Five Great Movie Crucifixion Scenes*

*that aren't from movies about Jesus

The first still from Mel Gibson's upcoming Robocop reboot

After bunnies and chocolate eggs, the most prominent image of Easter is that of Jesus Christ crucified on the cross. It's an image that permeates more than just Easter. There are few other images in our Judeo Christian-based culture that are quite as resonantly iconic (well, if you leave out the Judeo part, anyway). The image of the 11th and 12th Stations of The Cross have been revisited by artists in many different mediums over the last twenty or so centuries.

Film makers are no exception. In the history of cinema, many directors have gone there and in many different ways. A good deal have gone to the literal representation of the crucifixion in biblical films like William Wyler with Ben Hur and George Stevens with The Greatest Story Ever Told while others have taken more controversial routes like Norman Jewison with  Jesus Christ Superstar,  Martin Scorsese with The Last Temptation of Christ and, more recently, Mel Gibson with The Passion of the Christ. Far more prevalent, though, are the allegorical Christ figures of movie history. Peruse through enough academic articles and serious-minded fan websites and you will find alleged Christ parallels in every cinematic icon from Rhett Butler to Luke Skywalker.  Many times the perceived savior allusion is more than just literary in nature; they are visual and cinematic in nature and they usually key thematic and dramatic scenes in film. The image most commonly cinematically referred to is that of the crucifixion of Christ. These scenes borrow not just the thematic concepts of the crucifixion but much of the classic iconography of the crucifixion as well: outstretched arms, nails through the hands or wrists, the crown of thorns and the spear in the side, to name a few.

For some, these visual crucifixion cues are more apparent and meaningful than others. For someone raised Catholic as I was (though I'm most definitely in the "fallen" category now) and who was later taught film criticism by a Jesuit priest, such images leap off the screen. For those with more secular upbringings who were taught film criticism (if at all) by, say, an avowed Marxist, probably not so much. However, as Marshal McLuhan was fond of saying, "The medium is the message". If those images are up there on that movie screen and a viewer notices it, consciously or not, then they do have some kind of meaning.

I could spend a blog post each week pointing out each and every visual Christ allegory that has ever appeared in a movie at one time or another. I've narrowed it down to five of my favourite examples. Here are five examples of films that have borrowed, used for their own purposes and some might say twisted and even ridiculed the imagery that, next to bunnies, is most strongly associated with this time of the year.

WARNING: Big time SPOILER ALERT, if you have not seen any of these movies.

Conan The Barbarian
1982
Directed by John Milius

Who's Standing in for Jesus?
Future Governor of California and champion body builder turned action movie star, Arnold Schwarzenegger. In this case, Mr. Schwarzenegger is playing legendary fantasy writer Robert E. Howard's most famous creation Conan The Cimmerian, an ancient and, I might add, pagan barbarian.


What's the context?
While seeking revenge for the murder of his father, Conan tracks down the evil, mystical and snake-themed warlord Thursla Doom, (James Earl Jones, who was then still trying to break away from that Darth Vader typecasting thing). After tracking down Doom, Conan attempts to infiltrate Doom's temple but is captured. Doom then sentences the barbarian to death by crucifixion. While tied to a tree (not nailed to a cross), Conan endures his torment in the most pro-active way possible. At one point, a vulture attempts to peck out Conan's eyes. Before the bird can do so, Conan bites the thing right in the neck and kills it. The barbarian is later rescued by one of his comrades in arms and is brought back to health with the help of the magic of an old wizard.

What makes it a crucifixion?
The religious allegories of the scene, while present as a stylistic motif, are a bit tenuous, to say the least. Conan almost, but doesn't quite, die while tied to a tree and is then brought back to "life" via supernatural means. Yeah, that's sorta kinda a crucifixion and resurrection metaphor, but, really, the only allegory that really holds up to scrutiny is Conan's incredible ability to survive hardship, torment and almost certain death.
The scene is often described a quintessential moment in defining the character of Conan, both in cinema and in literature. The scene itself is taken directly from a similar yet much more powerful description of Conan's similar crucifixion in Howard's original short story, A Witch Shall Be Born.

Artist Boris Valego's rendering of  A Witch Shall Be Born

"By the side of the caravan road a heavy cross had been planted, and on this grim tree a man hung, nailed there by iron spikes through his hands and feet. Naked but for a loin-cloth, the man was almost a giant in stature, and his muscles stood out in thick corded ridges on limbs and body, which the sun had long ago burned brown..."
-Robert E. Howard, A Witch Shall Be Born, 1934

That section of the original Conan story is some of the best writing of Howard's career and, in my opinion, the most powerful passage ever written for his signature character. In the story, Conan ends up on the wrong side of a bloody coup d'etat in ancient city state. He is literally crucified for defying Constantius, the new conqueror. Conan is nailed, not tied, to a cross, not a tree. The vulture scene is basically the same. Conan's only rescue comes in the form of a passerby, one of Constantius' rivals, who merely cuts down the cross and lets Conan fend for himself from there. Conan, of course, manages to survive to fight another day. In an effort to retain some believability, Howard has Conan spend several months recovering. Conan finally exacts his revenge when, after conquering his army, he finally captures and then crucifies Constantius, the very man that had Conan nailed to the cross in the first place. Not only does Conan overcome suffering at the hands of his enemies but he does quite aggressively.
"You are more fit to inflict torture than endure it.", says Conan to his former tormentor as he leaves the man hanging on the cross.
Not exactly "turn the other cheek" stuff, is it?
No, Conan is not a messianic figure of salvation and resurrection ; he survives crucifixion not because of his virtue or because of divine providence but because Conan The Barbarian (in both movies and books) is, quite simply a tough, determined and unkillable badass.

The Omega Man

1971
Directed by Boris Sagal

Who's standing in For Jesus?:
Charlton Heston, as U.S. Air Force Colonel Robert Neville, M.D..


What's the context?:
The Omega Man is the second of  three film adapatations of Richard Matheson's short story I Am Legend (the first is The Last Man on Earth in 1964 with Vincent Price and the third is I Am Legend with Will Smith in 2007).
In 1975 (which would have been four years into the Not-Too-Distant Future when the film was made) the Cold War has become one of biological warfare. Heston, an Air Force research physician, injects himself with an experimental vaccine, but it is too late. Most, if not all, of the world population has already succumbed to the plague created by the war. Heston believes he's the last man on Earth. He goes on to spend his days roaming the deserted streets of Los Angeles and his nights fighting off a cult of plague infected nocturnal albino vampires. The cult is determined to destroy all remaining technology and Heston along with it. However, Heston and his large cachet of automatic weapons and greenades have something to say about that plan.
Heston is rescued from the albino vampires one night by a group young hippie survivors. The young "kids of today" are immune to the plague because of their age. Can you tell this movie was made in the early 70's?
With the help of one of the young hippies, a former medical student, Heston is able manufacture a new vaccine from his own blood as he, of course, is immune to the plague.
Before he can get out of the city with the new vaccine, however, one of the albino vamps manages to impale Heston with a large spear. Heston dies slowly, posed in a Christ on the cross style crucifixion pose. The young hippies retrieve the serum he made, get out of the city and get the closing credits rolling.

