Colin Moore
“All attempts at genre definition end in frustration: no sooner do you build a pigeon hole than you find a pigeon that refuses to be stuffed into it.” So says Peter Nicholls of The World of Fantastic Films. True true. Take John Carpenter’s “Starman,” an SF drama with equal parts romance and charm. It’s an odd choice for Carpenter (“Halloween,” “Escape From New York”) an atmospheric storyteller best known for building thrills over character, but “Starman” worked and works still. It’s one of its decade’s underrated cross-pollinations.
The story wastes no time. Secluded in a lakehouse, Jenny Hayden (Karen Allen of “Raiders of the Lost Ark”) mourns the accidental death of her husband Scott, a goofy carpenter with a woodsy wardrobe. She watches old home movies of the two on reel. In the skies above meanwhile, a ship approaches. An alien craft has intercepted the Voyager 2 probe (seven years young in 1984) and its benign invitation, “Drop by if you’re in the neighborhood” more or less. Starman does and to no surprise in 1980s Hollywood is greeted with American firepower. When all identification fails, shoot it. Crashing in rural Wisconsin, a surviving orb of blue energy finds refuge in Jenny’s home and a human body is created from Scott’s DNA. With a lock of his hair, the alien presence begins an accelerated transformation into an adult male. The effect is achieved with puppetry and actors, somewhat dated but cool in light of today’s excesses. Jenny beats a hasty retreat but is intercepted. Starman needs her. He has three days to rendezvous with his cosmic peeps at a meteor crater outside Winslow, Arizona. Great excuse for a road trip ~ gives him the chance to learn, Jenny a chance at closure and us 115 minutes to finish snacks.
Though it did spin off a short-lived TV series, “Starman” was not a smash. It recouped its budget of $24 million but just, barely edging out “Cannonball Run II” in receipts according to Box Office Mojo. No big deal. More interesting is the film’s path to projection. The script floated about the halls of Columbia Pictures for half a decade, flirting with directors Adrian Lyne, John Badham and Tony Scott and at least as many writers before Carpenter’s involvement. Wikipedia notes the director’s hope to “shed his image as a maker of exploitative thrillers,” a success at least temporarily. But the film also marks something of a “whoops” moment when Columbia abandoned its support of a certain Spielberg project called “Night Skies” (later to be renamed “E.T.”) feeling that the company would be better served by an adult-themed sci-fier than a “wimpy Walt Disney movie.” “E.T.”’s current inflation-adjusted domestic gross ~ $1.15 billion. Kind’ve a big deal.
No skin off Starman’s nose. The movie’s title character might not have the same merchandising thrust (An action doll in plaid? Pass.) but Bridges’ take on the space visitor is as eye-popping as designer Carlo Rambaldi’s extra-terrestrial is eye-bulging, a standout performance free of latex. Not only is Bridges playing an alien but an alien wearing the human form for the first time. Try conveying innocence, curiosity and physical impasse under the aura of higher intelligence. No, not like Mr. Bean. Over a century of film does gives us some examples though ~ “Star Trek: The Motion Picture”’s humanoid-turned-alien-probe Ilia (mostly robotic), “Invasion of the Body Snatchers”’ people-imitating pods (emotionally vacant), and Carpenter’s own “They Live” (stuck up/practically human). “K-Pax” is one of the few recent productions that gives its human-emtombed alien a distinct personality, not a criticism as such, but between celestial humanoids who already put their pants on one leg at a time (Luke Skywalker, Kal-El, etc.) and stolid man/machine constructs (Robocop, Universal Solider), Bridges’ performance seems more unique than not. He was nominated for an Oscar and won a Saturn for the role.
I’m not sure how audiences would take a “Starman” today. On one hand, it’s a simple love story well told. The chemistry is strong, locations varied, the action coherent and the effects designed to support, not dominate. On the other, it uses a heap of the very elements that any 40-year-old moviegoer would today call cliché. “E.T.” too. There are plenty of examples ~ the lone spaceman in America, the healing powers (E.T.’s from glowing fingertips; Starman’s from glowing ball-bearings), the taste test (Reese’s Pieces and beer vs. Dutch apple pie) and the relentless pursuit by the fascinated (SETI’s Mark Shermin (Charles Martin Smith) in “Starman”) and the fearmongering (any government agent will do). The good news 30 years on is that there’s an entire generation or two able to experience these films for the first time. Maybe some will see “Starman” before “E.T.” and judge it in its own shadow. The film isn’t perfect of course. Jack Nitzsche’s score lathers up the heart muscles at least once too often and while Jenny and Starman likely need more of an obstacle than time to fight against, their ability to outmaneuver the American government for 3 straight days is a tough pill (Orange mustang, orange hat. Come on.) But neither are deal breakers for this modern fairytale. “Shall I tell you what I find beautiful about you? You are at your very best when things are worst.” Lines like these can either hit or miss. When they hit, something must be working.
