Skip to main content

Why are you keeping this curiosity door locked?

Stranger Things
Season One

(SPOILERS) Would you let junior watch Stranger Things? The Duffer brothers are clearly in favour, although they presumably don’t have any nippers (“I love the idea that we’re going to scare the shit out of some kids. It’s fun”). I only ask as I was frequently given to ponder during its eight-episode run (unlike a lot of series, just about a perfect length) that anyone of a similar age to its young protagonists (12 years old) would likely be excluded from viewing on account of it being too intense. On the other hand, I was an easily petrified child.


Netflix presumably agrees with the not-so-old Duffers, since they gave it a G (PG) rating. Presumably this is classed as more Poltergeist than The X-Files, but then the former is a good example of such eggshells territory, garnering a 15 in the UK and a mere PG in the US. I guess the fear factor is ultimately in the eye of the discerning parent (provided they have any say in what junior watches on their iPad or equivalent device), since I perceived little difference between the frights on display here and the shock factor in, say, an Insidious instalment. Of course, what this has going for it beyond an Insidious is a really strong plot, beyond a strong premise, with a number of interweaving and equally commanding threads. Stranger Things isn’t all about the shocks, and it certainly isn’t all about the ‘80s nostalgia. It isn’t altogether about The Montauk Project either, come to that, which is just a tad disappointing. It is very good, though.


The ‘80s was a breeding ground for Spielberg thrills pushing the ratings boundaries, of course, with Gremlins and Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom responsible for ushering in the PG-13 the year after Stranger Things is set. Although, that would be no more than a history lesson to the Duffer boys (Matt and Ross), since at a tender 32 they could barely have been born in 1983.


You won’t find a review of this show that doesn’t service the phrase “80s nostalgia”, but despite being fledglings (or maybe because), the Duffers have largely avoided the pitfalls of overt homage afflicting the likes of Super 8 and Midnight Special. Perhaps that’s because, for all that it inhabits a readily recognisable small town milieu, replete with pre-teens, older teen siblings (a key echo of the likes of The Goonies and The Lost Boys; maybe they should get a Feldman cameo in Season Two) and oblivious or fraught parents (Poltergeist, E.T.) this feels like a distinct tale wanting to be told in its own right, with characters and situations unbeholden to those mapped out by the likes of the ‘berg.


I suspect part of that is that you can see how the Duffers haven’t been restrictive with their influences. The conspiracy architecture of The X-Files feels like a bigger influence on that aspect of the story than its antecedents in ‘70s paranoia movies, while the creature (not, alas, the Montauk Beast –  or is it?)  owes more to uncanny horrors of Silent Hill (as does its ash-suspended realm) and Guillermo Del Toro than ‘80s creatures. The Upside Down instantly suggests the Further in terms of memorable monikers for parallel/alternate universes (and the here/not here contrast is like the disillusioned flipside of all that Randian escapism in Tomorrowland, with the mapping of the other in the same location, merely displaced), even though being snatched by something to an eerie elsewhere is very much the baseline of Poltergeist (and indeed, the snatchee being a defenceless child, trying to communicate with distraught parents).


When we see Eleven induced into an altered state, the depiction is informed by Under the Skin, a sound inspiration if ever there was. And, while I’m no Stephen King aficionado, I can readily see the referencing in the title font, and the intrusion of another, less than benevolent, sphere (The Mist). Albeit, he got that from Lovecraft. But aspects like the font, and the very John Carpenter synth score (too wall-to-wall in the first scene with the kids, but after that it feels entirely appropriate) are more garnish than essentials; they aren’t wagging the dog, which is essential for this to work.


No matter how many genre influences are easily spotted (John Hughes movies’ bittersweet teen romance and disappointment), the Duffers never seem content to merely trace the lines (hence the surprise that Steve, an ‘80s James Spader type, should turn out to be not quite the manipulative louse his ridiculous hair, privilege and cocksure posturing would suggest). The show has its fair share of contemporary tunes, but isn’t interested in being entirely diegetic (hence the use of Moby, and Peter Gabriel’s cover of “Heroes”).


