The “Heart of Darkness” in “Apocalypse Now”

Insanity: this is the one word I would use to describe either Heart of Darkness by Josef Conrad or the film Apocalypse Now. There is a clear link between both works and it is quite clear that Apocalypse Now is based on Heart of Darkness. Although both works are set in different time and a different place, they explore similar concepts. Both works explore the innermost darkness and the madness of humanity. Both the book and the film are also highly focused round the theme of the invasion and suppression of foreign people. In this essay I would look at the similarities and differences between the book and the film. I would particularly look at how both works depict madness within society. Apocalypse Now is a much more recent work than Heart of Darkness and yet it used Heart of Darkness as its basis. By comparing the similarities, I can see just how effectively Heart of Darkness fits into a much more recent narrative and therefore also see if Heart of Darkness is able to fit into our contemporary era.                                                                                                                                               

The idea of place plays a large role in both works. The idea of a civilized- as opposed to an uncivilized place exist in both works. The way in which certain places are seen also reflects the way in which the people who live there are seen. The idea that the endemic people is in the same way inferior and uncivilised compared to the invaders and colonisers are something that features in both works. We can for example see that the locals are referred to as savages in the book and the film. In Heart of Darkness it is the image of civilised Europe opposed to the image of darkness and savagery of Africa and in Apocalypse Now we can see this in the contrast that is created between Vietnam which is portrayed as a place of insanity as opposed to the USA which is characterised as being a place of sanity. We can see this seeing as it is often mentioned that the American soldiers would like to return to the USA seeing as it would take them away from the insanity. Although it is made quite clear in the film that this is not the case.

                                                                                                                                               

Humans tend to consider their own particular beliefs and their own culture as superior to that of others. For this reason, one group tends to view another as savages. The origin of the very word Barbarian demonstrates this. The word barbarian comes from the ancient Greek word barbarous which essentially means someone who is not Greek. Because the Greeks considered themselves as being superior and more civilized than other people, the word barbarian later came to mean someone who is uncivilized. The very ethology of the word barbarian therefore indicates that humans often consider their own culture as superior above others. We can also see the idea of foreign places as barbaric in both Apocalypse Now and Heart of Darkness. In both cases it is the foreign place that is viewed as dark and barbaric. Although there is no evidence that either the Congo or Vietnam is a barbaric place. Although, we do have an abundance of examples in both works that would indicate that it is the invaders that are mad and uncivilized.

                                                                                                                                               

The invaders are far from home they also are far away from any form of moral norms imposed upon them by their society. They therefore are essentially allowed to do as they please. They also are amongst a group of people who they consider as being inferior to themselves. This would naturally lead to a very unhealthy situation. Because of this situation the invaders would tend to treat the natives in a violent and cruel way. If they were to treat the natives of the USA or of Europe in the same way as they treated the natives of the Congo or Vietnam, there would be dire consequences. It is because of this lack of consequences that the violence intensifies, and insane acts are liable to happen. If enough violent acts are committed, violence inevitably become the new norm. We can see this idea of violence progressively becoming the norm in both works. We can see this because the violence and the madness of the situation increases progressively as the protagonist continues up the river up until the point that they reach a point where violence and madness are no longer viewed as oddities. In each case this place is ruled over by a man with the same name: Kurtz.

                                                                                                                                               

We can already see clues of madness before the protagonist has even set out in his journey in the book and the film. We can see this in Hearth of Darkness when Marlow visits the doctor. The doctor measures his head after which he tells him: “I always ask leave, in the interest of science, to measure the crania of those going out there.” (Joseph Conrad, 1902) The doctor also asked him whether he has any history of madness in his family. The doctor clearly thinks that one should be mad to an extent if one is to go to the Congo. The doctor assumes that there must be some kind of madness lurking in those that go to the Congo even though he does not have any evidence of those going to the Congo going mad. The doctor mentions that he never sees his patients again after they have departed. This means that the doctor considers the Congo as a place of madness even though he quite likely knows nothing about it seeing as he clearly had not been in contact with people who had been there. We can therefore say that the doctor has preconceptions about the Congo. The doctor refers to the Congo as “there.” (Joseph Conrad, 1902) Because the doctor never names the Congo, he puts some distance between himself and the concept of the Congo. We can therefore see that the doctor considers the Congo as being the other: something that is completely disassociated with himself. Meaning that the Congo is a place that could not be considered as being similar to what the doctor is familiar with. It is quite likely because of its unfamiliarity that the doctor considers it to be a place of madness.

