What makes a good protagonist character?  I was once given advice by a good friend about one of my characters who I created to be a warrior savant.  During one scene the character meets his match, but refuses to give up.  My friend told me he felt this was the most relatable the character ever was.  Not his brilliance as a combatant, but when he refused to give up despite the long odds.  With that advice in mind I completely changed the character to embody those traits rather than his previous traits of being a natural genius.  I still believe a character that has to face hardship to gain ability makes for a better hero and we return to the two Conan films to see how this trend has changed over the years.

Conan the Barbarian (1982) – The Wheel of Pain: Becoming Great

As I said in my previous post, the Schwarzenegger Conan is sold into slavery after his village is burned and his people killed.  In a dramatic montage we see him and dozens of other boys herded into a desert where they push a monstrous device the filmmakers dubbed “the wheel of pain.”  During the scene we see young Conan with many other slaves pushing the wheel.  Then adolescent Conan with fewer slaves pushing it.  Then adult Conan, now as Arnold, pushing it alone.  Conan is insinuated to have pushed the device for perhaps a decade and a half, some of that time alone; only the strength of his will keeping him alive and making him stronger.  Because of the strength he has gained, his rather benevolent slave master takes him to a fighting pit where he is instantly in over his head as a more experienced fighter rushes him, wounds him, and nearly kills him.  Again, Conan’s strength of will, along with the physical strength he gained pushing that wheel, overcomes the opposition and he defeats his opponent.  We then see another montage as Conan improves in the fighting arena.  Mako’s narration provides his impetus:

He did not care anymore. Life and death – the same.  Only that the crowd would be there to greet him with howls of lust and fury. He began to realize his sense of worth. He mattered. In time, his victories could not easily be counted. He was taken to the east, a great prize, where the war masters would teach him the deepest secrets. Language and writing were also made available, the poetry of Kitai, the philosophy of Sung…

Here we see him improving himself, fighting endlessly.  We see him training with masters, studying, practicing endlessly into the night.  We see Conan getting better so that when the time comes for him to fight for real, we know why he can and feel he has earned the victories over his enemies.  This is what makes him a great protagonist.

Conan the Barbarian (2011) – Born of Battle – The Chosen One

Recently there has been a strange trend in making our heroes the “natural genius” or “chosen one” that I find unusual; almost as though we want our heroes to be naturally better than us rather than to have them work for their abilities.  This “chosen one” trend can be seen in a lot of recent films.  The Matrix, Star Wars I-III, Eragon, and most disturbing to me (no joke) Kung Fu Panda, where the guy who worked his tail off to be great is the villain, and the “gifted” character who doesn’t have to work to be great is the hero.

In the 2011 Conan film Conan, in an interesting scene, is born when his pregnant mother is stabbed and his father performs an impromptu sword-cesarean.  We then see young boy Conan who wants to partake in a trial for the older boys to race through the mountain with a small egg in their mouths, those who return without breaking the egg can participate in battle.  The boys are ambushed by vicious, adult, tribal warriors during the race.  The other boys retreat but Conan stays to fight.  The young boy killing them all, beheading them, and returning to town without breaking the egg.  It makes for a rousing scene…however something is missing from the character.  We just accept our hero is naturally better than the older boys.  He is our hero and he’s gifted, even as a young boy he’s better than his peers, enemies, everyone but his father.  There is no progression from boy, to warrior.  He’s always mighty, and therefore many of his fights are less fulfilling because we know he’s gifted, and furthermore we don’t feel he has earned his strength.  He was “born of battle,” he just is great he didn’t have to work, train, and struggle to become great.

Many great, classic characters embody when I think of when I consider what makes a great hero.  Rocky immediately springs to mind; he knows he can’t beat the champ, saying:

Who am I kiddin’? I ain’t even in the guy’s league.  It don’t matter ’cause I was nobody before… That don’t matter either.  It really don’t matter if I lose this fight…  ‘Cause all I wanna do is go the distance…if…that bell rings and I’m still standin’ I’m gonna know for the first time in my life that I weren’t just another bum from the neighborhood.

It’s this we can all relate to.  Few of us are as slick and talented as Apollo Creed, but many of us feel like just another bum from the neighborhood and look for a way to disprove it.  It makes me wonder why so many of our recent heroes have been written to simply be great rather than earn greatness.  Is it an aspect of lazier writing (writers would rather just have characters be than explain why) or is it endemic of our culture?  No one wants to earn their greatness, we all just want to be granted greatness and declare ourselves great.

It might seem like a little heavy thinking for a discussion about a couple of fun fantasy-action-adventure films, but it is worth consideration.

The next post will be about the actors’ in both films; analyzing heroes, villains and how they are portrayed.

