Heart of Darkness
Tags: insanity

Plot synopsis:
Aboard the Nellie, anchored in the River Thames near Gravesend, England, Charles Marlow tells his fellow sailors about the events that led to his appointment as captain of a river steamboat for an ivory trading company. As a child, Marlow had been fascinated by "the blank spaces" on maps, particularly by the biggest, which by the time he had grown up was no longer blank but turned into "a place of darkness" (Conrad 10). Yet there remained a big river, "resembling an immense snake uncoiled, with its head in the sea, its body at rest curving afar over a vast country and its tail lost in the depths of the land" (Conrad 10). The image of this river on the map fascinated Marlow "as a snake would a bird" (Conrad 10). Feeling as though "instead of going to the centre of a continent I were about to set off for the centre of the earth", Marlow takes passage on a French steamer bound for the African coast and then into the interior (Conrad 18). After more than thirty days the ship anchors off the seat of the government near the mouth of the big river. Marlow, still some two hundred miles to go, now takes passage on a little sea-going steamer captained by a Swede. He departs some thirty miles up the river where his Company's station is. Work on the railway is going on, involving removal of rocks with explosives. Marlow enters a narrow ravine to stroll in the shade under the trees, and finds himself in "the gloomy circle of some Inferno": the place is full of diseased Africans who worked on the railroad and now await their deaths, their sickened bodies already as thin as air (Conrad 24-25). Marlow witnesses the scene "horror-struck" (Conrad 26).
Marlow has to wait for ten days in the Company's Outer Station, where he sleeps in a hut. At this station, which strikes Marlow as a scene of devastation, he meets the Company's impeccably dressed chief accountant who tells him of a Mr. Kurtz, who is in charge of a very important trading-post, and a widely respected, first-class agent, a "'very remarkable person'" who "'Sends in as much ivory as all the others put together'" (Conrad 28). The agent predicts that Kurtz will go very far: "'He will be a somebody in the Administration before long. They, above—the Council in Europe, you know—mean him to be'" (Conrad 29).
Marlow departs with a caravan of sixty men to travel on foot some two hundred miles into the wilderness to the Central Station, where the steamboat that he is to captain is based. On the fifteenth day of his march, he arrives at the station, which has some twenty employees, and is shocked to learn from a fellow European that his steamboat had been wrecked in a mysterious accident two days earlier. He meets the General Manager, who informs him that he could wait no longer for Marlow to arrive, because the up-river stations had to be relieved, and rumors had one important station in jeopardy because its chief, the exceptional Mr. Kurtz, was ill. "Hang Kurtz", Marlow thinks irritated (Conrad 34). He fishes his boat out of the river and is occupied with its repair for some months, during which a sudden fire destroys a grass shed full of materials used to trade with the natives. While one of the natives is tortured for allegedly causing the fire, Marlow is invited in the room of the station's brick-maker, a man who spent a year waiting for material to make bricks. Marlow gets the impression the man wants to pump him, and is curious to know what kind of information he is after. Hanging on the wall is "a small sketch in oils, on a panel, representing a woman draped and blindfolded carrying a lighted torch" (Conrad 39). Marlow is fascinated with the sinister effect of the torchlight upon the woman's face, and is informed that Mr. Kurtz made the painting in the station a year ago. The brick-maker calls Kurtz "'a prodigy'" and "'an emissary of pity, and science, and progress'", and feels Kurtz represents the "'higher intelligence, wide sympathies, a singleness of purpose'" needed for the cause Europe entrusts the Company with (Conrad 39). The man predicts Kurtz will rise in the hierarchy within two years and then makes the connection to Marlow: "'The same people who sent him specially also recommended you'" (Conrad 39-40).
Marlow is frustrated by the months it takes to perform the necessary repairs, made all the slower by the lack of proper tools and replacement parts at the station. During this time, he learns that Kurtz is far from admired, but more or less resented (mostly by the manager).
Once underway, the journey up-river to Kurtz's station takes two months to the day. The steamboat stops briefly near an abandoned hut on the riverbank, where Marlow finds a pile of wood and a note indicating that the wood is for them and that they should proceed quickly but with caution as they near the Inner Station.
