So this brand new character "billy" they dumped on us is the killer.. And I guess he overheard Peter and Jess arguing, especially about "removing a wart" then he copied that on the phone with Jess?
I heard that the director shot a couple different endings, so this is just another dumb confused mess of a film the viewer is left with, I was really enjoying it, except the conclusion.
Sorry you feel that way.
I think the reason a lot of us love Black Christmas is because we are told much less about Billy and sometimes less is more. Halloween does the exact same thing with Michael Myers. Like Billy, he's alive at the end and has disappeared.
It can be a little frustrating the first time you watch it because you want some closure, but not all films do this and I think the more you watch it the more you appreciate that aspect of it.
Don't get me wrong, the film was shot great, lots of good acting, and camera work.
I'm a horror film buff, and finally got around to seeing this. But I feel Halloween gives us tons more character development, especially Mike's whole origin at the beginning..
But I hate when directors/writers can't get a hold of their film.. Similar to how Coppola and Kubrick were asking the actors how to finish the movie on An and FMJ, and look at the mess endings those were.
Black Christmas, is probably the only film I can recall with such a insult to the viewer at the end, absolutely nothing to tie in billy throughout the whole film, it just seems like another confused scared writer just couldn't make it work, so; "ok lets just go with the mystery billy character, maybe the viewers wont lynch me for it"
I think that's what makes this one special. It is far more scary the less we know about Billy. It adds to the mystery. Bob Clark manages to get this done right, and not all movies that end this way can do this.
Halloween had a bit of a backstory to Myers but it still left you guessing a lot. Like why did he pursue Laurie Strode in the first place? Why did he kill his sister? Why was he like that? No one knows. Well, at least in the original as it was meant, no one knew.
With Black Christmas it still causes you to discuss it. You analyze it. Sometimes in horror the things you DON'T see are far scarier.
It makes it scary, but also very disappointing, and to me it reveals that the writer wasn't prepared, for him to even consider having alternate endings, a story should be complete before undertaking a huge project such as a film IMHO.
Myer's was 100x more relative than Billy, right away he's shown to be a psycho plain and simple, as was Billy, but to say here's the whole movie full of characters and development, but forget the whole 2hrs you just saw, it's this brand new character here, that has nothing to do with anything in the film.
Totally unprepared writer/director.
Having alternate endings, or asking for advice from others how to finish a piece of art shows unprofessional-ism.
See, I don't think it was like that at all. We just didn't SEE Billy, but we knew he was always there. We just didn't know who it was.
Lots of horror movies leave you with a cliffhanger. Halloween being one of them. Just pretend that there is never a sequel. There wasn't supposed to be one, it was supposed to end that way. The Birds has an ending that leaves you hanging, no one knows what really happens after that last scene. Even Friday the 13th in just watching the original, we're introduced to Jason at the end and no one knows if it was just a dream (that canoe scene) at the end or not.
Black Christmas is more pronounced than all of those films when it comes to mystery but I don't think Bob Clark did it that way by accident. He was pressured to reveal a killer and refused to and kept it that way. I think it is just a bit of a throwback to the days where we were left with more of a mystery.
Black Christmas is the only horror movie, let alone movie in history, to throw in a brand new character in the last minutes, that just crap over the previous 90minutes...
Jason Voorhees whole origin was told over and over through the film, and Myer's was introduced in the opening scene. Haven't seen The Birds fully yet, but a lot of people didn't like Vertigo's quick ending, but it was still relative to her guilt and death..
Just feel Bob Clark took a huge unprofessional gamble, he may have been trying to do something artsy like Jodorowski, but I feel he was just being lazy, and lost..
Too bad because it overall is a great film...
Maybe if they had a twist like it was Peter's insane twin escaped from the hospital, and the both of them were working together.. Anything but "Ahhh I can't figure out an ending... Let's just call this killer dude... Ummmmm Billy? ..And the audience will hopefully go for it"
I have no idea what film you were watching because the evidence you show is all rubbish lol. We both know that the killer was there from start to finish, just unseen by the viewer so your explanation about the killer just dropping in at the last moment from nowhere is null and void, which is why you're not getting much responses on this ridiculous thread.
shareWow you are really mad! Calm down son.... It's a brand new character as in he has no origin, normal movies reveal some clues no matter how small. And the director was said to have trouble finishing the film, so it's another rush job, just call the dude "billy"
And my heart is breaking I don't have tons of replies awww.. Wait actually there is several now yay!
