Skip to main content

I’m giving you a choice. Either put on these glasses or start eating that trash can.

They Live*
(1988)

(SPOILERS) Don’t get me wrong, I’m a big fan of They Live –I was a big fan of most things Carpenter at the time of its release – but the manner in which its reputation as a prophecy of (or insight into) “the way things are” has grown is a touch out of proportion with the picture’s relatively modest merits. Indeed, its feting rests almost entirely on the admittedly bravura sequence in which WWF-star-turned-movie-actor Roddy Piper, under the influence of a pair of sunglasses, first witnesses the pervasive influence of aliens among us who are sucking mankind dry. That, and the ludicrously genius sequence in which Roddy, full of transformative fervour, attempts to convince Keith David to don said sunglasses, for his own good. They Live should definitely be viewed by all, for their own good, but it’s only fair to point out that it doesn’t have the consistency of John Carpenter at his very, very best.


Nada: I have come here to chew bubblegum and kick ass. And I’m all out of bubble gum.

One of They Live’s most vocal advocates is the much-ridiculed David Icke, who rates it up there with The Matrix as an exposé of the aforementioned way things really are. Devoted conspiracy theorist as I am, one of the problems I have with the conspiracist view of Hollywood (and movies generally) is that, while there’s much that is undoubtedly provably tainted (military backing and support of pictures that will only occur if it paints the armed forces in a positive light, for example) the response of the beholder to any kind of creative content, pro or con their view, is that it is simply espousing the agenda of the elite (even if that’s no more than being dedicated to a grim, violent and/or apocalyptic worldview; in every instance it’s been designed to prime us for such actual developments), or is “soft disclosure” of some description.


In this eye’s view, there is zero room for the genuine creative agenda of an artist; they must have been buffeted into presenting a tarnished perspective, or alternatively somehow have their paws on the truth and have somehow prevailed enough to present the unvarnished facts. Thus, based on personal tastes and prejudices, you get Icke vouching for The Matrix on one hand while on the other, others claim the Wachowski are mere Illuminati stooges. Perhaps it’s even worse than that – anyone up to their neck in the mire of Hollywood is presumably suffused with Archons, and thus inescapably corrupted.


It’s also a frequent proud pronouncement of the conspiracy theorist that they don’t watch movies, or remove themselves from popular media, which inevitably leads to a self-fulfilling prophecy whereby any access to TV and movies feels like a bombardment of pertinent commentary, mainlining straight to their brains. Which, depending on their aforementioned predilections, yields responses either revelatory or simply presenting the views of our secret masters. You only have to look at David Wilcock’s recent piece on Pizzagate (which he, ever modestly – if he were addressing his modesty, you can bet he would announce that he would prove conclusively in the article you were about to read, backed by hundreds of indisputable sources, that he was the most modest and retiring person who ever there was or would be – claims to be “what may well be the definitive… expose”), in which he has found pretty much any and every reference to pizza ever, right back to the inventions of dough, cheese and tomatoes, to be highly suspect and leading. When he then concludes, as he always does, by spending paragraphs documenting the inane synchronicities of his page view counts, that no one outside of Charlie Babbitt would find interesting, you end up with a sense that he’s as frequently running on the fumes of his own insurmountable ego as Ben Fulford is on the effluent of wildly variable (but always entertaining) secret government sources; in both cases, this isn’t really of any consequence, so long as they, as would-be exposers of all that is hidden, don’t mind having seriously suspect credibility from the off.



NadaYou know, you look like your head fell in the cheese dip back in 1957.


Icke, at least, isn’t wildly insecure, but he’s as prone – as we all are – to seeing confirmations of his biases everywhere and ignoring those that conflict. So, in They Live’s case, David surmised, “I thought, either that guy got real lucky, or he’s got a very good idea what’s going on. I suspect the latter”. He proceeds to recount how Carpenter replied to a letter concerning Icke’s take on the movie: “He said, ‘Oh no, the aliens in the movie hiding behind human form were symbolic of the Republican Party’. Well, anyone who’s seen They Live, you’re having a laugh”. Attempting to further reinforce a slightly desperate position (why not just recognise that’s what it’s about, but that, through the power of metaphor and personal interpretation, it also provides an eerie depiction of what David believes it’s about?), Icke asserts “I think when you watch John Carpenter’s filmmaking history, that’s a guy who’s got a very good idea of much of what’s happening. That’s my view, anyway”.


Whatever else can be said about John Carpenter’s filmmaking history, it’s that it most certainly doesn’t present any kind of unified perspective on the state of things. This is a guy who loves Howard Hawkes and Nigel Kneale, who has made movies as tight as they come and as sloppy as hell. No doubt in some way Icke could force the disparate likes of The Fog, Christine, Star Man and Vampyres to fit his theory, but it would take some manoeuvring. And while he was about it, he’d could probably do the same with Tobe Hooper’s consummate oeuvre.


Icke’s take on the real forces at work in the world has its basis in the gnostic view of Archons (tantamount to reptilians and greys in modern lore), and “these entities, so brilliantly portrayed in They Live, are feeding off human low vibrational energy, emotional energy, fear, anxiety, depression, hatred, because that’s the frequency band that they can absorb, because that’s their stage of being” (the only part of the movie that connects with this is Frank’s speculative speech about the aliens “feeding on our cold fuckin’ hearts”), and how “it gives a brilliant visual representation of what we’re dealing with and how the world could be if we rid the world of this force in the shadows”.


Street Preacher: They have taken the hearts and minds of our leaders, they have recruited the rich and powerful, and they have blinded us to the truth.

On the commentary track, Carpenter explicitly said he made the picture during the Reagan era, and was “trying to say something about that”, and that’s really pretty evident throughout; this is a movie about the trodden down underclasses (he charitably suggests Roddy was right for the role because he knew something about that, and Piper is fine, but I still wish Hollywood blue blood Kurt Russell had starred; it would have been a punctuation point to his performance in Big Trouble in Little China and Nada even has the same mullet; of course, if he had consented to show up in a low budget Carpenter movie, we wouldn’t have got the movie’s most famous line, improvised by Piper.


Nada: I just want the chance, it’ll come. I believe in America. I follow the rules. Everybody’s got their own hard times these days.

The first images we see are of urban decay (and They Live’s title wittily appearing as graffiti) and homelessness with Piper’s John Nada (not a subtle name) told “There’s nothing available for you right now” at the job centre. Frank’s story (“We gave the steel company a break when they needed it. You know what they gave themselves? Raises”) is effectively that of the incipient collapse of capitalism as a tail-eating snake that can never be sated. But it isn’t a prescient picture; it’s merely reflecting how things were, how they are and how they will continue to be until a new presiding paradigm replaces this unsustainable one.


Beardy Broadcaster: Our impulses are being redirected We are living in an artificially induced state of consciousness that resembles sleep.

Now, They Live definitely does work if you want to look at it from Icke’s point of view, but that’s as much because science fiction is blessed with being able to tap into broader themes and truths; that’s its currency (assuming for a minute that you accept Icke’s reading of reality, which I’m not – assuming, that is). It diminishes the authors and artists to suggest all they’re capable of is parroting a script at the dictation of their overlords (if that’s what the Icke or Wilcock are getting at; it’s either that or malign subconscious influence via the Archons). The idea that we are all sheep or zombies sleepwalking our way through lives, dictated by remote or inaccessible slave masters is nothing new; it’s simply that Carpenter and the Wachowskis come armed with arresting means of conveying that idea.


Beardy Broadcaster: The poor and the underclass are growing. Racial Justice and human rights are non-existent. They have created a repressive society and we are their unwitting accomplices. Their intention to rule rests with the annihilation of consciousness. We have been lulled into a trance. They have made us indifferent to ourselves and others. We are focussed only on our own gain. They are safe as long as they are not discovered. Their primary method of survival is to keep us asleep keep us selfish, keep us sedated. They are dismantling the sleeping middle class. More and more people are becoming poor. We are the cattle. We are being bred for slavery.


The movie’s a fairly resounding attack on ‘80s consumerism and the self-gratifying automatons it breeds, disguised as a rather nifty science fiction scenario. Carpenter is doing much the same thing with the genre here as he did for horror in his previous picture, Prince of Darkness, offering a mechanism (a broadcast in both movies) that fosters a whole different perspective on reality (religious there, economic here). And, like Prince of Darkness, They Live’s strength is all in the set up.


