Search Results

This chapter examines In the Mouth of Madness (1995) within the context of John Carpenter's wider filmography. It explores not only how the film incorporates and builds on many of the ideas that he has explored throughout his career, but also the ways in which it differs and stands apart from his other works. In the Mouth of Madness marks the climax of the director's self-named ‘Apocalypse Trilogy’, preceded by The Thing (1982) and Prince of Darkness (1987), whilst it also speaks to his wider eschatological preoccupations, as well recurring Carpenterian themes around the loss of free will, a paranoid distrust of mass industry and global corporations, and the cataclysmic resurgence of an ancient evil. The fact that Carpenter retroactively labelled these films a trilogy in no way diminishes how effectively they function as one cohesive piece. But while the themes of In the Mouth of Madness are classic Carpenter, artistically it represents a departure from some of his most recognisable stylistic trademarks, namely his editing, camerawork, and use of music.

This chapter investigates how John Carpenter's In the Mouth of Madness (1995) serves as a direct tribute to the writings of H.P. Lovecraft, examining how his influence shapes the narrative structure and conceptual ideologies of the film. Lovecraft's attitude towards the universe, and humanity's place within it, is so singularly nihilistic that it constitutes its own philosophical-literary construct: cosmicism. With In the Mouth of Madness, Carpenter is among the few filmmakers who has seriously attempted to present cosmicism in cinematic terms: to film the unknowable, the unspeakable, and the unseeable. Ultimately, one may consider the film not only as an attempt to respectfully bring forth Lovecraft's ‘horrible slimy things’ to the screen, but also to render the unspeakable metaphysical horrors of his universe and the futility of humanity's place within it. Comparing In the Mouth of Madness to other cinematic adaptations of Lovecraft's work, the chapter argues that Carpenter's film displays a rare understanding of Lovecraftian ideologies, offering up a rich cinematic conceptualisation of his distinct brand of cosmic horror, despite not being based on any one specific Lovecraft text.

This chapter evaluates how the figure of Sutter Cane, the protagonist in John Carpenter's In the Mouth of Madness (1995), and his elevated celebrity persona, are very much a knowing homage to that other giant of horror fiction, Stephen King. To best understand how Sutter Cane is as much a product of King as he is of H.P. Lovecraft, it is worth noting that King himself is a graduate from the school of Lovecraft. Similar to the ways in which it makes reference to Lovecraft both on a surface and on a deeper textual level, In the Mouth of Madness also positions King as far more than a nominal surrogate for Cane. In addition to allusions to King's celebrity and popularity, perhaps more significantly it incorporates many themes central to King's fiction into its own narrative. Placing an author as a central character is one of King's signature tropes, and like many of King's writer-protagonists, Cane acts as a conduit for the ensuing horror.

This chapter assesses the various modes of self-reflexivity evident in John Carpenter's In the Mouth of Madness (1995), and how they are used to create meaning and subvert audience expectations. In the Mouth of Madness is many things. It is a tribute to H.P. Lovecraft and an homage to Stephen King. It is a critique of religious fanaticism and a comment on the fragility of human existence. But, perhaps more than anything, In the Mouth of Madness is a film about horror. A loving tribute to one of cinema's most consistently misunderstood and vilified modes of artistic expression, the film scrutinises and questions the very nature of fear and how it affects its audience, demanding the genre be both celebrated and given the respect it deserves. In doing so, it positions John Carpenter himself at the very centre, self-reflexively pondering his role as artist and creator of horrific images.

This introductory chapter provides an overview of John Carpenter's In the Mouth of Madness. When the film opened in 1995, it received a response sadly all too familiar for Carpenter: one of general indifference. Flagrantly disregarding the film's conceptual scope and narrative complexities, Roger Ebert's review was representative of a frustratingly predictable critical refusal to engage with the film on an intellectual level — much like Pauline Kael, he seemed closed off to the idea that a horror movie could offer something smart, something other than ‘dumb’ scares. While In the Mouth of Madness has collected its fair share of admirers along the way, it has not received anywhere near the critical and academic reassessment afforded to other Carpenter classics. As such, the reason for this book is to reappraise and reclaim a film still undervalued by horror fans and critics alike, and rightly position it as one of John Carpenter's most accomplished and compelling pieces of work.

