Dead Presidents:

A nostalgia trip/review

By

Max McPike

Dead Presidents (1995) is a film I have been nostalgic for since childhood. However, it was only recently that I saw the film for the first time. One of my favorite pastimes as a kid was browsing the horror aisle of my local video store gazing at the lurid, eye-catching, and creepy cover art. And among those many covers was Dead Presidents. Just so there is no confusion—Dead Presidents is not a horror film and is best described as a crime-drama. Misplaced or mislabeled, ‘Presidents’ lingered on the horror aisle for some time (if my memory serves) and for years I believed it to be a horror film. The cover boasts a profile of N’Bushe Wright in white face-paint holding a gun. As a kid I wondered who and what she was? Was she a ghost? A vengeful phantom?

Even with the front of the covers creepy enough as it was, my curiosity eventually dared me to gaze upon the back cover. The back box of ‘Presidents’ featured an armored truck on fire (I loved nothing more as a kid than trucks) and a grinning, face-painted robber (Freddy Rodriguez) with a sack of money running from a police car. Were these robbers supernatural? Or were they pretending to be? Or was this a heist movie that happened to be scary? As I grew older I never tired of peering at the cover for ‘Presidents.’ By then my logic told me that this was not a horror film and by then the tape had since moved to the action aisle. My awareness of the film has been a constant in the years since, but I was recently reminded of how the imagination of my impressionable, young mind was stirred by a simple VHS cover. Suddenly the film was stuck in the forefront of my mind. I needed to see it! And after more than 20 years I finally did.

Fresh off the success of their debut feature Menace II Society (1993), Dead Presidents marked the second directorial effort of brothers Albert and Allen Hughes, which chronicles the life of Bronx youth Anthony Curtis (Larenz Tate) through several life stages. As the film begins we are introduced to Anthony and his friends: Skip (Chris Tucker), Jose (Freddy Rodriguez), Kirby—a pool-hall operator and small-time criminal (Keith David), and Anthony’s girlfriend Juanita (Rose Jackson). A soon-to-be-graduate, Anthony seeks something different in life other than college. After enlisting in the Marine Corp, Anthony is sent to Vietnam where he and his squad witness the grisly, gory horrors of war. Among his squad are his buddy Skip and the mentally unstable Cleon (Bokeem Woodbine) who at one point carries a decapitated Vietnamese head as a good luck charm.

Anthony and Juanita

Kirby and Anthony

Upon returning home, Anthony reunites with all his old friends including his girlfriend Juanita—now a prostitute and mother of his child. Working to earn a living for his girlfriend and daughter, Anthony’s life takes an aimless direction and together with his friends is eventually brought on board by Kirby to take part in a heist involving a collection of used bills to be taken out of circulation (dead presidents). In addition they recruit Cleon (now a minister) and Juanita’s sister Delilah (N'Bushe Wright), a member of a black revolutionary group. Armed and donned with face paint, the crew move to carry out their heist.

Anthony, Skip, and Kirby

          Dead Presidents is a well-made and greatly enjoyable crime-drama. The heist sequence alone is brilliantly executed and taut with suspense while the violence is bloodily over-the-top and on-par with that of Tarantino. The film boasts an impressive cast with Larenz Tate cast against type in the lead while Keith David lends great support as the wise and seasoned Kirby. Chris Tucker, known for his comedic roles, reins in a performance that is serious yet remains true to his comedic persona, while the rest of the cast each do a great job with their characters. Among the supporting cast is a young Terrence Howard (as a pool hustler) and a brief appearance by Martin Sheen as a judge.

As much I liked the film, Dead Presidents is not the movie it would lead you to believe. The advertising and home media art present it as an action/heist film when in reality the heist sequence only makes up a small portion of the film. As a result, we the audience anxiously await the sequence based on the expectations of the trailer and video art. Additionally, the film at times feels as though it doesn’t know what it wants to be. It starts as a coming-of-age story, shifts to Vietnam for an extended period, and then shifts back to the Bronx in which some time passes before the heist is even mentioned—and when it is mentioned, the characters speak as though they’ve had previous discussions that the audience was not privy to. Thus, the different stages in Anthony’s life don’t feel as seamless as they should be.

