Skip to main content

So the devil's child will rise from the world of politics.

The Omen
(1976)

(SPOILERS) The coming of the Antichrist is an evergreen; his incarnation, or the reveal thereof, is always just round the corner, and he can always be definitively identified in any given age through a spot of judiciously subjective interpretation of The Book of Revelation, or Nostradamus. Probably nothing did more for the subject in the current era, in terms of making it part of popular culture, than The Omen. That’s irrespective of the movie’s quality, of course. Which, it has to be admitted, is not on the same level as earlier demonic forebears Rosemary’s Baby and The Exorcist.

In which regard, horror buff and moustache supremo Kim Newman was scathing in denouncing Richard Donner’s film in Nightmare Movies, particularly in comparison to those then-recent predecessors. The Omen was simply “a package”, unworthy of the same devil-worship reserved Rosemary’s Baby (“a film”) and The Exorcist (“a phenomenon”). It’s certainly true that The Omen was a triumph of marketing, an early beneficiary of the re-evaluation of selling movies in the wake of the first (official) blockbuster Jaws. Newman recounts how “For a while, it was impossible to avoid the white-on-black posters featuring the film’s 666 logo and cheery slogans like ‘if something frightening happens to you today, think about it… It may be The Omen’; ‘good morning, you are one day closer to the end of the world’; or, simply, ‘Remember… you have been warned’.

The Omen’s box office might not have come close to Jaws’ (a mere $200m shy of the shark domestically), but it was undeniably a comparable zeitgeist phenomenon. Like Jaws, it spawned a franchise of diminishing returns (albeit arguably, the quality control of The Omen was tighter and there was, at least, a legitimate plot progression to be pursued in the storytelling. This was also the case with Fox’s preceding SF franchise Planet of the Apes).

It also, more than merely banking on Antichrist currency, made 666 an instantly recognised and understood synonym for all that is satanic. You couldn’t get a better advert for the legitimacy of Christian beliefs if you tried, albeit one given to making up scripture when it needed a specifically chilling prophecy. Indeed, the consequence of The Omen is that 666 tends to be fished up any and everywhere due to home-schooled gematria, and it’s relatively easy to assert this or that world leader – or next-door neighbour – is the horned beast based on a few liberally interpreted number/name matches. As End Times Truth notes, The Bible identifies 666 as the number of man – Six is the number of man, and that of The Prisoner’s Number Six, “a free man!” – not of “a” man. In which case, the bar codes or vaccine branding – Luciferase and patent 060606, both of which seem like deliberate shit stirring – reading is probably a more legitimate bet.

I think it’s fair to suggest no one involved with The Omen was overly fussed about scriptural authenticity. Certainly not Richard Donner, who was keen to downplay the overtly supernatural (who needed it when you had Jerry Goldsmith giving it nothing but?) Donner labelled the movie a “mystery suspense thriller”, but really, the problem with that description is you need a mystery (no one going in will be in any doubt as to the truth slowly dawning on Gregory Peck’s Robert Thorn). It’s true, though, that Donner was eschewing more obvious horror touchstones such as gore or atmospheric setting, and that his star casting gave the material a certain level of credibility not commonly reserved for the genre.

Donner directed his first feature in 1961, but his career took in TV shows (The Twilight Zone, The Man from U.N.C.L.E. and The Banana Splits) for a looonnng time before he got his big break at 46. Among his early features was Twinky/Lola (1970), in which – get this – a writer of porn novels (Charles Bronson) falls for and marries a sixteen-year-old (luckily played by twenty-year-old Susan George). Yes, that’s what the era of free love was really about.

With The Omen and then Superman, though, he succeeded in starting two huge franchises, a more significant achievement than either wunderkinds Spielberg or Lucas had mustered by the end of the same decade. But then, Donner’s also the classic example of your proficient but unmotivated journeyman. He went on to work with the Beard on the suspect The Goonies (One-Eyed Willy, indeed), but it was in the action genre that he’ll be most remembered thanks to the massive appeal of the Lethal Weapons. He had no real flair for comedy (The Toy, Scrooged, both of them hits) and delivered one monumental bomb (Timeline, his only foray into science fiction). And at ninety, Donner’s still attached to the long-mooted Lethal Weapon V (that he hasn’t directed in a decade and a half tells you how likely that is to come to pass).