The payoff here comes thirty minutes in, when Nada puts the sunglasses on for the first time, and we witness the iconically-designed aliens (simple, but hugely effective) and the litany of subliminal instructions that control our very actions (it’s the next step on from Alex Cox’s blank supermarket products in Repo Man – notably, Sy Richards appears in both movies): OBEY, MARRY & REPRODUCE, NO INDEPENDENT THOUGHT, CONSUME, WATCH TV, SUBMIT, BUY, STAY ASLEEP, DO NOT QUESTION AUTHORITY and (on the nose, but perfect) THIS IS YOUR GOD (on the dollar bill). All with a background hum of “Sleep, sleep” on a metropolitan loop.


Nada: Heh heh. It figures it would be like this.

This is the picture’s signature sequence in terms of its “truth” label, one that conjures Invasion of the Body Snatchers-esque paranoia as Nada suddenly realises he’s in an environment awash with aliens relying on his (and every other somnambulant human’s) blithe indifference. As a no longer blind man he’s a very real threat: “I’ve got one that can see”. Piper’s stream of insults are very amusing too, of course.


Nada: I’m giving you a choice. Either put on these glasses or start eating that trash can.

The picture’s other famed episode is the extended fight with the awesome Keith David, as the reluctant Frank Armitage (“Okay. You’re fighting the forces of evil, that none of us can see without sunglasses”). Frank prefers to do what we all do, not rocking the boat (“I’ve got a wife and kids, so leave me alone”). Their altercation reaches a kind of blissfully inane plateau, where the motivation is the motivation. The idea of forcing someone to wear a pair of sunglasses, in isolation, is ludicrously inspired, and the sequence commendably never quite divorces itself from that absurdity and is all the better for it (as is the bit where Piper laughs after kneeing Frank in the balls).


Frank: Maybe they’ve always been with us… those things out there. Maybe they love it… seeing us hate each other, watching us kill each other off, feeding on our cold fucking hearts.

After this, the picture can’t hope to maintain such heights. There’s still some decent dialogue, and ideas, such as the lure of wealth and power to those who work complicity with the aliens, and the signal that continues transmitting even when the TV set is switched off. Those disturbed by chem trails will seize on “Earth is being acclimatised. They are changing our atmosphere into their atmosphere”, but their motivation is very much of the capitalist creed (depleting the planet and moving on to another, all humans are livestock – that’s one of the key pieces of evidence for Icke right there –  and the Earth is just another developing planet, their Third World). There’s an excellent scene in which the human collaborators receive a pep talk concerning the resources the aliens need for multi-dimensional expansion; in return, the per capita of income of each collaborator has gone up that year by an average of 39%! And the response when questioned on such moral turpitude is also pretty damning to the majority of the western world: “What’s the big deal? We all sell out every day. May as well be on the wrong team”.


But the denouement is perfunctory, reflecting the limited time and resources Carpenter had to play with, and it means there’s little resonance to the big idea. At any rate, not in the lingering way there is with The Thing. That happened in the first donning sunglasses scene, later underlined, but not really advanced. The rest is very much cheesy B-movie hokum. The cinematography from Gary B Kibbe is underwhelming, which would contribute to the lifelessness of much of the director’s ‘90s output, and Meg Foster, apart from having crazy blue eyes and pushing Roddy through a window, doesn’t have the most of rewarding of supporting roles. The reveal ending, though, if indebted to both Network and The Howling, is amusing and adroit.


Its patchiness is part of its charm, of course, and more directors should do what Carpenter did, dabbling in low budgets when big success proved elusive; the majority of his ‘90s fare, and subsequent descent into a semi-retirement of videogaming, are illustration enough of that. Icke would certainly appreciate Carpenter’s take on aliens, though, that “I always believe that aliens should be evil. I don’t believe that Close Encounters and E.T. is valid because they’re not evil. They’re nice’. Certainly, that accounts for The Thing, and They Live (and the Village of the Damned remake). But Starman, John? Starman’s not evil. A bit wet, but not evil. That one’s also getting a remake, it seems. They Live could do well from a reinterpretation, in distinction to almost all of the other remakes we’ve had of Carpenter movies, since it’s an imperfect picture blessed with a perfect idea; a filmmaker with the savvy and budget to do it justice could be a godsend. It could even have a cameo from Icke, provided, if the Archons are amenable.


