Not my favorite Carpenter movie, but it certainly has its moments. Although, its been a couple years since I’ve seen it. Probably should re-watch it soon.
Was just saying I need to revisit this one.
If you guys are on netflix, it’s streaming. I hope you—or anyone else—can clear up the passages above.
You gotta like the Church of Godard reference in the film, but as for actual theological arguments or philosophical ones I’d hate to say too much without watching the film again since its been way too many years since I saw it last, but I believe the argument is between the church and science and a sort of argument over the belief in good creates a counter demand for evil and that science is a way out of this understanding or something like that. I think it is opposing the old testament concept of good and evil with the new somewhat where that dichotomy is minimized and by using the homeless people as carriers of the evil virusy thing or whatever, there is likely a suggestion that the focus on good and evil in much of the religious discussion of the time was ignoring or even helping create real problems or “evil”. Again though that’s just based on the vaguest of memories and what you wrote above so take it with a grain of salt or as a jumping off point.
Edit: By opposing I don’t necessarily mean siding with science, but that the two are set against each other while the “real” problem grows in a way.
@Greg
It might have been St. Godard—which made me think: “Hey, was there a St. Godard?” :)
Anyway, I don’t think the film has a strong religion versus science theme, but who knows. Also, the street people didn’t have a virus—they were being controlled by the evil god (I think).
Yes, St. Godard it was, and by virusy I just meant it was something like a contagion, but controlled would obviously work better, and the science religion thing is an implicit understanding rather than explicit debate.
There was indeed a St. Godard. Bavarian, lived circa 960-1038.
@Greg
What I meant was that the film doesn’t seem to pit religion against science, explicitly or implicitly—at least from my reading. My sense is that the film either brings them together or just negates religion in some way (although I think I opt for the former). Again, the ideas are pretty convoluted, imo.
Thanks, Matt.
I think an issue with trying to figure this film out is that it’s not executed very well on any level, including the writing, so it’s a mess and the exercise is probably futile. Unless Carpenter has ever commented on these things.
I think the film embraces religion and insinuates that evil embraces science.
It’s not a great film, but it’s a good horror film with a great scare near the end.
@Uli
…insinuates that evil embraces science.
I’m interested in how you got to that interpretation.
I liked the ending. I also liked the beat up video footage that was sent from the future.
@HoL
I have feeling you might be right, but we’ll see.
I just watched this one for the first time, and I wish I knew how I had missed it for this long. I wish I could contribute something more substantive to what looks like the potential for a good discussion. I just wanted to give it a bump.
In regard to the OP, the film does try to sort of shoehorn religion into science, and vise versa, and as a result, perhaps the plot is convoluted. I didn’t get hung up on the plot any more than I did with The Ward. The form was impeccable. And especially in the case of Prince of Darkness, it scared the living shit out of me. I’m not too sure Carpenter was deeply fascinated in this idea of anti-matter and subatomic particles as much as they were an excuse for Carpenter to play with another form of “pure evil.”
ack Lehtonen pointed out how wonderful the film works within Carpenter’s body of work. The embodiment of “pure evil” as in Michael Myers in Halloween or the monster in The Thing, is even more of an abstraction in Prince of Darkness.
In short, the convoluted nature of the plot (which could be deliberate) didn’t detract from the experience of it for me. Anyone finally get around to (re)watching this in the last nine months?
Jumbled mess. A nice period for Carpenter, but a very silly film.
“Let’s talk about our beliefs, and what we can learn about them. We believe nature is solid, and time a constant. Matter has substance and time a direction. There is truth in flesh and the solid ground. The wind may be invisible, but it’s real. Smoke, fire, water, light – they’re different! Not as to stone or steel, but they’re tangible. And we assume time is narrow because it is as a clock – one second is one second for everyone! Cause precedes effect – fruit rots, water flows downstream. We’re born, we age, we die. The reverse NEVER happens… None of this is true! Say goodbye to classical reality, because our logic collapses on the subatomic level… into ghosts and shadows.”
-Birack
^ Love this. It’s cheesy in essence, yet it ties into the meaning of the film for me. I’ve actually been working on an essay on this films (a short break from a larger and more ambitious essay on a different set of films). I might post some rough draft sketches later in defense of it. I actually consider this one of Carpenter’s three greatest films (I might actually consider it his best).
