Skip to main content

How do you melt somebody’s lug wrench?

Starman
(1984)

(SPOILERS) John Carpenter’s unlikely SF romance. Unlikely, because the director has done nothing before or since suggesting an affinity for the romantic fairy tale, and yet he proves surprisingly attuned to Starman’s general vibes. As do his stars and Jack Nitzsche, furnishing the score in a rare non-showing from the director-composer. Indeed, if there’s a bum note here, it’s the fairly ho-hum screenplay; the lustre of Starman isn’t exactly that of making a silk purse from a sow’s ear, but it’s very nearly stitching together something special from resolutely average source material.

Comparisons have been drawn to E.T. – the love between a human and an alien, with concomitant messianic overtones – but really, what it is is the antithesis of Carpenter’s then-all-too-recent flop The Thing. That movie’s apparent heartlessness pushes Carpenter to the opposite extreme in the hope of a box-office hit and sustained viability in terms of future projects (it did moderately, doubtless helped by home rentals, and spawned a short-lived TV version in 1986 – with Airplane!’s Robert Hays as the male lead). Karen Allen’s grieving widow Jenny Hayden is visited by an alien who assumes the form of husband Scott (a ringer for Jeff Bridges), in an opening sequence that takes in ILM starscapes and Rob Bottin physical transformations, having already cued us in to the fantastical nature of all things NASA as home footage of a Scott and Jenny duet instructs us to “Dream, dream, dream”.

Starman is essentially a road movie, as Jenny – initially a hostage – slowly kindles affection and even love for the entity that’s the spit of her husband. She’s consequently left with a baby Jesus – a miracle, naturellement, as she is infertile – by the starman who earlier raised the dead (first a deer, then Jenny herself). The road movie approach is possibly the laziest narrative structure there is (just ask Odysseus), but it’s also one of the most effective, if done well; Carpenter’s picture – credited to Raynold Gideon and Bruce A Evans, disparately of such movies Stand by Me, Made in Heaven, Mr Brooks and er… Kuffs, but attested by Carpenter as receiving it is wallop from veteran Dean Reisner of Dirty Harry, Play Misty for Me and Charley Varrick – largely hits notes both poignant and amusing.

It skirts any deep dive with the fish out of water aspect, albeit there are some gags about gas and starman staring at a guy in urinal, and a crowd pleaser jackpot at Vegas slots. As a result, Carpenter keeps the relationship with Jenny firmly in focus. In this respect, however, Starman rather succeeds in pushing into the bleedin’ rote occasionally, as Jenny has to explain your human ways in a Star Trek 101 fashion.

The need for food is fine (“This body has a terrible emptiness”), but exchanges drift into the facile at times. The conversation about killing for food – “Do deer eat people? …I think you are a very primitive species”, before Jenny tucks in with a “For a primitive species, we have our points” is a bit much. But this trajectory is, at least, supported by some lovely moments, as Jeff revitalises the deer and gets into a fight that Jenny breaks up (terrified of guns, until she needs to save someone with one – take that, NRA). But then again, learned starman’s “Can anyone have babies?” induces near retching on the lines of “What is this human emotion you call love?” (yes, that’s in there too).

Jeff manages to deliver “I like to watch you sleep” without seeming creepy, but that doesn’t make the admission any less banal, as poetic declarations go. And then there’s the parting admission “We are very civilised, but we have lost something”. Hurrah for humans, since “We are interested in your species. It is not like any other”.

Starman has been responding to the Voyager II broadcast, the same one that inspired Fox Mulder in The X-FilesLittle Green Men (Star Trek: The Motion Picture revolves around the fictional Voyager VI, which isn’t to say I and II are actually real or anything). On the government side, Charles Martin Smith is eminently likeable SETI scientist Mark Shermin, basically the latest facsimile of Close Encounters of the Third Kind’s Bob Balaban or E.T.’s Peter Reigert but still able to make the part sufficiently his own (Richard Jaeckal fares less well as the requisite military dunderhead).

The movie is, of course, perpetuating the notion that the military wants to be/is in contact with aliens (and who knows, perhaps they truly believe they are). Shermin is winningly dismissive of the military mindset (that an alien should respond to Voyager II in terms of the military’s response to that response: “So naturally, they decided to fire some missiles at it”). He’s very astute too in working out exactly what has gone on, being that the alien has cloned Scott from a strand of hair (cloning not being in this government’s capacity, and starman’s tech being 100,000 years ahead of us).

