When I was in college, most of the horror hosts of my childhood had faded away. Ron 'The Ghoul' Sweed had moved his show to Detroit. Marty 'Superhost' Sullivan had retired. Keven 'Son of the Ghoul' Scarpino failed to keep the real energy of his predecessor. Big Chuck and Little John remained on late night TV on Fridays, but they seemed to be showing the same films over and over. But the horror film host gave way, at least for me, to films curated by my peers in the dormitory. This is when I first came across Sam Raimi and Stuart Gordon and David Cronenberg and David Lynch. I remember watching Evil Dead in the TV Lounge of long lost Munzenmeyer Hall at Kent State. Several of us gathered to watch Videodrome in my dorm room, appropriately played on a well-worn and battered videotape copy (Long live the New Flesh!). We talked about The Lost Boys while sitting under a poster of Re-Animator and The Stuff on my closet door.
And one of the films that got a lot of play was Tobe Hooper's 1985 science fiction horror story Lifeforce. Tobe Hooper had a hard time in Hollywood, but among horror aficionados, he is considered a rare talent. He is the the man who established so many horror film tropes in his seminal work The Texas Chainsaw Massacre (1974). He directed the mainstream success Poltergeist (1982) however there were persistent rumors that it was actually directed by Steven Spielberg (Spielberg denies this, and even published a letter in The Hollywood Reporter giving full credit to Hooper.). As a result, Hooper never really achieved the level of fame that he probably deserved.
Lifeforce is an adaptation of Colin Wilson's 1974 book The Space Vampires. I have not read the book, so I cannot comment on its relationship to the film to the novel, however it is well known that Wilson considered it the worst film adaptation of a novel ever (and not just one of his own). It tells the story of a space mission which finds a gigantic alien spacecraft in the tail of Halley's comet and discovers three human looking occupants seemingly in suspended animation in crystalline chambers, and the desiccated remains of hundreds of bat-like aliens. They bring these 'humans' aboard their ship, the shuttle 'Churchill' and start back for Earth. Contact is lost, and the ship is found drifting by Earth-based tracking stations, and a rescue mission is mounted. The rescue shuttle discovers the interior of the ship has been burned, and the crew apparently incinerated, though the escape pod is missing. They also find the 3 alien bodies intact and bring them back to Earth and take them to a research facility in London.
As it turns out, the beings are merely dormant. The female wakes up, and immediately all hell breaks loose, as she drains the life-force from the doctor examining her, in a spectacular light show, and leaves behind his drained corpse. She then walks, fully nude out of the facility, killing anyone who tries to stop her.
Lets stop and talk the Space Girl for a moment, shall we?
If there is an enduring image or something that most people remember from this film, its the fact that Mathilda May spends most of this film completely naked. Hooper apparently claimed he made that choice essentially to emphasize how alien she was. I can sort of see what he was going for... sort of. She is a completely flawless beauty, perfect in form, but also utterly unconcerned with conventional human morality. On the other hand.... its a male director, who keeps his leading lady naked for an entire film, and its hard to not see that as sexualizing her in a really over the top way. Particularly as the male vampires don't get this treatment, and once they get dressed, they stay dressed for the remainder of the film. There seems to be a lot to unpack regarding Ms. May's nudity in this film.
I can look back at when I viewed this film in my college days, and how I reacted to these scenes. I would have seen this shortly after it came out, and I would have been in my first year of college... so my late teens. Mathilda May would have been roughly my own age. As a straight male, in my late teens, early 20s, I am not sure I reacted the way most others of my age would have. I recall seeing her nude, and being attracted by her, but at the same time, her constant nudity in this film made me uncomfortable. I can't speak to how my dorm-mates reacted. I seem to remember some crude or roughly appreciative comments by some of them. They didn't seem to be as uncomfortable as me. I wanted to look... but I also found myself looking away in embarrassment, as if this was something I shouldn't be seeing. Which is odd, in a way, because through most of this film, she isn't doing anything really 'sexual' in nature.... at least not until the final scenes of the film, and even then, its little more than kissing being done. Its also not like I was repelled by the female form...
So, on re-watching it with more mature eyes, I wonder if perhaps Hooper may have been onto something. I have often puzzled over the idea of that vampires are inherently sexy, or that there is a connection between sex and death. I've always been of the opinion that Freudian analysis of film only works if the filmmaker himself was deliberately exploiting Freudian ideas and imagery. Freudian analysis of horror films annoys me even more. Many of Freud's ideas have become discredited... apparently everywhere EXCEPT in film critique. The vampire has been romanticized, by film makers since the time of Lugosi''s Dracula, and I think that the idea of 'romance' has been misidentified with sexuality. Consequently, when you look at the vampire in many films, they come across as seducers. While there is an element of that in Lifeforce, it comes across as ... 'tainted', in a way that none of the other vampire films manage.