The journey pauses for the night about eight miles below the Inner Station. In the morning the crew awakens to find that the boat is enveloped by a thick white fog. From the riverbank they hear a very loud cry, followed by a discordant clamour. A few hours later, as safe navigation becomes increasingly difficult, the steamboat is attacked with a barrage of small arrows from the forest. The helmsman is impaled by a spear and falls at Marlow's feet. Marlow sounds the steam whistle repeatedly, frightening the attackers and causing the shower of arrows to cease. Marlow and a pilgrim watch the helmsman die. In a flash forward, Marlow notes that the International Society for the Suppression of Savage Customs had commissioned Kurtz to write a report, which he did eloquently. A handwritten postscript, apparently added later by Kurtz, reads "Exterminate all the brutes!" (Conrad 83).
At Kurtz's station Marlow sees a man on the riverbank waving his arm, urging them to land. The pilgrims, heavily armed, escort the manager on to the shore to retrieve Mr. Kurtz. The man from the bank boards the steamboat, and turns out to be a Russian wanderer who had happened to stray into Kurtz's camp. He explains that he had left the wood and the note at the abandoned hut. Through conversation Marlow discovers just how wanton Kurtz can be; how the natives worship him; and how very ill he has been of late. The Russian admires Kurtz for his intellect and his insights into love, life, and justice, and suggests that he is a poet. He tells of how Kurtz opened his mind, and seems to admire him even for his power—and for his willingness to use it. Marlow, on the other hand, suggests that Kurtz has gone mad.
From the steamboat, Marlow observes the station in detail and is surprised to see near the station house a row of posts topped with the severed heads of natives. Around the corner of the house, the manager appears with the pilgrims, bearing a gaunt and ghost-like Kurtz on an improvised stretcher. The area fills with natives, apparently ready for battle, but Kurtz shouts something from the stretcher, and the natives retreat into the forest. The pilgrims carry Kurtz to the steamer and lay him in one of the cabins, where he and the manager have a private conversation. Marlow watches a beautiful native woman walk in measured steps along the shore and stop next to the steamer. When the manager exits the cabin he pulls Marlow aside and tells him that Kurtz has harmed the Company's business in the region, that his methods are "unsound". Later, the Russian reveals that Kurtz believes the Company wants to remove him from the station and kill him, and Marlow confirms that hangings had been discussed.
After midnight, Marlow discovers that Kurtz has left his cabin on the steamer and returned to shore. He goes ashore and finds a very weak Kurtz crawling his way back to the station house, though not too weak to call to the natives for help. Marlow threatens to harm Kurtz if he raises an alarm, but Kurtz only laments that he had not accomplished more in the region. The next day they prepare for their journey back down the river. The natives, including the ornately dressed woman, once again assemble on shore and begin to shout unintelligibly. Noticing the pilgrims readying their rifles, Marlow sounds the steam whistle repeatedly to scatter the crowd of natives. Only the woman remains unmoved, with outstretched arms. The pilgrims open fire as the current carries them swiftly downstream.
Kurtz's health worsens on the return trip, and Marlow himself becomes increasingly ill. The steamboat breaks down and, while it is stopped for repairs, Kurtz gives Marlow a packet of papers, including his commissioned report and a photograph, telling him to keep them away from the manager. When Marlow next speaks with him, Kurtz is near death; as he dies, Marlow hears him weakly whisper: "The horror! The horror!" (Conrad 116). A short while later, the "manager's boy" announces to the rest of the crew, in a scathing tone, "Mistah Kurtz—he dead" (Conrad 117). The next day Marlow pays little attention to the pilgrims as they bury "something" in a muddy hole (Conrad 117). He falls very ill, himself near death.
Upon his return to Europe, Marlow is embittered and contemptuous of the "civilised" world. Many callers come to retrieve the papers Kurtz had entrusted to him, but Marlow withholds them or offers papers he knows they have no interest in. He then gives Kurtz's report to a journalist, for publication if he sees fit. Finally Marlow is left with some personal letters and a photograph of Kurtz's fiancée, whom Kurtz referred to as "My Intended" (Conrad 79). When Marlow visits her, she is dressed in black and still deep in mourning, although it has been more than a year since Kurtz's death. She presses Marlow for information, asking him to repeat Kurtz's final words, which in fact are "The horror! The horror!" Uncomfortable, Marlow lies and tells her that Kurtz's final word was her name.

Review: Prior to starting on "Citizen Kane," Orson Welles shot some test footage for a version of "Heart of Darkness" that was to be filmed entirely in what would now be called "POV", where we would see everything from the point of view of the main character Charlie Marlow; he would be seen only fleetingly in mirrors, windows, water, etc.
