FUCK ‘EM! I DON’T CARE

The director of such beloved classics as HALLOWEEN, THE THING and BIG TROUBLE IN LITTLE CHINA has been semi-retired for a long time, but he hasn’t been completely gone. In 2010 he did THE WARD and more recently he has been touring with his music. Although he has had some trials and tribulations in his career, he was quite Zen about the whole thing during the phone interview Roel Haanen had with him in April 2014: ‘Whatever happens, happens’.

In the seventies you were among a new generation of film makers blowing new life into the horror genre. But whereas your peers, like Tobe Hooper, Wes Craven and David Cronenberg, tried to modernize the genre, you immediately embraced the Hollywood tradition with ASSAULT ON PRECINCT 13, especially in terms of style. 

For me, the modernizing of the genre begins in the sixties, with George Romero’s NIGHT OF THE LIVING DEAD. That was ground breaking. Tobe Hooper’s TEXAS CHAIN SAW MASSACRE was ground breaking. The thing about that movie, TEXAS CHAIN SAW, was that you never saw anything. It was all implied. Now in Wes Craven’s LAST HOUSE ON THE LEFT you saw a lot. That was a pretty brutal movie. But they were all experimenting on where they could take exploitation movies. I was always a child of Hollywood. I loved Hollywood movies; I loved old fashioned Hollywood movies. I never lost my film school training and my love of old films. So you’re right about that. Absolutely right.

When HALLOWEEN came out, you were thirty years old. And in his glowing review Roger Ebert compared you to Hitchcock. What did that do to your confidence as a filmmaker, being hailed as the new master of suspense?

Well, it was nice. But then they started awaiting the new Hitchcock movie and that’s not what I wanted to do. I was not Hitchcock. I was a student of his work in cinema, but I was already a very different director. So it was a mixed bag. Of course it’s wonderful to be compared to a great director, but it also comes with a little bit of expectation. And you think: oh dear, I can’t live up to that.

HALLOWEEN set a trend: the slasher movie, a genre that got a bad reputation due to the fact that slasher films seemed to get more violent and bloody every year. Eventually, HALLOWEEN got thrown in with the rest of those nasty movies, although there was a big difference between your film, which focused on suspense and fear, and those bloody affairs. Did that ever bother you?

I was aware of the trend. You can boil it down to one thing: these producers in Hollywood took one look at HALLOWEEN and all they saw was a movie made for very little money, that made a lot of money. So that’s what they wanted, to make a little horror movie and make lots of money. The minute you start making horror movies like that, like FRIDAY THE 13TH, what you end up with, if you’re not careful, is nothing but an escalation of gore. What became obvious pretty soon was that there were no characters in these movies, just victims lined up to be killed. That was part of the design. So that the audience could yell at the screen: don’t go in there, you idiot! Do I mind being lumped in there? Well, there’s nothing I can do about it, so… Whatever happens happens.

But weren’t you trying to get away from the slasher genre when you did HALLOWEEN III as a producer?

No, that wasn’t it. I just didn’t think there was any more story to HALLOWEEN. Boy, was I wrong, huh? Look at what they’ve done with it. They’re doing another one now. It’s endless.

We were talking about expectations just now. When you did THE FOG, was there a little voice in the back of your mind saying you had to at least  match HALLOWEEN in terms of suspense and horror?

Yeah, but you try to ignore that. THE FOG was a movie on its own. Trying to match something you’ve done is a real bad idea. So I just ignored it and kept onward.

But while editing the movie you discovered it didn’t work.

That’s right. It wasn’t very scary. I had to amp it up.

And when you feel there are high expectations to be met, that’s the last thing you want. How did it feel at the time?

Terrible! It felt like shit! You want it to work the first time. But luckily Avco Embassy agreed to put up another chunk of money and we went back through the film and finessed everything. Made everything a bit better. I wrote a couple of new scenes, mostly storytelling scenes that made it more like a ghost story. We changed the music. And we managed to open number one so I was happy.

There has been some talk of a ESCAPE FROM NEW YORK remake. But I always felt that it was a movie of its time. The idea of Manhattan being awash with crime is very much something of the late seventies and early eighties.

