MovieChat Forums > Solomon Kane (2012) Discussion > Wrong Solomon Kane as depicted originall...

Wrong Solomon Kane as depicted originally

posted 13 years ago by jeffyoung1
4 replies | jump to latest

The movie appears to portray Solomon Kane as a bad man of mass, wanton destruction. The Solomon Kane of the 1930s pulp fiction novels was not such a man. Solomon Kane is originally a devout Puritan. He is a self-appointed destroyer of diabolical evil, not a Conan, but curiously more like a loner Rambo. The original Solomon Kane would never relinquish his soul to the devil nor make a deal. This movie Solomon Kane is depicted as formerly a murderous warrior; not so the original Solomon Kane.

Solomon Kane should have been portrayed more like the hero in the successful 90s horro movie, "Warlock". That movie took place in the late 1600s Puritan early America. The hero was a courageous mortal man, something like a lone lawman, a hunter of really evil men. He had apprehended and brought before the Puritan tribunal the dangerous warlock, who subsequently escapes into the present-time America.

Some critics on this board accused the film of religious propaganda. I go the other way, anti-religious propaganda. Instead of depicting Solomon Kane as a devout religious vigilante, he's portrayed as a bad man forced to do good because that is what happens to him, not something he makes happen.

[–] coiragrigione 13 years ago

The movie appears to portray Solomon Kane as a bad man of mass, wanton destruction. The Solomon Kane of the 1930s pulp fiction novels was not such a man.

Well, through the stories’ subtext, I have always got the sense that Kane’s almost obsessive zeal to mete out justice is redemptive: that by stamping out evil, he may purge his own soul of whatever past sins may stain it. It is there between the lines IMO. Therefore, I think this film presents a credible history to his character. Solomon's awe inspiring fighting skills also have to stem from somewhere, so to give him a past as a ruthless sailor of the Royal Navy makes sense to me. 'Mass, wanton destruction' is not exactly a fair description in my eyes as he was a soldier/sailor in the services of England. There's no doubt he strayed but 'mass, wanton destruction' is too much.

The original Solomon Kane would never relinquish his soul to the devil nor make a deal.

He doesn't relinquish his soul in this film though, does he?

He puts up a formidable fight for his soul when the devil's reaper first wants to claim his soul and manages to escape. And the deal that is mentioned by the devil's reaper is obviously the unwritten and unspoken contract concerning the conditions for entry into Heaven which Solomon breached through his ruthless actions. A contract that Solomon entered only implicitly and not actively through a signature. Consequently, Solomon rightly denies any deal with the devil in his brush-up with the devil's reaper.

The whole rest of the movie is all about Solomon not giving up his soul & his heart-breaking redemptive journey.

So he really doesn't relinquish his soul at all in the film which is quite consistent with the character from the stories.

[–] Taranaichsaurus 13 years ago

Well, through the stories’ subtext, I have always got the sense that Kane’s almost obsessive zeal to mete out justice is redemptive: that by stamping out evil, he may purge his own soul of whatever past sins may stain it.

This was the justification Bassett used, particularly a line in "The Blue Flame of Vengeance" where Kane talked about leading a rout of ungodly men and that his "heart was sickened," as well as admitting his reasoning for what he does being "his soul's salvation" - but I'm pretty positive that didn't extend to being a murderous, avaricious pirate like the character we saw in this film.

Solomon's awe inspiring fighting skills also have to stem from somewhere, so to give him a past as a ruthless sailor of the Royal Navy makes sense to me.

Kane's time in the Royal Navy was in the original stories, but in a poem written during that time ("The One Black Stain") Kane is virtually no different in moral demeanour than his later self, i.e. he had a strong sense of justice and what was right.

So he really doesn't relinquish his soul at all in the film which is quite consistent with the character from the stories.

Which is true, but it's one of the ONLY consistencies with the character. Howard's Kane at any age would never shoot one of his own men in the back, or order the massacre of "putrid heathens." Nor would he run from any foe, man or devil, like he ran from the Devil's Reaper. Nor would he give up on someone he swore to rescue and drown his sorrows in a tavern.

Bassett's Kane is better than the average sword-and-sorcery film, but it's about as profound a divergence from Howard's Kane as Milius' Conan was from Howard's.

[–] coiragrigione 13 years ago

that didn't extend to being a murderous, avaricious pirate like the character we saw in this film

There is an intensity to Solomon's quests (in the stories) that is rather unsettling. Something is looming deep inside his character, something decidedly conflicted & dark in my opinion. It is something he is perpetually battling. Howard does not reveal what it is but whatever Solomon's backstory is, it must be intense and painful. Just an ordinary sailor career most definitely does not suffice to explain his driven determination IMO. I feel the back story here fits the bill very well. Solomon facing his own demons and trying with all his might to overcome them. I absolutely loved that. It added nobility to his character and didn't take any away as I guess you feel this film has done.

Kane is virtually no different in moral demeanour than his later self, i.e. he had a strong sense of justice and what was right.

In this film Solomon Kane does have a strong sense of justice and what is right. However, he acts against that until he is faced with losing his soul. Surely the corruption of his soul was a process, too. We see him in the film as a brave & decent young man of appr. 15 and then we see him as a marauding buccaneer of appr. 35. So we don't really know how and over how long a period he continued to lose sight (temporarily!) of the right path.

EDIT to add: I believe his ship was called 'Redemption' (!) and he served both as soldieer and buccaneer for the British Crown and was leading several 'daring and merciless' raids on Dutch, French and Spanish shipping.

Howard's Kane at any age would never shoot one of his own men in the back, or order the massacre of "putrid heathens." Nor would he run from any foe, man or devil, like he ran from the Devil's Reaper. Nor would he give up on someone he swore to rescue and drown his sorrows in a tavern

I disagree. Undeniably there is an element of darkness looming in him. He is just not your average, well adjusted hero. There must be something in his past that is haunting him. As concerns running from the devil's reaper, he either had to run or lose his soul. I mark it highly that he chose to run. Solomon had no chance to win this ecounter so he knew it was time to fold his cards OR lose his soul. Is there a better proof of the goodness still there in his core than him refusing to give up his soul?? There isn't.
Only once he was back on the right path, was he able to win against the devil's minions.
On Meredith Solomon never gave up. He lacked faith in himself, he wasn't that strong yet. He was still in a bad place trying to come out and definitely not yet the Solomon Kane of the later stories.

I so like the idea that somehow Solomon Kane had to go through a rough patch in his life to be what he was destined to become. The idea to make this film was just brilliant. To think that Solomon was always strong and perfect is ... bland. And bland is the very last thing I think of when I think of Solomon Kane.

Gosh, I love this movie & Solomon Kane! I guess we'll have to agree to disagree, Taranaichsaurus.

[–] arycogre 12 years ago

I would say that it is obviously and purposefully different from the later character of Kane. You don't become a force like Kane without having experienced missteps. A drive and determination as deep as his has to come from something or he's just a lunatic obsessed and without cause for his purpose. Does he fall into despair and drink himself to a stupor? Of course he does, and then once he comes to his senses, never again. His later tolerance of various things pagan has to A: have a history of absence (putrid heathens) and B: have a catalyst for change (the pagan who heals his wounds from the crucifixion). Think of it as Solomon Kane: Year One. Howard never wrote an origin story for Kane, he only left sparse hints, including suggestions of his former evils. This story does an excellent job of pulling from those hints and creating a backstory to drive the character.