Colonel Kurtz and Anakin Skywalker

I'll paste something I said in a thread in the ROTS forum, as I think this is the place to discuss this properly.

"Is Vader truly evil or is he just too extreme in his attempts to impose 'order' on the Galaxy? Think of the American photographer apologising on behalf of Col. Kurtz* in Apocalypse Now.

DL

*whose character arc parallel's Anakin's in truly uncanny ways, from beginning to end (how brilliant he was, how he fell and was finally redeemed by a son or son-like figure who also killed/played a part in killing him despite his growing attraction). And remember that Lucas was originally slated to direct AN. All of this, as they say, is another story."

Well, shall we flesh out that other story here?

DL

 

Hmm never thought about this particular parallel before, but I think you're absolutely right. Something else just occurred to me - when Vader is finally unmasked in ROTJ he does look a little like Brando in Apocalypse Now.

 

As someone who has both read Conrad's Heart of Darkness (the inspiration for the film and it involves a Kurtz) and having seen Apocalypse Now, I have to disagree.

Kurtz (both of the book and film) was a brilliant genius, the perfect man for the job (in this way he connects to the Anakin story.) He enters the dark of the jungle (Congo/Vietnam in the different stories) and while there he begins to question and to think about issues he hadn't really worried about before. His superiors view him as insane and seek to eliminate him or at least get him out of the jungle (in the book anyway.) It could be said that Kurtz went insane from being left in the jungle, but in a very real sense--he is one of the few sane people (in some ways not all.) His journey is far more complex then Anakin Skywalker.

Skywalker begins innocent, becomes a hero, then falls to evil, finally he rises again and triumphs over darkness.
The story of Kurtz is very different.
A good worker is placed in desolate region of savages, war, and violence. He develops radical ideas which aren't approved of by his superiors. As a result they try and pull him from the jungle or to kill him (depending on story.)

Interesting topic,
Seldon

 

I think you may be shortchanging Anakin's complexity, here Seldon... and I've also read and seen both Apocalypse Now and Heart of Darkness.

You say, for Kurtz:

A good worker is placed in desolate region of savages, war, and violence. He develops radical ideas which aren't approved of by his superiors. As a result they try and pull him from the jungle or to kill him (depending on story.)

Well, I think that can also be used to describe Anakin... he's an initially good worker [a good person, a good Jedi] placed in a desolate region of savages, war and violence [also known as war and politics]. He develops radical ideas [why can't Jedi love and marry? Is it possible the Sith have the right idea?]which aren't aproved of by his superiors [the older Jedi]. As a result they try and pull him from the jungle or to kill him (depending on the story.) [Obi-Wan either deliberately tries to kill Anakin or turn him back, depending on who's story you believe.]

The protagonists of all these stories gradually are drawn towards Kurtz/Anakin/Vader, at first as tools of their own superiors and biased by them (Obi-Wan or Yoda, the Generals) but become sympathetic.

 

The difference is that Anakin's radical ideas led to others manipulating and controlling him.
Kurtz used his radical ideas to control others.
That is a critical difference.

-Seldon

 

True... although Anakin's radical idea about love, marriage and family eventually allows him to free himself of that slavery (ie, his latent attachment to family-- Luke-- allows him to kill the Emperor that is manipulating him.)

But, nonetheless, it doesn't negate the similarities that are there. The analogy may not be complete, but it's still an analogy.

 

I don't deny the analogy, I'm just saying there are just as many differences as connections.

-Seldon

 

Fair enough.

 

I would say the better comparison is Willard and Luke. Both characters share many, many similarities with their antagonists and both are spared the same fate. Seldon's got a good post on this in the Ampitheater.

 

I love the Willard/Luke connection Sev.
Willard is venturing into the darkness, a land consumed by violence and savages in search of an elusive character that is said to be insane.

In a very real way, Luke is venturing into the violent and turbulent galaxy and in the end he is in search of Anakin Skywalker. Skywalker has become a man trapped in darkness (much like Kurtz.) This is actually a perfect connection on many levels.
Willard and Luke are forced to duel with this dark lord and both are puzzled by his peculiar nature.

If you are interested in Apocalypse Now discussion, just go to:
http://boards.theforce.net/The_Amphitheatre/b10382/20342985/?19

-Seldon

 

Both are similar also in that they share a certain genius, if you will, with their enemy. Luke is also a powerful force user and Willard is also a special ops assassin developing an unhealthy need to be at war , which he learns through the character of Kurtz is a precursory warning to personal disaster.