                                                                                                                                               

One might even argue that the doctor himself is a little bit mad. The measuring of a person’s head in order to do research about madness most certainly is strange. There are no outward indications of madness. The doctor therefore has the wrong end of the stick when he tries to do research about madness by measuring people’s heads. This is an interesting scene seeing as it was set in a time when, what one looked like on the outside was very important regarding how one was viewed: seeing as it was an age of racism. Because this doctor could be seen as being symbolic of the science of the time one might therefore also see this scene as a criticism of the views of the scientific community at the time. The European scientific community of the time was convinced that people with a different outer appearance than Europeans was inferior, even though there was no scientific reason to prove this. The presentation of the doctor by using such a ridiculous method to do research about madness, therefore also is a criticism of the racial ideas of the time. We can therefore say that the darkness in “Heart of Darkness” does not reside in the Congo, it rather resides in the hearts of those who go there. We can see this seeing as we can already see traces of madness in society even before anyone has departed to the Congo.

                                                                                                                                               

We can also see traces of madness in “Apocalypse Now” even before the protagonist has departed. Willard clearly suffers mentally from his experience in Vietnam at the start of the film. In the very beginning of “Apocalypse Now” we can already see a scene of madness. The film begins with Willard in an hotel room. While in the hotel room he not only strips completely naked, but also breaks a mirror with his fist and in doing so, he injures himself. This most certainly borders on insane behaviour. In this case the injury is self-inflicted. This might indicate that the cruel acts the American soldiers commit does not only harm the Vietnamese people, but also harms the soldiers themselves. The cruel acts they commit eventually drives them mad. By destroying a mirror, he essentially is destroying his own image. Seeing as he himself is an American soldier he also destroys the image of the American soldier by doing so. In the film he continually expresses his disappointment in the US army. He for instance says that the US army cuts people in half with a machine gun and then offers them a band-Aid. (Apocalypse Now, 1979) He also makes it quite clear that he does not approve of the lies told by the US government. Here we can clearly see that Willard does neither approve of the role of the US army in Vietnam nor of the image it projects to the rest of the world. By destroying his mirror image, he is thus destroying the lie he sees himself as presenting. The Americans gives the pretence that they are there for a noble purpose (that they are there to fight against supposedly evil communism) and that they are there to help. In the film we can see a couple of scenes in which the Americans are pretending to help the Vietnamese and it is quite clear that the Americans do not care about the Vietnamese. We can for instance see this when an American officer offers water to a dyeing Vietnamese soldier. The instant there is something that draws his attention he leaves the man without ever giving him water. It is in defending his village against the Americans that the soldier has been injured. This American officer therefore is directly responsible for the man’s injury. Giving the soldier some water seems to be a poor attempt at righting the wrong that has been done. The water cannot heal the soldier’s injuries, nor can it rebuild the village and bring those that have been killed back from the dead. The only purpose of the water therefore is to show that the Americans are there to help. This help therefore is a lie. The American officer never gave the soldier the water, he only promised to do so. This indicates the Americans do not really care about the Vietnamese they only care about the image they project. They never truly are of any help to the Vietnamese. We can see the same thing in the image with the machine gun and the bandage. A band-aid would by no means be effective in such a case. It is in fact quite unlikely that anything could repair someone who has been sawn in half by a machine gun. We can therefore say that the help that the Americans offer is quite inadequate. Not only do they do the opposite of what they promise, by causing damage instead of repairing anything, but they then pretend that they want to help by making a meek effort at repairing the damage done. Even though it must be admitted that it is impossible for the Americans to repair the damage that has been inflicted. Just like the man who is sawn in half the damage the Americans have done is beyond repair.

                                                                                                                                               

The destroying of the mirror at the beginning of the film can be connected with the scene in which Willard kills Kurtz. One can connect these two scenes seeing as they are the only scenes in the film where something is destroyed at close quarters, either by a hand or by a hand with a weapon. If one links these two scenes with one another, one can argue that, by killing Kurtz he also is harming causing harm to himself. The idea of the mirror could also indicate that Willard is a mirror image of Kurtz. After he kills Kurtz, Kurtz’s followers proceed to bow before him. This could indicate that they recognise Willard as their leader and that he therefore is Kurtz’s replacement. Willard does not choose to remain in Kurtz’s place: this could mean that he ultimately takes the madness of the place with him. This indicates that the damage that was done in Vietnam cannot simply be forgotten seeing as it is a problem that American soldiers take back with them to their homeland

                                                                                                                                               