Again, false. Backstory was given through the killer's phone rants and you know this already so why play games?
shareI`m playing games? Oh ya pass me the ball back! The whiny phone calls I would hardly say revealed anything, they lead us to believe it could be Jess`s boyfriend with menatl issues, or anybody for that matter.
All humans are capable of yelling and screaming.. But again, the director admitted he had trouble solving the ending, a mistake he should have kept quiet, it just shows negligence.
Overall great movie, good shooting, and acting, but it just stinks of the writers faults, kinda like Coppola couldn`t finish Apocalypse Now.
Oh man, you really missed the point didn't you?
The film makers of Black Christmas intended for Billy to be anonymous and mysterious on purpose. It wasn't a last ditch effort to save the film's ending. It was a conscious creative choice that was made for one reason:
The less we know about the killer, the less we can relate to him.
The reason why Billy is ten times more terrifying than Jason, Michael and all the rest of the classic slasher killers is because we know so little about him. And his maniacal rantings on the phone might not have meant anything at all. It could have just been something he invented just to mess with Jess' mind. But even if they did hold clues to his background, they still don't give us much. Just vague and cryptic hints at what might have happened that still don't really explain his behaviour. But this leaves room for our imaginations to try and figure out how someone could have become so twisted and deranged.
Black Christmas has one of the most effective endings in the slasher genre, period. And not since the original Halloween film have I been so scared by the idea that the killer is still alive and out there somewhere. And that even at the film's ending, we're still no more informed about the movie's killer than we were at the start. If anything, it leaves us with more questions than answers.
And that's amazing.
I appreciate your points on mystery, but the writer put all those twists on jess`s boyfriend being the killer, and other leads, then to slap the viewer in the face and just have this made up character, with no origin is cheating the viewer.. The writer admitted problems finishing the story, so I don`t know why you think that was planned.
Myers at least had a origin, this is the only movie to have a complete lead, with zero origin, no other movie in history has that, and it`s laughable some people eat it up, and cannot see through the writing block,
Well, I'm sorry you feel that way about the movie but what you call "writing block" I call a risky choice made by the film makers that actually ended up working for the story's favour. I'm not saying they got "lucky" with it or anything like that. But they knew the risks when they decided to make their killer completely ambiguous, Bob Clark knew that the studio executives wouldn't like it. But they went ahead and did it anyway, and now 40 years later the film is a cult classic. So I'd say they made the right choice.
Of course not every film is perfect, and Black Christmas certainly has it's flaws but this isn't one of them. And what's wrong with breaking from that traditional horror mold where we know the killer's back story and origin? Why was it so wrong of them to take it into a different direction and try something new?
I have no idea why you keep saying that they "made up" a character. You make it sound like for the entire run-time of the film, we didn't see Billy at all until the very end. But he makes a brief appearance in almost every other scene in the film so that can't be true. In fact, we see more and more of him as the movie goes on; thus building our anticipation for the reveal that we think is going to come. But it never does. And that's what makes the ending so great: it actually kind of invites us to create our own theory as to who Billy is. Instead of blatantly spoon-feeding it to us, we're left to our own devices.
Black Christmas's phenomenal ending asks a question that is so effective and yet so rarely asked in films today:
"What do you think?"
So, I really have to commend the film for being original. Almost every other slasher film in existence follows the same basic formula (except perhaps Scream, which is really just a parody of the genre) so how ironic that the first slasher film was the only one who actually had the guts to try something different before they even realized they were making a choice that would make the film stand out from all of the rest.
By not following the same old, boring slasher genre tropes, this film has stood the test of time far better than most.
Haha well I could argue we didn`t see Billy at all, only his eyes or hand, how do we know he`s not actually a strong she?.
The easiest thing in the world to do is have a unknown unexplained character, and the fact that Clark had multiple different endings, shows his struggle, and he took the easy way out. It`s funny some will take these faults as planned genius rather than writers block.
My beef was the whole wasted effort introducing "possible" characters like Peter etc, only to not follow up the 90mins with any sliver of development, I`m not asking Clark to have a full blown origin, but a tiny hint of some development would make this an even scarier film, like it`s really Peter`s insane twin brother... Anything!?
Halloween, Friday the 13th, and plenty others all have the "What do you think" endings difference with them was it was planned from the beginning.
Well, that can't be right because when we see Billy's shadow when he's about to stab Barbara it is CLEARLY a man's frame/build. Just because he can imitate a woman's voice doesn't' necessarily mean the killer was a woman. Plus, several times he even says "Agnes, it's me Billy." so I don't see how that could be a possibility. Yes, it's true we don't see very much of him. But we DO see him nonetheless. I took your words to meaning that we didn't see him at all.
