Why Hollywood doesn't "get" Conan Feb 3, 2019 1:49:27 GMT -5
Post by Aryeh on Feb 3, 2019 1:49:27 GMT -5
Strictly speaking, there is no 'Man with no name' and there is: Joe, Monco and Blondie. In all three Sergio Leone films with Clint Eastwood, Eastwood plays a role which is more a function then it is truly a character (as in: function in a scene, function in a plot; those are plot-driven movies, with minimal character development). Conan on the other hand grows up and gets old through stories; he is a superstitious barbarian in some stories, a cunning seasoned warrior in others; he can be very backward (calling machine with mirrors "magic"), he can be terrifying, he can be filled with rage because of his own impotence (the 'THotD' beginning), he can be a champion of some foreign god (Mitra), he can be extremely good towards his followers and even run to their help even if it means he is going to sacrifice himself ('TPotBC')... Conan is very human, he is very much a character, and cannot be reduced to a function in a plot. Eastwood is simply cunning: he fails, he learns, he outsmarts his enemies--for all we know, he could be a robot. Conan on the other hand has some more human characteristics. Not to mention his barbarism, and how the whole aspect of barbarism, of his relation to the primal etc., needs to be dealt with when Conan is concerned--and that gets overshadowed if he is made into a fantasy world equivalent of the Eastwood characters from Leone movies. Eastwood character in those films is a kind of a western version of the Saint, or Arsène Lupin, or early James Bond. I would be very disappointed if Conan becomes a fantasy-world Simon Templar, and I don't think I'd be alone in that.