Nurse Jill's shoes fall off. Brilliant!
-
johnfuture — 10 years ago(March 17, 2016 03:36 PM)
I prefer II over the original, but then I'm not one of those people who waxes lyrical over how groundbreaking Carpenter's film was. It's certainly an achievement, but sound artistic choices aside, he didn't pioneer anything.
"Killer POV" shots had been in many other horror films before. Everyone mentions Black Christmas, but even Argento used it before Bob Clark did in The Cat o' Nine Tails.
Same goes for the use of anamorphic lenses to create unease in the viewer's field of visionArgento is another director who used the technique in his Animal Trilogy well before Carpenter utilized it in Halloween.
As for the film's use of color in the night scenes, I believe (or someone has said so, anyway) that Carpenter got this inspiration from Argento, as he wanted Halloween to look like his Argento film. Regardless of whether he said that or not, the fact remains Argento (and even Mario Bava) were pioneers in the use of striking color before Carpenter.
Carpenter's music was certainly inspired, I'll give him that. Few films benefit from their score as much as Halloween. It's almost impossible to imagine it with a different one.
But even the basic plot is reminiscent of Black Christmas, and it certainly was not the first teenagers-in-peril film, either.
And for all the philosophical treatises done on the film that try to analyze the significance of The Shape along with various other aspects of the film (I've seriously read entire books on the psychological and philosophical undertones in the film), the fact is Carpenter didn't have such lofty ambitions in mind when he made it. You can ask him yourself why Michael kills, for example, and he'll say "I don't know." It's a case of people searching for meaning in a work of art that means something different to every viewer.
I applaud Halloween for its use of restraint, its artistry, and the way it obviously aspires to be a classy thrill ride, but at the end of the day I don't see anything about it that was groundbreaking. Particularly the script, which largely revolved around teenage girls making idol chitchat. This wasn't Hitchcockian dialogue. It served a function, but beyond a select few lines from Loomis, we don't have any "Frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn"'s here.
Halloween was an inspired amalgamation of techniques already being used by European and other independent filmmakers at the time, and frankly Carpenter is given too much credit for it.
Halloween II has no pretentions about what it is. The use of wide angles and other film techniques to evoke suspense weren't anything novel by 1981 and the audience knew exactly what you were going for, so in a sense all artistic trickery was seen right through by the audience. You couldn't manipulate them the same way anymore, all you could do was give them what they expected and hope to thrill them. There was an invisible contract between filmgoers and makers of slasher films at that point, and Halloween II largely played into what they expected from such a movie. In that sense, it's a much more satisfying experience because all artistic pretentions are thrown out the window in favor of scaring the audience. And I will argue that Halloween II is a much scarier film than its predecessor.
The best thing that happened between 1978 and 1981 is that literally dozens of slasher films came out, familiarizing audiences with their tropes and forcing Carpenter to do away with artistic ambition and compete with them in terms of body count and gore. Halloween II ended up being a much more visceral film as a result. -
johnfuture — 10 years ago(March 18, 2016 12:15 AM)
Halloween is a good movie, I just disagree with everyone that thinks it was groundbreaking for its time or pioneered anything. Carpenter skillfully wove techniques already in existence to create a classic suspense film, but it gets far too much credit for being original when it's influences go back for years. On top of that, while it's effective, script-wise it's quite mediocre. Pleasance has some good lines, but this wasn't stellar writing.
I actually enjoy Friday the 13th more, though I wouldn't call it a "better" film. Cunnigham tapped into that primal fear of isolated places and the fear we have of the dark and managed to get some (for its time) gruesome murders past the censors in the process. Friday the 13th is the more derivative film, but as an experience, I think it's more of a roller coaster ride than Halloween. I'd also argue that the pacing is better. Comparing an artist like Carpenter to the money-minded Cunnigham seems unfair, as their approaches were completely different, but Cunnigham assembled the nuts and bolts of a perfect slasher film, even if it was like lightning in a bottle. His career is proof even amateurs can strike gold on occasion. -
-
cjh8504 — 10 years ago(March 25, 2016 04:37 PM)
It's in my nature. "Everyone should like everything I do, and if you don't, you suck." Or at least respect what I like. I'm sorry, but that's how I think.
RIP Wayne 'Trapper John' Rogers. MASH wasn't the same w/o you. RIP Tony Burton. RIP George Kennedy -
cjh8504 — 10 years ago(March 26, 2016 04:37 PM)
Because, some of what others like is crap. Now, I know you'll say, "Well, some might think what you like is crap, Cj." And, they can think that, but it's not the case. There's a big difference between Rocky or Raiders of the Lost Ark, almost universally loved, award winning movies and some of the movies Kurt says he likes, for example. Halloween 5, 6, and the like. I mean, come on. There's the Beatles, then there's GWAR. I think I've told you this before, Barn. Some things are beyond reproach, and if someone doesn't like them, then THEY'RE the wackos. And
. MASH wasn't the same w/o you. RIP Tony Burton. RIP George Kennedy -
simest — 10 years ago(March 26, 2016 05:59 PM)
Why should anyone respect what you like when you don't return any of that respect or show any respect in the first place?
Indeedand some might say that anyone whose Top Ten Movies of All Time list includes ROCKY II, TEENAGE MUTANT NINJA TURTLES and BATMAN RETURNS is hardly in a position to mock anyone.
And Darkness and Decay and the Red Death held illimitable dominion over all. -
simest — 10 years ago(March 26, 2016 01:42 AM)
Indeed.johnfuture gave an honest, well formulated opinion with good explanation.
I enjoyed his post.
He also has good knowledge on the subject and can apply this to his reasoning.
And I doubt he has any problem with those who don't share his view because he is happy with his own.
These are all things cj has been historically incapable of in his time here and while I'm sure he'd love to light a fuse and recruit John to fight his battles over HALLOWEEN II, I'm hoping rather he can learn from this thread how people can put together a post of more than 2 lines that gives clear reasoning in expressing a view while respecting the views of others.
And Darkness and Decay and the Red Death held illimitable dominion over all. -
cjh8504 — 10 years ago(March 26, 2016 04:40 PM)
Nope. I have not the time nor the patience to type, especially on my phone, anything more than a couple lines, Sim. I read, reply quickly then I'm outta here. No fuss, no muss.
RIP Wayne 'Trapper John' Rogers. MASH wasn't the same w/o you. RIP Tony Burton. RIP George Kennedy -
simest — 10 years ago(March 26, 2016 04:50 PM)
Based on your post history, I'd say you have the time.
I read, reply quickly then I'm outta here. No fuss, no muss.
And in doing so..little or no substance.
Instead of chirping into scores of threads on a daily basis without really saying much, you might be better off commenting on fewer threads but actually offering something of detailed meaning.
And Darkness and Decay and the Red Death held illimitable dominion over all.