WEEK 4 - Conrad & Coppola - Insight on violence in contemporary times?
2. a) Do you think Conrad and Coppola are identifying one of the root causes of continuing violence in the world today?
This week’s discussion is an analysis of the Heart of Darkness by Joseph Conrad and Apocalypse Now by Francis Ford Coppola. In answer to the question I believe that both artists have tapped into the consciousness of modern man and profoundly discovered something very special, but also concerning. Both artists highlight that mans consciousness is driven by wants. Wants, in the form of what I can get out of something, how can I benefit from this situation etc. From a theological perspective a man is driven by his conscience, but from a psychological perspective he has a tendency to be driven by his superego. His superego directs him to do and act in a way that is ‘approved of’, in this case appealing to an ideology that appeals to imperialism. But this negates what mans consciousness really NEEDS.
The line “the mind of a man is capable of anything…” (Conrad, 1916) highlights that man can make any decision for whatever reason irrespective of it being right or wrong. We see this in Kurtz in “Heart of Darkness”. Driven by greed to exploit the natives of Congo for as much ivory as he can, he ends up going mad by his unfamiliar surroundings. Marlow also feels the same as he mentions, “we were cut of from the comprehension of our surroundings” (Conrad, 1916). Conrad wants to highlight how we can be driven by a certain aim, with such confidence, egocentricity and personal self-interest that when we reach our destination is it really what we want? Can we handle our decisions? Kurtz, driven by greed is so hyped up in how much he can gain, is instantly made so small and insignificant that he comes to the realisation in the line “the horror! The horror! (Conrad, 1941). His soul had been “assaulted by the powers of darkness” (Conrad, 1926), in which darkness is personified as a power - a power that envelops his whole consciousness. For me personally I don’t have sympathy for Kurtz. Marlow narrates “the wastes of is weary brain were haunted by shadowy images now - images of wealth and fame…” (Conrad, 1940). Here, Marlow delves into the mind of Kurtz as he paints a picture of all the very things Kurtz has lived for. But now Kurtz is a mere “shade of the original Kurtz” (Conrad, 1940) reduced to a “hollow sham” (Conrad, 1940). The use of hollow sham indicates how trivial our actions are, always living on the surface of our existence. This ties in nicely into the root cause of violence today as a country goes off superficial reasoning and logic in a justification to invade another country. For example the Americans invading Arabic nations in order to gain wealth in the form of oil is an example that highlights mans consciousness pre-occupied with superficiality. But where does it get you? Now America is caught up in a rebuilding effort in Iraq that they caused!! If we worked from the inner core of our consciousness we can be much more informed to see through our “souls as translucently pure as cliff or crystal” (Conrad, 1942). That’s what post-modernists try to achieve, to seek truth in life and this is what Conrad wants to achieve. But what about Coppola?
Coppola, like Conrad seeks this truth in a journey through the soul. Willard, the parallel character to Conrad’s Marlow journeys up the Nung River in Vietnam to “terminate” the office Walter.E. Kurtz whose “methods had become unsound” (Coppola). Willard is the main narrator like Marlow, and we come to know the intimate side of him and his rapid pre-occupation with Kurtz. Marlow is disturbed, crazy and in a sense less human as a result of his experiences with the Vietnam war. Coppola highlights how the value of a human being, in this case the native Vietnamese in the eyes of Anglo-white Americans, is worthless as he says “charging a man with murder in this place was like handing out speeding tickets at the Indy 500” (Coppola). His consciousness had become dead. Violence was commonplace and in a sense he had grown in a ‘binding relationship’ with violence as Willard takes the mission in terminating Kurtz in the line “I took the mission, what else was I gonna do?” (Coppola). Along with the horrors of child inoculation, in the quote the “piles of little arms” and the unfamiliar surroundings Kurtz, like Conrad’s Kurtz goes insane. Even though Willard thinks the generals “handed him the wrong dossier” (Coppola) the journey up the river soon teaches his conscience a lesson that unfamiliar surroundings do crush his ego and any aims he has making his feel small. One scene that really gave me goose bumps is when Willard and the crew come into contact with that Vietnamese boat. The violence hear highlights how man has become a killing machine, neglected the call from his conscience to act in a responsible way. What really horrified me was how Willard shoots the injured woman on the boat! With no remorse, no regret! This is contrasted by Chef, one of the crewmembers, finding a little puppy on the ship bringing an aurora of innocence, beauty and a sense of relief. The puppy brings a different atmosphere to the killing and evil of the scene, as well as the movie, with its innocence.
For both Kurtz’s it takes death to come to the realisation of their actions and what they are doing to the natives. Their conscience, for the FIRST TIME IN THEIR LIFE, has been informed so they can see “the horror! the horror”! (Conrad, 1941). Just like Ivan Illych they have had an epiphany and can now spiritually see. A man can be as clear in his mind but be see misguided and misled in his conscience as in the line “the man is clear in his mind but his soul is mad!” (Coppola) (Talking about Kurtz).
So essentially the root of violence in this day and age is deeply explored by Conrad and Coppola. They both highlight the utmost importance of ones consciousness to become the focus, to work from within it, rather than to be concerned with peripheral concern.
Cheers
P.S. Thanks for taking the time to read my thoughts, it’s a little long but I have to express my feelings. Afterall that’s what English is about :)
___________________________________________________________________
Week 4 - Comment on Marcs Blog
Hi Marc
I Love your insights! It’s true when you say:
"We live in an age that is dominated by politics. Politics creates war. Imperialist think likes others to take on its values, modes of conduct, religion and systems. The imperialist power will help the neighbouring country but there usually is a cist - ownership or control in some form"
Modern mans conscience I believe is very much still utilitarian based because he is still living in "an age of surfaces" (Wilde) as Lady Bracknell says in "The Importance of Being Earnest" from last semester. Politics, in the area of foreign affairs, delves deeply into control of supposed, "Lower races" as you say Marc. Imperialism I see it is an exchange at many levels. One level, as you say Marc, is control in exchange for wealth (in Heart of Darkness IVORY). But from a deeper level it is an exchange of a moral conscious, in exchange for a savage and evil conscience. Imperialism has a very 'affective' influence on all parties, either way something very profound is lost - the capacity to look within ones self.
Cheers