Delilah in face paint 

         The film also raises many themes such as the adjustment of veterans returning home among other things, but arguably never actually makes a full-fledged statement in regard to these themes. We are ultimately left guessing as to the film’s meaning, in that we ask ourselves what it was likely meant to mean as opposed to what it truly does mean. Roger Ebert echoed a similar sentiment in his review for the Chicago Sun-Times. He wrote:

"...[the filmmakers] have a sure sense of the camera, of actors, of the life

 within a scene. But they are not as sure when it comes to story and meaning,

 and here is a film that feels incomplete, as if its last step is into thin air. Scene

 by scene you feel its skill, but you leave the theater wondering about the

 meaning of it all."

One might find such criticisms detrimental to the overall enjoyment and effectiveness of the film, but I must reiterate that I did very much enjoy the movie and that is not to say that one can’t get a sense of what the filmmakers were trying to convey. While these issues do take away from the film, we are still left with an engaging story with interesting and tragic characters that is also an accomplishment both technically and stylistically. Plus, I’m not as hard of a critic compared to many of the professionals both in print and on the web. At least, when it comes to the kinds of films I like.

3 out of 5.

Works Cited:

Ebert, Roger. “Dead Presidents.” Roger Ebert.com. Ebert Digital, LLC, 4 Oct. 1995. Web. 18

Sept. 2017.

         The following is an essay I wrote in college for my Media Literacy class in which we were assigned to compare a pair of ads to one another using various tools of semiotics. The ads in question include posters for two of my favorite films: Star Trek: The Motion Picture and Maximum Overdrive. The second pair of ads are print advertisements for Autocar and Diamond Reo trucks which I will also include in this post. Please enjoy!

It All Ads Up:

by 

Max McPike

        Amidst a sea of stars, the intrepid James T. Kirk and his wise second officer, Spock, gaze out into the forever of space. Looming beneath them, light reflecting across the hull and out of the warp nacelles, is the Enterprise. Below this montage of images, the tagline reads, “There is no comparison.” This poster for Star Trek: The Motion Picture demonstrates how advertisements use coded iconic message, omission, and linguistic message. By comparing it to the poster for Maximum Overdrive, I will determine which poster is more effective. In addition, I will be completing a similar analysis with truck ads from Diamond Reo and Autocar using coded iconic message, montage, and linguistic message. With that, let’s venture forth into the final frontier of advertisements.

Looking at the poster for Star Trek: The Motion Picture, it may appear that not much is going on visually within the poster, but by looking at the coded iconic message we can determine that more is going on than may be immediately visible. In terms of the poster’s denotative message, the presence of stars and the Enterprise allow us to infer that the film is set in space and involves space travel. Surrounding the characters in a rainbow of colors are the beams of light from the ships transporter system, which can imply that the film will transport us 300 years into the future. Connotatively, when we examine each of the character’s faces, we see that Kirk appears to be looking towards the unknown, while Spock looks to be in touch with something and Ilia gazes straight ahead as though she holds the key to something unknown. One could argue that because Kirk and Spock are higher up in the poster than Ilia, it shows them to be the ones in power, sending the message of men overpowering women. However, those familiar with Star Trek know that Kirk is the captain and Spock is the second officer, thus they are higher up in the poster just as they are in the chain of command. Star Trek has always been about human equality, so to have a misogynist Star Trek poster does not seem logical. Not to mention that Ilia appears to be the one who holds the key. While the poster’s design is visually simple, each image has an underlying message that can be interpreted in a variety of ways.