 

In trying to find the man in the darkness, both Luke and Willard are almost seduced to the evil themselves.
The are both on the edge of a cliff, about to fall into this darkness.

-Seldon

 

wow what a great topic!

the simularities are in the overall theams. but the complexities are the difference. Heart of darkness and apocalypse now are very blunt in their message. while star wars took a more bubble gum approach. but thay serve simmiler needs. both are about the fall of great men. and the temptation. Willard is conflicted. he sees the logic in the madness. but he finds his way back to the light. what a tragedy. now its been 15 years since I read the book and I have seen the movie countless times, but in the book williad brings kurtz back. while in the film he has to kill him. far more dramatic and more effective. it is more represtitive of him having to remain true to his own path, but also showing how he was changed by the whole experience.

star wars has luke in the willard role and vader more like kurtz. again its the approach.

it is not a coincidence that lucas was going to make heart of darkness but made star wars instead.

 

Good thoughts DM.
I'm just going to add a few things to clear it up.
The Willard character in the book was Marlowe.
and Lucas was originally going to direct Apocalypse Now, back in the American Zoetrope days. It wasn't really a decision of Star Wars over A N.

These are very minor details, I just didn't want anyone to get confused over it.

-Seldon

 

yeah your right I forgot it was marlow. loke I said it's been about 15 years.

my understanding was that coppola took over from lucas because star wars got greenlit, and coppola wanted to do it aas vietnam rather ten the straight translation lucas intended. I could be way off on that part. but yeah I knew it was the zoetrope studio film.

I assume you have seen the doucmentry hearts of darkness. almost as difficult as the film itself. which do you prefer, the rdux or the original?

 

The name issue is no big deal.
I've only seen Redux, but I know exactly what the changes were between the versions. Based only on that, I prefer Redux.

I'm not exactly sure what the history of the project was.
I know that in the Zoetrope days, Lucas was supposed to do A N, after finishing with THX 1138. The studios didn't approve of THX, and they broke their deals with American Zoetrope. As a result, everyone went in different directions. Lucas founded Lucasfilm Limited, and began work on AG, and after AG--all he wanted to work on was his Flash Gordon/Buck Rogers type serial.

That is about all I know.

-Seldon

 

Both protaganists must, in essence, face the darkside of themselves. Both antagonists were once very much like the protaganists.

 

Anakin= Captain guy (Martin Sheen)
Emperor= Colonel Kurtz (Teaches/talks/influences to Captain guy, a figure of power who is feared and sycophantically respected plus a little nuts, and Captain guy kills him)
GL= FFCoppola (no way)

 

That analogy doesn't hold.
Captain Willard never joins with Kurtz, he never allows himself to plunge into complete darkness, he is able to cling to his reason, and survive the jungle.
So the Anakin/Emperor connection doesn't quite work.

-Seldon

 

and Lucas was originally going to direct Apocalypse Now, back in the American Zoetrope days. It wasn't really a decision of Star Wars over A N.

Actually it was, as far as I remember, although I unfortunately can't provide a reference right now.

But yes, in my initial post, clearly I was suggesting parallels between Anakin and Kurtz, Luke and Willard. There are lots of curious details that we can compare. Like Willard wanting a mission and Luke wanting to escape, like Willard's divorce and the death of Luke's foster parents. These two events severed emotional ties, allowing both protagonists to pursue their respective missions without regret.

And yes, there's absolutely no parallel between Anakin and Willard. As for the Emperor:

AN: The president (Nixon) = The Emperor
SW: The Emperor was based on Nixon

It could be said that both brought down the Emperor. In SW, Anakin literally kills the Emperor. In AN, Kurtz's ideals killed him (his hatred of lies).

What about the simple fact of Luke and his new friends travelling in a small vessel (in ANH), and how that compares with the nature of Willard's journey?

I will agree that the analogy is not complete but there are a truly startling number of similarities, too many in my opinion for this to be coincidence.

DL

 

I will elaborate a bit further. In SW, the son role is clearly given to Luke. In AN, this role is split between Willard and Kurtz's true son, to whom Kurtz entrusts Willard to tell the true story of his life and, implictly, wider issues.