It’s probably been a year since I’ve seen this film. I love Carpenter and count “Halloween” and “The Thing” among my very favorite films, but “Prince of Darkness” didn’t work for me. As a horror or thriller film, it wasn’t very frightening. And while the metaphysical ideas suggested were interesting, they didn’t hit me with a sense of dread in my stomach like the best of Lovecraft does.
Overall, the production felt slapdash compared to Carpenter’s best work. I can see this as the beginning of the end for him, although he followed it up with “They Live” – another one of my favorite films. Perhaps I need to revisit “Prince of Darkness” because I usually agree with Jack Lehtonen’s insights.
Jack, I would love to see that essay, man. This movie has stuck with me all day today. The dream sequences that weren’t dreams, the eerie, abnormal human behavior, and of course the music all still give me shivers. This scared me more than The Thing and Halloween do, although that’s hardly fair because I’ve seen The Thing and Halloween countless times. Still, I can’t help but wonder why Prince of Darkness isn’t as popular as those two.
“So is there really no god or is there a god—except he’s evil.”
Neither, I think. He’s essentially arguing against the mainstream Christian teaching about the relation of Satan to God—that Satan is evil, but ultimately restrained by God. He’s saying that, rather than being entity ultimately under the authority of God, Satan is actually more like an anti-particle to God’s particle.
(But then what was the whole spiel about every particle having an anti-particle. If the illustration applies, wouldn’t there be a “good god?”) At the same time, Birack says that people weren’t told the truth because science couldn’t prove it at the time, but this seems strange since religion doesn’t depend on scientific proof.".
I think this— “But his disciples hide the secret from civilization until man can create a science sophisticated enough to prove what Christ said is true” is a riff on this—“But as for you, Daniel, conceal these words and seal up the book until the end of time; many will go back and forth, and knowledge will increase.”" (Daniel
12:4).
. . . also, the film can be understood as homage to Nigel Kneale’s (as in “Kneale University”) Quartermass stories ( and Carpenter wrote the screenplay under the nom de plume “Martin Quartermass”).
It’s was The Gipper’s second term. The Reaganpocalypse was near.
Jack, another vote for reading your Prince of Darkness essay. Sounds fascinating.
“Was there any other significance to the meaning of mirrors in the film?”
I would say, loosely, that in the scheme of things in the film, the mirror images are a sort of analog for the antiparticles, and I guess the implication of that is that rather than good and evil being seperate, opposing forces that exist seperately, they are concomitant sides of the same thing.
It is a silly horror movie that bites off far more than it can possibly chew but that is just typical Carpenter really, digging deep with a toy shovel, as an American film critic once observed. The reason this movie is not widely regarded is because the acting is bad, the script is pretentious and the whole film veers towards hysteria in the final reel. Having said that it features one of Carpenters greatest credit sequences and the atmosphere is generally strong.
I have a hard time remembering the details of this film (even after reading the OP), but with that said…
@Matt
He’s saying that, rather than being entity ultimately under the authority of God, Satan is actually more like an anti-particle to God’s particle.
That doesn’t sound too different from the Christian concept. What Carpenter seems to be doing (based on my hazy memory) is to find provide a “non-supernatural” explanation for Christianity/religion. So, Satan and God aren’t “spirits”, but particles; Christ isn’t God incarnate, but an alien, etc.
I think this— “But his disciples hide the secret from civilization until man can create a science sophisticated enough to prove what Christ said is true” is a riff on this—“But as for you, Daniel, conceal these words and seal up the book until the end of time; many will go back and forth, and knowledge will increase.”" (Daniel
12:4).
Carpenter riffing on that verse makes sense, although I’m not convinced it leads to a coherent ideas.
It’s was The Gipper’s second term. The Reaganpocalypse was near.
I don’t get how the film connects with Reagan’s presidency.
@Jack
Love this. It’s cheesy in essence, yet it ties into the meaning of the film for me.
I recently watched PBS episode on Einstein’s theory and Birack’s speech about time sounds similar to what I heard. (Time, theoretically, doesn’t have to move in one direction.)
