Halloween
I've always liked horror movies. I even liked them before I was able to see them. Before I became a teenager, I didn't get to see many of them, as most were rated R, and I didn't start watching movies of that rating until was 15. I was able to watch the old Universal horror films of the 30s and 40s, which I loved, along with tamer things like Poltergeist (which I still didn't see until I was 12) or the original House on Haunted Hill or most of the Hammer horror films from the 60s. I did study horror extensively, however. I read about the films, I knew the whole plot of a lot of them, and was just waiting for the day I could see them. The film I studied the most without watching it, along with The Exorcist, was Halloween. This started back when I only knew of the really popular horror films. Even before I saw it, I knew it wasn't just another slasher film like Friday The 13th or My Bloody Valentine. And when I finally saw the film, it more than lived up to it's reputation.
I had seen bits and pieces of the film either from accidentally walking in on my dad watching the film or seeing clips from TV specials about horror films and stuff like that. I knew it was artfully filmed and to this day I love pretty much everything about it. The music, which John Carpenter, the director, says was partially inspired by the scores for Suspiria and The Exorcist, makes the film. The movie would not be effective without the music. Carpenter himself has said that at the preview screening with some friends and executives, the movie didn't work. No jumps, no scares. He decided to save the movie with music, which he did to great effect. I don't know of anyone who doesn't know the theme music at least. It's up there with the Twilight Zone theme for recognition and creepiness. Carpenter also was a bit of an Argento type with the way he chose to film the movie. He used first-person shots of Michael Myers as we are him stalking his prey. They used the new Steadicam system to do this, which provided smooth movement with a handheld camera, giving you freedom to go up and down stairs and such, which would have been impossible with a dolly. First person had been used in Italian Giallo movies for years, which was the genre that Argento was known for, and it had been used in a prior slasher film as well; a 1974 Canadian film called Black Christmas. So he didn't really create this style of film-making, but American audiences had not really been shown it on a mass scale. The lighting is something everyone seemingly looks over when talking about the movie. It's one of my favorite aspects, but recent releases of the film have ruined it. The movie originally had a bluish tint to it, which was done on purpose, as confirmed by cinematographer Dean Cundey. This color timing debacle is supposed to be remedied in the new 35th anniversary edition coming out in September, so fingers crossed. Anyway, the bluish tint gives a whole different feel to the film, making the night-time scenes almost dreamlike. Carpenter also uses shafts of light with a lot of shadow to mask areas where Michael could be when he's not being seen in the background of a shot, almost like it could have been great as a black and white film.
The film has no gore in it. I know, shocking right? Watch it again. Other than a little out of focus blood in the first murder scene and a cut on Laurie's arm, there's no blood either. The movie is more of a thriller than a typical slasher film. Psycho had more blood! A lot of people remember the movie as being gory and gross. No, that's Halloween II and onward, as by the time that film came out in 1981, the slasher era was in full force. The movie is actually rated R for nudity and language, not for blood and guts. John Carpenter and Debra Hill have stated that they wanted to make a jack-in-the-box movie where things jump out at you from out of the dark, or where you sit there the whole time anticipating things to happen, and that's what they delivered. And it's why I love the movie so much. It's so much more classy than it's imitators or it's remake (which I enjoyed on it's own merits). In fact, the film is actually really slow moving if you think about it. You spend probably 9/10 of the movie waiting for things to happen. Besides the first 5 minutes and the last 30, there's really no on-screen violence! There's a few jump scares, sure, but no chase scenes. Speaking of chase scenes, the last 15 minutes are pure suspense genius. From the moment Laurie Strode (Jamie Lee Curtis) walks into the house her friend and her friend's boyfriend are in, it's one of the most suspenseful 15 minutes of film out there. I've studied those last few minutes over and over, it's just so perfectly done. She goes up to that house with the droning, repetitive music going on the soundtrack. She walks slowly in... and the music stops. Now you know that anything can happen at any moment. Modern films don't cut the music. They do a build-up of strings, which any film fan can tell you ruins the suspense. You know right when something's going to jump out or something bad is going to happen. It's like walking into a room with the lights on. When you cut the music it's like walking into a dark room and closing the door behind you.
The movie was shot in southern California on a very low budget in the spring of 1978. Odd for a movie set in Illinois in the fall of 1978 (and 1963 at the beginning of the film). In fact, they had to spread leaves along the ground to make it look like fall, and you can see palm trees and mountains in some of the shots, neither of which exist in Illinois, of course. It was shot on $300,000 in just 20 days. The film was released in time for Halloween of 1978. It did okay at first... Then it did better... and better... The film only came to be known as the most successful independent film of all time due to word of mouth. The film crew and cast had started to think the film had flopped! It wasn't until they started to get calls from newspapers that they knew they had a hit.
The movie may not seem like much to modern audiences. It's a slow tension-builder, and modern audiences don't have the patience for that. The editing doesn't use quick cuts, but rather lingers on shots; another loss for today's audience. I've had friends tell me it's boring after watching it. That there's not enough sex and blood. Well, if you want that have sex with a virgin, guys. This movie is an example of good film-making, unlike most other horror films. Modern audiences cannot appreciate film, and it saddens me. The modern cinema experience tends to be to go to a film, look at your phone with some background noise, maybe shout some things at the screen, then go and tell your friends how bad the movie you didn't actually see because you were staring at your Iphone the whole movie was. Pathetic.
No, if you want to appreciate a good horror film, see this one... and I mean see it. Don't just look at it. It's a work of art.
No comments:
Post a Comment