Skip to main content

Maybe this universal mind resides in the mirror image instead of in our universe as we wanted to believe.

Prince of Darkness
(1987)

(SPOILERS) John Carpenter’s wounded retreat from the traumas of big studio moviemaking saw its first fruit in this cult curio. Not as legendary as his subsequent They Live! but also very influential in its own scrappy way, as well as being very influenced in its own right (most particularly, and self-confessedly on Carpenter’s part, by Nigel Kneale). Prince of Darkness is also less satisfying than They Live! although its ancient astronauts take still produces several highly memorable moments. Mostly, the movie’s shortcomings are down to the execution, but that’s not because it’s cheap per se. Rather, Carpenter failed to surround himself with the level of talented key players that made his low budget outings in the previous decade so enduring.

Chief offender is DP Gary B Kibbe, who would become a fixture for the remainder of the director’s career, two features aside. However much you can still point to signature, trademark Carpenter motifs – the building score, the intercut action threads (it takes a whole ten minutes to get to the director’s title), the roving Steadicam – the key element of those classic Dean Cundey lensed pictures has gone: atmosphere. Kibbe’s lighting is flat and lifeless, and this is reinforced by a largely weak cast unable make much of frequently abysmal dialogue. The result is that, as intermittently effective as it is, Prince of Darkness also often seems plain amateurish.

On the plus side, there’s old pro Donald Pleasance (his last collaboration with the director) and Victor Wong (who had recently scored as Egg Shen in Big Trouble in Little China). But you also have Jameson Parker boasting a 70s porn tache as wooden lead Brian, attempting to woo Lisa Bount’s Catherine. There’s Dennis Dun (also returning from Big Trouble) playing a wise-ass jerk, and failures-to-register such as Susan Blanchard, Anne Howard and Ann Yen. Jesse Lawrence Ferguson provides some suitably disconcerting possessed laughter, though. And Peter Jason is good, giving an impression of what this might have been had it been populated with the same calibre of talent as, say The Thing.

Not helping the performances any is that nothing about these PhD students is remotely believable. Dun’s Walter even asks at one point “Why do I want a PhD in this?” They appear to require basic physics theory explained, be it tachyons or Schrodinger’s Cat. It’s as if Carpenter has no idea what a PhD is. The hallmark of the best of these haunted-house investigator templates is that the characters give the impression of being skilled (The Stone Tape). And if they aren’t skilled, they’re at least interesting (The Haunting, The Legend of Hell House). Instead, it often feels as if Carpenter purposely and perversely wants Prince of Darkness to seem as much like a cheapo, churned-out slasher flick as possible.

Indeed, I remember Alan Jones in Starburst eviscerating the picture with a 1/10. I also recall reading that Kneale was none-too impressed by Carpenter’s homage (the director previously called on Kneale to pen Halloween III: Season of the Witch, which was then rewritten by director Tommy Lee Wallace, with the gore and violence upped; Kneale took his name off it). Prince of Darkness is written by “Martin Quatermass” (Carpenter) and the students attend Kneale University. The ancient astronauts concept itself is a riff on the puck alien/demons in Quatermass and the Pit (although, this is also a device in Childhood’s End, from the same decade).

Carpenter concocts a heady blend of science, religion, extra-terrestrials, quantum mechanics and anti-matter, in which the anti-god – “bringing darkness instead of light” – buried a cylinder containing his son Satan in the Middle East millions of years ago. Jesus was an extra-terrestrial, and the Church kept the cylinder secret until science was sufficiently advanced that Satan could be combatted. These are really the briefest of footnotes, as Carpenter isn’t interested in fleshing things out. Probably for the best.

But the concept is really less Kneale than it is Pyramids of Mars, the 1975 Doctor Who story; an imprisoned extra-terrestrial god of evil is given to possessing his minions in a base under siege setting. Just with Alice Cooper impaling scientists on a bicycle rather than robot mummies crushing poachers. And, inevitably, a liberal dose of Lovecraft. For all that I’m never very impressed by the performances or some of the general thematic content – the homeless possessed thing is weak-sauce commentary, as is the AIDS-transmission metaphor – Prince of Darkness still boasts some truly iconic elements that ensure it can’t just be dismissed out of hand.

