Episode 82: THEY LIVE

[Newlin 23]

As long as it's a great film that is in some way exceptional, it gets in. That's my criteria. If Devin and Amy chose pictures to talk about by random chance it'd be much different, but they get chosen usually because they're great/exceptional to one of them.

 

I'm totally in favor of having a big canon with lot's of films that are exceptional in some way. But that's exactly the thing for me: this film, while good, is totally unexceptional. It's not the first or best film to call into question the sheep-like consumerism of our society, to address the idea that we are a nation run by a secret cabal of monsters (literally or figuratively), or to point out the banality and silliness of evil.

It's not even in the top 50 best or most important movies of it's decade, it's barely top 10 most important movies of 1988.

It didn't change the culture, it's not a universal touchstone.

It didn't have a heavy influence on later films.

It's not the director's best film, though maybe somewhere in the top 5.

It's not a particularly good example of the cinematic craft.

It's not particularly clever or original.

It's not an exceptionally good movie adaptation.

I think you get the point.

 

It's got some things going for it: It has a few solid images and themes. It's got some good one-liners. It's entertaining and interesting, has a solid premise and provokes a few thoughts. And the film works overall. But all that only means it meets the baseline of what any competent film should have. Meeting the minimum standards for a good film is nowhere near canon-worthy, even for a big cannon that includes films that are exceptional in a narrow or broad sense. We all seem to like this movie. But is that good enough? I don't think so.

[NathanGordon 1096]

What is the point of the canon, if every movie gets in? I mean, will this end up as a list of 5000 random movies. What is the value here? Will we see The Seventh Seal alongside the fourth best Michael Bay movie in the canon?

I'm pretty sure this is all just for funsies and not actually binding or setting precedent in any way.

 

I see it not as a list like the BFI top 100, but as a conversation about the qualities that make not only a great film but an important one. I recall that most forum commenters here agreed that Boyz In The Hood is barely technically competent, while at the same time being a seminal work that captured the cultural zeitgeist of the time. To me, this discussion of message, intent, context, and influence is a worthwhile endeavor and one missing from most contemporary film criticism.

 

I agree with what bri-witched said. They Live's thematic impact isn't lessened by a pro wrestler's one liners or a ten minute fight scene. People have brought up The Matrix as a comparison, and not only is that film weakened by its subsequent franchising, but it's bogged down in freshman level philosophizing that does it no favors. They Live is incredibly direct in its messaging; advertising says OBEY, politicians and newscasters are aliens taking over the planet, even the paper money admits THIS IS YOUR GOD -- as blunt and scathing an indictment of our society as you'll find in a Reagan era Hollywood action movie.

[HoldenMartinson 221]

What is the point of the canon, if every movie gets in? I mean, will this end up as a list of 5000 random movies. What is the value here? Will we see The Seventh Seal alongside the fourth best Michael Bay movie in the canon?

Depends if you want a big canon, or a small canon. If there were only one million films, five thousand in the canon would be .5%. Do you really need fewer films than that? Is one thousand still too many? Five hundred? Why does it matter?

 

More than anything, The Canon an excuse to talk about great movies, as has been mentioned on the show. I mean, it's kind of a game, really. By no means is this definitive. Do I want a canon that would have There's Something About Mary, but not The Empire Strikes Back? Not really, but as a community that's the consensus. Does it matter? No. It's just a lot of fun to hear two incredible critics--and the occasional guest--have insightful conversations about all kinds of movies. The voting is fun, but not as much fun as the actual dialogue between Devin and Amy--which, again, is the crux of the PODCAST.

 

I don't know. This sort of feels like a "Decker is an android" discussion.

[AlexChristianLovendahl 34]

This is a serious borderline vote for me, which will end up with me voting more harshly against other flicks that would be canon. If Stand By Me was borderline when I rewatched it a couple weeks ago, it's flat and plum out of the canon now.

 

One quick show note: They Live's fight scene is definitely one of the great movie fight scenes mostly because movie fight scenes are rarely all that good. They're usually just between characters who are that interesting, so they're tense. This is about two guys who, while dramatically interesting, are kind of flat working joes, and this fight is just electric because of the way it's choreographed and edited.