Of course, Francis Coppola's "Apocalypse Now" was based on "Heart of Darkness."The short novel "Heart of Darkness" by the Polish-born British writer Joseph Conrad, first serialized in a British literary magazine in 1899, features one of his favorite alter egos, ship captain Charlie Marlow, who also narrates the short story "Youth" and indirectly tells the story of "Lord Jim." Marlow, temporarily out of work, decides to take a job captaining a river boat for a Belgian company involved in the brutal exploitation of the resources of King Leopold II's personal fiefdom, the cruelly misnamed Congo Free State.
This is a novel where you close the book vaguely dissatisfied with the ending but nevertheless treasuring the story for its amazing atmospherics.This "Heart of Darkness" was filmed with Guyana in Central America standing in for West Africa.
A vastly better choice would have been someone like Bruno Ganz (unlike Malkovich, an actual German, like the character).This is a very disappointing production and I would recommend it only after you've read the book if you want to depend on more than your imagination to get a visual picture of a boat trip up the Congo River circa 1900..
It sincerely feels as if Roeg was filming another story with references from Heart Of Darkness embedded in it.
If you watch the movie without knowing the title or expecting it to be anything like Joseph Conrad's tale, you may find it good.
Overall, the movie "Heart of Darkness" was pitiful compared to the book.
I know that if I had not read the book then, I would, in no way, be able to begin to understand the depth of the situation and the characters.Finally, Kurtz also seemed to be interpreted incorrectly.
After reading the book, Heart of Darkness, the movie did not do it justice.
Some of the very important and influential scenes from the book were completely left out, like how Kurtz was not in the boat when he died.
Also when Marlow went to deliver the news to Kurtz's intended, she reacted differently in the movie, rather than the book.
Another major difference was that Marlow saw the picture of the lady that was blindfolded at the end of the movie, not at the beginning, like the book.
The movie Heart of Darkness is an insult to the book by Joseph Conrad!
Joseph Conrad's novel, Heart of Darkness, had a vivid sense of description that made this book astonishing.
When reading this book I had every scene totally drawn out in my head and I knew what every character looked like.
Heart of Darkness, directed by Nicolas Roeg, is an adaptation of Joseph Conrad's tale of ivory hunting in the African jungle.
The movie, "Heart of Darkness" comes no where near giving the book justice.
The movie follows the basic story line of the novel written by Joseph Conrad, except a few added scenes that help to add insight to the meaning and life of each character.
If you've ever heard the saying, "the book is always better than the movie," Heart of Darkness is no exception to the rule.
I believe that it was much easier for me to comprehend the details of the novel over the movie because I read the book aloud with my English class.
Heart of Darkness Movie Review As the saying goes, the film is never as good as the book.
Heart of Darkness the book was a masterpiece in itself and that set expectations high for the movie from the very beginning.
This meaning that the director of the movie could have imagined a scene in the book completely differently than another reader.
"The Heart of Darkness" film was considerably short seeing that it took my AP English 11 class to read and comprehend the novel in an entire months span.
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.
Pathetic dramatic effect, poor casting, and the portrayal of a completely different story is all that is present in the film rendition of "Heart of Darkness," and no one should waste their time watching it..
The film "Heart of Darkness" was a faithful and respectful version of Joseph Conrad's classic novel but certainly not one that was memorable.
It was difficult to keep my eyes open while watching the film, whereas while I read the book I was compelled by Conrad's syntax.
Marlow's narration in the novel captivates you from the first sentence to the end of the book and you only imagine what Conrad writes about.
Joseph Conrad's excellent short novel "Heart of Darkness" serves as the basis for a film that has certain strengths, although it should be better than it is.
By its end, the unnamed narrator, who has never seen the Congo and who is upset by Marlow's tale, finds himself looking "into the heart of an immense darkness."Among memorable episodes in the film are the brief depiction of Brussels, which Marlow in the novel calls "The Sepulchral City"; "The Grove of Death," which shows starving Africans who have been abused by greedy white explorers; Mfumo's relationship with Marlow; Marlow's encounter with Kurtz; the latter's treatment of his pet monkey; Marlow's visit to "The Intended"; and the final horrors of Kurtz's life.
I agree, but I believe it would be too difficult to make a movie-replica of that sort.The book clearly makes you imagine the scenery and action as seen through Joseph Conrad's eyes.
