Monday, April 30, 2012

Hail to the King: The Teratology of  

Army of Darkness

In Heaven, all movie posters will be as cool as this one.

Unintentional cult movies are the result of colossal mistakes that balance out. A movie like Troll II can’t be manufactured—it just happens. Making an intentional cult film takes skill, guts and vision; a single misstep and your movie is just a giant wink to the audience. You have to be a tightrope walker. Sam Raimi is a director who knows how to walk that rope.

He made his bones in the industry with the Evil Dead trilogy. The third installment, Army of Darkness (1992), continues the saga of Ash, the wisecracking, Oldsmobile-driving S-mart employee whose trip to a secluded cabin with his girlfriend was derailed by the discovery of recordings from the Necronomicon Ex-Mortis, the Sumerian book of the dead. Demons from another dimension (called Deadites) systematically kill and possess Ash’s loved ones. Ash isn’t immune; ultimately, he must exorcise his own Deadite by cutting off his hand (which he replaces with a chainsaw). Army begins with Ash and the Necronomicon Ex-Mortis (and his Oldsmobile Delta 88) being banished to 1300 AD. Ash battles knights, the undead and himself to find his way back home.



The scene where Ash saves President Obama from Tea Partiers was left out of the theatrical release.

I like this movie—not as much as the first two (1987’s Evil Dead II is responsible for my descent into horror), but I do recommend it. Army is campy, it’s funny and action leads it around by the nose; it manages to be zany without being cutesy. Raimi is one of the few directors who does cult intentionally and does it well: The movie oozes cult. The trilogy is a master class on how to make a genre film. Army teaches two things to directors trying to craft their own underground classics.

First, know your cult: Who is the audience for your film? Raimi is writing for teenage boys—he was only 22 when he started the series. Ash is the man every zombie-loving geek wants to be: a cutup with a heart of gold who isn’t afraid to play rough (“Good. Bad. I’m the guy with the gun.”). The film focuses on gadgets more than a film set in the middle ages should: Ash manufactures a robotic hand a la Luke Skywalker—he also converts his Oldsmobile into an engine of death. It features women with heaving bosoms that spend half the movie wanting to sleep with Ash and the other half wanting to kill him. It even has an issue of Fangoria, a magazine that’s been catering to the gorehound teen since 1979.

If Santa is listening, one lifetime subscription, please.


Second, send your cult a strong message: If laws of physics are diluting your message, change those laws. A cult film is one that bends reality to tell a story with style—there’s a reason why noir films are filled with low light and shadow. In Raimi’s case, he set out to make a live action cartoon. Characters don’t just spurt blood when eaten by a demon: They shoot it out like a fire hose. In one scene, a Deadite does a somersault after being shot by a double-barreled Remington. In another, Ash is attacked by skeletons using a Three Stooges eye poke. The first ten minutes of this movie are a goldmine of comedic style.

Army of Darkness is Raimi at his best. It is a film that has embedded itself into the geek lexicon (when someone says “boomstick,” they have this movie to thank). His style is so distinctive that it has become an adjective: When a film uses extreme gore as a sight gag or gives the viewpoint of a fast-moving object, it’s being “Raimi-esque.” When Raimi sticks to his style, he walks that tightrope discussed earlier with ease (see 2009’s Drag Me to Hell). 

If you haven't seen this movie, stop reading and watch it.  NOW. 
When he doesn’t, he falls (do NOT see 2007’s Spiderman III).

 Sitting dejectedly in the rain was also how most audience members responded to this film.

3 comments:

  1. Army of Darkness is great, but I'd like to talk a moment about Spiderman 3. When you find out that Venom was forced into the movie late into the process by the studio, it becomes pretty obvious what went wrong with it; and I think Sam Raimi deserves a pass on it. Think about the film and remove everything Venom related from it, there's still a complete film there. In fact, there's a much better film there. One that resolves in a more natural way the questions of Power vs. Responsibility and Forgiveness vs. Vengeance that the series had been pondering on since Film One. Sandman and the Green Goblin II as the villains each had this very interesting entwining of those themes. Spiderman wants to avenge his uncle, but the Sandman deserves forgiveness and Spiderman has to learn that along the way. Sandman is going through the same dilemma that Spiderman himself went through in the first film, discovering that just because you are all powerful, doesn't mean you can force your will on reality. Then you have Harry Osbourne's struggle to reconcile that his friend killed his father, and his desire to get vengeance. It ties a neat bow on everything the first two films setup.

    Then the studio comes in and drops an ichor shaped turd all over the film. Part of me wonders if Raimi made the Venom parts so campy as a means of protest. Sort of in the same way of how when I was married I would pretend I couldn't cook in hopes that I wouldn't be asked to do it much.

    So, in summary, if you haven't seen Drag Me to Hell, you should definitely see it now.

    ReplyDelete
  2. At some point, it may be worth analyzing the Spiderman movies and comparing them with the Evil Dead trilogy. Particular scenes that stick out as being just so Raimi include when Doc Ock's mechadendrites first go out of control in Spiderman 2; they chase the doctors around with his distinctive "fast object first person" camerawork.

    Willem Dafoe's descent into madness and his influence on his son in #2 also seem very Raimi-esque; those scenes remind me of the Deadites taunting Ash or when his friends turn into monsters. It helps that Dafoe is the right kind of actor to pull that off. I really think Dafoe and Raimi should work together again. Like, maybe if Raimi had done Antichrist instead of Lars. Or would that be too much like Evil Dead 1 and 2?

    ReplyDelete
  3. You’re right: Spiderman 3 is a film about dualities (“Power vs. Responsibility and Forgiveness vs. Vengeance”). Spiderman, Green Goblin II and Sandman all are faced with hard choices and initially make destructive decisions that they must later correct. Each of them has to come to grips with their dark sides. The concept of Venom (a symbiote that enhances the “dark side” of its wearer) makes perfect thematic sense for this kind of story. So Venom has to be in the mix. It’s Sandman that should have been 86ed. To make a better movie, Sandman and Venom should have been combined into one story—Venom is the one who has the sick daughter, Venom is the one who kills Peter’s uncle. Replace Topher Grace with Thomas Haden Church—he’s a sympathetic actor and he even has the body type of the comic book Venom.
    This is how it would work:

    (Act 1) Spiderman and Harry fight—Spiderman loses but escapes. Eddie Brock (now played by Church) escapes from jail. MJ and Spidey’s relationship goes on the rocks. Spiderman learns that Eddie Brock is his Father’s original killer.

    (Act 2) Symbiote binds to Spiderman after sensing his vengeance against Brock. With his new power, Spiderman tracks Brock down—before he’s able to kill him, Harry Osbourne attacks. Spiderman, enraged that he’s prevented from his revenge, defeats Harry and puts him in a coma. Disgusted with how he’s hurt his friend, Spiderman tears the symbiote off.

    (Act 3) Symbiote finds Brock as he’s hiding from Spiderman—Brock uses new powers to rob banks. Spiderman tries to stop him but can’t. In the end, he must convince Harry to help him stop Venom. In the final fight, Brock is killed along with the symbiote. As he dies, Brock explains to Spiderman his mistake in killing Uncle Ben.

    Here, the story is much more focused on redemption, on coming to terms with bad choices. Peter must redeem himself after hurting his friend. Harry must redeem himself after realizing the truth about his father. Eddie must redeem himself by explaining his part in Uncle Ben’s death. They each must overcome the “venom” inside them: for Peter and Harry, revenge, for Eddie, guilt.

    You can’t just fix this film by editing—it needs a complete overhaul.

    ReplyDelete