Skip to main content

The President is dead. You got that? Somebody’s had him for dinner.

Escape from New York
(1981)

(SPOILERS) There’s a refreshingly simplicity to John Carpenter’s nightmare vision of 1997. Society and government don’t represent a global pyramid; they’re messy and erratic, and can go deeply, deeply wrong without connivance, subterfuge, engineered rebellions or recourse to reset. There’s also a sense of playfulness here, of self-conscious cynicism regarding the survival prospects for the US, as voiced by Kurt Russell’s riff on Clint Eastwood anti-heroics in the decidedly not dead form of Snake Plissken. But in contrast to Carpenter’s later Big Trouble in Little China (where Russell is merciless to the legend of John Wayne), Escape from New York is underpinned by a relentlessly grim, grounded aesthetic, one that lends texture and substance; it remains one of the most convincing and memorable of dystopian visions.

Of course, we never get to see what the rest of America looks like, lying as it does outside the fifty-foot wall surrounding Manhattan island maximum-security prison. The America where all the (caught) criminals aren’t living (Carpenter refers to a police state). But that’s rather the point. This is America, to all intents and purposes: an America of degraded echoes of its former glories. One of the pleasures of the introductory episodes on the island prison is seeing shambling attempts at retaining old routines, in particular Cabbie (Ernest Borgnine) driving around the familiar neighbourhood, but now with Molotov cocktails to hand, or visiting a less than polished vaudeville production.

In keeping with that microcosm/ macrocosm, the Duke of New York (Isaac Hayes) is essentially the president of this independent state, and proceeds to ritually humiliate and emasculate the actual President (Donald Pleasance, note perfect as cossetted privilege unnerved to his core by the world he has crashed into; his jubilant slaughter of the Duke, to the mocking refrain “You’re the Duke of New York! You’re A-Number One” has all kinds of resonance, particularly coming from a man who holds the nuclear keys).

Carpenter and Nick Castle envision the essential breakdown of society much as George Miller did with Mad Max a few years before; crime and lawlessness have spiralled unchecked, leading to the decision to sweep the perpetrators under the carpet. The carpet being Manhattan Island. But the backdrop of this 1997 is the world of the ‘70s; the President ends up in his pickle thanks to a terrorist hijacking (the Soldiers of the National Liberation Front of America), and there’s a Cold War about to go hot brewing (the President is due to attend the Halford Summit with Russia and China, the outcome of which will decide the survival of the human race).

Snake himself is a veteran, having served in Leningrad and Siberia and earned two purple hearts (subsequently, he attempted to rob the Federal Reserve, so he’s definitely on the side of the angels). As William Gibson noted of “You flew Gullfire over Leningrad, didn’t you?” such world-building nuggets of information dropped into the script are the stuff of great mythos (and the laborious and redundant attempts by fans to prequelise or fill in the gaps).

Carpenter’s film exists in a perma-night, save for a few shots outside Manhattan, leaving the picture, for all its SF trappings, tonally closer to Assault on Precinct 13: urban horror. Death appears suddenly, from any doorway. Even from the floor. The Manhattanites are essentially faceless zombies, but ready to stab, shoot, maim, rape and murder. There is no hope (“The rules are simple: once you go in, you don’t come out”), and the only motivation is survival (everyone, even Cabbie, sees Snake as a ticket out).

Thus, there is no righting of this world – audience enjoyment comes from not worrying about the bigger picture, so it needs a protagonist you can get behind not getting behind any of it, on any side. Russell’s persuasive cynicism is enormous fun. His “Call me Snake” is exactly the kind of cool swagger he would send up as Jack Burton, and his eye patch and leather gear are designer-heightened (in the sequel, they’d tip into outright parody). Likewise, his legendary status is both underlined and mocked by “I heard you were dead” from everyone he meets (again, in the sequel, it would be entirely ridiculed).

When presented with his mission to rescue POTUS, he responds “The president of what?”, and his indifference to the fate of the world is punctuated by his final act of unspooling the President’s cassette tape containing the secrets of nuclear fusion; yes, of course it’s silly, but entirely appropriate to the line the picture is treading. Indeed, Carpenter’s treatment is so meta, he even has his Clint-a-like butting heads with Lee Van Cleef (his last role of note, although he’d continue acting for the rest of the decade).

