John Carpenter's Halloween: An In-depth Analysis

Over twenty years after its initial release, John Carpenter’s Halloween remains one of the most viscerally frightening motion pictures ever conceived. Written, produced and filmed on a shoestring budget, it was a huge financial success and is still considered one of the best independent film success stories in the history of the movies. Many sequels and more recently modern remakes by musician/director Rob Zombie have not been able to match the original’s perfect blend suspense and unrelenting terror. The sequels in particular proving that simply upping the violence and gore do not make for a more horrifying experience.

What is it that gives the film its power 20 years later?

It retains its power to frighten, not because of its violence, of which there is surprisingly little; ironic since at the time it was highly criticized as a movie that desensitized audiences to violence and murder. Rather than slap the viewer with explicit violence, the murders are shown in darkness and shadow and there is very little, if any blood to be seen. This decision is not only artistically superior to directly showing the audience every gory detail; it’s the smarter route to take when trying to scare a large group of people. The imagination can fill in the blanks of a scene in a way that is most frightening to each individual viewer. Eschewing gratuitous gore, the film’s ability to chill the audience comes from a combination of elements; most notably its mysterious, doppelganger antagonist, the use of real suspense and skillful direction techniques on the part of Mr. Carpenter.

Michael Myers, more than human.

Most horror movie fans know that the killer’s name in Halloween is Michael Myers. It’s true that the film’s prologue shows Michael as a boy, killing his promiscuous older sister and his parents coming home to find him in a fugue state on the front lawn still holding the murder weapon. By the end of the movie however, he has become something more than just a “man in a mask” and transcends the psychotic serial killer to become something altogether outside the realm of reality. In fact when the final credits roll his character is billed simply as “The Shape.”

Yet Michael Myers never becomes garish or supernatural. He is not a reincarnated corpse, a deformed mutant or some other equally unbelievable thing. He is just a man after all. Or is he? One of the movie’s greatest accomplishments is that it let the viewer make up their own mind and either point of view can be supported by the film. He looks like a normal man but seems unstoppable, relentless and ultimately, possibly invincible.

The psychiatrist, Dr. Loomis, in a scene filmed for the television version of the film and included in the extended edition DVD, explains to a psychiatric hospital board in no uncertain terms that Michael Myers is evil incarnate. It’s a brilliant scene masterfully directed and once viewed one cannot watch the movie without it. It further establishes the idea of Michael Myers as the bogeyman, “The Shape,” and coming early in the film’s running time, sets the tone early on, lending more weight to everything that comes afterwards.

The bomb under the table.

Film critic Roger Ebert often quotes the great master Alfred Hitchcock who once said, “If two people are sitting at a table and a bomb under the table explodes, that’s action. If the audience knows there is a bomb under the table and characters keep eating, unaware, that is suspense.” This theory couldn’t be truer and Halloween is a classic example of its proof. The film builds layer upon layer of suspense before anything truly shocking actually happens. In fact, younger viewers, bludgeoned by modern blockbusters may find the movie too slow and too tame to hold their interest.

They would be missing out on movie that is actually suspenseful and makes the viewer wait for the payoff. The audience is constantly aware of Myer’s presence (real danger) while the character’s he stalks are not. The tension that winds tighter and tighter waiting for him to strike becomes almost unbearable. This is a hundred times more frightening than when he actually kills.

The actresses, including a young Jamie Lee Curtis, are perfectly directed to play their parts as if they are blissfully ignorant to the danger that lurks in the shadows. Even in often imitated scenes such as when a noise is heard outside and a character goes outside to investigate. A lesser movie would telegraph the fear by having the character creep around slowly, already nervous; but not Halloween. These characters have no reason to even consider the possibility that some dark evil would interrupt their idyllic, suburban holiday.

The late, great character actor Donald Pleasence does a superb job as Dr. Loomis, the psychiatrist who knows exactly what Myers is capable of. After Myers escapes from the hospital, Loomis provides suspense on the opposite end of the spectrum from the potential victims. He knows the danger is there, yet can not find it and is helpless to stop it. In Hitchcock’s scenario he would be the one man with knowledge of the bomb but which table in the restaurant the bomb is under.

The technical side, directing scary.

The third piece of the puzzle is the film’s direction itself. This movie made Carpenter a household name and with good reason. Carpenter’s work is a large part of the movie’s success. His steady-cam work would lends an eerie vibe to even the most normal scene. His use of long, wide shots make the audience unwilling participants in the voyeurism. Contrary to some criticisms of the time, it does not make one sympathize with the killer. The viewer is made nervous to be in such proximity to the viewpoint of the antagonist.

