Thus far, there hasn't been a single Robert E. Howard adaptation in cinema.
None of the five cinematic adaptations ostensibly based on the work of Howard actually adapt any of his stories at all. Some films claim to be Howard adaptations, but all they truly amount to are pastiches, or adaptations in name only. At best, they take a few plot elements and characters, greatly altered, and put them into a new narrative; at worst, they take mere names, and seem to make an effort to warp and distort them from their original iterations.
Above all of the supposed Howard adaptations, however, one stands head and shoulders. John Milius' Conan the Barbarian came into a world where fantasy adventure was viewed as little more than sword-and-sandal nonsense, with no philosophical or thematic resonance, no reason to watch except for the grand guignol thrills of blood and sexuality. Milius infused Conan the Barbarian with Nietzchean references, Kafkaesque storytelling, and his own brand of "zen anarchism" while paying tribute and alluding to the likes of Alexander Nevksy, Kwaidan, Cabiria, and Apocalypse Now! It is a film that was about something. So while this article will go into the profound differences between Howard's creation and Milius' reimagining, Conan the Barbarian deserves respect as a film that sought to bring more than swordplay and sex to the genre.
The Filmgoer's Guide to Conan the Barbarian isn't intended to destroy the film, or to say that it's a bad film, or to allege that anyone who enjoys the film is wrong to do so. Milius deserves a lot of credit for defying the sillier ideas of Dino de Laurentiis (in comparison, look at how Conan the Destroyer turned out when the less confrontational Richard Fleischer came on board), for achieving so much with such a small budget, and risking so much on some pretty daring choices. All the Filmgoer's Guide is attempting to do is show why Conan the Barbarian is different from Robert E. Howard's Conan.
The guide will provide a take on several aspects:
- How Milius' origin story for Conan is incompatible with Howard's stories
- How the film's production design differs from what we know of the Hyborian Age
- How the film's theology, culture, history and technology differs from Howard's Hyborian Age
- How the character and personality of Milius' Conan differs from the original
- How Milius' themes clash with Howard's
- What elements of the film are based on Howard's work, and of those, which are from non-Conan stories
- A discussion on whether Conan the Barbarian truly "elevates" Conan from his "lowly" pulp origins
Hopefully, by the end of the venture, this guide will serve as a resource for Howard fans who are sick of having to explain why Conan the Barbarian's deviations from the source material are far more profound than those of other adaptations, and go beyond the "necessary" changes the process of adaptation from literature to cinema dictates.
Howard fans don't need to know this, they've read the stories. When questioned by someone over why Conan the Barbarian is such a gigantic departure, one could easily just hand over a copy of the Del Reys and say "read that." Unfortunately, sometimes that doesn't work. Sometimes they won't understand even after reading. Sometimes they aren't even interested in reading the stories at all. This is what the guide is for: those who, for whatever reason, cannot see for themselves, and for those who do know to have something to point towards.
Ok, but... was really 20 million dollars a small budget back in 1982? I don´t think so. E.T, The Thing, The Empire Strikes Back, Gandhi, Raiders of the Lost Ark, Poltergeist... are examples of big movies from that era with similar budgets
ReplyDeletePerception and reality. I often tell people that Arnold was miscast as Conan and they usually come back with "Whaaat? Arnold was PERFECTLY cast as Conan!"
ReplyDeleteI usually have to explain that he was perfectly cast as Frank Frazetta's Conan but not the Conan written about by Robert E. Howard.
Most people leave it at that because they sense I'm heading into the murky woods of book readin' and litra-chur and all that not-fun stuff, ya know?
So I'm very looking forward to reading your guide when it is done.
