What's your favorite John Carpenter Flick?

I do think it's interesting to look at those particular films and realise how he's reinterpreted the various facets on display in those films through sci-fi/horror - Assault on Precinct 13 is basically a horror riff on Rio Bravo, They Live and In the Mouth of Madness have shades of Bunuel's comic surrealism, Bringing Up Baby is the natural ancestor of the snappy banter between Kurt Russell and Kim Cattrall in Big Trouble in Little China. Perhaps the best genre filmmakers work because their own tastes are varied enough that they can introduce something new to the genre rather than simply repeating what's come before.

__________________
Iro's Top 100 Movies v3.0

If calling the films that Carpenter makes b movies because it points to some surface similarities between them and helps lead you towards the next genre film you can dismiss as schlock, have fun with that. I'm sure a lot of people do the same. You can all misuse the term together. Misery isn't the only thing that needs company.



My ultimate point still stands that the issue is in how using terms like this frame the way we interpret a film. Limit what we expect from it. Allow us to casually dismiss something from deeper thoughts or feelings because it's 'just a b movie'.


Even though you don't seem to actually have any great understanding of this issue (I can hear Wikipedia being frantically checked again) isn't really the issue. Fretting over strict definitions of terminology isn't even super important (only another example of how you might be completely wrong). The issue is what these terms ultimately mean to people when they hear them used. 'B Movie' means something. And that something, and all of its generally negative connotations, have almost ****ing nothing to do with what Carpenter does or how his movies deserve to be talked about.


And the proof is in that pudding of sloppy reasoning you've got up there. The fact that you are using such absurd examples to qualify these films as B movies (the score is just two notes! Rowdy Roddy Piper is in it!) is just one clear example of how this glib way of defining things pollutes how you talk about these films. It forces the worst takes because, who cares, it's not like any serious conversation can come of such movies as this. Why can't you just say a bunch of dumb and pointless shit. It's just a bit of schlocky fun!


And, also, wtf. Daytrippers is arthouse? Or rather a b movie that is also arthouse. Is this a joke I don't understand or an actual serious comment? Because I don't know which is worse.

It seems that you think I am attacking or dismissing Carpenter. On the contrary, I am a fan. You seem to think that belonging to a category of "low art" makes something "bad art." I don't. There is outstanding Vaudeville. There are great B-movies. There are great "pop" songs. My favorite songs are pop songs.
Not necessarily. In America we seriously debate who has the best cheeseburger or barbecue.



Moreover, I think that we can't really see the quality of some of Carpenter's films unless we appreciate them for what they are.

There ain't nothing like being behind the wheel of your own car

No. This isn't what I said. Or have ever said. As I stated in my last post, my entire posting history for two decades has been about championing amateur and low budget and genre films for having an equal potential to greatness as anything by Godard or Tarkovsky.


But that greatness isn't just about about embracing the virtues of low art for being quality low art. For just being better than should be expected. Sure, that can be part of it, but it doesn't stop there.


It's also about embracing how these movies operate beyond their narrative structure. How they challenge aesthetic norms. What they say about our culture or the person making them or film itself. How we relate to its images. How to rationalize the greatness of something when it isn't doing the things that are socially acceptable to make things great. How they can change our relationship to the viewing experience in general.


You know, basically 90 percent of my posting history that you have a history of completely rejecting or not acknowledging or arguing with badly.


And nowhere do I say your aren't a fan or that you don't enjoy them. Great, I'm glad you do, no matter the reasin. But, ultimately, what is that to me? All I've learned from your posts is that what you get from them is a 'goofy diversion'. That you 'accept them for what they are', as if your definition of what they are is all that is required.


And that is what this all boils down to in regards to labelling them b movies. Not that I think b movies are bad. Because I don't. But because stupid defintions like that put them in a bottle where any discussion outside of that bottle is going to be laughed at because...it's inconceivable (to some) that these kind of films deserve to be thought of that seriously. That they might contain multitudes. That it should be considered that maybe they have elements of worth or poetry or insight coming at us from many different angles. That we aren't just left with 'that was fun' when they are over


But, yeah, you sure like these things more than me. Troll a little more desperately why don't you.