And when it does seem to be overly pointing and waving, as with pristine posters for The Evil Dead and The Thing (and a scene from the latter appears, following characters theorising about the creature’s relationship with blood; later fire extinguishers are used after torching it), it stands out for being unnecessarily showy (the Star Wars referencing less so, since it was linguistic currency for every kid at the time, although the Kenner Yoda figure and dressing up/hiding Eleven material does skirt rather close to E.T. territory, before shaking it off). The major referential conceit of Dungeons and Dragons actually feels fresh, since it wasn’t (to my recollection) a significant part of any popular picture of the period.


Perhaps that’s so because the Duffer’s particular young protagonists are singularly nerdy in a manner movies of the era didn’t explore in such painstaking painfulness. You had your science geek in Explorers, and bullied kids in Stand by Me, but the Duffers’ cast come armed with the authentic aspects of bullied, misfit kids, as opposed to polished Hollywood brats dressing down (just as the bullies themselves have a convincing air of malign intent).


The six-to-the-dozen, rattling exchanges between Finn Wolfhard (Mike Wheeler), Garen Matarazzo), Caleb McLaughlin (Lucas Sinclair) and Noah Schnapp (Will Byers) are convincingly breathless, but avoid descending into the unholy noise of The Goonies’ ensemble, and they always carry with them an air of substance closer to the emotional core of Elliot in E.T. (indeed, the relationship between Finn and Ellie, albeit between a boy and a girl, is closely transposed, with Ellie just a slightly less fragile and benign terrestrial, snapping necks and flipping cars, who, while she can make a boy fly, does it through necessity rather than the attempted to instil awe and wonder). That might be the key here, though. While Stranger Things has the heart strings tug of a Spielberg, it is less brazenly manipulative, less predicated on sentiment and more on genuine exchange. Perhaps that’s a consequence of their being more disposed to the horror genre, but there’s no doubting the series stands on its own two feet.


It’s difficult to pick out a winner from the pack of kids, except to say that Millie Brown, acting more with her eyes than intonations (her character is decidedly taciturn, and the brothers are fond are of the old psychic powers standby of "head down, eyes raised" for unleashing fury) as the escaped experiment subject Ellie/Eleven will surely have an incredible career ahead of her. Well, if she can extricate herself from genre roles (she was previously memorable as another preternatural child in Intruders, there possessed by a returning spirit).


Wolfhard already has one of the leads in It, and provides the heart of the piece, while Matarazzo is a hugely winning, goofball whirl of energy as the ivories-impaired, irrepressible Dustin. McLaughlin is a bit stiffer, although that may simply reflect the temperament of Lucas, rather than talent. The Duffers are very keyed into the mind-set of kids, who are constantly trading insults and squabbling amid their affection (Ellie is a “weirdo” to everyone but Mike for most of the show, even with her levitation skills known about; a particularly amusing sequence sees Dustin attempting to persuade her to float a toy Millennium Falcon, which insistently falls straight to the floor; a scene later, alone, Ellie is keeping it aloft with her mind). Admittedly, in the early stages some of the writing is a little rudimentary (“What is friend?”), but as a whole it’s highly accomplished, and at times (as when Mike explains that even though he’s known Lucas longer, Dustin is also his best friend, as is Will) almost profound.


The older teens are also well chosen. If the kids are delivered the Spielberg/ Dante/ King/ Carpenter plot, initially much of their elders’ narrative is consumed with rites of passage, as Mike’s old sister Nancy (Natalia Dyer) loses her virginity to Steve Harrington (Joe Keery) and finds fitting in with his cadre of cool, cruel kids none too easy. Charlie Heaton is particularly strong as Noah’s twitchy, brooding older brother, with a thing for The Clash and a De Palma-esque predilection for taking photos, not necessarily when, where, and of whom he should. If there’s only one instance of ‘80s-horror teen-despatching, it reverses the trend (perhaps consciously), in that it’s good girl Barbara (Shannon Purser) who winds up monster fodder.


