Heart of Darkness

While the book Heart of Darkness, written by Joseph Conrad, in comparison to the movie, was like comparing the mental capacity of a child and a grown adult, the movie followed along with the main themes of the book very well. It is very difficult to put together a movie to describe such a complex book, but director Nicolas Roeg and actors John Malkovich and Tim Roth did an excellent job. Symbolism was a huge component within the film and the book. For example, Kurtz, a main character, was symbolized as a God to the people within the station where he collected ivory. One man said, "You don't talk to that man, you listen to him." Another said, "They (savages) don't want him to go… They adore him." The cannibals that lived within this Heart of Darkness and the people working for him highly adored and exalted Kurtz. Another example of symbolism is the painting of Kurtz Intended, or his fiancé back in Europe. This isn't something that would have a lot of meaning to someone who didn't read the book. The painting was of this woman, but her eyes were covered by a cloth. This represents the idea described in the book about women being shielded from the craziness of our world. Conrad says "It's queer how out of touch with truth women are. They live in a world of their own, and there has never been anything like it, and never can be. It's too beautiful altogether. (Page 28)" I like that I was able to have more insight into the movie because I had previously read the book. Another rhetorical device used is allegory. While one could interpret the story of Marlow's adventure down the Congo River very literally, there's also an underlying meaning. For example, The Heart of Darkness can be referred to as the inner most ivory stations along the Congo River because of danger due to the native cannibals. But it can also describe the atmosphere of the river. Kurtz, who was previously had very good intentions with going down the river, eventually turned for the worse, becoming obsessed with the natives and even obsessed with his persona. Everything changed when he entered the Heart of Darkness. I would recommend this movie, but I would recommend reading the book in depth first. That's the order my English class did it in, and I found it very beneficial because I was introduced to many rhetorical devices and difficult topics within the book, but then I saw them come to life in the movie and I began to understand it a lot better.

This had the potential to be a much more satisfying adaption than it ultimately was, as the casting is generally impressive, and Roeg's hallmark style should have been able to achieve a great deal with the heavily symbolic text. But so much of the success of Conrad's story lies in the tone of the telling, which reveals Marlow's particular bias towards the colonial adventure, and little of that comes through in this movie. Instead we have a visually attractive film that never quite gets to its message - we don't SEE how the adventure has changed the narrator, in the way that the novella so clearly emphasises.

Structurally, the tension builds nicely to the final scenes, but the climax is disappointing. Roeg should have dwelt much longer at the Inner Station - or perhaps he did, but these scenes were cut? Malkovich looks as if he should make a great Kurtz, but his portrayal lacks both dignity and threat - and he rather hams the key death scene. Brando, even though too short, fat and under prepared for the role, was much better and much more frightening in Apocalypse Now. No doubt Welles himself would have been brilliant.

I loved the movie and I certainly loved the book, but I find Coppola's 'Apocalypse Now' as an allegory far more touching, involving and more beautiful. Mainly, 'Heart of Darkness'(TV) matches nor Roths intensity, nor Malkovichs presence. Which does not mean it isn't a tremendous attempt to adapt Conrads novel.

Heart of Darkness by Joseph Conrad is among my favourite works in literature and have read it numerous times, never failing to be drawn into the story of Marlow and his journey up the river to encounter the mad and enigmatic Mr. Kurtz. Knowing only it being the basis for the Francis Ford Coppola film Apocalypse Now I was eager to see an adaptation that was going to be closer in nature to the Conrad novella and being directed by the great Nicolas Roeg it was bound to be interesting. But, alas, it was disappointing, to say the least. Being a fan of Nicolas Roeg and his striking visual style and fragmentary narrative he seemed liked an ideal director to get into psychology of the characters and their story. But the direction is lazy and uninspired, the performances by Tim Roth and John Malkovich are just dull.

Sadly we were robbed of a filmed version by Orson Wells which would have had Wells playing both Marlow as well as Kurtz---a very intriguing idea and has long been a theory of mine that the story should be read psychologically of a man confronting his own worst aspects. In the story we know from the beginning that he has survived his encounter with Kurtz but has been illuminated by this encounter, retelling of his adventure to his companions. There is no mystery to be found other than him looking into the abyss of his own soul as it is manifested by Kurtz. The Coppola film is better when it came to portraying the madness of Kurtz and the need by Willard to destroy him. The Nicolas Roeg film portrays Kurtz true to the source material as a sickly and dying man and devoid of any kind of threat or menace. Brando's Kurtz was a man struggling with the extremes of his soul: the primitive and the illuminated. We can only imagine how Wells might have depicted these characters. We were given only a tantalizing glimpse with two radio adaptations.

This is for fans of Nicolas Roeg. It was made late in his career when he was working increasingly limited budgets and his films during this period were a shadow of his early days, lacking the flair and energy. It's hard to believe this was the same man who directed The Man Who Fell to Earth, Don't Look Now, Walkabout, and Bad Timing.

The problem with the film is quite simply this, Conrad's prose is powerfully verbose and cannot be adapted to a movie. Marlow's narration in the novella captivates you from the first sentence and you only "see" what Conrad writes about. In movie, it's different, you see the visual, but the description and reflection that really makes the novel, is frightfully missing. But as far as an unadaptable book has been adapted, it is of good standard. There are the exact same scenes, which are pinpointed quite geniously, but they never have the same affect as in the novel. The plot in the movie has been enhanced, and it works very well to make it more interesting. The references to Ancient Egypt were thoughtfully inserted. My tip, read the book, and keep it that way, there are better movies out there.