HEART OF DARKNESS and APOCALYPSE NOW

Stjepan Kuzman, Mostar, 2011

F.F Coppola tried to show his seeing of Heart of Darkness in mid 20th century, through war in Vietnam. Coppola goes maximum in streching and trying to stay as close to spot of book but ads his touch. There aren't as many similaritis between two works but yet there are. When you look at the core of Coppola's film and Heart of Darkness both are showing the dark side of humanity, it's darkest thoughts, acts and actions. In the movie this darkness is expressed even more then in the book, the place of action, the characters, time. Darkness has different meaning to Coppola's understanding. Book's title can represent location of Congo as it's placed in heart of Africa the Black continent people living there and it's primal society and Marlow (Belgians) can be seen as the one bringing light there, and culture. Heart of Darkness exposes the dark side of European colonization while exploring the three levels of darkness that the protagonist, Marlow, encounters: the darkness of the Congo wilderness, the darkness of the Europeans' cruel treatment of the natives, and the unfathomable darkness within every human being for committing heinous acts of evil. Coppola is sticking with part of it. Yes both of them show suffering of natives living there, characters in movie and book are affected by suffering, they have similar goals (main characters) to find Kurtz but Coppola ads that Willard needs to kill him. Movie sets Kurtz's character as pure evil and those wanting to kill him the saviors the light. Both of authors through their works protest against their countries on their own way. USA for going to war for profit, meanliness killing, and shows her as Company and the war is hers job. (Belgians exploiting Congo for their goods). Darkest traits are shown greed, madness, killing, destroying own dignety.

But even though Kurtz is shown as shown big reputation in outside world both of characters admire him, as man who had all but then went on other side became the enemy. In film Coppola shows him like god of the village people, the king, evil in human figure. They worship him and he provides protection. He represents human nature primal insticts, brutality, wildman. Some of significant discrepancies Person speaking about Kurtz. Kurtz's background the way they learn about him their sources. Willard wants to meet him badly he is fascinated with him the man with such military background(maybe he sees himself as Kurtz) starts to question government's act of killing Kurtz. So the place of movie Vietnam and meanless war going there shows obstacles and nonschalans of men being there brutality etc. Not only them are fascinated with Kurtz. Speaking with some of people Kurtz personality and attitude is shown, and they describe them as god over tribe who are scared of him. One of the big differences is when they meet Kurtz. While in the book he is shown dying in the book he's fine and looks mad. Why did Coppola wanted to switch this? Maybe he wanted to show evil in his purest and strongest picture. But what led to his madness? Well this goes into psichology. What he saw in the war the things he had done his mind couldn't bare that he went nuts as after some time he became imune to that, and his brutality was one of the way to intimitade those who wanted to kill him. Willard sees that when the Chef gets decapiteted. This gives him the reason more to kill him but also he is starting to transform to that beast. Basicly taken some of the difference made by Coppola the idea, theme, symbolism if you see it on that level the works are same if you look better main difference is the time of work. Adaptation of film is real for the time when it was made main characters are same, and the biggest diference is the darker characters in movie their action and their madness.