By JOHN CARTER JR
Tiger Media Network
The Halloween films have a very important place in my heart. For one I have reviewed “Halloween” (1978), “Halloween” (2018), and “Halloween Ends” for Tiger Media Network with The original “Halloween” being my very first published review ever. Over the years I lied to one of the best friends I ever had about watching the entire film series after they requested I watch it. I was so wrought with guilt that this past summer I had to rectify my mistake by watching the rest of the films in the series I hadn’t seen. Now that it is the senior year of my bachelor’s degree and I have accomplished my goal of completing the Halloween series I want to take a look back at the sequel of the 70s John Carpenter classic, to dip our toes into choices that I have been unsure about in this film, and in similar cases in some films overall.
“Halloween II” (1981) directed by Rick Rosenthal, written and produced by John Carpenter tells the events that took place immediately after the first film. The story follows Laurie Strode and Dr. Loomis with Jamie Lee Curtis and Donald Pleasence reprising their roles respectively. While we are still in Haddonfield, Illinois, the film’s main story takes place not in suburban homes but rather in the hospital. The Halloween series has hospital scenes galore whether it be in the Rob Zombie entries, post “Halloween II” films, or in the modern sequels. That being said, “Halloween II” overall has some of the best moments in the franchise.
Great moments for Loomis, Laurie, and Michael with the Michael-on-fire scene taking the cake. The film gives us that classic invasive small-town horror vibe of the original, while also being a distinct early 80s slasher classic on its own. However, it is some of the scenes featuring the hospital staff in this film that stand out as the most interesting to dissect when thinking about horror films and film in general.
The film features a scene in which two employees are going to take a hot bath together in the hospital before being slain by Michael Myers. One is killed off in the background with his naked body blurred behind a screen. While the other (a Cis woman) has her hair pulled back as her face is dunked in and pulled out of boiling water. While the latter character begins the dunking scene with the towel covering her chest, the scene ends with her head pulled back the towel intentionally and tightly wrapped around her waist beneath her chest. This is where my uncertainty about the film began. This is more than a critique of this one film but rather an example of this kind of instance happening in many films, especially in horror not just at the time but throughout the history of the genre. Like the society that produces films, “Halloween II” doesn’t treat the bodies of men and women equally or their parts with the same respect.
The exposure of parts of the body in film or in real everyday life is treated with levels of imposed privacy or meaning. Take for example the chests of a person assigned male at birth (AMAB) or a person assigned female at birth (AFAB). In the US an AMAB person can walk down the streets shirtless, and their chests are treated as no more private than a neck or arm. In the case of an AFAB, a person walking down the street with their shirtless chest exposed would be treated as overt nudity or obscene. The bodies of all types of people regardless of gender assignment are beautiful and should be treated with equal respect.
That being said I have noticed a trend amongst AMAB directors, particularly cis straight men, who treat these bodies differently from another in adherence with the greater societal oppression of women. “Gangs of New York” by Martin Scorsese, “Synecdoche New York” By Charlie Kaufman, “House” directed by Nobuhiko Obayashi, “Perfect Blue” by Satoshi Kon, “Burning” by Lee Chang-dong, all have different takes on the exposed chests of AFAB people with some even making statements about the treatment of their bodies with a specific focus on cis women.
These are only a few examples I could think of with the common trait among these films and their production being that they were directed by those very same cis hetero men. While Director Park Chan-wook urges us to simply ignore the fact that he is a man when watching his film “The Handmaiden” (even with a woman co-writer and that co-writer getting supportive comments from an uncredited lesbian friend concerning certain actual sexual acts) Chan-wook’s vision for his film will always be from the perspective of a man who has been conditioned in a society that has its own set of cultural values that treat men and women differently. The same can be said of both Carpenter in the case of the original “Halloween” and Rosenthal in the case of “Halloween II.”
To detractors who would imply or claim that there is more comfort with seeing the naked bodies of men than women or discomfort with the exploration of the sexuality of women, a counterpoint would be that it is not a discomfort with seeing the naked bodies of AFAB people or simply cis women or the sexuality of women but rather a discomfort with how their bodies tend to be treated or how their sexuality is mystified because of this treatment, especially in comparison to their AMAB cis counterparts. The implication that this type of reaction to seeing the way AFAB bodies are portrayed and directed is indicative of a double standard (given an apparent or assumed ease of seeing naked AMAB bodies) is an absurd claim, as it is hardly ever
Cis men who are exposed in such a sexual way or simply even unclothed or the way many films show AFAB people. This claim seems to be a means to shut down dissenting opinions that call out the discomfort some viewers have with certain directors, creatives, and the detracting content consumers who enjoy the exposed content. This is especially the case when a film like “The Handmaiden” is such a win for LGBT viewers. We can see clearly the difference between how both characters are killed in the aforementioned scene in “Halloween II.”
It would be ludicrous to ignore the effect both films like “The Handmaiden” (a review coming in the future) and “Halloween” have had on the conversation surrounding women and AFAB bodies in the industry, whether critically positive or negative. In the case of “Halloween,” while Laurie Strode is the definition of a survivor who fought back, the film series treats its other AFAB characters in this exposed and vulnerable way. The horror genre tends to have this weird relationship with women, particularly slashers. Given the history of the treatment of women in film, it is understandable for a viewer to hold less trust that male directors have the best intentions at heart when shooting the AFAB body. Even when well-intentioned precautions are made, not to mention it is unlikely that the average viewer knows all the efforts made when simply clicking on the film to watch.
That being said, good and bad reactions to a film unfiltered by the knowledge behind its production are important to examine as they give us a clear view of how the finished product made someone feel by the end of it on its own. When watching both “The Handmaiden” and “Halloween II” along with films such as “House” or “Perfect Blue,” I enjoyed almost the entire ride of the film except for certain hiccups that when examined completely made me uncomfortable and troubled. Each of these films in my opinion could have been 10/10 masterpieces if certain moments had been slightly different. However, what I am left with is my confusion as to how to rate them.
With “Halloween II” being particularly frustrating because it is (for the most part) among the best in the franchise, and no I can not simply write it off. I think it is important to have healthy discussions with people as to why they feel the way they do about our favorite films. Don’t be hasty to be contemptuous towards someone’s opinion that doesn’t align with your own. When discussing this topic with the AFAB people in my own family, I was told that because of the society we were raised in, scenes like these in the film make them uncomfortable especially when directed from a man’s perspective given the consistent contexts. It is not just in their daily interaction with men where they see or receive this treatment of their bodies but by men in the media, which could even affect their comfort even in the privacy of their own homes.
The film industry has evolved since the days of “Halloween” and “Halloween II.” While the treatment of AFAB bodies has improved, it is important to recognize that due to the historic treatment of the bodies of women (by society at large and by the film industry), it will take more action, healing, and equally funded projects by all women to change the landscape of cinema and therefore the way we see women. We must admit to our prejudices in order to confront them and we must allow spaces for those who we have held negative perceptions of to show us who they are undaunted by potential backlash or oppression. Because in the end objectification, fetishizing, and oppression go hand in hand, and that’s not what scream queens like Laurie Strode stand for.
John Carter (He/Him and She/Her) is a senior at Fort Hays State University, studying Psychology. John has been reviewing films and interviewing talent since 2018. John hosts The Wynonna Knows Podcast and Dear Mr. Indigo Podcasts under the pseudonyms Wynonna Lincoln and Eduardo Valentine JR on Tiger Media Network’s KFHS Radio.
You must be logged in to post a comment.