Skip to main content

Do you read Sutter Cane?

In the Mouth of Madness
(1994)

(SPOILERS) The concluding chapter of John Carpenter’s unofficial Apocalypse Trilogy (preceded by The Thing and Prince of Darkness) is also, sadly, his last great movie. Indeed, it stands apart in the qualitative wilderness that beset him during the ‘90s (not for want of output). Michael De Luca’s screenplay had been doing the rounds since the ‘80s, even turned down by Carpenter at one point, and it proves ideal fodder for the director, bringing out the best in him. Even cinematographer Gary K Kibbe seems inspired enough to rise to the occasion. It could do without the chugging rawk soundtrack, perhaps, but then, that was increasingly where Carpenter’s interests resided (as opposed to making decent movies).


Carpenter had already returned to the major studios following his exit into low budget filmmaking with Prince of Darkness and They Live – or They Live! if you’re subject to the Mandela Effect – (two out of a three movie deal with Alive Films; the final one never materialised). Memoirs of an Invisible Man was not a happy experience, although he struck up a good relationship with Sam Neill, who takes on the lead character John Trent here. Between Memoirs and Mouth, Carpenter worked on the TV anthology movie Body Bags. Afterwards, his career slouch began in earnest, with the likes of Village of the Damned, the long-awaited Escape from L.A. and Vampires all missing the target. In the Mouth of Madness was made during the period when Turner Broadcasting had acquired the indie studio, a few years prior to New Line being sold to Warner, and a decade after it had established its horror credentials as “The House that Freddy Built”.


It was Freddy, specifically The Final Nightmare and anthology series Freddy’s Nightmares, that got De Luca his break in the industry, and by 1994 he was in a position to put Madness into production himself, as President of Production at New Line while yet in his 20s (notably, he hasn’t written anything in two decades – perhaps, like Sutter Cane, “They were telling me what to write” – last garnering a story credit on Star Trek: Voyager; as a Trekkie, it was a dream come true). Many tales of debauchery surround De Luca during his period riding high with New Line, but that shouldn’t detract from a remarkably assured piece of writing, one that distils horror from a much earlier era than the slasher antics of ‘80s icons: HP Lovecraft.


Saperstein: Do you read Sutter Cane?

In In the Mouth of Madness, it’s the Old Ones of Cthulhu who are all set to return to our world, unspeakable and indescribable horrors. As with the title it co-opts, Lovecraft’s At the Mountains of Madness, Mouth features a flashback structure and the dread of incipient insanity. However, there’s much more to Mouth than simply retelling Lovecraft for the ‘90s generation. And much more too than a pastiche of Stephen King tropes, who shares with Lovecraft an obsession with small town Americana and upon whom the movie’s architect of all evil, John Trent’s assignment Sutter Cane, is based. Indeed, it’s a sly dig at King (whom Cane outsells, and who, like King, almost immediately announces movie adaptations of his work), wont to place a writer at the centre of innumerable of his stories, that Mouth revolves around an egomaniacal author who becomes such a focal point of his own universe that he is enabled to manipulate everyone else’s.


Cane’s novels all riff on Lovecraft titles, although The Dulwich Horror becoming The Hobb’s End Horror points to Carpenter layering his own obsessions over De Luca’s screenplay. While there was Lovecraftian material in both The Thing and Prince of Darkness, Carpenter’s adulation of Nigel Kneale has been much noted, with the writer commissioned to pen Halloween III: Season of the Witch and Carpenter using the pseudonym Martin Quatermass for Prince of Darkness screenplay: Hobb’s End is, of course, the location of the action in the seminal Quatermass and the Pit. One also can’t help but wonder if Carpenter ever saw Children of the Stones, with Hobb’s End sealed in a loop that finds a young cyclist becoming not so very young while on a never-ending bike ride (“I can’t get out… He won’t let me out”) and Trent prevented from leaving until his author allows him to, finding himself right back where he started from.


Sutter Cane: It will make the world ready for the change. It takes its power from new readers and believers.

Mostly, though, Mouth is about reality, and the perception thereof, which is a little loftier than King and Lovecraft’s obsessions. Yes, Lovecraft had the unutterable reality behind the visible, trying to break through, but it’s a less tricksy prospect than De Luca is attempting, complete with a generous slice of metatextuality (the only thing missing from the movie-within-movie credits at the end is “John Trent played by Sam Neill”).


Bryant Frazer complained that Mouthisn’t really about anything, save perhaps the power of the media and the purported dangers of paying too much mind to pop culture phenomena (yawn!)” He goes on to (rightly) endorse Wes Craven’s New Nightmare, but one needn’t be at the expense of the other. I’d agree the picture isn’t really interested in the pop culture phenomena aspect, although it certainly has fun with the idea of horror obsessives driven to a state of dangerous delusion by what they read (and if the thunder of the opening guitar wasn’t exactly Carpenter’s cup of tea, one might suggest he was taking the piss out of the cliché of dovetailing genre fans with an adoration of heavy metal) but the media point does feed into the picture’s broader theme, and it’s a touch obtuse to miss it.


