(John Carpenter, 1978)
(essay by Kevin)
Much like my dilemma with what to write about in regards to Alien here I am again faced with an even more canonized film; a film that has been written about ad nauseam to the point where anything I say in this essay is going to sound cliché. Halloween is considered one of the great horror films of all time, and it is considered the quintessential slasher film. It seems odd that for a countdown whose sole purpose was to bring awareness to little-seen horror films that my list would be topped by such an obvious choice. It’s true that we wanted this countdown to be unorthodox, but I don’t think for an instant that any of us – Robert, Jamie, and Troy – felt that we could omit the obvious choices from our list all in the name of esotericism. So what makes Halloween the greatest horror film of all time? Perhaps you have preconceived notions of what the slasher film can offer, but for me it epitomizes everything – good and bad (and boy was some of it atrociously bad) – about the horror genre post-1970’s. Every cliché and every trope found in modern horror can be traced back to John Carpenter’s Halloween. Yes, Carpenter cribbed most of his film from sources ranging from the obvious (the most cribbed man when it comes to terror: Hitchcock) to the unheralded (Bob Clark, director of Black Christmas), but never once does his film feel like a mere copycat, an aping of better material. No, Halloween, even today some 30 years later, still feels fresh and still gives me the chills.
What I love about Halloween really boils down to what can be ascertained from the three screencaps I’ve presented here. Let’s start with the image that sits above the main title of this post:
From the onset the film is an example of minimalism executed to perfection. The opening credits are just a few keys on the piano, a slow zoom on a jack-o-lantern against a black backdrop, and the title of the film; three simple things that equal, arguably, the most iconic and memorable opening credit sequence to any horror film. And it’s all so basic. It’s an opening that still triggers in my mind the terror I’m about to watch unfold in the next 90 minutes. Even for a horror buff as jaded as me I’m always amazed at how effective the minimalist components of Carpenter’s film are. Halloween is a film that still makes me clench my fists in anxiety, and the opening of the film, and the famous theme that accompanies it, triggers a Pavlovian response inside me that I need something to clutch onto for the next 90 minutes.
The next image is a perfect example of Carpenter taking the terror and placing it in broad daylight.
In the image above we see “The Shape” standing by the hedges. It’s a perfect use of the widescreen format – something that is rarely utilized in the horror genre – where we see the symbol for fear and terror at a distance, like a funhouse mechanism popping out of from behind something to give us a jolt. Like Jamie Lee Curtis’ character, Laurie, we’re unsure of what we see as this figure just kind of slides back behind the hedges. It’s as if Carpenter is telling us that death is waiting for us behind any corner; it also quite literally is Carpenter telling the viewer that “The Shape” is specter-like as one of Laurie’s friends investigates behind the hedges thinking that it’s a pervert who has been harassing Laurie. When she arrives and sees nobody there, Laurie is unconvinced that what she saw was a figment of her imagination. This can again be seen when Laurie is inside of her room and she looks out her window to once again see “The Shape” standing outside of her window by the clothesline. It’s a creepy scene that seems dreamlike with how quickly it comes and then goes. The jumpiness of “The Shape” coming in and out of the frame adds to the supernatural, Bogeyman-like attributes of Michael Myers. Here is something that personifies evil: “The Shape” just pops in and out of the frame, sometimes on the very edges of that frame, and seems to have no relation to time or space. One of the biggest clichés of the slasher subgenre is that the killer can stalk its victims at a slow pace, but always end up in front of wherever they’re running to. It made sense in the nightmares of Craven’s Elm Street films, but it certainly stuck out like a sore thumb in films like Friday the 13th; however, in Halloween it adds to the symbolism of “The Shape” as the personification of death; of something you cannot predict or stop. I love that Carpenter is willing to place a lot of his film in the day-lit suburbs of Anytown, USA; and I love that Carpenter is willing to keep “The Shape” lurking on the furthest edges of the screen, utilizing the widescreen format instead of rubbing our faces in it; and I love that Carpenter is willing to be so forthright about the otherworldliness of “The Shape”, and with the final shot we that Michael Myers is not meant to be seen as some normal “killer-on-the-loose” antagonist, but he’s meant to be seen as the evil that lurks in the safety of our suburbs and in the periphery of our lives.
