Director John Carpenter's been on my mind the past week. What with the holiday his best known film is named after happening and all. Plus, I watched the original The Fog for the first time and liked it a lot more than I'd been led to believe was possible by the critical drubbing it usually receives (dude - that part on the roof of the lighthouse? I shrieked!).
Anyway... John Carpenter. A name that once inspired confidence, but looking through his films for the past... okay, I mean, I'm not an expert, I haven't seen all of his films and was just now proven wrong about The Fog, but the general consensus seems to be that John Carpenter has made two great films, Halloween and the remake of The Thing. And The Thing was a failure when released and has only been touted as great in recent years. But Halloween is so great, so perfect, that he's gotten to stand on its reputation pretty much alone for his entire career.
Assault on Precinct 13 and Escape From New York are also supposed to be good... but, as I must regrettably admit, I've seen neither (yes, yet here I am writing a post about him and questioning his directorial ability... it's all a sham! I know). But I haven't heard anyone defend any of the movies he's made for the past... decade (Village of the Damned? GOD. Vampires? Ghosts of Mars? No.), maybe longer.
Now, this is coming off much more hostile than I intend it to. I mean the man no ill intent, Halloween and The Thing are both so exquisite, in my mind, I think its fine that he's touted as a master. I've just gotten off track here.
So here's an interview with Carpenter over at The Onion's AV Club. He comes off as a terrific guy, with no qualms about his status as an artiste. He makes movies. He loves to do so. Cool.
It was this article at DbS that got me writing this, because I think it's a great article and wanted to link to it. Specifically because it's so frustrating that great horror cinema has to fight such an uphill battle to be recognized as worthy of greatness. Like the writer at DbS says,
"The trouble with craft is that it becomes invisible when mastered, and therefore so does the craftsman. Master horror directors like John Carpenter and Wes Craven built their careers on taut, muscular, 2%-body-fat frightfests that became classics, but you won't see their names laureled in the "feelm" journals. Peter Jackson and David Cronenberg's names are, but only because they started taking sojourns out of their horror homesteads. Dead Alive, Scanners: horror. Heavenly Creatures, Dead Ringers: art."
And that's frustrating. Because If anything deserves to be hailed as art, it's Dead Alive. I just watched this film Undead last night (which, by the way, was pretty fun) that owes its every frame to Dead Alive and The Evil Dead, as do numerous films of the past couple decades, but you won't find any serious discussions to be had in many spots (outside of, say CHUD) about the cinematic accomplishments of those two splatter-classics.
And that is a shame. A shame, I says!
Anyway... John Carpenter. A name that once inspired confidence, but looking through his films for the past... okay, I mean, I'm not an expert, I haven't seen all of his films and was just now proven wrong about The Fog, but the general consensus seems to be that John Carpenter has made two great films, Halloween and the remake of The Thing. And The Thing was a failure when released and has only been touted as great in recent years. But Halloween is so great, so perfect, that he's gotten to stand on its reputation pretty much alone for his entire career.
Assault on Precinct 13 and Escape From New York are also supposed to be good... but, as I must regrettably admit, I've seen neither (yes, yet here I am writing a post about him and questioning his directorial ability... it's all a sham! I know). But I haven't heard anyone defend any of the movies he's made for the past... decade (Village of the Damned? GOD. Vampires? Ghosts of Mars? No.), maybe longer.
Now, this is coming off much more hostile than I intend it to. I mean the man no ill intent, Halloween and The Thing are both so exquisite, in my mind, I think its fine that he's touted as a master. I've just gotten off track here.
So here's an interview with Carpenter over at The Onion's AV Club. He comes off as a terrific guy, with no qualms about his status as an artiste. He makes movies. He loves to do so. Cool.
It was this article at DbS that got me writing this, because I think it's a great article and wanted to link to it. Specifically because it's so frustrating that great horror cinema has to fight such an uphill battle to be recognized as worthy of greatness. Like the writer at DbS says,
"The trouble with craft is that it becomes invisible when mastered, and therefore so does the craftsman. Master horror directors like John Carpenter and Wes Craven built their careers on taut, muscular, 2%-body-fat frightfests that became classics, but you won't see their names laureled in the "feelm" journals. Peter Jackson and David Cronenberg's names are, but only because they started taking sojourns out of their horror homesteads. Dead Alive, Scanners: horror. Heavenly Creatures, Dead Ringers: art."
And that's frustrating. Because If anything deserves to be hailed as art, it's Dead Alive. I just watched this film Undead last night (which, by the way, was pretty fun) that owes its every frame to Dead Alive and The Evil Dead, as do numerous films of the past couple decades, but you won't find any serious discussions to be had in many spots (outside of, say CHUD) about the cinematic accomplishments of those two splatter-classics.
And that is a shame. A shame, I says!
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment