What Makes Good Writing and Visuals Good?
Writing about the visual elements of a work is just like writing about how a piece of writing works. You have to focus on how the image works. Ask what the author or film maker wants you to experience or know and how he’s accomplishing that end.
Look at these clips. Then find the writing from Conrad that it comes from and write a short piece, 250 words, describing how the image works to capture the essence of Conrad’s writing. Post your comments on this blog as well as your own.
25 responses so far ↓
Saw this just after I finished the first apocalypse now assignment.
And might I add, skjfsjaejgkawfouaweyioaw3rpyi32
Hey Kreinbring, I updated my Prufrock and Apocalypse Now assignments!
Hello Kreinbring,
The novel was better than movie I thought.
Hey krienbring. i got the first part of the apocalypse now assignment. u also spelled my name wrong.
You said to post our response here too, so here’s mine!
Scene:
Willard (Marlow) first meets the man he has heard so much about – Kurtz.
(I don’t know if this is one of the choices for scenes because my internet won’t load these videos, but it was one that I had taken a lot of notes on in class)
Analysis:
In both the book and the movie, Kurtz first comes to the audience from the shadows. He is totally immersed in the darkness. The book calls him a shadow and describes him as one to emphasize this. In a movie, this is hard to recreate without losing the effect. Copala therefore used a niche in the wall that was completely dark. There was a light, just enough to see Kurtz “moving among the shadows”. As in the book, we hear more and more of the voice. The voice is the only thing that we are allowed because everything else has been taken by the greed, the insanity, the horror of it all. Copala decided to do one thing that the book did not however. Instead of just giving the audience one powerful line, he drew the audience into the shadows too. He creates a connection between the two characters of Willard and Kurtz that is on a personal level — before even showing Kurtz’ face. This gives us more of a sense of how much the voice represents. It shows us that underneath the darkness and behind the curtains, Kurtz is a man. Nonetheless, he is a man that Willard can relate to. Copala also goes deeper into what Kurtz actually knows. This is required because a movie can not possibly relate what is going through Marlow/ Willard’s head as well as a novel written as a personal account. The movie scene accurately captures the darkness of Kurtz and his understanding of what is going on while adding a personal connection between the two characters which helps to build the idea that Kurtz and Marlow are extremely similar.
Scene: When Willard is first introduced to Kurtz upon being taken prisoner by the natives
Response:
From the beginning of the movie all we get is voices, and stories, and pictures. That is all that is left of him to the normal world. He has been consumed by his own ambition from the very beginning and between his greed, and genius, there is nothing left of him. Coppola uses this to emphasize this point. We hear stories of him, we get the testimonials of him, we hear his voice on the playback tape, but never see him until the end. When we do see him he is in a sort of cavern and for the entirety of the movie his face is never entirely removed from the darkness. You never really see what he truly is. He pulled this straight from the book in fact. We despise Kurtz because we see what al of mankind has the potential to become, but it is our choices that keep us away from all of this. We may also hate Coppola because he doesn’t portray Kurtz as a heartless killer, but more of a human being with feelings, and emotions, just like all of us. Coppola plays on our feelings and our recognition of good and evil. This is a piece that is hard to portray with the use of words by Conrad.
Video #1
The scene from Apocalypse Now regarding Kurtz’s Monologue correlates with the novel Heart of Darkness at the point after Marlow meets the Russian trader and speaks to Kurtz/discusses about meeting him for the first time:
“I tried to break the spell – the heavy, mute spell of the wilderness – that seemed to draw him to its pitiless breast by the awakening of forgotten and brutal instincts, by the memory of gratified and monstrous passions.”
The novel differs from the movie because there is never a point in Heart of Darkness where Kurtz gives his monologue. However, there is a point that is equivalent in the forest when Kurtz was escaping the ship and Marlow and Kurtz have a conversation that portrays the same general tone. The metaphors about the madness or evils that affect the men, or specifically Kurtz, play a large role in both scenes because of Kurtz’s desperate attraction to the village. In the movie Kurtz describes a horrific scene and states, “I want to remember it. I never want to forget it. I never want to forget.” Kurtz, in his monologue, discusses other horrors that he has experienced also. In the novel I think that this relates to darkness. It is unclear what exactly the darkness in the novel could be because it is used as a metaphor for numerous potential factors that affect the evils in each character. The idea of darkness and its mysterious blinding characteristics describe how the attitudes of the characters like Kurtz and Marlow change while traveling into its heart. It is an act of folly to pass poor judgment on the morals and values of Kurtz when comparing against that of ourselves. However, the picture of Kurtz relates to the novel quite well regarding the image that is developed. In the beginning of each, Kurtz begins as a voice or a story that develops piece by piece. During Kurtz’s monologue his face is kept in shadow and his enigmatic behavior is still portrayed by this image.
