I'm not sure how I can adequately convey how disappointed I am in Conan the Barbarian. The film was directed and co-written by John Milius, based on Robert E. Howard's pulp stories. Milius wrote the original screenplay for Apocalypse Now. He intended it as a pro-war film. An extreme right-wing conservative, Milius was rejected from the military for his asthma. He's been making up for it ever since. This is the guy who was the inspiration for the John Goodman character in The Big Lebowski and called Francis Ford Coppola "Mein Führer,” intending it as a compliment. The creation of Apocalypse Now was, of course, completely chaotic. George Lucas was briefly involved in the initial conception of the film and wanted it to be a sort of satire of trying to smash an ant with a jackhammer and having the ant win. In the finished product, director Francis Ford Coppola seems to mesh the two influences together. Apocalypse Now is profoundly and absurdly over-the-top. To a satirical extreme. But there is something grizzled, harsh and archetypical about a lot of it as well. Something unironically manly. The movie was a masterpiece.

While I have very little doubt that John Milius has a sense of humor about himself, the comedy in Apocalypse Now was subtle and organic. It didn't have a self-aware, "I'm half-kidding" tone to it. One of the compliments that is frequently paid to Conan the Barbarian is that Milius does not ever go for a camp effect, and the humor is subtle. Well, kind of. The humor in Conan the Barbarian is certainly not what we would think is camp, but it operates like camp. It is distancing Milius from having to treat his creations with complete reverence. There is a scene in the film where a camel spits on Conan and he knocks it out. The scene is humorous because we know that the camel didn't mean to spit on Conan. It doesn't know any better; it's just a camel. When Conan knocks him out, it’s evidence of his inability to effectively rationalize his violent nature. This robs Conan of free agency, and as Milius’ ideal. Or rather, if Conan was a Milius ideal, it shows that Milius doesn't take himself very seriously. Even more problematic is a scene where the villain crucifies Conan to a tree for the vultures (or some ravenous birds) to get him. The image then reminds of the Prometheus myth, and possibly the Christ myth. The implication is that Conan is being punished for giving the world of mortals or commoners the gift of knowledge, fire or salvation, I guess. He's making deity accessible to everyone. This doesn't make any sense in the context of the movie, but never mind that. I'm worried about the part where Conan snaps the necks of these birds with his teeth. More than anything, this scene proves that Milius is winking at us and isn't taking his film completely seriously. I argue that we need to. If Milius is going to reference Christ and Prometheus he has to be able to 1) lend the allusion some sort of relevance and 2) go along with it completely by not having Conan kill any vultures.

And yet, I have to say that the film isn't camp. The Conan universe is dark, grim and joyless. There aren't any characters who are assigned the task of being the comic relief, although there is a Mongolian thief that comes fairly close. The film contrasts with the sequel Conan the Destroyer which was deliberately campy, even going as far as having a giant monster swing Conan around by the legs while the usually non-emotive Schwarzenegger’s eyes widen with terror. That was a fun movie. Conan the Barbarian is a curiously timid thing that doesn't want to leer into over-the-top laughable lunacy, but refuses to become an easily targetable Milius cock opera. The film is neither, whereas Apocalypse Now managed to be both. The best thing in the film is Thulsa Doom, the villain. He's played by James Earl Jones, and seems to get just a smudge more dialogue than Conan, who has close to none. It can't be said that Doom has very much screen time either. But unlike Schwarzenegger's Conan, the time that Doom does have counts. When we first see him, it’s after he raided Conan's village. He gets off his horse and takes off his helmet. He looks at Conan's mother with something that looks like understanding. It's warm and intimate. He then casually lops off her head. The mother reminded me of Irma Raush's idiot village girl in Andrei Rublev. She's a creature whose mind has been turned to mush by a cruel age. She can only exhibit frustration, but not resistance, at the evil Doom.