I came late to the Conan films. I knew it was where a young Arnold Schwarzenegger got his first big movie role, and I remember seeing parts of Conan The Destroyer as a kid, which makes sense as the sequel is far lighter and more kid-friendly than its predecessor, Conan The Barbarian.  In fact, I wasn’t really aware of the first movie until adulthood and didn’t see it until only two years ago.  I was vaguely aware of it, but always assumed when people mentioned Arnold Schwarzenegger in Conan they were talking about the one I had seen.

I saw the 2011 Conan the Barbarian starring Jason Momoa before I saw the 1982 Arnold film as it was on Netflix streaming.  I remember it got mediocre reviews, but I found it to be a fun action-adventure-fantasy film.  I thought it must outshine the original, I had seen The Destroyer, and despite a fun feeling and a really cute Olivia D’Abo (as a kid that was a big selling point) it was clear the modern take was superior…until I finally saw the 1982 version weeks after I saw the 2011 version.

Many agree the original 1982 Conan the Barbarian is a terrific, grown-up, action-adventure film.  I agree, it is a great, great film; but during my viewing of it, I realized there are some big differences in storytelling circa 1982 and storytelling circa 2010.  This progression isn’t just strange, but also a little confusing as, in many cases, it feels almost like we’re taking steps forward in technology but steps backward in narrative.  It’s something that has been showing up in a lot of films/shows/stories recently, but as these two films are relatively fresh on my mind and display these differences in such bright clarity, I thought I would use the Conan the Barbarian films, 1982 and 2011, as case studies in how film making and storytelling have changed…not necessarily for the better.  I’ll steer clear of the Robert E. Howard source material, as not only is that digging into a different concept (printed stories versus movie adaptations), this mini-post-series is about narratives and trends in film making more than the Conan character.  I’ll start this week with quick mini-reviews of the two Conan films in question, I actually enjoy them both, but in case anyone hasn’t seen them, I thought a brief intro would be nice:

Conan the Barbarian (1982)

This film was conceived as a possible vehicle for the then up-and-coming star Arnold Schwarzenegger.  After being impressed by the body builder’s persona in Pumping Iron, he was cast as the eponymous barbarian as the potential start of a franchise.  The film, directed by John Milius, also starred Sandahl Bergman and Gerry Lopez as Conan’s thieving allies, Valeria (who, along with Sorsha in Willow and Selene in the Underworld films is one of my favorite female characters ever) and Subotai (named for the most ferocious of Genghis Khan’s generals).  The story is mostly grounded in reality, as we follow Conan’s journey to find the man who slaughtered his village and sent him into slavery.  We see Conan the boy, the slave, the pit fighter, the thief, the warrior, and finally the hero.  The narrative takes Conan into conflict with Atlantean sorcerer Thulsa Doom (sorcerers were always the most dangerous to Howard’s Conan, as displayed by his arch nemesis Thoth Amon) played terrifically by James Earl Jones with a calm gravitas most villains lack nowadays.  Also appearing are legendary Japanese actor, Mako as a wizard and one of the best narrators in film history, and a cameo by Max von Sydow as King Osric who sets Conan’s band on the mission that finally puts him on collision course with Doom.  Directed with grandeur, acted with full-force, filled with amazing sets, and loaded with action, 1982’s Conan is what you want out of a “grown up” fantasy film and if you haven’t seen it go check it out now!

Conan the Barbarian (2011)

This version stars Jason Momoa, fresh off his Game of Thrones part, as Conan in a story that shares some similarity with the 1982 film but diverges to become its own, distinct movie.  We see much more of Conan’s youth, see his father (played with power by Ron Perleman), and more of Cimmeria.  The film’s villain, Khalar Zym, destroys Conan’s village in search of a powerful magical relic that will bring back his necromancer wife.  We are then transported to adult-Conan’s life as a reaver and pirate, and we meet his allies Artus and later the thief Ela-Shan.  Conan’s “fate” brings him in contact with Princess Tamara and he has to protect her from Zym who needs her to complete his ritual.  The most interesting character is actually Zym’s witch daughter, Marique, portrayed with creepy perfection by Rose McGowan.  It too is filled with fun action, interesting venues, high-energy action.  While not as “complete” a film as the 1982 version, it is still a fun movie, Momoa certainly has the look of Conan, and the story is inventive.  Well worth a watch if you like modern fantasy action movies.

With one film made 30 years before the other, and since the latter is neither a direct sequel, nor a true reboot of the original franchise, it stands to reason a lot of differences in narrative, style, and characters would appear.  The next in this series will be a look at how the character traits of the Conans in their respective films differ, and how they may represent the prevailing trends of “heroism” during the time they were made.