Skip to main content

I'd hate to wake up some morning and find out that you weren't you.

Invasion of the Body Snatchers
(1956)

(SPOILERS) The premise of Don Siegel’s anti-McCarthy – or is it anti-Commie? – SF paranoia movie is an evergreen. Hence it having been remade three times (so far). One of those came during a period when – whisper it – those refashioning ’50s B-movies were coming up with takes that were more resonant and richer than the originals. So much so, they have invariably supplanted them in first-port-of-call stakes. Over the course of less than a decade, Invasion of the Body Snatchers, The Thing and The Fly all succeeded in justifying and validating a cash-in process that has, generally, been rightly derided. As such, the Siegel movie, while packing a punch, looks almost plain in comparison to Phillip Kaufman’s urban nightmare.

The original’s influence on a generation is undeniable though, from Kaufman’s movie (star Kevin McCarthy cameos, continuing where he left off in the original’s original cut) to a career’s worth of Joe Dante referencing it (Gremlins; Looney Tunes: Back in Action; just generally using McCarthy regularly – Dante also moderated the DVD commentary and presented the Trailers from Hell). And as a Siegel movie, it remains a sure-footed, gripping piece of work.

McCarthy – who admitted to his character’s bookend ravings being slightly OTT on the commentary track – has stated he was unaware of any political intent when making the picture; he rather saw the encoded warning as one of non-specific conformity. Both Time Out’s Tom Charity and Dante noted “in his book A Siegel Film the director has nothing to say on the matter”, but the Wiki page has the director quoted thus: “The political reference to Senator McCarthy and totalitarianism was inescapable, but I tried not to emphasise it because I feel that motion pictures are primarily to entertain and I did not want to preach”.

John Patterson vouched for that view – “a look at the infectious hysteria attendant upon McCarthyism” – but it’s a metaphor that only really works without the framing device to confound it (whereby, it could not be construed as all in delusional mind of McCarthy’s Dr Bennell). It should be noted Siegel wasn’t saying outright this was the intent: only that it was there. It has been suggested he was steering closer to McCarthy’s take, that the movie spoke psychologically, rather than politically, about basic interactions with others who reveal themselves soullessly (Bennell says as much in a rather lumpy expository speech, regarding how there are those who “allow their humanity to drain away”). Such a metaphor is entirely ripe for application to any end, based on one’s affiliations. As Pauline Kael put it, “it has an idea that confirms everyone’s suspicions. People are being turned into vegetables – and who can tell the difference?

Indeed, in Seeing is Believing, Peter Biskind characterised the communism reading as more a convenient marker than the picture’s express intent. This was, he argued, fully emblematic of right-wing SF’s characteristics, which “focused on the struggle of the outsider, the kook, the end-of-the-worlder, to force the community to acknowledge the validity of the self’s private vision, even if it violated the norms of credibility that govern the expectations of experts and professionals”. By Biskind’s definition then, the conspiracy theorist is inherently right wing. Such a definition is also, inherently, necessitating one to characterise such positions in Hegelian terms: them and us, left and right, all roads leading to State (or centre).

In which regard, Biskind conspicuously avoids mention of the “H” word. Left wing SF of the period – the most iconic would be The Day the Earth Stood Still – is notable for being “more tolerant of otherness”, but it shares with right-wing SF an aversion to the centre. Authority is not to be trusted, nor are its tools, such that “In Invasion, therapy is brainwashing, and centrism – the docs and the cops – is subversive”. The shrink here will find his adjunct in Nimoy’s self-help guru in Kaufman’s remake; never trust someone when they are telling you what’s best for your personal wellbeing and health. No one knows better than you (this is why Abel Ferrara’s picture rather shoots itself in the foot, good as it is; the situation on an army base is a foregone conclusion).

As Biskind notes “The pod society is the familiar mechanistic utopia usually (and rightly) taken as a metaphor for Communism”. However, while “Communism was something of a diversion” (or, per Clue, a red herring), it was different in Invasion of the Body Snatchers to other right-wing pictures like The Thing from Another World or Them! which “attack extremism in the guise of attacking the Red menace, to suggest that like Communism, extremism was subversive”. Here, the “integrity of the self” is all, and the world of the pods, “this rationalist world… is the dream of the ‘creeping socialist’ centre… as well as the left”.

As such, if you excuse Biskind his stringent definitions in terms of political polarities, he sums up the paradigm’s tools rather well. The sacrifice of individual thought to the centre or the establishment is primary; we’re invited to ask “who’s right, the individual or the group, and who commands authority, amateurs or experts, the people or the state” such that we conclude “Individuals must not only act for themselves, they must think for themselves as well”.

Consequently, while Invasion of the Body Snatchers’ studio mandated bookend might identify it as “one of those radical films that scampers back to the centre at the last minute” – help is forthcoming from Washington and the FBI – it also “works as a right-wing ending, after a fashion”. By which, their uniting in common purpose is based on Bennell’s vision, rather than State’s: “an expression of the radical right’s populist optimism, but also a rehabilitation of common sense, discredited by the centre” (incidentally, Biskind errs when he says “For it turns out that the entire film is a flashback”; no, it’s obvious from the start).

None of this has gone away; left/right paradigm remains a defining principle, subject to prevalent pod speak on both sides. “Conspiracy theorist” is now a catch-all, and wherever possible, it is caveated by insinuations of right-wing extremism. Conform to the mandates, wear the masks, get your shots, maintain the line even as the narrative crumbles. And when it does, do as you’re told and switch attention to the new narrative (war!). For seed pods, swap out nanotech, spike proteins, graphene and, by some accounts, black goo (and then shake and stir again). There are those who claim to have noticed change in the behaviour of the jabbed, beyond simply the righteous fervour with which they lambast those who have abstained (as Bennell says, “It’s a malignant disease...”).