This chapter discusses the cinematic horror landscape at the time John Carpenter's In the Mouth of Madness was first released, explaining why the film was so unfairly neglected in 1995. It is often acknowledged among horror fans that the early 1990s was not the strongest period in the genre's history. In fact, it has been argued that the first half of the decade represented one of the most significant lulls that US horror cinema has been witness to, with the volume of film production, box office takings, and overall audience interest hitting an all-time low. Of course, such lulls can only ever really come after a boom, and the previous decade had been a highly prolific and profitable time for the genre. But while the 1980s were littered with innovative horror classics, it is also recognised as the era of the sequel, a time when the franchise reigned supreme and horror cinema became less about striving for new ideas than the increasingly cynical (but lucrative) expansion of those which had come before. Ultimately, not only did In the Mouth of Madness debut during the closing moments of this significant horror depression, it came at a time when no one was expecting great things from its director.

This chapter focuses on religion as a common motif employed throughout John Carpenter's In the Mouth of Madness (1995). As with many Western horror films, Christianity serves as a theological foundation, but Carpenter's film also draws interesting parallels with the Church of Scientology. In its depiction of the all-knowing, omnipotent author, able to alter reality with the mere power of their words, In the Mouth of Madness elevates the figure of the writer to near-religious status. As Sutter Cane types away on his very own ‘word processor of the Gods’, he too becomes one of those Gods, with divine control over those in his literary kingdom. With this notion in mind, the chapter explores the ways in which Carpenter's film repositions the writer from mere cultural commentator to modern-day prophet, or untouchable celestial being. It also considers how the film utilises theological concepts to form the basis of its philosophical framework, ultimately presenting religious cultdom as an extension of Carpenter's critiques on mindless consumerism and his apocalyptic obsessions with the loss of individuality and free will.

This chapter addresses the ontological concerns in John Carpenter's In the Mouth of Madness (1995) by focusing on its radical aesthetic and philosophical disorientations: the non-linear presentation of time, cyclical narratives and visual repetition, and the fundamental distrust of perception. Parallels between the existential preoccupations of In the Mouth of Madness and The Matrix (1999) have already been drawn. Both The Matrix and In the Mouth of Madness work with the exciting dramatic potential of the idea that reality is not an absolute that can be reliably perceived, it is something we agree upon collectively, adding in a dash of malevolence to Cartesian scepticism — what if some external, evil force were constructing the veil of reality upon which duped masses then agreed upon? Crucially, though, Carpenter does not create a crusading action film that re-installs a sense of stable, authentic reality once this veil has been lifted, as the Wachowskis did. Instead, he crafts a more obtuse, surreal cinematic vision of what might be called Cartesian paranoia — crucially, a horror film.

This concluding chapter argues that the narrative of John Carpenter's In the Mouth of Madness (1995) positions artistic creativity as deadly. However, the film as a whole can be read as a celebration of art and, more specifically, of horror as a legitimate mode of intellectual expression. Philosophically speaking, the film is a frisky hybrid of nihilistic Lovecraftian cosmicism and thoroughly playful 1990s postmodernism — complete with joking genre references and deft sociological satire. The film may be dealing with some heavy philosophical themes, but it is important not to forget that part of the pleasure of Carpenter's horrific brand of postmodernism lies in its sense of independent, anarchic creativity. This may well be one of Carpenter's most fatalistic works, but at the same time it is one of his most perversely playful, and most joyous.

This chapter discusses Wes Craven's New Nightmare and John Carpenter's In The Mouth of Madness that blurred existing horror cinema and horror literature with reality and pseudo-realities. It analyses how the acknowledgment of both creators and audience within intricate, self-reflexive narratives equally strive to operate as serious, frightening genre films in an age of pastiche and repetition. It also talks about Last Action Hero from 1993 as a higher-profile failure that was conceived by two neophyte writers as a parody of 1980s action films. The chapter examines the icons of horror that formerly dominate the covers of genre bible Fangoria that were fading from public popularity as the 'McDonaldisation of horror'. It describes the fervour to capitalise on the popularity of anti-heroes like Freddy Krueger that led to increasingly campy and gimmicky sequels.