One of the greatest jokes played on fans of cinema is the idea often peddled that Conan is a stupid film. It actually is the completey opposite, it is a very intelligent, philosphical film which requires great historical knowledge to fully appreciate.
Few will grasp the allusions to 1930s antrophology and race theory. The Cimmerian, barbarian of the Ice Age Europe, the snake cults of the ancient Levant and its desire for blood sacrifice like in Carthage.
The clash of civilization brought into Europe from Anatolia farmers meeting blue eyed, dark haired hunter gatherers (look it up, google Villabruna man), the civilized world budding in its infancy: "Before the rise of the sons of Arya", the steppe invaders of the Indo-Europeans.
That is not to mention on the beautiful music and imagery.
Make no mistake, this is a decisively right wing film, which scares and confuses most film buffs, many of whom are only used to the leftist morality and worldview.
I believe the reason why this masterpiece film has a ludicrously low rating on IMDB and also from most professional critics is solely because they are liberals and this film does not push their agenda like they want it to.
The other month I was reading this film's review by the deceased moron named roger ebert. He panned it solely because James Earl is black and Arnold is white and that offended his SJW agenda. That same moron critic also gave Destroyer a favorable review and said it was better than Barbarian.
Yet despite unquestionably idiotic judgements like that, all liberals still revere that ebert moron as if he is the most brilliant film critic who ever lived --- ROFL!!!
the leftist morality
"Leftist morality" is an oxymoron. Leftists/liberals/democrats/SJWs/feminists etc. are the epitome of evil and the antithesis of morality.
Even if you didn't like the topics, it is still a very beautiful film, perfect pacing, not a word too much or too little, has it all, a non-sentimental love story, a man coming into his own, adventure and plunder, a bit of horror and nudity. Exceptional. I wonder what we could have seen had Hollywood not had a defacto ban on guys like Milius since the 80s.
Why do some people shove politics into everything and see either "left" or "right" in every little statement, film, book or painting? I guess because, for some reason, life isn't working out the way they wanted it to, and are unable to courageously change their small part of the world to their satisfaction. I feel sorry for those people. It's like Robin Williams said in "Good Morning, Vietnam" - "You are in more dire need of a bl0wj0b than any white man in history!"
Ebert liked the movie with that small complaint (that it was "unsettling" to him to see an Aryan superman beheading a black man and "contemptuously" throwing the head down the stairs). He gave it three out of four stars. That's not panning it.
He said it made him uncomfortable to watch that little bit, then gave the movie three stars. He obviously wasn't so disturbed by it that he thought the film was in poor taste overall. When that happened, when he thought a film was immoral rot, he panned it and spoke of its nastiness in his show and in his column (I Spit On Your Grave, e.g.) In other words: he obviously didn't view this film as Nazi propaganda, anti-black, or anything else that went against his so-called liberal agenda.
Ebert was one of the best critics of all time, able to see art and empathize with his fellowman at the same time. His voice will be sorely missed in film criticism.
"He said it made him uncomfortable to watch that little bit, then gave the movie three stars."
But it didn't make him "uncomfortable" to watch the bit where a black man beheads a white woman in front of her young son, for no good reason? When Conan beheaded Thulsa Doom he had a good reason, i.e., the guy was a mass murderer, and Conan's parents and everyone else in his village were among those that Thulsa murdered. To say that he had it coming is a gross understatement. Race is utterly irrelevant. It was indeed an "idiotic complaint," and only idiots make idiotic complaints, by definition.
I was more just saying that Ebert was kind of a a genius at criticism, and it's not like he was flawless, but calling him an idiot is pretty telling.
But, okay, you want an argument:
I think if a mother was beheaded in real life, whether in front of her son or not, and regardless of the races involved, I think Ebert would have been disturbed, upset, and hate that. He used what voice he had, in fact, to often push back a little bit against the evils of the world. He was an advocate for underdogs and hated injustice - from what I've seen in interviews, his writings, etc.
