Comparing Marlow of Heart of Darkness and Willard of Apocalypse Now

The PBS article on film adaption discusses the challenges of adapting a novel into film and the changes film makers may need to make. There are many differences between the two due to their prepositional setups. This can cause key factors of a novel to be lost once transferred into a film. This includes a narrator, personal attachments with the characters, engaging your imagination and possibly even scenes due to the time limitation a film has(PBS). However, when a director takes on this challenge they’re able to alter the novel and fix any faults they see. They also must make many attempts to successfully convey the protagonist’s emotions through other tools with actions or visual aids. This results in the director's

In recent years, it has become popular for many of America's great literary masterpieces to be adapted into film versions. As easy a task as it may sound, there are many problems that can arise from trying to adapt a book into a movie, being that the written word is what makes the novel a literary work of art. Many times, it is hard to express the written word on camera because the words that express so much action and feeling can not always be expressed the same way through pictures and acting. One example of this can be found in the comparison of Ken Kesey's novel, "One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest, and the film version directed in 1975 by Milos Forman.

Could the cruelest, most punishing soldier and a peaty chaplain’s assistant be at all alike? How are they different? When reading Slaughterhouse Five, by Kurt Vonnegut, Billy Pilgrim and Roland Weary are some of the first characters you will meet. One is a no-life and the other a die hard army man. The characters are different yet very similar. Billy and Roland are similar even if they don’t realize it.

     Many time in our lives, we have seen the transformation of novels into movies. Some of them are equal to the novel, few are superior, and most are inferior. Why is this? Why is it that a story that was surely to be one of the best written stories ever, could turn out to be Hollywood flops? One reason is that in many transformations, the main characters are changed, some the way they look, others the way they act. On top of this, scenes are cut out and plot is even changed. In this essay, I will discuss some of the changes made to the characters of the Maltese Falcon as they make their transformation to the ?big screen.?

Ideally, a novel and its film version complement each other, which, on many levels, is the case with To Kill a Mockingbird. However, film can accomplish things that novels can't, and vice versa. Likewise, film has limitations that a novel doesn't. This essay explores some of the differences between To Kill a Mockingbird, the film and the novel.

Joseph Conrad utilizes the essential differences between “primal” and “primitive” to tell the story, Heart of Darkness. Through Marlow, the reader is posed with existential questions on personal beliefs and humanity. A resounding theme of the story is the emotional journey for purpose and the idea that it is not enough to find a purpose, but to be candid in the fulfillment of said

In Apocalypse Now, Willard and Kurtz are parallel figures. Kurtz is labeled as a great soldier who went insane, disregarding his orders and going rogue. Willard, on the other hand, is portrayed as someone who is willing to follow orders. These men appear to be vastly different, yet there are strong parallels between them. Both Willard and Kurtz have become disillusioned with the US involvement in Vietnam. Apocalypse Now uses both stylistic and narrative techniques to show the similarities between the two men. Their shared military background, and their onscreen placement, show Willard and Kurtz as complementary characters, in their disillusionment with the authority of the US military, brought on by their journeys through the Vietnam jungles, and their

In The book Heart of Darkness, written in 1899, and the Movie Apocalypse Now ,made in 1977, are closely and vastly similar stories. The movie Apocalypse Now was just a reiterated version of the book Heart of Darkness. The aim of this paper will be to discuss the concepts of madness and insanity in both the book and the movie following the hypocrisy of imperialism. Both depict the insight and developing the idea of colonial and democratic views in the light of its for the best. In both stories groups of men travel through the heart of the jungle to reach Kurtz, but on their voyage they learn the devastating reality of madness as they lose themselves and their soul. In the Heart of Darkness Marlow travels from station to station and eventually

As many avid scholars know the book is almost always better than the movie but one particular case is a candidate to break this trend that is seen so frequently. The outlier occurs in Francis Ford Coppola’s film Apocalypse Now, an adaptation of Heart of Darkness written by Joseph Conrad where the correlation between both stories is extraordinary. Coppola does exceedingly well using devices of both sound and sight to portray the feelings of futility and creeping darkness that Conrad portrays in his book. One of the most important and similar symbols is that which keeps the protagonists sane, the dossier and the boat.

Joseph Conrad’s novella Heart of Darkness (1899) and Francis Ford Coppola’s film Apocalypse Now critique the values of their context through the endings of their texts. The combination of symbolism and the biblical allusion of the river representing a snake in the line “the brown current ran swiftly out of the heart of darkness, bearing us down towards the sea” reveals how the River Thames is a symbol of the line that connects our pure side with our side of corruption and savagery. Conrad here is also critiquing the methods of King Leopold II during his colonial reign establishing that colonialism has brought about his capacity for evil and greed. In comparison Coppola, through a full shot of the rundown boat being swallowed by native Vietnamese

When has one ever seen a film that could compare to the words written in the book? Movies are almost always different, almost always never compare, and almost always have a different premise than that expressed by a novel. The reason, one wonders, is because you have to keep the audience interested. Ambrose Bierce’s short story and Robert Enrico’s film adaptation entitled, “An Occurrence on Owl Creek Bridge,” is a great example of differing themes in a piece of work. In the entry, evident themes include: reality verses imagination and deception, war, death and dying, and time. Some are expressed in the film clearly, while others are hidden to the untrained eye.

In adapting Madame Bovary for the screen, both directors had to deal with what I term "the narrative problem"--how to create a coherent narrative structure in a cinematic version of a fictional work. A fictional narrative can reveal the feelings, thoughts, and emotions of the characters, and can move the reader smoothly from episode to episode through narrative and descriptive links. This presents a challenge for cinema, which is a visual medium.

Whether you fancy reading a book or watching a film, whether you consider yourself a bookworm or a movie enthusiast, or perhaps both or even something else entirely; there is bound to be something suitable for your tastes and preferences. In our day and age, many books often get adapted into films. This change of discourse undoubtedly affects the way we perceive the piece. An example for a book that has been adapted into a movie is the young adult novel “The Fault in Our Stars” by American author John Green.

This question is a perplexing one, and will be explored throughout the following text. However, first a person must consider the value of a films translation of text into cinematic language. “A movie based on a literary source is often seen as a secondary work, consequently, of secondary value” (Cahir). What makes this ideology present in our society? What makes one translation considered more valuable than another? “Literature, generally, still occupies a more privileged position in the cultural hierarchy than movies do…” (Cahir). It is in the translation versus adaptation of text to cinematic language that offers film its own identity. Adaptation equates to the transformation of written word

Nevertheless, both of the men had different backgrounds before they began their journey. Marlow was an experienced sailor, while Willard was an experienced warrior. Willard was a man who went to hell and back in Vietnam. His soul was already corrupted and only got worse while his journey to Kurtz continued. Marlow was a man who just wanted a job.