What makes it a crucifixion scene?
K, this allegory is pretty ham-handed but, as the aforementioned Jesuit Priest who taught me film criticism used to say, "It's all there.". First, there's the outstretched arms and the slightly bent knees: you know, you basic Christ on a the cross position. Then Heston bleeds profusely from the wound inflicted by a large spear (yes, yes, he was not stabbed exactly in the side but let's not too holier than thou about every little detail, okay?). Not to mention the fact that the man has just effectively saved all of humanity from its own, you might say "sins", with a serum that was literally made from Heston's own blood.
Once it's all laid out like that, the symbolism is pretty forced and, frankly, even as these kinds of things go, kind of silly in how seriously it takes itself.
On the bright side, though, perhaps the grateful survivors of this future world will someday drink wine at communion each week, as a way of symbolizing the sacrifice of the Blood of Heston...

Blade Runner

1982

Directed by Ridley Scott

This image is closer to that of a Resurrection that it is to that of a Crucifixion but more on that later.

Who is standing in for Jesus?

Rutgar Hauer, as the powerful, menacing yet somehow spiritual and sympathetic biorobotic android, Roy Batty.

What's the context?

Blade Runner is the bleak dystopian future to end all the bleak dystopian futures.

Futuristic cop/bounty hunter or, if you prefer, Blade Runner, Rick Deckard (Harrison Ford) is assigned to track down and "retire" (ie: kill) a group of rogue biorobotic androids known as replicants.  The replicants, lead by the creepily charismatic Roy Batty (Hauer) have escaped from what basically amounts to slavery to seek out Dr. Eldon Tyrell. Tyrell is head of the eponymous Tyrell Corporation, creators and manufacturers of the Replicants. That makes Tyrell something of a God figure, at least as far as the replicants are concerned, anyway. As Deckard hunts the replicants, he seems to become increasingly cold and inhuman, even as he becomes romantically involved with a replicant. Meanwhile, the fugitive replicants appear to be gaining more humanity as they come closer and closer to the end of their genetically programmed two year life span.

In the film's climax, Deckard has a dramatic show down with the surviving replicants on a rooftop in the rain. He is tormented physically and psychologically by the increasingly powerful and menacing Batty. As Batty realizes his time is coming to and end and that he is starting to lose control of his physical body, he drives a nail through each of the palms of his hands, in attempt to stop them from shaking. Moments later, after rescuing Ford from falling off the roof and saving his life, Hauer sits down in the rain on the rooftop and declares that it's "time to die.". He droops down into a still position and releases a white dove that he had (for some reason) grabbed a hold of earlier. The dove flies directly up into the air in slow motion as the camera follows it from below.

What makes it a crucifixion scene?

The religious allusions in Blade Runner are a bit more subtle and nuanced than in the other films mentioned in this post. They are one element in a wonderfully multifaceted palate that deals with many themes and concepts, both visual and thematic. They are stylistic, cultural, philosophical and, yes, even theological in nature.
Let's stick to the theological stuff.

Among other things, biblical allusions and references abound in Blade Runner.  Ford in one scene deals with street vendors in outdoor markets that have a strong visual and aural middle eastern biblical vibe to them. He interrogates an exotic dancer who performs with a snake, a biblical symbol of Satan, that in the words of the host of her show, "once corrupted the soul of man".Tyrell is portrayed as a powerful, and, yes, an almost God-like figure who lives in a temple-like skyscraper, the top of which can only be ascended to in a glass elevator that overlooks the city, the sky and the stars.
At the end of the film, Batty performs his own self-crucifixion, then saves Deckard's life and then dies. As he dies, he releases the white dove that flies upwards. A white dove often symbolizes the Holy Spirit, which, coincidentally, also left Christ as he died on the cross (the dove could also be interpreted as symbolic of Batty's soul). The Christ allusions end there ,though. There is no resurrection for Batty. Yet the end of the film suggest that there may be a resurrection, at least thematically, for Deckard.

Of course, director Ridley Scott is not drawing perfect direct lines between Batty and Jesus. Rather, he is playing with these archetypal cultural images to create an impression. By drawing these religious allusions, even they are only perceived subconsciously, Scott is playing with the issue of existentialism vs spirituality. Batty, an artificial being created by humans and the supposed evil villain of the piece becomes a figure of great humanity and redemption as he clings to his final moments of life. The white doves suggests not only possible savior overtones but, on a more basic level, it suggests that this non-human being perhaps did, in fact, have a soul. The world of Blade Runner is one in which humans can create life via their own technology, both human and animal. It's life that, as it turns out, could have more potential for humanity and spiritualism than its creators. The humans of Blade Runner live in a world dominated and even partly destroyed by that same technology that created artificial life.
Is there a God in the midst of all of this bleak, technologically dominated world of the future? Or, in a world where its technology is so powerful, is humanity God?

Like many great films (and even art in general), Blade Runner raises more questions than it answers.

Robocop

1987
Directed by Paul Verhoven

Who's Standing in For Jesus?
Peter Weller as Officer Alex Murphy, soon to become a super cyborg cop, Robocop.


What is the context?
Another dystopian not-too-distant future outing, only this one is just a tad more bleak than The Omega Man and at least as bleak as Blade Runner.
In the crime ridden no man's land that is Detroit of the near future, the police force has -in the ultimate satire of Reagan era politics - been privatized. The Omni Consumer Products Corporation is now in charge of the cops and, boy, have they got some cool ideas for technological upgrades to the force. One of their new innovations involves building unstoppable cyborg super cops. Their first guinea pig for the new law enforcement product line is Officer Alex Murphy. Murphy is selected for the job after he is killed in the line of duty. Killed, I might add, in one of the most brutal killing scenes in cinema history.
Once "legally dead", Murphy is fused with mechanical robot parts and becomes the ultimate law enforcement machine, known simply as Robocop.  Or as the movie poster puts it: "Part Machine. Part Man. All cop." The film is never clear as to whether Murphy was killed and actually brought back from the dead via technology or is just almost killed and given a new lease on life via technology.

Whatever the case, Murphy's death at the hands of some of the most sadomasochistically twisted villains this side of Deliverance, is akin to a crucifixion. In the hands of audacious Dutch director Paul Verhoeven, in his first mainstream Hollywood feature, Murphy's death scene is actually a tad more than just akin to Christ on the cross.

All of Verhoeven's films, from his early art-house European films like The 4th Man to his big mainstream Hollywood movies like Starship Troopers, Basic Instinct and even the much maligned Showgirls, feature some from of thematic crucifixion and/or resurrection, usually centered around the film's central character.

Why makes it a crucifixion scene?
The crucifixion allegories in this movie are bit more subtle than those of Conan The Barbarian or even those of The Omega Man (similar to Blade Runner, though). The imagery may not be immediately consciously obvious to the casual viewer. I've found that calling Murphy's death scene a crucifision allegory is often met with the classic "you're reading to much into it" rebuttal that film symbolism interpretations are often met with. Yet, at the same time, I often also hear people who have just seen Robocop for the first time, bring up the crucifixion angle without prompting.

Take a look at the scene below and you'll see what I mean (warning for the uninitiated, it's pretty violent and disturbing).

In particular, Murphy's hand being blown off with a shot gun at close range is a nail through the palm of the hand taken to the next level. He is "killed" in an outstretched arm position. That crucifixion image is a little less on the nose on account of the fact that the man is missing an arm at the time. Murphy's final bloody head wound is a more brutal version of a crown of thorns. The visual allusions are indirect and subtle, yet still there.
The crucifixion imagery works on an almost subconscious level. It is an excellent example of Verhoevan's unique ability to create audaciously over-the-tip visuals yet still maintain an air of subtlety at the same time.
I actually agree with the "don't read too much into it" argument but not so much in terms of the imagery but more in terms of the conclusions one might make from that imagery.
Sure, Murphy/Robocop goes through his own version of crucifixion and he sees his own version of a resurrection when he is transformed into the savior hero of Robocop. However, even within the film's own terms, Robocop is not Jesus, nor is he meant to be. Verhoeven uses the Christ parallels as a means of creating a deeper and more emotional connection with a larger than life hero (literally, in this case). He does this through the use of deeply rooted, powerful, culturally based iconography. At the same time, he is also using the Jesus allegories as an ironic juxtaposition with a bleak world of violence, social disorder and immorality.
Is Robocop really a savior? Or just a promulgation of more violence, death and disorder? Is a world so mired in crime and corruption even capable of redeeming itself? Is such a world's salvation even within the reach of a savior like Robocop?
Discuss.

