Editorials
[Horror Queers] ‘Looker’: Goofy Mystery or Prescient Analysis of Future Tech?
Each month in Horror Queers, Joe and Trace tackle a horror film with LGBTQ+ themes, a high camp quotient or both. For lifelong queer horror fans like us, there’s as much value in serious discussions about representation as there is in reading a ridiculously silly/fun horror film with a YAS KWEEN mentality. Just know that at no point will we be getting Babashook.
Be sure to check out and subscribe to the Horror Queers podcast! We’re still writing one article a month, but we release one podcast episode each week and discuss one film per episode. Subscribe on Apple Podcasts, Google Play, Stitcher, TuneIn, or RSS.
***SPOILERS for Looker follow.***
Synopsis: Three of four models who had plastic surgery done by Dr. Larry Roberts (Albert Finney) are dead. Neither the cops nor Larry believe they’re suicides, so who’s behind the murders?
Queer Aspect: FASHION!
Where to Stream: Looker is available to stream for $2.99 on Amazon Prime Video.
Trace
Oh my, Joe. What is this movie? Truth be told, I’m a bit flabbergasted that I’ve never heard of Michael Crichton(!)’s Looker before, but apparently a whole generation of horror fans are familiar with it as an HBO mainstay in the early ‘80s. What a time to be alive!
In all seriousness, though: this is some kooky shit, so let’s dive in.
Looker hit theaters on October 30, 1981, a full nine months before the release of Disney’s Tron, which is often credited with pioneering the use of similar computer technology in film. It is Looker, however, that has the distinction of being the first ever film to create 3D shading with a computer. Tron went on to become an underrated masterpiece, whereas Looker disappeared into the annals of forgettable trash. I mean, it is trash, but it sure is fun!
To say that Looker takes a kitchen sink approach to its narrative would be a massive understatement. It’s as if Crichton wanted to make three different movies but had no time, so he decided to merge them all into one. Thus, Looker was born. We’ve got your standard murder mystery, a takedown of corporate America, a romantic comedy and a sci-fi thriller. It’s….a lot. But that’s part of Looker’s charm, isn’t it?
But wait, is it really that dumb? Looking back, it’s impressive just how much Looker predicted the future. Hell, many later films would utilize similar plot points, including a corporation using commercials for evil including Halloween III: Season of the Witch and our beloved Josie and the Pussycats. Sure, Crichton’s execution of, well, everything, is ridiculous, but you have to appreciate the ideas at work here. It’s not as if Crichton isn’t a capable filmmaker (he did write and direct Westworld, after all), but perhaps he just didn’t have a full grasp of the material?
It’s a shame that the whole thing is so damn silly. I use the word “shame” loosely, because I find the film to be a complete blast, but would its legacy be different if it had taken the subject matter seriously? Maybe, maybe not. Looker is camp. I know that you and I have discussed whether or not a film knows it is camp on the podcast, but I’ll make the leap here and proclaim that Looker does not know it’s a bad movie. That’s what makes it so memorable! It’s the Zoolander of the ‘80s. It just doesn’t know it.
Oh, and can we please discuss how this is a PG-rated film? Yes, I’m aware that it was released before the creation of the PG-13 rating in 1984, but holy boobies, Batman! There are so many bare breasts in this film! It’s ironic because Looker is so clearly intended for gay males (I mean, that obviously wasn’t the original intent, but that’s most definitely the demographic it appeals to the most). After all, is there anything more gay than the film’s theme song? Because of course this movie has a theme song. It’s absolutely insane and I was living for every minute of it. I’d like to imagine that this was playing at night clubs in the ‘80s. That was probably a thing, right?
Joe, what did you think of Looker? Were you as enamored with it as I was? What did you think of the future technology Crichton predicted? How about that insane stunt in which one of the victims is thrown off her balcony and on to a car, only to see her legs bend over her head like a Barbie doll? Lastly, why was Digital Matrix having all of these models killed? Am I going crazy? I swear that was never explained. That has to be a major plot hole, right?
