Rambling about THE STEPFATHER
Sep. 20th, 2008 03:00 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
thehefnerI've discovered a new cliche, for which I need help coming up with a name. It's that subplot character in thrillers, the one for whom a whole major chunk of the story is dedicated to tracking down the killer (and thereby saving the terrorized victim), until the character finally encounters the villain... and is promptly dispatched.
He's a potential deus ex machina/white knight character coming in to save the day, but then is suddenly killed off, thereby leaving it in the hands of the victim to fight back. It makes perfect sense from a storytelling perspective, but it can feel mightily anticlimactic after a good 1/4 of the story has been dedicated to this character's building subplot.
I think Martin Balsam in PSYCHO set the foundation, then it was most famously depicted by Scatman Crothers in THE SHINING. Then there's Richard Farnsworth in MISERY, who was virtually the exact same character as depicted by Blu Mankuma in INTENSITY.
But I didn't realize what a cliche this was until I saw THE STEPFATHER.
And by the way, let me just say, holy shit what a great movie. I mean, it's not a great movie on its own, the plot and storyline is like a stabbier version of some ill-fated made-for-Lifetime/Court-TV joint venture.
But then there's Terry O'Quinn. Yes, John Locke himself.
I'd heard about O'Quinn's supposedly-legendary movie-elevating performance, but thanks to someone uploading the entire film on YouTube, I finally saw it for myself.
Fans of LOST and thrillers, if you have an hour and a half to put aside, I wholeheartedly urge you to check this out.
THE STEPFATHER (1987), starring Terry O'Quinn, in nine parts:
The film's cleverness stems from immediately showing us what a monstrous psycho this guy is right from the outset, so the tension doesn't come from "is there something wrong with this guy?" build-up. Even then, the movie could just have been Terry O'Quinn being menacing and creepy, which is what many an actor would have done, and that'd have been passable enough. But between the story and O'Quinn's performance, "Jerry" slowly unfolds into a fully fleshed-out, three-dimensional character.
The pivotal scene of the whole film, for me, is also the least "horrific" one. Between bouts of suspenseful crazy, a pissed-off Stepfather walks down the street, ruminating on how his current family is "disappointing" him like all the rest, when this happens:
I'm not sure how well it holds up out of context, but it's that classic trick of great cinematic storytelling: saying everything without saying anything. If someone ever does a list of great performances that single-handedly elevate not-great movies*, Terry O'Quinn deserves prominent inclusion. I am not exaggerating when I say that his performance here is on par with Anthony Perkins in PSYCHO.**
Y'know, it seems that there are some people who don't like to see villains be humanized. I hear it a lot from certain right-wingers, the ones who say that America needs to fight "evildoers," and how liberals can't accept the fact that truly evil people exist. Similarly, there are people who don't want to ever see Hitler depicted as anything other than a raving supervillain. Hell, there are people who hated it when DC gave the Joker a sympathetic origin. One person remarked, "I don't wanna feel bad for the Joker when he's getting beaten up by Batman." I can't speak for the real world, but at least for storytelling, I think these people miss the point. Or then again, maybe they get it, they just don't want to get it.
It's safer and comforting to just write off the monsters and just that, monsters, inhuman, not like us at all. By making our monsters human, they become even more disturbing, as Terry O'Quinn's performance proved so well. Particularly in the scene where he encounters the cliched character. The tone of recognition when he sees the character is pitch-perfect for the folksy mask that Jerry has so carefully cultivated. In any other hands, it'd be campy. In his, it's chilling because of how genuinely friendly it seems.
Erm, sorry to spoil that tidbit. You should still watch THE STEPFATHER anyway. You may never look at John Locke the same way again.
*See also: Daniel Day-Lewis in GANGS OF NEW YORK, Johnny Depp in PIRATES OF THE CARIBBEAN, and John C. McGinley in INTENSITY. Any other suggestions?
**And PSYCHO II, a wonderful and deeply-underappreciated film. Quentin Tarantino vastly prefers PSYCHO II to the original. He's wrong, but not by much.