Yes, you're right. Halloween did have a similar ending that was done very well too (we're talking about the first one here) but please don't ever compare Friday the 13th to Black Christmas. That ending was horrible. It could have been done well if the film had just ended right there when the main heroine got dragged down by Jason. But instead they chose to make it cheesy and silly by having the main character wake up and say "Then he's still out there" making it painfully obvious to the audience as to what really happened instead of leaving us in suspense like Halloween or Black Christmas did.
Are you familiar with the term "red herring"? In case you aren't, that's what a character like Peter is usually referred to. A character who's sole purpose in a story is to trick the audience into believing one thing when really another thing was happening all along. And the use of the red herring in Black Christmas is probably the best I've ever seen in a film. By the end, I was wholly convinced that only Peter could have been the killer. When I was proven wrong, I wasn't mad the film. I was even more impressed by it.
Though it is funny that you say that you were hoping it was Peter's "twin brother" because when I first saw the film, I thought that "Billy" was Peter's alternate persona. As in, maybe he had a split personality that caused him to go violent and crazy. It would certainly explain why someone who was thought to be so dedicated to music would angrily smash a piano. But...then again, we don't know Peter's full story so maybe he just had anger issues.
I wasn`t alluding to him being a woman, but I mean the fact we never see him, he might as well be a giraffe.. Actually we never see him.
Well whether Friday the 13th was good or not it`s still a "What do you think" ending I never compared the film intricacies.
I respect you like this movie, I think it was very well done, and couldn`t take my eyes off it, but that was in part for the whole suspense of finding out who the killer was, and then when I heard Clark was having real life issues with the ending it doesn`t take a genius to figure out he took the easy route.
Similar to Coppola and Kubrick not being able to finish Apocalypse Now, and Full Metal Jacket, both horrible endings.
Funny writers don`t have a solid draft and have it read and get feedback before starting huge projects like this.
Okay, I guess you saw a different movie then me because in the film I saw, that's clearly a man stalking the girls in the sorority house, but whatever floats your boat.
It's okay to have gripes with a film, I'm not judging you for that. I just don't understand how you could have perceived certain things from it. But that's the magic of film: no two people are going to perceive a film in the same way.
Funny writers don`t have a solid draft and have it read and get feedback before starting huge projects like this.
I thought I clarified the man/woman topic, I never said it was a woman, I said we never see the character, we only see a mans hands, eyes, shadow etc, if you consider that revealing a character in a movie, that had 90mns dedicated to him, then whatever floats your boat.
Never said screen-writing is overnight, it`s like any great story, if you don`t take time to have a solid ending what`s the point, Moore should have kept his original, if he even had a solid ending (we will never know) and not give into revisions, but I guess money talks.. Stallone did similar in Rocky he was offered loads of money, but he stuck with it and it paid off. King, Stone etc all great writers that I believe start with their ending, then build the story off that, and the producers love it. So if Clark or a certain producer is to blame for screwing up Moores magic, then we can agree on that, it`s a shame I wonder what the true genius ending was.
And how come you don`t have Texas Chainsaw Masscare 74`, or Hellrasier on your top horror list that is a crime my friend!
Well, you certainly implied it. But I'm sorry if I misunderstood you. It's just important that you're at least aware that writing is the heart of a movie and can make or break it. They really are the unsung heroes of the film making industry and they deserve the respect of everyone who claims to love movies.
The answer to your question is simple:
1) Texas Chainsaw Massacre isn't on there because I only had 10 spots. There are many other films I would have liked to have included on the list but didn't have enough room for them.
2) I've never seen all of Hellraiser. I've seen clips of it but not the whole thing. It's on my list though.
Writing is everything, just as long as King sticks to writing, and not directing haha.
I have a few "top 10" lists and they end up being at least 15-16 titles haha, I don`t think anyone cares. It`s curious to see how many people view our lists, sometimes in the thousands!
[deleted]
I don't understand how you can say Billy wasn't a developed character. A man claiming to be "Billy" calls throughout the entire movie. He talks about Agnes. When you find out it isn't Peter and watch the movie again, it's even more creepy to listen to what Billy says. You can come up with your own conclusions to who Billy and Agnes are. Many people think Billy and Agnes had a sibling they killed when they were young or that Agnes was Billy's sister and he killed her. It's nice not to know the answer to every single thing sometimes. You saying you'd rather it have been Peter's crazed twin contradicts your own issue. That would be really be pulling a character out of thin air lol. Also Bob Clark did in fact rewrite Roy Moore's script so you never saw Billy. It wasn't a random decision. Bob wanted viewers to think for themselves. Also the only thing I've read that Bob Clark had issues with about the ending is if he should blatantly show Jess dead or not.