Md i completely agree on why arnold was cast as conan, aesthetic and i even believe milius and arnold may perhaps agree.I did like him in that movie as Milius's conan. He was a visual symbol of power, he looked as if he stepped out of a heroic painting or comic ( i wont specifically say conan, because everyone visualizes him a little different) and what defines power( though not entirely related to arnolds appearance),this was a major theme in the movie.Power the nature of power and what defines it.. weapons and technology?( conan's dad) pulling the strings of civilization throughs trength in numbers? Ideologies and religion ( everyone i um think/?)(thulsa doom)or the power of the human will? (Conan)There is some arguments on the blogs and sites that have intrigued me and i wonder if the questions to possibly ask and try to answer is does anyone think robert e howard would have enjoyed the movie for what it is, and even though we all know the details and the approach milius took differs greatly from howard do they come to the same conclusion about the world? In other words though different means were used did they acheive a similar end? Do they come to the same conclusion? And Al, could this be what people mean when they(vaguley that is) say it captures the tone or spirit of Howards work? -Mario
ReplyDeleteOk, but... was really 20 million dollars a small budget back in 1982? I don´t think so. E.T, The Thing, The Empire Strikes Back, Gandhi, Raiders of the Lost Ark, Poltergeist... are examples of big movies from that era with similar budgets
ReplyDelete$20 million was about average for most films. Hell, Rain Man, a film about two brothers trekking across modern day America, cost more than Conan the Barbarian.
Larger budgeted films would include the likes of Batman ($48 million), Bonfire of the Vanities ($47 million) and Superman ($55 million - well, technically that was the '70s, but the end of the '70s) as well as infamous flops like Inchon ($50 million), Heaven's Gate ($44 million) and The Adventures of Baron Munchausen ($46 million).
However, like the films you mention, Conan the Barbarian gets a hell of a lot out of its budget. One of the best examples, in my mind, is Aliens, which I can't believe was only made for $18 million.
Perception and reality. I often tell people that Arnold was miscast as Conan and they usually come back with "Whaaat? Arnold was PERFECTLY cast as Conan!"
I usually have to explain that he was perfectly cast as Frank Frazetta's Conan but not the Conan written about by Robert E. Howard.
Hell, I have reservations on considering Arnold being perfect for Frazetta's Conan too. Then again, with the proper wig and enough scarring...
I will say that Arnold was perfectly cast for John Milius' Conan. I cannot imagine anyone portraying that particular role save Arnold. It's just Robert E. Howard's Conan was around 15 years before Arnold was born, and 50 years before Arnold starred in his first film.
There is some arguments on the blogs and sites that have intrigued me and i wonder if the questions to possibly ask and try to answer is does anyone think robert e howard would have enjoyed the movie for what it is
No idea whatsoever, and we'll never really know. If I had to guess, however, I think Howard would appreciate parts of it while not appreciating other parts. I especially doubt he'd like the film's Conan's supplication, and he certainly wouldn't appreciate the Cimmerians dying with swords in their backs instead of their fronts. At the same time, he might appreciate the flesh-over-steel philosophy, the bloodiness, and the mixture of broad humour and grim fatalism. Again, though, we'll never really know, and my own perceptions are no doubt clouded by my own feelings on the film.
Mostly, though, he'd just be counting the money: after all, he designed Conan to be his most commercial creation, and they don't come much more commercial than a film adaptation.
Not a film obviously but there was an adaptation of Howard's "Pigeons from Hell" on the show Thriller that it seems to me was quite good, so at least one of his stories was filmed, well, let's say at least properly.
ReplyDeleteLooking forward to reading your full article on the subject, but surely we all know the answer as to whether or not the movie elevated Conan from the pulps.
I suppose if nothing else at least it created awareness in a time when more people were open to reading than they currently seem to be.
- Aaron
Not a film obviously but there was an adaptation of Howard's "Pigeons from Hell" on the show Thriller that it seems to me was quite good, so at least one of his stories was filmed, well, let's say at least properly.
ReplyDelete"Pigeons" is an example of Howard being adapted to screen with minimal alterations: the story, characters, plot, themes, atmosphere, all translated to the screen. However, since it isn't a film, I have to exclude it from the list of Howard cinematic adaptations. I'm going to bring up "Pigeons" at the end of the Filmgoer's Guide as the example of how you CAN adapt REH without making a hash of it.
