The Horror! Part 2

So it's Halloween night, and as I promised, before the month is out I'd watch at least one or two of the usual horror classics to suit the season. As I said in the last post, I've never been a huge fan of the genre. The writing is usually pretty heavy handed, the acting is lackluster and the effects and suspense often don't stand the test of time. And don't get me started on whole issue of a sequel for sequel's sake. Unless it's well thought out and designed as a series, sequels usually don't work, especially if the original was a stinker to begin with.

I happened to catch a few minutes of one of the Friday the 13th movies a few weeks back, and though it didn't rank in the class of bottom feeders like Leprechaun or Child's Play, it was bad enough that I didn't want to go down that road. So I thought I'd stick with the theme, but start with another one of the iconic films that had perhaps a bit more artistic approach. My wife has always loved the Halloween series, and John Carpenter has been associated with some notable films, Halloween just one of those among them. And considering the time of year, I figured why not return to the original?

There's something about the central character in a horror film that makes or breaks it. Freddy Krueger, Jason Voorhees, Michael Myers. They each have an inexplicable draw, while they simultaneously repel. In some ways, Jason and Michael are similar. They both wear a white mask, they breathe heavy and wordlessly, methodically creep up on their unsuspecting victims and brutally attack with a knife or some such weapon. While I couldn't bring myself to delve into the world of Jason, Michael Myers held a certain intrigue. One the things that I appreciated most, was the way that John Carpenter established his main character with a backstory at the outset of the original Halloween. We see him, not just as a monster, but as a boy, who otherwise would be as normal as any other kid, except that we witness him within the first minutes of the story butchering his sister with a kitchen knife. It's a typical enough plot line to begin a horror film with, but Carpenter's approach is by shooting it almost entirely in one shot, from the point of view of the killer. We don't see just who the killer is until the deed is done. It's typical of the way the rest of the film works. There are plenty of POV shots, lurking around corners, hiding behind walls and doors. While handheld camera work is not always the best method for shooting a professional looking project, in this case it is quite appropriate and effective.

Michael Myers, with his blue mechanic's jump suit and stark white mask, is one of the most recognizable figures in horror history, and yet we only get quick glimpses of him here and there. It creates even more mystique around this character. He's often emerging from shadows, passing in and out of focus, flashing onscreen for quick cuts as he attacks his victims. He catches us by surprise, just as he did the unsuspecting teens he preys upon. The moments are punctuated by screeching sound effects and musical crescendos. Blood splatters, glass breaks, girls and guys alike scream with terror. They've become the hallmarks of horror, and many of them were done here for the first time, or at least refined from earlier trials in lesser known films.

I didn't stop with the first Halloween. I pressed on to the original A Nightmare on Elm Street, where the world was introduced to another infamous villain. In my mind, Freddy Krueger was always one of the most brilliantly conceived and terrifying of all the movie murderers. Not only was he hideous in his scalded appearance, from the knives on his fingers, to the striped sweater and beat up fedora, his look became as iconic as his abrasive and cruel personality. The most frightening part of this character is the idea that he can enter your dreams and not only torment you, but actually bring about your demise.

Like Michael Myers, Freddy has a back story, though we don't get it all at the beginning, rather it's skillfully revealed piecemeal throughout the first installment of the series. Like Halloween, and many other horror flicks, acting, and likewise the writing, is not of the highest order. It's worth noting that both films introduce us to new actors that went on to have successful careers in other films. Johnny Depp in A Nightmare on Elm Street, and Jamie Lee Curtis in Halloween. Despite the fact that neither of these films garnered any Oscar attention for these traits, that's not the reason most of us would watch them. We watch to have the wits scared out of us. While I can't say I jumped out of my seat at all, I was at least entertained, and sometimes that's all you can ask for. I did take notice of the special effects, which for 1984, were done without the aid of today's high end computer generated imagery. They were a major leap forward for the horror genre, which often tend to be low budget, and for movie making in general.

Finally, tonight as I passed out candy to the trick or treaters that made their way to my door, I decided to pass the time by wrapping up the month with a sequel, since the sequel has become synonymous with horror itself. So I decided to return to where I started with Halloween II. As I said at the beginning of this post, I typically feel that if a number follows the title, it generally does not bode well for the quality of film. While there are certain exceptions, it usually strikes me as more of a marketing ploy than anything. This may be one of the few cases where I would say that the sequel might actually be better than the original. Rather than begin the movie some years or even days after the point where the previous movie left off, this one actually begins with the final scene from the first film. By doing so, it feels less like a completely separate entity, but rather a direct continuation of where we last left off. From there, it just gets better. The plot is not so focused on that less than stellar acting or writing, though both seem better, but more on the suspense and mystique of one Michael Myers. We see more of Mike in this installment, and he's not any less imposing of a figure. He still has that same creepy white mask and his Jiffy Lube jumpsuit. And his relentless blood thirst has not nearly been quenched.

I'm quite certain that with the success of the first film and the rising popularity of horror films in general, this installment got an infusion of cash. This is probably part of the reason it looks better overall. From the lighting, to the locations and sets, to the effects, it's just a more polished looking piece. And now that we've watched the central heroine Laurie, played by Jamie Lee Curtis, narrowly survive the first film, it's hard not to be invested in her survival for this one.

While I can't say I'm a convert, it was a worthwhile endeavor to take a look at some of the movies that make this time of year entertaining. I sometimes get caught up in the trap of feeling like everything that I view has to be some highbrow art film. But I think there's value in paying attention to things that have captured the imagination of the masses. If for no other reason, we all need to take a break from intellectual pursuit and just enjoy a good bit of fluff. And to be honest, I'm not sure I would say any of these choices completely lacked substance. None were earth shattering. But then again, being on a first name basis with Mike and Freddy can't be a bad thing.