Monday, October 5, 2009

Hell Hath no Fury


When I decided that I wanted to explore the passionate side of horror this October, from love to obsession to madness and back again, I knew I wanted to include Christine, John Carpenter's 1983 film version of the Stephen King novel. The story takes the idea of love, obsession and madness and places it between a boy and his car. It's different I thought. Why not mix things up a bit? I wasn't expecting much as I had seen it upon its release back in the day and found it a rather lackluster, run of the mill genre flick. I bought a copy to watch again and prepared myself to write a half-hearted review of a mediocre movie I could neatly pigeon-hole into my October theme. I wasn't even utterly convinced I should watch it again. Would a viewing 26 years later reveal anything new? Would my opinion of it really change all that much? Yes and hell yes. Much to my surprise Christine is a damn good little film. No all-time horror classic mind you, but pretty damn good nonetheless.

One thing that surprised me, and continues to surprise me every time I pop in a genre flick from the late seventies through the mid-eighties, is the deliberate pacing. Genre flicks, from action (especially action) to sci-fi to horror, have eschewed pacing in the last ten years in favor of the adrenalin rush. Smash cuts, ramping, shaky-cam and blurred macro-closeups can all be expected in the first five minutes of a genre flick today with the beauty of the sustained shot ever receding into the past. But Christine builds slowly and beautifully before losing its nerve with a rushed ending that runs counter to all the build-up that came before.

For those unfamiliar with this story of boy meets car Christine begins in 1958 as the Plymouth Fury named Christine rolls off the production line fully painted in sharp contrast to the unpainted models surrounding her. Christine is special which doesn't escape the notice of the men working the line one of whom gets his hand smashed under her hood before another gets killed, presumably by suffocation as he makes the grave error of tipping his cigar ashes onto her seat. Christine doesn't like being mistreated.

Flash-forward 25 years and we meet Arnie (Keith Gordon) and Dennis (John Stockwell), local nerd and football star respectively and friends since childhood. Arnie is a beaten character, dominated by his mother at home and bullys at school. Dennis does his best to defend and protect Arnie from both but it's a losing battle. Then one day Arnie sees Christine, broken down and beaten, just like Arnie, rusting away in the back yard of LeBay, played splendidly by that National Treasure of a character actor Roberts Blossom, an actor in desperate need of a Wanderers write-up. LeBay tells Arnie Christine is special but he's preaching to the choir: Arnie knew Christine was special the moment he saw her. Much to Dennis' and his parent's dismay, Arnie buys Christine and begins to fix her up. Not long after Arnie's behavior changes, dramatically.

There's not much more to tell after that. Arnie fixes Christine up, bullys destroy her, Christine kills bullys. And so on. The last third of the movie is a rush job that does a great disservice to the build-up that precedes it. Consider, in a movie one hour and 46 minutes long, it is not until the 46 minute mark that Christine does anything physically harmful to anyone in the present day story and not until the hour mark that the audience finally gets to see with their own eyes that Christine is indeed possessing of supernatural abilities. This build up contains great creepy moments where hints and suggestions are all the audience has to go on to know something is wrong. Take the moment when Dennis goes back to try to talk LeBay into taking the car back. LeBay refuses and tells Dennis of his late brother, the original owner of Christine. He tells Dennis of the great love his brother had for that car. How his brother's wife and daughter both perished in it and still he drove it. Finally LeBay says he made his brother get rid of the car for decency's sake. He pauses, then looks at Dennis and says, "Of course three weeks later the car came back." That's a great moment but once Christine starts exacting revenge on those around her the great moments disappear into a blur of attack sequences.

What remains impressive about the film despite the rushed conclusion is the visual artistry of John Carpenter and the impressive lead performance by Keith Gordon. Carpenter frames each shot with care and takes the now (and even perhaps then) cliched gimmick of lens flares in the camera and turns it into a character marker for Christine with each flare becoming a sparkling ray of life shining from Christine's "eyes." The film never loses interest visually and the sight of a blazing Plymouth Fury roaring down the highway begs for a second look.

