Conan and Apocalypse Now Are the Same Movie
A provocative title, but it's not exactly the same movie
Introduction
This will be a short one. I want to posit that Conan the Barbarian (1982) and Apocalypse Now, two movies that seems completely different are actually very much akin. I’ll explain this through a tiny symbolic analysis of each movie and then doing a comparison. It will also showcase why “comparing the imcomparable”, or doing “negative” comparison is such an important hermeneutical tool.
Conan the Barbarian
Conan the Barbarian depicts Conan’s journey as a rite of passage towards becoming a superhuman figure. Through various trials and initiatory adventures, Conan transforms from a man subjected to external forces to a liberated individual who embodies the principles of strength, willpower, and self-realization. The movie is presented as a reflection on Nietzsche's concept of the superman, with Conan representing a counter-structure to civilization and embracing a primal, anti-nihilistic ethos. Ultimately, the film portrays Conan as a symbol of human potential and transcendence, bridging the gap between the primordial past and a new era of superhumanity.
It does this by clever use of opposition between Thulsa Doom, the antagonist, and Conan, the protagonist; by having a structure akin to a ritual rite of passage down to the detail of a “resurrection”; by considering objects (such as swords) as philosophical extensions of characters.
It was written by John Milius, a self-proclaimed “zen anarchist” and Nietzsche afficionado.
For a more detailed analysis, please see this analysis of mine with a magnificient typo in the date.
Apocalypse Now
This movie would require a thorough investigation too, but I’ll do an overview for now.
The movie explores the journey of Captain Willard as he ventures into the heart of darkness, both geographically and psychologically, to confront Colonel Kurtz, a renegade officer who has become a symbol of the chaos and moral decay of the Vietnam War.
In terms of materials, the film draws from various cultural references, including Joseph Conrad's novella "Heart of Darkness," upon which it is loosely based. It also includes many reference to the war and the various ideologies behind it, with a heavy dose of criticism.
Structurally, the movie is organized into distinct narrative sections: Willard's initial briefing and journey, his encounters along the river, and the climactic confrontation with Kurtz. Each section reflects a stage in Willard's psychological and moral transformation, from a disillusioned soldier to a figure confronting the darkness within himself. This is made possible because the movie incorporates elements of mythological symbolism, such as the river journey representing a passage into the unknown and the encounter with Kurtz as a confrontation with the sacred and profane.
Functionally, "Apocalypse Now" serves as a profound exploration of the human condition in the context of war and imperialism. It delves into themes of power, madness, and the nature of evil, presenting Kurtz as a figure who has transcended conventional morality but also succumbed to the nihilism of war. The film raises questions about the limits of civilization and the darkness inherent in the human psyche.
What you just described ain’t the same thing
But in reality, it is. The progonist goes on through a ritualistic journey in a dark land controlled/subverted by a dark “sorcerous” antagonist. Along the journey, they encounter new friends but they also lose people which they cared for. In doing this “pilgrimage” journey to the outer limit of the world (liminality), they get captured by the antagonist to get tortured, but mostly to get questionned to the point where they mentally break/reject their own ideologies. In both case, the protagonist has to make a conscious leap of faith and accept their predicament and go back to slay the antagonist while he performs (or “is” performed in the case of Kurtz) a ritual sacrifice.
I could give more details, but if you look closely, you’ll see the ressemblance. One of the reason there is so much ressemblance, outside of the fact it’s a journey that’s replicated in many a story, is that both of them were written by John Milius (or in the case of Apocalypse Now, at least the outline). Conan, as per his own words, is what he meant for the ending of Apocalypse Now: the hero triumphally breaking the nihilism as a superhuman.
And this goes back to what I was saying in the beginning: comparising the incomparable is worthwhile. By saying those movies have something deep in common, we can then look at what they don’t have in common in order to really understand them better on their own. Conan is about triumphalism of the will (psst, the secret of steel is will), and this shows in its ending with the hero having the princess, destroying the old order, walking off with a sun beam on the horizon, etc. Whereas Apocalypse Now is much grittier and dark, with a not-so-clear ending, with nothing really ended nor started for anyone but Willard.
This brings Valhalla Rising and Aguirre Wrath of God to mind.