Review: John Carpenter's "They Live"
Fun
| December 11, 2004
| Tim
I've had two minor political epiphanies recently.
Yesterday while driving I ended up thinking about...
Tin soldiers and Nixon's coming,
We're finally on our own.
This summer I hear the drumming
Four dead in Ohio.
A group of unruly protestors were demonstrating on campus in Ohio, and a group of nervous ROTC candidates -- also college students -- were deployed, with guns, to keep an eye on things. In response to aggressive taunting, one ROTC member freaked out and opened fire.
The spin -- of course -- is that somehow this was somehow Nixon's fault. Yet Nixon didn't get us into the war, and Nixon, whatever you felt about him, had nothing to do with what transpired in Ohio that summer.
In retrospect, we learned Nixon wasn't much of a stickler for the Constitution, and engaged in such abuses as using the IRS to harrass his enemies. (Of course, Clinton did the same thing, though the left only seems to have been interested in the former, and utterly uninterested the latter.) But it seemed the press hated him long before they had reason to. Perhaps Nixon wasn't just paranoid, perhaps they really were, in a sense, out to get him. Perhaps Spiro Agnew's anger toward the press was justified?
The press was probably spinning the news way back then.
I thought back: Was there ever a Republican administration which the press didn't demonize? I didn't know enough about Eisenhauer to say, but Nixon, Ford, Reagan, Bush, and Bush... which of them did the press like? Were they really all awful? Where the Democrats -- Johnson, Carter, Clinton -- all really free of corruption? How much of our retrospective view is colored or shaped by media manipulation?
In the wake of these thoughts, a friend asked me to watch John Carpenter's "They Live" with her. She thought, apparently, it was a science fiction movie. Despite the R rating and my aversion to R-ratable gore (she asserted it wasn't gory), I consented.
What I saw was something entirely different. Where she saw a science fiction film, I saw a not-thinly-veiled leftist screed; Reagan-era propaganda decrying the Reagan administration and Republicans.
Though filmed in the late 80's, the story is apparently supposed to be set in the late 1990's. The American middle class is disappearing -- out of work or reduced to manual labor -- and living in commune-like settlements which resemble Mexican barrios.  It emerges that this is being done to them by "them" -- aliens who look like normal people and have taken over the earth.
But a group of revolutionaries have figured out what's going on and devised a counter-strategy consisting of (1) a few really badly-thought-through attempts jam a cable TV network*, and (2) sunglasses which allow people to see the aliens as they really are, and allows people to see the mind-control messages implanted on billboards and in magazines and newspapers.
[* The mind-control cable channel, is, strangely, being broadcast. Even though the name of the network is "Cable 54". John Carpenter seemed not to understand what the word "cable" in "cable TV" meant.]
What is the aliens' evil plan for our beloved planet? Why, to decimate the middle class, make us be more selfish and concerned with the economy. Various subliminal messages hidden behind signs tell people to "OBEY", "CONSUME" and "MARRY AND REPRODUCE". They're cutting down the rainforests. They're making people buy more cosmetics and foreign-made cars! (Hilariously, one sign tells people to "SLEEP", as if they might forget to do that each day otherwise.)
I explained my perceptions to my friend -- a recovering liberal, Reagan-hater, and peace activist. As if to put a point on it and confirm my view, an alien politician appears on the TV (pictured above) telling people that things are getting better, that we are more hopeful, and that "It's a new morning in America." I burst out laughing aloud: "It's morning in America" was Ronald Reagan's campaign slogan! You couldn't get more obvious that that.
Except you could: The aliens communicated with each other using -- and this is almost too good to be true -- Rolex watches!
What is our hero's reaction when he discovers these greedy Republican/aliens are among us? Does he attempt to reason with them? Understand the "root causes" behind their misunderstood behavior? No, he immediately starts insulting them, calling them names, and trying to kill as many of them as possible, with obvious relish and glee at the slaughter. I blanched at the murderous hatred I believed I was seeing from Carpenter's heart.
(Clearly, other liberal talking points aside, this was not a pro gun-control movie: guns are necessary! -- for killing Republicans.)