I just enjoy the movie and I get if you don't, I just don't agree that Billy was some random choice.
You're only given a little spark of madness. You mustn't lose it.
RIP Robin Williams
There is insulting the audience and then there is treating the audience as being intelligent enough to come to their own conclusions, which this movie does masterfully. Unfortunately many people lack an imagination.
shareYou wanna see Billy explained, watch the remake. Its not a very good movie. Today's viewers apparently need everything explained to them. Its what ruined the remake of Black Christmas and The Haunting.
shareHere's the thing, in Psycho you'll find the average fan hates the explanation at the end of the movie from the psychiatrist. Pscyho is nearly a perfect movie, perhaps THE standard, but that scene gets a lot of people mad because it explains things a little too much.
I didn't mind it because quite frankly, we see Norman Bates the whole movie and it would have been a little unfulfilling to have the last scene be where he runs downstairs in a dress and have it never be explained. Besides, Psycho does wrap it up very eerily with Norman staring into the camera at the end.
But Black Christmas just seems to do it well also. Would the movie be better if they caught Billy, handcuffed him and then delved into his personal history so that we know all about him or is it better to have it left the way it is. A killer on the loose, we don't know who he is or why he did what he did. We don't know if Jess survives. To me, the real ending is better. Not every movie should end that way, but since it is so rare it can be done to perfection like Black Christmas.
Halloween was the same way more or less. We know the backstory on Michael Myers, but we don't know why he kills or why he went after Laurie Strode. Plus he's gone at the end. It ends perfectly and in a way it had to be inspired by Black Christmas.
This thread is exhausting to read. OP did not like ending and is determined not to understand that we had glimpses and clues about Billy's backstory all along through bits and snippets of the phone conversations. This was tacked on at the end just to find a way to wrap things up.
sharewe had glimpses and clues about Billy's backstory all along through bits and snippets of the phone conversations.
Billy was the killer. You don't need his life history. The novelization provides a few more clues of what Billy did with his sister Agnes, which is he molested her. Thus the line, "Agnes, don't tell what we did." If you stop to think about it, in Halloween we know the killer is Michael Myers and that he killed his sister, but that is all we ever know. He never speaks and Loomis only speaks about him in the vaguest of terms. These movies operate on a primal level and all you need to know is he is deranged. The same applies to Jason of the Friday the 13th films. He was a boy who supposedly drowned and saw his mother beheaded and that is all. Not who his father was. Not what his childhood was like. Not if he was a bullied child or just a neglected one (the counselors were not paying attention). There is a horror film called Final Exam where we never find out who the killer was or his motive for killing. Not everything needs explained. Not everything needs to be revealed, especially in a horror film.
shareBilly was the killer. You don't need his life history
Actually, Jason was thrown in. He did not exist in the first film except as a motivation for the killer. The shot at the end was just a dream scare inspired by Carrie (1977). The film makers never intended on using him until the movie made so much money and they needed an idea for a sequel. And there was character development for Michael Myers at all. We see him as a child and a glimpse of his face at the end. There is nothing about his parents (seen briefly only for a moment). There is no therapy sessions with Loomis. If this is your idea of character development, then you obviously have no understanding of what this actually means. And, of course, the ending was planned. Just because you did not like it does not mean that Bob Clark did not plan on how he would end the film. But I've wasted enough time with you. It is obvious that you do not like the ending and feel that you were slighted by the film makers.
shareActually, Jason was thrown in. He did not exist in the first film except as a motivation for the killer. The shot at the end was just a dream scare inspired by Carrie (1977)
And, of course, the ending was planned.
He knows now
shareBadlands, youre a dumb prick. Thats what everybody on this thread knows, I just had to tell you.
shareThe first time I watched Black Christmas, I felt the same as the OP. That the ending was a confusing mess. I nearly gave away the DVD I had bought, but was persuaded to watch it again. I was told to pay attention to the phone conversations.
The killer named Billy is not brand new in the sense that he is present all the way through the movie. You just don't see him at all. You can get some information about his history by listening to his comments. Other stuff is unknown, and has to be speculated on by the viewer.
Black Christmas not a film where you're supposed to know a lot about the killer's motivation. That's what sets it apart from a lot of other slashers. Ambiguity can be scarier or more sinister than knowing everything.
It's now in my top five horror movies.