The Space Girl is absolutely attractive. But she is never put into deliberately provocative poses or framing. She moves in an unnatural way, even if she is graceful. She moves like a robot. And I think that is the key to what Hooper is going for. There is an uncanny valley effect that he generates with her, by keeping her naked and flawless, by having her move in such an alien manner, she becomes UNNATURAL. Had they put her in clothing, she would have suddenly seemed much more human... there would have been some suggestion that she understood aesthetics or style or morality. The connection between The Space Girl and the astronaut Col. Tom Carlson is described, by Carlson, as a form of 'love', but when she speaks of it, she describes it more in terms you might consider parasitical, while his descriptions indicate he feels something is WRONG with it. Its unnatural. The other doctor that survives the attack describes it as "sexual, but terrifying". Several characters comment on the intense 'feminine energy' of the Space Girl. This gets more into Jungian archetypes than Freudian, and again, I think its deliberate. I suppose a case could be made that this is a woman who is confident in her own sexuality, and Hooper is saying that should be feared by men, but I don't particularly find this a terrifying thing. In fact I consider it a good thing. "Feminine Energy" is not something that bothers me. So, what is so unnerving about her to me?
Here is the thing. I mentioned before that the way she moves is unnatural. We've seen the other 'vampires' become something other than human. We see them, both living and dead, as bat-like creatures. This human body that the Space Girl wears is just a simulacrum. She even claims that she pulled the image of a 'perfect woman' from Carlson's mind to appear this way for him. She is not really human, she constantly reminds us when she speaks that she is "OTHER". When she feeds on humans, there is no consent... except with Col. Carlson, and even he admits he felt 'compelled' to share his life force with her. This is not romance... this is rape. And I think THAT is what is uncomfortable about it to me.
And its the same reason I am uncomfortable about other vampires... they bypass consent. They compel. They take under coercion and compulsion.... which is, ultimately, rape. It doesn't matter that it is a male or a female doing it. What we have in Lifeforce is something inhuman, masquerading as human, and surviving through rape... the taking of lifeforce, (or blood in the case of vampire films) through coercion and force. And, in the case of Carlson, its manipulating what I consider the noblest of human emotions, love, which is personally upsetting.
Looking at it again, we see a beautiful naked woman, but we always see her in settings of death and destruction, or in clinical settings. It is NOT sexy. There is a very different feeling to seeing a naked woman in a stairwell, rather than in, say, a bedroom. We see her in a lab, we see her in a psychiatrists office, we see her in a ruined cathedral, we see her walking across broken glass. She is unconcerned. She is stiff, and she moves in that weirdly artificial way. As I said before, she exists in the 'Uncanny Valley'... that point there something inhuman becomes almost, but not quite human, and the a result both attracts and repels you at the same time.
Which sounds like it could be what Hooper was hoping... EXCEPT.... Except its ONLY the female vampire which remains naked. The male vampires are naked initially, and then find clothes, and remain clothed for the remainder of the film. Which causes the line from Colonel Caine, delivered with deep solemnity, after the discover of the first victim outside the lab "Now she has clothes." a completely irrelevant observation... Nor does she even NEED clothes as apparently she can shapeshift and she can possess others, as seen with Dr Armstrong, who dies in a bizarre scene when all his blood opts to leave his body and reshape itself into Space Girl. The male vampires, by the way, shapeshift into glowing balls of light and zip around, so, presumably she can do that too. But even then, when they shift back to human form, they are fully and stylishly dressed. Which means that her nudity was.... unnecessary?
That said, the film DOES play with our perceptions of sex, gender and sexuality. In one instance, we see Carlson communicating with the Space Girl telepathically, and we see most of the scene playing out between them... And then they kiss, and we are reminded, by a shift in perspective, that she is currently possessing the body of Sir Patrick Stewart, and we see the two actors kissing instead. At another point, Carlson reveals that "the girl" is a masochist, and wish him to FORCE her location from her through violence, and offers Col. Caine the opportunity to leave the room, at which Caine cheekily replies that he's a natural voyeur and opts to remain. Again... this is upsetting more because of consent than at the idea of sadomasochism. Consensual kinks are one thing, but while "the girl" may be into it, its questionable whether or not her host is, and that brings it back to rape. The lines of love, sex, rape, heterosexuality, homosexuality, and various kinks like BDSM and Voyeurism all blur. Its a bit of a weird message in the masochism aspect though... If the Space Girl is such a powerful 'feminine energy' then being a masochist sort of undermines the idea that she is a strong, 'in control' woman. The message is definitely mixed. While its not impossible for a this combination of qualities to exist, it does sort of speak to a weird male set of perceptions.