Video #1 – Kurtz’s monologue
“It’s impossible for words to describe what is necessary to those who do not know what horror means. Horror. Horror has a face. And you must make a friend of horror. Horror and moral terror are your friends. If they are not, then they are enemies to be feared.”
The part of the novel I chose to go along with this piece of Kurtz’s monologue is the scene in which Marlow has just met the Russian trader before meeting Kurtz and is looking through his binoculars at the house with the ruined roof and the “round knobs” on the posts. The “round knobs” on the posts are described as, “black, dried, sunken, with closed eyelids – a head that seemed to sleep at the top of that pole.” The imagery used by Conrad gives the reader a grotesque disgust with Kurtz and his lack of restraint to satisfy his various lusts. The thought of a head sleeping is so calm and peaceful yet Conrad describes it as “sleeping at the top of a pole” which is not serene image at all; it is in fact horrifying. The contrast makes the reader stop for a minute to think about what they have just read. The heads form almost a gateway for the house; however, they are signs of terror and not of home. The monologue in Apocalypse Now expresses Kurtz’s unusual thoughts toward horror. He knows horror: he has committee a great act of horror by placing heads atop poles. He describes his relationship with horror in the darkness as well, which is quite fitting. The kind of horror Kurtz knows can be seen clearly in the dark; the heads exemplify the dark brutality.
Kurz’s monologue from the film Apocalypse Now is perhaps the most haunting and powerful scene. In the novella, the character of Kurz appears through stories. He was talked about with great admiration, “Then he began again, assuring me Mr. Kurz was the best agent he had, an exceptional man, of the greatest importance to the Company” (59). In the film, Kurz emerges, first, through a picture and then a voice. Unlike the novella, the film was able to capture the crude essence of the character, with the artfully-sadistic voice and memorable presence. Similar to the book, the movie preaches the good characteristics of Kurz, but then admits to the stories that build his reputation: “[Kurz is] a good man, humanitarian man (…), nothing but rumors and random intelligence” (general of Apocalypse now). Also, the book subtly hints at Kurz’s madness and prolongs some of his savagery acts. For example, not until Book two, does the reader come to realize the extremities of Kurz: “(…) and there it was, black, dried, sunken, with closed eyelids, – a head that seemed to sleep at the top of that ole, and, with the shrunken dry lips showing a narrow white line of the teeth, was smiling too, smiling continuously at some endless and jocose dream of that eternal slumber” (102). However, the film addresses his madness directly, not only because Willard was sent assassin Kurz, but because through the stories he heard: “[Kurz and the people] get confused out there, ideas, morale.” Another similarity is that Marlow is anxious to meet Kurz, especially after hearing everything. Coppola implemented the same emotions in the scene before the meting of Kurz and Willard: “ (…) something I felt stronger than fear, was the desire to confront him.” The “appearance” of Kurz, in Heart of Darkness, was postponed until the end of the novella. Coppola, not wanting to loose the same affect, engulfed Kurz with shadows and darkness, to maintain the eerie effect.
From the novella:
Once, I remember, we came upon a man-of-war anchored off the coast. There wasn’t even a shed there, and she was shelling the bush. It appears the French had one of their wars going on thereabouts. Her ensign dropped limp like a rag; the muzzles of the long six-inch guns stuck out all over the low hull; the greasy, slimy swell swung her up lazily and let her down, swaying her thin masts. In the empty immensity of earth, sky, and water, there she was, incomprehensible, firing into a continent. Pop, would go one of the six-inch guns; a small flame would dart and vanish, a little white smoke would disappear, a tiny projectile would give a feeble screech — and nothing happened. Nothing could happen. There was a touch of insanity in the proceeding, a sense of lugubrious drollery in the sight;
- Part I of The Heart of Darkness by Joseph Conrad
From the movie:
Last clip, The Ride of The Valkyries
Response:
“The Ride of The Valkyries” does a remarkably good job of depicting the corresponding occurrence from the novella. Due to plot’s the shift in time period, African imperialism to that of the Vietnam War, the man-of-war was replaced by a team of valkyrie. However, this translation did not create any detrimental effects and instead enhanced the effectiveness of the scene.