Doom later becomes the leader of a snake cult. The members of the cult have an aim to become "empty.” Or rather, to become entirely passive and to become shells. Some unusually alert critics have offered that Milius is parodying Christianity or "hippyism" with this cult. Yes, the point is that this cult is bereft of passion and emotion. Christianity is about the elimination of wrath, lust, greed, et cetera: the very things that Nietzsche pointed out make us human. What is the ideal Christian if not disaffected from these emotions and unquestionably obedient to his master? That isn't to say that this cult is non-sexual. There is a remarkable amount of sex; it is just that the sex is entirely disaffected from passion. The tone is best set about two thirds of the way through or so, when we see the inside of Doom's temple and walk in on an orgy. Everyone is having sex, but it's a slow, leisurely type of sex. I realize that the sexual element of the snake cult is more "hippy" then Christian. It's "free love" without guilt or connection. Pleasure here is pursued very much for its own sake, the cult members lost in their haze of peace of mind. I'm reminded of Pasolini's The Gospel According to St. Matthew, the Christ character speaking and acting without inflection. It is at this point that we see Doom turn into a serpent. There aren't any special effects in this sequence. It is done completely through editing. The effect is remarkable. Pasolini used this same approach towards the miracles in The Gospel According to St. Matthew, and the results have a similarly minimalist nonchalance to them. The transformation is not really commented on, and I think Milius knows that if he were to do so, the power of the sequence would be greatly diminished. The serpent is very obviously a phallic symbol and the agent of original sin. It could not be any other sort of cult but a snake cult, as the presence of the snake provides for a highly explicit sensuality. Sex is foremost on the mind when conjuring up memories of the temple. In one of the film’s most disturbing scenes, Doom explains to Conan how power achieved through violence is inferior to his own methods: "Steel isn't strong boy, flesh is stronger! Look around you. There, on the rocks; that beautiful girl. Come to me my child..." She obeys him and falls to her death. "That is strength, boy! That is power! What is steel compared to the hand that wields it?" The point of course is that Doom believes that true power comes from destroying the will of your opponent, which is the said evil of the pacifism of Christianity. The raw power of this scene, however, comes from seeing a beautiful girl unthinkingly and willfully give herself to the will of Doom. Combined with the murder of Conan's mother, this scene seems to suggest a powerful and uncontrollable sexual power through Doom. It's hard not to imagine an off-screen personal harem for him, after witnessing these casually arrogant demonstrations of his influence. James Earl Jones is not typically thought of for his sex appeal, but here it is extremely apparent. This is one of the best and most exciting performances that I have ever seen. To think that it is in the very place where you wouldn't imagine looking for it.

After his family is murdered, Conan was sold into slavery. He worked on the Wheel of Pain, presumably grinding grain, and developed into Arnold Schwarzenegger. At that point he's taken off wheel detail and becomes a gladiator. As a gladiator we are told that "he finally knew who he was.” Conan was then created by Doom; he gained his identity and his strength by Doom's hand. At the end of his "flesh is stronger” speech, Doom tells Conan this: "Look at the strength in your body, the desire in your heart, I gave you this! Such a waste." With James Earl Jones as the villain, this line facilitates a connection with Star Wars. The father figure is attempting to turn over his nemesis, the son. Both are gods as opposed to men. The strength in his body, the desire in his heart, have all made him into a being superior to mortal man. The film is preceded by Nietzsche’s "What doesn't kill me, makes me stronger." Conan has spent more time not being killed than most. At their final showdown Doom argues this to Conan: "My child, you have come to me, my son. For who now is your father if it is not me? I am the wellspring, from which you flow. When I am gone, you will have never been. What would your world be, without me? My son." Conan chops off Doom's head and throws it down the steps towards his followers. They then adopt Conan as their new leader. The ending is said to mirror the ending of Apocalypse Now. In that film the execution of Kurtz by Williard implies that Williard has achieved the same state of mind as Kurtz. He has become Kurtz. However, as Doom is Conan's figurative father, there is much more to this execution. I do not feel that this battle is Oedipal. Conan is not fulfilling a destiny in taking Doom's place. Rather it reminds me of how the Gods destroyed their creators the Titans. Conan killed God, and then became his own God.

Some have expressed discomfort with seeing this Aryan archetype behead a black man and toss the head down a staircase with contempt. The scene is racist, they say, as it adopts the imagery of white supremacists. The truth is, of course, much more complex. The color line here seems rather blurred, and Doom does not adopt the stance of racial inferior to Conan as much as an equal deity. As with Batman and the Joker, we are to read Conan and Doom as being two sides of the same coin. They represent opposing sets of values and ideologies. Conan seeks to obtain power through force. Doom is more interested in obtaining power through religion and superstition. While a gladiator, Conan learned to read and studied poetry and philosophy. As a barbarian, he proves to have very little use for it. Conan seems to represent a rather aggressively willful anti-intellectualism.

