OP well said. It might be difficult for some people to understand how people who were not kids saw this film in 82. The characters in the film seem to serve just to push the story torward one thrill after another.
It's one of his best films, but I certainly don't think Carpenter himself was in a very healthy state of mind when he made the film, there's something very mechanical and inhuman about the approach towards the characters, very unlike what filmmakers have been doing till that time, whether it was monster films like The Curse of Frankenstein, Godzilla or The Exorcist, Burnt Offerings, Night Of The Living Dead, Texas Chainsaw Massacre, The Scanners or Alien, there was always a sense of identification and empathy on the part of a filmmaker. I believe that's one of the main reasons people couldn't connect to the film as much, besides the younger audience who love the spectacle and thrill. I heard that afterwards he needed visits to a psychologist to change his outlook on life and the way he lived at that point, and since then his films seem to have become lighter in tone. I always strongly felt that Carpenter sort of redeemed himself with Starman in 84 and Ghosts Of Mars in 2001, both serving in a way as a personal apology for the way The Thing was received, he used a similar scenario, but focused on the characters and themes more than in his early films, especially The Thing or Assault On Presinct 13.
Escape From L.A. itself is like a commentary on the society that puts more value on how things look (that includes the plastic surgery scene), who focus more on the effects and realism instead of the characters and feeling of the film, his later films in general felt more whole and cerebral by focusing on depth of themes, characters, their backgrounds and traits rather than a visceral impact which perhaps made those films less scary and less mainstream, there comes the natural realization that to be more authentic and true to ourselves we would have to sacrifice our ambitions to appeal to more people. Which I believe happens to lots of filmmakers in later age when they have nothing to prove and instead focus on what they really want, their authenticity starts coming out, early on many of us compromise just to make it in life, that's natural.
By the way I find it interesting that each adaptation of Who Goes There has been made almost every 30 years.
reply
share
AZ (62)
5 years ago
I agree and disagree. The movie has an austere tone yet that works with the theme and location - a group of grizzled middle aged men working in the deadening cold of the antarctic. The unrelenting tone of the movie wouldn't have been possible if it had more emotion and warmth.
Most mainstream film makers aren't able to create a unique and consistent tone with their movies let alone be bold enough to create one of nihilistic dread. The Thing does that well without getting too gory like some b horror movies do. It's palpable enough for mainstream audiences.
The Thing works because of its tone. No that doesn't mean Carpenter was in a good place when he made it or should have stayed in that place. It's good he got help and moved on. Yet he created something with that state of mind which is one of the most unique horror movies ever made.
I'm not a particular fan of horror movies yet I am a fan of movies that have their own identity and stand the test of time. Whether it be a horror movie or an uplifting musical. The tone of movies today is so homogenized, so many look and feel the same. You have to appreciate the old gems in the rough. Maybe they are gems because they were allowed to be rough and have edges.
I don't think Carpenter compromised when he made his earlier movies. I would say he was authentic to who and where he was if overly focused on negative stuff which he grew out of with age and wisdom.
reply
share
Starman (412)
5 years ago
In my own view I would say rarely any human being is as much authentic as as in the older age, what I mean by authenticity is the greater discovery of who we really are, hence my viewpoint on his early films, he may have had lots of freedom what he wanted to do though, my view is that most of us don't tend to see the greater picture of our life or have as much freedom in our directions as in the later life, we're growing, first from the clutches of the parents or society, constantly reaching out for that greater freedom and truth. If he was 100% free in his choices, why would the market dictate what projects to do, otherwise for instance he would have been doing westerns as he wanted, that itself is a compromise, including being dictated by the trends (genres or styles) of the era we're in. I see authenticity as an ability to distance ourselves from such influences. The more we're true to ourselves, the less we become popular among most people. I always saw Carpenter as one of the most authentic artists out there, however much more so in his later life. That is all what I mean basically.
reply
share