In both stories, the Emperor, helped by the son, kills the Kurtz/Anakin character. In SW, he does it with his lightning, helped by Luke cutting off his hand. In AN, he does it with Willard as his 'errand boy'.

However, Kurtz/Anakin, together with the son, also kills the Emperor. In SW, Anakin's compassion for his son eventually compels him to throw the Emperor into the reactor core. In AN, it's a bit more complex and symbolic. Kurtz entrusts Willard with the mission to contact his real son to tell him his true story and to expose the lies. This event combines the two son characters of AN into one and it is the exposure of lies that kills the Emperor (Nixon). Of course, the lies that Willard exposes to Kurtz's son do not literally bring down Nixon, but the principle of exposure of lies does. So, the killing of the Emperor by the father & son is literal in SW, but symbolic in AN.

One final point about this connection about the role of the Emperor in SW and AN. Now that we have finally seen the SW saga in its entirely, we now see how crucial dishonesty was in Palpatine's rise to power, and also in his maintenace of it. Need I say more?

DL

 

Let me just say this to make clear my motivation for discussing this. We could discuss other parallels, for example, that between Frodo Baggins and Luke Skywalker. Indeed, I believe there is one, because in creating these two characters, Tolkien and Lucas were essentially reviving the same heroic myths, independently.

And 'independently' is the key word here. I have come to doubt that the characters of Col. Kurtz and Anakin Skywalker were created independently, due to the close relationship between George Lucas and F. F. Coppola. Combining this relationship with the number of similarities between the two stories, well, I can't help but wonder if Lucas was, to some extent, inspired by the characters of Apocalypse Now, principally Kurtz and Willard, when creating Star Wars.

As far as I know, no one seems to have considered this possibility before.

Oh, in case anyone thinks that I'm simply accusing GL of plagarising FFC, well, that's not the case. It's established that it was GL's idea to have Willard travel up river on a boat. No, I think the situation is a whole lot more complicated than that and I feel I'm only scratching the surface here,

DL

 

Darth_Lear

Nice thread. I've felt there to be strong resonance between Kurtz and Anakin/Vader. Both lose faith in their political environments, fall from grace, wish to play God, and fight against their former comrades.

GL, as you noted, originally was going to direct AN. The script was John Milius. Coppola rewrote Milius' script and directed AN. Milius directe Conan the Barbarian. What happened in Conan? Conan goes on a journey, encounters the evil lord, is offered a chance to join the evil lord, and then kills him. Look at the similarities bt AN and CB. The evil lord is atop the steps of a temple when Conan strikes him down with a blade. Then Conan turns around, raises his blade and drops it--as do the followers of the lord. In AN, Willard kills Kurtz with a blade, turns around in the temple atop the stops, raises his blade and then drops it. Kurtz' followers do likewise. In both films, Conan and Willard are tempted to join their antagonists, and there appears to be a moment in which they will replace their antagonists after having killed them.

Now, who was the evil lord in CB? James Earl Jones. Interestingly, he refers to Conan as, "My son."

 

PEV,

What you've just said is very interesting, and gives a further reason why I think it would be great and also very important to have more detailed knowledge about how the characters of SW developed. It wasn't just GL sitting in an office with a jotter on his desk. He interacted with friends such as FFC, obtained inspiration from them but also gave inspiration to them relating to their own projects. Obviously, we can't ask these people personally to tell us the whole story, and even if we could, I doubt that they would be able to remember it accurately. I fear that we shall never know the truth about how all these things developed, unfortunatately.

Having said that, I'd be very happy to be proven wrong.

BTW, Darth_Seldon, wasn't GL supposed to do AN after American Graffiti, rather than after THX? I think he was.

DL

 

Interesting topic for sure.

The first character in another film that I associated Anakin with is (oddly enough by Coppola also) Michael Corleone from The Godfather films.
Both start out "good", both turn to the "dark side" in wanting to protect their family. Both end up killing (or at least attacking in Anakins case, though in a certain way he does kill Padme) a part of that family out of sheer paranoia.
The endings differ a bit I guess. Corleone (in the third film) is trying to redeem himself, but his prior mafia connections keep pulling him back in to the criminal life. He ends up paying a big price for his previous deeds, and I never see Michael as redeemed.
I think Anakin/Vader ends on a lot more "upbeat" note even though he does die. I think George wanted us to forgive Anakin, but I dont really think Coppola wanted us to forgive Michael (or at least Coppola himself doesn't want to forgive Michael).