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

Nanobots aren’t just for Christmas.

No Time to Die (2021) (SPOILERS) You know a Bond movie is in trouble when it resorts to wholesale appropriation of lines and even the theme song from another in order to “boost” its emotional heft. That No Time to Die – which previewed its own title song a year and a half before its release to resoundingly underwhelmed response, Grammys aside – goes there is a damning indictment of its ability to eke out such audience investment in Daniel Craig’s final outing as James (less so as 007). As with Spectre , the first half of No Time to Die is, on the whole, more than decent Bond fare, before it once again gets bogged down in the quest for substance and depth from a character who, regardless of how dapper his gear is, resolutely resists such outfitting.

Maybe the dingo ate your baby.

Seinfeld 2.9: The Stranded The Premise George and Elaine are stranded at a party in Long Island, with a disgruntled hostess.

Big things have small beginnings.

Prometheus (2012) Post- Gladiator , Ridley Scott opted for an “All work and no pondering” approach to film making. The result has been the completion of as many movies since the turn of the Millennium as he directed in the previous twenty years. Now well into his seventies, he has experienced the most sustained period of success of his career.  For me, it’s also been easily the least-interesting period. All of them entirely competently made, but all displaying the machine-tooled approach that was previously more associated with his brother.

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 a

Ladies and gentlemen, this could be a cultural misunderstanding.

Mars Attacks! (1996) (SPOILERS) Ak. Akk-akk! Tim Burton’s gleefully ghoulish sci-fi was his first real taste of failure. Sure, there was Ed Wood , but that was cheap, critics loved it, and it won Oscars. Mars Attacks! was BIG, though, expected to do boffo business, and like more than a few other idiosyncratic spectaculars of the 1990s ( Last Action Hero , Hudson Hawk ) it bombed BIG. The effect on Burton was noticeable. He retreated into bankable propositions (the creative and critical nadir perhaps being Planet of the Apes , although I’d rate it much higher than the likes of Alice in Wonderland and Dumbo ) and put the brakes on his undisciplined goth energy. Something was lost. Mars Attacks! is far from entirely successful, but it finds the director let loose with his own playset and sensibility intact, apparently given the licence to do what he will.

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.

It's something trying to get out.

The Owl Service (1969-70) I may have caught a glimpse of Channel 4’s repeat of  The Owl Service  in 1987, but not enough to stick in the mind. My formative experience was Alan Garner’s novel, which was read several years earlier during English lessons. Garner’s tapestry of magical-mythical storytelling had an impact, with its possession theme and blending of legend with the here and now. Garner depicts a Britain where past and present are mutable, and where there is no safety net of objective reality; life becomes a strange waking dream. His fantasy landscapes are both attractive and disturbing; the uncanny reaching out from the corners of the attic.  But I have to admit that the themes of class and discrimination went virtually unnoticed in the wake of such high weirdness. The other Garner books I read saw young protagonists transported to fantasy realms. The resonance of  The Owl Service  came from the fragmenting of the rural normal. When the author notes that he neve

Isn’t sugar better than vinegar?

Femme Fatale (2002) (SPOILERS) Some have attempted to rescue Femme Fatale from the dumpster of critical rejection and audience indifference with the claim that it’s De Palma’s last great movie. It isn’t that by a long shot, but it might rank as the last truly unfettered display of his obsessions and sensibilities, complete with a ludicrous twist – so ludicrous, it’s either a stroke of genius or mile-long pile up.

Beer is for breakfast around here. Drink or begone.

Cocktail (1988) (SPOILERS) When Tarantino claims the 1980s (and 1950s) as the worst movie decade, I’m inclined to invite him to shut his butt down. But should he then flourish Cocktail as Exhibit A, I’d be forced to admit he has a point. Cocktail is a horrifying, malignant piece of dreck, a testament to the efficacy of persuasive star power on a blithely rapt and undiscerning audience. Not only is it morally vacuous, it’s dramatically inert. And it relies on Tom’s toothy charms to a degree that would have any sensitive soul rushed to the A&E suffering from toxic shock (Tom’s most recently displayed toothy charms will likely have even his staunchest devotees less than sure of themselves, however, as he metamorphoses into your favourite grandma). And it was a huge box office hit.

These are not soda cans you asked me to get for you.

The Devil’s Own (1997) (SPOILERS) Naturally, a Hollywood movie taking the Troubles as a backdrop is sure to encounter difficulties. It’s the push-pull of wanting to make a big meaningful statement about something weighty, sobering and significant in the real world and bottling it when it comes to the messy intricacies of the same. So inevitably, the results invariably tend to the facile and trite. I’m entirely sure The Devil’s Own would have floundered even if Harrison Ford hadn’t come on board and demanded rewrites, but as it is, the finished movie packs a lot of talent to largely redundant end.