 

They Live is fascinating and uncomfortable. I might write a very long essay about it tomorrow, honestly, where I feel out a whole collection of responses. Is it wrong to say that it's kind of unbelievable that church riot scene happens in a pre-Rodney King L.A. movie? Prescient. But then the movie too quickly aligns with Nada; I think it'd be more tense, more horrifying, more prescient if the movie gave even a flicker of doubt to the viewer. I think this is what Amy was trying to verbalize about why the movie being angry made her uncomfortable; it makes Nada's shift into violence a little too simple and a little too sympathetic to not feel like it's actually endorsing the behavior of the Bernie bros and the lone gunmen who want to make the back of your scalp bleed until you see their light.

 

I love Carpenter, and this probably ranks third for me (with an overdue Halloween rewatch upcoming.) This is a culmination of many of his themes, from the way violence visits quiet neighborhoods to his distrust of authority. Hell, Nada is maybe best enjoyed as a fan of Jack Burton's. Nada never really has the lines or charisma to be like his favorite action stars, but, unlike Jack, he has the ability to actually kick some ass. But a culmination of themes is not necessarily an artist's best work; Herman Melville's Pierre, written after Moby Dick, is a mess of a novel that is almost best read simply to understand the guy who wrote it. They Live is not that confused, to be clear, but simply arguing why it's so interesting as a fan of Carpenter isn't enough to convince me that it's canon.

 

What convinced me to vote yes was watching it tonight sitting next to my sleeping brother on the couch. He briefly woke up during the "put on the glasses" fight, and I almost told him to stay up to watch it. I decided that I'd rather tell him in the morning so that he actually watches the whole movie before it leaves Cinemax's free VOD listing. That kind of urge where you want someone to see the whole darn thing rather than the coolest scene? That's canon.

[Impudent Lackwit 15]

This is the sort of film that produces the best CANON episodes because your vote largely depends on your own Canon criteria. Is it influential and enduring in its imagery and message? Oh, hell yes it is. Is it actually a GREAT movie? I dunno if it is, and I found myself agreeing with many of Amy's critiques.

 

I'd echo the SOFT YES voters.

 

LONGER THOUGHTS:

 

A detail I wanted to circle back to since Devin brought it up but ran out of time to go into it - the film's homoeroticism and how it relates to the violent conclusion. I had never really thought much about the final assault on the TV station in the context of mass shootings, but that's totally what it is. Leave it to Carpenter to get the audience on the side of a man gunning down nominally "innocent" dimensional aliens.

 

ANYWAYS, I've read a lot about mass shootings (ONE OF US by Asne Seierstad and COLUMBINE by Dave Cullen are both required) and more recently had the displeasure of having one happen in my own community of Orlando, FL. A surprisingly common theme in many of these incidents are accusations of closeted homosexuality against the eventual shooter. The shooter always rejects these claims vociferously or angrily. Anders Breivik and Omar Mateen have so many common touchpoints in their lives, and this is one of them.

 

It's difficult to view Nada and Frank's fight as anything other than homoerotic jockeying, ESPECIALLY considering they both check into a motel immediately afterward. Frank doesn't mention anything about his wife or kids after the fight. I feel confident saying that they're both closeted/in denial about their sexuality.

 

It's well known that being closeted or in denial about one's sexuality has a negative effect on one's emotional health. It appears to play some role in harming the emotional health of people who eventually become mass shooters.

 

Ergo, I think Carpenter is making a bold argument that you can't effect the sort of radical change needed to TRANSFORM society unless you're emotionally not very healthy. Unless you've got a lot of anger, coupled with a lack of regard for social order. This also made me think of the INVASION OF THE BODY SNATCHERS remake, which saw a similar alien conquest being spearheaded by quacks preaching a bland "I'M OK/ YOU'RE OK" type of passive emotional states.

 

Anyways, I thought this was interesting, and really further hammered home that this is a pretty radical, angry film.

[EricScott 12]

It looks like this is going to get in, which I don't have a real problem with, but THEY LIVE is a great B-movie that nonetheless suffers from subpar acting and less nuance than I would expect from a true canon-worthy movie. I wish there were more "action satires" in the theaters (especially now) but just because something is rare, that doesn't necessarily make it precious. That's why I voted no.