@Trevor
In regard to the OP, the film does try to sort of shoehorn religion into science, and vise versa, and as a result, perhaps the plot is convoluted.
I don’t think I found the plot so convoluted so much as the ideas in the film.
@Joks
The reason this movie is not widely regarded is because the acting is bad, the script is pretentious and the whole film veers towards hysteria in the final reel.
I don’t think the acting (or hysteria, for that matter) is any worse than many of his other films. The concepts may be a bit more pretentious, but all of these criticisms could be explained away by the intentional(?) campiness of his films. That’s part of the deal with Carpenter. If B-movie camp disqualifies a movie, then you’re not going to like Carpenter.
“That doesn’t sound too different from the Christian concept.”
Well, it’s giving Satan a promotion, so that he’s an equal opposite aspect of God rather than a rebellious underling who has simply been cast out but, although he is allowed significant latitude to do evil, he’s not equal to the Christian God in power or authority. The relationship between the two posited in the film seems almost to be more of a yin yang thing.
OK. Speaking of God, does he even play a part in the film or even the film’s “theology?” (I can’t remember.)
It’s one of my favourite films by Carpenter, but I enjoy it mostly as a genre exercise. I’m sure you can read into the religious or philosophical elements, which are certainly there, but to me they seem like adornments; something that Carpenter uses to bring the characters together and to facilitate his preferred dramatic situation: the western-style siege.
Most of the thematic elements – the relationship between science and religion, belief and reality, etc – are just extended tributes to the work of Nigel Kneale, specifically The Quatermass Xperiment (plus sequels) and The Stone Tape. It’s what Carpenter does with the material that’s interesting; how he sustains a mood of anxious uncertainty; how he creates moments of terror and unease.
I consider it a conscious throwback to the style of his earlier films, Assault on Precinct 13 and Halloween. Like those films, the emphasis is on mood, atmosphere; creating moments of pure horror through startling images, some benign (backlit figures shuffling slowly towards camera), some genuinely surreal (the man collapsing into a pool of insects, the play of mirrors).
One thing I’ve always liked about it is the peculiarity of the final transmission. It’s on video rather than film, and takes place outside the church, which is called St. Godard’s. It reminds me of Jacques Dutronc and his chalkboard gag ‘Cain and Abel / Cinema and Video’ in Sauve qui peut (la vie) and the fact that video (or more broadly digital) has become the primary medium for filmmakers in the twenty-first century. So the impending end of civilisation is really the impending end of cinema as Carpenter knows it.
Unintentional coincidences, I’m sure, but it still makes me smile…
I’m sorry I don’t have anything more interesting or specific to add, but I think the majority of points have already been expressed with more eloquence and intelligence than I’m capable of.
Not really, not directly anyway.
But did God even play an indirect role? I guess, if the presence of priests and the devil as an anti-particle would count as indirect role, but it seems rather minimal to the point of being inconsequential.
@Lights
I’m sure you can read into the religious or philosophical elements, which are certainly there, but to me they seem like adornments; something that Carpenter uses to bring the characters together and to facilitate his preferred dramatic situation: the western-style siege.
I think that might be the best way to approach the film.
glad to see some renewed interest in this film. i think there are a couple key points that ought to be made (or re-emphasized).