Joe
Trace, I will fully admit that I completely spaced on the giant plot hole about the models’ murders. But then again, the minute that you stop to consider the plot for even a half second, the whole thing comes tumbling down like a house of cards.
The obvious implication behind the murders is that once the girls have been rendered into pliable 3D models, the real life versions are no longer needed. So why kill them? Well, one theory is to remove them from circulation so that they can’t work for a competitor. The other is to keep them from talking about the process, which is shrouded in secrecy inside the Digital Matrix facility. It seems ridiculous to kill a model over a car commercial, but when you factor in the other uses we see in the climactic party sequence, all of the sudden maybe it makes sense? (Also: does that mean all of the other actors we see in the presentation are also dead? Or are models more disposable?).
So just what exactly is Digital Matrix’s plan for world domination? The entire set-up with the Senator and all of those tres chic party guests suggests that they had grand ambitions to affect the political climate (which reminds me of the end goal in Limitless), but then why bother with the kitchen cleaner commercial? Or the car commercial? Was the intent to infiltrate all sectors of commerce and politics? Trace, you mention a kitchen sink approach to this narrative, and that’s exactly what this bloated, confused presentation in the climax offers. If I were a powerful guest at that party, I would have tuned out well before the dead bodies began showing up on camera!
Of course, the simple truth is that Crichton doesn’t actually clarify anything, so we’re only left with assumptions. I’ll admit that in my youth, I was a huuuuuge fan of Crichton’s books…at least until I sadly discovered that he was a crazy climate change denier (I remember being so invested in Jurassic Park and The Lost World on a holiday that my family threatened to burn the books if I didn’t put them down). I didn’t actually know that he had worked in film outside of Westworld though, so when I saw his name on this, I was both surprised and wary. (It should be noted that he also wrote and directed Coma, which despite mixed reviews, appears to have directly inspired key visuals from Tarsem Singh’s The Cell).
But back to Looker. Oh lawd…what to say?
-Yes, the theme song is ICONIC (I 100% had it stuck in my head for DAYS). It seems to be one of the defining elements that has stuck around in pop culture. If you say the name of the film, fellow gays will sing it out. It’s like a mating call.
-Yes, the surprising amount of cleavage for a PG film is astonishing. Overall the film’s decor and attitude towards women strongly reminded me of a combination of the homoerotic volleyball scene in Top Gun, the casual nudity of Showgirls and a dash of Rhona Mitra’s pink-AF bedroom from Hollow Man (which we just recorded an audio commentary on last month).
-As for the depiction of the future…it’s surprisingly prescient, isn’t it? Not just the idea of using hypnosis in commercials, but the ownership of dead celebrities and their image as commodities. I definitely thought of all of the dead celebrities who have been brought back to shill for products like Diet Coke, Coors, and Dirt Devil as early as 1991, as well as the weird hologram concert tours as recently as this year with Amy Winehouse and Whitney Huston. These real life examples are incredibly icky and reek of desperate cash grabs, much like Digital Matrix’s plot here!
This all treats the film as something serious, though, and that’s not the most memorable aspect of Looker. We’re overlooking the weird 80s of it (Albert Finney as a hot plastic surgeon whose model patients all in love with him?!), the ridiculous climax when real people accidentally appear in computer-generated commercials to hilarious effect, and/or the ludicrous acronym for the epilepsy-inducing light gun that gives the film 1/2 of its name (L.O.O.K.E.R = Light Ocular-Oriented Kinetic Emotive Responses. The other ½ of the name? Hot chicks, naturally).
Trace: what were some of your favourite scenes? I, too, loved the model’s bent-over backwards car crash, but were there other action sequences that caught your eye (like, say, a certain light gun car battle worthy of Mario Kart)? What did you think of “Moustache Man”, played by former NFL player Tim Rossovich? And finally, in the spirit of Westworld, what would your HBO miniseries remake of this property look like?