Crumb, you seem upset and we're not having a productive conversation. Moreover, we're derailing the thread. How about we just note that you strenuously object to my promiscuous use of the term of "B-Movie" and just let this one go?

You could concede that you misused the term “B movie” and let it go.

In some ways, I agreed with you. We think in language, and language evolves and changes our perception.

For that reason, I believe the stigma around the phrase B-movie and how films (especially genre films) can be wrongfully grouped in with each other is both inappropriate and detracts from their merit. It is something, too, that makes it irrelevant whether someone has a different definition of a categorization - it's our grouped perception that ultimately matters and how stigmas and stereotypes persist.

It's an argument largely on semantics, but it can be an interesting to think about and talk about.

However, it's these kind of rude remarks that disqualify a person in any discussion.

So, now all John Carpenter movies are B-movies.

Escape From L.A.
for sure.. one of my favorite movies

__________________
"Beliefs don't change facts. Facts, if you're rational, should change your beliefs" Ricky Gervais

Halloween isn't really that great of a movie

Yeah, it really wasn't; it was groundbreaking at the time, of course, but in retrospect, it just felt like kind of a basic Slasher to me... *shrug*

It's hard to judge a film the breaks the ice and sets the standard. Retrospectively, it will feel "basic," because it set a pattern. At the time, however, it was quite effective and fresh.




In effect, it was the little B-movie that could.

It's a formal masterpiece of minimalism, style and mood with among the most influential structures and scores in cinema history.

It's like faulting Pulp Fiction for the deluge of non-linear plot and verbose witticisms that plagued the '90s and stopping there. Even submerged in a legion of imitators, they set the standards for a reason and it has everything to do with craft and execution of a brilliant idea.

And it's important to note, it's still considerably better than most (all?) of the films it birthed.


There is still something to be said about how stripped down this film is in getting to the essence of this brand of horror. There are few that have been leaner and contain less frills, but that also throb with constant menace.


Also, what slasher has ever approached this ones level of humanism? Where the violence is not cheered on by the audience or glorified, but is simply something blunt that comes out of the dark , aiming for characters that we are invested in.


And the ****ing score. Still one of the best and most effective in horror, with the only possible exceptions being Psycho and Suspiria. It's eerie simplicity is a perfect mirror to the films minimalism.


On paper, yes, it's just another slasher. But who cares about what a movie is on paper. It's in the execution. And Carpenter had a vision with this that he basically nailed. I don't even know how someone could ever make a better movie in this being. Perfection right out of the gate

Don't get me wrong, I really like Halloween. It's a very moody and atmospheric movie, with one of the best scores ever created for a horror movie. But I do think there are better slashers out there, and I even prefer the one that gets credited with creating a lot of slasher tropes as well (Black Christmas). It's also not one of my favorite Carpenter films.

I respect it and understand why many people consider it a masterpiece. Plus I know it's fairly unusual to like Halloween II more, so my opinion is not in the majority.

__________________

Black Christmas might be as good. Possibly. It's at least in the discussion


Halloween II to me seemed like a competent retread of what Carpenter had already done. Not bad, but nothing that interests me much

Why don't we have a Rom Com slasher? Maybe, part of the film from the POV of the slasher (the rom com) and the other POVs are everyone else (the horror flick). "A touching tale of first loves and last breaths. It will warm your heart... ...on a fire."

Halloween


I really don't care for anything else he's done. He needs to make another slasher movie.

No love for The Thing?

Wow....The Thing is an all time favorite. I love that Carpenter has taken a "low end" genre and made them well. I like that he does that genre probably as well as anybody could, knowing that the genre "gets no respect". Now and again, I have to pull out the DVD for The Fog and recall spending some time visiting that exact lighthouse (Point Reyes), thinking that the movie really captured the feel of the place. The lighthouse, the cliff and the ocean are characters in that movie. All it needed was a scream queen and Jamie Lee Curtis was perfect as was Adrienne Barbeau, Carpenter's wife at that time.