« The Weekend Hobby Thread (5/4/24) Authored TRex | Main | THE MORNING RANT: Partitioning Baton Rouge & the Importance of Dissolving Old Political Boundaries »

Saturday Evening Movie Thread 05/04/2024 [TheJamesMadison]

Robert E. Howard

Six films have the credit of some variation of "Based on the works of Robert E. Howard," and I watched all of them a few weeks back. It all started when I got the 4K collector's set of the first two Conan the Barbarian films starring Arnold Schwarzenegger from Arrow Video (they're very nice). I expanded it to include the other four, and as I was going through them, I had the recurring thought that I would write a post about them. However, the only thing that kept attracting my attention was the idea of the films as adaptations of Howard's writing. The problem was that I hadn't read a Conan story in about a decade, and I'd never read any of the Kull the Atlantean or Solomon Kane stories.

So, I read all of them. Well, all of the stories that Howard published in his lifetime. I wasn't going to go down the rabbit hole of the fragments, recreations, and adaptations in other mediums (mostly the Marvel comic books). This also meant that I could thoroughly ignore Red Sonja since the character as presented in the film is actually a creation of Roy Thomas and Barry Windsor-Smith in a Marvel comic, sort of inspired by a character named Red Sonya by Howard who didn't appear in the Hyborian Age.

The question then becomes, which is the most accurate? Is accuracy the real goal of this kind of exercise? Is Howard the kind of writer to be slavishly accurate to when adapting to a vastly different medium from short stories and novellas into feature film?

And, just to be clear, the five films discussed will be: Conan the Barbarian from 1982, directed by John Milius, Conan the Destroyer from 1984, directed by Richard Fleischer, Kull the Conqueror from 1997, directed by John Nicolella, Solomon Kane from 2009, directed by M.J. Bassett, and Conan the Barbarian from 2011, directed by Marcus Nispel.

The Source

First of all, out of the adaptations in question, only one of them actually makes any attempt to adapt an actual story that Howard wrote. There are plenty of little scenes and even bits of dialogue that get peppered throughout, but only one, Kull the Conqueror has even the shell of one of the original stories. And it really is just a shell. Kull was originally a Conan story that got rewritten to include Kull when Kevin Sorbo signed on, not wanting to play the same character as Arnold. It stemmed from Conan the Conqueror, previously titled The Hour of the Dragon, and only the most simplistic recitation of events from a 30,000 foot view would tell you that they have anything in common.

Outside of that, though, none of them make that attempt. So, what's being adapted. I think it comes down to three main elements. The first, and probably the most important for most people, is the characters. This is almost entirely about the three title characters. Almost none of the other characters in the films come from the books with the sole exception of Valeria in Milius' film, but she's so far removed from the Valeria presented in "Red Nails" where she's a pirate, not some kind of Viking, Valkyrie, thief. So, she's kind of close, but not that close. The second major element being adapted is the setting: They Hyborian Age. To be honest, though, the Hyborian Age in Howard's writing is some kind of hodgepodge of really ancient and Medieval, but that's part of the appeal. It's sort of timeless that way, so the world on film can be a hodgepodge and a bit timeless. The third is what I personally consider to be the most important: the magic.

Having read all of these stories (not his westerns or boxing stuff, mind you), it's obvious that Howard was deeply influenced by H.P. Lovecraft. I don't even need to know that Howard and Lovecraft had a correspondence based relationship to see the influence. He uses phrases like "cosmic horror" and "the Old Ones." The evil of the world is almost always magicians or sorcerers who are usually not powerful on their own, but at least implied to be intermediaries for larger forces. This is honestly the stuff that appeals to me most in these stories, so while I recognize that not everyone has that same preference, it's what I look for most in these adaptations.

So, I think that's the three major things: character, setting, and the unique approach to magic and evil. Which held up best?

The Films
Kull the Atlantean

Let's just get Kull the Conqueror out of the way: It's surprisingly not a very good adaptation. Kull is simply wrong for the Atlantean that Howard wrote. As played by Sorbo, he's a proto-Tony Stark, quippy and loose while the written Kull is serious and contemplative. Well, he's mostly Conan but talks a bit less. The setting is wrong because they filmed on old English ruins meant to portray a heightened current state (though it's supposed to also pale in comparison to the ancient Acheron). The magic is never taken very seriously, but at least there's an effort to get the witch played by Tia Carrere to be some kind of vessel for a larger evil. It's not only a bad film, but it gets the appeal of the source material wrong. Howard isn't heavy metal. He may be in the adaptations in comic form, but the credits aren't that the film was adapted from the Marvel comics but from Howard.

Well, with the worst one out of the way, what about the other four? Let's tackle Conan first, since he's the biggest target.