Carpenter isn’t working with Dean Cundey here. Rather, as with Christine, he’s reteaming with Elvis DP Donald M Morgan and there’s a conspicuously clean Panavision visual palate throughout; never as evocative as his work with Cundey, but Morgan was nevertheless a far superior collaborator to later go-to DP Gary Kibbe (perhaps the low-budget late-80s wilderness was outside Morgan’s asking price. Whatever the nuances of the decision, it was a loss to Carpenter’s art). Michael Douglas is one of the credited producers (did he considered starring?) The Jack Nietzsche score is ludicrously romantic, entirely irresistible every time it charges up and tells you exactly how to feel. Generally, Carpenter underplays the effects, which is to the material’s benefit. When Jeff has his hair frizzed at the beginning he looks not unlike his dad sniffing glue in Airplane! The director’s also a little too swift in the edited “emerging from the flames” when Jeff saves Karen.

The two leads are great. I’ve always found Allen irresistible, so while I have no hesitation in admitting her part is on the wide-eyed & drippy side, it still gets my vote. Jeff didn’t get the Academy’s vote, but he did get nominated, and it’s a convincingly distanced turn, even if it’s true that it fails to elicit any core-level romantic back and forth.

That’s certainly the way Pauline Kael saw it. She didn’t think Bridges had enough to do, while Carpenter “seems afraid of losing hold on poignancy; he’s a one-note director”. She also objected to what she saw as “no friction between them, no tartness or impudence” while “the persecution of these two flower children by the macho hunters and the government is ritualistic pop hype”, mocking the traces of paranoia movies still washing up in the 80s (also alive in The Thing). Yes, this is one where she was a right old sourpuss, although she was positively effusive in comparison to Time Out’s Richard Rayner (“a rather lame sci-fi love story”).

In contrast, Tim Pullleine in The Film Yearbook Volume 4 (who gets off to a bad start by referring to Escape from New York as “extraneous” and The Thingmalodorous”, while raving about the merely adequate Christine) observes – in a rather overwritten way – that the movie “abandons the high-tech sorcery and flying saucery and turns toward its audience the human face of sci-fi”. It ranked as one of the volume’s Films of the Year.

Both Pulliene and Kael noted Carpenter’s Frank Capra touchstone (It Happened One Night), but the latter was less enamoured by the movie’s “melancholy gooeyness”. Such gooeyness is a fair call, but as ever with the romance or romantic comedy, either it affects you or it doesn’t. I don’t think Starman is entirely successful, but it’s melancholy gooeyness largely works for me.



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?

Just because you are a character doesn't mean that you have character.

Pulp Fiction (1994) (SPOILERS) From a UK perspective, Pulp Fiction ’s success seemed like a fait accompli; Reservoir Dogs had gone beyond the mere cult item it was Stateside and impacted mainstream culture itself (hard to believe now that it was once banned on home video); it was a case of Tarantino filling a gap in the market no one knew was there until he drew attention to it (and which quickly became over-saturated with pale imitators subsequently). Where his debut was a grower, Pulp Fiction hit the ground running, an instant critical and commercial success (it won the Palme d’Or four months before its release), only made cooler by being robbed of the Best Picture Oscar by Forrest Gump . And unlike some famously-cited should-have-beens, Tarantino’s masterpiece really did deserve it.

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.

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

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

Poetry in translation is like taking a shower with a raincoat on.

Paterson (2016) (SPOILERS) Spoiling a movie where nothing much happens is difficult, but I tend to put the tag on in a cautionary sense much of the time. Paterson is Jim Jarmusch at his most inert and ambient but also his most rewardingly meditative. Paterson (Adam Driver), a bus driver and modest poet living in Paterson, New Jersey, is a stoic in a fundamental sense, and if he has a character arc of any description, which he doesn’t really, it’s the realisation that is what he is. Jarmusch’s picture is absent major conflict or drama; the most significant episodes feature Paterson’s bus breaking down, the English bull terrier Marvin – whom Paterson doesn’t care for but girlfriend Laura (Golshifteh Farahani) dotes on – destroying his book of poetry, and an altercation at the local bar involving a gun that turns out to be a water pistol. And Paterson takes it all in his stride, genial to the last, even the ruination of his most earnest, devoted work (the only disappoint

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

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 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

Your Mickey Mouse is one big stupid dope!

Enemy Mine (1985) (SPOILERS) The essential dynamic of Enemy Mine – sworn enemies overcome their differences to become firm friends – was a well-ploughed one when it was made, such that it led to TV Tropes assuming, since edited, that it took its title from an existing phrase (Barry Longyear, author of the 1979 novella, made it up, inspired by the 1961 David Niven film The Best of Enemies ). The Film Yearbook Volume 5 opined that that Wolfgang Petersen’s picture “ lacks the gritty sauciness of Hell in the Pacific”; John Boorman’s WWII film stranded Lee Marvin and Toshiro Mifune on a desert island and had them first duking it out before becoming reluctant bedfellows. Perhaps germanely, both movies were box office flops.