Conrad’s intent for the creation of the man-of-war scene was to reveal how frenzied the men became from their prolonged stay in Africa, how mundane the violence and killing became to them.
Coppola mirrors Conrad’s intent and creates a similar scene in which the men frolic and destroy and kill using various weaponry. They treat violence as a minute, negligible concept.
In the passage, Conrad can depict ideas directly with by using simply naming the idea, like “touch of insanity”. But in the movie, the power of being able to name an idea is removed and is replaced with restraints as to how to express the information in an indirect manner.
Coppola overcomes the challenge admirably. He concocts a scene ineffably disturbing to the audience to portray the insanity Conrad just luxuriously brands. Perchance, Coppola even over exaggerated the casual aspect of the scene to ensure his audience understands the berserk scaffold the men within the film are. Please note that Conrad uses 148 words, that a seasoned reader may easily fly by the reader in half a minute, to describe the corresponding scene while Coppola draws it out to a troubling clip that lasts a bit over four minutes.
(260 words)
Wow..
That response was crappy writing.
Let’s try this again…
“The Ride of The Valkyries” does a remarkably good job of depicting the corresponding occurrence from the novella. Due to plot’s shift in time period, European imperialism of Africa to that of the Vietnam War, the man-of-war was replaced by a team of valkyrie. However, this translation did not create any detrimental effects and instead, was dexterously used by Coppola, to enhance the effectiveness of the scene.
Conrad’s intent behind the man-of-war scene was to reveal how frenzied the men became from their prolonged stay in Africa, how mundane the violence and murder became.
Coppola mirrors Conrad’s intent and creates a similar scene in which the men frolic and destroy and kill using various weaponry. They treat violence as a minute, negligible concept.
In the passage, Conrad can depict ideas directly, by simply naming them, like “touch of insanity”. But in a movie, simply naming an idea and expecting it to be fully understood and grasped by the audience to the standards set by Conrad is naivety. The power of naming the concept is removed and is replaced by restraints: How can one express the same concept in a less indirect, yet equally successful manner?
Coppola overcomes the challenge admirably. He concocts a scene ineffably disturbing to the audience to portray the insanity Conrad has the luxury to just brand. Perchance, Coppola even over exaggerated the casual aspect of the scene to ensure his audience’s understanding regarding the craze the men are in. Conrad uses 148 words, that a seasoned reader may easily fly through in half a minute, to describe the corresponding scene Coppola draws it out into a troubling clip that lasts a bit over four minutes.
(279 words)
Scene:
In Apocalypse Now, the scene following Marlow’s assassination of Kurtz (which doesn’t have a direct parallel in the novel).
Analysis:
I find this scene particularly interesting because of its lack of resemblance to the novel, and its resulting effect on the tone of the film’s ending. In Heart of Darkness, Marlow takes Kurtz on his boat, and Kurtz dies on his own, whereas in Apocalypse Now, Marlow commits the murder that ends the life of Kurtz. Upon reexamining the novel, the first general difference I noticed about this section was the physical appearance of Kurtz (although, interestingly enough, his voice is portrayed exactly the same). In the movie, he appears physically healthy (despite the implications of the ill health of his soul and the possibility of disease), but Conrad allows Kurtz’s physical appearance to mirror his marred soul: “His covering had fallen off, and his body emerged from it pitiful and appalling as from a winding-sheet. I could see the cage of his ribs all astir, the bones of his arm waving. It was as though an animated image of death carved out of old ivory has been shaking its hand with menaces at a motionless crowd of men made of dark and glittering bronze.” (126) Even without the benefit of visuals, Conrad allows us to see the effect on Kurtz’s soul of the “horrors” he had committed- in fact, it seems his soul had been quite diminished: we see the cage of his ribs, giving the illusion of internal emptiness (and Marlow, in his narration, repeatedly mentions that things “echo” inside of Kurtz, because he is “hollow” inside). Conrad describes him as an animated image carved of ivory, implying that Kurtz’s mad conquest to obtain ivory had taken over his very being.