Of course, in the end, the earth is saved -- but you knew that. The humans interrupt Cable 54's broadcast signal, and people see the aliens for what they are. This last bit is depicted with maximum T, but no A. (Hint: Think T&A.) And of course, once again, the brother gets it first, though it was clear we were making real civil rights progress in the late eighties: the friendly token hero-sidekick minority survived until nearly the end before he bit it.
During the movie, my friend explained she just realized that one of the reasons she liked the movie was because the lead character was cute and well-muscled, and apologized because she realized that probably wouldn't do much for me. True, but the poltical angle rendered it as an unintentional comedy. Certain leftist views are so extreme, they're unparodyable, or self-parody -- same thing. This is the left's equivalent of "Reefer Madness", with Republicans and their policies standing in for pot.
Thinking back, it's impossible to make any kind of sense of the aliens' motivations. They're not looting the earth for it's natural resources -- they can only leave the planet one by one, with small luggage. They're not using humanity as a food source. And, unlike many other films, where the alien agenda is to depopulate the earth so they can have it to themselves, these aliens are engaged in the nefarious act of trying get people to... uh... "MARRY AND REPRODUCE". Are they doing it to create a slave labor force? Uh, no, because the humans are all complaining they're now unemployed. Except those who are getting big, fat promotions.
I guess wearing Rolex watches and getting their hair done is the entire reason they came here.
In short, it makes as much sense as a typical liberal attempt to explain conservative motivations.
Besides Ronald Reagan, Michael Medved is singled out to be specifically identified as an evil alien: At that time, Medved and Lyons had just replaced Siskel and Ebert in PBS's "Sneak Previews". We are shown a TV clip of two film critics talking. The one turned away looks similar to Lyons, but the one facing us is revealed as an alien who is complaining about too much violence and sex in Hollywood films -- Medved's exact shtick as a movie critic at that time.
As I said, they're rather pro-family aliens.
The movie is rife with contradictions: Humans are going along with the alien agenda because they're all getting rich and comfortable -- but they're all out of work and living under rough circumstances! The aliens want to conquer society by -- making more humans? They are exploting us by -- growing the economy?
And, though the aliens are spouting Reagan quotes and enforcing his policies, they are depicted as the shallow, wealthy, self-centered people who drive high-end luxury cars and frequent the upscale stores in the LA area. Yet the people who fit this role -- contrary to Carpenter's narrative -- are generally, liberal, not conservative. The aliens are also the people running the entertainment industry and news media. Yet, once again, in real life, these people are liberal, not conservative.
Projection?
If we are to assume the message "MARRY AND REPRODUCE" (the Alien/Republican policy) is evil, I guess we would have to also believe "Stay single and die off" would be the good-guy/Democrat line. Which is odd because it admits the Democratic policy -- the "good thing" to do -- is basicly one of depopulating the earth of human life -- and is in line with the typical alien plan for the earth's destruction.
Even more seriously, you could take this film and substitute "Jew" for "Republican" and the narration which emerges is identical to that used by (yes, here it comes...) Nazis during WWII. Yes, I know that anaology is trite, but it's also true: They live among you. They look just like you, but here's how you can identify them. They, and their greedy "human" helpers, are getting rich. They are controlling the banks and the presses. They are for capitalism and greed. It's an international conspiracy based on greed!
And, of course, the appropriate response is murderous rage. Learn to identify them. And when you do: Kill! Kill! Kill! them all. (Shudder.)
There were also two divergences from standard liberal talking points.
First, as noted above, guns seemed to be a good thing, as they were used to kill Republicans. The aliens made no attempt to ensure the populace was disarmed against them. Stupid aliens. (Or perhaps Carpenter noticed that would have struck a little too close to home... hmmm... who's trying to disarm the populace again?)
Second, religion was not part of the alien agenda. There were no mind-control signs saying to believe in God. (Other than the dollar bills, which were printed with the mind-control message: "THIS IS YOUR GOD" -- a warning which agrees well with a similar warning from Jesus.)
Instead the good-guy resistance was based in a church. Oh, well, a fake church anyway -- they just played a tape of a choir rehearing to cover their activities. Fake worship. And the only religious person was a blind black street preacher, who was also one of the good guys.