You got it! That’s exactly right. Right now Manhattan is Disneyland. It’s fake. Everything’s great there, so it really wouldn’t work. ESCAPE FROM NEW YORK is really a movie of the seventies. That was when I wrote it. New York was going through some real problems then. A lot of crime, a lot of decay. It was a whole different place. You’re right. I agree with you.

But why consider a remake at all if the premise is so much a part of that era?

They don’t think that way. It’s not about what’s relevant. It’s about money. I don’t think it’s ever gonna be made though.

Is it even possible for you to envision another actor playing Snake Plissken?

There is no other Snake Plissken than Kurt. None.

The sequel, ESCAPE FROM L.A., is one my favorite movies of yours. I think it’s even better than the first one. It’s faster, funnier, more exciting, and even more important: it brings Snake’s nihilism to an ultimate conclusion.

I agree. It is a better movie. It didn’t do what the first one did for some reason. Maybe it was too dark, too nihilistic. I don’t know. They didn’t dig it as much as the first one. It did okay, but it just wasn’t a hit.

Could it be that fans would rather see Snake in that same 1981 universe?

I don’t know. And I don’t care.

Some of your films were instantly successful; others needed a bit longer to find an audience. The best example is probably THE THING, which is now considered one of the best horror movies ever, but when it came out wasn’t exactly a hit.

It was hated. I repeat: HATED by the fans. It was unbelievable.

Now you know it’s a classic but…

I knew then! I knew it! I thought it was really good. But nobody else did.

But when did you first realize that the fans caught on?

Oh, over the years slowly but surely people would come up to me to tell me that they really liked it. They would usually whisper, so that no one could hear. And then a couple of books were written about it and its reputation grew. It was wonderful.

What do you think turned the audience off at first? The effects or the bleakness of the film?

I think the second. I think that was it. It was all so dark. It was about the end of everything. It was such a hopeless situation: these poor guys out there [chuckles]. And the effects were pretty savage.  For the time they were really shocking. People were actually upset by it [chuckles some more].

Isn’t it ironic that in the same year THE THING was released the Academy of Motion Picture Arts for the first time gave out an award for special make-up effects?

Yeah, that’s right! But not for THE THING! [Laughs]. But if you think about it, what Rob Bottin did for THE THING was transformative. He took that someplace else, where it had never been before. But hey, that’s the way it goes!

Did you see the remake slash prequel of THE THING?

Yes.

And what did you think?

Oh, I don’t know. They did the best they could. I thought there were a couple of things wrong with it, but nobody asked me.

The director said in an interview that he tried to do the movie with practical effects, but that they didn’t work and that a modern audience wouldn’t accept practical effects anyway.

That’s bullshit! That’s absolute bullshit! I don’t believe it. You know, it’s hard to do, tough to pull off. You know what audiences won’t accept? Too much CGI. Having said that: I thought some of the effects were pretty good. I just don’t believe the audience won’t accept it.

They did try to stay very close to your movie.

Yeah, the film has its strong points. I’m not gonna say anything bad about it.

After the commercial failure of THE THING you did CHRISTINE. At the time Stephen King adaptations were popular. Did you feel it was a safe choice, career wise?

It was the only choice! It was the only job I could get. So I went ahead and did it.

One of the strong points of CHRISTINE is that you eliminated the character of Roland Le Bay [the previous owner of the Plymouth Fury who in the novel haunts Arnie Cunningham as a rotting corpse from the back seat of the car].Your movie suggests that the car itself is evil, a notion that works really well. But I’ve read interviews with you expressing doubts about that choice.

Oh, I don’t know. I always doubt everything. Don’t listen to me.

But still: in the same interview you said that there is something in Stephen King’s writing that doesn’t translate to screen well. Could you elaborate on that?

Well, he’s such a word smith and he writes really well, but he has no time limit on his writing. His books are really thick. You can get lost in them. And that doesn’t always work when you translate it to the screen.

What did King think of your movie?

I don’t know. Stephen King loves everything and then he hates it. He’s a weird ass guy. Just weird. Started out as a teacher. What the hell you want?

STARMAN is probably the sweetest and most mainstream film you ever did.

Probably so.

Were you trying to change your image in Hollywood?

I just realized at some point that they were never going to let me do a romantic comedy. I was just going to be in horror and stay there, which is fine. But I wanted to get my shot at it. And that was a perfect chance to do it. I’m very happy with how that film turned out.