There is one particular image, though very short, that struck me in the movie: after Marlow kills Kurtz, it begins to rain, and we see Lance with his face turned up to the sky, the rain washing off the mud that he had smeared on his face. Coupled with the image of the natives dropping their weapons, the ending sequences of Apocalypse Now give the viewer a sense of cleansing and peace after the death of Kurtz that we don’t get in the novel. The mud on Lance’s face was meant to be a camouflage to conceal him from enemies. It made an impacting contrast to couple an image of rain washing away concealment with the death of the one man in the novel who saw the darkness and the horrors for what they were and didn’t attempt to conceal them.
Scene: When the steamboat approaches and arrives at Kurtz’s station
The scene where the steamboat and Marlow approach the station and end up being attacked interests me because it represents two themes through the entire novel and movie; fear and approaching the unknown. The fog that surrounds the boat makes the men feel even more scared than before because they have no idea where they are going. The men on the boat are afraid of being attacked with the thick fog around them. Marlow believes that they won’t be attacked because it would be unsafe for the attackers as well because they can’t see either. This scene is ironic to me because through the entire trip they really don’t know what lies ahead of them. They are blindly following Marlow into the jungle with no idea of the station they are about to approach and what Marlow has planned when they get there. This scene ties directly to a scene in the movie. In the movie Lance lights something and creates a purple fog that surrounds the boat, just after he does this the boat is attacked. The difference in the novel is that the fog is not man made and creates an equal danger for both the attackers and the boat being attacked but in the movie, Lance truly only dangers the lives of the ones on the boat. Another difference between the movie and the novel is the emphasis the author puts on Marlow needing new shoes after the driver is killed. In the movie you see the driver actually get murdered so there is no need to go through the process of Willard getting new shoes. This, however, is important in the book because it makes the reader focus on a graphic part of the novel without actually describing the dead body, just the things around the body. This still attaches us to the scene because we can imagine how Marlow is feeling with blood in his shoes.
Scene: When the boat is being attacked through the fog
The scene where the steamboat and Marlow approach the station and end up being attacked interests me because it represents two themes through the entire novel and movie; fear and approaching the unknown. The fog that surrounds the boat makes the men feel even more scared than before because they have no idea where they are going. The men on the boat are afraid of being attacked with the thick fog around them. Marlow believes that they won’t be attacked because it would be unsafe for the attackers as well because they can’t see either. This scene is ironic to me because through the entire trip they really don’t know what lies ahead of them. They are blindly following Marlow into the jungle with no idea of the station they are about to approach and what Marlow has planned when they get there. This scene ties directly to a scene in the movie. In the movie Lance lights something and creates a purple fog that surrounds the boat, just after he does this the boat is attacked. The difference in the novel is that the fog is not man made and creates an equal danger for both the attackers and the boat being attacked but in the movie, Lance truly only dangers the lives of the ones on the boat. Another difference between the movie and the novel is the emphasis the author puts on Marlow needing new shoes after the driver is killed. In the movie you see the driver actually get murdered so there is no need to go through the process of Willard getting new shoes. This, however, is important in the book because it makes the reader focus on a graphic part of the novel without actually describing the dead body, just the things around the body. This still attaches us to the scene because we can imagine how Marlow is feeling with blood in his shoes.
Hey Mr.Kreinbring,
I’ve just updated my Apocalypse Now blog!
Check it out!!!
“… It was very simple, and at the end of that moving appeal to every altruistic sentiment it blazed at you, luminous and terrifying, like a flash of lightning in a serene sky: ‘Exterminate all the brutes!’”
The scene in the third video is not a direct representation of a scene in Heart of Darkness. Rather, it is an added scene that serves to convey the message that is found in other parts of the book. The above quote is a fine representation of the message that the helicopter attack on the village represents. The American soldiers with their helicopters and missiles are working to civilize the “brutes”. These “brutes” are Vietnamese villagers, both armed and unarmed. Their lives are viewed less importantly than the lives of the Americans. This view is illustrated both by the emotionless slaughter of the Vietnamese villagers and the music that accompanies the scene. Richard Wagner’s “The Ride of the Valkyries” is not the sort of song one would associate with an attack on a village. It is an upbeat, happier song that clashes terribly with the action that it accompanies. However, that is the exact purpose of the musical choice, to echo the carelessness of the slaughter. Along with the scene where Willard’s boat inspects the small fishing vessel, the attack on the village is an excellant visual representation of the idea of civilization through extermination.
Video #1 – The beginning of Kurtz’s speech.
“It’s impossible for words to describe what is necessary to those who do not know what horror means. Horror. Horror has a face. And you must make a friend of horror. Horror and moral terror are your friends. If they are not, then they are enemies to be feared….we went back there and they had come and hacked off every inoculated arm, they had them in a pile, a pile of little arms.”