Perhaps the key ingredient Donner brings to The Omen is lustre. The movie didn’t have a high budget, but in tandem with cinematographer Gilbert Taylor (whose next was, appropriately, Star Wars) he makes sure The Omen feels like it occupies the heightened realm of ambassadors’ receptions, rather the urban decay of many a 1970s feature, or indeed the gothic tint of Hammer (since the film is predominately set in the UK). Peck also brings that statesman tone. This isn’t where you expected Satan to be lurking. Well, not manifestly so anyway.

Such an attitude of religion and politics exasperated Newman. It wasn’t merely The Omen’s consummate marketing that bugged him, it was its very nature: “a stodgy, humourless film that suffers from the kind of religiosity that used to choke biblical epics of the 1950s”. I’d argue the problem is the less the religiosity than that religiosity’s lack of substance. More specifically, the absence of intelligence towards the devout found in one thoroughly exposed to belief the way William Peter Blatty was. This was a key element he brought to both his Exorcists. Writer David Seltzer cheerfully admitted he had to go out and read The Bible before penning The Omen, so it’s little surprise the results were as conspicuously shallow as Jaws’ insights into marine biology. Which, of course, was precisely the level of depth the responsive audience responded wanted; it was never going to rock the sincere Catholic contingent the way The Exorcist and The Passion of the Christ did, both to enormous box office (and this is a key Hollywood has never understood; the believers know if the makers are believers. Of course, talent is also required).

"When the Jews return to Zion and a comet rips the sky and the Holy Roman Empire rises; then you and I must die. From the eternal sea he rises, creating armies on either shore, turning man against brother, 'til man exists no more."

Seltzer favoured defining Damien clearly as the Antichrist – he must have been thrilled with Billie Whitelaw’s demonic guardian nanny Baylock, then – whereas Donner preferred reticence. Whatever the director’s stated motives, he failed, because every other aspect (the design, the performance(s), the music, the marketing) actively worked against that “possibly maybe”. Brad Duren notes Seltzer’s decision (influenced by Harvey Bernard’s premise) to make Satan the father of the Antichrist and that “it was a sign of the popularity of The Omen that ever since the film had been released in 1976 it is widely believed, even by evangelical Christians, that Satan will be the father of the Antichrist despite the fact that The Bible says nothing of the sort” (indeed, just look at End of Days, which liberally plundered The Omen for “inspiration”). Duren also notes the necessity of the Antichrist’s reign as a prelude to rule of Christ (so The Final Conflict rather fudged things up there).

The Omen remains Seltzer’s greatest claim to fame – unless you count Shining Through – although he would revisit the horror genre for Prophecy (1979). Rather more prosaically than its title suggests, that one’s about a mutant bear. It does however, emphasise that Seltzer wasn’t really going in for subtlety, nuance or philosophical reflection.

Which is why I feel Newman’s response is a little on the puritanical side. In terms of mechanics, The Omen functions in terms essentially similar to the later Halloween and the slasher cycle, and Final Destination (perhaps the true inheritor, in terms of creative dispatch); it paces itself according to a death count. A glossy death count scored by an overpowering Jerry Goldsmith score, admittedly. If there’s an issue with this, it’s that the packaging suggests something more. Instead, it’s the doozy deaths you remember. In particular, Damien’s first nanny (Holly Palance) hanging herself on his fifth birthday (“Look at me, Damien. It’s all for you”), Father Brennan (Patrick Troughton) impaled on a rogue church spire, and photo journo Jennings (David Warner) decapitated by an ambitiously launched pane of glass.

There’s nothing to Damien (Harvey Spencer Stephens) himself aside from careful Stuart Baird editing (the movie generally was apparently something of a salvage operation, Donner having despaired of the initial assembly). Now, if a Haley Joel Osment had been Damien, the results might have been terrifying; Stephens isn’t really giving a performance as such (if it weren’t the Golden Globes, you’d wonder how he’d warranted a nomination). Troughton, Warner and Whitelaw are all terrific presences – Leo McKern also shows up, somewhat defeated by a thick German accent – and The Omen is so much the better whenever any of them are on screen.