I'm not sure that I can agree with those who argue that Conan represents libertarian virtues, meaning that he believes that all men should be free to do as they will, and this freedom is the greatest virtue. In another one of the film's most quoted lines, this is what Conan says is best in life: "To crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentation of the women!" Destruction of his enemies, the ascertation of power through force is what Conan virtues. It is also very much worth noting that Conan got his beliefs from his owners and his father. As he was conditioned to think this way, it's fairly difficult to argue that he is all about freedom. The dichotomy of Conan and Doom's political views is not incredibly pronounced. They both want power and power is the greatest good for both of them. Both are libertarian in the sense that neither believes that they must follow any particular law. The place that they differ is in that Conan is passionate, and Doom is dispassionate. Doom and his followers have almost philosophized away their ability to feel anything. Conan is a more primal being and is more in check with his humanity. Because Conan is without any particular ideology other than "crushing your enemies is good,” his murder of Doom strikes a very curious note. Like Maximus in Ridley Scott's Gladiator, Conan seems to destroy the villain more to satiate his own personal vengeance than for the greater good. Indeed, what greater good could there be? The ending then clunks with insignificance. It's simply one man destroying the killer of his family as opposed to an all-out battle between good and evil.

The relationships with women in Conan the Barbarian are often more disturbing than the lack thereof. Conan has sex with three women during the course of the film. The first is a slave who his owners gave to him to breed with. She appears to be so terrified that he practically rapes her. The second is a witch who he throws into a fire as she begins to attack him during the act. She turns into some sprites or something and then flies away to which Conan replies with a numbskulled "Crom!" The third is Sandahl Bergman, a fellow barbarian. This may be the most normal relationship, although she literally does all of the talking. Brian J. Wright of the Cavalcade of Schlock says that the sexual encounters are respectively dominant, submissive and equal in regards to Conan. While this is true, I'm not sure that it necessarily means that Conan has learned to respect women. His relationship with Bergman seems awfully malnourished and given that he never talks to her, the intimacy of their relationship is called seriously into question. It would of course be incredibly absurd to wonder what exactly the two get out of each other. Conan the Barbarian is not interested in human relationships, except maybe that between Doom and Conan, and this is romance simply for the story's sake. She gets shot with a snake arrow and dies. Conan solemnly cremates her. "He won't cry, so I cry for him," his friend explains. Their relationship won't go down in history as one of the great romances.

The biggest problems with Conan the Barbarian exist in its poorly written structure. The trip to the witch's house is completely gratuitous and adds very little to the finished product, unless you subscribe to that thing about Conan learning to respect women. Most of the relationships seem to exist simply for their own sake. Not only the romance with Bergman but the relationship with the thief and the wizard. Oh yeah, the wizard. The wizard character in the film seems to only get six or seven scenes tops and does nothing much of note (except bring Conan back to life after the crucifixion). He narrates the film, helping to paper in all the gaps in the narrative. After he meets Conan he stops the narration, and so any attempt at using the narration to give the film a richer "mythological" or "legendary" tone become bunk. The film ends with a coda resolving the plot, and telling us to basically look for more Conan adventures. (According to those who have listened to the audio commentary, Milius and Schwarzenegger want to make a third Conan movie, and they appear to be quite serious. Do they realize that the last time Schwarzenegger played the part was like twenty years ago?) The said plot has something to do with Conan and friends rescuing a king's daughter from Doom, and Doom trying to get a magic stone from Conan. This is all quite unnecessary, as the core of the film is simply Conan trying to gain revenge on Doom, and Doom preventing him. I guess the other characters need some sort of motivation to fight Doom, but they seem to just barely be there anyway.

The snake transformation and the use of the snake arrows aside, the special effects are underwhelming. The sprites and monsters are animated and superimposed on the film like that Monster of the Id in Forbidden Planet. They look really bad. The good special effects in Conan the Barbarian are the ones that don't really use special effects and rely on somewhat clever editing. The sex and violence indicated by the R rating have been celebrated simply for existing, as they probably should be. Most of these fantasy movies tone down the goods so they can appeal better to kids and teenagers as they tend to make up the largest audience. Here's some proof: upon learning that the film was going to have this much sex and violence, the Mattel toy corporation retooled their Conan action figure into He-Man. However as much sex and violence as I got, it never seemed to be enough. I wanted the film to go far, far over the top, but it seemed awfully restrained. As the film is generally downbeat, there isn't much pleasure or exhilaration to be taken from these elements. The film seems to be more Doom than Conan then: cold, dreary and lacking in any real electricity. I wonder if we can have an R-rated swords-and-sorcery film that can be a lark with no awed reverence. Conan the Barbarian is made worse but is much smarter and probably more entertaining than the profoundly overrated Gladiator. Whereas Gladiator did nothing to acknowledge the absurdity of its material and failed to produce anything profound, Conan the Barbarian dances around the absurdity of its material while not quite getting around to producing anything profound. There is lots of good stuff in Conan the Barbarian, but Milius seems to be marred by some sort of hesitation. This film needs a clearly defined idea behind it and lots of refinement.