The Part of the novel that I chose that correlates with this speech of Kurtz’s is the part where Marlow discovers the dying black Africans in the shade outside the first outpost on the river. It is here in Heart of Darkness that Marlow first experiences the feeling of horror in the African continent. He describes the people as “nothing but black shadows of disease and starvation, lying confusedly in the greenish gloom.” Marlow is nearly overcome with disgust and pity for these people, which he cannot even bear to call “human”. The video Apocalypse Now captures this feeling of horror and what it means in this monologue of Kurtz, the hacking of the arms translating to the viewer of the movie what the black people mean to Marlow, a symbol of what horror really means in the wilderness. It also shows that this horror must be confronted and made into something that is not feared. Kurtz says that: “Horror and moral terror are your friends. If they are not, then they are enemies to be feared.” What he means here is that if you do not confront these emotions as a person then the wilderness will consume you. In Conrad’s scene, this saying is summed up in the first representative that Marlow meets at the first outpost; he is described as “amazing” and “a miracle” but what he really is someone who is comfortable with the horror around him. The matter of fact way that Kurtz sates these things shows how not only is he comfortable with horror, but is also shows how necessary confronting horror is to survive in the wilderness.
Movie Scene: Scene #1 (Kurtz’s monologue)
HOD Scene: Not definite, but a combination of the few times Kurtz talks, and Marlow’s reactions to Kurtz.
From a first look at both scenes, a key aspect of the movie scene that relays the book’s meaning are the shadows enshrouding Kurtz as he makes his monologue. These shadows shroud Kurtz in mystery, and through the way the shadows and darkness conceal all but Kurtz’s face, his voice is all that can really be identified. This corresponds with parts throughout the book on how everything Marlow knew, or felt, about Kurtz until he met him was compiled via pictures, voice recordings, etc. In addition, the shadows and darkness represented all the darkness in Kurtz’s heart, and succeeded in giving him that air of calm, mysterious evil that Conrad similarly instilled in Kurtz in the novella by revealing him piece-by-piece.
The most interesting thing in this case is that Kurtz did not actually speak a monologue in the novella; he talked only in short segments as he neared his deathbed. However, I believe Coppola used the descriptions Marlow gave of Kurtz and his form of speech in the novella to construct an original monologue for the movie version of Kurtz that encompassed all of the Heart Of Darkness Kurtz’s emotions, character, and views. This made the monologue quite an effective image in itself because, combined with the utter silence and the darkness, it gives viewers the feel of the “final confrontation with the strongest enemy.”
Movie #1
In this scene where Kurtz is speaking he says, “It’s impossible for words to describe what is necessary to those who do not know what horror means.” This really shows another side to Kurtz. I fell like at this time Marlow realizes what horror means. There is a difference in between the way Kurtz is first shown in the novel and the movie. In the novel we only saw Kurtz as a picture and a voice. In the film we were able to see to what extent how Kurtz became dark. Marlow now sees what horror really is and so in Kurtz monologue he is expressing to him why things have happened the way they did. Kurtz says, “Horror and moral terror are your friends. If they are not, then they are enemies to be feared,” by this he means that Marlow should not fear the woods. He should confront it or it will over take you. Both the novel and the film in the end showed who Kurtz really was. The movie gave us the visual to get a deeper understanding of what was going on. Kurtz gives Marlow a deeper understanding of what horror and fear means. In the beginning of the novel the persona of Kurtz is really covered but in the movie F.F.C starts right off the back giving us a visual of what Kurtz is really like. The movie clip does a very good job of capturing the darkness in Kurtz and displaying for the reader to see.
I do believe that war is inevitable because as long as having disagreements is in human nature I think that there will always be wars. I don’t think that it is in all Americans to fight because some Americans don’t even agree with war. I think that it depends on the person whether they can fight or not because they have that mindset. I think we are desensitized to it or less sensitive to the pain because we hear and see about war everyday so we as humans in America kind of get used to it but that doesn’t mean that it doesn’t bother us as much.
The scene before Marlow murders Kurtz.
