In Defense of Halloween II

After the unprecedented success of John Carpenter's Halloween in 1978, a sequel was inevitable.  It should come as no surprise that when Halloween became the most profitable independent film of all time, a studio (Universal) would eagerly dump money into a continuation.  While Carpenter wanted no part in helming it, he did write and produce (with Debra Hill), hiring Rick Rosenthal to direct.  Halloween II was a relative hit when was released in 1981, but never achieved the financial or critical heights of its predecessor.

 

I'm not claiming Halloween II is even close to being as good as Halloween, but I still like it a lot… probably more than most people.  And the reasons I like it may be the reasons others don't.

The most controversial direction Halloween II takes is retrofitting the story to make the boogeyman, Michael Myers, be [SPOILER ALERT] Laurie Strode's brother.  I'm not sure where she was when Michael murdered their sister, Judith, but she apparently survived.  And when her parents died two years later, she was adopted by the Strodes, never knowing the bloody history of her real family as she grew up.

Some people don't like this development in the story.  They claim that the instant you start explaining the origins of a monster, the monster stops being scary.  I disagree.  I believe if you want to continue a story in a sequel, you must add something to it; otherwise, it's the same old thing.  Well, in many ways, Halloween II is the same old thing, but the revelation at least adds a reason for existing.

Now, as I watch Halloween II again, I do have some issues with the revelation.  Mostly, this is because it applies more to the second movie than the first.  For example, lying wounded in the hospital, Laurie (Jamie Lee Curtis) asks, "Why me?  Why me?" when she learns about Michael Myers.  Well, honey, it wasn't just you.  You should know; you stumbled over the bodies of your friends.  So it's a cheap way of shoehorning in the new plot element.

And while making Michael be on a mission to kill his sister explains his determination for getting to the hospital in Halloween II, it doesn't really explain why he killed his other victims in Halloween.  (Or nearly the entire staff of the hospital, for that matter.)

I choose to ignore the nitpicking, though, because I think it's a great little twist that creates a mythology while opening the door for a world of potential ideas to continue the story.  Not a shock on the level of Psycho, it still surprised me the first time I saw it.

While we're getting to know Michael Myers a little better in Halloween II, we learn he's more industrious than we first thought in Halloween.  In the first movie, he relies upon only a couple of weapons of gross destruction.  But in the second, he uses about anything he finds, even breaking into a shed at the hospital to borrow some tools.  He becomes more brutal in his attacks as well, although he still moves at a snail's pace.

Also, his victims become more nondescript.  Halloween spends some time establishing its characters, or at least it maximizes the time it has to do so.  We care about Annie and Lynda, and through them, their boyfriends, whether seen or unseen.  But Halloween II's victims are unidentifiable caricatures, present for only one purpose: to be killed.

 

I ignore the nitpicking on these two points, also.  Think about the timing of Halloween II's release.  It was the early 80's.  While Halloween had already inspired some slasher films, it was only the tip of the icepick.  In a way, Halloween II became the standard for the Halloween rip-offs.  It used senseless brutality, everything but the kitchen sink for murder weapons and generic (often naked) characters to kill off before most of the others.  Stretching a bit, you might even say Halloween II was revolutionary for being the first, most successful movie to do this.

I'll also add that Halloween II did this better than most other horror movies of the 80s.  Although it's physically a brighter production than Halloween, there are still jumps and thrills.  Another common complaint about the sequel is that Michael Myers is too visible; he doesn't just emerge from the shadows like he did in the original.  I propose that he can be just as scary from that perspective.  I'm in just as much suspense when he walks down a long, well-lit hospital corridor chasing Laurie as I am when he was lurking in corners of the house.

 

Watching Halloween II again, my biggest complaint is actually the music.  It's the same classic score written by John Carpenter; however, instead of using simple piano, Carpenter collaborated with Alan Howarth to use synthesized organ.  Still effective at times, it's heavier to me and more distracting.  Now that I think about it, it's a good example of the movie itself: it's bigger, less subtle and just a little less efficient.

It seems I've made quite a case against Halloween II.  What I'm saying, though, is that I acknowledge its shortcomings and embrace them.  I like the approach of beginning exactly where Halloween ended.  I love the references in the story to the first movie.  (For example, the trick or treater in a mask burned on the street who authorities think might be Michael Myers turns out to be Ben Traymer, the boy Laurie wanted to date in Halloween.)  I will always squirm when the little boy goes to the hospital with a razor blade stuck in the roof of his mouth.

There have been far worse sequels.  There have been far worse horror movies.  Could Halloween II have been better?  Of course.  But I feel that while John Carpenter and Debra Hill may have reluctantly been forced to participate, they at least steered it in the direction they wanted to go.  Had the franchise ended here, which many believe it should have, it would have been a perfectly adequate conclusion.  And those who despise the later sequels can pretend that it was.