Hmmm... then again, an empty, fake religion being used as a cover for political activism? No real belief except among the token minority? Maybe that isn't a divergence from the leftist narrative after all. :-)
There's also an interesting self-inverting quality to this whole thing:
Here's an ostensible piece of entertainment which indoctrines a subliminal message. On the surface, it's a story about human beings fighting off aliens from another world, aliens who use subliminal messages to control people. Yet it's own subliminal message is one of hatred towards Republicans and their views. Without understanding this, you might just see it as a science fiction movie -- as my friend and many reviewers did -- and perhaps even absorb and adopt the message without realizing what the director was doing to you.
Taking it to the logical conclusion, it is in fact the film's director who is using his own "evil alien mind-control" techniques: using media control and manipulation, keeping people happy and entertained while using hidden messages to indoctrinate and change their behavior. He is more powerful, and his audience is weak and will be easily led, swayed by his presentation, to obey and conform to his political desires.
What a fascinating example of projection. The aliens political ideas are Reagan's. But their "evil" behavior is demonstrably Carpenters'.
And understanding that the aliens stand in for Republicans is the magic pair of glasses which allow you to see the film and its content for what it really is. And see the director for the ugly, hating, intolerant person the film reveals him to be.
How wonderfully self-referential. I'll bet the director never even noticed it until too late, if at all.
My recommendation?
I never got to see it "straight", as my friend always viewed it. As a science fiction film, it probably would be towards the campier end of the spectrum: the characters do a lot of dumb things to cause tension. For example, our heros are in the master control room containing all the equipment which runs the mind-control broadcast. They have a hand grenade. Do they use it to blow up the equipment? No, they use it to blow up a door. A wooden door. Behind which is a newscaster. Duh.
If you have strong powers of disbelief suspension, this could work for you.
But as political commetary, it's hilarious! See it thinking: "This is how John Carpenter views Republicans" and it is almost a right-winger's parody of the leftist outlook.
But since it wasn't, and was actually written by a liberal, it is also a cautionary note about the violent, hateful intolerance which lurks in the mind of some influential liberals: Our political opponents aren't just well-meaning people who are misled, they are objects of horror, with no redeeming value. We must kill them in order to reclaim our society's values!
I'd like to be non-partisan about it, but the film leaves no room for that.
Speaking of killing those you dislike, here your final assignment. Here's a popular song to try viewing through those magic sunglasses:
You tell me there’s an angel in your tree
Did he say he’d come to call on me
For things are getting desperate in our home
Living in the parish of the restless folks I know
Everybody now bring your family down to the riverside
Look to the east to see where the fat stock hide
Behind four walls of stone the rich man sleeps
It’s time we put the flame torch to their keep
Burn down the mission
If we’re gonna stay alive
Watch the black smoke fly to heaven
See the red flame light the sky
Burn down the mission
Burn it down to stay alive
It’s our only chance of living
Take all you need to live inside
sleep ......sleep.........thats right its just a left wing movie. a bad movie. THEY LIVE IS A DOCUMENTRY.
"They Live" is a great movie for three reasons
1. "Rowdy" Roddy Piper!
2. The insanely long back alley fight scene between Piper and Keith David. (You dirty mother...)
3. "I have come here to chew bubblegum and kick ass. And I'm all out of bubblegum."
Any other message this movie tries to impart is lost among the greatness of these three things.
"Any other message this movie tries to impart is lost among the greatness of these three things."
here here!
It seems the writer of this review is trying to ridicule the movie to a degree you think it really is a political movie instead of a sci-fi movie, which it really is.
Really, i'll keep this short in contrary to the author but will nullify nearly all he mentions or suggests: "They Live" is based upon a short story by Ray Nelson "8 O'clock in the morning" which was written back in the late '60. (1968 I think it was).
Therefor, how can it be any personal view of Carpenter (no less) vis-a-vis Reagan and or the Republican party.
Nuff said.
Enjoy this gem of a movie!