Life of Brian
1979 
Directed by Terry Jones

Who's Standing in For Jesus?
Graham Chapman as Brian, but he's more standing near than standing in.

What's the Context?
And now for something completely different....
Brian is this guy, see, who just happened to be born in Bethlehem in the stable next door to the one that Jesus Christ was born in on the same night. He spends most of the rest of his life either being mistaken for or living in the shadow of, the true Messiah.
The premise of Brian gives the legendary British comedy troupe, Monty Python, an opportunity to do some of the best and most irreverent biblical comedy ever.
Many have taken the film to be critical and insulting to Jesus, his teachings and to religon in general. However, really, the film is full of comedy that goes something like this:
Brian (addressing a large crowd, hanging on his every word): "You are all individuals!"
Crowd: (in unison) "We are all individuals."
Pause
Lone voice in the crowd: "I'm not.".
Or the scene in which an organization known as the Judean People's Front talk about they despise their bitter rivals, The People's Front of Judea.
It's quite clear that Python's objects of satire are the institutions, culture and subsequent misinterpretations of Christianity.  It's no wonder that much of the clergy spoke out so strongly against the film.
Life of Brian ends with Brian, as seems to be his lot in life, following in Christ's footsteps and being, you got it, crucified (along with, I might add, all of the rest of the Python troupe in various other roles).


What makes it a crucifixion scene?
Duh.
This being a comedy and all, there is certainly none of the violent imagery of the crucifixion seen in other films on the subject, both allegorical and literal. No hands are nailed to crosses, there is no crown of thorns and no large spears are poked into Brian's side. Still, though, the image of the film's lead character stuck up there on a cross to (unlike the real savior) die for no good reason is just a tad of a heavy note  with which to end a comedy.
Python handles it brilliantly.
Eric Idle, hanging there on a cross just next to Brian, breaks out into song. The song, "Always Look on the Bright Side of Life" is so inanely happy and optimistic that it puts the final musical numbers of most Disney musicals to shame. The end of Life of Brian is one of the greatest strokes of comedic genius in all of Pythondom (but let's not overstate it).
On the one hand, there is the obvious comedic contrast of a happy musical comedy song (with just a touch of  Python's infamous cynical irony) sung be a group of people about to die the horrific death of crucifixion. It's easy to see how some may consider the scene to be a complete mockery of the crucifixion of Christ and the value and beliefs that all of Christianity stands for, thus making it utterly blasphemous.
It isn't really, though, if you think about it.
Even with all of its ironic cynical satire, "Always Look on the Bright Side of Life" is an incredibly catchy song that ultimately exudes happiness and optimism in almost every note. Listen to Canadian folk singer Bruce Cockburn's live cover version of the song and notice the enthusiasm with which the audience sings along. Then try and tell yourself  that is not so. Still not convinced? Try singing "Always Look on the Bright Side of Life" to yourself and see if you're not feeling better after a verse or two.
Happiness, optimism and the belief that much better things are coming, even in the face of the bleak and horrific present; I'm sorry, but, isn't that what Christianity is all about?

Happy Easter, 

Passover,
Greek Orthodox Easter

and 

Spring 

Everybody!

Thought I'd leave you on a pop culture Christ allegory image that really didn't go down so well,
though it was not religious groups who objected, but comic book fans!

1982 : A Great Year for SF/Fantasy Movies or The Greatest Year for SF/Fantasy Movies?

There are some years that are known, for some strange coincidence of circumstances or another, as  the year in which a number of great classic movies were released. The most notable example is probably 1939, the year that such classic movies as The Wizard of Oz, Gone With the Wind, Stagecoach, The Women and The Hunchback of Notre Dame hit movie screens.  Or, another example might be that Jaws, Nashville, Dog Day Afternoon, One Flew Over The Cuckoos Nest and Barry Lydon were all released in 1975.

But what about a year when many classic films from one specific genre all came out at the same time? That year was 1982 and the genre was Science Fiction and Fantasy.

Not long ago, in the course of my research for many of my other blog entries, I started to notice something. I saw that a great many of  films released in 1982 were classic, cult, influential or really good (and, in some cases, all of the above) science fiction and fantasy movies.  I had come across this coincidence once or twice before but it was not unit I saw all the SF/Fantasy releases of '82 lined up back to back that the true significances of the year really hit me.

1982 is arguably the year that the SF/Fantasy genre really came into its own both in terms of its cinematic aesthetic and as a viable source of assured box office success.

By the early 80's, there had already been a number of creatively and commercially successful SF/Fantasy films: Star Wars, Close Encounters of the Third Kind, Alien, The Empire Strikes Back, two Superman movies, the first Star Trek movie and (if you count it as part of the genre) Raiders of the Lost Ark, to name a few. The genre was finally breaking free of its previous status of being confined to schlocky low budget B-movies and "silly kids stuff".

It was also an era were visual effects were coming into their own, particularly in the fields of matte technology, stop-motion animation, prosthetic make-up, animatronics and perhaps most importantly, in the still nascent craft of Computer Generated Images or (as it would become popularly known years later) CGI.

Another factor new to the movie biz in '82 was the emergence of home video. Many of the that year's SF/Fantasy movies ended up finding a bigger audience on video than they ever did in their original theatrical release (remarkably bigger, in some cases).

The SF/Fantasy movies of 1982 took all those factors to next level and beyond; the genre would never be the same again. Take a look at the SF/Fantasy movies that entered the world of cinema in 1982 as they are listed here in order of their release dates....



Swamp Thing
Released February 19,1982
D: Wes Craven

The precursor of today's comic book movie craze....sort of.

In the early 80's, despite the surge in the SF/Fantasy surge, movies based on comics were few and far between. You had the Christopher Reeve Superman franchise and that was about it. And, let's face it, Swamp Thing is hardly Superman.

The story of a scientist turned into...well...a...swamp...um...thing in a lab accident had been something of a cult comic hit in the 70's. The character would later turn out to be enduring enough to see a number of reworkings, (most famously by the innovative comic writer, Alan Moore). The movie, however, is a tad more conventional. It stars future Twin Peaks star Ray Wise, former Maude star Adrienne Barbeau and, oddly, sophisticated French actor Louis Jordan.

The title was the subject of much derision by non-comic book fans back in the day.  For the uninitiated, Swamp Thing does sound like a schlocky B-movie premise and the film does, to an extent, play to those expectations. Those two factors may well be what impacted the film's initial box office disappointment. Over time, though, Swamp Thing did build a cult audience (through, you guessed it, home video). It was enough of a following that a sequel, Return of Swamp Thing, was finally released in 1989.

A pre-Nightmare on Elm Street Wes Craven (already known for his cutting edge horror movies like The Last House on the Left and the original The Hills Have Eyes) directed Swamp Thing. Craven tends to play down the horror genre potential of Swamp Thing in favour of an interesting mix humour and action. Reportedly, Craven was attempting to convince studio execs that he could direct more mainstream fare featuring larger scale action sequences and bigger name actors.

