Blog Post 5- How Much Is Too Much?

"They were dying slowly--it was very clear. They were not enemies, they were not criminals, they were nothing earthly now-- nothing but black shadows of disease and starvation, lying confusedly in the greenish gloom."

it was sombre enough, too--and pitiful-- not extraordinary in any way--not very clear either. No, not very clear. And yet it seemed to throw a kind of light."


I found that one thing that the book and the movie had in common was the portrail of the natives as subhuman as well as expose the contraction between human thought and action. In both works it seemed as if the natives were devoid of some human quality, which to the Europeans made them expendable. In "Apocolyps Now" none of the native people and any speaking roles. To me that seems as if there was never an effort to create any kind of real connection with the audience and the characters. All we have to go on is the interpretation of their appearance and action by a "civilized" person. It is ironic to me that one of the central themes in both works is how the unchecked interpretation of "civilized" is just a mask behind which all kinds of brutality, racisim, and prejudgice lie, yet we are only given the story from one European's point of view. As you get deeper into the story and the book, it becomes very obvious that Marlow does not view the natives as equals in the least. While he learns of the "immense darkness" of the human heart, it seems to me as if he is taking no steps to correct the problem. I find it very hard to believe that one can have such an epiphany and be such a changed man, yet when given the oppurtunity to bring about change they simply prepetuate the problem. In the book this occurs through the lies that he tells to the Intended wife of Krutz. He is depriving her of the oppurtunity to know the truth about her love. He is basing his action on his opinon and assumptions only, and justifies by believing that he is doing her a favor by keeping the truth from her. That action was no different from the action of the "civilized Europeans" when it comes to their interaction with the natives; it was simply on a smaller scale. It still boils down to the fact that it is not okay to think for someone, simply because you believe that the decision you make on their behalf is for their benefit. That turns into a very slippery slope. When then do we draw the line and say that we no longer have the authority to decide matters for others. How could one ever be able to make a clear distinction between the acceptable and the unacceptable. Marlow does nothing more than to continue to idealize the darkness that we are surrounded by. There comes a certain satisfaction and fulfillment with knowing the truth, however it brings along with it a certain weight and responsibility. It is unacceptable to believe that it is our duty to sheild or relieve others from carryng that responsibility. If we do take it upon ourselves to be some sort of savior to others, then we belittle tose that the truth concern and place ourselves on a pedestal. What makes us any more worth than they are. Are we making our judgements based soley on their appearance or their gender or their race. None of these are sufficient reasons to deny someone the right of knowing the truth. Just as Krutz had created and became truth to the natives, Marlow distorted and created truth in the fiancee's mind when he lied about Krutz last words. It simply seems as if there is a contridiction between Marlow's revelation and his action.