Rage Goes On: CTC Defends/Trashes Halloween

The Halloween debate continues here at GIK. BTS and myself have weighed in, and now CTC (a relative newcomer to the world of Grieco) lays forth his treatise:

Here is an interesting little fact that I don’t know if you are aware:
I saw Halloween 2 before I saw the original, so to me, Carpenter’s
version was a very interesting back-story to what I had assumed in my
youth was a slash-em-up spookfest. I feel this perhaps gives me
perspective – even on the original – regarding questions I had that
were not answered in Carpenter’s and how perhaps they were better
addressed in Zombie’s, but alas, I digress.

Let me begin by siding with Mssr. BTS in his estimation of Zombie’s
body of work. I prefer Corpses to Rejects because I feel it is a
better example of what he ultimately is as an artist – a homageur. The
characters that he created for Corpses are less Chainsaw and more
specifically the lesser-known Midnight (aka Backwoods Massacre) by
John Russo of Night of the Living Dead fame (and interestingly Tom
Savini’s first picture). While this may seem immaterial, it speaks to
the depth of small nods he makes throughout the film (in Halloween,
the appearance of Ken Foree and Brad Dourif). While I agree with Mssr.
BTS’s claims regarding the exploitative nature of Rejects, I felt it
ultimately was some psycho road film in which the actors were asked to
review their previous performances and show up on set ready to work.

In looking to compare someone as stylized as Zombie to someone so
seemingly hands-off as Carpenter, we must seek out those elements of
Zombie that we can detect and ask why did he treat this aspect
differently than ol’ what’s-his-nuts. To me, it comes down to very
basic aspects: the mask, Dr. Loomis, Michael’s back-story, and Laurie.

Remember that time in the original when Carpenter took the time to add
significance to the mask and why Michael felt compelled to wear it
even in the face of an escaping victim? Didn’t think so. Zombie not
only shows us a young Michael showing propensity towards face-wear
prior to his initial murders, he gives that actual mask gravitas
through Michael’s ultimate return to the scene of the crime to
retrieve the objects that emotionally tie him to that place and the
events of his past that have brought him to his current state. Also,
you have to admit, it was pretty freaky in an almost medieval way that
the young Michael began to vanish behind his shroud and as he aged,
created and surrounded himself with various horrific visages to
reflect his own inner-ugly.

And to that point, I must address Dr. Sam “Sutherland in Animal House”
Loomis. While I agree with you that the portrayal of this character is
uckingfay udicrouslay, it brought to the fore hitherto undiscussed
aspects of his character (strike 2, Mr. Carpenter). While the mystery
of the originals “bogeyman is true” (ironically, far better executed
in Corpses) is an unique element, in today’s world of Court TV and
true-crime obsession, a kid who killed his family would be
international news and therefore would make the man who was in his
care, somewhat of a de-facto celebrity, ie. Vincent Bugliosi, attorney
against the Manson family. In that line of thinking, I can take no
real issue (other than “it wasn’t like that in the real one”) with
Loomis doing a book tour. But why was Pleasance merely an exposition
device with a pistol? McDowell’s Loomis has a journey which shows him
as a flawed character who must ultimately deal with the ramifications
of his own hubris (I said I could fix him and I failed miserably),
instead of a man possessed. Ahab, indeed, but Ahab with no reason
beyond “He got out. I got to get him.”
And now the back-story – For what it was, I thought the back-story was
great for what it was. Imagine that part of the movie as the basis for
any other movie and you would have a nice start to a new-age slasher.
The resistance can then only be “well it’s not how the other Michael
Myers was”. I realize that on the surface you have abusive family,
stripper mom, long hair, metal t-shirt. Let us not forget: Rob Zombie
is a ROCK STAR! Digging deeper into the prequel part, it was almost a
pastiche of modern research into the triggers of serial killing –
animal abuse, bullying, over-protective mothering, over-active
imagination (pretty much your run of the mill theater major, as well),
with the true inciting incident being the transfer of aggression from
a defenseless animal to the vengeance on a bully – which I don’t care
how squeamish you are – was the one of the more effectively brutal,
yet actually supported plot points I have seen in recent horror. And
to further respond, you said there was no suspense, what do you call
the moments beginning when he straps down the step-father through him
being in the back seat of the squad car? You knew what was going to
happen and he just walked you through it at his own twisted leisure.
“A” for effort, Rob.

Finally, we have the little sister. As I said, I saw part 2 before the
original, so I knew the back story, and still there is very little in
there at all. How does he even know what she looks like? I don’t
recall her saying “I’m adopted and this is the house where my crazy
brother killed everyone” in the moment where she drops the key off at
the house in the original. Whereas in this one, Zombie gives us the
picture. Zombie gives us a memory of him showing tenderness towards
her as a baby. Zombie gives some existence of a family after Michael
is whisked away into Loomis’ care as opposed to Carpenter’s dreamy
isolation during Loomis’ therapy. Did Michael want to kill her? I
don’t know… and it gives Michael… here we go – an inner-conflict! Oh
my God! Did Rob Zombie give Michael Myers a journey?

All in all, I’d see it again, but it was not that good. B-