on the question of naturalism, i think that carpenter is pretty clear here that science even as a merely explanatory endeavor falls short when it comes to one very important (at least to carpenter) phenomenon, namely evil. all of the naturalistic talk in the film about particles and the nature of god and the properties of the green slime shit is, as far as i can tell, trickery. carpenter is confusing you into the mindset of the physicist. yes the philosophizing is convoluted and of course the riffing on the god talk is half-baked, but it’s because carpenter is illustrating the failures of these modes of discourse, not only as standalone enterprises, but also and especially when attempts are made at unifying them. i see this film, in part, as a sort of endorsement of gould’s theory of religion and science as non-overlapping magisteria. however, transcending both of these projects is the rawness of evil. if you watch the trailer this point is emphasized very prominently when two very bold and very declarative sentences flash on the screen;“there is evil.” “it is real.” the brute fact of evil is simply too much for either science or religion to handle, and they both fail abjectly at dealing with it when confronted. however, this may also turn out to be one of carpenter’s more optimistic films because he allows for the brute existence of good to effectively counter the existence of evil (the woman sacrifices herself by tackling satan into the mirror). there is, for carpenter, simply nothing to be said about either evil or good other than, perhaps, that they exist. science has nothing to tell us about good or evil. religion has nothing to tell us about good or evil. nothing in between has anything to tell us about good or evil. i think this is carpenter’s most consistent and important theme. i think, then, that all the talk about evil being distilled in this film or concretized or anything like that is somewhat misguided. the nature of evil in the film, as in reality, is just totally ambiguous. is the goo pure evil? well i dont know. if it is then why does it need to “actualize” itself via human hosts? well if it needs to actualize itself via human hosts, is it something about the nature of humanity that is evil? well i dont know, since the priest clearly denies this and the goo at times appears volitional. but if the goo is volitional is it pure evil? well i don’t know. if it is then why does it need to “actualize” itself… these are the types of conundrums that carpenter WANTS to force us into. it isn’t a convoluted idea at all. it isn’t that carpenter isnt sure what he is saying about evil, or is saying it ineffectively. he is saying that there is nothing to be said about it, and he is showing us that attempting to say anything about it will bring us to philosophical cul-de-sacs such as the one i just outlined, and the ones yall have been worrying your pretty little heads over. carpenter seems to me to be a sort of rorty-esque pragmatist about evil. there is nothing to be said seriously about it, but it is something that clearly exists as a sort of brute metaphysical fact and so it must be engaged with.
Just goddamn great analysis Serotoninronin. Really man, the best I’ve read.
I’d suggest that if Carpenter is stepping outside of these discourses, he is doing so more in a rebellious, perhaps anti-intellectual, way, than from a position of genuine knowledge.
Jazzaloha
Just watched this. I must say I had some problems with the audio, so I missed some dialogue (which was annoying). Some comments and questions:
I need someone to explain the nature of what was in container and how Christ and the Roman Catholic Church related to that. OK, here are some key passages:
The container was buried eons ago in the Middle East, but the Father of Satan, a god who walked the earth before man but was somehow banished to the dark side. Apparently the father buried his son inside the container. (This was a section someone tried to erase). Later on Christ comes to warn us. He was extraterrestrial ancestry, but a human like race.Finally they determine that Christ is crazy, but he’s gaining a lot of power, gaining a lot followers to his beliefs, so they kill him. But his disciples hide the secret from civilization until man can create a science sophisticated enough to prove what Christ said is true.
Later we learn from the priest that the church hid this by characterizing evil as something within people. Is the priest saying that evil doesn’t exist in people (no original sin) and that evil is primarily from the Father of Satan and Satan(?) himself?
The priest also says things afterward that are a bit confusing. He talks about how the church and clergy were basically salesman selling this lie that was convenient because it kept man at the center of things. He says something about “selling a product, a new life—rewarding ourselves and punishing our enemies. So we can live without truth. Substance. Benevolence. That was the truth; asleep until now.”
Pretty convoluted and confusing if you ask me.
Then there’s the discussion between Biwack and the priest.
Birack: _Suppose what you faith has said is essentially correct. Suppose 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.
Priest: _Why weren’t we told the truth?
Birack: Humph. Without the technology to confirm, it would have been another legend.
Priest: _But he was our prisoner, not yours! We had a responsibility to warn the rest of the world. Only the corrupt are listened to now. They tell us what we want to hear. We believe it to be diving light.
Now, is it me, or is this convoluted?
So is there really no god or is there a god—except he’s evil. (But then what was the whole spiel about every particle having an anti-particle. If the illustration applies, wouldn’t there be a “good god?”) At the same time, Birack says that people weren’t told the truth because science couldn’t prove it at the time, but this seems strange since religion doesn’t depend on scientific proof.
Other questions/comments:
Was there any other significance to the meaning of mirrors in the film? (What was the deal with Calder, the tall black character, staring into the mirror for a long period of time, while the priest was hiding?)
I liked Alice Cooper and Dennis Dun in this (wish he got more roles).