Fine showings from the adults too. I’ve always been a big fan of Noonie, albeit aware that she isn’t necessarily suited to attempts at extending her range. Here, sporting a Silkwood cut and 40-a-day Silk Cut habit (possibly Ryder’s own), she’s in very different territory to the ingénue that has formed the major part of her career. I was a little concerned during early scenes, as she seemed to be leading by excessive gesticulation, but she’s entirely convincing as devoted, desperate Joyce, Will’s mother, carrying through her own brand of Roy Neary-like, quirky obsessiveness as she attempts to communicate with her son through fairy lights (and an impressive variant Ouija-on-a-wall). Nice too, to see her later interaction with Ellie, at which point it feels like Ryder has finally moved beyond those late ‘80s/early ‘90s roles.


A pleasant change also, to have David Harbour in a sympathetic role as Chief Hopper (admittedly I’m going from his big screen, rather than other TV work), the unlikely hero role even, introduced as dishevelled and permanently hungover but allowed to unspool as a very capable (in contrast to his hilariously dim deputies) but quietly grieving detective. So much so, his devil’s pact at the final furlong comes as something of a shock. We don’t really get a chance to see the repercussions of this for him (only those for Ellie), other than his being invited back to the Department of Energy for a chat, but we hoped he would have chosen another path. 


Hopper has some surprisingly can-do scenes, from breaking into the Department of Energy facility to his Conversation-esque hunt for a bug. Occasionally, the Duffers allow the editing to be overworked, though (Hopper finds the device in a light after going through the other lights and then everything else, but one would expect him to search all the lights first), most notably with his meaningful flashbacks to his own loss when searching for Will (although his recognition of the toy tiger makes for a leading point).


Then there’s Matthew Modine as Dr Brenner, the Machiavelli behind all this madness. He comes on sporting an arresting white ‘do, as if he or the Duffers have taken inspiration from the government agencies in Alex Cox’s Repo Man. There isn’t a lot of substance to his black hat, but somehow Modine fashions him into an identifiably amoral figure, led purely by the “purity” of his scientific inquiry, and willing to sacrifice whosoever along the way. His attitude to Eleven, who has learnt to call him Papa, is clearly one of awe and some degree of genuine affection (although perhaps more as a Frankenstein than a genuine parent). Other notables include Randall P Haven’s geek teacher, Catherine Dyer’s ice-cold assassin and Joe Chrest, who gets some of the funnies lines as Mike’s oblivious dad (“Oh my God. Is she Russian?” and “Karen, we have to trust them, okay? This is the government. They’re on our side”).


As directors, the Duffers’ appear entirely assured, and Shawn Levy surprisingly slots in without adverse comment in the two episodes where he calls the shots (Levy has a remake of Starman on the cards, exactly the sort of thing Stranger Things illustrates is redundant, when there are more than enough original stories to tell). Credit also to Levy’s editor Dean Zimmerman, despite my quibble above, no doubt seizing the chance to break free from a run of comedies and sink his teeth into something requiring a sharper skillset.


The background to Stranger Things has been the stuff of some contention, with a few voices claiming its name was changed from Montauk in order to distance it from accusations of pilfering in making a version of The Montauk Project (it was originally titled Montauk), although the guy behind 2014 documentary The Montauk Chronicles doesn’t seem to be saying that if his comments on IMDB are anything to go by (providing that’s really him).


While the brothers discuss the MKUltra influence in interviews (they couldn’t really not, as it’s right there in the episodes, at perhaps its unlikeliest in providing remarkably easy-to-find evidence through surfing microfiche newspaper records), they’ve been reticent about Montauk itself, so perhaps there’s something to this (asked directly they just say “For production reasons and other reasons we ended up moving it” to Indiana, which is rather oblique). But the Montauk Project really does seem no more than a jumping off point, so I’m sceptical that there are necessarily murkier motives.


Which means there’s still as ripe reason to make a really engrossing TV/movie project based on the material (perhaps doing justice to the Philadelphia Experiment at the same time, the movie of which appears to be surprisingly close to at least one purported version of events). We have the Montauk Boys, but here as one girl (her number indicates there were others, but it’s left at that; while her appearance recalls the opening of James Cameron’s Dark Angel, fortunately nothing else about Stranger Things evokes that series), and this one seems to be a “happy” accident (her mother was pregnant when she volunteered for MKUltra experiments).