*Or is it They Live! - I certainly remember the title having an exclamation mark. So perhaps the damn mysterious Mandela Effect is at work here too. 


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

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

I just hope my death makes more cents than my life.

Joker (2019)
(SPOILERS) So the murder sprees didn’t happen, and a thousand puff pieces desperate to fan the flames of such events and then told-ya-so have fallen flat on their faces. The biggest takeaway from Joker is not that the movie is an event, when once that seemed plausible but not a given, but that any mainstream press perspective on the picture appears unable to divorce its quality from its alleged or actual politics. Joker may be zeitgeisty, but isn’t another Taxi Driver in terms of cultural import, in the sense that Taxi Driver didn’t have a Taxi Driver in mind when Paul Schrader wrote it. It is, if you like, faux-incendiary, and can only ever play out on that level. It might be more accurately described as a grubbier, grimier (but still polished and glossy) The Talented Ripley, the tale of developing psychopathy, only tailored for a cinemagoing audience with few options left outside of comic book fare.

Dude. You’re my hero and shit.

El Camino: A Breaking Bad Movie (2019)
(SPOILERS) I was going to say I’d really like to see what Vince Gilligan has up his sleeve besidesBreaking Bad spinoffs. But then I saw that he had a short-lived series on CBS a few years back (Battle Creek). I guess things Breaking Bad-related ensure an easy greenlight, particularly from Netflix, for whom the original show was bread and butter in its take up as a streaming platform. There’s something slightly dispiriting about El Camino: A Breaking Bad Movie, though. Not that Gilligan felt the need to return to Jesse Pinkman – although the legitimacy of that motive is debatable – but the desire to re-enter and re-inhabit the period of the show itself, as if he’s unable to move on from a near-universally feted achievement and has to continually exhume it and pick it apart.

Two hundred thousand pounds, for this outstanding example of British pulchritude and learning.

The Avengers 4.18: The Girl From Auntie
I’ve mentioned that a few of these episodes have changed in my appreciation since I last watched the series, and The Girl from Auntie constitutes a very pronounced uptick. Indeed, I don’t know how I failed to rate highly the estimable Liz Fraser filling in for Diana Rigg – mostly absent, on holiday –for the proceedings (taking a not dissimilar amateur impostor-cum-sidekick role to Fenella Fielding in the earlier The Charmers). I could watch Fraser all day, and it’s only a shame this was her single appearance in the show.

The past is a statement. The future is a question.

Justified Season Six
(SPOILERS) There have been more than enough damp squib or so-so show finales of late to have greeted the demise of Justified with some trepidation. Thankfully it avoids almost every pitfall it might have succumbed to and gives us a satisfying send-off that feels fitting for its characters. This is a series that, even at its weakest (the previous season) is leagues ahead of most fare in an increasingly saturated sphere, so it’s a relief – even if there was never much doubt on past form – that it doesn’t drop the ball.

And of those character fates? In a show that often pulls back from giving Raylan Givens the great hero moments (despite his maintaining a veneer of ultra-cool, and getting “supporting hero” moments as he does in the finale, 6.13 The Promise), it feels appropriate that his entire (stated) motivation for the season should be undermined. He doesn’t get to take down Boyd Crowder, except in an incarcerating sense, but as always he is sanguine about it. After…

My name is Dr. King Schultz, this is my valet, Django, and these are our horses, Fritz, and Tony.

Django Unchained (2012)
(MINOR SPOILERS) Since the painful misstep of Grindhouse/Death Proof, Quentin Tarantino has regained the higher ground like never before. Pulp Fiction, his previous commercial and critical peak, has been at very least equalled by the back-to-back hits of Inglourious Basterds and Django Unchained. Having been underwhelmed by his post Pulp Fiction efforts (albeit, I admired his technical advances as a director in Kill Bill), I was pleasantly surprised by Inglourious Basterds. It was no work of genius (so not Pulp Fiction) by any means, but there was a gleeful irreverence in its treatment of history and even to the nominal heroic status of its titular protagonists. Tonally, it was a good fit for the director’s “cool” aesthetic. As a purveyor of postmodern pastiche, where the surface level is the subtext, in some ways he was operating at his zenith. Django Unchained is a retreat from that position, the director caught in the tug between his all-important aesthetic pr…

He tasks me. He tasks me, and I shall have him.

Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan
(1982)
(SPOILERS) I don’t love Star Trek, but I do love Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan. That probably isn’t just me, but a common refrain of many a non-devotee of the series. Although, it used to apply to The Voyage Home (the funny one, with the whales, the Star Trek even the target audience for Three Men and a Baby could enjoy). Unfortunately, its high regard has also become the desperate, self-destructive, song-and-verse, be-all-and-end-all of the overlords of the franchise itself, in whichever iteration, it seems. This is understandable to an extent, as Khan is that rare movie sequel made to transcendent effect on almost every level, and one that stands the test of time every bit as well (better, even) as when it was first unveiled.

You’re only seeing what’s in front of you. You’re not seeing what’s above you.

Mr. Robot Season 2
(SPOILERS) I suspect my problem with Mr. Robot may be that I want it to be something it isn’t, which would entail it being a much better show than it is. And that’s its own fault, really, or rather creator and writer-director of umpteen episodes Sam Esmail’s, who has intentionally and provocatively lured his audience into thinking this really is an up-to-the-minute, pertinent, relevant, zeitgeisty show, one that not only has a huge amount to say about the illusory nature of our socio-economic system, and consequently the bedrock of our collective paradigm, but also the thorny subject of reality itself, both of which have been variably enticing dramatic fodder since the Wachowski siblings and David Fincher released a one-two punch at the end of the previous millennium.

In that sense, Mr. Robot’s thematic conceit is very much of a piece with its narrative form; it’s a conjuring act, a series of sleights of hand designed to dazzle the viewer into going with the flow, rath…

What about the meaningless line of indifference?

The Lion King (2019)
(SPOILERS) And so the Disney “live-action” remake train thunders on regardless (I wonder how long the live-action claim would last if there was a slim hope of a Best Animated Feature Oscar nod?) I know I keep repeating myself, but the early ‘90s Disney animation renaissance didn’t mean very much to me; I found their pictures during that period fine, but none of them blew me away as they did critics and audiences generally. As such, I have scant nostalgia to bring to bear on the prospect of a remake, which I’m sure can work both ways. Aladdin proved to be a lot of fun. Beauty and the Beast entirely tepid. The Lion King, well, it isn’t a badfilm, but it’s wearying its slavish respectfulness towards the original and so diligent in doing it justice, you’d think it was some kind of religious artefact. As a result, it is, ironically, for the most part, dramatically dead in the water.

Never compare me to the mayor in Jaws! Never!

Ghostbusters (2016)
(SPOILERS) Paul Feig is a better director than Ivan Reitman, or at very least he’s savvy enough to gather technicians around him who make his films look good, but that hasn’t helped make his Ghostbusters remake (or reboot) a better movie than the original, and that’s even with the original not even being that great a movie in the first place.

Along which lines, I’d lay no claims to the 1984 movie being some kind of auteurist gem, but it does make some capital from the polarising forces of Aykroyd’s ultra-geekiness on the subject of spooks and Murray’s “I’m just here for the asides” irreverence. In contrast, Feig’s picture is all about treating the subject as he does any other genre, be it cop, or spy, or romcom. There’s no great affection, merely a reliably professional approach, one minded to ensure that a generous quota of gags (on-topic not required) can be pumped out via abundant improv sessions.

So there’s nothing terribly wrong with Ghostbusters, but aside from …

It’s the Mount Everest of haunted houses.

The Legend of Hell House (1973)
(SPOILERS) In retrospect, 1973 looks like a banner year for the changing face of the horror movie. The writing was on the wall for Hammer, which had ruled the roost in Britain for so long, and in the US the release of The Exorcist completed a transformation of the genre that had begun with Polanski’s Rosemary’s Baby; the realistic horror film, where the terror was to be found in the everyday (the home, the family). Then there was Don’t Look Now, which refracted horror tropes through a typically Nic Roeg eye, fracturing time and vision in a meditative exploration of death and grief. The Wicker Man, meanwhile, would gather its reputation over the passing years. It stands as a kind of anti-horror movie, eschewing standard scares and shock tactics for a dawning realisation of the starkness of opposing belief systems and the fragility of faith.

In comparison to this trio, The Legend of Hell House is something of a throwback; its slightly stagey tone, and cobweb…