Carpenter also makes splendid use of the foreground, creating startles by having Myers suddenly loom into frame. The camera pans across, following the the unsuspecting characters as they go about their business. Then it is revealed that Myers is nearby, watching them. Waiting. Notice too, in Hitchcock’s example it is a real bomb that provides the suspense, not a fake bomb or red herring. Too many horror movies to follow Halloween have used a similar formula only to have a cat jump out of a closet or a bird fly out of a bush. These cheap tactics are used to pad a films running time and offer no substance as they don’t even relate to whatever the movie is supposed to be about. In Halloween the source of the fear is always Michale Myers. The viewer is keenly aware that of his constant presence. And this keep the audience on the edge of their seat.

Halloween is the rare horror movie that gets better with repeated viewings. Long after you have memorized every line of dialog and know every scene by heart, the movie is still immensely enjoyable to view. Its concepts and craftsmanship still have the ability to send chills down the spine. When the last sounds of Myers breathing and the final frames of his old house close, the viewer is left with a feeling of complete dread and despair that “The Shape” is still out there, able to take form. The viewer is also left with a feeling of admiration for quality film-making rarely seen today.

I know, I know...

I realize that the new review for The Big Lebowski is not one of the movies on the list of movies I want to review.  I'm given to whims and I just watched The Big Lebowski last night.  So this is the review you get.

The Big Lebowski

What makes The Big Lebowski such a wonderfully delightful film? Is it the Cohen Brother's flair for shooting everyday scenery with such an artful eye for composition and camera movement? Is it the ludicrous series of events that unfold during its madcap plot? Is it the spot-on perfect performances by Jeff Bridges, John Goodman and, yes even Steve Buscemi, who speaks less than ten lines in the whole movie but says more with an expression than most actors can say with pages of dialog. Perhaps its all of these things and more. Running through the center of this darkly comic, neo-noir is a tender statement about friendship that goes unspoken and unnoticed by most critics in all the reviews I've read.

The plot, which takes place in Los Angeles in 1991 (a time and place pivotal to the tone of the film), revolves around the (possible) kidnapping of the wife of a wealthy businessman who happens to share the name Jeffery Lebowski with the main character played by Jeff Bridges. "Played" does not do his performance justice. Jeff Bridges so inhabits the body of this character that its impossible to imagine the movie with anyone else cast in the role. Bridges' Lebowski is a long-haired, bathrobe wearing, unemployed burn-out from the 70's who drinks White Russians, always seems to be able to scrounge up a roach to smoke and who's main pastime is bowling. He refers to himself as "The Dude" and this is what his friends call him.

His friends (and bowling partners) are Walter Sobchak (Goodman) and Donny Kerabatsos (Buscemi). Walter is an emotionally unstable Vietnam veteran and Donny is the passive "third wheel" who seems to exist only to be verbally abused by Walter whenever he tries to get caught up on the conversation. For all their shouting and cursing at each other, these three share a tight bond that only becomes apparent after viewing the entire movie. They have no one else and accept one another, warts and all, without exception. Their friendship is what gives the movie its heart, and is why you keep coming back to it even after you know all its secrets and laughs.

Because he shares his name with the titular Big Lebowski and because the Big Lebowski's wife, Bunny, has amassed a rather sizable debt to a pornographer by the name of Jackie Treehorn, a couple of thugs break into The Dude's apartment, rough him up a bit and pee on his rug. As he discusses this turn of events with Walter and Donny, the soiled rug is lamented as it was a "valued rug." "It really tied the room together." So a plan is hatched to get the rug replaced by the Big Lebowski. After all it was his rug they were trying to pee on. This leads to The Dude becoming entangled in a labyrinthine plot involving kidnapping, ransom, German nihilists, extortion, double crosses, self-important artists, private eyes and a mysterious cowboy. It plays out like a stoned, slacker version of Raymond Chandler and is simply amazing in its ability to be charming, brash, hilarious and poignant at the same time.

On the periphery are smaller but no less important characters. The Big Lebowski's assistant, Brandt (Philip Seymour Hoffman) is expertly portrayed with a brilliant sense of comic timing. John Turturro is Jesus, a flamboyant Cuban who will be bowling against The Dude, Walter and Donny in their league semi-finals. He refers to himself in third person using the English pronunciation of his name and commands the screen in his few, brief scenes. Finally there is Maude Lebowski, (Julianne Moore) daughter to the Big Lebowski. A self-proclaimed feminist and avant-garde painter who's work has "been called strongly vaginal." All of these characters add color to a film already overflowing with personality.