The third image is similar to the second in that through a very quiet moment Carpenter is able to elicit great tension and terror. Laurie has just fought off “The Shape”, and stabbed him in the eye, causing him to fall over on the ground. Laurie rushes over to the children she is babysitting for and tells them to run to the neighbors and call the police. Exhausted, Laurie simply collapses in the hallway and lets the evening’s events wash over her. It’s a short, quiet moment in an otherwise unrelenting film. But what makes the moment so wonderful is the restraint that Carpenter shows in having his camera stay at a medium shot on Laurie so that we see enough of her to get the emotion from her, but so that we also see the body of Myers lying on the ground behind her. A simple pounding of a piano chord later and “The Shape” sits up and turns its head, looking at Laurie. Again, Carpenter keeps his great scare moments in the background or in the periphery, utilizing to great effect the widescreen format in giving us a horror film that isn’t gory or gratuitous, but unrelenting to the point of almost being unbearable on our nerves. I can imagine a slew of other filmmakers (Tobe Hooper, for example) wanting to get the camera so close to Laurie so that we could, you know, feel her terror, and then pulling back to reveal that Myers was indeed not dead (or Zombie’s recent Halloween pictures are a good example of undisciplined horror aesthetic). I think Carpenter’s tactic works a whole lot better at evoking a true Hitchcockian mood of unrelenting tension, and it’s just one of the reasons why I think Halloween is still the greatest horror film ever made.
Halloween is the best example of just what a slasher film can be, and as much as I don’t care for Tobe Hooper and his Texas Chainsaw Massacre, the two films – despite their wildly different approaches to the aesthetic of horror – share a lot in common: the one thing that still makes them stand apart from all of the slashers that followed is that they leave a lot to the imagination. There’s little bloodshed in either film (especially Hooper’s, which gets a bad reputation as gorefest merely because the word “Massacre” is in the title), and in Halloween almost everything is implied. Carpenter understands that true horror doesn’t derive from who can show the most realistic killings or who can be the bloodiest, but it comes from the simple things – the implied terror that is lurking in the peripheries of our life, and waiting for us in the dark. There is nothing scarier than what is left for us to imagine and what we can’t get away from, and Halloween is like a 90 minute nightmare (in a good, thrilling way) where you feel like you’re running away from the killer – from death – as fast as you can, but no matter how fast you run “it” is always behind you. It’s a masterpiece in horror filmmaking, and shows just how effective the slasher film can be.
(this film appeared on Kevin’s list at #1–obviously–, Robert’s at #27, and Troy’s at #7)
A masterpiece in not just horror but independent filmmaking. Such a simple idea but executed better than any slasher that came after it. While I never thought too highly of Carpenter’s career before or after this (the only other films I liked were The Thing and They Live) and it was mainly because I never felt he lived up to the potential that he showed from this. Here we have a film that really is timeless; Even after an endless amount of ripoffs that were far more raunchy and bloody, Halloween is still the scariest. Its a great film yet so often its forgotten when discussing the greatest films ever. Maybe its due to the fact that it created the formula to almost every crappy slasher film after it or the terrible sequels (and remakes) that followed? If that is the case than maybe we should re-examine Jaws and the Exorcist, Both films which I believe Halloween is just as good as (and in the case of the Exorcist, far better than). A great review and easily deserving of a top ten spot.
AAAAANU!!!!!!!!
While I agree with you wholeheartedly that HALLOWEEN is THE “slasher” film by which all are measured, and the fact remains that it’s a prime example of such a film that suggests rather than “spills”, owing to the work of directors like Hitchcock and Tourneu…
I cannot abide the comparison to THE EXORCIST in any way shape or form. HALLOWEEN is a thrill ride at its very basic. It sets up the story with lightening speed, sets its mood early on and then straps the audience in for one good scare after the next. THE EXORCIST, I feel, is a deeply personal and probing study on the themes of regret and lost faith with the horrific elements threaded in as a challenge for the main character soul and corruption of said faith. THE EXORCIST is a character piece more than anything else, and rare for a horror film. With the exception of PSYCHO, and later on with Cronenberg’s character supremo DEAD RINGERS, the character piece in horror is a rare breed.
