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

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.

Ziggy smokes a lot of weed.

Moonfall (2022) (SPOILERS) For a while there, it looked as if Moonfall , the latest and least-welcomed – so it seems – piece of apocalyptic programming from Roland Emmerich, might be sending mixed messages. Fortunately, we need not have feared, as it turns out to be the same pedigree of disaster porn we’ve come to expect from the director, one of the Elite’s most dutiful mass-entertainment stooges, even if his lustre has rather dimmed since the glory days of 2012.

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

All I saw was an old man with a funky hand, that’s all I saw.

The Blob (1988) (SPOILERS) The 1980s effects-laden remake of a ’50s B-movie that couldn’t. That is, couldn’t persuade an audience to see it and couldn’t muster critical acclaim. The Fly was a hit. The Thing wasn’t, but its reputation has since soared. Like Invaders from Mars , no such fate awaited The Blob , despite effects that, in many respects, are comparable in quality to the John Carpenter classic – and are certainly indebted to Rob Bottin for bodily grue – and surehanded direction from Chuck Russell. I suspect the reason is simply this: it lacks that extra layer that would ensure longevity.

Are you telling me that I should take my daughter to a witch doctor?

The Exorcist (1973) (SPOILERS) Vast swathes have been written on The Exorcist , duly reflective of its cultural impact. In a significant respect, it’s the first blockbuster – forget Jaws – and also the first of a new kind of special-effects movie. It provoked controversy across all levels of the socio-political spectrum, for explicit content and religious content, both hailed and denounced for the same. William Friedkin, director of William Peter Blatty’s screenplay based on Blatty’s 1971 novel, would have us believe The Exorcist is “ a film about the mystery of faith ”, but it’s evidently much more – and less – than that. There’s a strong argument to be made that movies having the kind of seismic shock on the landscape this one did aren’t simply designed to provoke rumination (or exultation); they’re there to profoundly influence society, even if largely by osmosis, and when one looks at this picture’s architects, such an assessment only gains in credibility.

That, my lad, was a dragon.

The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug (2013) (SPOILERS) It’s alarming how quickly Peter Jackson sabotaged all the goodwill he amassed in the wake of The Lord of the Rings trilogy. A guy who started out directing deliciously deranged homemade horror movies ended up taking home the Oscar for a fantasy movie, of all genres. And then he blew it. He went from a filmmaker whose naysayers were the exception to one whose remaining cheerleaders are considered slightly maladjusted. The Desolation of Smaug recovers some of the territory Jackson has lost over the last decade, but he may be too far-gone to ever regain his crown. Perhaps in years to come The Lord of the Rings trilogy will be seen as an aberration in his filmography. There’s a cartoonishness to the gleeful, twisted anarchy on display in his earlierr work that may be more attuned to the less verimilitudinous aspects of King Kong and The Hobbit s. The exceptions are his female-centric character dramas, Heavenly Creat

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.

This risotto is shmackin’, dude.

Stranger Things Season 4: Part I (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.

You keep a horse in the basement?

The ‘Burbs (1989) (SPOILERS) The ‘Burbs is Joe Dante’s masterpiece. Or at least, his masterpiece that isn’t his bite-the-hand-that-feeds-you masterpiece Gremlins 2: The New Batch , or his high profile masterpiece Gremlins . Unlike those two, the latter of which bolted out of the gate and took audiences by surprise with it’s black wit subverting the expected Spielberg melange, and the first which was roundly shunned by viewers and critics for being absolutely nothing like the first and waving that fact gleefully under their noses, The ‘Burbs took a while to gain its foothold in the Dante pantheon.  It came out at a time when there had been a good few movies (not least Dante’s) taking a poke at small town Americana, and it was a Tom Hanks movie when Hanks was still a broad strokes comedy guy ( Big had just made him big, Turner and Hooch was a few months away; you know you’ve really made it when you co-star with a pooch). It’s true to say that some, as with say The Bi

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