In Praise of John Carpenter

In these seemingly endless days we all have now, there are few better ways to fill your time than by re-watching your favourite movies.

The list of beloved films I've enjoyed revisiting has included the original 'Star Wars' trilogy, 'Ghostbusters', 'Young Frankenstein', 'Die Hard', 'The Untouchables', 'Psycho', 'Skyfall', and the first three Indiana Jones' epics (Sean Connery as Harrison Ford's dad? Inspired.)

But, standing tall among all of the fantastic movies I've savoured over the last few months have been the films of John Carpenter. I've gorged upon them.

I've always admired the chain-smoking, New Yorker - as a huge horror fan, he gets a spot in my Top Ten List of Directors for 'Halloween' alone: It's an astonishing piece of filmmaking.

However, up until very recently, he would've been at the lower reaches of that list.

For years, my favourite director has been Stanley Kubrick. 'Dr Strangelove' is an act of genius, and I could happily watch 'The Shining' every day (though that would probably be incredibly bad for my mental health - I'd end up as unhinged as Jack does). Obviously, Carpenter comes after Kubrick.

Then there's 'the master of suspense' -East London's finest, Alfred Hitchcock. His body of work is simply staggering. He'd be considered one of the greatest directors who'd ever lived for 'Psycho' alone. But then there's also 'North by Northwest.' And 'Rear Window.' And 'The 39 Steps.' And... it just goes on, and on, and on. Only a fool would put Carpenter before him, surely?

And then there's the 'movie brats' who came out of the tail-end of the 1970s. Spielberg gave us 'Jaws'; Lucas 'Star Wars'; Coppola 'The Godfather'; Scorsese 'Raging Bull.' All better than Carpenter, right?

Finally, there's the 'boy wonder.' It's not cinematic snobbery, but I do honestly revere Orson Welles - in my eyes, 'Citizen Kane' is every bit as good as the critics and scholars say. Also, Welles was a flawed, fascinating character - he didn't make many films, but he lived a life that could have sprawled an army of bio-pics, and he gets bonus points for that. It goes without saying that Carpenter comes after the intriguing auteur whose limited filmography includes 'The Greatest Movie Ever Made.'

Except...

Over the last few weeks, Carpenter has risen steadily up the charts.

In case you're not clear, I love 'Halloween.' Just adore it.

Michael Meyer's murderous return to his hometown is beautifully shot, genuinely scary, and had arguably the best soundtrack in cinema history until Tarantino rifled through his vinyl collection whilst editing 'Reservoir Dogs.' 'Halloween' also has Donald Pleasence in it - and any film is improved when you see his name on the credits.

But, until the 'lock-down', 'Halloween' was the primary reason for Carpenter's - admittedly lowly - standing in my pantheon of great filmmakers.

I'd seen most of his other movies. And I enjoyed each one. But 'Halloween' stood head and shoulders above them all.

At least they did until Coronavirus gave me the chance to revisit Carpenter's canon.

I still don't think that any other film of his touches the heights of 'Halloween.' In my mind, very few films do. But, with fresh eyes, quite a few of Carpenter's other efforts come close. One, in particular, comes very, very close. And, taken together, Carpenter has produced a wonderful body of work. I don't have the room to explore every film, so I'm going to focus on his 'Greatest Hits.'

And, believe me, it's some compilation.

Chronologically, it goes as follows:

His first full-length film was the science fiction-comedy 'Dark Star' in 1974.

It's low-budget and deeply flawed: As debuts go, it's hardly in the same class as 'Citizen Kane' or 'Reservoir Dogs.' But, it's inventive, genuinely funny, and - at times - pleasingly downright weird: There's a reason why it's become a 'cult' classic. If I had ever fulfilled my teenage dreams of becoming a film director, I could only have hoped my debut was as charming.

Next came 'Assault on Precinct 13' (1976). It borrows heavily from 'Rio Bravo' - in which a sheriff, and his deputies, hold firm against a numerically superior gang of outlaws. Carpenter changed the setting - instead of the imposing vistas of Tuscon, he gave us gritty, downtown LA, and made it into a simple battle between cops vs a gang. And it's brilliant.

Tense and lean, it's everything a thriller should be. As a low-budget, action movie, its only equal is 'The Terminator.' Yes - it's that good.

Then comes my beloved 'Halloween' in 1978. But I think I've already touched upon that...

Leaving aside some ropey visual effects, 'The Fog' (1980) is massively enjoyable. Carpenter's tale of a small, coastal town being terrorized by a malevolent meteorological mist (and the revenge-fueled dead sailors that lurk within it), has his trademark narrative economy, and an amazing synthesizer-based score. 'The Fog' has also got Hal Halbrook in it, and, like Donald Pleasence, he's always good.