I think what disturbed him (again: INCREDIBLY SLIGHTLY - as per his review) about the Aryan Ubermensch type character beheading a black man is that there are real world echoes or roots to that kind of violence that takes him out of the movie for a second and makes him ponder the imagery at play there. That's why one bit of movie violence was part of a story for him, and another bit had a small tinge of extra-cinematic implications.
There is a reason why watching things in films sometimes gets uncomfortable or feels tone deaf. There are real world ramifications for and inspirations for art. That's what Ebert was alluding to and why he felt a little strange watching it. on screen. But, ultimately, I think he did got that Thulsa Doom was a bad guy who deserved his fate, hence his extremely positive review of the movie as a whole and his 3.5-star rating.
"I was more just saying that Ebert was kind of a a genius at criticism, and it's not like he was flawless, but calling him an idiot is pretty telling."
Again, only idiots make idiotic complaints, by definition.
What Ebert would have been disturbed at in real life is irrelevant, since we are talking about his criticism of a movie. Him being made "uncomfortable" by Conan beheading Thulsa Doom (who most certainly had it coming) because of an utter irrelevancy (race), is idiotic in and of itself, but on top of that, he wasn't even consistent with his idiocy (i.e., he made no mention of the other prominent interracial beheading in the movie; one done out of pure evil, no less), which makes his idiocy even worse.
On top of that, the Thulsa Doom character wasn't even human, which means he wasn't a member of the "black race," obviously.
There are "real world echoes or roots" to every depiction of human violence that has ever appeared in a movie, so that does nothing to negate the idiocy of his comments.
There are parallels to the real world in fiction (especially in the best fiction). So, yes, Thulsa Doom isn't, as a character, descended from Africans (heck, the Hyborian Age is pre-history), so inside the fiction, no, it's not the same thing.
But there are images that are presented on-screen which have real-world similarities or can evoke images of the real world or history, sometimes in disquieting ways. Since there is so much racial violence in real life, I don't think it's hard to muster up the logic, empathy, and artistic appreciation to understand why those images speak to people in certain ways and disturb them.
AGAIN: because of Ebert's knowledge of history and society, one image affected him in the movie differently than the other.
"But there are images that are presented on-screen which have real-world similarities or can evoke images of the real world or history, sometimes in disquieting ways."
I already addressed that. Again, that applies to any and all simulated human violence that has ever been depicted in any movie. There are a couple strains of radical leftism that were fueling his idiocy here:
Strain #1: The laughable idea that a racially-motivated violent crime is somehow worse than the exact same crime sans racial motivation.
Strain #2: The laughable idea that, e.g., blacks can't be racist toward whites.
"Since there is so much racial violence in real life"
There isn't nearly as much of it as the mainstream media outlets would like you to think, and here in the U.S. for example, blacks kill over twice as many whites as the other way around:
Overall, more than twice as many black-on-white homicides occurred compared with white-on-black homicides.
To be sure, homicides in which the offender and victim were of the same race have vastly outnumbered interracial homicides for the past ten years. FBI data show that while 500 black-on-white killings and 229 white-on-black killings were reported in 2015, 2,574 homicides were committed by whites against other whites, and 2,380 by blacks against blacks.
"I don't think it's hard to muster up the logic, empathy, and artistic appreciation to understand why those images speak to people in certain ways and disturb them."
First, it's idiotic to draw a parallel to a white-on-black racial crime when the character wasn't even black (or human, for that matter), and in the context of the story, it wasn't even remotely racially motivated. Second, if you're going to be an idiot, at least be a consistent idiot and draw the same type of parallel to the beheading-of-the-mother scene, especially since, in real life, black-on-white homicides are a bigger problem than white-on-black homicides, contrary to what the leftist MSM outlets duped Roger 'Not the Fastest Car on the Lot' Ebert into believing.
reply share
If you don't think that imagery in movies can evoke thoughts outside of the movie, then we're going to have to part ways on this one.
If a character played by a white man in a movie enslaved and whipped a character played by a black man - even if they were playing space aliens or whatnot - that image would fire specific thoughts about real-world racism into one's head.
The long and the short of it is that if you don't agree with that statement, then we'll never find common ground here.
