Showing posts with label John Carpenter. Show all posts
Showing posts with label John Carpenter. Show all posts

Saturday, 3 November 2018

The Boogeyman: "Halloween"

Image result for halloween 2018 poster


Mild Spoilers Below

What's most impressive about the Halloween franchise is its status as a franchise at all. John Carpenter's original 1978 film was so simple and mystique-indrenched; the idea of making sequels was counter-intuitive. Halloween's ending is so haunting in its implication evil never dies, that Michael Myers presence will always be felt by families of his victims. Despite the film's supernatural undertones regarding Michael the film feels grounded in everyday reality. And there's no explanation as to why Michael killed his sister Judith and the other babysitters, with only Laurie Strode (Jamie Lee Curtis) surviving. The last image of Laurie in the film is her crying after being saved at the last moment by Michael's doctor, Doctor Loomis (Donald Pleasance), who shoots him out a window (and then sees Michael's body has disappeared) Laurie has survived but she's been scarred by the horrific murders Michael committed.

The latest chapter in the franchise, simply called Halloween, takes this final shot of Laurie and asks how this night would've affected her 40 years on. The film cleans the slate, asking us to ignore everything post the original film, nixing the twist that Laurie and Michael are half-siblings. and gets back to the more grounded reality of the original, with Michael being caught that night and locked up for 40 years. Laurie is still traumatized by her encounter with Michael, which has complicated her relationship with her daughter Karen (Judy Greer) and granddaughter Allyson (Andi Matichak). I'll admit I was surprised when it was announced the film would be a direct sequel to the original, with the franchise's major twist being gone. But now I do think it was a smart choice to ignore the sequels and just tell a story about the the legacy of trauma on a family.

I will say, I'm mixed on the overall film. I feel there's some good and even great stuff but the film feels like it should've been better given the pedigree. This feels a little too much like just another Halloween sequel. However, I think it's a good horror film and with some distance from expectations and a re-watch down the line, the film will likely come across a little bit better.  

Image result for halloween 2018





We're introduced to both Michael and Laurie through the perspective of two British journalists/podcasters, Dana Haines (Rhian Rees) and Aaron Korey (Jefferson Hall) who are investigating Michael and Laurie. The introductory scenes with Michael and Laurie are bookends to the main credits; The film parallels victim and victimizer in several ways. The first is how neither gives the two any information. Michael doesn't speak even when Aaron shows him his mask. Laurie, while she does speak to Aaron and Dana, doesn't offer any "fresh insights" or  sympathy towards Michael. Aaron and Dana want to be objective but Laurie doesn't believe Michael is someone who should be understood. 

The other way in which Laurie and Michael are paralleled is they're both prisoners. Michael is in jail  whereas Laurie has made herself a prisoner of her trauma and anger, locking herself in her house, equipped with a security system and basement full of weaponry. We learn Laurie trained Karen from a young age to defend herself. I couldn't help but be reminded of Sarah Conner, who prepared her son for the robot apocalypse. Except in this case, the situation is more realistic- Karen isn't the only hope for mankind, just another person who- in Laurie's mind- could fall prey to the horrors of the world. Karen tells Laurie in one scene that the world is a wonderful place, which a little naive and I'm not Karen entirely believes it. 

While Laurie may have been too extreme a mother, she has a point that the world isn't safe. Laurie knows firsthand that your normal way of life can veer off in to a nightmare. The film does appear to want to have it both ways: to show Laurie as someone who wasn't a fit mother while still arguing the value of her teachings. Because of Michael, Laurie's relationship to her child was irrevocably changed. And we eventually learn that Karen has taken in her mother's lessons and his her mother's daughter.

Allyson is caught between her mother and grandmother, an unwilling observer to that relationship. Laurie comes to Allyson's school to give her the money Aaron and Dana gave her for the interview. Laurie is the grandmother who'd like to have more of a relationship with her granddaughter but the rift between her and Karen makes it difficult.