Sutter Cane: a harmless pop phenomenon or a deadly mad prophet of the printed page?

Trent’s mantra, until proven otherwise, is “We are not living in a Sutter Cane story!” and our own ability to live out, subscribe to, or be indoctrinate by, someone else’s prescribed narrative oughtn’t to be underestimated. You can apply the power of the media to this, but really, it’s present in any paradigm committed to by enough of us. On a surface level, “When does fiction become religion?” takes in Scientology or people writing “Jedi” on censuses, but more devastatingly it leads to holy wars and millennium-long obsessions and oppressions.


Cane (Jurgen Prochnow), tells Trent, “Religion seeks disciples through fear, yet doesn’t understand the true nature of creation. No one’s ever believed it enough to make it real. The same cannot be said of my work”. Which is something of a slippery conceit, designed to sell us his power to rewrite reality rather than really standing up to analysis (“More people believe in my work than believe in The Bible” Cane claims, it having sold a billion copies and been translated into 18 languages; not quite an accurate description, since The Bible’s estimated to have sold 5 billion).


Linda Styles: What scares me about Cane’s work is what would happen if reality shared his point of view.

Neil Gaiman used a similar notion in the recently adapted American Gods, that believing makes it so, but even if Mouth plays fast and loose with its numbers and evaluation of belief, it seizes on something stirring in Carpenter’s favourite line in the picture: “Reality is not what it used to be”. Or: “A reality is just what we tell each other it is”. And how easy it is to, metaphorically, “find yourself in a padded cell, wondering what happened to the world”. On that level, the picture has something in common with They Live, that perceived reality is subject to manipulation and abuse, and we can all be duped. As was suggested to Carpenter, both pictures have a select group able to see the truth (the glasses wearers in They Live, the followers of Cane in Mouth). So too, identifying the police, beating on the innocent, with malign forces is a shared feature (“You want some too, buddy?”)


John Trent: I know this book will drive people crazy.
Jackson Harglow: Well, let’s hope so. The movie comes out next month.

On one level, Frazer isn’t wrong, though. Mouth is more enamoured with having fun with its concept that preaching. As a winking movie, it could be seen as part of the vanguard that includes Last Action Hero, in which the artifice of the picture is foregrounded (the movie Trent goes to see is the movie we’ve been watching, Trent can only achieve anything after the writer has written him that way: “He wants you to kiss me.”: “Why?”: “Because it’s good for the book”). But also, and I don’t think I’m being charitable here, aspects that appear ill-fitting at first, such as Trent’s rather overdone persona, make more sense in the context of his being a work of fiction (or, if you will, a product of his reinvented environment). He’s an Insurance investigator straight out of cheap detective fiction, always smoking, talking cheap to the dames (“Let’s get together after work”) and possessing the general air of the cynical gumshoe (“Lady, nothing surprises me. We fuck up the air, we fuck up the water. We fuck up each other. Why don’t we just finish the job by flushing our brains down the toilet?”)


Sutter Cane: You are what I write. Like this town. It wasn’t here before I wrote it. And neither were you.

Some have tried to fathom out the picture’s plotting in a coherent manner. Was there a point where Trent was his own person, before he became fictionalised? If we’re to expand the idea, there was never a time where he wasn’t living in someone else’s fashioned reality, or at least complicitly agreeing to their idea of a reality. But it’s a fool’s errand to try and address causality in this loop; it becomes as unyielding as a Grandfather paradox.


Jackson Harglow: Well… that is quite a story. If you could write it, I’d publish it.

There is the curiosity of wondering how much on screen is the content of the novel, though, although you could employ some slack by suggesting it’s only the content of the adaptation of the novel. Jackson Harglow (Charlton Heston) is oblivious to the narrative of In the Mouth of Madness (the novel), once he has published it (“No, I never read Cane’s work. I haven’t got the stomach for it” – did he also ignore the resemblance of his insurance investigator to the person depicted on its cover?), but Cane’s agent certainly wasn’t (“He read about you, in there”).In which case he presumably not only learnt about an insurance investigator retrieving the manuscript of the book and taking it back to Harglow, but about him reading said book and attempting to kill Trent (like that Bug’s Bunny Radio Times cover, it just goes on and on, receding recursively, although Trent is also finishing the novel when we meet him in Hobb’s End, so one might suggest it was subject to a rewrite process – see below).