Analysis: While watching this clip from Apocolapse Now, I noticed how different this scene is compared to the novel. For one thing, Marlow killed Kurtz while in the book, Kurtz died of sickness/disease. That little image caught my eye for the differences from the book and the movie. Also, another key difference I noticed from the movie is the way the director created Kurtz for the movie. In the book he has a disease and it takes over his condition while in the movie, Kurtz is healthy and normal. “..and his body emerged from it pitiful and appalling as from a winding-sheet. I could see the cage of his ribs all astir, the bones on his arm waving. It was as though an animated image of death carved out of old ivory had been shaking its hand with menaces at a motionless crowd of men made of dark and glittering bronze” (126). This is the discription that Conrad gives of Kurtz when they were on the boat home from the “heart of darkness”. It is interesting how the director changes this image of Kurtz, which gives us a sense of emptiness ( from his ribs) and his obsession with the wealth of ivory ( ivory skin) that causes his death, and turn Kurtz into this healthy man in the movie. That is what truely struck me about this movie clip and comparing this image to the images that Conrad creates in Heart of Darkness.
The helicopter assault has no direct correlation with a scene in Heart of Darkness. Instead, the scene serves to represent the mindless killing of both militants and civilians. This theme is represented equally in both the movie and book. The soldiers actually find the killing fun or amusing. This is portrayed by the “mood music” which is switched on. Conrad doesn’t have use of this resource in the book, but Coppola seems to have made the most of it. As fight music, the music fits wonderfully. But the killing of innocent women and children makes it an unfair fight. The soldiers feel no remorse or sorrow, but enjoyment. It appears to be a sort of game or challenge to see who can kill more. To the soldiers, this slaughter is mundane. It is nothing new, but this is the day to day routine. To the reader, who is unaffected by the war in the sense that they aren’t in it, the killing is horrible and brutal. Coppola uses these stark opposites of what readers expect to get the desired response out of his readers.
Coppola wants the reader to feel disgust at the actions of the soldiers. Through put of place music, soldiers acting as murders rather than freedom fighters, and the senseless killing of civilians, Coppola accomplished his goal.
Apocalypse Now Good Visuals
Video #3 – Ride of the Valkyries
The Ride of the Valkyries is a musical composition that was created for a play as the music that leads up to a part where the characters are all yelling and carrying fallen war-heroes away. They all speak over the music in the opera, so I feel the battle the helicopters take part in over the music fits. The song builds up to a climax, which is where the helicopters all finally fire on the village. This particular scene does not seem to correspond with a scene in the novel. The scene in the movie takes place between the first and second stations on the river, so should correspond with a scene during Marlow’s travels between those two stations in the novel. Marlow’s travels between the two stations includes a walk with many natives and one white man who faints repeatedly and must be carried the rest of the way. This does not really seem to correspond with the helicopter scene. The scene does capture the senselessness of the killing. One could perhaps correlate it to the scene on Marlow’s way to the first station where he sees the people dying in the trees. (page 19) There is no real reason for their deaths, they have just been forgotten, they are unimportant to those in power. There is also no real reason for Lieutenant Colonel Kilgore to take his helicopters and attack that village. The village has no real value. But he doesn’t care about the people he kills, or if the attack makes sense, all he wants is to go surfing on the beach there. There is no purpose to those deaths, just as there is no purpose to the deaths of natives in the dark forest. This visual really shows that theme well.
My other Apocalypse Now blog assignment is done and on my blog. It can be found along with the one posted above at this location:
http://hyperfire123.learnerblogs.org/apoc-now/
Or just go to my blog main page and click on the page “Apoc Now.”
Apocalypse Now Visual
Video#1
In Kurtz’s monologue, Kurt is shown in the dark. He is in the darkness and talks about how he feels about horror. “It is impossible for words to describe what is necessary to those who do not know what horror means. Horror. Horror has a face. And you must make a friend of horror. Horror and mortal terror are your friends. If they are not, then they are enemies to be feared.” Kurtz is shown differently in the movie and in the novel. In the novel, Kurtz is most of the time only a voice or a picture. People admire him and his talents; he is seen as an “exceptional” man. In the movie this is all different. In the movie Kurtz is represented for as an insane man. Kurtz mentions how horror should be your friend but that is only because he has seen so much horror he is used to it. He is traumatized by the horror that he does not fear it now. He is accustomed to it and that is the reason why he acts that way. In Heart of Darkness Kurtz is not murdered by Marlow he is let to die. In the movie, it is necessary for Marlow to murder Kurtz because it gives the audience a stronger sense of what Kurtz represented and how his end should be. Kurtz in both the film and the novel is a representation of darkness and violence that is why he is always associated with the shadows.
Leave a Comment