MovieChat Forums > Hearts of Darkness: A Filmmaker's Apocalypse (1991) Discussion > So many questions this thing failed to a...

So many questions this thing failed to answer...

posted 13 years ago by Alfabeta
8 replies | jump to latest

I saw the crappy DVD version...

How did Coppola choose the actors?

Why didn't they use any of the Harvey footage? Did he ban them to use it or was it their decision to omit it?

Who chose the songs for the movie and why did they choose these songs?

Were the Playboy Bunnies real Bunnies?

Which actors did Coppola originally want for the French plantation scene?

Why was the post production part completely left out? The (DVD) ending just mimics the movie's ending and that's it. Nothing further is explained.

Coppola keeps complaining that he doesn't know how to close the movie. He doesn't know how to connect the story, Brando's improv and Milius' script. So how did he do it in the end? Did he just tape together what he had and hoped for the best? Did he decide to "kill" Brando and get it over with? Did he succeed in combining the elements and get his perfect ending? What happened there?

Why did they completely omit the 'Nam journalist Michael Herr who helped them with narration. It's not like it's an irrelevant part of the movie.

Was the narration suppose to exist from the beginning or did they have to add it Blade Runner style?

What was the ending like in the Milius script?

Why wasn't there more footage of the interviews?

Did the shooting strain the relationships between Coppola and the cast? Were they still friends afterwards is what I'm asking here.

They say the movie made 150 million bucks. Did it make this money right away or did it take time to get to that number?

Was the movie a hit right away or did it grow on the VHS market like The Thing?

How did Coppola take the loss of Oscars for the main categories?

Who actually conducted the interviews and directed this documentary? I could swear that it's Lucas' voice asking the questions occasionally? And how come Coppola wasn't pleased with the direction the doc was taking when it's his doc? Or is it?

Coppola thought he was misrepresented in the movie. Why? How did he see the depiction of him in the flick?

Did the famous gun to the head photo depict his real breakdown or did he just put a prop gun to his head in another (non-suicidal) context?

How come PETA didn't ask for that very important scene (you know which) to be cut?

For that matter, were there any protest against the movie by some group?

Was Brando's performance seen in the end as a joke (bad) or hight of the movie (good). I'm not asking about your personal opinions, just the feeling critics had on that at the time.

For that matter, did the critics shred the movie to pieces or did they approve of it?

[–] AndrewBlackie 12 years ago

Wow, just replied to your other post and you seem to have no only missed the whole point of the final line, but also the whole point of this documentary. I can't believe you took the time to write that massive post, within which there are possibly 4 or 5 valid questions.

In terms of the technical aspects of filming, post production and the film's reception, that is completely not what the documentary is trying to put across. If you want to be this anal about it and ignore important relationship between art and chaos go look on wikipedia.

[–] Alfabeta 12 years ago

Oh, I got the point. What I didn't get is why you can't do both. Show the craziness of the development process WHILE describing the actual process. 75% of the movie did this quite well. Then the ending happened (or didn't) and some scenes were cut.

Yes, it was a crazy shoot. Guess what. He didn't die and he did finish the movie. Then finish the damn story about making the movie as well.

But the answer to my problem here is simple. For those who want the insight in the madness of the movie making process, and not the boring technical stuff, keep this version, and for those of us who want it all, make the redux version of this documentary, just like it was done with the movie, and everyone are happy. It's not like FFC is doing anything more important these days.

[–] spookyrat1 10 years ago

... make the redux version of this documentary ...

I think the co-directors are happy with it, as it stands, which is pretty much the daddy of them all when it comes to "the making of" documentaries. Many of your albeit interesting questions wouldn't really fall under that banner and stuff like "longer interviews" would come down to editing decisions.

We have a 96 minute doco which is widely considered to be among the best of those depicting trials and tribulations experienced by cast and crew in putting together, what became known as a masterpiece of film making. I guess what you are proposing is something that sounds like a 3 hour film examining all aspects of the project ... past and present.

[–] Alfabeta 10 years ago

I guess what you are proposing is something that sounds like a 3 hour film examining all aspects of the project ... past and present.

Yup. Can't have too much of a good thing, but you can have too little...

[–] spookyrat1 10 years ago

Yup. Can't have too much of a good thing ...

Well you may just have to take one on the chin over the film length. I think Eleanor Coppola is on the record as saying her and her fellow directors wanted to avoid having an extra long documentary.

[–] 10 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Marmadukebagelhole 10 years ago

Why does the skin of your fingers shrivel in the bathtub?

Why does my toast land butter side down?

Why do they call it a lift instead of an elevator?

Where do babies come from?

What's a maytag anyway?

I've simply come to a gratuitous conclusion that Hearts of Darknes could so defintely should have answered all these questions.

Glasgow's FOREMOST authority Italics = irony. Infer the opposite please.

[–] Neil_Williamson 9 years ago

Most of the OP's questions are answered in the documentary so I suggest he watches it again and pays more careful attention.