried to convince me that heart of darkness was either a psychological trip into Marlow's subconscious, or an observation of colonialism in Africa. Most people in class had evidence to support the psychological trip, for instance the repetition of earth and men imagery through the book, perhaps suggesting a look in the nature of man, and quotes like, "The mind of a man is capable of anything", which seems to indicate a discovery larger than just the discovery of Africa. However, after class Sophie asked Ms. Drezner her opinion, and I have to say, her argument won me over.
The argument that convinced me was really rather a simple one. First and foremost, the book IS basically a journal of Conrad's account of what he saw in Africa. The psychological argument was one that came about later because of uncompfotable feelings toward racism. To say the book is not about colonialism and racism is to almost let the white supremacists in the book off the hook. I think that viewing the book as a coarse look into colonialism is more interesting than our own creating of a psychological journey. Truth is stranger than fiction after all...

The Blinding Truth

Heart of Darkness is a bone-chilling book. It forces the reader to take a look inside of themselves and confront the unknown. Conrad plays with quite a few themes, but I think that the most important one is truth. He asks his readers to question everything by taking us on a journey. What starts off as three men sitting in a boat on the Thames river later turns into an account of Marlow's experience in Africa. One line that stood out to me the most was: "Joy, fear, sorrow, devotion, valour, rage--who can tell?--but truth--truth stripped of its cloak of time" (43). Here Conrad is analyzing the mind of a man. A man feels many emotions, but cannot show them because being forward isn't be masculine.

Conrad then goes on to mesh two themes together: truth and darkness/light. He has a tendency to associate light with geography, and darkness with mankind. "Light" is mentioned at the very beginning of the book: "The water shone pacifically; the sky, without a speck, was a benign immensity of unstained light" (4). While he associates darkness with the "utter savagery" of mankind (7). Men are savages because we give them too much power, we put them on pedestals as most men did with Krutz. They allowed Krutz to "englarge" their minds (65). One quote that stood out to me was "You don't talk with that man [Krutz]--you listen to him" (64). We also see Conrad depict men as savages when the reader learns that Marlow is looking at "heads on stakes" posted outside of Krutz' house (70). Marlow couldn't make out the heads until he took off the binoculars and got a closer view. I think the binoculars are a metaphor, just like the fog was a metaphor; Marlow doesn't make out the heads until he sees them with his own eyes. Instead of the binoculars helping him see, they blinded Marlow, in the same way that the thick fog would have caused the natives to get lost on the river (51). Here Conrad is hinting at the idea of sight, and being able to determine the truth with your own eyes.

Truth is such a big topic in this book because there are so many hidden motives. One of the characters that we meet that seems to have a hidden motive is the Manager. Krutz overhears the Manager saying how he wants to "do away" with Krutz. This is crucial because it is at this point that the Marlow hints, and that the reader thinks, that Marlow's boat was sabotaged. Another character that we finally have the chance to meet is Krutz. Krutz doesn't really have a secret motive, but more so the reader sees this overarching theme of secrecy with the two women in Krutz' life: the native and the Intended. Both women represent a different time period in Krutz' life. Aside from being a clear representation of savagery and civilization they also literally represent the colors black and white. What I found interesting is that these colors can stand for so many things. These colors take us all the way to the end of the book where Conrad has Marlow say that "The last words he pronounced was--your name" (95). Even though the majority of the book takes place in Africa Conrad wanted to make sure that while Krutz did venture off into a savage foreign land and had an African lover, in death it was as if Africa had never changed him because he ended up saying the Intended's name.

The book as a whole felt something like the written version of Inception but to a lesser extent. The book challenged the idea that we have the power to make others believe what we want them too. It was almost as if Conrad was trying to show this through the god-like figure Krutz. One thing that I liked the most was that Conrad began the book talking about the Nellie and "light," while at the end he truly leaves us in the "heart of an immense darkness" (96).

