The story

On Halloween night, 1963, in the small town of Haddonfield, a young boy named Michael Myers murders his sister, Judith Myers for seemingly no reason. Michael then spends the next fifteen years locked up in Smiths Grove Sanatorium under the eye of doctor Samuel Loomis (Donald Pleasence). But on one fateful night, Michael escapes and returns to his hometown. He then begins stalking teenage babysitter Laurie Strode (Jamie Lee Curtis) and her friends. With Dr. Loomis hot on his trail, will the girls be able to survive Michael’s onslaught? And more frighteningly, can Michael actually be stopped?

What did I like?

I have an odd history with the original Halloween. When I first saw it, I dismissed it because it seemed like every other slasher movie. Over the years, however, I now appreciate what the original Halloween is. A stripped down, supremely suspenseful horror classic.

Halloween does not need gory kills to set its audience on edge. Because Halloween effectively generates a thick atmosphere of creeping, unknown dread. There are several factors for why it is able to build this so successfully. Chief amongst them being the films iconic killer.

Michael Myers is terrifying in Halloween because there is no rhyme or reason to his actions. The opening revelation that he was only a child when killed his older sister, is truly haunting. Especially since he shows no remorse or comprehension of what he did. He then stalks and murders the high school friends simply because he can. Tapping into our fear of the unknown. This is helped by other various touches. For example, Michael’s mask is a blank, expressionless parody of a human face (a white painted William Shatner mask) that is troubling because of its indifference to the slaughter Michael commits. And there are things about him that never sync with reality. His average build and almost superhuman strength, as well as his undying nature and his ability to disappear at will, transforms Michael into a nightmarishly surreal figure. And he has terrified generations of moviegoers ever since.

The performances are another way the movie evokes a feeling of dread. Donald Pleasence’s Doctor Loomis is one of cinemas greatest harbingers of doom. Despite hardly interacting with Myers during the movie, he instils a sense of fear in the audience for how calmly assured he is of Michaels evil nature. He knows what Michael is capable of and that he is the only one who can stop him. Jamie Lee Curtis also makes her film debut as one of the horror genres most fondly remembered final girls. Curtis plays Laurie with humility and innocence that makes her easy to root for. And all the other performers, despite some occasional cheesiness, come across as likeable, everyday people. Making it all the more tragic when the bogeyman rips through their lives.

Lastly, the films production elements help to elevate the unease. The film had a shoestring budget and could not afford lavish location work and set design. So, the film was forced to economize. Thus, the set design is minimal and the action confined to a handful of locations. Making the audience feel a sense of claustrophobia and helping the setting feel more intimate than the overblown nature of many of its higher budgeted counterparts. John Carpenters score and directing are also excellent at building tension. The simple but effective score gives Michael a great sense of presence and constantly sets the audience on edge. And the way Carpenter builds suspense through having Michael in the background of shots without lingering on him is masterful. It puts the audience one step ahead of the characters and makes the scenes where the shape slowly creeps towards his prey nail-bitingly taut.

What I do not like?

While Halloween is a classic, there are aspects that will not satisfy everyone. The films loose connection with reality regarding Michael works. It makes him more unpredictable and the characters feel more vulnerable. But some of the characters actions also have a loose connection with reality and can remove the audience, momentarily from the experience. For example, during the finale when Laurie drops Michaels knife right next to him, it seems like a leap of logic. Especially, as she is still not sure if Michael is actually dead.

The plot can also feel a bit meandering at times. The teen’s story is necessary thematically and Loomis’ scenes are always effective. But at times the plot leans too hard on the teenager’s story to engage the audience. Which can be a problem if you don’t find the teenagers and their dated slang interesting. And as a result, Loomis does not directly affect the plot aside from at the beginning and end of the film. Making Loomis seem like an afterthought.

Finally, while the score is iconic, it does become a crutch after a while. Often during the films second act, the score will dramatically increase to ensure that the audience knows that Michael is still around. And to make sure they have not lost interest. Which feels very cheap. A little goes a long way after all.

Bottom Line

Despite my minor misgivings, the original Halloween is nothing short of a classic and a testament to what can be done on a low budget. The combination of a great production crew, fantastic performances, and a scary villain helped Halloween become one of the most profitable horror films ever made. And while the sequels, remakes and slasher derivatives may have weakened it in the eyes of general viewers over the years, Halloween is essential viewing. Especially around this time of year. Because on Halloween, everyone is entitled to one good scare.