Conan the Cimmerian

In terms of character, we have essentially three takes: Arnold's efforts under Milius, Arnold's efforts under Fleischer, and Jason Momoa. The core problem with Arnold in Milius' film is that he simply doesn't talk that much. Howard's Conan is surprisingly loquacious, explaining himself at times with eloquence. Arnold has only eighteen lines of dialogue in the entirety of the first film. What he says is in alignment with Howard's writing, especially the famous line about what is best in life, but Milius consciously pulled dialogue from Arnold because his English just wasn't very good at the time. The second effort, directed by Fleischer, has a different problem: silliness. In order to make the franchise more kid-friendly, they lightened the tone a good bit (while leaving in a surprising amount of blood, to be honest), and it nadirs with a scene of drunk Conan in the middle of the film trying to explain love. It's very not Conan. Throw in the fact that the innocent waif of a leading lady was Olivia d'Abo, who was fourteen at the time, the lustful Conan was made extremely restrained and chaste, which is weird. Also, Conan doesn't build teams. Conan commands by his sword and his wit. Conan builds a team in Conan the Destroyer. It just feels wrong.

What might be the most accurate version of Conan is Jason Momoa. Arnold's physique is more in line with Howard's descriptions, though Momoa isn't exactly small (it's not like Tom Cruise playing Reacher), but he has more dialogue direct from Howard ("I live, I love, I slay," is a direct quote), is more passionate with his leading lady, and has a certain pantherish quality that Howard always harped on. I think he works.

I should also note that both modern and older versions invent a backstory for Conan that Howard never had: the burning of the Cimmerian village which Milius takes even further by having Conan become a slave. Conan was never a slave in the books, but Kull was. Conan was a wanderer and then a pirate after leaving Cimmeria. So, points off.

The second element is the setting, and the fullest of the three seems to be Milius' take. Old, but not ruined. Large but not packed with people. The Hyborian Age that Milius presents feels real and appropriate. Fleischer's vision is not something I dislike, but it feels a bit off. It's a bit too stagey with large, good-looking sets that are dressed too cleanly, especially the castle that begins and ends the film. The more natural settings, the places outdoors filmed in Eastern Europe and sets designed like caves feel more right. There's also a wizard's lair that's right out of a Kull story that feels really good. So, Destroyer is okay, but something of a mixed bag. The newer Conan the Barbarian actually gets it the most right, I think. The ancient temple in the middle of a forest feels right in line with Howard's take on the Hyborian Age. Dragging a ship across the land by elephants is something Howard never described but would have probably loved. There's a variety of settings from jungles to desert to the sea that never feels terribly small (this was a problem in Red Sonja, but we're not talking about it), and travel seems to take time.

Now, the magic is where I was focusing mainly as I watched. Out of the three, I think Milius' Conan is actually the furthest from Howard. That's not to say that it's terribly far, though. All three are reasonably close, I think. My only issue with Thulsa Doom, as an adaptation of how Howard would write an evil wizard, is that he doesn't seem to have a connection with a larger force. That could be taken in implication when he turns into a serpent for no real reason, especially since the Cult of Set is so prominent in so many Conan (and Kull) stories. So, pretty close. I hold up Destroyer as closer, though, because the wizard is almost directly from a Kull story, and the monster at the end is really awesome, representing the kind of nightmarish vision that Howard liked to imply rather than describe directly. The more recent film is the one that implied the connection with a larger, unseen evil most fully, manifested through the pursuit of an Acheron crown, powered by blood and in pursuit by a king and his witch daughter. This is exactly the sort of thing that Howard wrote about.

So, while I haven't talked about the actual quality of these films, it really does feel like the Marcus Nispel, Jason Momoa adaptation is actually the closest overall to Howard's original source material. It's the least of the three in terms of quality, but I think it captures a lot of what Howard had written in a new medium accurately.

However, that being said, there's also a structural issue to talk about. The newest Conan film has this terrible, and very modern, sensibility that it needs to have an action beat every ten minutes. It's literally every ten minutes. The prologue, which lasts for 30 minutes, has three action beats (one to start, one in the middle, and one to end). The Howard stories don't operate like that at all. They're generally more sedate and ominous rather than moving from action beat to action beat ("Beyond the Black River" is something of an exception and does have a similar feel, to be fair). There is action, of course, but it's not so constantly repetitive. A forty page story may have two serious bits of action in it. So, while I feel like the world and characters are captured decently well, the actual structure is off. It's more of a metal action movie than a replication of Howard's work.

Solomon Kane


There is, of course, only one cinematic adaptation of Howard's character Solomon Kane, and it makes no effort to adapt any of the actual stories, most of which take place in Africa. It is, instead, an effort at an origin story, effectively treating the character like a comic book superhero whereas Howard had brought Kane into the literary world fully formed as the zealot for justice cloaked in language of the language of God while wearing the outfit of a Puritan. So, much like Milius creating the backstory of Conan, M.J. Bassett (writer and director) created a backstory from some individual lines that Howard had sprinkled through a couple of the stories as guidance. There is a mention of fighting the Turks, for instance, that becomes the basis for the entire prologue of the film where a viciously evil and younger Kane kills everyone in his way before he's confronted with the agent of the devil trying to take his soul to Hell. This sends him to a monastery back in England where he decides to seclude himself before the abbot sends him out in the world to seek his destiny: fighting evil.