A Long Awaited Post

Europeans:
20-21 a very put together "amazing" white man
23 the man that needs to be carried by slaves
25 bad leader
29 when he notices Kurtz' painting

One thing that I kept in mind the entire time I was reading our copy of Heart of Darkness was the back of the book and the annotations. What I think is very important to note is just how much of the book is actually based on Conrad's own life. Many times some semblance of the comment "Marlow's recollections resemble Conrad's" (100). Direct images from Conrad's treks are taken (23) and told in Marlow's story (by Conrad) as if they were newly created just for this work of 'fiction.' The entire story of the wrecked ship (24), Marlow's repeated requests for parts, and the manager that hopes to destroy Kurtz (and even Kurtz himself) are all based on people and occurrences in Conrad's life. The man discussed on the bottom of page 23 (mentioned above) who was ill so had to be carried by Africans is also based on Conrad's friend.
I don't know quite what to make of the similarities between Conrad and Marlow, their lives, their journeys, or their stories, but I do know that these similarities do exist and they are very interesting. It would be neat to read a biography of Conrad that focuses on his similarities to Marlow (if they were made clear in the notes section they must be famously known and therefor written about many times) so as to learn of the importance of the similarities.

Hearts

There are many definitions of the word heart: it can be a symbol for love, an anatomical organ that pumps blood and sustains life, it also is used to mean the innermost part of something, or the most important aspect. As we read heart of darkness I have been trying to figure out which one of these hearts is the “heart of darkness”. Most obviously, I think “heart” is referring to the inside of the Congo. As the book progresses we travel deeper into Africa, and deeper into a world we don’t understand. Marlow says, “When you have to attend to things of that sort, to the mere incidents of the surface, the reality—the reality, I tell you fades. The inner truth is hidden—luckily, luckily” (41). Reality is a tricky subject to figure out in this book. If we look at the journey though Africa as a psychological journey into the depths of the mind it is apparent that subconscious contains “hidden truths”. I am not sure what Marlow means by “luckily” but it seems to be an ominous warning. I think the connection between the use of hearts as anatomical objects is interesting when compared to the other body imagery throughout the text. If the story represents the mind, why it is filled with “a mass of hands clapping, of feet stamping, of bodies swaying, of eyes rolling, under the droop of heavy motionless foliage” (42)? If hearts are the mechanics of life, what is the heart of life in the Congo? I am not quite sure yet.

A Newfound Admiration?

While reading last night, I found a strange contrast in Conrad's view and depiction of the natives. From about pages 49-50, he seems to view the black men on the boat as calm, yet ravenously hungry savages, wondering why they did not choose to eat the white men they outnumbered. Yet when the black helmsman is shot by an arrow, Marlow seems to mourn his death, with a graphic description of his condition. He speaks of him as a gifted creature, being able to talk with words, and while he seemed second-rate, I feel that he was one of the only people whom Marlow may have thought of as a sort of friend. But again, it's a little startling this contrast, and part of me wonders if Conrad had edited or gone back to this part of the novel before.
Again, we can see the sort of futility and making lots of smoke with the ginger-haired man as well.

Cry Me a Congo

Today in class we were discussing the lines that either stood out, shocked, or surprised us the most. Most of the lines that came up were about how Marlow described the people he encountered in ways that dehumanized them or made them seem grotesque but the line that stood out the most to me was when he said "The man seemed young – almost a boy – but you know with them it's hard to tell"(20). The fact that he can make an offhand comment about how the man could be almost any age and it would be impossible to tell are shows how he finds them to all be the same tells a lot about the attitude that he is going into Africa with. One of the most disturbing lines occurs where it seems like he has just realized that all of the native Africans are people too. When he sees them on the shore from the river he thinks “Yes, it was ugly enough; but if you were man enough you would admit to yourself that there was in you just the faintest trace of a response to the terrible frankness of that noise, a dim suspicion of there being a meaning in it which you…could comprehend” (43). Whether this is a belief that Conrad shares or not he does an excellent job of shocking the reader with how nonchalantly Marlow can bring that up. It isn’t a huge moment of realization, instead it seems as though it is something that Marlow feels that a man would have to stoop down to admit to himself or to others.