It’s a neat cognition-scrambling conceit that, no matter what Trent does, the book stays with him, such that Harglow tells him “You delivered it to me personally, in this room, last spring. We published in July. It’s been in stores seven weeks” (somehow, it seems Cane has the only copy, despite his agent having read it and Linda being familiar with at least the gist of it, but she says they need to read the book to find a way out of the town). Although, surely Linda, who “was written out”, can’t not be in the book but in the movie (as with the agent, if she had read the book at the outset, she’d surely know she featured in it). To be honest, that line sounds more like something De Luca thought sounded clever than having any coherence.


Sutter Cane: Even now, you’re trying to rationalise.

Mouth’s best taken with a hefty dose of queasy dream logic anyway, where you’re not sure if you’re asleep or awake. It’s fuelled on quasi-magical mechanisms (a map made from book covers leading to a real place in a real state, despite being on no maps – one might assume this was part of the publicity stunt, but Linda doesn’t indicate this, merely that Cane was sent away as part of the stunt and never returned), utilises dreams within dreams (similarly to John Landis’ An American Werewolf in London, replaying actual events, slightly but significantly altered), an inability to see what’s just out of reach (the In the Mouth of Madness cover beneath the cover of The Hobb’s End Horror depicting Trent himself, that stays hidden until just the right revealing moment) and leaps of distance (suddenly they’ve arrived in Hobb’s End).


It also suggests David Lynch influences. Twin Peaks: Fire Walk with Me was distributed by New Line immediately prior to De Luca’s watch, and Mouth nods to it at a couple of points, both with the appearance of Frances Bay as Mrs Pickman (Mrs Tremond there), the tentacled axe woman who has handcuffed her naked husband to her foot, and more eerily the moving portrait, an open door in Lynch’s film but here depicting figures whose positions have shifted every time we cut back.


John Trent: God’s not supposed to be a hack horror writer.

Mouth also brims with a winning sense of humour in support of its craziness.  A particular flourish is another dream sequence, in which Cane communicates with Trent on a bus journey (“Did I ever tell you my favourite colour is blue?”, only for the entire world to become that colour: Trent wakes up screaming). The movie begins with Trent delivered to a mental institution run by the ever-amusing John Glover, who “soothes” his patients’ nerves with music (“Oh no. Not the Carpenters too!” screams the tortured Trent). And, having been informed by Cane of his pervasive influence, the best Trent can retort is the cheap but satisfying “Anyway, your work sucks”.


Linda Styles: The thing I can’t remember is, what came first? Us or the book?

The effects work is subtly suggestive, rather than full-on, as befits a Lovecraftian horror, and Edward A Warschilka’s editing deserves special praise, from the flurry of imagery assaulting those who have read the novel to the jumps in reality that occur at every turn (his work on the next trio of Carpenters is decidedly less so, ditto Kibbe). 


Presumably Alex Kurtzman is a fan of Mouth, as this year’s The Mummy features both the double pupils of Cane’s converts and the hero driving in a loop, unaware, right back to where he began.


John Trent: What about the people who don’t read?
Jackson Harglow: There’s a movie.

I don’t think In the Mouth of Madness is quite up there with Carpenter’s top tier (The Thing, Big Trouble in Little China), but it shares similarly unmissable cult status with They Live: a great premise that is mostly fulfilled in the execution. It’s a shame that, not yet fifty, he was pretty much a spent force creatively after this point. Not that he didn’t pack a whole lot into about twenty years, more and better than most filmmakers, and not that he doesn’t still turn out good music (mostly less Metallica-inspired than this), but playing video games post- early retirement seems like a waste. Carpenter’s late career does very much prove that a filmmaker is only as good as the crew surrounding him, however, In the Mouth of Madness being the exception that proves the rule.





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

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

She writes Twilight fan fiction.

Vampire Academy (2014)
My willingness to give writer Daniel Waters some slack on the grounds of early glories sometimes pays off (Sex and Death 101) and sometimes, as with this messy and indistinct Young Adult adaptation, it doesn’t. If Vampire Academy plods along as a less than innovative smart-mouthed Buffy rip-off that might be because, if you added vampires to Heathers, you would probably get something not so far from the world of Joss Whedon. Unfortunately inspiration is a low ebb throughout, not helped any by tepid direction from Daniel’s sometimes-reliable brother Mark and a couple of hopelessly plankish leads who do their best to dampen down any wit that occasionally attempts to surface.

I can only presume there’s a never-ending pile of Young Adult fiction poised for big screen failure, all of it comprising multi-novel storylines just begging for a moment in the Sun. Every time an adaptation crashes and burns (and the odds are that they will) another one rises, hydra-like, hoping…

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…

If this is not a place for a priest, Miles, then this is exactly where the Lord wants me.