The whole "soul is in danger" thing is a complete creation by Bassett without any textual backup from Howard's writing, but the portrait of a man trying to be good, seeing the evil in the world, and deciding to fight against evil in the service of good over the course of the rest of the film feels like the kind of backstory that Howard could have had in mind. The story that Kane goes through contains the exact kind of balance between real-world and otherworldly threats, manifested through a weird-looking guy with connections to a greater evil that we never quite see. It goes a bit overboard with the giant metal beast in the end, but Howard did have Kane fight harpies in the African mountains at one point. So...I don't think it's terribly off.

I suppose the biggest hit against it from an adaptation point of view is the effort to create a backstory at all which all of the others are guilty of as well, except for Kull which is terrible and was also meant to be a Conan movie anyway, implying that the previous films were the same character's previous history, including the original backstory in the first film. In addition, it doesn't feel the need to go breakneck action all the time, allowing for longer stretches without the swinging of swords, which helps it feel right from a structural point of view.

So, essentially, I think Solomon Kane is the closest to Howard's work out of the five films in question.

Order

If forced to order them by faithful adaptations, I'd go: Solomon Kane, Conan the Barbarian by Milius, Conan the Barbarian by Nispel, Conan the Destroyer, and then Kull the Conqueror. Honestly, though, there's no great answer. Only one of them actually tries to adapt a story, and that one does it badly. Most of them try to come up with backstories that Howard never wrote. The actual capture of the central characters is, on the whole, halfway decent. The sense of magic that Howard put in his work is also pretty good, though there's a range. So, this is something that I would never call an objective list, mostly just how I prioritize what I see in Kane and how much of it I find in the adaptations.

That should also not be taken as a ranking on their quality (that's stupid stuff...see mine here), just how I think the different filmmakers reflected the source writings. And, it's something of a mixed bag, but it presents a question: how important is accuracy to the source material? Personally, I'm not against taking a source, hollowing it out, and using it for something else. Generally. Sometimes sources are not very good but have potential for other things. However, we're usually talking about adaptations of things people actually like. Is it that all that's required for faithfulness to be important? There being an existing audience for it? Take some spy series no one really cares about like, say, The Bourne Identity, completely gut it, and then make a movie that people like. Is it bad because it's not accurate to the source?

Anyway


Which do you think is the most accurate adaptation? Is it also your favorite?

Movies of Today

Opening in Theaters:

The Fall Guy
Movies I Saw This Fortnight:

Godzilla (Rating 1.5/4) Full Review "I really don't think this works, but Godzilla does stomp real good." [The Criterion Channel]

Rodan (Rating 2.5/4) Full Review "So, it doesn't quite work as an overall package, hindered massively by its dull as dishwater middle, but the opening and close are surprisingly strong. I'd throw it on again for a light entertainment now and again." [The Criterion Channel]

Be Happy, These Two Lovers (Rating 3.5/4) Full Review "A clear-eyed melodrama with restrained, Japanese form, Be Happy, These Two Lovers was a very good little discovery in the middle of a career that pushed in a very different direction. Honda was much more than monster mayhem." [Library]

The Mysterians (Rating 3/4) Full Review "However, in terms of his science-fiction work, it's a bit more thoughtfully crafted and comes together decently well." [The Criterion Channel]

The Human Vapor (Rating 3.5/4) Full Review "It's an homage to classic Universal monster movies, film noir, and Howard Hawks that manages to feel alive on its own. This is, I think, deeply underappreciated. It's really good. I'm a fan." [Library]

Mothra (Rating 2.5/4) Full Review "It looks good, moves quickly, and has some nice sights along the way. It's decently entertaining as it plays out, but it really could have used a rewrite." [The Criterion Channel]

Matango (Rating 3.5/4) Full Review "I get into the weird atmosphere of it all as the characters go steadily insane while bizarre things unfold around them and engulf them. It's well filmed, well directed, well performed, and well put together. It's a good time at the movies." [The Criterion Channel]

Atragon (Rating 2/4) Full Review "Anyway, it's...okay. It has some interesting ideas that it doesn't explore in any serious way, but the ideas are there. The action is silly. The character-based storytelling is thin and unpursued. It's pretty typical fare, but it's not the worst thing. Spectacle has some benefits." [The Criterion Channel]

Contact

Email any suggestions or questions to thejamesmadison.aos at symbol gmail dot com.
I've also archived all the old posts here, by request. I'll add new posts a week after they originally post at the HQ.

My next post will be on 5/25, and it will talk about the films directed by Ishiro Honda.