Trace
Joe, I’m so proud of you for referencing Mario Kart, of all things! I know you’re not much of a gaymer so that reference put a big ol’ smile on my face in these troubled times. It’s the little things, ya know?
But yes, that car chase 100% reminded me of a round of Mario Kart, particularly the smash cut to Finney’s car just sitting in the fountain. Comedy gold, I tell you! That being said, I confess that I didn’t think much of moustache man! A) Your NFL reference means nothing to me. B) He’s just sort of…there? I don’t know, I was more fascinated with James Coburn since he’ll always be Tex from Charade to me (yes, I’m aware he’s been in a lot of films, but that’s my nostalgia talking).
Anyway, I call bullshit on your reasoning regarding why the models are being killed. The reasons you listed could easily be covered in a non-disclosure agreement or non-compete agreement in their contracts! I guess Digital Matrix is trying to be thorough, but I honestly think the film tries to present the company as not entirely evil. Am I alone in thinking that? The murdering of the models, despite being the central premise of the film, feels so far removed from whatever is happening in the climax that I almost forgot about it (and let’s be honest: the film certainly did). I do wonder if the fact that the main villain of the film is female has any significance, however. Yes, Coburn’s John Reston is technically the “big bad” of the film, but it’s Leigh Taylor Young’s Jennifer Long who’s really the mastermind behind Digital Matrix.
This climax, though. This. climax. While I don’t appreciate how our female lead (a post-The Partridge Family but pre-L.A Law Susan Dey) is relegated to a damsel in distress (she spends the entirety of the climax trying to fish handcuff keys out of Young’s pocket), the absolute insanity of watching Finney run from commercial to commercial is a non-stop laugh riot. And it goes on for So. Fucking. Long! Like all of Looker, it’s needlessly complex for a simple chase scene, but goddamn if it doesn’t entertain.
To answer your question regarding an HBO adaptation, however: I think it’s very doable. Looker is an admittedly goofy film and, given the technological landscape we’re in now, you could update the effects and keep the central murder mystery in place (well, with the exception of adding in a motive for the murders, but you understand). Cast someone like George Clooney in the Albert Finney role and then a young ingenue like Jessica Rothe in the Susan Dey role, add in some dead models and some future tech and bam! The next Westworld is here. Oh! Or do we gender-flip it and cast an Amy Adams or a Diane Lane in the Albert Finney role and someone like Timothée Chalamet in the Susan Dey role? The possibilities are endless!
At the end of the day, Looker is fun, forgettable fluff. I envy the people who grew up with the film because of repeat showings on HBO because Looker is to them what films like I Know What You Did Last Summer and Deep Blue Sea were to me (though those films have gone on to gain more of a substantial cult following than Looker has). I just have a hard time trying to peg what Looker is trying to be. Maybe it doesn’t know! Maybe that’s why, all in all, I’m not going to remember Looker next week. It was a fun diversion, but nothing more.
Joe, what are your final thoughts on Looker? Will it earn a place in your “show it to your friends” hall of fame or is it a fun one-time watch for you? Do you, like me, also lament the lack of Susan Dey in the third act? Cindy is such a spitfire that the film is borderline misogynistic for wasting her. Oh, and how about those nuns calling Larry a “stupid idiot” when he almost mows them down during that Mario Kart sequence? Finally, if you could LOOKER someone with the L.O.O.K.E.R., who would it be and why?
Joe
First off, you probably shouldn’t peg Looker without its consent, even if it is just to find out what it’s trying to be. Lol.
Secondly, I applaud your fictional casting of Rothe as the young spitfire. Chalamet, on the other hand, would have to channel some serious Laurie-from-Little Women vibes to be this convincingly charismatic.
In all seriousness, you’re absolutely right: Looker is a very silly film and likely not one that I’ll revisit with any regularity, although I did enjoy it a lot. I’m especially glad that Eric Chamelo, the screenwriter of The Perfection and our guest on the American Psycho episode of the podcast, recommended it for us because it wasn’t even on my radar before!