On the other hand, the poster for Maximum Overdrive is very symbolic and visually has much going on within the composition. What stands out most is the symbolic image of Stephen King emerging from a tear in a truck trailer holding a puppeteer’s control bar. As the film’s writer and director, we can infer that King holds all the strings regarding the events within the film. Some may question whether this image of King appears in the film, but audiences are generally literate enough to know what a poster advertises to be in a film versus what is a part of the poster’s design. Attached to King’s puppet strings are the film’s leads, Emilio Estevez and Laura Harrington. We can infer they are the film’s leads for they are centered at the bottom of the poster in the middle of the action. Estevez holds a gun which connects with the spread of bullet holes across the trailer, inferring that the film features guns. Looking at the characters connotatively, Estevez appears to be the one in power, for he holds the gun, while Harrington looks to him from behind with her hands on her hips. This implies that men are the ones who are in power, and are viewed as heroes. Looking at both posters, one is visually lighter than the other, but why? That is the idea behind omission.

As we saw, the poster for Star Trek: The Motion Picture contained a few simple images. By omitting images, the film’s poster cultivates a curiosity within the viewer as to what the film is about. We already have a sense that the film is about space travel, but there must be more to the plot than just that. Do they encounter something in their exploration? Are they looking for something? Those familiar with Star Trek know the series is about space exploration, but even so, what new adventure are Kirk and the others off to? By cultivating curiosity, we are in essence on an exploration just like the characters and will discover what they discover. On the other hand, the poster for Maximum Overdrive provides a greater visual context to the film’s story, but we question the role the images play. King’s presence seals the deal that this is likely a horror film, but what kind? Are people being chased by the trucks in the bottom images? Are they driven by maniacs or are they driverless? Though the images cultivate curiosity, they provide a greater context in regards to the plot, making it easier for the viewer to discern what the film is about. The images may be evocative by themselves, but what makes them even more evocative are the linguistic messages that accompany them.

The tagline for Star Trek: The Motion Picture reads, “There Is No Comparison.” This anchors and implies the idea that the film is epic, and that no other space film or show rivals in its comparison. What helps support this is the omission of images which leads us to the idea that we are in store for something spectacular. While the text complements the images, I would argue that the images are evocative by themselves, but that the tagline contributes to the ad’s effectiveness. The tagline for Maximum Overdrive, “Stephen King’s Masterpiece Of Terror Directed By The Master Himself,” anchors and implies a variety of messages such as that the film is Stephen King’s masterpiece of terror (I agree but many may refute this). The second, obviously being that the film is directed by Stephen King and the third that King is the master of horror. Some may refute this, but it was at one point the common consensus. The poster’s many images in connection with the films tagline are evocative of chaos, and as the master of horror, King is going to frighten us. Even the title, Maximum Overdrive, in connection with the images, is evocative of vehicles running rampant at high speeds. Without the tagline to complement the image of King, the poster loses part of its meaning, in that the audience would have to look at the credits to know this is a Stephen King film. Those not familiar with him will have a harder time determining whether that is him on the poster. Whether Star Trek: The Motion Picture is the incomparable space epic, and Maximum Overdrive is the ultimate nightmare from Stephen King, who are the ads targeted towards?

By the time Star Trek: The Motion Picture had been made, Star Trek had already become a cultural phenomenon with a huge fan base. It is arguable that the poster didn’t need many images, for the film already had a guaranteed audience, and the poster was designed as a teaser. In addition, after years of waiting, the Trekkies would have been up for anything. Having said that, it is obvious that the poster is targeted towards Trekkies first and foremost, followed by the curious moviegoer, whose curiosity will be cultivated by the poster’s mysterious allure. Stephen King himself already had a built in audience that read and watched everything related to his work, but there were those who felt that the film adaptations were inferior to his writing. This gave King the idea, who better to adapt King for the screen than King himself? This in itself is a sure way of guaranteeing an audience who can finally see a Stephen King movie done right. Which leads us to the question of which ad is more effective?

While each of the posters demonstrates an effective flair for advertising, ultimately, I believe the poster for Star Trek: The Motion Picture is more effective. The poster I believe does a better job at cultivating curiosity, in that we are left in the dark as to the specifics of what the film is about, while the tagline implies that it is something epic. Star Trek as I said had already become a cultural phenomenon, and had an established audience who waited a long time for Star Trek to return, whereas Maximum Overdrive was another in a series of King movie adaptations, but this time with King at the helm. It can also be said that while horror is an equally valid film genre, science-fiction seems to cater to a broader audience, and the poster isn’t evocative of things scary or chaotic like the Maximum Overdrive poster. If Maximum Overdrive and its blood and big rigs were too much, we can do with just the rigs when we analyze the next pair of ads consisting of trucks by Diamond Reo and Autocar.