Its a curious mix, which does seem to include Freudian and Jungian characteristics, despite my insistence that they don't tend to occur unless they are deliberately inserted. I think their insertion here was deliberate. Tobe Hooper apparently went on record as saying the film was about "Men dealing with the feminine mystique or the feminine terror" and males dealing with 'the feminine in themselves.', which is extremely Jungian. The problem, I think, is that Hooper isn't really qualified to speak on this issue, and he falls on his face. Points for trying I guess, especially at a time like 1985, when such things like that really were not done. But his idea, apparently, for 'dealing' with the feminine means beating it into compliance as our central female is 'an extreme masochist', or stabbing both her and yourself with a phallic sword... which is not exactly an enlightened view.
The ending is ambiguous, and puzzling. Carlson stabs both the Space Girl and himself, impaling them both on the same sword. They are apparently dead. But there is a final, collective burst of Lifeforce energy, which blows the top off the cathedral and transmits up to the orbiting vampire ship. We then see both the Space Girl, and Carlson, and seemingly rejuvenated bat creatures, all in their glass coffins as the ship leaves orbit, presumably to take its place behind Halley's comet again. We see Caine in the ruined Cathedral, but we don't see what happened to the rest of the infected in London. The massive release of Lifeforce to the ship seemed like it implied that the Space Girl simply.... pulled in all the life force collected by the infected (which had apparently previously been harvested by her 'mates' and delivered to her.)
There are many interesting subtexts in this film. Looked at in one way, this is an inverse telling of Dracula. A female 'Dracula' and her two male 'brides' come to England in search of new feeding grounds. She shares a psychic link with her chosen mate (Mina in Dracula, Col, Carlson in Lifeforce.) There is an expert in 'thanatology' in both (Van Helsing in Dracula, Dr. Hans Fallada in Lifeforce). Carlson comes across as a mixture of Mina Harker and brash American Quincy Morris, who eventually kills the main vampire with a blade and dies in the act (Although, I don't see a bowie knife and a massive sword of 'leaded iron' as being quite the same.) This leads to Colonel Caine being roughly a mix of Van Helsing and Arthur Holmwood. The vampires arrive in both cases aboard a ghost ship who's crew is either dead or gone overboard (The Demeter in Dracula, The Churchill in Lifeforce). Both stories involve an asylum, and the administrator of the asylum plays a part in each (Dr Seward in Dracula, and Dr. Armstrong in Lifeforce (And as a bonus, Armstrong acts as an Agent of the vampire, meaning he not only fulfills the Dr. Seward role, but the Renfield role as well.)
Looked at another way, they treat the vampire problem like a terrorist threat, which is why they call in Col. Caine from the SAS. They respond to the threat like they would to IRA involvement, including slapping D-Notices on the local press to blackout reports of what is happening, using military to cordon off the areas affected, and treating the Space Girl like she is live munitions. The scenes toward the end of the film, of London overrun by the zombie-like infected hunting for life force among rubble, burning vehicles, and with bodies strewn everywhere puts one in mind of a terrorist actions, and videos we've seen from Iraq and Afghanistan. In this scenario, the Vampire is seen as an immigrant bringing dangerous new ways to cause chaos.
We can see it as a Lovecraftian pastiche, as Wilson's original novel was intended. In this reading the film is about ancient, slumbering, alien evil that awakes and spreads havoc for a time and are largely indifferent to humans. It is explained through the film that these space vampires have visited Earth before, and our legends speak about them. There is some odd mythology at play here. Dr. Fallada talks about how to destroy the creatures, it basically by using a stake through the heart, but the stake must be made of "leaded iron" and not impaled through the heart but through "The energy center two inches below the heart." (Conveniently, 'leaded iron' appears to include bullets.)
The final scenes, of the infected swarming through the streets of London in an apocalyptic fury are haunting, and brought to my mind the madness of the final scenes of 1967's Five Million Years to Earth (Also known as Quatermass and the Pit in the UK). This was a more visceral scene of 'zombie apocalypse' than most actual zombie films of the era. The year this was released saw also the release of George Romero's Day of the Dead and Lamberto Bava's Demons which both have that apocalyptic feel, but fail to capture the chaos that Lifeforce does.