Kaufman’s picture is superior, not least because it’s so damn reasonable, with its amiable big-city yoghurt weavers. Biskind suggests, of Siegel’s original, “The film is suffused with a nostalgia for the past, for the old-fashioned pretechnological GP, rather than the new-fangled psychiatrist with his glib talk of ‘mass hysteria’”. But the GP himself is a conformist, a proponent of Rockefeller allopathic medicine, so such positions are purely relative. I like Biskind’s take on Miles and Becky (Dana Wyner) as divorcees, though: “their aspirations cannot be realised within society. Their dreams did not and cannot come true, because society is inimical to dreams and dreamers”. Such a reading pushes the metaphor: come Kaufman’s movie, the hippies of a few years prior have become the bedrock of society. The only way to perceive the truth is to reject the establishment. One doesn’t even need to be paranoid. One simply has to know it’s out to get you.


Popular posts from this blog

If I do nothing else, I will convince them that Herbert Stempel knows what won the goddam Academy Award for Best goddam Picture of 1955. That’s what I’m going to accomplish.

Quiz Show (1994) (SPOILERS) Quiz Show perfectly encapsulates a certain brand of Best Picture nominee: the staid, respectable, diligent historical episode, a morality tale in response to which the Academy can nod their heads approvingly and discerningly, feeding as it does their own vainglorious self-image about how times and attitudes have changed, in part thanks to their own virtuousness. Robert Redford’s film about the 1950s Twenty-One quiz show scandals is immaculately made, boasts a notable cast and is guided by a strong screenplay from Paul Attanasio (who, on television, had just created the seminal Homicide: Life on the Streets ), but it lacks that something extra that pushes it into truly memorable territory.

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.

Piece by piece, the camel enters the couscous.

The Forgiven (2021) (SPOILERS) By this point, the differences between filmmaker John Michael McDonagh and his younger brother, filmmaker and playwright Martin McDonagh, are fairly clearly established. Both wear badges of irreverence and provocation in their writing, and a willingness to tackle – or take pot-shots – at bigger issues, ones that may find them dangling their toes in hot water. But Martin receives the lion’s share of the critical attention, while John is generally recognised as the slightly lesser light. Sure, some might mistake Seven Psychopaths for a John movie, and Calvary for a Martin one, but there’s a more flagrant sense of attention seeking in John’s work, and concomitantly less substance. The Forgiven is clearly aiming more in the expressly substantial vein of John’s earlier Calvary, but it ultimately bears the same kind of issues in delivery.

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

I’m just the balloon man.

Copshop (2021) (SPOILERS) A consistent problem with Joe Carnahan’s oeuvre is that, no matter how confidently his movies begin, or how strong his premise, or how adept his direction or compelling the performances he extracts, he ends up blowing it. He blows it with Copshop , a ’70s-inspired variant on Assault on Precinct 13 that is pretty damn good during the first hour, before devolving into his standard mode of sado-nihilistic mayhem.

Say hello to the Scream Extractor.

Monsters, Inc. (2001) (SPOILERS) I was never the greatest fan of Monsters, Inc. , even before charges began to be levelled regarding its “true” subtext. I didn’t much care for the characters, and I particularly didn’t like the way Pixar’s directors injected their own parenting/ childhood nostalgia into their plots. Something that just seems to go on with their fare ad infinitum. Which means the Pixars I preferred tended to be the Brad Bird ones. You know, the alleged objectivist. Now, though, we learn Pixar has always been about the adrenochrome, so there’s no going back…

No one can be told what the Matrix is. You have to see it for yourself.

The Matrix  (1999) (SPOILERS) Twenty years on, and the articles are on the defining nature of The Matrix are piling up, most of them touching on how its world has become a reality, or maybe always was one. At the time, its premise was engaging enough, but it was the sum total of the package that cast a spell – the bullet time, the fashions, the soundtrack, the comic book-as-live-action framing and styling – not to mention it being probably the first movie to embrace and reflect the burgeoning Internet ( Hackers doesn’t really count), and subsequently to really ride the crest of the DVD boom wave. And now? Now it’s still really, really good.

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.

When we have been subtle, then can I kill him?

The Avengers 6.16. Legacy of Death There’s scarcely any crediting the Terry Nation of Noon-Doomsday as the same Terry Nation that wrote this, let alone the Terry Nation churning out a no-frills Dalek story a season for the latter stages of the Jon Pertwee era. Of course, Nation had started out as a comedy writer (for Hancock), and it may be that the kick Brian Clemens gave him up the pants in reaction to the quality of Noon-Doomsday loosened a whole load of gags. Admittedly, a lot of them are well worn, but they come so thick and fast in Legacy of Death , accompanied by an assuredly giddy pace from director Don Chaffey (of Ray Harryhausen’s Jason and the Argonauts ) and a fine ensemble of supporting players, that it would be churlish to complain.

Tippy-toe! Tippy-toe!

Seinfeld 2.7: The Phone Message The Premise George and Jerry both have dates on the same night. Neither goes quite as planned, and in George’s case it results in him leaving an abusive message on his girlfriend’s answerphone. The only solution is to steal the tape before she plays it. Observational Further evidence of the gaping chasm between George and Jerry’s approaches to the world. George neurotically attacks his problems and makes them worse, while Jerry shrugs and lets them go. It’s nice to see the latter’s anal qualities announcing themselves, however; he’s so bothered that his girlfriend likes a terrible TV advert that he’s mostly relieved when she breaks things off (“ To me the dialogue rings true ”). Neither Gretchen German (as Donna, Jerry’s date) nor Tory Polone (as Carol, George’s) make a huge impression, but German has more screen time and better dialogue. The main attraction is Jerry’s reactions, which include trying to impress her with hi