Set against a futuristic backdrop rests a beautiful Diamond Reo Raider semi tractor. By assessing the coded iconic message, I will determine the advertisements denotative message. Denotatively, it is not difficult to discern that the ad is presenting a luxury vehicle. The truck is shiny, with a blue paint job reminiscent of the ocean, as well as stripes ranging from white to dark blue that start at the hood and then wrap around to the back. The sleeper cab offers a place to rest after many long hours on the road and many of the parts appear to be chrome. The ad is targeted towards truckers, for these are expensive vehicles that one doesn’t just go out and buy, unless you are a truck lover with a lot of money. Specifically, the ad is trying to appeal to drivers with status who are not just looking for a truck that will suit their needs, but will look good driving down the road. The ad presents the truck shining in a parked position, showing that this is a truck to marvel at. Status is also implied by the size of the truck, and if luxury wasn’t enough, the size implies that it can also haul large trailers. What also helps sell the ad is its use of a montage and linguistic message.

One of the elements that ultimately drives the ad home is its use of a montage. The fact that the truck is set against a futuristic background connotatively implies that it is innovative and ahead of its time. It is streamlined, smooth, and shiny just as the buildings in the background. Some may question why the background is in different shades of yellow, but this is likely to keep the truck in focus and set it apart from the background. In terms of linguistic message, the tagline reads, “Raider—Well ahead of its time.” We can infer two things from this, the first being that the model of the truck is a Raider. The second claim of the truck being ahead of its time in combination with the image and background is metaphorical in that it implies that the truck is futuristic in its innovation. Together with the Diamond Reo logo down in the corner, the ad relays to us that they are manufacturers of innovative trucks. Without the logo, the ad would be useless, for it advertises a truck whose manufacturer is unknown to us. While the image of the truck against the background by itself is evocative of innovation, the text helps to confirm this idea. Based on my analyzation, it would seem that Diamond Reo is appealing to luxury over practicality, the complete opposite of what the Autocar ad does.

The Autocar ad differs from the Diamond Reo ad in that instead of depicting a still image of a luxury truck, the ad features several images of trucks hard at work. Denotatively, the images suggest that these trucks aren’t intended for luxury use, but are designed for use in construction, refuse, and municipal duties. The trucks themselves also differ in design compared to the Diamond Reo Raider, in that they have sharply sloped fenders, a square-shaped appearance, and on most of them a cow-catcher. The ad is geared towards companies and drivers looking for heavy-duty trucks capable of plowing snow, hauling dirt, trash, and over-sized loads. These trucks are built and designed for practical use versus luxury, so the look of the truck will likely be a secondary consideration in the customer’s mind. It should be noted that some may find a heavy duty truck more aesthetically pleasing than a shiny, streamlined truck. While these trucks are also expensive, they aren’t trying to appeal to class, but rather drivers looking for a truck that can simply get the job done. Also aiding in the ads message is its use of a montage and linguistic message.

Unlike the Diamond Reo ad which employed a conceptual montage of the truck set against a futuristic background, the Autocar ad utilizes a generalization montage depicting eight images of trucks hard at work. The various functions in which the trucks are depicted demonstrate that Autocar’s vehicles can be implemented for a variety of purposes such as construction and refuse versus the Diamond Reo ad, which depicts a semi-tractor capable of one function. Unlike Diamond Reo’s metaphorical tagline, Autocar’s is very straightforward:

Whatever the job, Autocar meets the challenge. Time tested durability and stamina make AUTOCAR a legendary performer in heavy construction, refuse, and multi-purpose municipal duty. For these and other tough jobs such as logging or work in the coal and oil fields, get the truck built with extra endurance, AUTOCAR.