Looking forward to reading your full article on the subject, but surely we all know the answer as to whether or not the movie elevated Conan from the pulps.
Well, that's the thing: even people who (claim to have) read the stories say nonsense like "it's just pulp fiction, it isn't serious literature or anything, let's not get pretentious about it." That part of the guide will probably merge a bit with the Newcomer's guide, where I suggest tons of links with in-depth analysis of the Conan stories. Hell, Steve Tompkins' alone should put paid to that idea.
I suppose if nothing else at least it created awareness in a time when more people were open to reading than they currently seem to be.
The biggest problem with Conan the Barbarian in relation to Howard, for me, is that for every person who is inspired to seek out the books, another will be turned off Howard because of what they saw in the film. That's one of the things I hate most about the upcoming film, too.
Conan the Barbarian remains one of my top ten favourite movies of all time. I've read the first 25 or so novels and have hundreds of the comics. They're all great fun.
ReplyDeleteBut I'm still dying to see the Conan that "...moves with pantherish grace, a black mane, square cut, framing a scarred face with sullen eyes of volcanic blue...."
You know what I mean? I want the Lovecraftian in-jokes. I want the hard-core Conan that could stop a lesser soul in his tracks with but a look. I want the guy who seems as at home in the wilderness as any Pict.
Looking forward to the rest of your article!
- Andre
Glad to see the Pigeons from Hell adaptation will be represented - now if only a person could somehow acquire a proper copy of it.
ReplyDeleteUnfortunately all genre fiction (be it the pulps or newer stuff - King, Barker, etc. - or even comics) suffers from that same stigma of not being "real literature" or "art", which is a problem that will likely never be fixed because so much of the fiction is amateurish and truly unworthy. For every Howard or Lovecraft or Laymon or Bloch how many hack writers are filling the shelves with poor imitations? Hundreds at least, and with the internet that could be multiplied probably a thousand times.
At least true fans - and I say that without being even slightly elitist - know that certain authors did produce meaningful tales and worthwhile fiction, and I think anyone would be hard pressed not to include the Conan fiction in that group, not to mention many of Howard's horror stories.
The films - be they the previous or the dreadful looking upcoming - unfortunately never quite delved deep enough to show any of the true quality of the storytelling, but at least in my case the original Conan movie did inspire me to seek out the source material and enjoy it ever since.
The truly unfortunate thing is that this will probably not be the case with the new movie - regardless of it's quality - as younger people (at least the ones I know) no longer seem to view reading (of any sort) as a viable means of entertainment.
Unfortunate, but at the very least that also strikes down the "true art" along with the pulps.
- Aaron
Such is life, Aaron. What really sticks in the craw is when people try to undermine Howard in order to make Conan the Barbarian look better. That's uncalled for.
ReplyDeleteI'll take your word for it but it's hard to imagine anyone being that big a fan of the film to bother running down anything to make it seem better.
ReplyDeleteIn latter years the only things I can honestly say I enjoy about the film are the "best in life" bit and the giant snake - beyond that it's almost a total dud. Not as bad as the sequel or the Kull movie, but hey, what is?
- Aaron
I'll take your word for it but it's hard to imagine anyone being that big a fan of the film to bother running down anything to make it seem better.
ReplyDeleteTrust me, they're out there. Check out this guy:
http://theblogthattimeforgot.blogspot.com/2009/12/troll-flame-living-up-to-name.html
In latter years the only things I can honestly say I enjoy about the film are the "best in life" bit and the giant snake - beyond that it's almost a total dud. Not as bad as the sequel or the Kull movie, but hey, what is?
I think the film has a lot of good qualities, as long as one imagines this is the Conan of the Star Trek Mirror Universe, or the Marvel Antimatter Universe.
He'd need a goatee then, wouldn't he?
ReplyDeleteI see what you mean now about those defending the film (though frankly I can't understand it) and seemingly wanting to diminish the original stories for, well, some unfathomable reason.