"If you don't think that imagery in movies can evoke thoughts outside of the movie, then we're going to have to part ways on this one."
I never said or suggested any such thing, so that's a non sequitur on your part. However, if the movie evokes thoughts outside of the movie that don't logically follow from what's happening onscreen, then it's idiotic to criticize the movie for something that's your own problem.
"If a character played by a white man in a movie enslaved and whipped a character played by a black man - even if they were playing space aliens or whatnot - that image would fire specific thoughts about real-world racism into one's head."
That's not even close to what happened in this movie, though it did happen in Unforgiven (1992). I wonder what Ebert had to say about that? Oh, that's right, he didn't say anything about it, and he gave it 4 out of 4 stars:
Okay, I've been over this with the other fella, but let me try again.
First: I don't have a problem with Conan the Barbarian. It's a great film and I love it.
Second: I was trying to explain what I assumed was Ebert's (small) objection. Keeping in mind that Ebert gave the film three stars (he liked it a lot), he quibbled with the image, saying it made him slightly uncomfortable because those images evoked certain unsavoury things in real life.
Yes, within the context of the film, that makes sense. And, yes, James Earl Jones and Arnold Schwarzenegger were great choices irrespective of their races; so I'm on-board with casting.
In fact, again, I don't have a problem with the film. All I was trying to do was to try and explain why Ebert felt strange where the film presented an Aryan Superman beheading a black guy.
Great post, I don't think I fully appreciated this film although it has always been one of my top 5 movies.. the immersive soundtrack, the stunning visuals and while there is little dialogue a lot of the time the characters communicate via body language and indication and you hardly notice the lack of talking.
You're right but politics is just an extension of character and personality on a group level.
Why is Conan free?
"For no one - no one in this world can you trust. Not men, not women, not beasts. This you can trust." - the sword.
Conan is free because he is self reliant. Not only because he is strong and can defend himself, but because he is free of desire for the trappings of civilized society. He can't be tempted or bribed, because he doesn't desire or envy.
He doesn't blame others, he doesn't think the world owes him anything, he doesn't even pray to his god for help!
"but at birth he breathes power to strive and slay into a man's soul. What else shall men ask of the gods?"
That's another great concept in the movie (not sure it's the same in the novels): a God is not there to listen to your complaints and give you an illusion of protection, you have to EARN his favor by showing your worth in battle.
I think it's a much better divinity to look up than the ones of our age because he makes you get the best out of you instead of putting false guilt and false hope in your heart like those "gods" most people chose to worship in our age.
I agree with everything you wrote but I still don't see the "right wing" part : to me Conan about individualism, and that is "above" politics (or "outside" of it).
To me, politics are a ruse of the powerful people of the civilized world to divide those without power: IMO, Conan doesn't understand that concept and if he does he won't like it one bit.
Maybe it's our perspective that it's different: my country was under "right-wing" dictatorship for some time so we associate "ring wing" with control, restrictions and no freedom of choice.
So pretty much the opposite of what Conan embodies for me.
In ex-communist countries I assume they will associate what I wrote above with "left wing": anyway, both "wings" are just a despicable creation of those who pull the strings to divide and conquer everybody else.
Anyway, as long as we agree that this movie is AWESOME it's all good for me: I wish more people would appreciate the majesty of this masterpiece instead of just wanting fast-edited action scenes all the time :(
We'll never get movies like this one ever again, or Bladerunner: you know, intelligent movies.
Agreed, and Bladerunner is also a masterpiece and much better than the book it is written upon, as is Conan, though the short stories are still worth a read.
Agreed: the film is like a ballet for men. It's got almost no dialogue and portrays its characters through movement and combat. These people aren't speakers, they are doers.
The film is poetic, lyrical, has wonderful music, and its engagement with the riddle of steel and the philosophical conflict between Thulsa Doom and Conan, each searching for power and the answer to the riddle, gets quite profound. It never spells out its answers - if, indeed, it provides any - but what is there is thought-provoking, emblematic of human nature, and celebrates the primal - so often ignored in our academic, tech-driven world. This promotes a connection to truth, honour, codes, and willpower that is so often ignored or even scorned today.