George,
Of course it "really is", on one level, a sci-fi movie. But to ignore the clear intent -- even putting Ronald Reagan's own campaign slogans into the aliens' mouths -- seem to me to be rather naive.
Perhaps you don't know much history. Okay, but if so, that hardly makes the historical meaning or purpose or context of something go away.
"The Manchurian Candidate" (2004) was based on the first version, produced in 1962, about Communism. So would you say the 2004 version couldn't possibly have been about Republicans, Halliburton, and the Iraq war? Of course not. When you re-make a movie, or make a movie from a novel, you can change it as much as you need to make another point.
You seem to think such a thing is impossible; I think it happens all the time.
On one level, the movie is simply goofy, anger-driven SF. On a deeper level, it's evidence of the dishonesty, projection, and murderous rage some liberals exhibit towards anyone who disagrees with them.
I see no problem with seeing it on both levels.
"They Live" always interested me not so much as a polictal statement but because of the theme that reality is not what it seems to be. Politicans come and go. That said, "They Live" is a b-movie at best and poorly executed.
Looking back, I remmeber clearly Reagan doing several things during his first term... the thing releated to this article being the redefining of terms like liberal to be extremely bad without any middle ground. That's like saying all conservatives are bad. (I'm fiscally conservative and a conservative wrt natural resources)
I can see the jabs referred to by the reviewer but I see them as the normal jabs at whoever is currently in office because lets face it, it's topical. Authors etc. have been doing it forever.
I also think you read way too much into it... I've meet John Carpenter and interviewed him... sometimes it is just a job and he goes on to the next film. It is not like he really believes that there is a vast republican or whoever "conspiracy" that he has to reveal in this thinly vailed documentary!
Sometimes a movie is just a movie.
cheers
p.s. I am amused at times and sadded at how polarized our country has become in the last eight years. Reading your comment rules I see that civility is gone.
Re: They Live: you're an idiot if you think the Dems are much different than the GOP. You are a sheeple, boy. Just like I used to be. Break out of your programming....
Re: They Live: you're an idiot if you think the Dems are much different than the GOP. You are a sheeple, boy. Just like I used to be. Break out of your programming....
PS: They Live is probably the best movie of all time. At least in the top 2....
Tom Miller:
I also think you read way too much into it... I've meet John Carpenter and interviewed him... sometimes it is just a job and he goes on to the next film. It is not like he really believes that there is a vast republican or whoever "conspiracy" that he has to reveal in this thinly vailed documentary!
Sometimes a movie is just a movie.
John Carpenter, on whether or not this movie was about American politics:
"This fist fight took place between two friends as one man tried to force his buddy to put on a specially-made pair of sunglasses. When these special sunglasses are worn anyone can see the world as it really is, rather than as it appears to be. So great was this one man’s resistance to the truth, that he fought with every ounce of strength to keep from putting the sunglasses on."
"So, too, it is with the American public today. The ostriches prefer their heads buried in the sand, and will fight kick, bite, scratch, and maybe even kill, to keep from knowing the truth. Slaves grow accustomed to their chains. They don’t want to see or know what is really going on."
And, in case that wasn't clear enough, one more time: Was "They Live" about the Reagan era and it's politics -- as you saw them -- John?
"I wanted to say something about a lot of the things what were going wrong in the country at the time. There was this trend to unrestrained capitalism, it was absolute total stupidity some if it. All the problems I thought had been solved were back: censorship, racism. But I didn’t want to preach. So I took a short story and adapted it."
So, um, Tom? Perhaps you could get in touch Mr. Carpenter again, and tell him he was confused about whether "They Live" was created as a thinly-veiled political fable about contemporary events, or not.
He seems to have thought it was.
Re: They Live: you're an idiot if you think the Dems are much different than the GOP. You are a sheeple, boy. Just like I used to be. Break out of your programming....
Emmanuel,
Of course, all people suck, and there are of course many, many bad characteristics both political parties share. You won't get any disagreement at all from me there.
But when was the last time a well-known Republican made a movie which was a thinly-veiled analogy about the joys of slaughtering your domestic political opponents -- and depicting them as inhuman monsters who deserved it?
... waiting ...
(taps feet)
... waiting ...
