MovieChat Forums > Halloween (1978) Discussion > What makes this a 'masterpiece' of horro...

What makes this a 'masterpiece' of horror?

posted 10 months ago by [deleted]
19 replies | jump to latest

Many people champion this as a 'masterpiece', one of the top 10 horror movies of all time, whilst they consider other slashers like My Bloody Valentine, Friday the 13th, The Burning, The Funhouse, The Prowler, etc, etc to be 'fun B movies'.

I'd genuinely like to know in words what makes Halloween so much better than the others?

All I can think of are the cinematography is above average for a slasher, the OST is good... and you could argue one or two of the acting performances are above average for a slasher.

I think this is a case where the narrative around the movie helps prop it up. It made a lot of money, launched a franchise, was directed by a director whom made other beloved horror movies and it was 'influential'. For me these external factors shouldn't count. They're circumstantial.

[–] VinceD (7810) 10 months ago

I think this is a case where the narrative around the movie helps prop it up. It made a lot of money, launched a franchise, was directed by a director whom made other beloved horror movies and it was 'influential'. For me these external factors shouldn't count. They're circumstantial.

I actually agree with your conclusion.

I don't dislike this movie, and Carpenter is one of my favorite directors, however, sometimes this film does seem overrated, especially when calling it a masterpiece. Masterpiece connotes artistic merit, and external factors like how much money it made and launching of a franchise shouldn't be factored into to its quality as a work of art.

It's influence on filmmaking, and not just in the horror genre, is profound. You can see its impact in films like The Terminator (1984) and even in comedies like Scary Movie (2000) and "The 'Burbs" (1989).

But as you stated, it being highly-influential doesn't make it a masterpiece. It's a pretty good movie though.

[–] [deleted] 10 months ago

I love Halloween but I also champion other slashers and I have something of a dislike for snobby Halloween fans who act like it's the only slasher worth a damn. The reason I asked this is because I think a lot of people would actually struggle to explain what makes Halloween so much better than all the others.

- The screenplay is basic. A madman escapes an asylum and kills people. Why? Because he's evil. He's seemingly uncommonly strong and very durable making him questionably supernatural. This isn't explained!

- It's a low budget flick and contains quite a few goofs.

- The characterizations are typical of the genre. A bunch of shit head teens basically. Dr. Loomis is the only real difference compared to many other casts.

- It's low on gore and nudity. Many slasher fans adore the genre thanks to it essentially becoming 'tits and stabbings', those are big selling points for many.

Movie discourse interests me a lot. The more I discuss and partake the more I realize it's often completely random.

To further my 'external factors' reasoning. It's really a snowball effect. Halloween got the rub of the green and made a lot of money thus it helped launch John Carpenters career, thus the studio wanted a sequel, thus they kept returning to the well and the movie became more and more famous due to repeated exposure through it's franchise sequels. The reason it was influential is because it made money on a low budget and other studios wanted to profit also.

People are happy to use stuff like 'good critic reviews' and 'outstanding box office returns' to support arguments of a movies merits but when a movie they love wasn't well received, such as The Thing (1982), then suddenly it doesn't matter. If it doesn't matter then it doesn't matter period. A movie making money doesn't mean it's good and other peoples opinions shouldn't matter much.

[–] [deleted] 10 months ago

A lot of people subscribe to the "it did it first therefore it's the best" line of thought. For me I welcome progression and evolution.

Even if some movies that followed Halloween are indebted to it, that doesn't mean they're incapable of besting it.

If you follow this line of thought then the first movies are the best. It's set in stone. Nothing will ever compare. First ever romance movie? It's the best for all time no other romance movie can beat it. Etc, etc. Don't tell fans of The Thing (1982) that it can't be better than The Thing from Another World (1951) because it's a remake.

As I said. People will pick and choose their arguments. When it benefits the preferred movie then it's worth considering, when it goes against the preferred movie it is readily discarded.

Also Halloween has it's influences. Perhaps everyone should ditch Halloween and celebrate Black Christmas instead? Hhhmmm...

[–] VinceD (7810) 10 months ago

Also Halloween has it's influences. Perhaps everyone should ditch Halloween and celebrate Black Christmas instead?

Yeah I had originally brought up Black Christmas and Psycho in my original reply to you but deleted it because I thought I was getting carried away.

The screenplay is basic. A madman escapes an asylum and kills people. Why? Because he's evil. He's seemingly uncommonly strong and very durable making him questionably supernatural. This isn't explained!

Even if some movies that followed Halloween are indebted to it, that doesn't mean they're incapable of besting it.

100% this. I really feel like Cameron, with Terminator, greatly improved on what Carpenter did so well in Halloween.

Myers in "Halloween" and the Cyborg in "Terminator" both represent an unstoppable force relentlessly pursuing their targets. While Myers is driven by a supernatural "evil" the Terminator is driven by its programming. James Cameron took Carpenter's idea of a unstoppable killer and added a science/sci-fi spin by making the threat a machine, something that resonates deeply with modern anxieties about technology.

Supernatural explanations can be cool and creepy too, but they can be kind of lazy when it comes to writing and kind of lacking in social commentary.

[–] e3e34ifj (1502) 10 months ago

"other slashers like My Bloody Valentine, Friday the 13th, The Burning, The Funhouse, The Prowler, etc, etc to be 'fun B movies'."

I don't think Halloween is perfect and I'd confidently place four other Carpenter films above this one in his total filmography. But, Halloween is easily better than any of the films you listed. The pacing, editing, cinematography, atmosphere, direction, and the OST all make Halloween undoubtably better than nearly anything in the slasher genre, at least for the time period.