Honestly, another of the most haunting scenes for me was the point where Caine and Carlson arrive at the "secure facility" where the Prime Minister and the majority of the government have been moved. The PM asks them to wait while urgently calling for his secretary. The two men notice that he has left the door of his office slightly ajar after he takes the secretary inside, and curious, they peek in, and see the PM take the woman behind a screen... and then the light show indicating that he has been infected and is feeding on the poor woman. Caine and Carlson realize there is no help here, the Government is now compromised from the top down and immediately flee the facility. There was a bleakness to that reveal which you didn't often see in films of the time. Other films may mention offhand that the government has fallen... this shows it to you, and lets you feel the desperation.
In speaking about this film with friends, one of them stated "This is a bad movie." But is it? It is absolutely a PROBLEMATIC movie, for the reasons I stated above regarding the odd choices about its central female character. But, conversely, the story has no really serious plot holes in it. There are certainly some bizarre choices which make little sense, but nothing that exactly breaks the story. It remains consistent to its own rules. The disappearance of one character is actually explained in a throwaway piece of dialogue saying he was killed off-screen. In fact, we can't really fault the story without faulting Dracula before it. The special effects are top notch, and visually the film holds up well. It is beautifully shot. The design of the vampiric spacecraft manages to be bio-mechanical without being a blatant rip-off of H.R. Geiger's designs in Alien (1979).
The acting is solid, with the possible exception of the bland Steve Railsback as Colonel Tom Carlson, who ... is not compelling as a lead in this. But his unlikability leads us to watch instead Peter Firth as SAS Colonel Colin Caine, who turns in an understated but fantastic performance as a disciplined and unflappable badass who manages to make wearing a trench coat over a leather jacket and turtleneck look cool. Patrick Stewart plays a minor but important role, and plays it with all the skill you'd expect. You'll also see veteran character actors in other roles and doing a fine job. And you really can't fault the bravery and professionalism of Mathilda May. She OWNS the role of the Space Girl, despite what must have been incredibly difficult shooting conditions for her, since she literally had to build her character without benefit of wardrobe. The musical score is by freaking Henry Mancini. John Dykstra provides the Special Effects. Dan O'Bannon provides the script (though admittedly, there IS some clumsy dialogue here.) This movie has some solid talent behind it.
In other words, the film is entertaining, watchable.... but deeply flawed. It is not so much a BAD movie, as its a confusing, and somewhat exploitative one. It is perhaps 10 years ahead of its time in a lot of ways. It probably needed those 10 years to completely digest and process some of the themes it thinks its dealing with, in order to show them in a more mature way. As a product of 1985, viewed in context, it is actually quite shocking. Its easy to see why it did not garner much of an audience at the time. The cinema-going public wasn't quite prepared for this sort of experience.
In preparing this article, I've looked over a number of interviews and reviews of the film, from contemporary and modern critics and fans. One of the odd things I've noticed is the large number of articles bemoaning who was NOT cast in the film. Like every movie, the makers often have other actors in mind, and sometimes actors sign on early, and leave the project for various reasons. Some reviewers seem almost offended in those cases in this movie. Apparently, Sir John Gielgud turned down the role of Dr. Armstrong. Olivia Hussey was once attached to play Ellen Donaldson. Klaus Kinski was to play Dr. Fallada. Michael Caine was sought for the role of Col. Colin Caine. And my reaction to this is.... So? Could any of them have really made that big of an impact on the film? Stewart does a fantastic job as Armstrong, and I have serious doubts if Gielgud could have done it better. Ellen Donaldson is a frankly forgettable character, and having an actress of Ms. Hussey's caliber playing her would not have made it any more memorable. Klaus Kinski is such a unique presence that he would have been a distraction in the role of Fallada, to say nothing of it being a sort of role he's already associated with. Michael Caine wouldn't have played Colin Caine at this stage in his career, he would have been playing Michael Caine, and his absence allows for the grittier, more calculated SAS officer we get in Peter Firth.
As a final little note.... listen to the opening narration. Is that not John Larroquette? IMDB says its unconfirmed. However, Larroquette's first movie role was providing the narrative voice that opens Tobe Hooper's The Texas Chainsaw Massacre (1974) and he was a friend of Hooper's. He went on to provide narration for other films in the Texas Chainsaw Massacre series, so it wouldn't be a stretch that he did this opening monologue either. He would have just been starting his breakout role as Dan Fielding on Night Court at this time, but that show had not yet become the huge sitcom phenomenon it would later be. Prior to Night Court, his longest lasting role was probably Lt. Bob Anderson on the WWII action series Black Sheep Squadron (1976-78).