While not necessarily true to the spirit of the comic at the time, Swamp Thing is a fun movie, that is a fascinating anomaly for both its director and its time.




Cat People
Released April 2, 1982
D: Paul Schrader

If you prefer your horror fantasy stories about human feline transformation  to be steeped in generous amounts of nudity and erotica, Cat People is definitely the movie for you.

The film is probably best remembered today for the David Bowie song of the same name (of which there were two different versions, the Giorgio Moroder produced movie version and the alternate version that appeared on Bowie's Let's Dance album).

Cat People is a remake of French-American director Jacques Tournier's fascinatingly offbeat 1942 cult horror movie of the same name. The remake was directed by Paul Schrader, who has also written screenplays for some of Martin Scorsese's best films including Taxi Driver, Raging Bull and The Last Temptation of Christ.

Similar to its source material, Cat People is closer in nature to fantasy than horror. The moody and atmospheric portrayal of a people who transform into a lethal panthers by night is kinda creepy but not really all that scary. How could it be when Natasha Kinski, the female lead, spends something like 80% of the movie completely naked?

I remember a few years after this movie came out, a friend of mine asked me if I wanted to go see Wim Wenders' film, Paris, Texas which also starred Kinski. Having only seen her in Cat People, I answered, "Yeah. I really want to see what Natasha Kinski looks like with her clothes on.".





Conan The Barbarian
Released May 14, 1982
D: John Milius

Robert E. Howard's best known and most successful creation finally made it to the big screen in '82.

Conan made his way into movie theaters via a successful line of Marvel Comics adaptations and the brisk sales of the Conan paperbacks boosted by the babes and beefcake cover art of legendary artist Frank Frazetta. Marvel, Frazetta and the movie's Libertarian director John Milius had much more influence on the portrayal of Conan in this film version than did the original Howard short stories.

The comics, the Frazetta covers and the movies' (the first one in particular) vision of Howard's barbarian wanderer shifted one specific interpretation of the character to what is now essentially the definitive image of Conan in pop culture. Personally, I've always found that particular popular interpretation to be more misogynistic and more generally hostile in nature than its source material. True, Howard's stories were written for an almost exclusively male audience in the 1930's and thus weren't exactly a bastion of political correctness to begin with. The extremities Conan has been taken to in the 75 years since Howard's death, however, I find are just a little too catered to appeal to horny, socially disenfranchised 14 year-old boys.

Don't get me wrong.  I'm as into well-crafted unapologetically male escapist anti-heroes as the next geek. It's when that escapist fantasy transgresses into a real world philosophy of life that it becomes an issue.

Nonetheless, there are few interesting and entertaining Howard-inspired episodic elements in Conan The Barbarian. For me, though, it's all a simple A to B revenge story with few unexpected twists or complications along the way. Every time I've seen the movie, I've spent the last twenty minutes saying "Oh, c'mon, just slay James Earl Jones already and get it over with."

My ideological, Robert E. Howard purist and  insider screenwriting perspectives aside, Conan The Barbarian is still regarded by many as an epic sword and sorcery Fantasy classic. For a lot of people who grew up with the movie on video, Arnold Schwarzenegger simply is Conan The Barbarian. Indeed, home video is really where Conan The Barbarian made its mark.

Though never quite achieving "blockbuster" status during its initial theatrical release, the movie still did reasonably well at the box office. However, the initial and subsequent home video releases more than tripled Conan The Barbarian's revenues.

That alone makes Conan The Barbarian seminal to the SF/Fantasy film genre.



The Road Warrior
Released May 21,1982
D: George Miller

Woah. Did this one come out in 1982 too? Yep. It did. Well, in this country it did, anyway.

Mad Max 2, as it was known in Australia, had already been released in that country on December 24, 1981 (a true Christmas classic if ever there was one). The Road Warrior was, of course, a sequel to Mad Max, the 1977 Australian post apocalyptic action movie. Mad Max was huge in Australia and died at the box office once it crossed the Pacific to North America.

Retitled The Road Warrior for its release here, the movie was not just that rare case of a sequel that was bigger and more successful than the original movie. It was that even rarer case of  90% of its audience not even knowing the movie was a sequel to begin with. The first movie was just part of the three minute prologue as far the average North American 1982 movie-goer was concerned.


The Road Warrior took in twice as much at the box office in the US and Canada as it did in Australia...and it took in quite a bit Down Under. Australian director George Miller's genre defining post apocalyptic western also, for better or worse, helped make Mel Gibson a Hollywood star. Does anyone remember when Mel Gibson was still Australian?

The Road Warrior follows the story of rival tribes and gangs battling it out in the wasteland of the Australian outback for the some of the world's last remaining gasoline. It is a violent and at times almost sadomasochistic action movie. It is also incredibly well made and just plain thrilling to watch. Everything from the stunts, to the cinematography to the editing to the music all work in concert to achieve the one goal: keep those car chases and crashes moving, moving, moving and then moving some more.

I remember when the movie came out on video, a friend of mine told me that his dad fell asleep while watching The Road Warrior. As 19 year-old kids, we could not get our heads around that one. The Road Warrior at that time was the most exciting, loud and action packed movie we'd ever seen. How could anybody possibly fall asleep watching it?

Almost 30 years later, I picked up a copy of the Blu-ray edition of the film on sale for a great price at Future Shop. I went home and put the disc on in all it's high resolution picture and 5.1 Tru HD surround glory. I'd had a long busy day that day.

So, you guessed it, I fell asleep watching The Road Warrior.





Poltergeist
Released June 4 , 1982
D: Tobe Hooper

Tobe Hooper, the director of the original 70's Texas Chainsaw Massacre goes quite a bit more mainstream Hollywood with the film, Poltergeist.

This is another one of those '82 films that is borderline, generically speaking. Is it Horror? Fantasy? Both? There are plenty of scares in Poltergeist for sure but there are also fantastical elements, big special effects and extensive action sequences. With Steven Spielberg producing, Poltergeist also blazes a path not often followed before or since, that of the family friendly horror movie.

A standout scene in Poltergeist takes place when one of the kids is attacked by a clown doll under his bed while it is possessed by evil spirits. While the possible exception of the Batman's arch nemesis, The Joker, never have I seen anything so chillingly capture that childhood fear of clowns. Yeah, sure they're funny looking with the red noses and the make-up and all but what are they hiding behind that bright garish face? Probably something bad.

Then there's the scene where the same kid's other toys are possessed by evil spirits. The toys dancing and flying about the room are fun at first but they get scary pretty fast. And let's not forget that it's the unforgettable blond little girl with the piercing eyes, after all, who is the detector and conduit for the evil spirits.

So many horror elements involving and aimed at kids is not common in these kinds of movies. Usually scary movies are aimed at frightening one specific audience to the exclusion of all others: what kids find scary is not what teenagers find scary nor is what teenagers find scary what frightens adults.Poltergeist is an attempt to frighten, excite and entrain everybody at once. It's evidence of the increasingly savvy marketing transformation that Hollywood went through in the 80's.

Or, like I said, a considerably more Hollywood mainstream  movie from the guy who made The Texas Chainsaw Massacre.




Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan
Released June 4, 1982
D: Nicolas Meyer

Considered by most fans to be the best of the Star Trek feature films, Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan almost never was. The much anticipated 1979 return of the crew of the USS Enterprise in Star Trek The Motion Picture made Paramount Pictures a ton of money. However, the production of the first Trek movie was an over-budget, behind-schedule nightmare. No one at the studio even wanted to think of jumping into that mud pit again. Then Paramount was bought by a multi-billionaire who also happened to be a Trekker. He was dying to a see second, better Trek feature film. So he hired veteran TV producer Harve Bennett to do the whole thing on the cheap and,well, the rest is Starfleet history.

Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan is a very entertaining retro action adventure film with the original TV cast playing above their game (especially Mr.Shatner). I've always felt, though, that the film is marred by a flawed ending. I was down with Spock's death, even the first time I saw the movie. My big problem comes after that. The final moments of Star Trek II are filled with hammer-over-the-head "Spock's not really dead! There will be a sequel!"  messages repeatedly spelled out in the both language of the film and in actual spoken dialogue. It kinda mucks up an otherwise enthralling, satisfying and (especially for fans) cathartic finale.

I've also heard many fans complain that director Nicolas Meyer was clearly unfamiliar with the series before signing on to the project ("Mr.Chekov...I never forget a face"). True, but Meyer still put together an extremely thrilling and exciting reunion for the crew of the Starship Enterprise. He would also go on to direct my fave Trek feature, Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country.

In Star Trek II, veteran actor and Chrysler pitchman  Ricardo Montalban turns in a  brilliant performance. He plays the titular character of Khan, the Melville-quoting, genetically engineered super human villain resurrected from the original 60's TV series. And, yes, for those of you wondering, that was Ricardo's real chest in the movie.

Star Trek II also made a big mark on the home video front but in a different way than some of the other '82 SF/Fantasy classics. It was the first VHS tape to be "priced to own". When released on video a year later in 1983, the Star Trek II VHS tape retailed at the then low, low price of 19.95. That was as opposed to $125, the previous average retail purchase price for movies on home video. Needless to say, the cheaper movies on VHS thing stuck.




ET: The Extra-Terrestrial
Released June 11, 1982
D: Steven Spielberg

ET, The Extra-terrestrial was the highest grossing movie of 1982 and is still one of the top 10 highest grossing movies of all time. Ironically, though, ET does not have the same cult status longevity amongst SF/fantasy fans that many of the other '82 SF/Fantasy movies do.

In fact, ET is the only Spielberg film that I've only seen once (yes, including Always). I remember enjoying it in the theatre back in '82. My favorite line still sticks in my head: "Why doesn't he[ET] just beam back up to his ship?" "This is real life, silly.". However, in the almost 30 years since, I have had no desire to revisit it. 

I think the reason ET never made a bigger impact with me was that whole thing just seemed a little too aimed below my age. I was 18 at the time and "sucky" was still something of an issue for in movies those days (don't get me started on the Ewoks).

And, with apologies to all the fans out there, ET is really sucky. Like seriously. Big time.

Not that Spielberg didn't do that over-the-top sentimentality well. He did. Like seriously. Big time.

That being said, ET really cemented SF/Fantasy has a major box office property. Prior to Star Wars in 1977, there was only one #1 grossing movie of its year in the SF/Fantasy genre. The year was 1968 and the movie was Stanley Kubrick's immortal 2001: A Space Odyssey (the box office numbers were no doubt bolstered by the numerous repeat viewings by the ever-growing LSD-dropping film-goer demographic).

By 1982,  ET was the third such #1 grossing film of its year (fourth if you count the James Bond movie Moonraker as SF/Fantasy) since Star Wars in 1977.  So what was the number of SF/Fantasy films that were #1 grossing movies of their years between 1982 and 2011, you ask? The answer: 13.  Quite the shift, that.

To his credit, Spielberg recently said that he regretted digitally futzing with ET some 25 years or so after its initial theatrical release. Well, George Lucas he ain't.





Blade Runner
Released June 25, 1982
D: Ridley Scott

Along with Star Wars and 2001, Blade Runner is one of the greatest and most influential SF films of all time.

Like a lot of people who saw Blade Runner during its initial theatrical release in 1982, I really didn't like it on my first viewing. Impressive visuals and effects but everything else seemed pretty muddled.

Part of the problem back then was that the film was not what audiences were expecting. Blade Runner came right after two massive Harrison Ford hit movies released two summers in a row: The Empire Strikes Back (1980) and Raiders of the Lost Ark (1981).

Having seen an early cut of Blade Runner and (more importantly) the preview audience reactions to early screenings of the movie, the studio marketing people quickly put together some cleverly deceptive trailers. They basically sold Blade Runner as was something it was not. The first trailers made Blade Runner look like some kind a film noire action adventure movie featuring a main character that was a hybrid of Ford's two iconic roles: Hans Solo and Indiana Jones. They also pushed the fact Blade Runner was directed by Ridley Scott, the guy who brought us that exciting SF horror thriller, Alien.

Only people who saw the movie in theaters or on video in the 80's (or who own the DVD or Blu-ray disc that contains multiple alternate release versions of the film) are familiar with one of Blade Runner's biggest initial problems. The movie originally had a voice-over track that was heard intermittently throughout the film. The voice-over was a problem for many reasons. It was clunky narration that was awkwardly written (by outside writers much later in the process, reportedly) to sound like a hard-boiled futuristic version of  Raymond Chandler or Mickey Spillane. The voice-over narration also attempted to pigeonhole the story and ultimately the film itself into something it was not; it over-simplified or over-explained or even misinterpreted many pf Blade Runner's more subtle narrative and thematic elements.  Perhaps worst of all, the voice-over features what is quite possibly Harrison Ford's worst acting ever. Overall, it was bad for the movie. And I have not even begun on the tacked-on studio-imposed happy(ish) ending that robbed that version of Blade Runner of any nuanced depth it may have had left.

It took me a some time to come around on Blade Runner. Interestingly, the movie did find its audience later on video. Its new-found success was on the big screen with revival showings at repertory cinemas (ask your grandparents, kids). Midnight screenings were especially popular. I remember one such screening at the old Seville theatre in Montreal as the time I first started reconsidering Blade Runner.

Ridley Scott's 1992 Director's Cut ,which omitted the awful voice over and the "fly away into the sunset" ending, marked a big improvement. It gave Blade Runner a much more suitable introduction to a new generation of fans.



They shoulda got whoever did the narration for this trailer to take over Ford's narration of the initial version of Blade Runner. Just sayin'.

The Thing
Released June 25, 1982
D: John Carpenter

The Thing is a movie that earned its legendary classic cult status entirely on home video.

Halloween and Escape From New York director John Carpenter's remake of Howard Hawks' 1951 film The Thing From Another World bombed in its original theatrical release. After its home video release, the SF thriller finally found its audience right there in their living rooms.

The Thing is another one of those films that straddles the generic line.  It's part SF, part horror and all paranoia. Carpenter's remake ditches the 1951 version's guy-in-a-suit monster (that was prevalent in a lot 50's SF and horror movies). Instead, Carpenter decided to return to the plot of SF writer John W. Campbell Jr.'s original 1938 short story, Who Goes There? (which the '51 version was ostensibly also based on). In Campell's story, The Thing is a shape shifting alien being capable of taking on the identity of just about any living thing (small "t"). One day this creature turns up at Antarctic research station manned by a very small crew. Do I really need to explain where the paranoia part comes in?

Many critics have stated that the film is heavily influenced by Ridley Scott's Alien. That is true only to the extent that both films are about a small crew of people facing a malevolent and unknown alien force in a confided environment. Beyond that, The Thing is its own movie . The visual effects, for instance, are of a different range and character than the creature in alien or of any other preceding monster movie, for that matter.

