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.

H34: Halloween 34 Years Later

As eager as I was to see John Carpenter's Halloween on the big screen last week, I have to admit I was a little worried about how it was going to play 34 years later.  Now, I've seen Halloween many, many times over the years, but not recently, and certainly not in a theater.  While I've long claimed it as my favorite horror movie of all time, what if I discovered it wasn't as wonderful in reality as it was in my mind?

I suppose the first question I have to ask is, "Does Halloween still have the power to scare?"  And I must answer that with a qualified "yes".  I mean, I've seen it so many times; surely I couldn't be surprised by the same jumps.  Actually, I was.  Twice.  But I noticed something about the jumps this time.

The "stinger", which is what I call the musical noise that is made when something is supposed to scare you, is used frequently in Halloween.  However, it is used only when the scare is legitimate.  For example, when Michael Myers jumps out of a closet or when a dead body swings down from the ceiling, it's accompanied by a stinger.  However, when the scare is false, there is no stinger.  So, when something unexpectedly crashes against the window or Dr. Loomis backs into the sheriff, there is silence.  It's the second type of scare, the false one, that surprised me during my recent viewing.

As far as being scared by Michael Myers himself, I would have to say I'm too familiar with the story and its outcome to really be scared again.  However, the suspense of him stalking Laurie Strode is something I'll never stop feeling when I watch Halloween.  Technically, the way Carpenter crafted these scenes is flawless.  It's like he's wired into my brain and knows exactly what is going to make me scrunch down in my seat and kick my feet, mentally yelling at Laurie to get out of that closet.

In no small part, the music of Halloween must be credited for the movie's ability to remain creepy.  We've seen much more graphic horror movies since 1978 and are now desensitized to the bloodless murders of the original Halloween.  But when you add Carpenter's score, the movie transcends the decades.  I wonder what it would be like to watch the movie without the soundtrack?  I'm willing to bet it wouldn't be the classic that it has become with its music.

I'm sure everyone remembers the main theme of Halloween, the fast but simple keyboard melody that makes it feel like the story is zipping along.  During my recent viewing, though, I was reminded of its two other musical patterns.  It's the slower, deeper chords and melodies that really made a difference for me.  Perhaps because you hear the main theme more, those less-used sounded different and were actually more effective for me.

Something I've heard people say who have not enjoyed such a long history of Halloween, those who are younger and discovered it only through home video, perhaps, is that it really only gets good at the end; the first parts are long and boring.  I cannot be objective on this point.  Since I know the movie so well, I savor every scene.  It's fun to anticipate dialogue and see if I notice anything new.  Even its most familiar scenes, my attention remains locked and I truly admire the craftsmanship and marvel at how Carpenter did so much with so little.

I also was reminded of my respect for Jamie Lee Curtis in Halloween.  She's very, very good and it's easy to see now how she's had such a long career.  She's the heart of the movie.  Let's be honest, some of the actors in Halloween don't necessarily give great performances.  Even the great Donald Pleasance sometimes annoys me in his delivery.  But Curtis does not strike one false note.  Without the sympathy, perhaps empathy, we feel for her character, we would have no emotional investment in the movie.

My greatest fear for those watching Halloween for the first time is that they won't understand why it is such a horror classic.  They've probably seen so many other horror movies that they think a killer who never dies is a boring, old trick.  But my greatest hope is that they realize Halloween was one of the first movies to use that element, certainly the first one to be so successful.  They wouldn't have seen the trick in other horror movies if it hadn't worked so well here.

Which begs my final question.  Is Halloween still a great movie?  There's no doubt it was during its time, but is it only important from that perspective?  Is it too dated to be a classic today?  I can answer that question easily, as should any horror fan.  Just look at all the horror movies we've seen over the years.  Even today, the original Halloween is far better than most of those.  I'd gladly watch it again if it were a choice between it and any of this season's theatrical releases.  I know what I'm going to get and I will never be disappointed.

Explaining the Horror Paradox: Theory #2

I began my Countdown to Halloween pondering the question of why we love horror movies. I wrote about the "horror paradox", a phenomenon where, although we find the horrific to be repulsive, we pay good money to watch it again and again. This is not a new question; it's as old as Aristotle, who addressed disgust as an emotion. Why do we enjoy ugly things? Why do we enjoy tragedy?

I've explained in previous posts that people watch horror movies as a way of coping with actual fears or violence in the world in which we live. That is a sound theory when you examine various decades in which horror movies were produced. But now I want to take a different approach and attack the question from a more specific psychological angle, independent of time and era.

Reliving  Our Youth

In the excellent documentary, Nightmares in Red White and Blue, legendary director John Carpenter (Halloween, The Thing) says, "People love the movies they see when they’re young."   That’s certainly true in my case.  I developed my love of horror at a very early age and have never outgrown it.