As the plot unfolds, The Dude's car is slowly destroyed, his friends try to help him and mysteries are solved. Throughout it all the depth of The Dude's and Walter's, and yes Donny's, friendship becomes more and more apparent. When the film hits a sad note at the end and Donny dies, the sense of loss is palpable. The Dude and Walter are Donny's only bereaved and are left to deal with the arrangements for his ashes. This leads to a scene that is at once funny and touching. The script is expertly written so that the friendship element is alluded to as a natural part of the story rather than cramming it down your throat.

Of course the movie is filled with the Cohen's typical, quirkiness. Not least of which is the cowboy who narrates the story known only as The Stranger, played by Sam Elliot with an awesome mustache. He bookends the film with voice overs and even crosses paths with The Dude a few times at the bowling alley bar. Where else would a cowboy get a good sarsaparilla? His reason for existing within the movie is never explained and the movie is better for his presence.

It should also be mentioned that there is a lot of bowling in this movie. A lot of bowling. Much of the movie takes place in a bowling alley. Never before has the act of bowling been so lovingly filmed. The Cohens take what is considered by many to be a blue-collar sport and turn it into a thing of beauty.

My hero, Roger Ebert just added The Big Lebowski to his list of Great Movies and I say its about time. When he first reviewed it he gave it three stars. It is a movie that gets better every time you watch it. The adventures of The Dude, Walter and Donny are not inspirational, but they do make for a good trip. And they have brought the world an invaluable ethos. When life gets hard, say "fuck it, let's go bowling."

Just a Quick Post...

I just watched a interesting, little indie film last night called "Deadgirl." I can't really recommend it due to its disturbing subject matter but anyone who enjoys being challenged by their movies might enjoy it and its a great example of how good movies are still being made outside the Hollywood system.  I'll try to get a review up this week.

I thought someone (I don't know who but someone) might be interested in seeing my personal movie collection. Here's a link to the database. http://c.mymovies.dk/udderjuice

That's all for now.

Star Trek

Let me start by saying that if you were never a fan of the original show then this movie probably won't do much for you. If, like me however, you have an emotional attachment to these characters then you will absolutely love J.J. Abrams reboot of the old franchise. "Reboot" couldn't be a better term as Roberto Orci's and Alex Kurtzman's screenplay doesn't just go back to visit younger versions of the original characters, it starts an alternate timeline in which slightly different versions of familiar characters are created.

You see, a grumpy Romulan named Nero (a scenery chewing Eric Bana) travels back in time with a ship and some stuff called Red Matter that is capable of destroying planets. He's pissed off at the Vulcans because they allowed his planet to be destroyed so he's going to return the favor. The chain of events he sets off creates a tangent universe, altering the lives of James T. Kirk, Spock and the rest of the Enterprise crew, who aren't even the Enterprise crew yet when the movie starts. This plot line came as a refreshing surprise to me as I thought the movie was simply going to be a prequel and had serious reservations about whether or not I'd be able to accept new actors in these beloved roles.

The time travel/alternate realty plot device was a brilliant stroke. It gives original fans an easy out to let down their defenses and enjoy the movie. These are after all, new versions of old characters set upon a divergent reality from the one we know. Significant events are caused by Nero that have huge ramifications on not only the characters but the entirety of the Star Trek universe. Naturally their personalities, while still immediately familiar, would be slightly altered by these events. Having new actors in the roles feels less like a betrayal and more like an organic result of the story. It helps that smart choices were made for the actors to play these parts. Zachary Quinto is especially good as Spock and Karl Urban virtually channels the late, great DeForest Kelley as Dr. McCoy. Chris Pine as Kirk does a fine job and everyone else brings a fresh feel but instantly recognizable nostalgia to their characters.

While the story spends a lot of time reintroducing the characters, it affords plenty of opportunity for spectacular action set-pieces. There's sky diving, fist fights atop precariously suspended platforms, alien beasties and breathtaking space battles. While highly detailed and fast paced, these dueling spacecraft scenes are rendered with CGI and lack some of the immediacy of the models that were used in earlier films such as The Wrath of Khan. Filled with action, humor and some genuine character development, this is a movie that has something for every science fiction fan out there and should be embraced by Star Trek aficionados.

The whole movie has a glossy, high-def look to it that really shines.

It's a testament to Gene Roddenberry that so many years later, people still love these characters and want to return to the world that he created. J.J. Abrams has done a fine job setting himself up to tell more stories with a group of characters that already has a large investment of goodwill with audiences. Let's hope that he can strike a balance between the Hollywood action movie of today and the thought-provoking story lines of the original series.