He's a potential deus ex machina/white knight character coming in to save the day, but then is suddenly killed off, thereby leaving it in the hands of the victim to fight back. It makes perfect sense from a storytelling perspective, but it can feel mightily anticlimactic after a good 1/4 of the story has been dedicated to this character's building subplot.
I think Martin Balsam in PSYCHO set the foundation, then it was most famously depicted by Scatman Crothers in THE SHINING. Then there's Richard Farnsworth in MISERY, who was virtually the exact same character as depicted by Blu Mankuma in INTENSITY.
But I didn't realize what a cliche this was until I saw THE STEPFATHER.
And by the way, let me just say, holy shit what a great movie. I mean, it's not a great movie on its own, the plot and storyline is like a stabbier version of some ill-fated made-for-Lifetime/Court-TV joint venture.
But then there's Terry O'Quinn. Yes, John Locke himself.
I'd heard about O'Quinn's supposedly-legendary movie-elevating performance, but thanks to someone uploading the entire film on YouTube, I finally saw it for myself.
Fans of LOST and thrillers, if you have an hour and a half to put aside, I wholeheartedly urge you to check this out.
THE STEPFATHER (1987), starring Terry O'Quinn, in nine parts:
The film's cleverness stems from immediately showing us what a monstrous psycho this guy is right from the outset, so the tension doesn't come from "is there something wrong with this guy?" build-up. Even then, the movie could just have been Terry O'Quinn being menacing and creepy, which is what many an actor would have done, and that'd have been passable enough. But between the story and O'Quinn's performance, "Jerry" slowly unfolds into a fully fleshed-out, three-dimensional character.
The pivotal scene of the whole film, for me, is also the least "horrific" one. Between bouts of suspenseful crazy, a pissed-off Stepfather walks down the street, ruminating on how his current family is "disappointing" him like all the rest, when this happens:
I'm not sure how well it holds up out of context, but it's that classic trick of great cinematic storytelling: saying everything without saying anything. If someone ever does a list of great performances that single-handedly elevate not-great movies*, Terry O'Quinn deserves prominent inclusion. I am not exaggerating when I say that his performance here is on par with Anthony Perkins in PSYCHO.**
Y'know, it seems that there are some people who don't like to see villains be humanized. I hear it a lot from certain right-wingers, the ones who say that America needs to fight "evildoers," and how liberals can't accept the fact that truly evil people exist. Similarly, there are people who don't want to ever see Hitler depicted as anything other than a raving supervillain. Hell, there are people who hated it when DC gave the Joker a sympathetic origin. One person remarked, "I don't wanna feel bad for the Joker when he's getting beaten up by Batman." I can't speak for the real world, but at least for storytelling, I think these people miss the point. Or then again, maybe they get it, they just don't want to get it.
It's safer and comforting to just write off the monsters and just that, monsters, inhuman, not like us at all. By making our monsters human, they become even more disturbing, as Terry O'Quinn's performance proved so well. Particularly in the scene where he encounters the cliched character. The tone of recognition when he sees the character is pitch-perfect for the folksy mask that Jerry has so carefully cultivated. In any other hands, it'd be campy. In his, it's chilling because of how genuinely friendly it seems.
Erm, sorry to spoil that tidbit. You should still watch THE STEPFATHER anyway. You may never look at John Locke the same way again.
*See also: Daniel Day-Lewis in GANGS OF NEW YORK, Johnny Depp in PIRATES OF THE CARIBBEAN, and John C. McGinley in INTENSITY. Any other suggestions?
**And PSYCHO II, a wonderful and deeply-underappreciated film. Quentin Tarantino vastly prefers PSYCHO II to the original. He's wrong, but not by much.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2008-09-20 09:25 pm (UTC)I love "That Guy" actors, and he's one of the best. I totally forgot he played, like, fifteen people on THE X-FILES/MILLENNIUM, and most of them had pencil mustaches!
Have you seen THE STEPFATHER?
no subject
Date: 2008-09-20 09:49 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-09-20 09:51 pm (UTC)