Escape from New York is perhaps the perfect example of eclectic casting, though. Everyone feels right here, from old hands like Van Cleef and Borgnine, to Carpenter regulars (Russell, Pleasance, Atkins, Barbeau, narration from Jamie Lee Curtis – or is it Katherine Blanchard? –Frank Doubleday’s Romero coming on like Bernard Sumner in vampire drag, the inspired casting of Hayes).

And as with most of the director’s outings during this, his peak period, the script is structurally surefooted., meaning the picture itself is tight and economical. Snake doesn’t set foot in Manhattan until almost the half-hour mark, but from that point on, it’s a race against time: to deliver the President before the summit meeting; to get out of NY before the explosive charge ruptures his arteries; to navigate the various obstacles preventing this, including a fight against Ox Baker’s Slag and crossing the mined Queensboro Bridge. Pretty much everything Escape from New York has going for it (not least DP Dean Cundey, whose Illinois visuals are tremendous and add millions of production value to the budget) is absent from the sequel, which is content to mimic and parody the original but without the spark and sharpness of Big Trouble inn Little China or (as merciless sequels go) Gremlins 2: The New Batch.

Carpenter wrote the picture in response to Watergate, but there’s little here that’s acute in terms of commentary; Escape from New York is all broad strokes, because that suits its content. One might argue that, for all the lawlessness and abandon, those in Manhattan are, relatively, free. They aren’t tagged and tracked everywhere they go. Admittedly, everywhere they go, their lives are in immediate danger, but inversely and perversely, they have greater autonomy than everyone subjected to the current plan for a totalitarian new world order. Perhaps they’ll corral those refusing Gates’ needle onto Manhattan Island.



Comments

Popular posts from this blog

How would Horatio Alger have handled this situation?

Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas (1998) (SPOILERS) Gilliam’s last great movie – The Zero Theorem (2013) is definitely underrated, but I don’t think it’s that underrated – Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas could easily have been too much. At times it is, but in such instances, intentionally so. The combination of a visual stylist and Hunter S Thompson’s embellished, propulsive turn of phrase turns out, for the most part, to be a cosmically aligned affair, embracing the anarchic abandon of Raoul Duke and Doctor Gonzo’s Las Vegas debauch while contriving to pull back at crucial junctures in order to engender a perspective on all this hedonism. Would Alex Cox, who exited stage left, making way for the Python, have produced something interesting? I suspect, ironically, he would have diluted Thompson in favour of whatever commentary preoccupied him at the time (indeed, Johnny Depp said as much: “ Cox had this great material to work with and he took it and he added his own stuff to it ”). Plus

He’s so persistent! He always gets his man.

Speed (1994) (SPOILERS) It must have been a couple of decades since I last viewed Speed all the way through, so it’s pleasing to confirm that it holds up. Sure, Jan de Bont’s debut as a director can’t compete with the work of John McTiernan, for whom he acted as cinematographer and who recommended de Bont when he passed on the picture, but he nevertheless does a more than competent work. Which makes his later turkeys all the more tragic. And Keanu and Sandra Bullock display the kind of effortless chemistry you can’t put a price tag on. And then there’s Dennis Hopper, having a great old sober-but-still-looning time.

No matter how innocent you are, or how hard you try, they’ll find you guilty.

The Wrong Man (1956) (SPOILERS) I hate to say it, but old Truffaut called it right on this one. More often than not showing obeisance to the might of Hitchcock during his career-spanning interview, the French critic turned director was surprisingly blunt when it came to The Wrong Man . He told Hitch “ your style, which has found its perfection in the fiction area, happens to be in total conflict with the aesthetics of the documentary and that contradiction is apparent throughout the picture ”. There’s also another, connected issue with this, one Hitch acknowledged: too much fidelity to the true story upon which the film is based.

You were a few blocks away? What’d you see it with, a telescope?

