Two things: first, this is a TV movie, along with all the limitations that go with it. Heart of Darkness, although considered exceptionally good in literature, I believe it's not seen as something very accessible to the general public, so I think producers don't really want to commit to something seen as obscure. Considering these limitations, I believe thay have made something extraordinary out of it.
Second, the film follows the book quite closely. It IS quite stunning, in its own way. Not in the mostly premade Hollywood angles and effects that we got hooked on, or that several multi-million dollar productions got us hooked on, but in its own, modest way of filming some minor detail or important event that occurs in the film. I can't forget the scene where Malkovich wrings the monkey's neck, or when Tim Roth arrives to Kurtz's station with a bloodied face and, although unflinching, you can feel that the horror is there. And you have to listen to the text. They won't spoon-feed you the story, this film demands certain attention. I like that kind of challenge.
I believe it does more justice to Heart of Darkness than Apocalypse Now does. Coppola's film is really only about Vietnam, using elements from Heart of Darkness, and it's more in-your-face and American, it's more about the human condition than the study in social anthropology the novel is, and less intellectual than Heart of Darkness - which is not a problem; I'm not saying better or worse, I'm just saying different. Each of the two films have their own value, but in their own contexts.
About Tim Roth being miscast - Tim Roth has this aura of mischief around him, that's his specialty, being the arrogant little devil that usually comes out smiling at the end. I believe that this role didn't require that certain quality from him, he's playing a different character, an honest, terrified victorian facing the quiet, exquisite horrors of the perceived barbaric darkness; he is without an agenda.
Ok, that was long. I hope you read it and find some points, if not true, interesting enough to think about.
reply
share
bruiserx
16 years ago
<i>I believe it's not seen as something very accessible to the general public</i>
What do you mean? Do you just not think the general public is intelligent enough to get it? I've always felt <i>Heart of Darkness</i> was incredibly accessible. His style is relatively easy to read, compelling and completely engrossing, and his themes are well-developed and well within the average individual's grasp.
-Who do you think you're trying to fool?-
reply
share