The Thing has a number of scenes featuring the eponymous creature making a fleeting appearance as it attempts to take the form of another one of the men (oddly the 50's version has women in the cast and the 80's version does not). Some of these scenes are very well directed. Others are incredibly well directed.

Outside of a couple of the main characters, we don't really get any insight into the who these guys living in a remote antarctic research station really are. The way they dress and  the general attitude seen in the way the uniformly strong cast plays the men is about as far character development goes. None of that, however, does anything to reduce to ever mounting tension that Carpenter builds so well.

The dialogue frequently refers to the outside temperature as "Forty below" but watching the way the cast plays being cold, I doubt any of those actors have ever actually experienced even 20 below, let alone 40.

BTW, stay tuned to this blog next week for more on new remake/prequel of The Thing.

Tron
Released July 9, 1982
D: Steve Lisberger

Tron is the shock troop of today's CGI special effects movie world. It also dates back to a pre-The Dude Jeff Bridges. Back when Bridges was still often identified as "Lloyd's son", he was just another hunky leading man and was never seen as the Oscar-winning respected Jedi master of the craft of acting that he is today.

Tron does for early 80's computers what Fantastic Voyage in the 60's did for the human body: have little people explore its inner workings in the most highly imaginative and inaccurate way possible.

I remember what amazed me the most about Tron was how Disney managed to come up with the "character" of Bit. Bit was essentially a digital version of the little cute child-like sidekick character that was requisite for all Disney movies back in the day. Also fascinating to me was Wendy Carlos' electronic score, particularly in the scenes where the anthropomorphized programs "interface" with the god-like "users". Carlos' haunting choral score for these scenes seems to suggest some kind of divinity on the part of the "users". I always wondered Carlos had managed to slip a subversive statement about religion in there.

This might win you a on-line trivia game some day: the inner world of the computer that Bridges' finds himself trapped in was designed by cutting edge comic book artist Moebius, who has also lent his talents to seminal SF.Fantasy films like Alien and The Fifth Element.

Tron is a movie that built a so much of a new audience on video that it took 30 years to accumulate the critical mass of fans necessary to make a sequel.

I remember being really impressed with the level of sophistication in the computer animation featured in Tron. A friend of mine who was studying computer science told me that "Oh, computer graphics are going to go wwwaaayyyy beyond that." . Stunned,  I replied, "No way!".




Q The Winged Serpent
Released October 29, 1982
D: Larry Cohen

Q The Winged Serpent is the only '82 SF/Fantasy movie still lingers today in relative obscurity. The DVD "special edition"'s that keep turning up suggest that this little over-looked lost gem of an exploitation movie still has at least a small but loyal cult following.

I don't remember Q The Winged Serpent playing in the theaters at all. I only caught up with it many years later on video.

The story involves a cult somehow resurrecting the Aztec flying god Quetzalcoatl (not to be confused with Quetzalcoatlus, the prehistoric pterosaur named after the flying serpent god) in 1982 New York City. The story of a giant winged serpent killing people off one by one in The Big Apple may not sound that promising but, trust me, stick with it.

NYPD detectives Richard Roundtree and David Carradine (wow, they finally got around to the Kung Fu/Shaft team-up I'd been waiting for my whole childhood ) investigate a perplexing series of rooftop killings.
A pre-Law and Order, pre-"I'm going to to go diss the entire American political system then move to Halifax and extol the virtues of alcoholism" Michael Moriarty plays a petty criminal who discovers where Q's nest is. He then attempts to extort the city in exchange for information on the creatures whereabouts.

The movie is funny, engaging, quirky and exciting all at the same time. Plus there are some unexpectedly strong performances, especially from Moriarty. Q The Winged Serpent is certainly worthy of the year in which it was released.

Seek this baby out.




The Dark Crystal
Released December 17, 1982

D: Jim Henson and Frank Oz

For my money, this is the best big screen project ever undertaken by Jim Henson (with the possible exception of The Great Muppet Caper). Not until Peter Jackson's Lord of the Rings films, has cinema seen a Fantasy world so thoroughly and masterfully created.

For instance, the evil race of the Skekis are the most fascinating film villains this side of Darth Vader. The heroine character of Kira, the gelfling, is compellingly and disturbingly attractive for a puppet. Those giraffe like Landstrider things are pretty cool too.

The screenplay for The Dark Crystal could have been written by Joseph Campbell with a polish by Carl Jung. The story and very nature of the fantasy world are all about the struggle between good and evil. The film tells the story of the quest to restore the natural balance between the two.

I remember seeing this movie at a matinee in a packed downtown theatre on Boxing Day 1982. The crowd of mostly younger kids was pretty darn quiet when those final credits started rolling. No doubt the movie's message was too Jungian for their tastes.

Something like that may account for The Dark Crystal's disappointing box office numbers back in '82. Probably it was a tad too sophisticated and dark for a movie featuring puppets made by the guys that gave us Kermit the Frog and Miss Piggy.

After all, it's no ET.






Now if only '82 could have also seen the release of Star Wars, 2001, Alien, Planet of the Apes, The Terminator, Forbidden Planet, Westworld and all three Lord of the Rings films then that would have been the perfect year for SF/Fantasy movies.

Conan The Cimmerian and Other Literary Adventure Heroes The Movies Mangled

Another film adaptation of Robert E. Howard’s classic pulp fantasy adventure hero Conan The Cimmerian will be arriving in cinemas soon. The new movie,  Conan The Barbarian, stars Stargate Atlantis’s and Game of Thrones' Jason Momoa as Conan and is directed by Marcus Nipsel who has previously successfully revived both The Texas Chainsaw Massacre and Friday the 13th  franchises.  

This will mark the third big screen outing for Howard’s immortal hero (anti-hero?) and the first cinematic appearance of Conan in 27 years.  As Howard fans on the Internet have already lamented, the trailers for Conan The Barbarian (and the title as well) make it look like the latest film version is merely a hyped up remake of the 1982 Arnold Schwarzenegger movie rather than more faithful adaptation of Howard’s Hyborian Age yarns.

Whether that is true or not, the initial reaction represents an oft repeated concern of the purist fans of literary adventure heroes towards film adaptations; that the movies just plain get it wrong. It's a tough dilemma for a film maker. With the possible exception of  more recent movie series like Harry Potter or Twilight, the vast majority of a potential movie audience has little or no familiarity with any given character's literary exploits. And movies and books are very different mediums. In order for one to effectively translate from one to the other, liberties must often be taken. Most fans probably understand those challenges, what is especially frustrating is when the movies do away with the spirit and intentions of the books.

Once a mass audience gets to know a character in big movies over time, for better or worse, they develop expectations around the character that are very hard to break. This especially becomes a problem when a generation or two grows up with that version of the character.  Try and put an authentic version of Howard’s Conan in front of an audience who have been watching the Schwarzenegger films since they were kids and you’ve got a problem that could put a major dent in your box office bottom line.

The case of the Conan movies vs the writings of Robert E. Howard is nothing new. Movies and literary adventure heroes, along with their fans, have been duking it out decades.

Here are some prime examples...

James Bond

Author of the James Bond novels, Ian Fleming once referred to Bond movie actor Sean Connery as "a Glaswegian lorry driver who mangles my character".  Many Fleming fans might be inclined to agree that sentiment.