There are many claims being made in this description, the first being that Autocar trucks can handle any challenging job. The second claim is that because Autocar trucks are durable and built to last, they have gained legendary status within various fields. The third being that Autocar trucks are built with extra endurance, implying that they put extra effort into the manufacturing of their trucks, and that this makes Autocar perfect for all the tasks the ad lists. Giving credence to this is the fact that most of the images depict what is being said in the ad description. Whether the Diamond Reo Raider is ahead of its time, and Autocar trucks are built with extra endurance, which ad is more effective?

While both ads are effective in depicting two different kinds of trucks, I believe the Autocar ad is more effective, because it demonstrates the practicality and ruggedness of their trucks, and all the different tasks they can be implemented towards, versus the Diamond Reo Raider which can only haul one trailer. The ad offers a truck that is supposedly built to last, implying that their trucks can take on many rough tasks not suited for such a truck as the Diamond Reo Raider. The ad is straight and to the point, and more honest in that it provides the viewer information about their trucks, versus the Diamond Reo ad which implies its information through a clever tagline.

By using coded iconic message, omission, and linguistic message, I was able to determine which of the movie posters between Star Trek: The Motion Picture and Maximum Overdrive was most effective. And by using coded iconic message, montage, and linguistic message, we were able to determine which of the ads between Diamond Reo and Autocar was most effective. One could make the argument that both the advertisements for Diamond Reo and Autocar are equally effective, in that Maximum Overdrive featured trucks by both Diamond Reo and Autocar.

Works Cited

Autocar by Volvo White Truck Corporation. n.d. Hankstruckpictures.com. Web. 15 Feb. 2012

Maximum Overdrive. 1986. moviegoods.com. Web. 15 Feb. 2012

Raider by Diamond Reo. n.d. flickr. Web. 15 Feb. 2012.

Star Trek: The Motion Picture. 1979. Moviegoods.com. Web. 15 Feb. 2012.

Truly and Purely Evil:

Truly and Purely Evil:

A Look at Pure Evil in the Work of John Carpenter

by

Max McPike

 

 

            “And the Prince of Darkness was himself sealed, that old life, called the Devil and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world.” Looking across the career of filmmaker John Carpenter, his films often feature an unstoppable entity of pure evil, which in Prince of Darkness (1987) reaches unsurpassable heights. I will use Prince to explore its aspects of pure evil, for which I will then explore and compare similar elements in Assault on Precinct 13 (1976) and The Thing (1982). What is pure evil? Whether it is a street gang or Satan himself; in Carpenter’s world pure evil is anything and everywhere.

            In Prince of Darkness, a priest (Donald Pleasance) discovers a canister of swirling green liquid in the basement of an abandoned church. With the help of a group of researchers they soon discover that encapsulated in the canister is Satan himself. Carpenter provides an immensely interesting back-story through the translation of an ancient text found near the canister. Lisa (Ann Yen) reveals that the canister was buried long ago in the Middle East by a god—the father of Satan—“who walked the earth before man” and “was somehow banished to the dark side. And within the container was his son. Dr. Leahy (Peter Jason) asks the priest how this was kept a secret for so many years, for which he reveals “a decision was made to characterize pure evil as a spiritual force, even within the darkness and hearts of men…substance, malevolence…that was the truth…asleep until now.” His statement raises a number of questions concerning the origins of evil. Does this imply that evil as a spiritual force and its potential within each of us was never there?—that there is no original sin? Is the liquid in the jar the original and one true evil aside from Satan’s father? If this is so than how do we account for all the evil in the world? The film offers no explanation for these sorts of questions. The information is simply hinted at through exposition and the character’s conclusions are only conjecture.

 

 

            As the entity gains in power it is able to drain itself upwards from the container forming a pool on the ceiling surface, which spews into the mouth of Susan (Anne Howard) infecting her. Under the possession of the green liquid she is able to orally infect several of the others who too become possessed. Some may wonder how it was able to drain itself from the container, but Susan’s spectrograms revealed an elaborate locking mechanism that can only be opened from the inside. It also exerts its power indirectly through the control of nature. Worms are seen covering the windows of the church while beetles crawl over those possessed. This same exertion of power is used to control a horde of street people who surround and barricade the church. Those that attempt to leave are killed, such as Etchinson (Thom Bray) who is impaled with a bicycle by the leader of the street people (Alice Cooper). The question that remains though is how the entity was able to attain its power after laying dormant for so many years.