As for rewatchability…I could certainly imagine throwing this on in the middle of a movie marathon with friends, particularly folks who don’t like horror or aren’t 100% paying attention. Looker is a film that doesn’t benefit from close analysis, so being distracted and tuning in exclusively to the Mario Kart/nun cuss sequence would still be plenty entertaining. I can totally picture scheduling Looker in-between Death Spa and Killer Workout, followed by Chopping Mall and Night of the Comet (just to ensure there were films with actual substance in there).
Thinking about that ending, though, definitely makes me mad. I know it was far more conventional back in 1981 to simply tie your heroine up, but Cindy literally doesn’t do anything in that climax. Even after Jennifer Long is shot dead by Ominous Moustache (as I referred to him in my notes) and she stumbles back to the elevator/platform, all Cindy does is grapple with her for a bit. Sure she frees herself and then what…hides? What the hell, movie?! Why even bother with these scenes?!
I fully expected Cindy to either be captured by Reston (who is absolutely the villain – nice try) or save Larry! But no. Apparently hot women can show their boobs, occasionally crack wise and get thrown off balconies, but handle a gun or muster some agency? Absolutely not. Oh Crichton, you misogynistic hack!
Before I describe how I would employ the L.O.O.K.E.R gun on someone, I will commend the film for the sequence when Larry gets zapped repeatedly at Cindy’s apartment. The sound design, the editing of the clocks and the simple visuals (the overflowing sink, the confusingly more frozen open freezer) are really effective at creating a sense of unease as we – and Larry – wondered how much time had passed.
Now, back to the fun question! Unfortunately, we’re writing this while still under house arrest, so with limited options, I suppose I would use the L.O.O.K.E.R. gun on idiots who aren’t practicing social distancing at the grocery store (seriously, just stay away from me!). In sunnier circumstances, however, think of how hilarious it would be to create mischief at parties: stun your friends, then move items around so that they doubt their sobriety. Start small and then escalate as the night goes on. Is it juvenile? Definitely. But is it funny? I think so.
Next time on Horror Queers: In the spirit of being locked in, we’re traveling to Spain for 1986’s In A Glass Cage, a film about a male nurse torturing an incapacitated former Nazi! It’s streaming on Tubi (US) or you can watch the whole thing on YouTube.
Don’t forget to catch up on our previous Horror Queers articles here or check out our podcast page here.
In this day and age, the word “troll” is often used to describe various online nuisances. Yet as abundant and irksome as the modern troll can be, they aren’t usually as fearsome as their mythological counterparts. I’m not talking about the small and gentler versions that have become more common to see in media. No, there are much bigger and scarier trolls out there—and André Øvredal’s movie Troll Hunter is one of the best places to find them.
It doesn’t take long for Troll Hunter (or Trolljegeren) to dump the Blair Witch Project-esque setup and aim for something a lot fresher. The trajectory of the story is augmented by Otto Jespersen’s character Hans, the titular Troll Hunter. The second he comes barreling out of the deep, dark woods and shouts “troll” at the camera, this movie takes a turn into what feels like uncharted territory. Not only subject-wise, but also conceptually.
For fantastical and made-up subject matter in cinema, found footage is a fast way to add a guise of believability. After all, what we accept to be the most crucial aspect of documentaries—the truth—rubs off on pseudo-documentaries, despite our understanding of the pretense involved. That is what Øvredal delivered with Troll Hunter: a movie so convincing that some viewers wondered if trolls really do exist. So, had this been straightforwardly made, it likely wouldn’t have been as effective. Conventional narratives would be more inclined to treat something like trolls as flat out unreal, and never try to convince the audience to think otherwise.
Hans petrifies the three-headed Tusseladd troll.