Verdict: (4.5 / 5)

The post Retro Review: Halloween (1978) appeared first on Big Picture Film Club.

The Story

Esther Blodgett (Janet Gaynor) is a small-town girl who dreams of becoming a movie star, much to the displeasure and ridicule of her family. Her grandmother, however, recognizes her dream and gives her the money to go to Hollywood. But she warns her that she will have to fight, struggle and have her heart broken before she can get what she wants. After a few months in Hollywood Esther has made little headway in achieving her dreams. However, when she meets ageing, alcoholic film star Norman Maine (Fredric March) at a party he takes a liking to her. Soon they begin to fall in love and he starts to help her become an actress. But while Esther’s (renamed Vicki Lester for publicity reasons) star is on the rise, Maine is on the way out. Can their love conquer the obstacles of fame, egos, and the movie business?

What did I like?

After remakes, retread’s, and its central themes of love, stardom and the sacrifices required for fame being picked to the bone by film culture, I was worried that the original film would be underwhelming by modern standards. However, the original A Star Is Born still holds up. The two major factor contributing to this are the writing and the performances.

A Star Is Born is a story anyone can relate to. Everyone at some point in their lives has had a dream and had people saying they can’t do it. This instantly puts us on Esther’s side, we want her to succeed and prove everyone wrong. From there we follow her as she struggles to get a foothold in the industry. We feel her frustration but also feel hopeful because she remains hopeful. However, dreaming just is not enough, thus enters Maine. Initially, like Esther, we are uneasy about his motivations but slowly we transition into his perspective and see that he is sincere. Because of this we really want them to get together and see how their story turns out. The masterful plot is reinforced by sharp dialogue that is alternately funny and heart-breaking, providing a dark peek into Tinseltown mentality. And it’s all bolstered by a brilliant cast.

Gaynor is engaging and sweet as the starry-eyed innocent who realizes that the world is not a Hollywood fairy tale. But March easily walks away with the film. He makes Maine easily likeable from the beginning with his wisecracking and general devil may care attitude and is able to infuse great melancholy and sadness into his later scenes. Ensuring that even when he does horrible things the audience never loses sympathy for him. Together both actors have great chemistry that makes their scenes crackle with romantic tension. There are also great supporting turns from Adolphe Menjou as the put-upon producer, May Robson as Esther’s grandma, who brings great weight and pathos to every scene she is in, Andy Devine is a laugh as Esther’s sole Hollywood friend and Lionel Stander oozes sleaze as the publicist meant to keep the public interested in the affairs of movie stars.

Along with this the technicolor photography really sets the film apart from other films of the time. It is not bright and colorful but muted and dark. Helping make the film feel more accurate to real life than a Hollywood dream like The Wizard of Oz.

What I did not like?

Despite the film’s prestige, there are still some things that hold it back. Even if they are relatively minor.

The script is filled with good material and is generally well structured. However, more screen time should have been given to elaborate on important details. The two major examples of this being the development of the pre-marriage relationship and the final climax. The central relationship is fun to watch but there is little transition time between them meeting and deciding to get married. And after the heart-breaking conclusion to the love story, Esther’s grandmother comes in and delivers a speech which while well-intentioned does seem a bit mean-spirited considering what has just happened. If the film had more time to breathe then the transitions would feel less jarring. Which may explain why all subsequent versions of the story are over two hours long.

The direction of the project is also serviceable but at times feels very stagey. Reams of dialogue are used to explain what could have been told in one shot. Often times this also trips over into the characters talking about their feelings rather than showing them. And although the actors give it their all, sometimes this makes exchanges come across as clunky.

Finally, while Esther is relatable, she loses her agency and independence once she becomes romantically involved as everything is subsequently done for her. She has no say in her image, only cares about how Maine feels and is not even allowed to grieve for her husband by moving away. She just becomes a supporter and extension of Maine’s character even revoking her own name in favor of Mrs. Norman Maine. Which may be disappointing to modern viewers.

Bottom Line

While the film needed a longer runtime to develop certain plot elements, as well as a more disciplined use of dialogue and the gender politics of the time may be a little off-putting to today’s audiences, A Star Is Born 1937 still stands as a testament to good, heartfelt storytelling, and excellent performances.

And as the enduring legacy of the film proves every generation’s stories helps to fuel the next. Every generation experiences love, loss, heartbreak, and hope on the way to their dreams. And every generation has their version of this story to tell.

Verdict: (3.5 / 5)

The post Retro Review: A Star Is Born (1937) appeared first on Big Picture Film Club.