But the main plot warrants little suspense; the supposed seeking out of the truth about Damien is really what we know already. The only positive is that it’s the complete opposite of a Robert Langdon “puzzle”. One suspects the seizing upon a similar brand of ancient demonic dread as The Exorcist was intentional (The Omen goes to Israel, whereas The Exorcist had Iraq; never underestimate pan-global evil production value). The best element in this “mystery solving” part of the movie is probably the harbinger of death appearing in Jennings’ photographs.

Peck and Remick are only ever positioned as reactive to the monstrous minor in their midst, rather than proving strongly established characters in their own right (there probably ought to have been something made of the age gap between them, but nothing is; they may even be intended as similar ages, as there’s a line about two old college roommates). Newman reports a comment that in The Texas Chainsaw Massacremonsters are an American family who destroy children; Donner has a child destroy the American family”. Which is a fair observation, I guess, and one might further inject some a degree of class commentary if one so wished. But Newman asserts of Peck that “his goodness is never questioned”, and I have to say I wasn’t so easily convinced.

Robert Thorn: Nothing’s too much for the wife of the future President of the United States.

For a start Thorn’s one of the elite; he’s the CEO of Thorn Industries and entirely entitled. He’s also a diplomat, meaning he should, by rights (or wrongs), be entirely compromised. We see he’s ready and willing to deceive his wife, however well intentioned; indeed, this deception is at the root of the unravelling that subsequently occurs in their lives (if one were to pursue the psychological explanation for events, he is manifesting guilt). Thorn’s also stubbornly incapable of seeing what’s under his nose, allowing Nanny Baylock to impress herself on the family over his wife’s immediate reservations (no sooner has Baylock arrived than she demands to spend time alone with Damien). But while the culpability of power and position ought to attest to someone who, in any other movie, would be hosting the orgy in Eyes Wide Shut, it’s true that everything about Robert Thorn is played disappointingly straight (perhaps the oddest part is Peck taking the role as a cathartic challenge after the suicide of his son).

Newman’s also right that there’s a literalism to The Omen – Donner is nothing if not a tangible director – which means what you see is what you get. Perhaps the makers should have gone the whole hog and had the Antichrist ascend to the Presidency in the sequels (it’s certainly some way off in The Final Conflict). In The Secret History of the World, Jonathan Black discusses the then-percolating idea that Obama might fit the bill; since then, Trump has inevitably been labelled the same way (while others, in a very Antichrist-applicable divisiveness, have bestowed upon him saviour qualities). Black also refers to Rudolf Steiner’s interpretation of the manifestation of the Antichrist.

Steiner’s take was that the Antichrist would be an incarnation of Ahriman. As described by Black, he would appear on stage “in the middle of shattering events, a war, and present himself as a benefactor to mankind”. He will also be a writer, amongst other things, and able to perform miracles that he will then explain scientifically and mechanically so as to convince the world “that no spiritual forces, no mysterious spiritual intelligences independent of matter, are necessary to explain the claims of religion”. He will go on to form schools to teach how to perform these “scientific miracles” which will “enable people to gain material benefits much more easily than if they had to work for them in the normal way”.

In other words, by plumbing for big business (evil) and social status (evil), Hollywood gave us exactly the expected figure, when it may be that we should be looking somewhere slightly less blatant. What is clear is that, whether it’s Hollywood or the alternative arena, the habit of looking for the obvious in reference to 666 or the Antichrist is prevalent. Which may be exactly what he wants. All these easily coded numbers or readily readable names being a degree of smoke and mirrors. As for his being very easily vanquished, well the Hollywood version would definitely be preferable.


Popular posts from this blog

The Illumi-what-i?

Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness (2022) (SPOILERS) In which Sam Raimi proves that he can stand proudly with the best – or worst – of them as a good little foot soldier of the woke apocalypse. You’d expect the wilfully anarchic – and Republican – Raimi to choke on the woke, but instead, he’s sucked it up, grinned and bore it. Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness is so slavishly a production-line Marvel movie, both in plotting and character, and in nu-Feige progressive sensibilities, there was no chance of Sam staggering out from beneath its suffocating demands with anything more than a few scraps of stylistic flourish intact.

This risotto is shmackin’, dude.

Stranger Things Season 4: Volume 1 (SPOILERS) I haven’t had cause, or the urge, to revisit earlier seasons of Stranger Things , but I’m fairly certain my (relatively) positive takes on the first two sequel seasons would adjust down somewhat if I did (a Soviet base under Hawkins? DUMB soft disclosure or not, it’s pretty dumb). In my Season Three review, I called the show “ Netflix’s best-packaged junk food. It knows not to outstay its welcome, doesn’t cause bloat and is disposable in mostly good ways ” I fairly certain the Duffer’s weren’t reading, but it’s as if they decided, as a rebuke, that bloat was the only way to go for Season Four. Hence episodes approaching (or exceeding) twice the standard length. So while the other points – that it wouldn’t stray from its cosy identity and seasons tend to merge in the memory – hold fast, you can feel the ambition of an expansive canvas faltering at the hurdle of Stranger Things ’ essential, curated, nostalgia-appeal inconsequentiality.

Haven’t you ever heard of the healing power of laughter?

Batman (1989) (SPOILERS) There’s Jaws , there’s Star Wars , and then there’s Batman in terms of defining the modern blockbuster. Jaws ’ success was so profound, it changed the way movies were made and marketed. Batman’s marketing was so profound, it changed the way tentpoles would be perceived: as cash cows. Disney tried to reproduce the effect the following year with Dick Tracy , to markedly less enthusiastic response. None of this places Batman in the company of Jaws as a classic movie sold well, far from it. It just so happened to hit the spot. As Tim Burton put it, it was “ more of a cultural phenomenon than a great movie ”. It’s difficult to disagree with his verdict that the finished product (for that is what it is) is “ mainly boring ”. Now, of course, the Burton bat has been usurped by the Nolan incarnation (and soon the Snyder). They have some things in common. Both take the character seriously and favour a sombre tone, which was much more of shock to the

Is this supposed to be me? It’s grotesque.

The Unbearable Weight of Massive Talent (2022) (SPOILERS) I didn’t hold out much hope for The Unbearable Weight of Massive Talent being more than moderately tolerable. Not so much because its relatively untested director and his co-writer are mostly known in the TV sphere (and not so much for anything anyone is raving about). Although, it has to be admitted, the finished movie flourishes a degree of digital flatness typical of small-screen productions (it’s fine, but nothing more). Rather, due to the already over-tapped meta-strain of celebs showing they’re good sports about themselves. When Spike Jonze did it with John Malkovich, it was weird and different. By the time we had JCVD , not so much. And both of them are pre-dated by Arnie in Last Action Hero (“ You brought me nothing but pain ” he is told by Jack Slater). Plus, it isn’t as if Tom Gormican and Kevin Etten have much in the way of an angle on Nic; the movie’s basically there to glorify “him”, give or take a few foibles, do

All the world will be your enemy, Prince with a Thousand Enemies.

Watership Down (1978) (SPOILERS) I only read Watership Down recently, despite having loved the film from the first, and I was immediately impressed with how faithful, albeit inevitably compacted, Martin Rosen’s adaptation is. It manages to translate the lyrical, mythic and metaphysical qualities of Richard Adams’ novel without succumbing to dumbing down or the urge to cater for a broader or younger audience. It may be true that parents are the ones who get most concerned over the more disturbing elements of the picture but, given the maturity of the content, it remains a surprise that, as with 2001: A Space Odyssey (which may on the face of it seem like an odd bedfellow), this doesn’t garner a PG certificate. As the makers noted, Watership Down is at least in part an Exodus story, but the biblical implications extend beyond Hazel merely leading his fluffle to the titular promised land. There is a prevalent spiritual dimension to this rabbit universe, one very much

Twenty dwarves took turns doing handstands on the carpet.