Ah yes. Didn't think so. Thanks for playing!
Good commentary. Nice analysis. However I don't see anything wrong with a filmaker creating a straw-man analogy (They Live) directed towards a particluar group they dislike (Republicans). It's a terrific platform for entertainment and political jabbing. Been around for thousands of years.
Sure you can flaw the analogy, but Carpenter doesn't attempt anything more than to point out what he dislikes, then blow it up. Pretty simple. On that level the film is nothing more than a simple, political cartoon. If Carpenter had wanted to debate the issues, he would have made a different film. This film does not debate. This film blows thing up.
Trying to use this film as an example of typical left-wing, liberal propaganda is simply giving it too much credit. It's entertainment first, with a bit of political poking added to boot.
As film however, it absolutely rocks. Piper rules. So sorry you couldn't get past the poking. A good review though.
Joe
However I don't see anything wrong with a filmaker creating a straw-man analogy...
I dunno -- since a straw-man argument is essentially a lie, do you see anything 'wrong' with lying about people?
I'm not saying it doesn't make an entertaining or watchable film, but you're talking "right" and "wrong" here -- moral values. So is it morally wrong to lying about one's enemies, and advocate killing them?
Trying to use this film as an example of typical left-wing, liberal propaganda is simply giving it too much credit...
Why? Does propaganda have to be good or effective in order to actually be propaganda? Please note the review above touches on the author's intent and apparent psychology. At no point do I say whether the film was effective or not.
It's entertainment first, with a bit of political poking added to boot.
Sigh. Carpenter admits that his primary purpose in making this film was political.
Once again:
"I wanted to say something about a lot of the things what were going wrong in the country at the time... But I didn’t want to preach. So I took a short story and adapted it."
Carpenter wanted to indoctrinate us with his politics. But he didn't want to preach. So he took a short story and adapted it as a vehicle for teaching us his views. First: Politics. Second: Story. So according to Carpenter himself, the film was primarily a vehicle to teach us his politics.
What's so confusing here for you?
Why are commenters like this so willfully blind to the obvious? You can put an elephant directly in front of them, put flashing lights around it spelling out: "ELEPHANT" with blinking neon arrows pointing at the pachyderm in question, set up a loudspeaker repeating, "Come see the elephant!!!" and they'll say, as it's touching their face with its trunk: "Well, I'm not sure there are any animals around here, much less elephants..."
My theory is that the politics of this film may be rather close to those of such reviewers, so they distance themselves from the completely-obvious political aspect of it, once shown how silly or hate-filled such views are.
So sorry you couldn't get past the poking.
Condescending comments like this drive me nuts.
A producer puts his politics in the driver's seat when making a film. Carpenter himself can't "get past" his anger at his political opponents enough to just make a fun film without plastering his political animus all over it. He basicly makes a film about killing his political enemies. (You know, murder -- or "poking" to you.)
Then, a guy like me sees the film, notices what's clearly going on, reads Carpenter's own quotes, and points out what he's doing, what he intends. And who's at fault? The reviewer -- for pointing out the oh-so-obvious politics Carpenter himself put there. Shoot the messenger. Look, I didn't make this film be all about Carpenter's politics -- he did.
So I saw it on two levels, and reviewed it on each. Because I noticed the second level, it proves I'm deeply inferior to someone who claims it's incidental to the film or entirely nonexistent.
It seems to be a recurring theme in criticism of this movie that it was created entirely as a criticsm of the Republican party of the 80s. In your review you focus on the fact that some of the policies and behaviours of the aliens are at odds with the views of the Republican party. If the aliens are Republicans, for instance, why do they seem to favor pacifism?
The answer, and an obvious one at that, is that the aliens are not Republicans. The aliens are not Democrats. The aliens represent a conspiracy of the elite that transcends political parties. The aliens seek control. WHY they want control isn't discussed. Whether or not their future society is preferrable to the natural order of things isn't discussed. What the movie is squarely focused on is HOW they have taken control. The means are so manifestly horrible that the ends are irrelivant.