No - overall, it's nowhere as good as 'Halloween.' But, it's a million times better than 'Friday the 13th' which has, unfairly, seeped into the popular consciousness, while 'The Fog' hasn't. If you're thinking of re-visiting Carpenter's work, 'The Fog' would be a very good starting point.

Then there's 'Escape from New York' in 1981. It's a seminal movie for me - my dad had a VHS copy of this, and I watched it an untold number of times as a teenager. I love it as much now as I did as a spotty adolescent.

You probably know the story - in the near future, Manhattan Island has been converted into a maximum-security prison. Air Force One is hijacked by terrorists, who land it in New York. Convict, and ex-soldier, Snake Plissken, is given 24 hours to infiltrate Manhattan and rescue the President. If he's successful, Plissken will be pardoned.

In terms of fashioning a dystopian future, 'Escape from New York' lags far behind the visually wondrous 'Blade Runner.' But, in terms of action, it's up there with anything Schwarzenegger's ever done. And it's got Kurt Russell in an eye patch, and yet more Donald Pleasence, this time as the President of the free world.

'Dark Star'; 'Assault on Precinct 13'; 'Halloween'; 'The Fog'; 'Escape from New York.' Carpenter crafted those 5 great films in just 7 years. He directed a couple more besides, but that's some run. However...

In 1982, Carpenter delivers the film that might - just might - challenge 'Halloween' as being his crowning achievement: 'The Thing.' Yes - it's another remake. But, this time, Carpenter doesn't simply match the original source material, he upgrades it. And then some. (And then a bit more.)

'The Thing' is - rightly - lauded for its amazing effects courtesy of Rob Bottin. The decapitated head sprouting spider-like legs, and then scuttling off, is one of those 'Wow' moments cinema often promises but rarely delivers.

However, that detracts from how brilliant it is on a human level. If you remove the wonderful special effects, you're left with a simple, thrilling drama about 'trust' under extreme pressure. It asks the question, 'What do you do when your existence relies on others, but you also cannot - literally - trust anyone else?' It's '12 Angry Men' with murderous aliens.

There is a lot to love about 'The Thing.' One of my favorites is the complete lack of exposition. Although it contains some utterly brilliant dialogue, there's almost no, 'Now I'm going to tell you all about my past, so you can understand why I am the way I am' speeches. We find out about the characters by what they say and do. Under extreme pressure. Carpenter doesn't patronize us with clunky backstories, and I respect him for having the courage to do so.

For 'The Thing' to work, Carpenter didn't just need the very best in special effects, he also needed a wonderful cast who could flesh out the characters. He got it. In spades. Kurt Russell is the - nominal star - but, for me, it's a brilliant ensemble piece with no weak link. However, special mention must go to the peerless Donald Moffat as the base's leader who helplessly watches as his authority slowly slips away thanks to the relentless 'thing.' Like Pleasence and Halbrook, Moffat always elevated proceedings.

But, like most really good horror stories, 'The Thing' plays on our darkest fears, ones that couldn't be more relevant today. Stalking the isolated, Antarctic base, is a (mostly) invisible killer. One that sits dormant in its human host until it's ready to unleash carnage; sound familiar?

Although movies such as 'Outbreak', and 'Contagion' have (perversely) become popular once again in this Covid-19 period, 'The Thing' deserves to be as well. It says more about how we respond to an unseen enemy, whilst being trapped in one location, than all the films that directly reference the word 'virus' combined. Not bad for a movie that bombed at the box office upon release.

A year later, in 1983, comes 'Christine', a film I hadn't seen before the 'lockdown.' I love Stephen King (though I don't understand why he had such a problem with Kubrick's interpretation of 'The Shining' - come on, Stephen; it's a masterpiece!). However, 'Christine' is one of my less-favoured of King's novels. Maybe that's because, unless it's an Aston Martin, cars don't really float my boat. So, the book never really excited me.

However, the film did.

It's scary and good fun. And there's also a deeply touching exploration of friendship at its heart. However, the single best thing about the movie is one of the very same things that makes 'The Thing' so awesome: The lack of exposition. Carpenter doesn't tell you the one piece of information any other filmmaker wouldn't resist in spelling out: He doesn't explain why Christine is the demonic automobile she is. She just is. She is simply just evil.

And I loved that.

The lack of clunky reasoning made it even scarier for me: The fact that wickedness can't always be explained away. Some things - some people - are simply bad. There's evil in this world, and - unlike Michael Meyers and his litany of psychological issues - sometimes there's no reason for it. Evil just simply exists.