Bugsy (1991) (SPOILERS) Bugsy is very much a Warren Beatty vanity project (aren’t they all, even the ones that don’t seem that way on the surface?), to the extent of his playing a title character a decade and a half younger than him. As such, it makes sense that producer Warren’s choice of director wouldn’t be inclined to overshadow star Warren, but the effect is to end up with a movie that, for all its considerable merits (including a script from James Toback chock full of incident), never really feels quite focussed, that it’s destined to lead anywhere, even if we know where it’s going.

Whacking. I'm hell at whacking.

Witness (1985) (SPOILERS) Witness saw the advent of a relatively brief period – just over half a decade –during which Harrison Ford was willing to use his star power in an attempt to branch out. The results were mixed, and abruptly concluded when his typically too late to go where Daniel Day Lewis, Dustin Hoffman and Robert De Niro had gone before (with at bare minimum Oscar-nominated results) – but not “ full retard ” – ended in derision with Regarding Henry . He retreated to the world of Tom Clancy, and it’s the point where his cachet began to crumble. There had always been a stolid quality beneath even his more colourful characters, but now it came to the fore. You can see something of that as John Book in Witness – despite his sole Oscar nom, it might be one of Ford’s least interesting performances of the 80s – but it scarcely matters, or that the screenplay (which won) is by turns nostalgic, reactionary, wistful and formulaic, as director Peter Weir, in his Hollywood debu

Get away from my burro!

The Treasure of the Sierra Madre (1948) (SPOILERS) The Treasure of the Sierra Madre is beloved by so many of the cinematic firmament’s luminaries – Stanley Kubrick, Sam Raimi, , Paul Thomas Anderson and who knows maybe also WS, Vince Gilligan, Spike Lee, Daniel Day Lewis; Oliver Stone was going to remake it – not to mention those anteriorly influential Stone Roses, that it seems foolhardy to suggest it isn’t quite all that. There’s no faulting the performances – a career best Humphrey Bogart, with director John Huston’s dad Walter stealing the movie from under him – but the greed-is-bad theme is laid on a little thick, just in case you were a bit too dim to get it yourself the first time, and Huston’s direction may be right there were it counts for the dramatics, but it’s a little too relaxed when it comes to showing the seams between Mexican location and studio.

If that small woman is small enough, she could fit behind a small tree.

Stranger Things Season 4: Volume 2 (SPOILERS) I can’t quite find it within myself to perform the rapturous somersaults that seem to be the prevailing response to this fourth run of the show. I’ve outlined some of my thematic issues in the Volume 1 review, largely borne out here, but the greater concern is one I’ve held since Season Two began – and this is the best run since Season One, at least as far my failing memory can account for – and that’s the purpose-built formula dictated by the Duffer Brothers. It’s there in each new Big Bad, obviously, even to the extent that this is the Big-Bad-who-binds-them-all (except the Upside Down was always there, right?) And it’s there with the resurgent emotional beats, partings, reunions and plaintively stirring music cues. I have to be really on board with a movie or show to embrace such flagrantly shameless manipulation, season after season, and I find myself increasingly immune.

What’s so bad about being small? You’re not going to be small forever.

Innerspace (1987) There’s no doubt that Innerspace is a flawed movie. Joe Dante finds himself pulling in different directions, his instincts for comic subversion tempered by the need to play the romance plot straight. He tacitly acknowledges this on the DVD commentary for the film, where he notes Pauline Kael’s criticism that he was attempting to make a mainstream movie; and he was. But, as ever with Dante, it never quite turns out that way. Whereas his kids’ movies treat their protagonists earnestly, this doesn’t come so naturally with adults. I’m a bona fide devotee of Innerspace , but I can’t help but be conscious of its problems. For the most part Dante papers over the cracks; the movie hits certain keynotes of standard Hollywood prescription scripting. But his sensibility inevitably suffuses it. That, and human cartoon Martin Short (an ideal “leading man” for the director) ensure what is, at first glance just another “ Steven Spielberg Presents ” sci-fi/fantas