Summary:
Compares the texts Heart of Darkness & Apocalypse Now. Discusses the cultural significance of each work.
First of all, we are talking about the cultural significance of Apocalypse Now, so I thought I should first give a definition so that we are all clear what we are talking about. Cultural is defined as, of or relating to the shared knowledge and values of a society and significance as having or likely to have a major effect. Therefore when we are talking about something being culturally significant we are talking about it having a major effect on the shared knowledge and values of a society.
Apocalypse Now I believe is culturally significant in it own right compared to Heart of Darkness, as it makes controversial comments about society and the way that war is fought by the great powers of the world. Apocalypse Now raises the idea that war is able to be won if one learns to come to terms with horror and moral terror. This is shown represented by Kurtz who chooses to go down this path and away from the fame and glory that he could have expected from the American Army after he witnesses the Viet Cong cutting of children's arms in a village, which the Americans had inoculated. Also Apocalypse Now is commenting on the stupidity and un-organization and in some cases brutality of the American Army, during the Vietnam war, by: including the Character Kilgore, who's name when broken into syllables says much about his nature, the striptease show, where Willard makes a comparison between the American Army and the Vietnamese, and the "arse hole of the world", the upriver bridge which is in complete chaos as shown by the response to Willard's question of "who is in authority here"" and the answer he receives which is "isn't it you"."
The anti war message is also shown by the way the movie starts of at a fast pace with Kilgore's men blasting machine guns and blowing up villages with Napalm before slowing down as Willard moves up the river and finally almost slowing to a halt as he confronts Kurtz. I believe, as does critic E.N. Dorall that this is to show that if you fight war, than ultimately it will lead to extinction. As Dorall puts it Kurtz is able to strip himself of the Grotesque façade of civilization, and to embody his spirit into pure war while bravely submitting himself to the inevitable resulting emptiness. Can anyone see any other places where the anti war feeling is shown
Some of the comparisons and differences between Heart of Darkness and Apocalypse Now. Both texts are similar as they both structured in similar ways, with Marlow/Willard having to travel up the river into darkness to find and "rescue" Kurtz. Also, both texts are similar as they are both culturally significant, with Conrad's novel attacking Imperialism and Coppola's film making a comment on War in general particularly focusing on the Vietnam War and disorganized state that the Americans fought it. Also, throughout both novel and film smaller comparisons can be found, such as the Press Photographer that is at Kurtz base speaking almost identically to the Russian that Marlow meets at Kurtz station, and also the fact that both Kurtz speak alike and are both bald. Does any one think there are any other similarities"
Although Heart of Darkness and Apocalypse Now are very similar, there is also a great many differences to, as one is about colonization while the other is on war.
The main differences between the two mediums is shown when Marlow/Willard confront Kurtz. First of all, Coppola's version of the movie lacks the Conrad hero. AS E.N Dorall points out within Heart of Darkness there are 3 characters regarded as heroes, a person whether he survives or dies, stays true to himself and his integrality, which is a triumph. Those 3 characters are the chief accountant and the up river station; the Russian who's own the book An Inquiry into some points of Seamanship and Marlow himself. Conrad also states that the British Government, "if it continues to produce heroes, there is some hope for making against the imminent catastrophe" as stated by Mr Dorall. Coppola's film is very different, as it does not place America or any other country as the solution to chaotic world. Coppola has also not provided a hero who is true to himself or his integrity, he provides no pioneers who are able to be true to themselves. This is shown by the fact that Willard is not as pure as Marlow. In Conrad's novel Marlow begins the journey up river with an innocent ignorance. Willard has none of that as he states in "I wanted a mission so bad, and for my sins they gave it to me" and also "if his story is a confession than so is mine" when referring to Kurtz. I believe as do many others that Coppola wanted us the audience to put ourselves in Willard shoes and see the horrors of war and show how us as people can be influenced and controlled by those that are above us.
Some over differences between the two texts are the replacement of the many heads in Conrad's novel to the great amount of dead bodies of soldiers. Coppola does this I believe to reinforce the fact the movie is about war once again. Also Kurtz in Apocalypse Now allows Willard to reach him so that he may kill him and take over his troops so as to free them and free himself. Can anyone else point out some differences between the two mediums"
In conclusion, Apocalypse Now is culturally significant as it is one of the first movies to depict the real horror of the Vietnam War, and one of the first to raise the idea that their can be no hope for the human race while we still fight and that we are headed towards extinction, the last day, the Apocalypse.
This is the complete article, containing 978 words
(approx. 3 pages at 300 words per page).
