|
|
Post by thegreyelf on Aug 21, 2010 23:36:27 GMT -6
I just had the opportunity to watch this flick, and I have to say I was seriously impressed and very pleased.
There's been a lot of fanboi/geek rage over this flick because, *gasp* how DARE they do a back story for Kane!?
...never mind that the back story they gave him fits pretty seamlessly with the hints about his past that Howard dropped in the original tales (Howard's Kane is pretty clear on a couple occasions that he was a pretty bad guy in his past). It also includes a direct reference to one of Howard's Kane poems, when Kane says, "I sailed with Admiral Drake, once."
To which a boy says, "Really?"
Kane nods and mutters, "That did not end well."
Anyway, the movie doesn't directly adapt Howard's stories, but it really feels like a story that Howard could've written. I think Howard would've been very pleased with the film, and I'm hoping that it did well enough in Europe to merit at least one of the two planned sequels (which were to directly adapt Howard's stories).
I also think it's utterly ludicrous that nobody has picked this up for distribution in the U.S., even on DVD and blu-ray. For chrissakes, the Sci-Fi Channel financed the sequel to the D&D movie, and financed Highlander: the Source, which was worse than Highlander 2!!! And yet, they won't step up to the plate and distribute this on DVD/Blu-Ray here in the U.S.?
Okay, granted, the $40m budget on the flick might have something to do with the cost of distributing it...but even still.
Ugh.
Anyway, yeah. Great flick, see it if you get the chance, and be willing to let go your geek rage and judge the film on its truth to Howardian spirit rather than its literal-ness in adaptation.
|
|
|
|
Post by Finarvyn on Aug 22, 2010 5:47:46 GMT -6
Where did you see it? Is it on DVD already? (It seems to have missed my local theatres and so I've been dying to find a copy.)
|
|
|
|
Post by thegreyelf on Aug 22, 2010 7:14:53 GMT -6
all I can say for the sake of the board is that no, it hasn't yet been released in the U.S. in theaters OR on DVD...which is part of the crux of my rant. That irks me really badly. I had to pursue...other channels...to see it.
|
|
|
|
Post by James Maliszewski on Aug 22, 2010 12:42:14 GMT -6
There's been a lot of fanboi/geek rage over this flick because, *gasp* how DARE they do a back story for Kane!? I don't think the "fanboi/geek rage" is over the fact that the film provides a back story to Kane; it's that the back story the film gives him doesn't fit with Howard's conception of the character. So far as I am aware, there is a single instance in the whole Howard canon that could possibly be interpreted to argue that Kane was once a bad guy in the past and to do that you have to find a way to square it with other texts, such as Kane's first appearance, that make it clear that the Puritan had spent "all his life" -- those are Howard's words -- roaming the earth in a fight against evil without ever knowing why. That doesn't sound like a guy doing good in order to redeem himself. I can believe the film is a good one, taken on its own merits, but I'm skeptical whenever I hear anyone appeal to something as vague as "Howardian spirit." Lots of people say the same thing about Milius's Conan the Barbarian and, fine sword-and-sorcery flick that it is, I don't find it particularly Howardian. I'm glad to hear you enjoyed the film, though. I have some friends in the UK who've seen it and thought highly of Purfoy's performance, but I don't think it's fair to claim that anyone who finds the licenses taken with Howard's character in the film is giving in to "geek rage." I think it's possible for people to disagree about the relative merits of a cinematic adaptation without resorting to name-calling or insinuations about the motives of others. |
|
|
|
Post by thegreyelf on Aug 23, 2010 6:30:36 GMT -6
I don't think the "fanboi/geek rage" is over the fact that the film provides a back story to Kane; it's that the back story the film gives him doesn't fit with Howard's conception of the character. So far as I am aware, there is a single instance in the whole Howard canon that could possibly be interpreted to argue that Kane was once a bad guy in the past and to do that you have to find a way to square it with other texts, such as Kane's first appearance, that make it clear that the Puritan had spent "all his life" -- those are Howard's words -- roaming the earth in a fight against evil without ever knowing why. That doesn't sound like a guy doing good in order to redeem himself. And yet, in "Skulls in the Stars," which was written before "Red Shadows," a different implication for Kane's motivation is present. Howard's own words change from time to time. What that particular tale says is... In the quote above, it's clear that Kane deludes himself about his motives. I'm not arguing that line as supporting my earlier statement, mind--I'll now in light of your challenge need to re-read the entire collection to find and properly quote the statements I believe to support the implications in question. There are, however, statements about him sailing with and leading roguish men in