As for Gordon, his performance is as tightly screwed as any in a horror film I can remember. He plays nerdy Arnie so dead on that when he gets into Dennis' car and recounts a story of Scrabble from the night before one can't help but cringe at the awkwardness of his delivery and the fact that he ever thought the story might be of any interest to anyone in the first place. Later when madness and obsession take over Gordon makes the courageous decision to play Arnie as an all-out prick. His character is unlikeable in the extreme and yet sympathy for the plight of this bewitched teenager remains when his pathetic demise occurs.

Christine is a movie that comes pre-packaged with one strike already against it: It's a story about a possessed car. In other words, good luck finding a non-horror fan that's going to give that premise any respect. Its all too by-the-numbers ending, with Christine becoming a non-stop death machine, delivers strike number two. But strike three never comes thanks to a great setup based on suggestion and mood, sharp striking visuals and a great lead performance by Keith Gordon (as well as fine supporting performances by Blossom as LeBay and Harry Dean Stanton as a nosy detective). It's not a great horror film but it's probably a lot better than most people remember.

42 comments:

Bob Turnbull said...

Have you seen "The Car" with James Brolin from 1977? It's a possessed car film that feels made-for-TV (e.g. really awkward characters in spots, no real bloodshed, etc.), but it actually has a couple of good moments - both silly (the evil car barrel rolls to take out 2 cop cars; throws its door open to knock out Brolin) and tense (OK, not quite tense, but there's a few long shots of the car coming that work pretty well).

I still haven't seen "Christine", but will add it to the list for this month. It just never quite grabbed me, but I have read few high praise reviews...

bill r. said...

Huh. I hope I agree with you on this, because I don't remember the film being all that great, and yet I keep almost buying the DVD. Maybe now I will.

I read the book ages ago, and it's one of those things where the premise is kind of bone-stupid, but somehow King pulls it off, partly by taking it seriously. He used to be good at that.

Greg said...

Bob, I have seen The Car but don't remember it. It was years ago but maybe I'll give a look as a Christine companion piece.

MrJeffery said...

I really like this movie (and King's novel). So spooky. Carpenter's score really adds to the atmosphere. Very underrated.

Greg said...

Bill AND Bob - Don't get me wrong, I'm not here saying this is a great horror movie because I make it clear that it's not. But it's a lot better than I remembered it. Keith Gordon, Harry Dean Stanton, Roberts Blossom and the late, great Robert Prosky all make this worth watching and I am serious when I say I found it visually interesting from beginning to end.

Bill, Carpenter takes the premise as seriously as King and that's why it worked for me. Hey, I can't defend this like it's The Shining or anything but I had an entertaining time watching it. I think it's probably a tad underrated.

bill r. said...

Bob, in The Car, doesn't the car run over a French horn player at one point?

Greg said...

Jeffrey, I thinks it's underrated too. Carpenter's synth scores get a lot of ridicule but I've always liked them and think his score here works really well.

bill r. said...

I know you're not saying it's great, Greg, but "good", or "underrated" is good enough for me. I wallow in horror movies, and one's standards tend to get skewed when you do that. That's not me condescending to the genre, but understanding the reality. For instance -- and you might consider watching or re-watching this one and writing about it -- I consider Pumpkinhead to be a solid, underrated film, but I would never call it great.

Greg said...

Bill, you're right about standard skewing. As a result I get nervous that someone will misread the review and get mad at me when a masterful suspense thriller isn't delivered upon watching Christine. Still, I really enjoyed it visually and can't stress that enough. Look at the post picture of the burning car or the shot of Leigh in the car in today's banner. It's great stuff.

Kevin J. Olson said...

Great stuff, Greg. I haven't seen this since it scared the poo out of me as a kid...and after reading your review (and reading the book a few years ago) it's funny the things that frighten us as kids. I'll have to give this one another shot.