What seems to be the root evil in this movie, IMHO, is consumerism. Consumerism transcends political parties. Consumerism is not the same thing as capitalism. Advertising, for instance, is directed towards creating a false impression of value. The goal of advertising is to undermine the fundamental principles of the capitalist system and encourage the inefficient allocation of resources.
If you get stuck on the idea that Carpenter must be for or against one political party or another, you're missing the bigger point. He's railing against the slow and steady decline of America into a consumer society. He's railing against a society that defines itself by what material things it owns. The aliens and their human helpers, as you pointed out, are leeches seeking only to accumulate as many shiny baubles as possible.
Lightspeed is right. I don't believe at all that the original analysis "missed the point" however. It was instead the willful ignorance practiced by most people in the United States of imposing a false dichotomy on the world. This is one way everyone stays asleep and enslaved by consumerism and the elite who benefit most from it--convince everyone the world is black or white, republican or democrat, liberal or conservative, us or them--and you can get people to do or believe anything you want, because you've effectively limited their conception of choice and freedom to two alternatives--that you picked and defined yourself! how smart is that. This is part of what carpenter was ridiculing, actually, in invoking the concept of "they"--as in "they" live, while "we" sleep.
So many words, so little substantive thought, caught up in little merry-go-rounds of binary dualistic thinking.
In your review you focus on the fact that some of the policies and behaviours of the aliens are at odds with the views of the Republican party.
No: I focus on the fact that the behavior of the alien's is consistent with a Democrat's straw-man depiction of the Republican party. Good heavens, they even quoted Ronald Reagan's campaign slogans and mentioned Michael Medved. What more do you need, a 3-mile-high neon sign?
The aliens represent a conspiracy of the elite that transcends political parties.
So, strangely, this analogy needed to be told, the director has stated, during the Reagan years, about Reagan's policies, using Reagan's campaign slogans, and even mentioning specific conservatives.
But it was really also about Jimmy Carter and Walter Mondale too? Even though not a single Democratic ideal, economic policy, or defender was mentioned or parodied?
Riiiight.
The aliens represent a conspiracy of the elite that transcends political parties.
If they "transcend political parties", then how come they're not shown controlling both parties, or playing the parties off as each other? You're kind of missing even a single piece of evidence to back this up.
What the movie is squarely focused on is HOW they have taken control.
Yes, and they are "taking control" by greed, family-friendly policies, allowing exports, not regulating companies, and destroying the environment. Each of which were a Democrat's statement of Republican policies at the time (and often, now). None of which were a Republican's statement of Democrat policies.
Is that just a tad bit of a co-incidence if it was supposed to be about how both political parties were controlled by them?
What seems to be the root evil in this movie, IMHO, is consumerism.
No, that was one evil. Another is the desire to "get ahead" at one's job. And another, which came up incessantly, was marrying and raising kids. Another one was that the aliens were protesting too much violence in movies.
You're trying to turn an elephant into a donkey by holding onto the tail and ignoring the rest of the animal.
And, uh, even if your argument was right, when was the last time the Democratic Party was accused of taking charge by encouraging "consumerism"??? Even if your own statements are true, they still don't add up.
He's railing against the slow and steady decline of America into a consumer society.
... and the culture of family values, and marriage and reproduction, and "censorship" in movies...
Look, READ CARPENTER'S OWN STATEMENT:
I wanted to say something about a lot of the things what were going wrong in the country at the time. There was this trend to unrestrained capitalism, it was absolute total stupidity some if it. All the problems I thought had been solved were back: censorship, racism.
Does Carpenter mention a "consumer society" -- e.g. the personal values of those who buy? No! What does he mention? "Unrestrained capitalism" -- e.g. the production of goods without enough control by the state. That's a problem (in his mind) with government and companies, not consumers. According to you, "unrestrained capitalism" must have been a Democratic policy too???
Look what else he mentions: "Racism" -- e.g. liberal-speak for opposing affirmative action. Is that a Democratic policy? No.
Look what else he mentions: "Censorship" -- e.g. people puting ratings on his movies and stopping the F-word from being said on TV.