Life in Africa was not an easy picture to paint, but this clever author used his vast vocabulary and imagery skills to describe to readers his journey through the real "Heart of Darkness." The movie, however, had poorly-made backdrops and cheap scenery to act with.
Page after page was the story of his trip, but the movie only had about two hours to try and even begin to explain what he went through.Personally, I would recommend watching the movie IF and ONLY if you have read and have a basic understanding of the novel.
While Heart of Darkness is a great read for any book addict, with complex symbolism and an intriguing plot, unfortunately for the common moviegoer all of the good aspects found in the novel utterly fail to transfer to the 1993 film adaptation directed by Nicolas Roeg.Like the book, the film follows Marlow.
Throughout the course of the film I began to wonder if the filmmakers even bothered to read the book at all.Additionally, much of the symbolism found in the novel is glossed over, and it appears that the director is putting out a genuine effort, but almost all of the symbolism is lost in translation.
Although I could not help but feel that his performance was lacking emotion, and by the end of the film Roth begins to seem slightly robotic.John Malkovich as Kurtz, during all of his scenes in the movie, appears stale.
This tended to bring flashbacks from the period in which Malovich played Lenny in the film adaptation of Of Mice and Men.I am sure that the character of Kurtz had many interesting and deep things to say during his scenes, but he spent most of the time mumbling through the lines as if he was purposefully keeping audiences out of the loop, for the fear that the shear impact of the words would obliterate the audience's grip on reality.At the end of the day, it is apparent that Hear of Darkness falls into the slump that most book based movies hit, in which the fact that one director's vision can not possibly compensate for the perceptions of a thousand different people.
If you were to just go through the book and not process the deeper meaning of each sentence then you're leaving out the most vital information and in my opinion this is what the director of the movie version of Heart of Darkness did.
This movie is taken place from Joseph Conrad's book Heart of Darkness and it is set in the 1890s in England and Africa.
And when Marlow was telling Kurtz's fiancée about his final moments and words, it was no where near as descriptive or important, the fiancée didn't even get that upset.As far as the acting went, none of the actors did a very good job except for the actor that played Mfumu.
Joseph Conrad's timeless novel, Heart of Darkness, was depicted in the 1994 movie.
Conrad's Heart of Darkness is too full of action, emotion, and information to be made into a movie that is a little over an hour and a half long.
The book was better than the movie because it went more in depth about Marlow's story and the meaning of Heart of Darkness.
When you read the book, Conrad paints a picture into your head of what he wants you to see, if you can't picture what he is saying the movie would be good to watch.
But for those who have not read the book, I do not recommend watching the movie before you read the book; you will not understand the key parts and meanings, because I still believe that the movie was far from a good enough to represent Heart of Darkness's true meaning..
Also, I feel like the time difference between the book and the movie creates major points that don't seem to add up at all.
The Congo, in the movie, just seems like another place, not the dark, inhuman place that the book paints this setting of.
I feel like this removes another major element that really contributes to the novella.With two of the biggest aspects of the storyline missing in the movie, the little bit of decency that is in the book Heart of Darkness is gone.
Cast and Credits Marlow: Tim Roth Kurtz: John Malkovich The Russian:Morten Faldaas The Intended: Phoebe NichollsDirected by: Nicolas Roeg Written by Benedict Fitzgerald, based on the novella by Joseph Conrad Running Time: 100 minutes Rated PG 13 (some sexuality and language).
The 1994 film production of Heart of Darkness was in no way capable of living up to the outstanding book.
I understand that everyone has their own point of view as they read Heart of Darkness, and they create their own movie in their head, but they director cuts important scenes and adds pointless ones.
After completing the lackluster novel, Heart of Darkness, I moved on to watch the movie, which was a complete and absolute disappointment.
However, even though I had read the novel, the movie still made no sense at all, so I can't imagine how lost I would be if I had skipped the book altogether.
The movie 'Heart of Darkness', based on the 1899 book by Joseph Conrad is one with little to no detail and has an almost schizophrenic like plot line.
If you have read the book then you know that little to none of the important "story making" scenes were put into the movie.
Not enough though was put in to the original text and how that made the story what it is today.If you have not read the book, 'Heart of Darkness' (preferably, the Norton Critical Edition) then don't waist your time in renting or buying the movie.
The Movie of Heart of Darkness was just like the book, hard to understand.
I would definitely recommend this book for all adults that liked Joseph Conrad's "Lord Jim" and for teens who are in to these "hard to understand" type movies..