There’s the remote viewing aspect, by way of Altered States flotation tanks (we see Ellie eavesdropping on a Russian subject), but the Montauk Chair (I have to admit, I thought the La-Z-Boy scene was going to lead to flashbacks) and manifested monster of the Preston R Nichols and Peter Moon’s account becomes ostensibly, here, the inhabitant of alternate dimension. One might suggest it’s the externalisation of Ellie’s rage – “I’m sorry. The Gate. I opened it. I’m the monster” –  maybe that’s for season 2, but in demeanour at least it’s identifiably other, in the King manner.


And the rip is a more Lovecraftian realm than of the time-space variety (which is where The Mist comes in). If there’s a derivative aspect that weakens the show in retrospect, it’s this; the Montauk story is so dense and incredible, anyone hearing/reading it and then watching a faintly familiar, albeit extremely well done, but very thin riff can’t help but be a little let down (even if they explore more of the Montauk Project themes in the second season, or the sequel as the Duffers refer to it).


One wonders whether the Duffers simply decided not to pursue a fully-fledged recounting of what purportedly went on, or whether they were put off the project. Although, if the latter, such a notion didn’t stop The Philadelphia Experiment from being made. They have mentioned their story was originally much darker, and since the Montauk subjects’ training methods are said to have involved abuse, sexual, physical, and psychological, in order to create a vessel that could be reprogrammed from the ground up (for those who survived the process), they might simply have decided the material was to grim to pursue.


Or perhaps it all just seemed too fantastical, what with boys abducted by Grey aliens, Nazi influences, technology from Sirian and Orion aliens, a chair whose occupant can create a vortex to the past and future, the dangerously unstable link between the 1943 Philadelphia Experiment and the 1983 Montauk Project, and bases on Mars (Nichols and Moon assume the Alternative 3 doc to be genuine, which would certainly encourage the average reader to dismiss the wild story as too too wild, unless they consider Alternative 3 to have been simply uncannily and inadvertently accurate).


The Montauk Boys were utilised for a variety of functions, rather than the depiction in Stranger Things; in part they were simply used as “batteries” to fuel the psychic operating the Montauk Chair. As recounted in Montauk Revisited, they would act as sleepers, to go after anyone anti-government or be placed appropriately should martial law be instigated, or they would become assassins, or slave workers, or a UFO retrieval team. The most memorable episode recounts one of them (later revealed as Stewart Swerdlow) being sent to kill Christ via taking over the body Judas Iscariot, with an in-tandem aim of creating the Antichrist, as embodied Duncan Cameron, the operator of the Montauk Chair, and/or a Jesus clone (depending on whether you read the Nichols account or that of Swerdlow in Montauk: The Alien Connection).


This element links to the headiest element of the tale, that of the Montauk Beast, summoned into existence by Cameron (also one of the primary figures in the Philadelphia Experiment, by way of some fairly incredible body swapping, but then incredible is in keeping with the saga as a whole), who was inadvertently redeemed by the blood of Christ rather than further embedded as the embodiment of evil, and which effectively brought the project to an end. There’s also – very Prince of Darkness  the recounting of the boys being sent to year 6037, where they had to report on a ruined city and a gold statue of a horse.


Whether you swallow any of this – and why would you? – there’s more than sufficient, more than diverting material to pursue five seasons worth of TV show, elements of which echo the likes of X-Men’s Weapon X or the alternate realities and unscrupulous experiments of Fringe. They could then, like Caprica, go back and do a Philadelphia Experiment prequel that gets cancelled after two seasons. Perhaps it unnerves screenwriters that joes out there professing alternate paradigms are far more detailed and inventive than they could ever be (so little chance of The Corey Goode Story anytime soon).


I have to admit, as it stands, I’m not wholly convinced of the need for a Strange Things Season Two. Netflix appears to consider these things as rote, not recognising that a singular subject can be more rewarding (see also Bloodline). The groundwork for Ellie’s return is there (Hopper and the waffles), but I’m not persuaded by the Twin Peaks mirror scene with a Hidden-type alien slug expelled from Will’s insides. It felt like the most obvious (’80) twist ending, for a sequel we don’t necessarily need. Ellie could no doubt be reunited with her family, and there may be something left to tell involving Hopper’s link with the experiment (perhaps he’s had his memory wiped, although they didn’t wipe it when they caught him at the facility), and the potential to delve further into the experiments themselves (the alternate future timeline of the creature, and the purpose behind the programme - "They wanted to expand the boundaries of the mind; really hippy crap" -  beyond straightforward spying).