The Eyes of Laura Mars (1978) (SPOILERS) John Carpenter’s first serial-killer screenplay to get made, The Eyes of Laura Mars came out nearly three months before Halloween. You know, the movie that made the director’s name. And then some. He wasn’t best pleased with the results of The Eyes of Laura Mars, which ended up co-credited to David Zelag Goodman ( Straw Dogs , Logan’s Run ) as part of an attempt by producer Jon Peters to manufacture a star vehicle for then-belle Barbra Streisand: “ The original script was very good, I thought. But it got shat upon ”. Which isn’t sour grapes on Carpenter’s part. The finished movie bears ready evidence of such tampering, not least in the reveal of the killer (different in Carpenter’s conception). Its best features are the so-uncleanly-you-can-taste-it 70s New York milieu and the guest cast, but even as an early example of the sub-genre, it’s burdened by all the failings inherit with this kind of fare.

But everything is wonderful. We are in Paris.

Cold War (2018) (SPOILERS) Pawel Pawlikowski’s elliptical tale – you can’t discuss Cold War without saying “elliptical” at least once – of frustrated love charts a course that almost seems to be a caricature of a certain brand of self-congratulatorily tragic European cinema. It was, it seems “ loosely inspired ” by his parents (I suspect I see where the looseness comes in), but there’s a sense of calculation to the progression of this love story against an inescapable political backdrop that rather diminishes it.

To survive a war, you gotta become war.

Rambo: First Blood Part II (1985) (SPOILERS?) I’d like to say it’s mystifying that a film so bereft of merit as Rambo: First Blood Part II could have finished up the second biggest hit of 1985. It wouldn’t be as bad if it was, at minimum, a solid action movie, rather than an interminable bore. But the movie struck a chord somewhere, somehow. As much as the most successful picture of that year, Back to the Future , could be seen to suggest moviegoers do actually have really good taste, Rambo rather sends a message about how extensively regressive themes were embedding themselves in Reaganite, conservative ‘80s cinema (to be fair, this is something one can also read into Back to the Future ), be those ones of ill-conceived nostalgia or simple-minded jingoism, notional superiority and might. The difference between Stallone and Arnie movies starts right here; self-awareness. Audiences may have watched R ambo in the same way they would a Schwarzenegger picture, but I’m

What do they do, sing madrigals?

The Singing Detective (2003) Icon’s remake of the 1986 BBC serial, from a screenplay by Dennis Potter himself. The Singing Detective fares less well than Icon’s later adaptation of Edge of Darkness , even though it’s probably more faithful to Potter’s original. Perhaps the fault lies in the compression of six episodes into a feature running a quarter of that time, but the noir fantasy and childhood flashbacks fail to engage, and if the hospital reality scans better, it too suffers eventually.

One final thing I have to do, and then I’ll be free of the past.

Vertigo (1958) (SPOILERS) I’ll readily admit my Hitchcock tastes broadly tend to reflect the “consensus”, but Vertigo is one where I break ranks. To a degree. Not that I think it’s in any way a bad film, but I respect it rather than truly rate it. Certainly, I can’t get on board with Sight & Sound enthroning it as the best film ever made (in its 2012’s critics poll). That said, from a technical point of view, it is probably Hitch’s peak moment. And in that regard, certainly counts as one of his few colour pictures that can be placed alongside his black and white ones. It’s also clearly a personal undertaking, a medley of his voyeuristic obsessions (based on D’entre les morts by Pierre Boileau and Thomas Narcejac).

The game is rigged, and it does not reward people who play by the rules.

Hustlers (2019) (SPOILERS) Sold as a female Goodfellas – to the extent that the producers had Scorsese in mind – this strippers-and-crime tale is actually a big, glossy puff piece, closer to Todd Phillips as fashioned by Lorene Scarfia. There are some attractive performances in Hustlers, notably from Constance Wu, but for all its “progressive” women work male objectification to their advantage posturing, it’s incredibly traditional and conservative deep down.

You don’t know anything about this man, and he knows everything about you.

The Man Who Knew Too Much (1956) (SPOILERS) Hitchcock’s two-decades-later remake of his British original. It’s undoubtedly the better-known version, but as I noted in my review of the 1934 film, it is very far from the “ far superior ” production Truffaut tried to sell the director on during their interviews. Hitchcock would only be drawn – in typically quotable style – that “ the first version is the work of a talented amateur and the second was made by a professional ”. For which, read a young, creatively fired director versus one clinically going through the motions, occasionally inspired by a shot or sequence but mostly lacking the will or drive that made the first The Man Who Knew Too Much such a pleasure from beginning to end.