Director of the Month: John Carpenter -Jeremiah

What makes a director good, or even great? What defines a master of the cinematic craft?

There's no real answer. Different things work for different directors. What makes Kurosawa great, isn't what makes Wilder great. Herzog is different from Spielberg.

Every once and a while, I'll take a month and spotlight a director. For that month I'll only review movies by that director.

So the question you must be asking yourself now is, “Who's it going to be this month?”

In this first month, I'll be pleasing two masters: myself and, my fellow Three Geek member, Kloiber. He's been grumbling about how we've only been reviewing good movies. I don't see that as a vice really, but I understand where he's coming from.

The inaugural Director of the Month is John Carpenter.

I love Carpenter. He's on my Top 10 Favorites, but he's done some stinkers as well. “Ghosts of Mars” anyone? Yeah, that's what I'm talking about.

I love John Carpenter because, no matter what film it is, you can always tell that he's trying. He may be failing a lot, but you can just feel him trying. The man at least deserves an A+ for effort.

Carpenter is often cited for his success in merging science fiction with horror. I would like to add one more genre, one that he often mixes in along with science fiction and horror; that is the western. Look at “Escape From New York” or “Assault on Precinct 13”; the western element is so imposing that one wonders how this aspect of Carpenter's film-making is so often omitted.

He also exhibits a quirky obsession with stories where a small band of strangers are flung together in a remote location to do battle with an abrupt evil (Note: It may also be a group of friends, instead of the “strangers” scenario). But the constant plot staple is the group of people in an isolated area doing battle with evil, both unexpected and unseen.

Though he's one of my favorite directors, if you take any Carpenter movie and apply more than a grain of logic, the movie crumbles. That's part of the allure though. What fantastically ludicrous situation involving some random roving band of misfits will he come up with next!?

Technically, he's great. His minimalist style is reminiscent of Ford's or Hawks'. At times he channels Hitchcock. It's those damn actors that trip him up every time. He does wonders behind the camera, with lights and mood, and does a whiz-bang job in the editing room. But he cannot get a great performance out of an inexperienced actor or actress to save his life. They have to be established, or at least used to working with him to really turn in a good performance: Kurt Russell, Donald Pleasence, Wilford Brimley, Harry Dean Stanton (choirs of Angels sing), Jamie Lee Curtis, Jeff Bridges, Adrienne Barbeau (again with the angels), and so on.

If they're new, or the type of actor that needs help or some coaching of some type, then they're... well not bad, but Carpenter bad. They're charmingly bad. You watch them, and you kind of go, “Awww....you're so bad.” But Carpenter is also a master of statistics: nine times out of ten, you forgive them and just go with the flow.

That's his real genius: his ability to make you forget. He could probably find better actors, but instead he makes you savor what he chose. I'm positive it's some kind of weird, hammy, voodoo magic.

In addition to writing, directing and producing, he is also a musical composer. Carpenter seems enthralled by that ever fickle siren known as the “Casio keyboard.” His strange obsession with electronic overtures is another part of his charm. True, he misses more times than he hits, but when he hits we get simple masterpieces such as the theme from “Halloween.” His music is often very simple, yet, when done right, eerily effective.

Carpenter has a phenomenal talent for working on a shoestring budget. In fact, this is one of the few things that sets Carpenter apart from his peers. More than likely, he works so well with so little because of his minimalist style. His wonderfully conservative economy of shots, lean story elements and subtext-free dialogue.

To contradict his love of minimalism is his undying affliction with “the name-title” syndrome. I find it to be a cute little eccentricity. It's not just “The Fog,” it's “John Carpenter's The Fog.” It's his little nod to the old days. Or, some people might say, that's him being courteous and giving you a warning. But those people are called bastards.

He is considered by many to be a hack. I disagree. He can be great; most of the times he's good. Always interesting in some form or another. His overlooked “Prince of Darkness,” while not perfect (or really all that good) has one of the most unique plots in recent history. If he fails to deliver -- well, sometimes... that's Carpenter. That's part of the fun with him. It's like a crap shoot, “Is Carpenter going to suck tonight?” Who knows? Hell, he probably doesn't even know.

He seems to be surprisingly down to earth. Oddly accessible to fans, he can always be found doing a Q&A at some convention or other. His love for the cinema is matched only by his love for his audience.

Speaking of which, a Carpenter fan is liable to be an interesting conversation partner. They range from the “I love him, but he's done some real garbage” to the “Carpenter! He is my MASTER! I serve him and only him!” The last one you obviously want to be wary of... unless you're into that kind of thing. Whatever, I'm not judging.

In short, this month is going to be quite the adventure. I'll be watching some of his lesser-known works, as well as his most popular. A nice little mixture, I hope. The kick off movie will be, “Assault on Precinct 13”.

So... you ready to take the Carpenter gamble with me?


Yours Until Hell Freezes Over,

Jeremiah