I'm glad you mention Carpenter's care for each deliberate shot, too. Here's a man who everyone seems to think only had one or two good movies, but I like that he was always willing to go after different kinds of horror pictures; he refused to be pigeon holed by the slasher film.

Bill:

I agree about King's ability to take silly premises and make them creepy as hell because he takes the so seriously. You're right...he used to be good at that, hehe. This made me think of Jeepers Creepers, a horror film that was utterly silly (most are), but the filmmakers took seriously (for the first half at least) and because of that the film worked waaaay better than it had any right to.

I put the blame on Kevin Williamson for making audiences believe that every horror film has to be self-referential, pithy, and aware of how ridiculous it is. Greg is right...there's no way a movie like Christine is getting made today unless it was for the Sci-fi channel.

I like Pumpkinhead, too...one of the great cover boxes of all time, hehe.

Bob Turnbull said...

Don't worry Greg, I know exactly where you are coming from when you "recommend" Christine. Hey, I just said that "The Car" wasn't too shabby, so who should be more worried about recommending crap? B-)

Overrated is "My Bloody Valentine" (1981). I just saw it too and I haven't the slightest clue why it's considered one of the better slashers of the 80s (apart from some interesting things like setting it in a blue collar mining town).

Bill, yes indeed there is a scene where an annoying French Horn player gets squashed by The Car. I don't necessarily need to have gore in my horror films, but it would've been nice to show some there...B-)

Bob Turnbull said...

Kevin, I agree with your comments about "Jeepers Creepers" - that first half works very well. I just saw "Jeepers Creepers 2" and though it is more like the 2nd half of the first film, they play it straight and it works pretty well (though the characters kinda sucked). It's photographed really nicely as well with plenty of good night scenes and daylight scenes in wheat fields.

Greg said...

I put the blame on Kevin Williamson for making audiences believe that every horror film has to be self-referential, pithy, and aware of how ridiculous it is.

Boy isn't that the truth. Horror really took a downturn with the age of snark. People were afraid to take it seriously in some cases or take it seriously by making it 'realistic' in others. In other words, zombies couldn't just happen anymore due to unknown circumstances, it had to be a government developed virus, etc.

There either has to be an acceptable rational explanation for what's onscreen or it should be told ironically with lots of in-jokes. But a car possessed with no explanation? Simply won't pass muster anymore.

Greg said...

Bob, I never have seen either Jeepers Creepers but will see The Car again based on your solid assessment that it is a masterpiece of world cinema. I hope I haven't misread you.

Kevin J. Olson said...

You're right, Greg. The explaining away of things has lessened the genre considerably. It's what's so refreshing about the Italian horror subgenre...as nonsensical as it is, you just release yourself to it and get spooked the hell out by the creepy and unsettling atmosphere.

As I've been watching nothing but Italian horror lately I noticed another similarity between those films and something you bring up in your review here: the deliberate pacing. With the exception of Marshall's The Descent or something like The Orphanage you'd be hard pressed to find a horror film that is interested in making its viewers wait around for the visceral moments.

Kevin J. Olson said...

I should clarify my statement at the end there to read: "you'd be hard pressed to find any MODERN horror film..."

Greg said...

Kevin, I love Descent personally even though I've seen some heated arguments over it online amongst horror fans but I thought the build-up and reveal were extraordinary and the ending perfectly pitched. And no, there aren't many like that anymore.

The Warfreak said...

This reminds me that I need to see Christine.

I do thoroughly enjoy The Car and have done a review on it myself.

Kevin J. Olson said...

I'm with ya on The Decent, Greg. I actually think it's the horror movie of the new century -- meaning it's the example that all others will be held against. It's a perfect blend of the visceral I was talking about, and a perfect example of how to do referential horror subtly (and sometimes not so subtly...). It's one of the most perfect horror films I've seen released in the last 20 years.

Arbogast said...

With the exception of Marshall's The Descent or something like The Orphanage you'd be hard pressed to find a horror film that is interested in making its viewers wait around for the visceral moments.