It is also the only film of yours in which the alien is benign. Most of the time they’re up to no good.

They should be up to no good!

But if aliens were to visit us, which scenario is more likely you think: STARMAN or THE THING?

[Laughs] Well, look, we have no idea if there are any alien life forms out there and, if there are any, what they will look like and be like. We have no idea. We’re making movies about ourselves. They’re about the dark side and good side in all of us.

BIG TROUBLE IN LITTLE CHINA was also a movie that found its audience later on. But it’s such a fun movie. How could that go wrong? Was it the marketing or distribution?  

Well, the studio was expecting Indiana Jones. That’s what they wanted. But instead they got this goofy, weird movie. They wanted me to cut out all the funny stuff. They wanted it less funny…[Sighs] Look, it was not a pleasant experience. We don’t need to revisit this. But I can say that when the movie came out it wasn’t a big hit. It wasn’t reviewed particularly well. And they attacked Kurt. Fuck ‘em. I don’t care. I love that movie!

And so do a lot of fans. At the time it was this experience that made you go back to independent movies, like PRINCE OF DARKNESS and THEY LIVE. But after that you tried again with a big studio.

I don’t have a magic wand here. I can’t wave it and say: I’m gonna do this now! It’s the reality of the movie business. Sometimes you take the first offer that looks good to you; sometimes you wait for something better. It depends on your age, it depends on your career. I’ve never been in control of my career, and at the same time I’ve been in complete control of my career. It’s a weird deal. It’s on the line. So, MEMOIRS OF AN INVISIBLE MAN came along and I thought I’d give it a shot.

With THEY LIVE you expressed a lot of anger about the Reaganomics of the time.

Absolutely. That was the reason to make that film. Reaganomics are still with us, by the way. They never left America.

VAMPIRES and GHOSTS OF MARS have this certain energy, like you were going out of your way to make these movies really cool.

[Laughs] Thank you! I approach every movie the same way. I just use my instincts. Style and emphasis is always instinctual with me. They are very different stories, but they are both westerns in disguise.

Were you glad that you could make these movies at…

…at the end of my career? Sure. But I’m glad about everything. I’m enormously lucky. I got to be John Carpenter. Hell man, there’s nothing wrong with that!

After GHOST OF MARS you were gone for like ten years.

Burned out! I had been working since the seventies. I had to stop. And that was a good time to stop. After a while I did a couple of Master of Horror things for television and a small independent movie,  THE WARD. And that brings us up to today. And today I’m happily playing video games and enjoying myself.

THE WARD featured yet another one of your characters trapped. This time in more ways than one. She was trapped in her mind as well as physically. Is that something that scares you? Being trapped? Because so many of your movies deal with that theme.

Well, I was trapped in a way when I was really young. A number of factors trapped me, so I gravitated towards that as a director. I liked movies where people are trapped, and I made ‘em.

You’re referring to your youth in Kentucky.

That’s correct. It’s complicated and I don’t want to get into all of it.  My family and I were from northern New York and my dad got a job in southern Kentucky. We were fish out of water there. This was the Jim Crow South. And we weren’t like that. I grew up in a log cabin on the university grounds. I was just very different from other kids. And there were some other things I don’t want to get into. Let’s leave it at that.

Are you working on any projects now?

Sure, there are projects everywhere. But I’m not the same guy I was at the beginning of my career, or mid-career. It’s just different now. I’m an old guy.

With all these visual trends, like quick cuts, is it hard for you to hold on to your style?

Fuck no! I can’t do anything else. What am I going to do? Be somebody else? I can’t. If that means they’re not rushing to hire me, that’s fine. I can only be who I am. You ever hear of Popey the Sailor? The cartoon character? Well, his saying is what we all should keep in mind: I am what I am and that’s all that I am.

Related talks

• David Cronenberg

• William Friedkin

• Larry Cohen

• William Lustig

• Roger Corman (1)

This interview first appeared in a shorter version in the Dutch fanzine Schokkend Nieuws. Above is the full version of this talk, edited only for clarity.

Special thanks to Kim Gottlieb-Walker for letting us use two of her set photos from her awesome book On Set with John Carpenter. If you haven’t checked out this book, you really should.