            The priest argues that it is our disbelief and “stubborn faith in common sense” that empowered him (the entity) and allowed for his deception upon the world. What if it was our faith that kept him at bay, while our decline in faith granted him his power? The susceptibility of the street people to his influence I would attribute to their being weak minded and as Anna Powell notes, their “social and mental marginality (Powell 147).” The fact that they are homeless and likely mentally ill points to Carpenter’s utter hatred of former US President Ronald Reagan. As governor of California, Reagan systematically shut down a number of mental hospitals and cut federally-funded aid for mental health programs. As a result, the homeless population in California dramatically increased in the ‘70s and ‘80s and many mentally ill people were put on the streets (“Ronald Reagan”).

 

 

            However, the priest also says that “in the atoms…smaller…invisible…he lives in all of it—the sum of its parts.” Lisa’s translations also reveal that Christ “was of extraterrestrial ancestry, but a human like race” who came to warn us. It is determined that he is crazy, “but [is] converting a lot of people to his beliefs,” so he is killed. “But, his disciples keep the secret and hide it from civilization until man could develop a science sophisticated enough to prove what Christ was saying.” If the priest is right in the idea that evil lives “in the atoms” and that a science was needed to prove what Christ was saying; is pure evil a force of nature? We’ve seen its ability to control and possess people, but does that mean its powers are naturally occurring? If science can prove its existence, then it must operate on a sub-atomic level. This would explain its ability to possess people via the green liquid, as well as its influence over nature and anyone in close proximity of it. But, if science can prove its existence, than science can possibly stop it.

The characters soon find out that Kelly (Susan Blanchard) has been chosen as a host for Satan so that he may bring his father back from the dark side. Professor Birack (Victor Wong) theorizes that…

…there is a universal mind controlling everything; a god willing the behavior of every subatomic particle. Now, every particle has an anti-particle. It’s mirror image. It’s negative side. Maybe this universal mind resides in the mirror image instead of our universe as we wanted to believe. Maybe he’s anti-god; bringing darkness instead of light.

This seems to imply that even as gods they operate at an atomic level, thus indicating that they may in fact be life forms, but likely of great omnipotent power. Birack’s theory turns out to be correct as Satan/Kelly utilizes a mirror to bring his father into the world of light, for which we are briefly able to see the dark side as he reaches in and takes hold of his father’s hand. Aside from a few glimpses of murky darkness we are never able to see the dark side, which leaves us to wonder if it is in fact a mirror image of our side. Just as his father’s hand reaches our side, Catherine (Lisa Blount) tackles Satan/Kelly causing them all to fall through the portal, which is then sealed as the priest breaks the mirror. While Birack’s theory regarding the mirror was correct, we are still left to wonder whether Satan’s father would have been able to destroy God had he crossed over. When we look at Prince in relation to Carpenter’s previous films we are able to see where many of its elements are derived from.

 

 

 

            In Carpenter’s Assault on Precinct 13, a closing police station nestled within an empty inner-city neighborhood comes under siege by a street gang seeking death and possibly revenge. While an action film first and foremost, his depiction of the gang is almost supernatural by comparison and paints them as a seemingly unstoppable entity. They use silencers to cover their noise and hide all evidence of their activities, as well as using the surroundings to their advantage by hiding in the shadows and using cars for shields. This is echoed in Prince as the entity uses the surroundings to its advantage by exerting control over the street people, as well as nature in the form of ants, beetles, and worms. As mentioned earlier, one of the street people uses a bicycle to murder one of the researchers. Assault’s similarity to Night of the Living Dead (1968) is where much of the supernatural comparison comes into play, for the gang surrounds the precinct and kills those who attempt to leave, just like the street people. Like the church in Prince, the precinct in Assault is soon to be abandoned and those trapped inside lack any means of contacting the outside world. 

