Scanning the message board on Halloween‘s IMDB page, I came upon a number of interesting topics but one in particular actually puzzled me a great deal. In user RC-Cola’s post titled “Did I miss something?” (which can be found at www.imdb.com/title/tt0077651/board/thread/155539196?p=1), he or she wonders “Did Michael Myers have any motivation for the killings?” and later says “By the end I didn’t really care what he was doing because I didn’t know why he was killing people.” Frankly, I find this take very bizarre and am curious to find out where others stand on the issue. In my mind, at least when it comes to horror, the less you know, the better. I think people naturally tend to fear the unknown. Things you can’t fully grasp or understand bring out anxiety and that’s primarily because you don’t have much of an idea exactly what can be done about them. That’s why you don’t see Hitchcock providing a reason for the attacks in The Birds or Romero explaining how the zombies originated in any of his Dead films or what the structure is in Cube, if you’ve heard of it. Just as if Michael Myers was killing just to, say, seek revenge on someone in Halloween, it would lessen the threat and, in turn, the ability to frighten. This is one of my many issues with subsequent films in the Halloween series. First there’s the sister angle and later an ancient Druid curse is introduced. It plays just as ridiculous as it sounds.

In an entirely different thread on the subject (www.imdb.com/title/tt0077651/board/thread/155601090?p=1), user simest articulates my thoughts on this perfectly. He says, “I think where Michael has a clear, identifiable and tangible reason to kill – seemingly based upon mitigating circumstances – it is far less unnerving because as a society, we can work towards addressing those circumstances and avoiding their recurrence. The implications are considerably less frightening if we know there are measures we can take to prevent them.” And later in the first thread I mentioned above, Sundown 93 quotes Billy Loomis from Scream who says, “…did Norman Bates have a motive? Did we ever find out why Hannibal Lecter liked to eat people? DONT THINK SO! See it’s a lot scarier when there’s no motive.” Couldn’t agree more.

And I suppose this is why Phillips’ reading of the film bothers me as much as it does. Looking at it from the point of view that Myers is acting to “punish the wicked” would ruin a big part of what makes Halloween so unique and effective. If it’s just “the absence of the disciplining parents that calls forth the monstrous bogeyman” then, as simest puts it, we know what measures we can take to prevent his presence. It now boils down to a simple fairy tale and he’s not all that terrifying anymore. Given that Myers is presented throughout as a purely evil, unstoppable force, Phillips’ take seems to be in direct opposition to what the movie intends, making it hard for me, at least, to play along. It doesn’t help that he dismisses/ignores plot elements (the murder of the truck driver and that, despite not being successful, Myers did intend to kill Laurie) as he’s trying to make the point.