(In keeping with my penchant for undervalued character actors, 'Christine' stars Harry Dean Stanton as the cop investing the car's murderous trail of destruction. Carpenter gets a lot of kudos for his sparse visuals and musical prowess, but his casting is also continually first class.)

Next, in 1984, comes 'Starman.' It's winning before even the opening credits roll - it stars Karen Allen (as underrated as an actress as Carpenter is as a director), and Jeff Bridges (and when is he ever not watchable? Even when the film is awful, he's always good value - I'm looking at you 'RIPD').

I can see why this movie got 'lost' - narratively, it treads the same path as the majestic 'ET', not just an amazing film, but also a box office behemoth.

However, that's just unfair.

Yes - 'ET' is brilliant. The reviews and its takings are testaments to that. And Carpenter's story of an alien lost on Earth doesn't have the same sense of adventure that Spielberg's does (however, no director does 'adventure' better than Spielberg, so it's probably not worth trying to match him on that score).

But, that's also kind of missing the point: whereas Spielberg's film doesn't hold back, Carpenter's film is deliberately low-key. 'Gentle' is often a pejorative word when used to describe films, but 'Starman' shows that 'gentle' can also be powerful.

It also showcases Carpenter's versatility.

One of the reasons I adore Kubrick is because every one of his films is unique, yet also distinctly Kubrickian: '2001: A Space Odyssey', 'A Clockwork Orange', and 'Full Metal Jacket' couldn't be more different from each other, yet - when you watch them - you just know that each is a Kubrick picture. I love that he mastered so many genres, yet retained his identity every time. Now, versatility isn't a prerequisite for greatness; Hitchcock wasn't exactly known for his rom-coms, or sci-fi, but he's still a 'Great', despite only really working in one genre.

However, at the same time, I am in awe of a director stepping out of their 'comfort zone', and not just pulling it off, but also somehow remaining true to themselves. And Carpenter does that with dignity with 'Starman.' It's distinctly a 'John Carpenter Film', but an utterly different kind of 'John Carpenter Film.' It's an underrated gem.

'Big Trouble in Little China' lands in 1986. It's one of those films that just shouldn't work. It just shouldn't. It's not sure what genre it's aiming for, and its 'hero' is... well, he's an idiot. He's charming and funny. But he's also an incompetent buffoon, and Kurt Russell has never been better.

The whole experience is a kung-fu-laden, Technicolor sugar rush. Yes - it's a bit of a mess. But it's as much fun as 'The Goonies' - and that's pretty high praise.

In 1988, comes the last of Carpenter's 'Greats' - 'They Live.' And, like 'The Thing', it's more relevant now than it's ever been.

Our hero is a drifter who discovers, through wearing special sunglasses, that our ruling elite are actually aliens who are manipulating the human race to both accept the status quo, and embrace consumerism, through subliminal messages hidden in mass media.

Its criticism of 'Reaganomics' (and Thatcherism) isn't subtle. But, living as we do in an era of targeted online advertising via harvested social media algorithms, and TV networks that fawn over their leaders instead of holding them to account, 'They Live' still packs an almighty punch more than 20 years after it was made

On a more simple level, it's also got one of the best fist-fights in cinematic history.

And it contains my favourite quote ever:

"I'm here to chew bubblegum and kick ass - and I'm all out of bubblegum."

Yes - there are a few duds in Carpenter's filmography ('Ghost of Mars' anyone? No, thought not.) But, overall, you've got to admit - it's an impressive haul. There are some genuinely good films in there.

And that's why he's been slowly creeping up my list of Greatest Film Directors.

Granted: He might not be as technically accomplished as Kubrick or Welles, but Carpenter's no slouch either - the cinematography in 'Halloween' is gorgeous.

Accepted: He might not have Cameron's or McTiernan's or Spielberg's 'action chops' - but, watching 'Escape from New York', you can see that he's not that far behind.

And, although Hitchcock was the undisputed master of suspense, I'd argue that few people have come close to matching the same sense of dread and tension Alfred evoked in 'Psycho' as John did in 'The Thing.'

However, most of all, not many directors produce work that is as exciting, as scary, as touching, and simply as enjoyable, as it is now, as it was when it was first released.

Even fewer find themselves becoming even more relevant as time marches on.

But Carpenter has done all of those things. With cinematic aplomb.

John Carpenter - I salute you, sir. Thank you.

I'm off to kick some ass and chew some bubblegum...

And I'm all out of bubblegum.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If you've liked what you've read, please check out my other stories and articles on Vocal, including my Top Story -

If you've really liked what you've read, please share it with your friends on social media.

If you've really, really liked what you've read, a small tip would be greatly appreciated.

Thank you!