In the movie, Marlowe travels down the Congo river in search of Mr Kurtz, a dying, evil, monkey-killing man.
After reading the book "The Heart of Darkness", the movie was a bit different.
If I had not read the book I think that I would have been lost watching the movie.
The movie starts with a man named Marlow (Tim Roth) making his way down the Congo River in Africa.
For the most part "The Heart of Darkness" is not a movie I would like to watch over and over again.
"Heart of Darkness" is about a man named Marlow traveling down the Congo River to Africa.
To be honest, I've never been to the Congo or even Africa, and after watching the made for television movie Heart of Darkness, I do not think I'd want to.
I would not recommend watching this movie, especially if you have read the book already.
Conrad's words capture the reader and take them on the journey with Marlow, on his quest to find Mr. Kurtz, where as the film did not.
Director Nicolas Roeg undertakes a major project when filming "Heart of Darkness," his version of the story from Joseph Conrad.
Fitzgerald's adaptation of Joseph Conrad's book "Heart of Darkness" would be rated a 4/10 on my scale.
I understand completely that Marlow went through these traumatic event that could make a person monotone when telling his story but, if Marlow is going to be the narrator do not cast a man that makes me want to fall asleep during the movie(I actually did fall asleep and had to watch a part over again).
The only confusing part of the movie was the end when the natives scoured every where but, that was a director fault and not the actors fault.The movie was bad but it was hard to watch it and think it was good when the book it is an adaptation of is such a great piece of literature.
I feel that maybe if I had not read the book then I could have like the movie a little bit better but I did.
Kurtz was only shown towards the very end of the film which made it difficult for the viewer to completely understand his character and made him seem mysterious.Conrad's mastery of the English language was accurately shown in his novel, none of which was depicted in the movie.
They just forgot a couple of minor details that went along with making something like that; A talented director, an educated screenwriter, acting scouts that actually read the book, an editor that knew how to work the software, half-decent camera men; It's almost like they did not even realize that in order to make a movie they would need cameras.Heart of Darkness is hard to put into words.
Just read the book, it takes less effort than watching the movie and is ten times as rewarding..
In the both the novel and the film, Marlow is telling the story of his trip up the Congo River to the other people aboard the Nellie.
Personally, I would not watch the movie again, but I highly recommend reading the book..
When Kurtz uttered his last words, "The Horror, The Horror" it dawned on me that Nicolas Roeg had just touched the very outer shell of the deep, dark, and perilous journey of Charlie Marlow into the Heart of Darkness.After first reading the astonishing 1903 novel devised by Joseph Conrad Heart of Darkness I compared the book to the 2010 summer blockbuster Inception.
After all the movie is a disappointment to those who like films true to the book like me, but if you are just watching for enjoyment your opinion will most likely be different..
Heart of Darkness, the contemporary work of Joseph Conrad, is a 76 page novella was converted into movie form in the early 90's by Nicholas Roeg.
In the book you can read what Marlow is thinking or feeling at a certain point in time whereas in the movie his emotions aren't as accurately portrayed.
There were also a few important scenes in the movie that weren't in the book, like Kurtz's mistress knocking out Marlow towards the end of the movie.
I would never recommend watching the movie rather than reading the book.
The movie adaptation of Heart of Darkness is disappointing, both as a movie and as a representation of Joseph Conrad's classic story.
In conclusion, if for whatever reason someone actually wants to watch this movie, I suggest the reading of Heart of Darkness first.
But I really suggest you don't read the book and that you really don't watch the movie; both will be a complete waste of your time.
Some movies have been based on Heart of Darkness, like Apocalypse Now. In 1993, Nicholas Roeg directed a film that was exactly like the book.
Heart of Darkness the movie is almost exactly identical to the book.
The whole movie is a flashback of Marlow's journey to see Mr. Kurtz on the Congo River.
I figured it would be hard to make a movie out of the book because of all the flash backs that Marlow would have while he was telling the story of Kurtz and his adventures in Africa.
The director cut out and changed some of the events in the movie because the people who haven't read the book wouldn't understand the significance of some of the scenes.
No one else has made a heart of darkness movie because it takes a lot of effort and it is extremely hard to make a movie that would be exactly like the book.
In the film The Heart of Darkness, Kurtz's godly figure is portrayed by John Malkovich.
Heart of Darkness, a short novel written by Joseph Conrad about greed, corruption, and traveling through Africa was, to say the least, a tedious read.