They are out there. I've enjoyed Black Water (more of a survival film than horror), Dorothy Mills and Splinter and even some stuff that I didn't think worked (The Burrowers comes to mind) at least took a more textural approach to terror, building tension over time and holding off on in-your-face horrors.

Greg said...

Arbogast, sadly, I've seen none of the films you list so clearly I've got some catching up to do. I suppose I'm as guilty as anyone of knowing only the big productions and missing out on a lot of the smaller ones.

Greg said...

Warfreak, I hope you like it, it's quite enjoyable.

bill r. said...

I like both Jeepers Creepers films, and I wish I didn't. For a variety of reasons, but now's not the time for that.

The Descent is an excellent movie, but, interestingly, when I first saw I would have said it was just "effective". I think the hype around that movie initially made it hard for some people, such as myself, to love, but I was happy to find that, when I watched it a second time, I really liked it, quite a bit more than I did the first time. It may well be the only truly good film Neil Marshall had in him, but so be it.

Dorothy Mills is the title of a horror film? I've never even heard of that. Curiosity grips me as we speak!

Greg said...

Bill, I had the same reaction to Dorothy Mills upon reading Arbo's comment. I looked it up (as you probably did too) and it stars Carice van Houten from Blackbook so it's guaranteed at least that the lead performance should kick ass.

bill r. said...

Just added it to the queue, along with Splinter and Black Water.

Greg said...

Bill, me too except for Splinter which is available on instant viewing.

Kevin J. Olson said...

Arbogast:

I haven't seen any of those films...like Bill and Greg that will change shortly. Adding them to the queue as we speak.

Bob Turnbull said...

I'm glad you completely understood my meaning in regards to "The Car" Greg.

As for Modern Horror that takes its time, I would consider "Grace". It's pretty much a straight line build of the tension and unsettled feelings. It's not the "baby zombie" movie you may think it is (or want it to be) - there isn't even a killing of any variety until past the mid-point of the film (if memory serves).

A few others would be "Session 9", "Acacia", "Let The Right One In" and "Pontypool".

Arbogast said...

I like both Jeepers Creepers films, and I wish I didn't. For a variety of reasons, but now's not the time for that.

The fact that Victor Salva did time in prison for having sex with a minor and videotaping statutory rape and probably watching it later on when he was alone like Henry and Otis in Henry, Portrait of a Serial Killer doesn't enter into my not liking his movies. I just don't like 'em.

Greg said...

Glory, glory hallelujah! I can get back on blogspot. I was knocked off for hours for whatever reason. Anyway, Bob, glad to know Grace is the 'baby zombie' movie I think it is. Once again I have read your words closely.

Arbo, you should just go ahead and make that a reason you don't like it for decency's sake.

EVIL CLOWN said...

First of all... greatest.banner.ever. I want a T-shirt of Kirk strangling himself. I'LL BUY THAT FOR A DOLLAR!

Second, I think you apologize too much for liking this movie. But you're right, it's a film that doesn't necessarily beg for re-watching, considering it is about a possessed car. I can remember when this was released, they hyped the technology behind the reconstruction of the car. Considering all of that was done with a series of mirrors is amazing.

To Bob's point, I recently rewatched The Car because I remember it scaring the bejesus out of me. It was fun to rewatch, mostly for the horn, but it was something that I remembered better than it was.

When looking at Christine from the context of Carpenter's career, it is some of his most polished work and completely unlike anything he's done - other than The Thing. And some of the best acting of any of his films. Maybe because Carpenter didn't write the screenplay. I mean, I love the guy but dialogue is not one of his strong suits.

Roberts Blossom is fantastic in this. I've often wanted to parade around my yard in that contraption he was in. Not sure what it was. A tank top with some kind of a truss with bra straps. And his almost throw-away delivery of that line "three weeks later, the car came back" is goosebumpily good.

My son and I watched The Fog two nights ago and what Carpenter is a master of is building tension. And back to the strike of this film being a possessed car, the problem is... once you realize it's possessed there's really nowhere to go from there.

