Imo it’s such an ambitious sequel because Halloween 5 tries to be a story about a cursed princess who overcomes her curse and tries to free her uncle of his. Allow me to try and explain why I believe that
In the original cut of the film before it was re-shot. Michael is awakened on a slab by a dark magician, or warlock, if you will. Dr. Death as he’s been dubbed by fans
Why that scene works where the re-shot one in the theatrical version doesn’t, is because Michael’s mask has elongated, almost classically attractive features. It’s not a coincidence. It’s also not a coincidence that he looks somewhat attractive and has classically handsome features without the mask. As if…he’s a prince…a cursed prince being awoken once more. That fits with the ideas, a hermit holding Michael hostage just doesn’t.
Like, pay attention to the Halloween costumes the characters are wearing: The Devil, Werwolf, Little Red Riding Hood, Jamie is a princess, Billy is a pirate, etc. Classical fairytale staples. These are deliberate choices. The film was shot in 1989. The costumes could’ve been Reagan, a Ghostbuster, a Star Wars character; but they weren’t. If it was a weird one off then you could argue it’s merely a coincidence, but where there’s smoke…there’s fire. And all of these motifs are little campfires.
When Loomis confronts Michael in the woods with the fog rolling and Michael partially concealed by trees, tell me that shot isn’t framed and set up like something out of a fantasy movie.
There’s a pov shot of Michael watching Jamie from across the street. The shot is of Jamie in the “castle” turret combing her hair(rapunzel), the castle is guarded by police(knights) until they’re called away. Jamie and her cop/knight attempt to rappel down the castle turret on a rope(rapunzel again), the castle has a booby trap(courtesy of Dr. Loomis), Jamie lays in a coffin like sleeping beauty while Michael stands over her, Jaime the princess tries to reach her uncle and manages to draw out a rare moment of vulnerability and regret before the evil reclaims him; and then the film ends with Michael in a dungeon.
And finally notice how there’s fire on some of the bars of the dungeon…as if they’re torches.
Now…does it succeed in this vision? Ehhh.
But it tried something unique for the franchise.
Now let’s be clear do I think Girard set out to make an exploitation film that is also at its core a fairytale?
Who’s to say?
I think it’s possible that he saw that the building they were using as the Myers house looked sort of like a castle and perhaps he thought something along the lines of “Hmmm maybe I could make do with what I have and take advantage of this and put a unique spin on the movie, while I’m at it.”
I’ve heard the Dr. Death scene was re-shot because the producers thought that Girard was making some bizzare choices and they wanted it to feel like a proper follow up to Halloween 4. submitted by /u/Prof_Tickles
[link] [comments]
In the original cut of the film before it was re-shot. Michael is awakened on a slab by a dark magician, or warlock, if you will. Dr. Death as he’s been dubbed by fans
Why that scene works where the re-shot one in the theatrical version doesn’t, is because Michael’s mask has elongated, almost classically attractive features. It’s not a coincidence. It’s also not a coincidence that he looks somewhat attractive and has classically handsome features without the mask. As if…he’s a prince…a cursed prince being awoken once more. That fits with the ideas, a hermit holding Michael hostage just doesn’t.
Like, pay attention to the Halloween costumes the characters are wearing: The Devil, Werwolf, Little Red Riding Hood, Jamie is a princess, Billy is a pirate, etc. Classical fairytale staples. These are deliberate choices. The film was shot in 1989. The costumes could’ve been Reagan, a Ghostbuster, a Star Wars character; but they weren’t. If it was a weird one off then you could argue it’s merely a coincidence, but where there’s smoke…there’s fire. And all of these motifs are little campfires.
When Loomis confronts Michael in the woods with the fog rolling and Michael partially concealed by trees, tell me that shot isn’t framed and set up like something out of a fantasy movie.
There’s a pov shot of Michael watching Jamie from across the street. The shot is of Jamie in the “castle” turret combing her hair(rapunzel), the castle is guarded by police(knights) until they’re called away. Jamie and her cop/knight attempt to rappel down the castle turret on a rope(rapunzel again), the castle has a booby trap(courtesy of Dr. Loomis), Jamie lays in a coffin like sleeping beauty while Michael stands over her, Jaime the princess tries to reach her uncle and manages to draw out a rare moment of vulnerability and regret before the evil reclaims him; and then the film ends with Michael in a dungeon.
And finally notice how there’s fire on some of the bars of the dungeon…as if they’re torches.
Now…does it succeed in this vision? Ehhh.
But it tried something unique for the franchise.
Now let’s be clear do I think Girard set out to make an exploitation film that is also at its core a fairytale?
Who’s to say?
I think it’s possible that he saw that the building they were using as the Myers house looked sort of like a castle and perhaps he thought something along the lines of “Hmmm maybe I could make do with what I have and take advantage of this and put a unique spin on the movie, while I’m at it.”
I’ve heard the Dr. Death scene was re-shot because the producers thought that Girard was making some bizzare choices and they wanted it to feel like a proper follow up to Halloween 4. submitted by /u/Prof_Tickles
[link] [comments]