Now, I’m not taking away from HALLOWEENS brilliance or it’s ability to show off grade A+ film-making style and technique. I also agree with you that along with JAWS and THE EXORCIST you are speaking of the three best scare films of its decade… BUT, to say one is better than the next is like compairing apples with oranges. From a film-making point of view I happen to think that, of the three, JAWS is the titan in the field. The employment of some of Spielbergs best directing and editing are found in that film. Yet, THE EXORCIST is a proime example of a top tier director going full-out, afforded a budget that could satiate his vision and delivers on more than just one level with the film.
HALLOWEEN, regardless of its film-making brilliance, and I DO think the film is ABSOLUTELY brilliant, is really a one note story (madman escapes asylum, terrorizes the town, lives to terrorize again). Where the film aces its report card is in it’s suggestive quality and unrelenting timing. I happen to agree with every point that Kevin has made in his wonderful essay above. It’s the greatest slasher film without ever dumbing itself down to the level all the piss-poor imitators that came after it. I like, actually love, alot of what came after in Carpenter’s career (THE FOG, ESCAPE FROM NEW YORK and, particularly, his terrific remake of THE THING), but I don’t think he ever really hit the heights that he did with this, his most simple and most nerve wreaking experience of a film.
Frankly, and this might be my sole belief, HALLOWEEN is a horror film standard that should be on the viewing list for anyone that take film, and the study of it, seriously…
Kevin,
I was hoping this would place at number one (or co-number one) and the longer the countdown went on the more I thought it would be someone’s first choice.
The first thing I think of when I think of this film is that image of “the shape” (did you come up with this term?). It’s terrifying because, as he does later in the garden amongst the washing, he is hiding in plain view.
The tension is great, the music great, the acting frankly better than it needs to be. This is possibly my number one too and this is an excellent review of it that expresses a lot of what makes it an excellent film.
“The Shape” is how Michael Myers is named in the credits…..
Ah. Thanks.
Halloween is a masterpiece and you ‘frame it’ perfectly, it’s the way one has to see this film: with Michael as a representative figure of death AND with the horror being confined to the dark and the minimal spaces, even the unfocused depth of the camera itself.
Nevertheless, I won’t take any bashing towards Mr. Hopper! As this is not the thread for this, I won’t state my reasons. (Still ‘Halloween’ is one step higher than ‘Massacre’, but they’re both masterpieces).
I love the decision to go with four Number 1′s. This is a fitting finale to a this great venture. Halloween is the first film to go with the formula of the killer coming back for more. It’s a classic of the American cinema in any category.
Kevin Olson winds up in style.
Great essay Kevin. Your making me want to see this film again for like the 13th time now. While I maintain that The Thing is Carpenter’s masterpiece, this film just exudes an autumnal atmosphere that is perfect for this time of year. Earlier in this countdown I was a little hard on this movie which I somewhat regret. Deep down I still really love this picture. It would be an error to suggest anything other than this film being great. It has stood the test of time and is an influential force, in not only horror, but independent filmmaking. The music is still wonderful, and that opening credit that you mention is a minimal wonder.
BRAVO!!!!!!!
Kevin, you have, in a few paragraphs caught the essense and brilliance of this, one of the two or three greatest, what I like to call “suggestive” horror films. The bloodletting in this movie is kept to the imagination of the audience and I am really overwhelmed that a film that is so often accused for being the forefather of the bloody “hack and slash” genre is really anything but. Carpenter, kind of a cool and over-the-top figure when interviewed is, frankly, just the opposite when he constructed this and THE THING. He’s a student of the suggestive horror of Hitchcock and Torneu and pays ovious homage to them without ever getting overly sentrimental towards them in the homage.