But I really do like this film. Except the very end. It's a cop-out. I guess I understand the point, but it could have been done differently.

Greg said...

I think you apologize too much for liking this movie.

I apologize for that.

Ha ha ha ha hahahahaaaaa!!! Get it? Ha ha ha ha haaaaa!!! Oh man, how do I do it?

Greetings Evil Clown, good to see you again. I never thought about Carpenter not writing his movies being what makes them better but maybe you're right. And now I want to watch The Fog again.

Oh, and that Blosssom contraption thing, I love it too. He can pull that off perfectly. He should be a runway model for those things.

Arbogast said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Arbogast said...

I think The Car should be categorized as an Elliot Silverstein movie (which it is) first and foremost, in that it's about a decent but incomplete protagonist (like Catherine Ballou in Cat Ballou and John Morgan in A Man Called Horse) who is able to become complete, able to become a hero, through a trial-by-fire scenario.

As the sheriff of a "sleepy" southwest town in which nothing really happens, Brolin is required through the film (and by the Car) to wake up and fully engage with life. And look at his name... "Wade Parent." He's raising these two children and seeing this woman but he's not really being a partner or a father - he's not sinking or swimming - until he has to protect his children and avenge the killing of his woman. Goofy maybe but it's vintage Silverstein.

EVIL CLOWN said...

Arbogast,

That's a hell of a way to look at it. And it makes good sense.

Greg said...

I was unaware of the classification "vintage Silverstein" except as it applies to Where the Sidewalk Ends.

EVIL CLOWN said...

Wait. That's not what he was talking about? I was thinking about Silvia Stout and how she would not take the garbage out. Or the long toothed snail. Or I cannot go to school today said little Peggy Anne McKay.

Can you tell I have a 6 year old?

Greg said...

Yes, because you just wrote you have a 6 year old. Of course, I could tell before that too. Shel looks mean on the back cover of Where the Sidewalk Ends, like he'd kick your ass if you didn't like his book.

Adam Zanzie said...

"Show me." Those words basically form the thesis of Christine. The entire movie is Arnie getting Christine to do things for him- slaughter for him, chauffer for him, undress for him. All in a year's work.

What surprised me most about the film was its lack of gore; apparently, Carpenter was burned by those cries of overviolence directed at The Thing and thought it would be best to tone down the blood this time. Even though that makes Christine less enjoyable of a film, it also makes it more admirable at the same time. We can focus more on Arnie and company instead of that gigantic massacre maraton that takes up the whole last half hour.

Can't wait for Carpenter's new movie, The Ward. It sounds chilling and spine-tingling, even if the subject matter feels a little similar to what Scorsese is doing with Shutter Island.

Greg said...

That didn't really occur to me while watching it but you're right, there isn't much gore at all in this movie. I think it does work better that way myself.

And I love The Thing, easily one of my favorite monster movies ever. It got raked over the coals when it was released but most critics now recognize it as a great piece of suspense filmmaking, tightly wound and tense from beginning to end.

gil mann said...

LOVE this movie. Liked the book well enough as a kid--probably my introduction to "fractured narrative," not that I graduated to high-brow lit or anything.

I think Carpenter improved immeasurably on the novel by just making Christine a killer car, full stop. In the book she's possessed by the old man's dead brother, and it's a straight-up ghost story; the movie's a love story and it's a much more elegant take.

And it proves, alongside Prince of Darkness, that even lesser Carpenter can be a master class in mood-setting via cinematography and minimalist score.

Finally, evil mirror-universe Vinnie Barbarino's "I'll fix you" is one of the all-time great line readings. And a bit of ironic foreshadowing, come to think of it.

Greg said...

In the book she's possessed by the old man's dead brother, and it's a straight-up ghost story; the movie's a love story and it's a much more elegant take.

I never read the book but I knew of that difference and always thought the story of a jealous car, a possessed and possessive she-car, was much more interesting than a car possessed by the former owner.