Bad Times at the El Royale (2018)
(SPOILERS) Sometimes a movie comes along where you instantly know you’re safe in the hands of a master of the craft, someone who knows exactly the story they want to tell and precisely how to achieve it. All you have to do is sit back and exult in the joyful dexterity on display. Bad Times at the El Royale is such a movie, and Drew Goddard has outdone himself. From the first scene, set ten years prior to the main action, he has constructed a dizzyingly deft piece of work, stuffed with indelible characters portrayed by perfectly chosen performers, delirious twists and game-changing flashbacks, the package sealed by an accompanying frequently diegetic soundtrack, playing in as it does to the essential plot beats of the whole. If there's a better movie this year, it will be a pretty damn good one.

I am so sick of Scotland!

Outlaw/King (2018)
(SPOILERS) Proof that it isn't enough just to want to make a historical epic, you have to have some level of vision for it as well. Say what you like about Mel's Braveheart – and it isn't a very good film – it's got sensibility in spades. He knew what he was setting out to achieve, and the audience duly responded. What does David Mackenzie want from Outlaw/King (it's shown with a forward slash on the titles, so I'm going with it)? Ostensibly, and unsurprisingly, to restore the stature of Robert the Bruce after it was rather tarnished by Braveheart, but he has singularly failed to do so. More than that, it isn’t an "idea", something you can recognise or get behind even if you don’t care about the guy. You’ll never forget Mel's Wallace, for better or worse, but the most singular aspect of Chris Pine's Bruce hasn’t been his rousing speeches or heroic valour. No, it's been his kingly winky.

There's something wrong with the sky.

Hold the Dark (2018)
(SPOILERS) Hold the Dark, an adaptation of William Giraldi's 2014 novel, is big on atmosphere, as you'd expect from director Jeremy Saulnier (Blue Ruin, Green Room) and actor-now-director (I Don’t Want to Live in This World Anymore) pal Macon Blair (furnishing the screenplay and appearing in one scene), but contrastingly low on satisfying resolutions. Being wilfully oblique can be a winner if you’re entirely sure what you're trying to achieve, but the effect here is rather that it’s "for the sake of it" than purposeful.

It is the greatest movie never released, you know.

They'll Love Me When I'm Dead (2018)
(SPOILERS) They'll Love Me When I'm Dead, Morgan Neville's documentary on the making of Orson Welles' long-gestating The Other Side of the Wind, is much more interesting than the finally finished article itself, but to be fair to Welles, he foresaw as much as a possibility. Welles' semi-improvised faux-doc approach may not seem nearly as innovative nearly fifty years on – indeed, in the intervening period there's a slew of baggage of boundary-blurring works, mockumentaries and the whole found footage genre – but he was striving for something different, even if that "different" was a reaction to the hole he'd dug himself in terms of bankability. On the evidence of the completed film, he never quite found the necessary rhythm or mode, but the struggle to achieve it, as told here, is fascinating.

You kind of look like a slutty Ebola virus.

Crazy Rich Asians (2018)
(SPOILERS) The phenomenal success of Crazy Rich Asians – in the US at any rate, thus far – might lead one to think it's some kind of startling original, but the truth is, whatever its core demographic appeal, this adaptation of Kevin Kwan's novel taps into universally accepted romantic comedy DNA and readily recognisable tropes of family and class, regardless of cultural background. It emerges a smoothly professional product, ticking the expected boxes in those areas – the heroine's highs, lows, rejections, proposals, accompanied by whacky scene-stealing best friend – even if the writing is sometimes a little on the clunky side.

Have you ever looked into a goat's eyes?

Hacksaw Ridge (2016)
(SPOILERS) There was probably an insightful, sensitive movie to be made about the World War II experiences of conscientious objector Desmond Doss, but Mel Gibson’s Hacksaw Ridge isn’t it. It’s unsurprising that a number of reviewers have independently indulged the wordplay Hackneyed Ridge, an effective summation of the ridiculously over-the-top, emotionally shameless theatrics Mel indulges, turning a story that already fell into the “You wouldn’t believe it if it wasn’t true” camp into “You won’t believe it anyway, because it’s been turned up to 11” (and that’s with Gibson omitting incidents he perceived to be “too much”, such as Doss being shot by a sniper after he was wounded, having given up his stretcher to another wounded man; certainly, as wrung through Mel’s tonal wringer, that would have been the case).

Perhaps Mel should stick to making subtitled features, the language barrier diluting the excruciating lack of nuance or subtlety in his treatment of subject m…

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 …

What if I tell you to un-punch someone, what you do then?

Incredibles 2 (2018)
(SPOILERS) Incredibles 2 may not be as fresh as the first outing – indeed, certain elements of its plotting border on the retread – but it's equally, if not more, inventive as a piece of animation, and proof that, whatever his shortcomings may be philosophically, Brad Bird is a consummately talented director. This is a movie that is consistently very funny, and which is as thrilling as your average MCU affair, but like Finding Dory, you may understandably end up wondering if it shouldn't have revolved around something a little more substantial to justify that fifteen-year gap in reaching the screen.