If nothing else it's impossible to argue that the film wouldn't have been better had the Conan character been more like he was written than he was portrayed.
Keep the film's story the same, the villain, Conan's allies, everything, but make him the indomitable warrior who battled Thog and experienced linguist and tactician rather than the one-dimensional lunk-cum-coward-cum-avenger that he was in the film.
And that's not even mentioning the seduction scene and the hippie clothes...
- Aaron
He'd need a goatee then, wouldn't he?
ReplyDeleteHe has a beard as king, does that count?
If nothing else it's impossible to argue that the film wouldn't have been better had the Conan character been more like he was written than he was portrayed.
Well the problem with that is if Conan acted more like he was written, the film would've been completely different. Young Conan would've been killed rather than been enslaved, or at least had to be knocked out (and even then, he'd take the first opportunity to escape .) The resulting film could easily have been better, but it could also have been worse. It could always be worse.
Then we get onto other things, like how it's simply not possible for Doom to have gotten to Conan's village in the first place.
Beard probably does count.
ReplyDelete-
I'm not sure that having Conan captured (as a youth or otherwise) would have been entirely out of character - he did wind up in similar predicaments in a lot of the stories - just maybe have him captured for a different reason or under different circumstances.
And sure this would change some of the plot of the film and the character's motivations, but by and large the same plot-line (or the important parts of it - Doom rising to power and Conan seeking to bring him down) could remain the same.
An easy change could be made as well to explain Doom going so far out of his way to enter Cimmeria. Perhaps he foresaw that something of importance came from that small village and sought to either destroy or enslave it for his own uses (it seems to me he had the power of prophecy in one of the Kull stories, but I may be thinking of something else). Perhaps along the way Conan escaped his clutches and grew up more as he did in the stories rather than as a slave, but still sought revenge.
Either way it's kind of pointless to rewrite the movie, but Howard's character still could have been placed in the movie's plot without, I think anyway, too much trouble.
Whether or not he'd want to be, well, that's a different story.
- Aaron
it's curious, first time I saw Conan the barbarian I only have read not so much comics and none of the stories but I remember the great deception with the film I even prefer some Bruce Jones and Michael Fleisher stories than that, at least they were far more entertaining, and I even prefer Conan the destroyer much more adventure oriented and with a story by Roy Thomas and Gerry Conway
ReplyDeleteFrancisco
I'm not sure that having Conan captured (as a youth or otherwise) would have been entirely out of character - he did wind up in similar predicaments in a lot of the stories - just maybe have him captured for a different reason or under different circumstances.
ReplyDeleteConan being captured as a youth isn't a problem because of impossibility, but because it simply didn't happen, certainly not the way it happened in the film.
An easy change could be made as well to explain Doom going so far out of his way to enter Cimmeria.
It isn't so much that it would be out of the way for Doom, rather that Doom wouldn't make it out alive. If the Kings of freaking Acheron couldn't do it, Thulsa Doom sure couldn't.
it's curious, first time I saw Conan the barbarian I only have read not so much comics and none of the stories but I remember the great deception with the film I even prefer some Bruce Jones and Michael Fleisher stories than that, at least they were far more entertaining, and I even prefer Conan the destroyer much more adventure oriented and with a story by Roy Thomas and Gerry Conway
Thomas' original treatment for Conan the Destroyer (Conan: The Horn of Azoth) was miles better, and more Howardian, than either film ended up.
I believe the Doom of the film is to be considered much more powerful than the Doom of the Kull stories, and perhaps more powerful than any other mortal entity within the world.
ReplyDeleteI may be wrong, but that's how I've always viewed the character (though he doesn't seem so powerful once Conan actually does come in contact with him).
The Cimmeria of the films may not be so far flung or protected a place as well, which would allow for the story to progress much easier than it would were the place thought of in the same way it is in Howard's tales.
How is it that I seem to be defending the film now? That's odd.
At any rate my original point still stands. The Conan of the Howard books would have made the movie much better than Arnold's Conan did, though the plot would need some obvious changes.
- Aaron