The Bond novel, Goldfinger by Ian Fleming, opens with Bond sitting in a bar in the Miami Airport. He’s flying back from Central America where he has just carried out his assignment to kill a drug dealer who was working with the communists (the book was published in 1959). Bond reflects on the moment that he killed the man; how the man had life in him one moment and suddenly no longer had that life the minute Bond snapped his neck. His internal musings on his the nature of his dark and deadly occupation depict a man questioning his own morality and place in the world. Fleming's writing in that instance is almost existential in its poignancy.

The corresponding opening scene in the movie Goldfinger, sees Sean Connery as James Bond, on a similar mission, emerge from a pond with a plastic duck on his head.

Nothing can describe the difference between the Bond novels and the Bond films better than that comparison. The differences between the two is, at times, a very wide chasm.

Fleming, a WWII  British Naval Intelligence veteran, wrote the first Bond novel, Casino Royale, in 1952.  Described by Fleming as being a “blunt instrument” rather than a hero, the literary Bond bore only a passing resemblance to most of the film portrayals that audiences would come to know and love over the years. 

Fleming's Bond was something of a nasty character. He often struggled to keep his quick tempered aggression in check so that he could remain a cool, detached and efficient assassin.  And that’s often what Bond was depicted as the novels, a killer working for the British intelligence agency, MI6. Hence the term "License to Kill". 

Unlike the movies, Fleming's Bond rarely uttered a joke or a witty one-liners, least of all in regards to someone that he had just killed.  Fleming’s Bond did enjoy the lifestyle he shares with his cinematic counterpart.  He had very particular taste in things like liquor, clothes, cars and personal grooming, to name a few. These preferences were often based on Fleming’s own lifestyle at the time (not surprising that the man died so young).  Bond’s lifestyle was always treated seriously by the author.  Unlike the films, Bond’s lifestyle was never the stuff of comedic exaggeration or self parody.

Fleming’s Bond, like the movie Bond, saw plenty of sexual action as well. Though Fleming did state in interviews that he tried to keep Bond to only one sexual partner per book because any more would be stretching the credibility of the character and the story a bit too far; kind of a big difference with the movies there too.

In spite of their alleged "mangling", the early Bond films starring Sean Connery as 007 stayed somewhat close to at least the idea of Fleming’s Bond.  However, Connery developed something of a smirk addiction as the series continued. He's also not the kind of actor that loses himself in a role. Most likely, Connery's working class background lead him to play the lavish lifestyle habits of the upper class Bond with a sense of subtle yet bitter satire.   

The actors that followed Connery in the role of Bond strayed to and from Fleming to varying degrees. George Lazenby only played the role once in On Her Majesty's Secret Service ,in 1969, almost immediately following Connery's departure.  Lazenby was not an experienced enough actor to bring any kind of distinctive interpretation of the character to the table.   

Roger Moore took the part over from Live and Let Die in 1973 through to A View to a Kill in 1985. Moore played a highly campy character that happened to have the same name as Ian Fleming’s Bond.  Timothy Dalton, took over the role in 1987's The Living Daylights and is often denigrated by critics even to this day. 

Those criticisms are just a tad ironic when you consider that Dalton is often lauded by fans as one of the very best Bonds.  He was the only actor to play 007 who really and truly brought the spirit of Fleming to the role.  Watching Dalton in certain key scenes in The Living Daylights, you can almost hear Fleming’s prose describing Bond's characteristic repressed rage as Dalton broods.  The only problem was that neither the producers of the franchise nor the audiences coming off of 12 years of the Moore Bonds brand of mega escapism were on the same page as Dalton.  In a bit of direction most likely handed down from a corporate board room, he was told to tone down the brooding for his second and last appearance in the role in 1989's License To Kill. It was a direction that ultimately left Dalton with nowhere to go. 

Pierce Brosnan took over the role in Goldeneye in 1995. Brosnan's interpretation was something of a compromise between the lighter Bond of Connery/Lazenby/Moore and the darker Bond of Fleming/Dalton. His performance and the movies themselves often walked a blurred line between action and camp. 

Finally, Casino Royale, the Bond reboot of 2006 starring Daniel Craig as 007, brought back a darker Bond. Though Craig's Bond wasn’t entirely based on Fleming.  Some of the characteristics of Fleming’s Bond were there, to be sure, and the movie does follow much of the plot of Fleming’s novel, but, ultimately, Craig and the franchise both used Fleming and at the same time did their own thing with the character. 

The result seemed to satisfy both fans and mass audiences alike.

Matt Helm

Though not as widely known as Ian Fleming or James Bond, the Matt Helm spy novel’s film adaptations are a case of extreme mangling.  Between 1960 and 1993, American author Donald Hamilton wrote 27 novels centering on the exploits of the tough, hard-hitting, and very deadly secret agent named Matt Helm.   

Hamilton’s Helms stories were two-fisted, bare knuckled adventures filled with a gritty tense atmosphere. The character of Helm is cold and professional. The novels are all written in the first person and Helm describes his missions with the type of rough cynicism and dark dry humour often associated with Raymond Chandler or Mickey Spillane.  He also describes the violence and death around him  in chillingly dispassionate tones. 

The movies are, well, a tad different.

Four Matt Helm movies were made between 1966-69.  That was the height of the 60’s spy movie craze. It was also the height of spy movie silliness. The movies are outright comedies that redefine the parameters of wacky. 

Rat Pack legend Dean Martin plays Helm. Martin does not exactly stretch himself as an actor in the role. Not only does Martin maintain his classic recreational drinking, smoking and skirt chasing personality but he even ramps up that which was already a pretty steep ramp to begin with. The sexual innuendo one-liners never stop in the Helm movies, whether they are funny or not (most of the time, not). Nor does the parade of babes for Martin to smugly leer at.

The movies loosely used some plot elements of the Hamilton books.  For instance, in the novel The Ambushers, Matt Helm must stop a cadre of Nazis and Marxist revolutionaries from launching a stolen Russian missile from Mexico into the United States.  In the movie version of The Ambushers, Matt Helm must stop a cartoony South American revolutionary with an army of young women in khaki miniskirts from launching a flying saucer armed with a super duper laser beam.

Mike Myers has cited Martin’s (and not Hamilton’s) Matt Helm as a major influence on the creation of his of his 60's spy movie parody character, Austin Powers.  Both, for instance, have the cover profession of fashion photographer.  A number of the lines and scenes in the Powers movies are lifted directly out of Matt Helm.  Myers, fortunately, manages to make most of the Helm inspired humour much funnier.

Since 2002, rumours have been flying around the Internet that Steven Spielberg and his company Dreamworks has taken an interest in making a Matt Helm film closer in spirit to the Donald Hamilton novels. Alex Kurtzman and Roberto Orci, the guys who wrote the well received 2009 Star Trek reboot are reportedly writing the script. 

Die hard Hamilton fans will no doubt exult the day that a serious dramatic Matt Helm thriller comes to be.

Tarzan of the Apes

Tarzan is one of the most popular fictional characters of the 20^th century.  The character first appeared in print in 1912. The Disney animated movie adaptation of the character was a box office hit in 1999. That pretty much spans the century. During that time (and even since), there have been some Eighty plus Tarzan movies. The character is known all over the world and has multi-generational appeal and recognition.

However, comparatively few people are as familiar with any of the 25 or so Tarzan novels written by his creator, Edgar Rice Burroughs.  Very few of the Tarzan movies come close to portraying the Tarzan of Burroughs’ novels.

In original Burroughs novel, John Clayton, Lord Greystoke, is orphaned in the jungle and raised by a fictional species of apes. The name Tarzan means white skin in the language of the apes. And, yes, the apes have their own language in Tarzan’s world. He eventually teaches himself to read using books his parents left behind.  He is later discovered by a French explorer and learns French as his first human spoken language. Later, he meets and falls in love at first sight with an American, Jane Porter, for whom he learns English and becomes civilized. 