But how much of this is essential and how much is unnecessary dessert is debatable. Much of the key with a show like Stranger Things is the holding back, and then the dramatic revelation, so unless the Duffers have a handful of surprises up their sleeves, much appears to have played itself out naturally. Certainly, the relationship between the kids, aside from the loss of Ellie, seems to have said all it needs to; it felt like the perfect measures. But who knows, maybe the Duffer’s can do it. They’ve certainly surprised everyone with Season One.



Agree? Disagree? Mildly or vehemently? Let me know in the comments below.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Mondo bizarro. No offence man, but you’re in way over your head.

The X-Files 8.7: Via Negativa I wasn’t as down on the last couple of seasons of The X-Files as most seemed to be. For me, the mythology arc walked off a cliff somewhere around the first movie, with only the occasional glimmer of something worthwhile after that. So the fact that the show was tripping over itself with super soldiers and Mulder’s abduction/his and Scully’s baby (although we all now know it wasn’t, sheesh ), anything to stretch itself beyond breaking point in the vain hope viewers would carry on dangling, didn’t really make much odds. Of course, it finally snapped with the wretched main arc when the show returned, although the writing was truly on the wall with Season 9 finale The Truth . For the most part, though, I found 8 and 9 more watchable than, say 5 or 7. They came up with their fair share of engaging standalones, one of which I remembered to be Via Negativa .

Isn’t it true, it’s easier to be a holy man on the top of a mountain?

The Razor’s Edge (1984) (SPOILERS) I’d hadn’t so much a hankering as an idle interest in finally getting round to seeing Bill Murray’s passion project. Partly because it seemed like such an odd fit. And partly because passion isn’t something you tend to associate with any Murray movie project, involving as it usually does laidback deadpan. Murray, at nigh-on peak fame – only cemented by the movie he agreed to make to make this movie – embarks on a serious-acting-chops dramatic project, an adaptation of W Somerset Maugham’s story of one man’s journey of spiritual self-discovery. It should at least be interesting, shouldn’t it? A real curio? Alas, not. The Razor’s Edge is desperately turgid.

Schnell, you stinkers! Come on, raus!

Private’s Progress (1956) (SPOILERS) Truth be told, there’s good reason sequel I’m Alright Jack reaps the raves – it is, after all, razor sharp and entirely focussed in its satire – but Private’s Progress is no slouch either. In some respects, it makes for an easy bedfellow with such wartime larks as Norman Wisdom’s The Square Peg (one of the slapstick funny man’s better vehicles). But it’s also, typically of the Boulting Brothers’ unsentimental disposition, utterly remorseless in rebuffing any notions of romantic wartime heroism, nobility and fighting the good fight. Everyone in the British Army is entirely cynical, or terrified, or an idiot.

You have done well to keep so much hair, when so many’s after it.

Jeremiah Johnson (1972) (SPOILERS) Hitherto, I was most familiar with Jeremiah Johnson in the form of a popular animated gif of beardy Robert Redford smiling and nodding in slow zoom close up (a moment that is every bit as cheesy in the film as it is in the gif). For whatever reason, I hadn’t mustered the enthusiasm to check out the 1970s’ The Revenant until now (well, beard-wise, at any rate). It’s easy to distinguish the different personalities at work in the movie. The John Milius one – the (mythic) man against the mythic landscape; the likeably accentuated, semi-poetic dialogue – versus the more naturalistic approach favoured by director Sydney Pollack and star Redford. The fusion of the two makes for a very watchable, if undeniably languorous picture. It was evidently an influence on Dances with Wolves in some respects, although that Best Picture Oscar winner is at greater pains to summon a more sensitive portrayal of Native Americans (and thus, perversely, at times a more patr

It’s not as if she were a… maniac, a raving thing.