There however is a major difference in the position of the protagonist at the start of each of the works. Willard has already been to Vietnam, whereas Marlow has never been to the Congo. This has an impact on how we view the story. Because of this Willard is not surprised by the horror he encounters in Vietnam. We do not have any evidence of in Heart of Darkness that Marlow suffers from any mental problems at the start of the book. We can however see that his outlook on life has changed from the start of the book to the end. He went to Congo looking for adventure. This meaning that he was optimistic as to what he would find there, but at the end of the book we can see that he has become quite cynical about the nature of humanity. In “Heart of Darkness” the protagonist seems to be the beacon of sanity and normality (at least among the Europeans: as there is no evidence in the book that would imply that African population suffers from some form of madness) in the Congo. I say this, seeing as he seems to be one of the only white man in the Congo that does not seem to be obsessed with wealth. It is mentioned in “Heart of Darkness” that ivory (being the means to obtain wealth in the Congo) is worshiped in the Congo. This indicates how obsessive these men have become and that their greed has driven them mad. To worship wealth most certainly is a mad thing to do and although this image was most certainly meant to be looked at figuratively, we can look at this image and see that these men are viewed as mad men. The opposite is true in Apocalypse Now: The protagonist does suffer mentally when we first see him. Unlike in “Heart of Darkness” the protagonist does not become cynical about the nature of humanity as the story progresses, he rather seems to be cynical about the nature of humanity at the start of the film. In Heart of Darkness the protagonist is the skipper of his ship. This is not the case in Apocalypse Now. Willard also is not a beacon of sanity like Marlow. It instead is the skipper that acts as a beacon of sanity amongst the American soldiers. In each case it is the skipper that is the beacon of sanity, but in “Apocalypse Now” the role of the skipper had been given to someone other than the protagonist. This means that “Apocalypse Now” is much more unforgiving when handing out madness: not even the protagonist can escape from it.

                                                                                                                                               

As one can see, there are a few similarities and differences in the beginning of both works. The beginning of both the book and the film acts as a foreshadowing of later events. I have demonstrated this by comparing some of the images in the beginning of the work with those later on. Although both works focus on many of the same elements, there are some differences as to how much they focus on these ideas. We can already see these differences from the beginning in both cases. Heart of Darkness for instance seems to be much more focused on racial relations than Apocalypse Now and Apocalypse Now is much more focused on the violence of the situation. Both works focus on the madness in society, but they look at it’s different angles.

                                                                                                                                               

Apocalypse Now throws the audience directly into the madness of the film whereas Heart of Darkness does not thrust the reader directly into the madness. It rather starts the story in more familiar territory and then moves on to the madness. But as we can see in the scene of the doctor: madness is present in supposed civilised society. This madness is just hidden better than it is in the colonies like the Congo. We also have something similar in Apocalypse Now when Willard tells an officer that he had attained his injury in a fishing accident, while the audience aware of the fact that his injury is self-inflicted. In this case we can see there is an element of the hidden madness of society here as well. Willard hid the true nature of his injuries and therefore also his true state of mind, which in fact suffers from madness. The difference between these two cases is that the hidden madness is much more prominent in “Apocalypse Now” seeing as it is the protagonist that exhibits this madness. This is one of the biggest differences between the two works: the madness in Apocalypse Now is much more prominent than it is in Heart of Darkness. For this reason, Apocalypse Now enhances Heart of Darkness and it does so by rewriting the text but highlighting and changing certain aspects of it. It therefore ads a new dimension to Heart of Darkness by giving a new interpretation to it.

                                                                                                                                               

Both works make reference to something earlier. Thus, meaning that both works are conscious that the event in history they are describing is not an isolated event. Heart of Darkness makes reference to the Roman Empire. The Romans Empire is one of the most famous empires in history and therefore is also one of the most colonial powers. Apocalypse Now clearly is based on Heart of Darkness. Even if the Americans did not invade Vietnam to loot its resources like what took place in the Congo one can still argue that Heart of Darkness is still relevant to this situation seeing as both cases are about the mistreatment of foreign people by a more powerful nation. We can of course make similar comparisons between the period of the Rome Empires and that of the colonial period. One big difference for example was that there was not a big gap in technology between the Romans and the people they conquered like we can see in the colonial period. Despite this fact the Romans did treat the people they conquered as people lesser than themselves, just like we can see in the colonial period. The fact is that History is fraudulent with invasions and where there are invasions there are humans mistreating each other.

                                                                                                                                               

Even if social circumstances, technology and any other number of things are different, the one thing will always be true. If there are people, there will always be other people that want to oppress and use them.  If there are people, there will always be other people that want to oppress and use them. It is for this reason that I would say that Heart of Darkness is still relevant today and that it will remain relevant up until the end of humanity. This is the case seeing as Heart of Darkness explores the inescapable dark side of the human soul. The part of the human soul that has a lust for power. Apocalypse Now is an excellent representation of Heart of Darkness. By placing the film in a different time and place than Heart of Darkness, it adds more depth to the book.

 

References

Conrad, J 1902, Heart of Darkness, Cox and Wyman Ltd, England

Apocalypse Now. 1979. [film]. Francis Ford Coppola. Dir. Philippines: Zoetrope Studios

 copyright reserved © Baloyi 2024