G Vs. B: Rob Zombie’s Halloween
Written by Barrett Hooper & Andrew Skinner
Thursday, 27 August 2009 16:36
Barrett: Let me say two things right up front: One, John Carpenter’s original Halloween is perfect, from the way Carpenter ratchets up the tension like a ticking time bomb to the Shape’s now-iconic William Shatner mask to the funky-intense electro-score to Jamie Lee Curtis’s scream. It’s the godfather of the slasher genre, the movie that made it unsafe to be a babysitter or a virgin or a horny drunken football jock. Without Michael Myers there would be no Jason Vorhees or Freddy Krueger.
Two, I don’t object to remakes or reboots on principle. I object to them if they’re crap, just like I would a stand-alone original film. I liked the Texas Chainsaw Massacre remake. I liked the Dawn of the Dead remake (fast zombies and all). And David Cronenberg proved a remake can actually improve on the original when he gave fresh wings to The Fly. Theatre companies remount plays and musicians cover other singers’ songs, so why not go the redux route with films? It takes nothing away from the originals, which are still there on DVD, so I really don’t understand the fanboy whining about how this remake or that is “raping their childhood.”
Unfortunately, that kind of thinking is how we end up with Rob Zombie completely ripping the heart and soul out of Halloween. Don’t get me wrong, Zombie has shown incredible visual style with House of 1,000 Corpses and The Devil’s Rejects, but his sense of storytelling hasn’t evolved since he worked on Peewee’s Playhouse 20 years ago. His revamp of Halloween is a living abortion of a movie. If only he’d cut his teeth on another holiday, like Easter or Labour Day.
Andrew: It is true, as you say, that Carpenter's original is a classic. And it can stand on its own on the DVD shelves if younger generations care to watch it. For audiences seeing Halloween [often Zombie's remake] for the first time, it is all new and points of contention between the two movies are irrelevant where Zombie has made a solid form of Halloween the movie.
I also don't object to remakes if they are good and Zombie's is excellent. Especially with a movie that has a relatively simple premise and action, it is all the more difficult to re-make without the inevitable accusations of just repeating what has already been done or ruining a classic. Particularly a movie as simple as Halloween.
If Carpenter's original was great -which it is- then it deserves and should welcome a remake.Can anyone think how a remake of Halloween could be any better by any other director? It is impossible to imagine unless they were to make a movie so different [and inventive?] from Halloween that it could no longer be called Halloween.
Zombie's success in bringing the template of Halloween to new levels of horror accomplished without parting from the script but in moving it to new areas of psychological horror is frighteningly brilliant.
Barrett: Andrew, I was fully prepared to continue to bash Zombie’s Halloween – no amount of bashing is too little when it comes to this particular bit of celluloid excrement – but it seems you’ve beaten me to the punch when you yourself ask how a remake of Halloween could be any better from any other director. How can you improve on perfection? You then state, and I quote, “It is impossible to imagine unless they were to make a movie so different [and inventive?] from Halloween that it could no longer be called Halloween.”
Rightly so. I wholeheartedly agree. Except the movie that Zombie has made is called Halloween. It’s not so different from the original and it’s not so inventive. In fact, the first Zombie Halloween is a virtual remake of the original, right down to many of the same camera angles.
What Zombie has added to the movie, his “inventiveness,” as you would call it, is a backstory for Michael Myers that explains how and why he became a mindless serial killer. That is the single dumbest idea imaginable. It was a dumb idea when Alfred Hitchcock did it by tacking on seven extra minutes to the end of Psycho to provide a psychological explanation for Norman Bates’ murderous impulses. It’s dumb now.
Michael Myers is the embodiment of pure evil, a child who killed who grew into a man who kills, cold, remorseless, relentless. There’s a reason he’s referred to as The Shape. As soon as his motives, the psychological machinations that drive him are explained, suddenly he is made human, tethered to reality and becomes a bit ridiculous, to boot. Suddenly it’s a crazy man with an abusive past who wears a Captain Kirk mask while he kills people. Understanding why Hannibal Lecter likes his liver with fava beans and a nice chianti (as we did in the prequel Hannibal Rising) weakened the menace of the character. Likewise, I wouldn’t want to watch a remake of Jaws in which some fish psychiatrist schools the audience on why the great white is eating swimmers and water skiers and fisherman. It just does. End of story.
As for the “new levels of horror” and “new areas of psychological horror” that Zombie achieves, I haven’t the slightest clue what you might be talking about. There’s nothing complex or original in what he’s done. I’ll grant you he knows his way around a camera – he’s certainly no Uwe Boll when it comes to a film’s look or tone – but none of that translates into anything particularly scary.