[maw447 9]

This was my first time watching They Live, but being a human being who's been alive with eyes and ears for the past two and half decades, I was obviously aware of it. I always assumed it was a very campy/silly movie, which it largely is, but I actually found it to have a surprisingly self-serious tone at times that clashed with the campier elements for me, and while I get that it was intentional the painfully unsubtle "black and white" propaganda kind of bothered me for some reason.

Its definitely a fun watch, and maybe rewatching it would give me a better opinion of it, knowing what to expect, but I have to give it a soft no.

[action52 554]

Also a soft no. I appreciate that the film is intelligent and prescient in many ways, and that it had an impact on our culture (although I think Devin overstates it). I also agree that it is a fun movie, and I do like it a lot. But I also find the movie immature and reductionist, or else outright dangerous--because the whole thing is very much like a schizophrenic delusion that turns out to be real. I think if this movie did a little more to make it ambiguous whether he really sees these ghouls, or questioned the idea that murdering them all is the best solution, that would bump the movie up to a definite "yes" in my book. But it turns out to be just another movie where the male protagonist has a problem, and immediately guns are the solution, and as is always the case in these kinds of movies, they work great.

 

It's a very black and white, us vs. them approach that has zero nuance. And the solution is to just go around killing them. It is a clever movie that makes a lot of good points, but the overall take on them is kind of shallow and hamfisted. I get that this is because it's a fun, action-filled B movie but I'm only going to go so far in calling the movie intelligent or deep.

 

I also think Amy had very valid criticisms of Roddy Piper's performance. It's not even that he's bad. If he were over the top terrible but giving a heartfelt performance this would be a better movie. But instead he gives this performance that's kind of okay in most places, but really lacking in energy or feeling. I guess it might have been intentional, considering his name was "Nada"... in which case I think it was a poor choice. He didn't have to make the character that much of a blank slate. He didn't have to be boring.

 

Devin's point about them "not being actors back then" was complete bullshit. If you ever watch wrestling promos from the 80s, where they are talking into the camera about how they're going to beat the crap out of each other, that is them acting--and really hamming it up. I wish Roddy Piper had put half as much energy and enthusiasm into his performance in this movie as he did into those wrestling promos.

[bri-witched 60]

I recall that most forum commenters here agreed that Boyz In The Hood is barely technically competent, while at the same time being a seminal work that captured the cultural zeitgeist of the time. To me, this discussion of message, intent, context, and influence is a worthwhile endeavor and one missing from most contemporary film criticism.

 

This is a really good point. While I'm not happy with every film in the canon either, films like this, Boyz in the Hood, and a few other oddball picks on the show have been really interesting to think about in terms of their lasting impact and commentaries on the times they were made. A film doesn't have to be perfect to be impactful or something everyone should see at least once.

[JackChristensen 177]

Great choice. I've been a big fan of this movie since it came out. One of my faves. Yes, clunky dialogue. "White line's the middle of the road. That's the worst place to drive."

[Shrek & Donkey Kong 4336]

i'm so happy this episode exists, because it got me to watch They Live. and it is a YES.

 

what a movie, my first john carpenter experience. the corny/flat out bad dialogue was so funny, and the action was fantastic. the prescience of the themes was fantastic -- the fact that this came out a year before the even more prescient Do The Right Thing is so shocking. People really need to listen to cinema lol

[Cronopio 127]

"They Live" is why B-Movies were invented, it's fun, original, and it uses the action to dramatize its clearly obvious message. It's also a perfect time-capsule, reflective of the culture of the times, without being irrelevant today. Does it belong in the canon? I guess it depends on whether you think a legendary but imperfect, cult B-Movie deserves inclusion. I don't see a compelling reason why it shouldn't.

[JosephDaley 26]

I say yes, explicitly to get as many John Carpenter movies in this damn Canon as possible, of course... I'm not being serious. I actually just truly believe this is a foundational movie for any genre fan, and it's so lovable and deserving of consideration. It's not exactly related, but has anyone listened to The Next Picture Show series of podcasts where they talked about Assault on Precinct 13 and Green Room? Another John Carpenter film that deserves to be in The Canon.

[j_scanlon 59]

Prince of Darkness is next god damn it