Let The Right One In

At it's core, Let The Right One In (Låt den rätte komma in) is a quiet, understated film about two lonely children trying to find someone to connect with in a world that has cast them aside. It also just happens to be a vampire movie. If that last sentence causes you to disregard this movie, it shouldn't. This is no Twilight or The Lost Boys. This is an intelligent and yes, beautiful film from Swedish director Tomas Alfredson. With a background in comedy and drama, Alfredson was drawn to the themes of alienated youth, cruel bullying by classmates and coming of age romance found in the novel of the same name by Ajvide Lindqvist. Lindqvist also adapted the novel into a screenplay. Alfredson and Lindqvist were introduced by the production company with the film rights and the two discovered that they had very similar ideas about the kind of film they wanted to make. The end result is a wonderful, multi-layered film that I can't wait to watch again.

Set in the early 80's,the plot involves a pale, fair-haired 12-year-old boy named Oskar who is mercilessly tormented by a roughneck group of fellow students at his school. As the film opens he is already harboring fantasies of vengeance with a hunting knife he keeps hidden under his bed. Into the apartment next door moves Håkan, an elderly man and a dark-haired little girl named Eli. The man, goes out at night to fetch blood for his young companion and it quickly becomes clear that he is the servant to her master. Oskar and Eli meet in the playground outside the apartment building and a tentative friendship ensues with the two mysteriously drawn to each other. Soon thereafter, Håkan is caught in the act of bloodletting and Eli, now alone turns to her new friend but Oskar, when presented with the reality of her situation is unsure if he can continue the relationship.

That synopsis may make it sound like any other vampire movie but Alfredson's direction and stirring performances from the two lead actors elevate the film far above its genre and make it a rare gem of a movie, vampire or otherwise. Consider Alfredson's use of steady cam, crane and dolly shots to compose his narrative. In a time when shaky, hand-held camera work is in vogue, Alfredson chooses to use a more restrained and studied approach to the material. There are no quick cuts or music video editing here. Alfredson's camera may linger too long on a face or an arched underpass for many viewers but I found the camera work and dark cinematography to be a special treat. The story is told through beautiful medium to long range shots mixed with closeups of the actor's to reveal a depth of emotion in their subtle expressions. Lina Leandersson as Eli especially speaks volumes through her eyes, although I suspect they are digitally altered in several scenes. Kåre Hedebrant as Oskar gives the character an air of silent suffering. He is a boy with a deeply repressed rage but also a desperate longing to be loved and understood.

While the movie is dark, Alfredson injects moments of dry humor such as when one victim's corpse, stuck in the frozen surface of a lake, must be cut out and is hauled up by a crane. The image is both grim and laugh inducing for its audacity. The film does contain its share of violence but it is sparse, used to punctuate the human drama and dare I say, artistically presented. All of Eli's attacks are viewed from a distance in wide angle to underscore the the isolation that such an existence must bring with it. One scene in particular is probably the most strikingly original, visually arresting vampire attack scene ever filmed. The camera sits, perfectly sill under the water of a swimming pool while all the carnage happens above the surface. I'll say no more lest I rob you of the scene's impact.

What you've got here is a movie about characters and relationships in different phases. The exact nature of Eli and Håkan's relationship and exactly how long the relationship has lasted is left ambiguous but we get the impression that he's been with her for a long time. Håkan's age is beginning to make his job increasingly more difficult and Eli is becoming impatient with him. There is a scene in which Eli tenderly touches the side of Håkan's face and you can tell that at one time she cared for him deeply, but that time has long passed. Oskar presents the chance for a new relationship. Oskar who is on the cusp of young adulthood and can sense that Eli's youth belies a world-weary wisdom of several centuries. The prospects for their romance is given a new layer with a secret that I shall not reveal here.

Suffice it to say that this is an amazing movie that anyone who loves film will find a new favorite in. It's a film you and your friends can discuss for hours at your local coffee shop and its haunting images and story of doomed love will stay with you long after the credits roll.

Apparently Matt Reeves, the director of Cloverfield (which is a good movie) has been signed to direct an English language, US remake of this film. All I can say in response is, "why?" Cloverfield is a perfect example of the shaky-cam style I mentioned earlier. While that style was perfect for Cloverfield it would completely remove all of the emotional impact that makes Let The Right One in so good. If you have a great foreign movie, why make it into something stupid for American audiences? Just release the original film to a solid theatrical run in the states and show American movie-goers what a good movie really is.