Amanda: Identity/Voice/Materialism

Identity/Voice/Materialism and Objects
Marlow finds himself by basing his life on what he knows. He is extremely independent and believes that a man "...must meet that truth with his own true stuff-with his own newborn strength." In both part 1 and part 2, we see Marlow struggling to find who he is. He seems to be sure of himself because of his choice to venture out alone into the world unknown (Africa) on a steam ship. In part 2, he brings up prehistoric man, and prehistoric earth but defends his choices and opinions by saying, "I hear; I admit, but I have a voice too, and for good or evil mine is the speech that cannot be silenced" (43). He recognizes that everyone is different but refuses to try and understand the ways of men that are different then him. That is until his steerman dies. The reader sees Marlow discovering the importance of voice, and understanding that this man (along with the cannibals and pilgrims) was a person, with a voice (57-58). The word voice is repeated, which echoed in my mind. Marlow is aware of the nature of life almost, and observes life "with assumed innocence that no man was safe from trouble in this world" (46).

Yet the most important thing to Marlow is the waters and his steamboat. His steamboat (which he personifies and characterizes as female) seems to symbolize his journey of self discovery, but more importantly his guide to understanding other people. Marlow clearly spends a lot of time alone, observing the ocean and the surroundings and doesn't trust people, especially people that aren't of his own race. It's interesting that Marlow seems to detest materialism or people obsessed with objects and wealth (like Kurtz) but yet spends almost all of his time on a ship and takes care of it. That ship seems to mean more to Marlow than any person has.
Marlow doesn't like Kurtz (even before he has met him) because he imagines him to be a man taken over by ivory, because ivory is his life and he is obsessed with it. Marlow describes him as "a tree strayed by the wind" (61) because of his desire for ivory. Yet even though Marlow puts Kurtz down for this, one could argue that Marlow himself is "a tree strayed by the wind" (61) because he is obsessed with the water, and sailing, and even the darkness or horror of the earth and life. This also ties into to whether Marlow is a reliable narrator or not, and at this point in the book, the reader is forced to question every image described. Is it a dream? Is it the truth? Did all of this happen or did only some of it happen?

Snakes!

Knowing that rivers are a significant motif and play an important role in this book (especially one in particular) something thing that really struck me in the reading (pages 3-21) was the comparison of the river to a snake: “But there was one river especially… resembling an immense snake uncoiled, with its head in the sea, its body at rest curving afar over a vast country, and its tail lost in the depths of the land… The snake charmed me” (9). Conrad continues to refers to the river and calls it a snake a few times, and later gives an eerie description of the river: “…in and out of rivers, streams of life and death, whose banks were rotting to mud, whose waters, thickened into slime, invaded the contorted mangroves, that seemed to writhe at us in the extremity of an impotent despair” (16). This imagery of “slime” and writhing and contortion reminds one of a snake. The reference and comparison of the river to a snake is significant in that snakes have strong connotations of being enticing, seductive, and fascinating, but also of being, deadly and poisonous, and associated with evil. I think that this could very well be foreshadowing, and definitely sets tone for the rest of the book.

Henry

While the story does get off to a slow start plot wise, there is still plenty to digest within the first twenty pages. First, we see that Marlow's story overpowers the original story of men on a boat. It's mysterious that the story opens with a character we currently know almost nothing about. Conrad has also started developing a mysterious tone for the setting. He describes the coast as "tr[ying] to ward off intruders" (16), and makes references to the fate of other foreigners. This includes a danish man who previously held Marlow's job, who found himself dead after a "misunderstanding about some hens" (10), and a Swede who "hanged himself on the road" (17). We get a feeling that this new territory is too maddening, to different for some European travelers, but this is what attracted Marlow to Africa in the first place.