A key element that’s been a part of the Halloween franchise has always been one of the key focuses of criticism; the familial relationship between Laurie Strode and Michael Myers. This element was added in Halloween II for what honestly seems to be no other reason to me than to add a twist to shock people and to justify the existence of the movie beyond “now Michael kills other people.”
The fact that this twist remains a crucial element of the rest of the franchise is neither here nor there for me regarding the majority of them. I pay no mind to the twist whenever I watch the original movie and focus on Michael as the motive-less force of nature that he is, and if I ever watch films 4-8 I just accept them for what they are.
“Okay, now he’s after his niece.”
“Okay, now he’s after his great nephew.”
“Okay, now he’s after his sister again.”
But this makes the first Halloween II an unfortunate outlier in the franchise; while I can enjoy the movies that followed it with the pre-supposition that his motives are family based, Halloween II intentionally and violently changed our original understanding of Michael Myers, and all because they needed a new hook to bring audiences in. I can bite the bullet and enjoy the sequels (well, those that are enjoyable) since at their very core they’re about Michael’s family motivations but Halloween II sought to change the core of the original film and that’s what makes it difficult to watch.
To make this a bit clearer; if Michael Myers in the original Halloween was a brilliant marathon sprinter, Halloween II was like watching his legs get chopped off, and the rest of the franchise was this marathon sprinter trying to prove himself as a weight lifter with a focus on upper body strength. I’m fine with watching him do his best with weight lifting, but that doesn’t mean I’m going to enjoy watching the injury that forced him to go to a different sport.
(To get this out of the way, I actually love the Rob Zombie movies. He actually tried to explore this element that had become an essential part of the franchise beyond simply trying to make the plot cooler, and in doing so he strongly fleshed out the character that Michael had become over these years and made his films his own beast, and did so in a way that by no means endangers what makes the original Michael terrifying. Zombie’s Michael is an entirely new Michael and I like that new Michael in a way that I am still able to appreciate the 1978 Michael. No imaginary leg removal for who’s been redefined as a weight lifter from the get-go, basically)
When it was announced that the franchise was getting a rebootquel that ignored every entry that followed the original, much had been made of the fact that writers Jeff Fradley, Danny McBride, and David Gordon Green tossed aside the sibling twist that became so essential to the franchise. When the trailers further revealed Laurie Strode to be in full Terminator 2 Sarah Connor mode, I personally assumed that Michael would look at her as a nemesis in the same way that Laurie saw him.
This assumption of Michael’s personal investment in Laurie Strode wasn’t just assumed by me but by characters in the film; we see it in the podcasters making a documentary about the incident in 1978 and in Michael’s new doctor. The former have misguided hopes that bringing Michael and Laurie together will instigate some sort of response out of the silent murderer, and his doctor presumes that the only thing that’s kept Michael alive the last 40 years is so he can find and kill Laurie Strode.
She’s presumed to be “the one that got away.”
There also seems to be a possible meta suggestion from the film itself that Michael has now fixated on Laurie in a similar sense that Laurie has fixated on him, that the other is the Great White Whale to their own Ahab, during a comedic scene in which Michael is waiting to try and kill a teenager. This teenager just drunkenly tried (and as such miserably failed) to make a move on Laurie’s granddaughter, who rejected him. As the teenager sits in his misery, he sees Michael and mistakes him for a neighbor, only to ask Michael “if there’s a girl he wants but can never have.”
(Or something to that degree, can’t find this quote online yet)
The line is obviously funny (at least I thought it was) because Michael is being pitted against a woman he tried to kill 40 years ago.
But I don’t think he’s fixated on Laurie in the same sense that Laurie is fixated on him. She’s not “the one that got away”. She’s the one who just won’t die; the thorn in his side, the fly in his ointment.
He’s just trying to do his thing and slaughter droves of innocent people and that pesky Laurie just won’t piss off.
This, in a sense, does lead to Michael “fixating” on Laurie by the end of the movie, but there are multiple factors in play here and I would argue none of them relate to Michael having this undying need to kill his Great White Whale. The first is the twist of the secondary villain that’s found in Michael’s doctor; unlike Loomis, who wanted Michael locked up forever, Michael’s new doctor is a crazy person who was more than happy that Michael escaped so he could find out why he the killer takes pleasure in….killing. The doctor wants to “experiment” with him in an uncontrolled environment with Laurie Strode, who the doctor, again, incorrectly presumes is the reason Michael has stayed alive all these years.
Michael is either brought to Laurie or Laurie brings herself to him. And I think this means Michael looks at her the same way he looks at the mechanic whose clothes he steals or the podcasters who have his mask; as tasks to be taken care of so he can do what he wants to do.
She’s just a more important task.
Does this perspective undermine the intention behind Laurie’s characterization?
Hardly.
If Michael is a force of nature once more, this only establishes Laurie as a fellow force (Halloween: The Force Awakens?) to be reckoned with.
None of this necessarily elaborates on how the movie itself handles these elements, and there’s a good chance I’m not even right; I await for the input of fellow Halloween fans on this post (provided anyone reads it). I also think it’s a movie full of interesting ideas and it touches on them well, and it’s certainly a tense, entertaining watch, but I can’t help but feel like there’s something currently missing.
But that’s another discussion for another time. For now, I commend the movie for at least having an interesting idea on how to handle a sibling-free Laurie/Michael dynamic down down. The pieces are there, the structure and foundation solid, it’s just a question of whether the movie completely works that I don’t feel comfortable in answering yet.
devilsadvocritic 