Counter-Currents
84 words / 1:00:58
David Yorkshire and Neil Westwood, in this episode of Mjolnir at the Movies (affiliated with Mjolnir Magazine), discuss John Carpenter’s “Apocalypse Trilogy”: The Thing, Prince of Darkness, and In the Mouth of Madness. They also examine Carpenter in general and discuss why a director who has always identified himself with the political Left has always appealed to Rightists. They also show how Carpenter uses simple techniques to belie his budget constraints, offering good advice for independent filmmakers financing their own small-budget films.
Enjoyed this article?
Be the first to leave a tip in the jar!
2 comments
I agree with the analysis in the podcast, that Carpenter is very good at stretching out a low budget to create a finished product bigger than its financing, and I suspect that’s where a certain amount of the flavor of his movies comes from, and it’s an absolutely legitimate artistic undertaking.
It’s hard to tell, I *think* he’s probably being honest when he says They Live is about ‘yuppies’ and ‘capitalists’ but the flip side of leftwing discourse is of course a right wing discourse, our discourse, where the ‘capitalists’ brainwashing the world’s population with consumerism, individualism and poz are likely to have a particular ethnic bent.
I’m not yet convinced that there is a deeper right wing reading to his other films buried away, other than by happenstance, simply because ‘Right wing’ through today’s lens was simply normal healthy cinema 35 + years ago.
I value the feel of Carpenter’s films. Escape from New York and The Thing are probably my favorites, although I realized after listening to this, that there are many I hadn’t seen and which I now intend to.
I interpret “The Thing” as an answer to “Alien”. Alien is about the fear of masculinity and Patriarchy in a Freudian sense, therefore it tends to be a feminist film. This idea wasn’t part of O’Bannons original script but the pro-feminist Ridley Scott gave it this interpretation. Conversly, The thing deals with the monstrous aspects of femininity and can be interpreted as a pro-masculine, pro-traditional film.
Comments are closed.
If you have a Subscriber access,
simply login first to see your comment auto-approved.
Note on comments privacy & moderation
Your email is never published nor shared.
Comments are moderated. If you don't see your comment, please be patient. If approved, it will appear here soon. Do not post your comment a second time.