Burroughs’ vision of Tarzan is, quite simply, that of the noble savage. Tarzan is educated and very intelligent. He is strong, fast and has highly tuned senses. He has a very strong sense of morality and justice. He seems to be Burroughs' conception of the ideal man. Though Tarzan is certainly not without his dark, angry and sometimes even vicious side.

In later books, Tarzan marries Jane and uses his inherited aristocracy to set up a large estate in Africa, near where he grew up.  He lives both in and out of civilization, changing into his preferred animal skin loincloth whenever heading out into the jungle.  

Tarzan is, at various different times in various different books, is a French military intelligence officer in Algeria, discovers a valley of lost dinosaurs, is given an immortality potion by a witch doctor, fights the Germans in World War I,  shrinks down to seven inches in height, discovers the still living missing evolutionary link between man and ape and is a pilot for the British Royal Air Force during World War II.

In the movies, Tarzan has a really loud yell. 

Pre-Hayes code Hollywood clearly had no issues with side-ass.

For many years, the Hollywood series of films starring American Olympic Swimming Gold Medalist Johnny Weissmuller as Tarzan, dominated the popular consciousness of the character. That series of movies began with Tarzan The Ape Man in 1932 and continuing for decades, both with and without Weissmuller. 

In those films, Tarzan was never even alluded to as being a British aristocrat; he is uneducated, speaks in broken English and has a simple almost child-like personality.  Tarzan also has a Chimpanzee sidekick named Cheetah. Getting through Cheetah’s “comic relief” segments in these movies requires a great deal of patience.

The movies pick up in quality in the 1950’s, after Weissmuller has left the series and the producers finally decided to let Tarzan speak and act intelligently . Tarzan’s Greatest Adventure (1959) and Tarzan The Magnificent (1960), starring Gordon Scott are two of the better Tarzan movies out there. The 1960’s saw a Tarzan TV series featuring a well spoken intelligent Tarzan in the person of Ron Ely. However, it still never really captured the spirit of Burroughs.

The 1984 film Greystoke: The Legend of Tarzan, starring Christopher Lambert in the title role, follows some of the Burroughs story line from the original novel. The scenes of Tarzan growing up amongst the apes in the jungle are pretty close to the book. However, the story veers off significantly once Tarzan is brought back to civilization.

The Disney 1999 animated Tarzan also follows the early parts of the book quite closely.   Tarzan is depicted as teaching himself to read, for instance. However, once Tarzan meets Jane, it takes off on its own path.  As most Burroughs aficionados will tell you, however, there are no Phil Collins songs in the original novel.

One problem with the movie versions of Tarzan is that producers tend to like to cast the part based on physique first and acting chops second. To really pull the character off, you need a highly skilled, very physical and intense actor.  A Last of the Mohicans-era Daniel Day Lewis  or perhaps a Christian Bale type would be a step in the right direction.

The incredible motion capture CGI apes of the recent hit, Rise of the Planet of the Apes, certainly raises the specter of  a possible authentic to Burroughs Tarzan movie.

Conan The Cimmerian

One of Conan's early pulp appearances in the 1930's.

Unlike the other characters, Robert E. Howard’s Conan The Cimmerian has only seen two film adaptations, with a third only now on the way. While the first two films certainly have their merits and their fair share of fans, neither authentically captures the spirit of Howard.

Howard wrote the Conan stories for pulp magazines in the 1930’s.  While published in other forms after Howard’s tragic suicide in 1936, the stories did not really take off until the paperback editions of the 1960’s featuring the character defining cover art of Frank Frazetta.  A series of extremely popular Marvel comics followed in the 1970’s. By the 80’s, Conan was ready for the big screen.

Similar to Tarzan, casting is an issue in the Conan movies.  In Howard’s original stories, Conan is described as big, tall and muscular. However, the Frazetta paintings and the subsequent Marvel Comics take on Conan pretty much cemented an image in fans’ heads. The image was that of Conan The Bodybuilder. 

Enter Arnold Schwarzenegger.

While it is true that Schwarzenegger’s acting skills would improve somewhat over the years to come, it is safe to say that those skills were still very much in their nascent state at the time of the first Conan movie. Howard’s Conan, in spite of being a basically simple barbarian, does have some complexity and depth.  Arnie was  just not in the right place as actor at the time to be able to pull that off.

Conan writer director John Milius

Another issue in Conan The Barbarian vs. Conan The Cimmerian is that of writer and director John Milius.  Milius has very particular right leaning libertarian viewpoints that to, one degree or another, colour all of his films (particularly Red Dawn, Farewell to the King and the first draft of his screenplay for Francis Ford Coppola’s Apocalypse Now.) This is true of Conan The Barbarian.

There is a now famous line in the film, in answer to the question, “What is best in life?", Conan answers, "To crush your enemies, see them driven before you and see the lamentation of their women.” The line is not to be found anywhere in the writings of Robert E. Howard. Milius pulled the line from a book called Genghis Kahn: Emperor of all Men by Howard Lamb. Clearly, this a line that Milius connected with.






But is it really reflective of Howard’s Conan?

Howard doesn’t endow Conan with any easily discernible guiding principles. Unlike Fleming with Bond or Hamilton with Helm or even Burroughs with Tarzan, Howard does not spend a lot time letting the reader in on Conan’s thoughts and feelings.  He describes what Conan does more than he describes what Conan thinks.  

The character is a reactor. He never seems to want anything more than  roam the world, to be left alone, drink the occasional mead, enjoy the company of a young "wench" now and then and, ultimately, be left alone. It is only once Conan finds himself lured into a situation he cannot control that the sword comes out and the serious ass-kicking begins. 

Conan doesn’t value conquest for the sake of conquest. Even when Conan is involved in battles, he appears to have no problem with walking away from them once they are over. In fact, when Conan fights in battles it is often as mercenary and for his own personal gain. While Howard is on record as citing Lamb as one of his favourite writers, the presence of the line says more about Milius than it does about Howard.

This is true of most the rest of Conan The Barbarian. Ideas that are not Howard's abound. Howard's stories, in fact, mainly turn up in episodic form throughout the film. 

Similarly the revenge scenario of Conan The Barbarian in which Conan wants to avenge the death of his father gives him a little too much of an  understandable motivation for his actions. Hollywood films tend to like stories with easily discernible goals and motivations. However, one of the great things about Howard’s Conan is his unpredictability.

Conan The Destroyer followed in 1984.  The Conan sequel was much lighter in tone than its predecessor. It also had the rather campy presence of people like Grace Jones and Wilt Chamberlain.  It is a very old school fantasy adventure movie at heart.  Director Richard Fleischer (20,000 Leagues Under The Sea, Fantastic Voyage, Soylent Green) was one of the first directors to discover Schwarzenegger’s sense of humour. It is played up to the hilt and often to great effect. Conan The Destroyer marks the birth of the Schwarzenegger charisma that would lead Arnie through most of his movie work for the next 20 years but would not at all help the man in his subsequent political career.

Conan The Destroyer may be a fun movie but, ultimately it shares more in common with movies like The Seventh Voyage of Sinbad than it is to anything Howard ever wrote.

As for the new Conan movie well, it sure looks exciting anyway. And, well, the fans can, as always, only hope. 

These are but a few examples of the disappointment felt by many fans of many different literary heroes over the years. If there is an example that bugs you, please feel free to weigh in.