As the gang descends upon the precinct they are unrelenting in their attack and never fall behind in numbers despite casualties. Prince takes this to new heights in that the characters become trapped inside with their antagonist, which spreads itself through the oral exchange of its liquid form by those possessed by it. The gang’s supernatural quality also derives from their lack of emotion (and motivation) which is typified in the scene when the White Warlord (Frank Doubleday) kills an ice-cream driver (Peter Bruni) without any mercy or remorse and nonchalantly shoots the young girl Kathy (Kim Richards). Unlike the other gang members who run away after being chased by Kathy’s father (Martin West) the White Warlord briefly remains seated before casually getting out of the car. He reacts unfazed to getting shot and looks at his wound as though it were nothing. He eventually drops dead after being shot a number of times by the father. Three of the gang members even approach the station with declaration that they are unafraid of dying. Their lack of emotion is echoed in the street people who for the most part stare crazily ahead as they stand surrounding the church.

            In his essay “A Siege Mentality?” Steve Smith describes the gang in Assault as “palpably ‘other,’ anonymous, psychopathic and amoral,” and that “Carpenter reduces…a pressing social problem [into an] abstract status of evil villainy (Smith 39).” With Assault I feel its depiction of the gang is a device to move the story forward and that whatever commentary arises from it is not the film’s intent. While Carpenter does the same to a degree regarding the street people in Prince, his output of films in the ‘80s are marked with an anti-Reagan attitude. So, while the street people are among the film’s villains the government is to blame for their situation—not to mention that they are be used by a malevolent entity. Susan A. Philips notes that the  “association with criminality and random violence” has likened the gang to a ‘frightful organism—a cancer feeding off the body of society, spreading like a fungus to destroy itself and everything it touches (Smith 39).’ This is shown through the emptiness of the neighborhood, in which all that was once thriving has been destroyed by the gang(s). “Frightful organism” can also describe the entity in Prince, which spreads itself like a disease by those possessed, and the consequences of it succeeding in its plans are catastrophic (Smith 39). With Halloween (1978), many believe that Carpenter achieved ultimate evil in the form of the unrelenting killer Michael Meyers, but Carpenter took it to new heights in his remake of The Thing.

 

 

            The film concerns an Antarctic research team who encounter a malevolent shape-shifting alien capable of imitating the life forms it assimilates. Prince derives many of its elements from the film, such as being trapped with the very entity that is laying siege and its infectious spread. Shortly before his death, Fuchs (Joel Polis) postulates to Mac (Kurt Russell) that “a small particle of [the] thing” may be “enough to take over an entire organism.” Later, when the infected Norris is being burned its head detaches itself and grows spider legs with the intent of escape. In order to determine who is and isn’t infected Mac initiates a blood a test. He says:

Watching Norris in there gave me the idea that maybe every part of him was a whole; every little piece was an individual animal with a built in desire to protect its own life. You see when a man bleeds it’s just tissue. One blood from one of you things won’t obey when it’s attacked—it’ll try and survive; crawl away from a hot needle just the same.

Mac is ultimately correct when Palmer’s (David Clennon) blood jumps from the petri dish screaming. Before its demise, the Palmer-thing manages to infect Windows (Thomas Waites) as it thrashes him about the room. The infectious nature of the alien also presents end of the world consequences. Blair’s (Wilford Brimley) computer program projects that if it were to reach civilized areas, the entire world population would be infected 27,000 hours from first contact. This sends Blair into a frenzy resulting in him destroying the radio equipment, the helicopter, and one of the snow vehicles. As dire as the situation is in The Thing, it comes in second in terms of the ultimate evil.

            What makes the entity in Prince of Darkness the ultimate evil? In the end the gang in Assault is human and driven away by the arrival of police reinforcements. The three surviving protagonists live to see another day. The thing’s infectious nature makes it a formidable opponent, but is capable of being destroyed by fire. The film ends with Mac and Childs (Keith David) sitting amidst the burning camp in below freezing weather. They have managed to destroy the thing, but at the cost of their lives. However, we are left with doubt regarding the thing’s destruction with this exchange between the characters:

Childs

How will we make it?