As you point out, the original Halloween was a rather simple story. Zombie has taken that and needlessly complicated it, trying to add something fresh and new, some depth, and only made the exercise feel old and tired and utterly shallow. I’m not upset that he messed with the “mythos” of the original – the original will always exist – just that he thought he could improve upon it with fancy camera work and textbook psychobabble and gallons more blood.
Andrew: You may have misunderstood me on your first point here. What I meant was that Zombie has made a true remake without being too inventive. By inventive I mean changing the plot and Halloween framework to such a degree that it is no longer a real remake. So that it is no longer Halloween. This would be cheating and presenting us with something that would get critics praise because of its newness and inventiveness. The genius of Zombie is that he does not go too far outside of the world of Halloween. There is the same mask, the same town, his sister's importance, and so on. We can easily imagine many other directors who would have gone too far: Michael Myers with a chainsaw; Michael Myers speaking; Michael Myers as a returning Iraq war vet; Michael Myers as a zombie; Michael Myers with a weakness for music like Frankenstein; and so on.
It is interesting to me that Zombie has made a movie so close to the original and yet so different. The original Halloween was notable for putting us in the eyes of the killer. We literally see through his mask. Zombie has taken that idea unpretentiously a step further and tried to somewhat take the perspective of the killer.
This brings me to your second point. You say that Michael Myers as the killer "just is" that he cannot be explained, and you continue "the psychological machinations that drive him are explained, suddenly he is made human, tethered to reality and becomes a bit ridiculous, to boot." I strongly disagree with this statement. Nothing is explained to us. He is still a monster even though we struggle to empathize and understand him because he is a kid. And we spend much of the movie waiting for the psychiatrist to make his breakthrough and "understand" Michael Myers. His trashy abusive family is only a part of the explanation. Dr. Samuel Loomis says himself to his students that Michael is the perfect storm. The right conditions of nature and circumstance have produced him.
This also explains in rebuttal to your third point about the psychological suspense of the movie. I mean it quite literally. Barrett: I should simply take exception to your using the word “genius” in describing Rob Zombie and stop there. Any credibility your argument might hold goes out the window with this grossly overused word. It’s used so easily, so often that it’s become meaningless. There is absolutely nothing “genius” in Zombie’s technical or creative ability as a filmmaker.
But I’m the kind of guy who will use many words when few will do, so here goes.
Carpenter put us inside the mask of Michael Meyers. Zombie put us inside the mask of Michael Meyers. So what? Did Zombie improve in any way the story by going further? Did he make the movie scarier by doing this?
Yes, Meyers is still a monster despite Zombie’s fabricated backstory. He’s a monster, always has been. But now he’s a monster like Dahmer was a monster, like Ed Gein was a monster, like John Wayne Gacy was a monster. Sure, Michael Meyers’ twisted mind is never fully explained – it’s a movie not a course in criminal psychology – but just like Hitchcock and Norman Bates, more is most certainly less. Knowing who’s behind the mask doesn’t add depth, or at least, it adds a false sense of depth, and certainly makes the film less scary. It’s like clowns. Clowns are freakin’ scary, ghoulish with their perpetual painted smiles and glaring eyes. But show me the stooge underneath the makeup and what was once scary is now Ronald McDonald.
And you talk about creating empathy for Michael Meyers, that we struggle to understand him. WTF?! We are not supposed to empathize with him, we are not supposed to struggle to understand him. Not in any way. We are supposed to fear him, plain and simple. Fear and fear alone. He’s not Hannibal Lecter, who we come to cheer for, in a way. He’s the f***ing Terminator and Jamie Lee Curtis is Sarah Connor. His purpose is to get our hearts racing, our fists tightening around our armrests, fighting back our basic human instinct to flee in the face of ganger. Showing me his abusive childhood, his rough times in the booby hatch and cover it all up by calling him some kind of “perfect storm” of twisted psychology/nature vs. nurture… that doesn’t cause my heart to beat faster, my grip to tighten or my instinct to flee (or cover my eyes) to kick in. It bores me. Bores me. Bores me. Because the engine that drives the horror film is fear and Zombie has just stuck a fistful of bananas in the tailpipe. (On a completely side note, can we institute a moratorium on the phrase “perfect storm” to describe anything but George Clooney-as-a-fisherman movies?)
As for “psychological suspense,” I still don’t know what you’re referring to. Our not knowing fully who/what Michael Meyers is about? That’s not suspenseful. I’m not sitting there wondering who the hell he is and how he got that way. It doesn’t put me on the edge of my seat. At least not in the context of a horror film designed to elicit terror. Those kind of suspenseful revelations (and I’m taking your word for it that they exist) belong in thrillers and dramas (look at Crimes and Misdemeanours for something approximating psychological suspense). Again, I’m not sure what suspense you’re talking about as the movie had all the suspense of a tightrope walk across a kiddie pool. There’s very little attention paid to tension of any kind by Zombie. He does, however, pay a whole lot of attention to gore and a supporting cast of genuinely despicable and unlikable caricatures, a bunch of devil’s rejects, if you will.