With such fragile young minds, it seems improbable that children would like scary movies.  But clinical psychologist Glenn Walters wrote in a 2004 paper that horror movies help young people learn to manage their terror.  “They can either succumb or learn to manage.”   Children have an attraction to frightening stories, as they have for centuries.  Remember that the original Grimm’s fairy tales were quite gruesome:  The queen in “Snow White” asks for the young maiden’s liver and lungs, the king in “Sleeping Beauty” bites and rapes the princess and the step-sisters of “Cinderella” cut off parts of their feet to fit into the glass slipper.
 
I’m not suggesting that all children are eager to be scared.  But I am saying that the ones who are often become lifelong fans.  One of the first movies I remember seeing is Disney’s Snow White & the Seven Dwarfs.  (During a re-release; I’m not that old!)  I remember being frightened by the evil queen, especially during the climax.  It isn’t a horror movie, but by simply adding thunder, lightning and music, parts of it become horrifying for children.  But you know what?  It had a happy ending.  I was scared, but I faced that and, by the end of the movie, I was able to deal with the fear.  Snow White & the Seven Dwarfs remains one of my favorite movies to this day.

 

 

As we grow older, horror movies become popular for dating.  Walters says, “By learning to suppress feelings and display mastery or cling to others in a dependent ploy for protection, a person learns to cope with another aspect of his or her environment, a skill that may be useful in dealing with more than just horror pictures.”  Therefore, he continues, “Teenage boys enjoyed a horror film significantly more when the female companion… expressed fright, whereas teenage girls enjoyed the film more when the male companion… showed a sense of mastery and control.”  In high school, I remember seeing Halloween upon its initial release multiple times.  Most of those times, there was a female grabbing onto my arm.  Halloween is my single most favorite movie to this day.

My mother recently revealed that, as a child, I went through a period of time having nightmares.  One of my grade school teachers told her it was probably because of what I was watching… movies and TV.  I remember these dreams now; they always concluded with me suffering an ill fate with a loud noise, which physically woke me from my sleep, after which I laid in bed convinced someone uninvited was in the house.  I don’t remember this being a pleasurable period of my childhood.  But I didn't stop watching scary movies and TV.

I remember running home from school to watch Dark Shadows, yet having to leave the room when the werewolf appeared.   My aunt Nancy took me to see House of Dark Shadows at the theater.  After Barnabas turned old, I whispered to her, “If that happens again, can we leave?”  “To get popcorn,” she asked.  “No,” I replied, “can we leave?”   It happened again and we left.  Yet I wrote and drew a picture book of the movie when we I home.

I remember in fifth or sixth grade, a friend (Tommy Terrell) told me about a movie he saw over the weekend.  His description was more vivid and imaginative than any movie could actually be.  But I couldn’t wait to see the story where dismembered body parts came to life and crawled across the floor.  I may have seen Asylum only once or twice since 1972, but it is still one of my favorite horror movies ever.

I don’t know why I took to horror as a child.  I was evidently scared by it, but I didn’t run away from it; I embraced it.  Did it help me manage by fears?  It seems like it may have caused them.  But there’s no doubt it thrilled me.  I experienced a rabid anticipation of more horror, begging my parents to take me to see Taste the Blood of Dracula at the drive-in and Beneath the Planet of the Apes at the theater (not technically horror, but the world exploding from a nuclear bomb… scary).

 

 

Side note… the one movie my parents would not take me to see was Hammer’s Dr. Jekyll & Sister Hyde.  As I begged, my dad explained, “There are operations people can have that turn a man into a woman.”  Ewww, I didn’t want to see that.  Oddly enough, I have yet to see that movie.  I’m fairly certain that’s not what it’s about, but something about it lingers and I’m reluctant to watch it.

 

Maybe I have fond memories of my childhood that are associated with these movies.  When you grow up and face the real fears of life, like being able to keep a job, pay the bills and stay healthy, it’s not unusual to long for simpler times.  And if there’s something from the past that made you happy, chances are it still does today.  That is one reason we, or at least I, love horror movies. 

Well, that's one theory, anyway. Join me in the remaining days of Countdown to Halloween to explore others...

The Decade in Horror: The 1980s

"We have a lot of reason to be fearful in the world," Frank Farley, Temple University

One of the common theories used to explain the horror paradox is that people watch horror movies as a way of coping with actual fears or violence. Since one source of our fears in undoubtedly the world in which we live, I thought it would be interesting to look at the popular horror movies of different decades to see how they reflect the general fears and uncertainties of the times.