I saw this film only two days ago on AMC. There was a lull in the days work, and I watched it in its entirety in my office on the TV we have sitting on the desk. The economy of this film (shot on a budget of 300,000 dollars) seems far more expensive by what’s shown on the screen and i think this attests to the directors professionalism and study of the the kinds of filmmakiing that obviously inspired this terrific delving into the realm of spooky movie making. Frankly, I was overwhelmed by the films ability, even after all these years and dozens of viewings, to lay on the tension and, like you so eloquently say, wring every tense moment for what its worth in the simplest, yet most elaborate, way.
The use of the widescreen lense, again I’m in total agreement, is a masterstroke by Carpenter and its utilization is one of the main reasons this film works whilst others of its type fail so miserably. The compostions always allow the viewer, as in real life, to see outside of the box, and still question what is real and what is a figment of the imagination. I think that’s the point though. The themes of lonliness and despair, juxtaposed with the want for excitement in life, are brought to fruition as a warning of “be careful of what you wish for you may just get it”. As in the case of Laurie (Jamie Lee Curtis, now the reigning queen of Horror), the only survivor of the rampage of “the Boogieman”, it’s her conservatism that sees her battle the beast and live to see another day.
This is a fantastic essay on one of the great pieces of minimalism in film-making and one of the titans in suggestive horror.
This film made my top 10 in a heart-beat.
Take a bow KEVIN!!!!!!
Well said, Kevin! I love that you pointed out how Carpenter creates horror and dread in the daylight. Those eerie shots of “The Shape” shadowing Laurie and her friends is unsettling and puts one on edge early on. What also creeps me out is that in a lot of these scenes the neighborhoods are devoid of life other than Laurie, her friends and “The Shape.” You don’t see other kids playing or people walking around and that in and of itself throws things off kilter in a subtle way.
I appreciate J.D.’s point. I’ve never seen a horror film this scary in the daylight.
I don’t think there is any question that as far as slasher films go, Halloween is the definitive example of the form’s potential. Carpenter’s own music sets the mood and heightens the terror.
The review is a labor of love.
Man, some dude didn’t even put this in his Top 100. lol, in my defense I adore Carpenter’s CHRISTINE so I put that in my top 50. This is a great essay, and one I don’t really want to have to follow but I’ll give it my best shot.
Oddly enough many great points here by Kevin about Carpenter’s craft make me chuckle as I remember the first time I saw this was on a VHS tape, needless to say many of the great outer-frame compositions that Carpenter painstakingly crafted were missed or rendered incredibly poorly.
Still, the film showed through, and the point can’t be made enough: how may slashers (many good) feature little to no blood. Reading about them on sites and in books you’d never believe this to be the case.
Haha…what’s funny is your first paragraph is essentially the same as my first paragraph for my #1 selection, right down to the influence and wariness of finding something original to write about for such a canonized film and exhaustively written about film. So I’m glad you went with explaining your three screencaps method of discussing the film (and the mention of the music, some of the simplest frightening music ever created). It’s a great touch and those three images truly do speak to the power of this film and why I too love it so much.
The other moments that get me would be the attack in the car, the creepy, askew look of Michael as he stares at his handiwork in the kitchen, and the disappearance at the end — so simple (and now so cliche) yet furthering the feeling of dread — evil isn’t defeated and, in fact, is still out there — even as you turn off the film.
I kind of have to agree with Anu above — I think this film gets slagged for the subgenre and formula it created, which seems awfully unfair to me. I realize that the film is a bit shallow in its story and characterizations, but so it goes with much of horror, the film still excels so much in the execution that I can’t help but give it the highest marks.
An interview with Carpenter in the Mark Gatiss HISTORY OF HORROR series had Carpenter saying that he thought all the praise heaped on Lewton/Tourneur for creating atmosphere and not showing was overrated and unearned. The funny thing is, he pretty much goes along with the same style (for many of the same reasons too, i.e. budget) and creates what is easily (for me) his greatest film.
Holy moly…how did I miss this post!????
YES YES YES YES YES to this!
It shocks me I don’t own this film as much as I love it.
My god, what a disservice Rob Zombie’s Hill-Billy Deluxe-retread did to this film’s legacy. They rarely ever show this on TV anymore (which I where I would always get my fix this time of year). I know many people who only know of the Zombie version. UGH!