his past. My point here is that the above doesn't say he spent his entire life seeking out evil, and implies that the thrill of battle is actually his true motivation, but he lies to himself about it. I'm trying not to give spoilers about the film, but there are moments early in the movie where Kane deludes himself as well...and the movie doesn't set him up as a man whose wanderings are for redemption. He gets his redemption in this film, and then after he achieves this, he decides to become a champion of God, because someone has to. Certainly statements like those are opinions--but that's what a movie review is. I found Solomon Kane to be very Howardian and believe Howard would've been proud of it. I also found Milus's Conan movie to be Howardian in tone, though not a particularly good Conan film. I thought it was a good Hyborian Age film and I just look at it as being about a different Cimmerian who also happens to have the name "Conan." Being outraged about providing a character a motivation for his fanaticism because it doesn't agree with what one personally interpreted in short stories, I would say is the very definition of geek rage, just as much as when I ranted about the fourth edition Tomb of Horrors being insulting to old school D&D fans, that was me being consumed by geek rage. I am perfectly within my rights to call out nay-sayers when I disagree with their (exceptionally virulent) criticisms of a film many of them have not even watched. If, however, we want to discuss the relative merits of this cinematic adaptation, making accusations of name-calling only fuels the potential flames. I call out the geek rage I've seen online, you call me out for calling out the geek rage, I call you out over my right to do so...it just creates a cycle. With that, I'm off to re-read The Savage Tales of Solomon Kane so I can post quotes to support the implications regarding Kane's past. |
|
|
|
Post by James Maliszewski on Aug 23, 2010 7:04:25 GMT -6
There are, however, statements about him sailing with and leading roguish men in his past. There's no question that that's true, but it's a long way from that to stating that Kane himself was once a rogue. I don't think there's much evidence of that at all. Perhaps it does, but I still think it's possible to say, "You know what? I've seen Solomon Kane and I think it's quite good and feel REH would have approved of it" without suggesting that those who hold a contrary opinion have given vent to "geek rage." The use of that term seems both dismissive and too broad in its scope, as if every single person who has seen the film and still thinks it's not reflective of Howard is not merely a basement-dwelling social reject but also an unthinking one as well. |
|
|
|
Post by thegreyelf on Aug 23, 2010 7:13:46 GMT -6
There's no question that that's true, but it's a long way from that to stating that Kane himself was once a rogue. I don't think there's much evidence of that at all. A man as uncompromising and fanatical as Kane in his devotion to stomping out evil would not lead or associate willingly with roguish men. These statements, to my mind, clearly indicate that once upon a time, he was a rogue himself. But we can agree to disagree--in any case it would seem clear to me that it's those statements (and a similar interpretation) that led Bassett to make the film he made. That's taking things a bit far--"geek rage" doesn't refer to everyone who has seen the film and doesn't like it...it's unreasonable to even suggest that it does. However, people who are actively throwing fits on the Internet about how insulting it is to Howard fans that someone can't pull of something as simple as a good adaptation of a Howard character? That's geek rage. The term "rage" is pretty clear in its implication. I am not referring to people who saw the film and just didn't like it or didn't agree with the interpretation, doing so in a reasonable sense. And make no mistake--I have seen a great deal of pure, unreasoning geek rage over this flick. Most of it from people who haven't seen the film at all...which let's be fair, is unthinking. |
|
|
|
Post by thegreyelf on Aug 23, 2010 9:00:15 GMT -6
Found it! In "The Blue Flame of Vengeance," Kane talks of an event which to my mind is the exact event portrayed at the beginning of the film. Hollister asks him if he wasn't once in the service of the French navy, and Kane answered that he once led a group of "ungodly" men, to his shame, and did deeds that sickened his heart while sacking a city.
Later, at the end of the same story, Kane says that he may be seeking the salvation of his soul.
These two statements dovetail exactly with the events portrayed at the beginning of the movie.
|
|
|
|
Post by doc on Aug 23, 2010 12:07:49 GMT -6
While it's been some years since I've read the Solomon Kane books (first given to me by my grandfather at age nine) the impression that I always got was that Kane was a bit of a brigand and freebooter before being captured and tortured by the Inquisition. While being tortured he had a psychotic break and decided that he was God's Right Hand sent to smite the wicked. At least that's how I recall it.