The 1980s

Like everything else in the 1980s, too much was never enough.  This was the decade in which horror was no longer left to the imagination and special effects became the star.  As influential as Halloween was at the end of the 1970s, it was virtually gore-free.  But the same cannot be said for the slasher movies it spawned as they became more and more graphic.  It has been said that horror movies have always dealt with the taboos surrounding death; well, in the 80s, they began to deal with literally pulling apart the human body and turning it inside out.

The success of Halloween paved the way for slasher movies throughout the 80s, including He Knows You're Alone, Maniac!, Eyes of a Stranger, The Prowler, The New York Ripper, The Slumber Party Massacre, The House on Sorority Row, Killer Party and Sorority House Massacre, to name only a few.  However, it also started a trend of horror movies named after a special day or holiday, such as Christmas Evil, Bloody Birthday, Graduation Day, April Fool's Day, My Bloody Valentine, Bloody New Year, and a little movie called Friday the 13th.

Slasher movies of the 80s: He Knows You're Alone, The Slumber Party Massacre, The House on Sorority Row and My Bloody Valentine.

The victims of most 80s slasher movies were young women in either high school or college.  Friday the 13th added a new locale, summer camp, and was as influential as Halloween in spawning knock-offs like  Sleepaway Camp, Cheerleader Camp and The Burning.  But Friday the 13th was perhaps more influential in popularizing the phenomenon of sequels.  In the 80s alone, there were seven sequels to Friday the 13th.  Other horror franchises of the decade included:  Halloween, The Omen, Piranha, The Amityville Horror, Jaws, The Hills Have Eyes, The Howling, A Nightmare on Elm Street, Poltergeist, The Texas Chainsaw Massacre, Creepshow, Evil Dead, Prom Night, It's Alive and even (gulp) Psycho.  Believe me, the list goes on and on.

Influential horror movies of the 80s:  Friday the 13th, The Howling, A Nightmare on Elm Street, and Evil Dead 2.

You can see in these lists a new graduating class of horror icons.  Noticeably absent are Dracula, Frankenstein's monster and the Mummy.  Instead, we have Michael Myers, Jason Voorhees, Freddy Krueger, Leatherface and Pinhead.  It would be these characters who returned in movie after movie, well past the 80s.

Another horror icon became a man who was onscreen only in brief cameos in the movies made from his novels: Stephen King.  Sixteen of his stories were made as theatrical motion pictures in the 80s, not including the short films and television movies and shows.  Some of these movies were good, even gathering critical acclaim (The Shining, Christine, The Dead Zone and Pet Sematary); some were not so good (Silver Bullet, The Lawnmower Man and Maximum Overdrive).

In the 80s, horror was viewed as big box office, and that resulted in some big-budget horror movies becoming blockbusters.  The Shining, Poltergeist, The Thing, Gremlins, Aliens, The Fly, The Lost Boys and Ghostbusters were all hits, some of which saw sequels in the same decade.  While the primary demographic for horror remained males age 15-24 (the crowd that studios assumed were attracted to violence, action and sex), you can see that an attempt was made to include some family-friendly PG and PG13-rated fare.

Blockbusters of the 80s:  The Shining, Poltergeist, Gremlins, and Aliens.

The final 80s trend I want to mention is home video.  Direct-to-video horror movies became the drive-in movies for a new generation.  And while the living room replaced the family station wagon, the VCR made movie watching an activity that could be enjoyed by individuals as well as groups.  Horror movies were released on VHS without the restrictions of a MPAA rating and their biggest advertising was the colorful and gory boxes in which they were displayed in video stores.

By the end of the 80s, horror movies were more accessible than ever.  Not only was a lot of the content excessive, but so was the sheer quantity of movies available.  That fits perfectly with everything else in the decade, the era of Dallas and Dynasty, where the only thing better than having it all was the appearance of having it all.  How long would this attitude prevail?  Check back tomorrow to find out...

Other 1980s milestones:

1980.  Election of Ronald Reagan as President of the United States
1980.  Assassination of John Lennon
1980.  Eruption of Mount St. Helens
1980.  Introduction of the Sony Walkman
1981.  Shooting of Ronald Reagan by John Hinckley
1982.  The computer named "Machine of the Year" by Time Magazine
1982.  Arcade games and video games became a major industry
1986.  Explosion of Space Shuttle Challenger
1986.  Large-scale nuclear meltdown at Chernobyl
1989.  Oil spill of tanker Exxon Valdez

Sources:

Horror Film History: Horror Films in the 1980s

The Decade in Horror: The 1970s

"We have a lot of reason to be fearful in the world," Frank Farley, Temple University

One of the common theories used to explain the horror paradox is that people watch horror movies as a way of coping with actual fears or violence. Since one source of our fears in undoubtedly the world in which we live, I thought it would be interesting to look at the popular horror movies of different decades to see how they reflect the general fears and uncertainties of the times.