Andrew: Yes, genius is a word that is used too often, I agree. But I also think it is not easy to make a good remake. It is often easier to start fresh with a clean slate as any artist will tell you rather than copy one of the great masters.
You ask, did Zombie improve the movie, the story, or was it scarier? Possibly but that is not the question. The question is did Zombie make a good movie. I would argue that he did. And if improvement and story and scariness are categories then why not other qualities of horror. Disturbing for example, I think Zombie's Halloween is more disturbing. Or despairing. I think Zombie's movie is more despairing when it makes me think of mankind's sad condition. Or does the movie stay with you after you've watched it? I would argue that Halloween 2007 really does, but we could debate that forever. Classic films are almost impossible to surpass but that is not really the question.
You say that more is less. I would agree that with movies like the Blair Witch Project this is true. But often getting glimpses of the man behind the clown mask can be very frightening. Because your fear does not necessarily recede, in many cases in can increase. I remember the first time I could see through the cone head of Alien, which if the light hits it the right way you can see a skull face. Too me this was scarier and brought more interest to the creature.
I say "perfect storm" [admittedly I hate the term too] because those are the exact words used by Dr. Loomis in the movie to describe Michael.
You mention despicable and unlikeable characters. This is often true of Zombie movies like The Devils Rejects. But I would say this is not so true in Halloween. I dread that Michael will kill truly innocent people like the warden/janitor that was his friend for many years. There are also many interesting cameos by slightly well known actors.
To me there is a great deal of suspense in seeing a 10-year-old boy go through the decision making of whether to kill someone or not, particularly the innocent. In the scene when he doesn't stop but continues to beat that boy to death with a tree branch, that is a lot of things, and it is certainly suspenseful. You are right that it is brutal and would probably never have survived the cut in 1978 but there is no denying that it is psychologically challenging.
Barrett: I will grant you that Zombie’s Halloween contains some disturbing images, although less so than his two previous movies, House of 1,000 Corpses and The Devil’s Rejects. And certainly “disturbing” is an important element for a good horror film, something that someone like Gaspar Noe excels at regardless of what you think of the overall quality of his films. You say that it’s “psychologically challenging,” and this is probably true if you’re 12. You find suspense in whether or not 10-year-old Mikey Meyers is going to kill someone when knowing what he becomes neuters the moment entirely, so the result is like a video game - if he doesn't kill this target there's plenty more when he makes it to the next level.
You also say that Zombie’s movies make you think of “mankind’s sad condition.” Seriously? Mankind’s sad condition? You mean the sad condition that allowed Zombie to make a crap movie? Because I find it impossible to believe that something like his Halloween would make anyone reflect on the state of the human condition, the breakdown of the family unit, the crumbling of society, man’s inhumanity to man, etc. In fact, people who find such depth, meaning and social commentary in Zombie’s films have to be swimming in the shallow end of the gene pool themselves. Did you really sit there watching the movie and think, "Man, people can be so cruel yet we cannot blame them entirely because it takes a village to raise a child" or some such garbage? Really? It’s Michael Meyers hacking up teenagers – a commendable endeavour for a slasher movie, even one as poorly executed as Halloween – but it’s not Schindler’s List or Hotel Rwanda.
Andrew: I should remind you that I am not suggesting that Zombie's movie is better than Carpenter's. Far from it, and remember we live in the post Saw 4 age. Audiences demand their slasher flicks a little more fleshed out [no pun]. I am suggesting that Zombie's Halloween is a good Horror movie. When one considers that the vast majority of horror movies are garbage, I would definitely give Zombie's a thumbs up. It held my interest. I also emphasize that this movie is good WITHOUT straying too far from the plot of the original. A difficult filmatic acheivement.
I will grant only that the first half of the movie is far stronger than the second half where Zombie seems to be being creative. But this highlights my point and I believe it is intentional. Even by teasing us with some kind of an explanation and background to Michael Myer's condition, even though we know he will kill and kill again, and that is all he is supposed to do, and what we expect him to do, even after providing some kind of background teasing us to find some sympathy for a 10-year-old, holding out hope that he will not kill certain characters and that the film will veer down a different path outside of the bounds of a true remake; or some logical explanation for his behaviour might be provided. He is still 'The Shape'.
And the film returns to Haddonfield and Halloween. Zombie has played with the idea [and played with us] of explaining Michael Myers in the first half of the movie. This is a characteristic of Zombie films in that there is nothing moral. We usually walk away from a movie with some sense of right and wrong or justice that we can explain even if the good guy dies in the end. With Zombie there is only darkness, meaninglessness, and horrors.
We never see the background to a monster. And now that we have, he is still there.
Login
Create an account
Contact
Login
Create an account