Finally you say Carpenter is complaining about a "slow and steady decline"! Yet he says instead, in 1988, he's complaining about a recent "trend" and that "problems I thought had been solved were back." When were they solved? How about under the previous, Carter, administration. When were they proven to be back? During the Reagan administration!
Please read comments above about people not being able to see obvious things directly in front of them.
If you get stuck on the idea that Carpenter must be for or against one political party or another, you're missing the bigger point.
No, dude: You're trying to make a bigger point. And it's all well and good, but has nothing to do with Carpenter's feelings and arguments, which you seem to confuse with your own.
The aliens and their human helpers, as you pointed out, are leeches seeking only to accumulate as many shiny baubles as possible.
Now you're putting words in my mouth. I have never said anything of the sort. I've stated time and again that the aliens' motivations made no sense whatsoever: not that they were "only" seeking to accumulate "baubles".
USTHEM,
So many words, so little substantive thought, caught up in little merry-go-rounds of binary dualistic thinking.
Good heavens, this review attracts some of the densest readers. I'm not trying to debate the real status of the world here folks, nor the best political policies.
What is at issue is John Carpenter's motivations, and what he was trying to do with this film. And it certainly wasn't about rising above a "false dichotomy" of two political parties! It's timing, in 1988, right before the election, shows it as an attempt to put ONE of those TWO parties into power.
You like to think Carpenter was like: "Oh, both parties are equally bad. It sucks no matter who is in office! Can't you see they're both part of the real elite?!"
But no, your heads are in the sand. He was trying to put ONE of those TWO parties into power, and thought of one as relatively good, and one as bad. One had "solved" all the world's major problems, and one had brought them back.
So, um, nice of y'all to think Carpenter sees the world your way, but he doesn't. This isn't a discussion of the REAL POWER BEHIND THE SCENES WHICH ONLY YOU KNOW ABOUT AND OTHERS ARE TOO STUPID TO ACCEPT.
This is an article about John Carpenter and the film "They Live", and what he says about it, and what it says about him.
Capiche?
Obviously not.
The movie appears to be about Republicans (the Reagan imitation scene) but that is a smoke screen. It is in fact a protest against a certain ethnic group that controls Hollywood and much of the public media. This same group has always given John Carpenter a hard time, making him have to submit to their control to get the money to make his films and to get them to promote and distribute them. "They Live" was not pushed very hard by the studio that made it, guess they figured out who it was REALLY about. Watch again through THOSE glasses (those of a movie director who wants more than anything to be able to make movies) and it's obvious who the aliens are.
Unfortunately, everyone in this thread has it wrong so far.
I know nothing of what John Carptenter knows of the truth, but here's what any reader needs to check on...
-reptilian humaoid interdimensional beings
google it
It turns out there ACTUALLY ARE ghoulish creatures in charge of the political, financial and (to some extent) military elite of this world.
They are what we would probably term as 'aliens' although that designation may not be the best way to put it.
Whoever/whatever they are:
They approach mankind with malice.
Unfortunately, everyone in this thread has it wrong so far.
I know nothing of what John Carptenter knows of the truth, but here's what any reader needs to check on...
-reptilian humanoids
google it
It turns out there ACTUALLY ARE ghoulish, non-human creatures in charge of the political, financial and (to some extent) military elite of this world.
They are what we would probably term as 'aliens' although that designation may not be the best way to put it.
Whoever/whatever they are:
They approach mankind with malice.
Wow! Well, if Google gets some hits on a certain theory, then that certainly proves said theory must be true!
Bill Clinton is a shape-shifting reptile? Who knew?
"They Live" isn't about Republicans VS Democrats. I don't understand how you got that from the movie.
It's about an affluent class exploiting the average person by brainwashing them with greed. The aliens don't represent republicans or democrats (who I wouldn't call liberals!). They're yuppies! That is the space in society these aliens occupy.
The comment rules will apply. Please post only once.
« Rumsfeld in Kuwait: Hearing Part of the Story |
Front Page |
Page Two
| People Don't Kill People... »
|
sleep ......sleep.........thats right its just a left wing movie. a bad movie. THEY LIVE IS A DOCUMENTRY.
Posted by: on January 13, 2005 12:46 PM