Psycho (1960) (SPOILERS) One of cinema’s most feted and most studied texts, and for good reason. Even if the worthier and more literate psycho movie of that year is Michael Powell’s Peeping Tom . One effectively ended a prolific director’s career and the other made its maker more in demand than ever, even if he too would discover he had peaked with his populist fear flick. Pretty much all the criticism and praise of Psycho is entirely valid. It remains a marvellously effective low-budget shocker, one peppered with superb performances and masterful staging. It’s also fairly rudimentary in tone, character and psychology. But those negative elements remain irrelevant to its overall power.

My Doggett would have called that crazy.

The X-Files 9.4: 4-D I get the impression no one much liked Agent Monica Reyes (Annabeth Gish), but I felt, for all the sub-Counsellor Troi, empath twiddling that dogged her characterisation, she was a mostly positive addition to the series’ last two years (of its main run). Undoubtedly, pairing her with Doggett, in anticipation of Gillian Anderson exiting just as David Duchovny had – you rewatch these seasons and you wonder where her head was at in hanging on – made for aggressively facile gender-swapped conflict positions on any given assignment. And generally, I’d have been more interested in seeing how two individuals sympathetic to the cause – her and Mulder – might have got on. Nevertheless, in an episode like 4-D you get her character, and Doggett’s, at probably their best mutual showing.

I tell you, it saw me! The hanged man’s asphyx saw me!

The Asphyx (1972) (SPOILERS) There was such a welter of British horror from the mid 60s to mid 70s, even leaving aside the Hammers and Amicuses, that it’s easy to lose track of them in the shuffle. This one, the sole directorial effort of Peter Newbrook (a cameraman for David Lean, then a cinematographer), has a strong premise and a decent cast, but it stumbles somewhat when it comes to taking that premise any place interesting. On the plus side, it largely eschews the grue. On the minus, directing clearly wasn’t Newbrook’s forte, and even aided by industry stalwart cinematographer Freddie Young (also a go-to for Lean), The Aspyhx is stylistically rather flat.

You’re a disgrace, sir... Weren’t you at Harrow?

Our Man in Marrakesh aka Bang! Bang! You’re Dead (1966) (SPOILERS) I hadn’t seen this one in more than three decades, and I had in mind that it was a decent spy spoof, well populated with a selection of stalwart British character actors in supporting roles. Well, I had the last bit right. I wasn’t aware this came from the stable of producer Harry Alan Towers, less still of his pedigree, or lack thereof, as a sort of British Roger Corman (he tried his hand at Star Wars with The Shape of Things to Come and Conan the Barbarian with Gor , for example). More legitimately, if you wish to call it that, he was responsible for the Christopher Lee Fu Manchu flicks. Our Man in Marrakesh – riffing overtly on Graham Greene’s Our Man in Havana in title – seems to have in mind the then popular spy genre and its burgeoning spoofs, but it’s unsure which it is; too lightweight to work as a thriller and too light on laughs to elicit a chuckle.

The best thing in the world for the inside of a man or a woman is the outside of a horse.

Marnie (1964) (SPOILERS) Hitch in a creative ditch. If you’ve read my Vertigo review, you’ll know I admired rather than really liked the picture many fete as his greatest work. Marnie is, in many ways, a redux, in the way De Palma kept repeating himself in the early 80s only significantly less delirious and… well, compelling. While Marnie succeeds in commanding the attention fitfully, it’s usually for the wrong reasons. And Hitch, digging his heels in as he strives to fashion a star against public disinterest – he failed to persuade Grace Kelly out of retirement for Marnie Rutland – comes entirely adrift with his leads.

You know what I sometimes wish? I sometimes wish I were ordinary like you. Ordinary and dead like all the others.

Séance on a Wet Afternoon (1964) (SPOILERS) Bryan Forbes’ adaptation of Mark McShane’s 1961’s novel has been much acclaimed. It boasts a distinctive storyline and effective performances from its leads, accompanied by effective black-and-white cinematography from Gerry Turpin and a suitably atmospheric score from John Barry. I’m not sure Forbes makes the most of the material, however, as he underlines Séance on a Wet Afternoon ’s inherently theatrical qualities at the expense of its filmic potential.