The viewers, like the characters trailing Hans, are quickly thrown into the deeper end of that extraordinary story. They have to process all this new information while staying on the go. So, although there is no significant amount of meandering, narratively or physically, there is still a good amount of atmosphere, not to mention tension building. It’s never anything frightful, but then again, Troll Hunter isn’t your standard offering of horror; it’s more on the low end of the dark fantasy spectrum. We aren’t ever spirited away to a faraway world—we stay in rather familiar surroundings, as well as dip into those less so. The outcome is a movie where you’re constantly more in awe than in terror.
As fantasy fiction might do, Troll Hunter prefers not to deal with incredulity. There is no time to waste on doubt, as interviewer Thomas (Glenn Erland Tosterud), soundperson Johanna (Johanna Mørck), and cameraman Kalle (Tomas Alf Larsen) all follow Hans around, recording whatever this character is willing to reveal about his bizarre job. Of course, the Troll Hunter himself is not an open book; in that respect, the diegetic documentary fails to fully capture and unpack the more interesting of its two subjects. Yes, all those giant, monstrous trolls are indeed incredible, but understandably, your mind wanders to their pursuer. What kind of person signs up for this gig and then chooses to stick with it for so long?
Reviews have called out Troll Hunter for its lack of character development. In regard to Thomas and his fellow documentarians, that criticism is valid, but bear in mind, they aren’t the focus of the story, either. Meanwhile, Hans is a well-crafted character. At least better than first realized. Before he was introduced, Hans had already grown tired of the troll grind. Fed up with that low compensation for his services, resentful of the bureaucracy, and wanting to expose his employer on a large scale, Hans’ discontent is glaring.
Then there are those finer details about the Troll Hunter, such as that indifference to both the natural splendor of his everyday surroundings and the affections of an obviously smitten colleague, that also suggest some level of despondency. So it is fair to say this movie doesn’t feature any sizable growth for its characters; however, the namesake isn’t underwritten. No doubt, putting a real-life character like Otto Jespersen in that role is partly why Hans is so fascinating—maybe even relatable.
Otto Jespersen as Hans the Troll Hunter.
There is always a small risk whenever using the term “mockumentary” to describe a found-footage movie, as the word could imply humor where there is none. In the case of Troll Hunter, the term’s usage is appropriate. Some folks have claimed the English-dubbed version has the more comedic tone, however, the Norwegian cut isn’t exactly humorless. Apart from the trolls’ absurd appearances, this is a movie where the characters nearly choke on the monsters’ farts, and Christians are like walking targets. Hans’ complete apathy towards everything is another cause of laughter. Overall, the comedy is intentionally dry and inconsistent. Unfunny, though? Absolutely not.
In a movie where endemic creatures are maltreated, as well as disavowed from living freely and peacefully, it’s hard not to notice the ecological message buried beneath the story. In addition to that is the unmistakable political satire. There is this whole business about intrusive and unsightly power lines—like trolls, they’re big blemishes on the land—that leads to what is perhaps the movie’s funniest moment. The scene in question is that one where certain electric lines, the ones secretly being used to keep the trolls at bay, go in a loop and don’t actually send power to any residents. Yet the monitors of said lines don’t find this at all weird. So it stands to reason that Øvredal was having a go at those who accept the government’s doings without question.
Looking past the fact that trolls aren’t actually real, this movie is an enlightening source of information. And not just for international audiences; Norwegians, too, get schooled about their homeland’s own mythology. It’s also evident from everything on screen that Øvredal and his crew were enthusiastic about the topic. The creature designs are the most indicative of that zeal; those imaginative yet myth-accurate manifestations are equally amusing and grotesque. One second you’re laughing at their phallic noses, the next you’re white-knuckling during a hairy sequence. Most surprisingly is how well the trolls’ visual effects hold up after fifteen years. It’s not all spotless, but on the whole, they remain impressive.
Vouching for a mockumentary about trolls isn’t easy, but those who do come around and give it a shot will more than likely be grateful for the recommendation. For Troll Hunter is a real find in that vast and varied genre we call “found footage“.
A bridge troll reaches up for food and finds Hans decked out in armor.
You must be logged in to post a comment.