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

I’m smarter than a beaver.

Prey (2022) (SPOILERS) If nothing else, I have to respect Dan Trachtenberg’s cynical pragmatism. How do I not only get a project off the ground, but fast-tracked as well? I know, a woke Predator movie! Woke Disney won’t be able to resist! And so, it comes to pass. Luckily for Prey , it gets to bypass cinemas and so the same sorry fate of Lightyear . Less fortunately, it’s a patience-testing snook cocking at historicity (or at least, assumed historicity), in which a young, pint-sized Comanche girl who wishes to hunt and fish – and doubtless shoot to boot – with the big boys gets to take on a Predator and make mincemeat of him. Well, of course , she does. She’s a girl, innit?

If you ride like lightning, you're going to crash like thunder.

The Place Beyond the Pines (2012) (SPOILERS) There’s something daringly perverse about the attempt to weave a serious-minded, generation-spanning saga from the hare-brained premise of The Place Beyond the Pines . When he learns he is a daddy, a fairground stunt biker turns bank robber in order to provide for his family. It’s the kind of “only-in-Hollywood” fantasy premise you might expect from a system that unleashed Harley Davidson and the Marlboro Man and Point Break on the world. But this is an indie-minded movie from the director of the acclaimed Blue Valentine ; it demands respect and earnest appraisal. Unfortunately it never recovers from the abject silliness of the set-up. The picture is littered with piecemeal characters and scenarios. There’s a hope that maybe the big themes will even out the rocky terrain but in the end it’s because of this overreaching ambition that the film ends up so undernourished. The inspiration for the movie

Everyone creates the thing they dread.

Avengers: Age of Ultron (2015) (SPOILERS) Avengers: Age of Ultron ’s problem isn’t one of lack. It benefits from a solid central plot. It features a host of standout scenes and set pieces. It hands (most of) its characters strong defining moments. It doesn’t even suffer now the “wow” factor of seeing the team together for the first time has subsided. Its problem is that it’s too encumbered. Maybe its asking to much of a director to effectively martial the many different elements required by an ensemble superhero movie such as this, yet Joss Whedon’s predecessor feels positively lean in comparison. Part of this is simply down to the demands of the vaster Marvel franchise machine. Seeds are laid for Captain America: Civil War , Infinity Wars I & II , Black Panther and Thor: Ragnarok . It feels like several spinning plates too many. Such activity occasionally became over-intrusive on previous occasions ( Iron Man II ), but there are points in Age of Ultron whe

I think it’s pretty clear whose side the Lord’s on, Barrington.

Monte Carlo or Bust aka  Those Daring Young Men in Their Jaunty Jalopies (1969) (SPOILERS) Ken Annakin’s semi-sequel to Those Magnificent Men in Their Flying Machines tends to be rather maligned, usually compared negatively to its more famous predecessor. Which makes me rather wonder if those expressing said opinion have ever taken the time to scrutinise them side by side. Or watch them back to back (which would be more sensible). Because Monte Carlo or Bust is by far the superior movie. Indeed, for all its imperfections and foibles (not least a performance from Tony Curtis requiring a taste for comic ham), I adore it. It’s probably the best wacky race movie there is, simply because each set of competitors, shamelessly exemplifying a different national stereotype (albeit there are two pairs of Brits, and a damsel in distress), are vibrant and cartoonish in the best sense. Albeit, it has to be admitted that, as far as said stereotypes go, Annakin’s home side win

Death to Bill and Ted!

Bill & Ted’s Bogus Journey (1991) (SPOILERS) The game of how few sequels are actually better than the original is so well worn, it was old when Scream 2 made a major meta thing out of it (and it wasn’t). Bill & Ted Go to Hell , as Bill & Ted’s Bogus Journey was originally called, is one such, not that Excellent Adventure is anything to be sneezed at, but this one’s more confident, even more playful, more assured and more smartly stupid. And in Peter Hewitt it has a director with a much more overt and fittingly cartoonish style than the amiably pedestrian Stephen Herrick. Evil Bill : First, we totally kill Bill and Ted. Evil Ted : Then we take over their lives. My recollection of the picture’s general consensus was that it surpassed the sleeper hit original, but Rotten Tomatoes’ review aggregator suggests a less universal response. And, while it didn’t rock any oceans at the box office, Bogus Journey and Point Break did quite nicely for Keanu Reev

This entire edifice you see around you, built on jute.

Jeeves and Wooster 3.3: Cyril and the Broadway Musical  (aka Introduction on Broadway) Well, that’s a relief. After a couple of middling episodes, the third season bounces right back, and that's despite Bertie continuing his transatlantic trip. Clive Exton once again plunders  Carry On, Jeeves  but this time blends it with a tale from  The Inimitable Jeeves  for the brightest spots, as Cyril Basington-Basington (a sublimely drippy Nicholas Hewetson) pursues his stage career against Aunt Agatha's wishes.

I’m the famous comedian, Arnold Braunschweiger.

Last Action Hero (1993) (SPOILERS) Make no mistake, Last Action Hero is a mess. But even as a mess, it might be more interesting than any other movie Arnie made during that decade, perhaps even in his entire career. Hellzapoppin’ (after the 1941 picture, itself based on a Broadway revue) has virtually become an adjective to describe films that comment upon their own artifice, break the fourth wall, and generally disrespect the convention of suspending disbelief in the fictions we see parading across the screen. It was fairly audacious, some would say foolish, of Arnie to attempt something of that nature at this point in his career, which was at its peak, rather than playing it safe. That he stumbled profoundly, emphatically so since he went up against the behemoth that is Jurassic Park (slotted in after the fact to open first), should not blind one to the considerable merits of his ultimate, and final, really, attempt to experiment with the limits of his screen persona.

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).

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.

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