The film urges us to ask the question one of its characters puts forward: Is what Laurie went through comparable to the other horrors of the world?; but we have to understand what happened to Laurie would always be a part of her. Laurie hopes Michael does eventually escape so she can kill him. Maybe if she kills him, she can finally be at peace. Thankfully the film doesn't offer an easy answer but does suggest only through shared hardship can the Strode women truly heal their wounds. 

On the night he's being transferred to a new facility, the bus he's on crashes. There's a subplot involving the "new Loomis" Dr. Ranbir Sartain (Haluk Bilginer) and his fascination with the relationship between Laurie and Michael. While the brother/sister connection is gone the film still is curious about the metaphysical connection between the two, how Michael was affected by the murders he committed and not killing Laurie. This subplot could've been developed a little more. His eventual motives and plan remain vague even by film's end.


Image result for andi matichak halloween 2018





I think the film would've been better if it just focused on the three Strode women instead of the teenage stuff, though I could've watched a whole movie with Vicky (Virginia Gardner) and the kid she babysits, Julian (Jibrail Nantambu). That kid was a hoot and Gardner makes Vicky in to a genuinely likable young woman. Matichak's reaction while confronting he boyfriend Cameron (Dylan Arnold) is also surprisingly authentic. However, the teenage stuff in the original was used to contrast with Michael's presence throughout but here it all feels like a distraction from the more appealing story involving Laurie, who sometimes drifts in to the film's background. 

Curtis is honestly great here, bringing a lot to the film beyond what's just in the script. The scene where's she waiting in her car outside of the facility from where Michael is being transferred displays Laurie's torment from what happened all those years ago and Curtis really sells it. Laurie could've just stayed home but she needed to see him, to drink in that pain and anger.

Greer remains a wildly underused actress, though she gets a great moment near the end which is one of the best payoffs I've seen in a horror movie in some time. Again, I wish we spent more time with Laurie and Karen, since it's supposed to be the emotional core of the film. For me, their relationship didn't affect me as deeply as I would've desired. 

Image result for michael myers halloween 2018


I realize I've talked this much without mentioning the film's director, David Gordon Green. Green has had a peculiar career, starting out as indie auteur whose films George Washington, All The Real Girls and Undertow earned him comparisons to Terrence Malick. He then moved on to directing the stoner comedies Pineapple Express and Your Highness before returning to indie dramas, including last year's Oscar hopeful Stronger with Jake Gyllenhaal. Green clearly doesn't wish to pinned down and directing a direct sequel to a horror classic is another indication of this desire. Green equips himself pretty well to the horror genre; the opening sequence/cut to credits was enough to get me hyped for the rest of the film and the bathroom sequence is another standout. Gordon homages Carpenter without feeling like he's aping him too much. Speaking of Carpenter, he returned to score the film along with his son Cody Carpenter. And it's a strong composition, with "Halloween Triumphant" being a standout. 

Returning to what I said before, Halloween is a good horror which will definitely benefit from some distance from the expectations inherent to a film of this kind.. The film's strong performances and fine craftsmanship make this a respectable sequel, though I think could've been even deeper and more haunting.

Monday, 6 April 2015

Something Wicked This Way Comes: "It Follows"


Warning: Some Spoilers Ahead 

From the beginning of writer/director David Robert Mitchell’s It Follows- which opens with a tracking shot following a frightened teenage girl as she’s running from an unseen...someone?...something?- you know you’re in very capable hands. I was genuinely hooked from the beginning; and while I wish the film explored its concept a further and threw a few more narrative curveballs, as a piece of filmmaking It Follows is well worth any discerning horror movie fan’s time.

Our main character is 19-year old Jay (The Guest’s Maika Monroe). She has been dating Hugh (Jake Weary). After they have sex one night, Hugh chloroforms Jay. Hugh then reveals he has passed on to her a curse: an entity that can take the form of anyone- whether it’s someone you know or a complete stranger- which only someone with the curse can see. The entity will keep following you until it kills you. Jay eventually enlists the help of her sister- Kelly (Lili Sepe)- and her friends- Paul (Keir Gilchrist), Yara (Olivia Luccardi), and Greg (Daniel Zovatto)- to help her defeat the entity before it kills her.