Doc
|
|
|
|
Post by thegreyelf on Aug 23, 2010 12:22:44 GMT -6
While it's been some years since I've read the Solomon Kane books (first given to me by my grandfather at age nine) the impression that I always got was that Kane was a bit of a brigand and freebooter before being captured and tortured by the Inquisition. While being tortured he had a psychotic break and decided that he was God's Right Hand sent to smite the wicked. At least that's how I recall it. Doc An interesting interpretation that I'd never considered, which also fits (the stories say that Kane had "witnessed firsthand the tortures of the Inquisition.") |
|
|
|
Post by James Maliszewski on Aug 23, 2010 16:49:28 GMT -6
Found it! In "The Blue Flame of Vengeance," Kane talks of an event which to my mind is the exact event portrayed at the beginning of the film. Hollister asks him if he wasn't once in the service of the French navy, and Kane answered that he once led a group of "ungodly" men, to his shame, and did deeds that sickened his heart while sacking a city. What Kane says is that "Aye, I led a rout of ungodly men, to my shame be it said, though the cause was a just one. In the sack of that town you name, many foul deeds were done under the cloak of the cause and my heart was sickened ..." As I said earlier, that's a far cry from saying Kane was an ungodly man and, given that he notes that the cause in which he was engaged was "a just one" and that his "heart was sickened" by the deeds done by those under him, I don't think it says much of anything about Kane himself, except that, even long ago, he knew right from wrong. Kane says, "I seek -- my soul's salvation, mayhap." It's but a single rather tentative line in response to a girl's question of who he is and why he does what he does. It seems a stretch to me to turn that into the key to understanding Kane, particularly when it runs counter to the way Howard portrays the character in his short stories in poems. In any case, I think Bassett's take on Kane is defensible and at least based on a reading (or misreading, as I believe) of Howard's stories, which is to his credit. But I can't sign on to the notion that this take is one Howard would have appreciated. |
|
|
|
Post by James Maliszewski on Aug 23, 2010 16:53:41 GMT -6
While it's been some years since I've read the Solomon Kane books (first given to me by my grandfather at age nine) the impression that I always got was that Kane was a bit of a brigand and freebooter before being captured and tortured by the Inquisition. While being tortured he had a psychotic break and decided that he was God's Right Hand sent to smite the wicked. At least that's how I recall it. The only reference to the Inquisition that I recall from the Kane stories is from "Skulls in the Stars," when Kane comes across a man who'd been horribly tortured: "Kane bent above the body, which lay stark in its unnamable mutilation, and he shuddered -- a rare thing for him, who had seen the deeds of the Spanish Inquisition and the witch-finders." So, sure, Kane saw the work of the Inquisition firsthand, but that doesn't mean he'd been a villain anymore than his having seen the work of the witch-finders means he was a black magician. |
|
|
|
Post by thegreyelf on Aug 23, 2010 20:57:58 GMT -6
And again, James, everything you point out is nullified by the implication in Skulls in the Stars that Kane deludes himself about his motivations.
But I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree about this. I think it's quite clear actually that there's far more indication that he engaged in vicious and cruel acts in his past than the one single line that says he pursued evil all his life. It's also clear you'll dismiss any further examples I can offer, just as out of hand.
Indeed, claiming the cause was a just one could simply mean "We went against those horrible Muslims (or "Moslems," as Howard would've spelled it). And indeed in the film, even as Kane faces down the Reaper, he claims that the Lord protects him.
|
|
|
|
Post by blackbarn on Aug 24, 2010 0:26:59 GMT -6
I saw it a few months ago, too. I generally liked it, but thought it was about as authentic as the Conan movie was (I like that one too though). I really liked the first half and was engrossed, but thought the second half was a bit too neat, tidy and "Hollywood"... the way Kane's past and his family gets revealed... ugh, too convenient and we've seen this melodramatic stuff a million times in other shows.
I don't think a Kane movie (or a Howard-based movie period) should take so much time setting up the action. The first half of the movie has Kane sworn to peace and unwilling to fight for any reason, when all we want to see is him fight (although I found this section to also be the more interesting part of the film, so go figure.) Once he decides to fight again, the movie becomes a little too much, and the realism that carried the film so far kind of starts to vanish. The climax is impressive but some might think a bit over the top.
Do we need backstory like this? Giving a serialized pulp character such an elaborate and frankly cliche-filled background takes away from him, in my opinion. Kane and Conan simply exist, they don't have neat "character arcs" like every modern screenwriter is taught to use in screenwriting class. It does not ring true... these kinds of crazy things only happen to movie characters, so it takes away from the verisimilitude.
I also don't think Kane should be motivated to do good because he is afraid of going to Hell. Just doesn't seem right to me, yet that's what happens. I didn't really mind that he was evil to start, just that he turned good out of fear rather than genuine devotion, which would have fit the character I remember from REH.
However.... as much as I may sound negative, I did enjoy it, and think it is very atmospheric and treated in a fairly serious way for a modern film of this type. The effects were good, and the scenery of the land appropriately grim and mysterious. There's a lot of good stuff in the movie (one especially tense and Howardian scene in an old church comes to mind), and it's a shame it was not picked up in the US. If the character was not claimed to be based on Solomon Kane, I think many fantasy/pulp fans would be loving this movie.
If you get those "other channels" in your area, take a look.... just accept it for what it is, as it is a fairly fun fantasy film, if nothing else. And if you don't like it, at least it ends at the point most of us would have liked to see it begin... with him finally "becoming" Solomon Kane, the REH character who simply hunts evil. Doubt there will be a sequel though....
|
|
|
|
Post by thegreyelf on Aug 24, 2010 8:43:16 GMT -6
Which will be a shame, as the two planned sequels were to directly adapt Howard's stories. And that would've been something to see.
Also, I just realized my last response to James came off as more harsh than intended with the "dismiss out of hand" remark...what I meant to say is that we're both fairly married to our interpretations of the text and are unlikely to change one anothers' minds. However, it does, I think, show that there can be different interpretations of the text, and the film does fit the interpretation I've always had of it.
|
|