The messages on the computer screen, from “I Live” to the sarcastic warning That “You will not be saved by the god Plutonium. In fact, YOU WILL NOT BE SAVED!” are both amusing and unnerving (almost Sam Raimi-esque; how much better would Prince of Darkness have been with Bruce Campbell sporting that porn tache?) The mirror concept is marvellously envisaged on a budget, first as Kelly tries to make contact with dad through a compact (she can prise only two fingers through) and then a full length one. The satanic visual recalls Ridley Scott’s considerably more expensive (except in script) Legend, and the “What’s on the other side?” idea would later feature in Richard Stanley’s Dust Devil.

Best of all, though, is the transmission from 1999 that punctuates the picture, visualised as a crappy home video recording but comprising the dream image portent of what may happen “for the purpose of causality violation” (a dream anyone in the vicinity of the church experiences, hence the moniker the Brotherhood of Sleep). Catherine, thrown into the beyond, is, we discover, alive in 1999, but possessed. So the attempts in 1987 didn’t work (the figure in the church has changed, so it may be there’s a different possessed). DJ Shadow memorably sampled the message on Changeling/Transmission 1 on his debut Entroducing…..

Such elements may be small potatoes, but they represent the kind of material that makes for a resonant movie. You can take or leave the invasive bugs, the decapitations, the pregnant slime woman and the De Palma jump-scare ending. And the fact that there are occasions in Prince of Darkness when you wonder if you might not be watching a Zucker Brothers version of the same movie isn’t the greatest endorsement. This is a very average movie blessed with a really strong core concept, and one that leaves you with the strong feeling that any hope is hopeless, making it a small comfort in current times. As the middle instalment of Carpenter’s Apocalypse Trilogy, it’s decidedly the weakest of them, but Prince of Darkness is still head and shoulders above most of his work during the next decade.



Comments

Popular posts from this blog

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.

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.

He is a brigand and a lout. Pay him no serious mention.

The Wind and the Lion (1975) (SPOILERS) John Milius called his second feature a boy’s-own adventure, on the basis of the not-so-terrified responses of one of those kidnapped by Sean Connery’s Arab Raisuli. Really, he could have been referring to himself, in all his cigar-chomping, gun-toting reactionary glory, dreaming of the days of real heroes. The Wind and the Lion rather had its thunder stolen by Jaws on release, and it’s easy to see why. As polished as the picture is, and simultaneously broad-stroke and self-aware in its politics, it’s very definitely a throwback to the pictures of yesteryear. Only without the finger-on-the-pulse contemporaneity of execution that would make Spielberg and Lucas’ genre dives so memorable in a few short years’ time.

Another case of the screaming oopizootics.

Doctor Who Season 14 – Worst to Best The best Doctor Who season? In terms of general recognition and unadulterated celebration, there’s certainly a strong case to be made for Fourteen. The zenith of Robert Holmes and Philip Hinchcliffe’s plans for the series finds it relinquishing the cosy rapport of the Doctor and Sarah in favour of the less-trodden terrain of a solo adventure and underlying conflict with new companion Leela. More especially, it finds the production team finally stretching themselves conceptually after thoroughly exploring their “gothic horror” template over the course of the previous two seasons (well, mostly the previous one).

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.

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.

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.

They literally call themselves “Decepticons”. That doesn’t set off any red flags?

Bumblebee  (2018) (SPOILERS) Bumblebee is by some distance the best Transformers movie, simply by dint of having a smattering of heart (one might argue the first Shia LaBeouf one also does, and it’s certainly significantly better than the others, but it’s still a soulless Michael Bay “machine”). Laika VP and director Travis Knight brings personality to a series that has traditionally consisted of shamelessly selling product, by way of a nostalgia piece that nods to the likes of Herbie (the original), The Iron Giant and even Robocop .

That’s what people call necromancer’s weather.

The Changes (1975) This adaptation of Peter Dickinson’s novel trilogy carries a degree of cult nostalgia cachet due to it being one of those more “adult” 1970s children’s serials (see also The Children of the Stones , The Owl Service ). I was too young to see it on its initial screening – or at any rate, too young to remember it – but it’s easy to see why it lingered in the minds of those who did. Well, the first episode, anyway. Not for nothing is The Changes seen as a precursor to The Survivors in the rural apocalypse sub-genre – see also the decidedly nastier No Blade of Grass – as following a fairly gripping opener, it drifts off into the realm of plodding travelogue.

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.