It's a marvelous film, grossly underrated, terribly misunderstood, and dripping with artful power. The music alone should make it a hall-of-fame film, but everything else about the movie - the look and feel of it, the philosophy, the action! - all works at a grand level.
It's also sincere. There's very little irony here. Maybe just enough not to let the movie sink into a pedantic mode or to lose sight of its fun and adventure.
It's much, much better than it appears, has a reputation for...even than the books it was based on. Howard's stories are pulpy and a little one-dimensional compared to the big screen adaptation. Not that they don't have their charms or great moments.
That said, I think it's got pockets of fans on the internet who are, more and more, pointing out the majesty of the film, and I hope that in a few years it will become lauded.
I'm not sure how much the film is reviled because of a "right-wing" stance so much as it is just (mis) perceived as a "meathead movie" or a "dumb action picture". I think most people think of it as a "stupid" movie for goons - just another Ahnold vehicle. They're not against it because it has politics of one kind or another but because people think it doesn't have a brain at all. And they are wrong.
I agree with everything, but your last paragraph nailed it. Nobody except the very few extremely political people will see this movie as political and hate or love it for that reason. But a lot of people are are turned off at the first glance of the fantasy setting combined with half-naked Arnold running around so they never give it a chance it deserves.
Yeah, if it were just a perception of right-wing ideology, people wouldn't like The Dark Knight, either, since Batman goes full Homeland Security in that one.
Quite right.
And Conan himself is not just all brawn, but also something of a philosopher -both in the film and books-, who reflects on the world and his own condition.
Milius's film shows very well how Conan's philosophy, understanding of his own way of being-into-the-world, ideas about religion, women, etc. all evolve throughout his adventures:
How he gradually learns that neither Steel (his Father's philosophy), nor Flesh (Tulsa Doom's philosophy) move the world, but rather the Will that wields both (he's seen holding both his father's broken sword and Doom's severed head in the finale, and tosses both; he's able to subdue the entire cult and its remaining followers through his sheer presence, fearlessness and willpower, without weapons or political power).
How, as a child, he blindly accepts his father's tenets about religion (the opening monologue about Crom), then comes to thinks of one's faith as something to oppose and defend against other faiths (“Crom laughs from his mountain at your Four Winds!”), but finally understands that the purpose of God and religion is to serve men, not pit them against each other (Conan's prayer to Crom before the Battle of the Mound: "Grant me one request... and if you don't listen, then to hell with you!").
How he goes from being a lustful beast used as breeding stock, to understanding the potential dangers of casual sex (the encounter with the witch), to understanding the profound attachment and meaning of commitment to another human being (Valeria, whom he treats as his equal).
At the end of the film, Conan doesn't try to take advantage of the rescued princess who worships him and kneels before him: he instead gives her back her dignity and takes her to her father.
How he goes from the simple, belligerent worldview and politics of a thug (“Crush the enemy, see them driven before you, and hear the lamentation of their women...”), to a materialistic world view (his “Tony Montana phase” -so to speak- where he literally drowns in his soup, covered in jewels and gold), to a higher understanding of morality, honor and a more philosophical view of the transience of existence (“No one, not even you, will remember if we were good men or bad, why we fought, or why we died. All that matters is that few stood against many.”)
My favourite sequence in the film has to be when Conan’s chased by feral dogs after having gained his freedom, enters an abandoned tomb as a frightened brute still in chains, and emerges from it a free man, with purpose and a sense of History as well as his own place in the world, after his encounter with the remains of the Old Warrior King.
Something deep happens in this sequence, and it’s all communicated very cinematically, with only a single word of dialogue (“Crom!!”) in the whole 5min that it lasts.
And of course, Poledouris’s titanic score…
You've nailed so much of what's deep about this film in your posts; great analysis of Conan's arc(s).
That last point, though, about these deep, profound moments and pivot-points for the character being communicated through movement, action, event, and music rather than words (Crom! aside) is what makes the film kinda genius to me. It's like a ballet. But instead of a plie, it's swordfighting. It's ballet for men.