The 1970s

As a result of the turbulent 1960s, horror films of the 1970s became even harder and more excessive.  They were also more of them than ever before.  The phenomenon of looking inward continued and when President Richard Nixon resigned in 1974 after the Watergate scandal, mistrust of a corrupt America was at an all-time high.  A new attitude towards individualism became such a contrast to the past that author Tom Wolfe coined the term, the "Me Decade", to describe the 70s.

A revoltuion against Hollywood had begun in the late 1960s with a new generation of young filmmakers producing movies outside the system.  In the 1970s, the "graduating class" of horror filmmakers remains the most influential of any decade:  George A. Romero, Brian DePalma, Tobe Hooper, Wes Craven, David Cronenberg, Joe Dante and John Carpenter.  At the same time, influential directors of other genres were getting their starts in horror: Ivan Reitman, William Friedkin, Oliver Stone, Steven Spielberg, Richard Donner and Ridley Scott.

     

 Influential horror directors got their starts with Carrie (Brian DePalma), The Texas Chainsaw Massacre (Tobe Hooper), The Hills Have Eyes (Wes Craven) and The Brood (David Cronenberg).

 

This is my favorite era of horror to study because of the number of horror trends that occurred in the 70s.  It's like producers and/or studios figured out that from one horror blockbuster could spring a seemingly unlmited number of profitable knockoffs.  Hence, The Exorcist started a mini-industry of devil/Satan movies, including titles like: Satan's School for Girls, Satanic Rites of Dracula, Devil's Rain, Race with the Devil, The Omen, To the Devil a Daughter, Demon Lover, Demon Seed, The Possessed, Ruby, Satan's Cheerleaders, The Sentinel, Patrick and The Redeemer: Son of Satan.

Three of my favorite devil/Satan movies of the 70s:  The Exorcist, The Omen, Race with the Devil.

 

 As the hippie generation wound down, a new culture of environmentalism wound up; hence the horror trend of nature gone wild films like Willard, Frogs, Jaws, Grizzly, Squirm, Day of the Animals, Empire of the Ants, Kingdom of the Spiders, Orca, The Pack, Piranha, Killer Fish, Nightwing and The Prophecy.

The quantity of  Hammer Films continued through the mid-70s, if not the quality.  At the same time, British rival Amicus Productions used many of Hammer's onscreen and offscreen talents to develop the popular sub-genre of the horror anthology.  Their successful movies of the 70s included:  The House the Dripped Blood, Tales from the Crypt, Asylum and The Vault of Horror.

When Jaws was released in 1975, the summer blockbuster was born.  Now, the first blockbusters were really in the 1950s, as Hollywood attempted to lure audiences away from television even as they began using the medium to advertise their product.  This was the first time movies opened simultaeously coast-to-coast and there were lines around the block.  But Jaws reflected this phenomenon on steroids.  One result of the summer blockbuster was that one hit movie seemed to automatically green-light a sequel (or sequels), usually nowhere near the quality of the original.    Exorcist II: The Heretic, Damien: Omen II, Jaws 2, anyone?

Unworthy horror sequels of the 70s:  Exorcist II: The Heretic, Jaws 2, Damien: Omen II.

One last horror trend to mention is the exploitation movie.  These movies did not have major releases, but could be found in seedier theaters on grindhouse double-bills.  And while they may not have had the exposure of the blockbusters, they would eventually experience great success in the home video boom of the 1980s.  Even their titles were exploitative:  Don't Open the Door, Don't Go in the House, Don't Look in the Basement, Are You in the House Alone, I Spit on Your Grave, Last House on the Left, Toolbox Murders, Driller Killer and Tourist Trap.

Finally, at least for purposes of this article, 1978 saw the release of perhaps the most influential horror movie of my lifetime: Halloween.  Its success spans decades and remains evident today.  Even though director Bob Clark walked similar grounds four years earlier with Black Christmas, it is Halloween that will be rememberd for finally bringing into the horror consciousness the slasher sub-genre introduced by Alfred Hitchcock in 1960s Psycho.  Horror in the 1980s would largely be a result of the success of Halloween.  Check back tomorrow to read all about it...

Underrated classic Black Christmas and the most influential horror movie of the 70s: Halloween.

Other 1970s milestones:

1970.  First pocket calculators
1972.  The Munich massacre at the Summer Olympics
1973.  Oil crisis
1973.  The first MRI.
1975.  The official end of the Vietnam War
1975.  Birth of VCR for mass market
1978.  Guyana tragedy (Jim Jones)
1979.  Energy crisis

Sources:

Horror Film History: Horror Films of the 1980s