Besides a really good handbook, Stephen Prince’s book Movies and Meaning. An Intro to Film (Pearson, 2010) is totaly fair to lots of cinema expressions – all took by different aspects like framing, lighting, script, and etcetera. Let’s remark a Prince's pointing out for Apocalypse Now case, for instance. Briefly but accurately the book retrieves Vittorio Storano’s work (for those who haven't heared anything of him, this man is one of the best pictorial designers in movie history) in Coppola’s version of deightful Conrad’s book The Heart of Darkness. He really achieved the darkest side of the human heart – if we include the possibility of war as an intrinsic component in that complex muscle.
We all remember how the history goes: a completely insane ‘Nam’ soldier named Kurtz - also renegade with the USA Government, had built up a huge evil machine in the end of nowhere… or the very heart of darkness. The military base in charge decides a gate out not very legal but rather effective: send a so call Willard to murder Kurtz and ends up with the whole thing the soon as possible. The narrative place of much part of the movie refers to Willard’s trip, obviously to raise audience expectative about what will he do when he eventually meets Kurtz… The main interest is exploits Willard’s final decision: either accomplishes his mission and goes back to another mission or falls in the temptation of join his alike leaded up by his own not precisely good character… This was probable since they already had a mutual characteristic which may become a place for a fraternal bond: their capability to murder people. In this right time is when Storano appears and give us the visual effect throughout those two men. Given that their nature was alike why wouldn’t be their surrounds? And this is the very reason for those notorious shoots of Brando’s Kurtz face half in light and the other out in complete shadow… Just like character’s soul, endlessly struggle in its inner occidental dichotomy between good and evil (only here was evil which had eventually prevailed).This leads to another visual decision: make that nature sameness also showed in Willard’s shoots. What better way that brings out Willard’s soul showing him in that partially eclipsed face? At that moment we got in the conclusion Willard was finally became Kurtz kind. In the narrative dimension, Coppola wanted to resolve this passage in a scene where Willard faces former Kurt’z army with his own face lit like Kurtz one. Sadly, all isn’t like director commands: after usual screening tests the studio asked Coppola to change that final scene. So Coppola took out his final for the studio’s ‘wished’ by making Willard sort of got over his unpleasant task nature and simple leaves Kurtz domains. Of course, this damaged Storaro’s work… but not his talent. It stay spotless in spite of studio commercial interests and the prove were other outstanding works like Reds or The Last Emperor…Oh! I almost have forgotten: to some that last time modification in Coppola’s movie could have a one more negative thing, by turning the movie less coherent in narrative terms (whether be or not, I celebrate the book have pointed out the excellent Storaro’s work).
As I always like to say, there’s people who does their work in a terrific way… and Storaro certainly did it.