This is pretty much all you need to know about the premise of the film. It’s the type of basic set up which burrows in to your psyche. If Psycho and Jaws made you afraid of having a shower and going in to the water, respectively, then It Follows will make you paranoid of the people around you. In other horror movies revealing what the evil force looks like early on ruins a film's mystery; but since the entity takes a different form each time out (many very grotesque) there’s an inherent suspense of not knowing what it’ll look like next. Mitchell plays on this un-surety, notably in a later scene with Hugh- whose real name turns out to be Jeff Redmond-which sets up the potential of the entity being there (Jake still isn’t rid of it) - but it’s just a false alarm.
 

By giving the entity a different form each time out enhances the mystery of what it actually is. In another film we would get more of a back-story concerning the history of what this creature/demon/etc. is. But Mitchell isn't interested in exploring a dense mythology for this entity. He’s more concerned with how the entity works on a metaphorical level. The fact that the curse is passed on sexually makes the entity something like a sexually transmitted disease. And like a STD, passing it on doesn’t mean you’re free of it. The film can be read as a darkly comic cautionary tale for safe sex.

Besides the STD metaphor, I feel the film both reinforces and subverts the teen horror tropes- explained by Jamie Kennedy’s character in the original Scream- of the girl who has sex getting killed and the “final girl” or heroine typically being the pure virgin. In It Follows having sex can get you killed but Jay isn’t a secondary character who gets killed after having sex she’s the main character. Moreover Jay isn’t demonized for having sex nor portrayed stereotypically as a “dirty girl.” For Mitchell, Jay is no less “pure” for having sex.  
 
Monroe was good in The Guest but I think she was overshadowed by Dan Stevens’ performance. In It Follows, allowed to take centre stage, Monroe really shines. It’s not a flashy performance but she has a laid back and natural charisma which endears Jay to us. And Mitchell’s camera loves her. On a side note, during an early scene I thought to myself that all she needed was head band and she’d be a great Gwen Stacy for the next Spider-Man series.
 
I think old-school horror fans will take a certain amount of pleasure from It Follows, particularly admirers of legendary director John Carpenter’s aesthetic. While it’s risky for an up and coming filmmaker to homage an iconic director’s work (“You’re no John Carpenter”), I think Mitchell is able to pay tribute to Carpenter’s (and other filmmakers' work) while still crafting something that’s distinctly his own. Despite this only being Mitchell’s sophomore effort he’s an extremely confident filmmaker, with a firm grasp of pacing, camera movement and atmosphere. While he does provide some jump moments, he doesn’t rely on them too much; instead he focuses on images that are truly and deeply frightening. There are moments in this film that I think will unsettle even the most seasoned horror fan.



While It Follows is very stylish film, it’s never so stylish that it overalls the film. In fact, the mood of the film is often very subdued. Mitchell allows character moments to breathe. While I feel the characters needed to be developed a little more Mitchell's characters are still distinctly human and not merely fodder for the entity. Even Jay isn’t completely vilified- he’s as much a victim as anyone. The heart of the film- character-wise- is the relationship between Jay and Paul. He clearly likes her and we learn they shared a kiss when they were younger. They have a few nice scenes together, particularly the conversation they have before the horror really kicks in to gear.

I do wish the film travelled a different narrative path as it headed towards its climax. Instead it settles in to a more conventional type of climax. I also wish the film’s ending had a little more punch- though I understand that Mitchell likely wanted a subdued final note. Despite these few disappointments, on its own terms, It Follows is an absorbing and effectively spooky horror film, full of unsettling and beautiful images- as well as a star-making performance by Monroe. If you’re a horror fan, seek this one out.