MacReady

Maybe we shouldn’t.

Childs

If you’re worried about me—

MacReady

If we got any surprises for each other, I don’t think we’re in much shape to do anything about it.

Childs

What’ll we do?

MacReady

Let’s just wait here a while—see what happens.

 

The ending of the film is debatable, but is arguably left open-ended for the audience to decide—not to mention that there still remains a means of combating the organism.

         In addition to the entity’s controlling and possessive capabilities, the end of the world consequences are taken to even greater extremes in Prince, for should the father of Satan cross over from the dark side into ours it would mean the destruction of God and conceivably all life as we know it. The characters have only one chance of preventing this and we the audience feel the weight of the situation. The researchers are also pervaded by a recurring dream of what looks to be a video transmission accompanied by a static voice showing a dark figure standing in the entrance of the church. The priest reveals that anyone within close enough proximity of the church has the same dream. A static voice reveals:

 

This is not a dream…not a dream. We are using your brain's electrical system as a receiver. We are unable to transmit through conscious neural interference. You are receiving this broadcast as a dream. We are transmitting from the year one—nine—nine—nine. You are receiving this broadcast in order to alter the events you are seeing. Our technology has not developed a transmitter strong enough to reach your conscious state of awareness, but this is not a dream. You are seeing what is actually occurring for the purpose of causality violation.

 

In the end the protagonists are ultimately unsuccessful, for even after the mirror is sealed Brian (Jameson Parker) has another dream, only this time the figure in the church doorway is Catherine. We can assume that she was somehow utilized by the entity to re-enter our world. The film ends with Brian reaching toward a mirror before going to black. One could argue that because they are receiving another dream there is another chance of preventing the crossover. On the contrary, the fact that it is now Catherine in the dream demonstrates that what they are up against is an unbreakable cycle and inevitably cannot be defeated.  

 

 

 

Using Prince of Darkness, I was able to explore its aspects of pure evil, for which I then explored and compared similar elements in Assault on Precinct 13 and The Thing. Professor Birack argues that “we’ve sought to impose order on the universe,” but “we’ve discovered [that] while order does exist in the universe, it is not at all what we had in mind.” The ultimate in pure evil was something we definitely did not have in mind.

 

 

 

Works Cited

Assault On Precinct 13. Dir. John Carpenter. Perf. Austin Stoker, Darwin Joston, Laurie

Zimmer, Tony Burton, and Nancy Loomis. Image Entertainment, 1976. DVD.

Halloween. Dir. John Carpenter. Perf. Donald Pleasance, Jamie Lee Curtis, Nancy Loomis, P.J.

Soles, and Charles Cyphers. Compass International Pictures, 1978. Film.

Night of the Living Dead. Dir. George A. Romero. Perf. Duane Jones, Judith O’Dea, Marilyn

Eastman, Keith Wayne, and Judith Riley. Image Ten, 1968. Film.

Powell, Anna. ‘Something Came Leaking Out’: Carpenter’s Unholy Abominations. Ed. Ian

Conrich and David Woods. Wallflower Press: Great Britain, 2004. 140-154.

Prince Of Darkness. Dir. John Carpenter. Perf. Donald Pleasance, Jameson Parker, Victor Wong,

Lisa Blount, and Dennis Dun. Universal Pictures, 1987. DVD.

“Ronald Reagan: The Bad and the Ugly.” Daily Nugget San Francisco, 8 June. 2004. Web. 7       Mar. 2012.

Smith, Steve. “A Siege Mentality? Form and Ideology in Carpenter’s Early Siege Films.” Ed. Ian

Conrich and David Woods. Wallflower Press: Great Britain, 2004. 35-48. Print.

The Thing. Dir. John Carpenter. Perf. Kurt Russell, A. Wilford Brimley, Donald Moffat, Keith

David, and T.K. Carter. Universal Pictures, 1982. DVD.