[–] PittPanthers47 (237) 10 months ago

Yup, you just nailed it----the pacing and suspense was incredible for its time when it came out. Throw in the very eerie music created by Carpenter and it was truly a masterpiece of the genre. I still recall being very frightened and on the edge of my seat the first time I saw it years ago.

[–] Kowalski (63924) 10 months ago

💯

[–] buzzlightbeer (1823) 10 months ago

Because it stands out for its writing and style. It is psychological horror, not overt like the others. It makes great use if understatement and nuance, inference. The danger is largely latent, and it escalates to a crescendo.then it leaves things open for the viewer to draw conclusions. It doesnt lead or spoon feed the viewer.

I could say more, maybe later.

I love this film. Imo you either get it ir you dont. :)

[–] howgamer (3739) 10 months ago

Really well said. Plus it stands out because it is the first of its kind for the suspense and psychological elemental. I think that people who don't get it, don't appreciate when it was made and what most horror films were before this. Amazing soundtrack too by Carpenter.

[–] buzzlightbeer (1823) 10 months ago

thanks. coulda said more but it was late and i was on my cell. i hate typing on my cell. i think i have posted longer ones about halloween in the past, may try to dig those up.

agree about the year. it cut new ground, and that escapes most people. i see it as a stand alone, and pretty much ignore the other 17 halloween films (withthe exception of H20 which i thought was a nice recap). so yes, if not seeing it 'in the context of 1978 and all the surrounding factors that encompasses', then they miss the true appreciation.

another thing is, as i recall, most of the violence came at the end, after a long simmering tension was allowed to build during the film.

yet another thing is the fact (this is big IMO) that it has nothing metaphysical or supernatural in its details; 100% plausible, something that could actually happen IRL to someone on your street. to me this helps bring it home and add authenticity.

as i said, i have expounded further in the past. these are some tidbits i recall here, but not a full analysis.

cheers!

[–] howgamer (3739) 10 months ago

I think for me, the fact that this is something that could actually happen was the scariest part. When I first watched the film, that was on my mind a lot.

[–] MinorityRules15 (960) 9 months ago

The score. Piano melodies and notes are haunting/chilling/evil sounding whatever you want to call it. Those notes hit at the right time really set the mood. Without those, the movie would probably sound like Annie chewing on the phone the whole time.

[–] SandyR (7737) 9 months ago

Once you see the original Black Christmas, it's difficult to consider this movie a masterpiece. Though it has a special place in history.

[–] [deleted] 9 months ago

Black Christmas is one of the all time greats and deserves as much (if not more) praise than Halloween. I'll always say Black Christmas is underrated until I see it making 'top 10 best horror movies of all time' lists like The Texas Chain Saw Massacre and Halloween do with regularity.

I love Halloween, this thread is partly me playing the devils advocate, but it really hogs all the attention and has a horde of casual fans who think it invented horror. It's a great slasher movie but many others are too and deserve as much praise.

I think it's the insane fanboyism that annoys me at times, Halloween fanboys say shit like "Halloween is better than [insert post-Halloween slasher movie] because without Halloween it would never have happened". Or they'll act like Halloween is high art and that the rest of the sub-genre is tasteless trash. I've seen several people say stuff like "Halloween is a masterpiece that invented the slasher sub-genre, granted the sub-genre is awful, but Halloween is legitimately good."

Basically they'll praise Halloween for it's influence on slashers whilst not even liking slashers. I can't take anyone seriously if they like Halloween but don't like many other slashers. Though truth be told the people who like Halloween typically will praise other heavy hitter franchise slashers like A Nightmare on Elm Street and Scream. Very mainstream and commercial. A movie doesn't need 8 sequels and hundreds of millions at the box office to be good!

I do think the commercialization of franchises and the resulting lasting 'cultural impact' plays a big part in movies gaining bonus points. It's why smaller Canadian movies that weren't mega hits and didn't have sequels, such as Black Christmas and My Bloody Valentine, are considered 'lesser' to the big American slasher franchises when they're every bit their equal.

[–] SandyR (7737) 9 months ago

It's nice that My Bloody Valentine never got a sequel. I'm not a fan of sequels in general. Halloween II defused the mystery of Michael Myers. F13 and Nightmare became parodies of themselves as more and more sequels were made. MBV and The Prowler stand in a class by themselves for not getting cheapened by becoming "franchises."

[–] pjl69 (2539) 9 months ago

How about masterful and careful buildup of suspense and tension. Safety of middle class suburb is very fragile and the ever present evil can get you anytime and the soundtrack supports all this. Halloween isn't about blood, bodycount, flashy murders or titties like with the rest of its less intelligently made followers or ripoffs. I don't praise it because I like John Carpenter's other movies, this one is his number one movie, all the other movies of his are below it. After Halloween he made The Fog, which I consider, while moody ghost story, also a failure of some sort. So stop trying to explain why other people like some movies, it just makes you look stupid and arrogant.

[–] [deleted] 9 months ago

Other slasher movies deliver the suspense along with the who-done-it? element which further adds intrigue. Villains often have revenge motivations which is superior writing against "he's just evil, I guess?". The Giallo genre has so much mystery involved, a lot clever writing that puts Halloween's extremely simplistic plot to shame.

Characterizations are superior in several other slasher movies. Halloween's cast is the typical stock character trope - 'shithead teens' + Dr. Loomis.

Couple these factors with more gore, more nudity and often superior settings! The American suburbs is cool and all but not as interesting, visually, as a mine, carnival or summer camp. Some of the location photography in movies like Just Before Dawn and The Burning is beautiful. Also the Giallo movies have beautiful Italy on display.

Carpenter's OST is good but Wakeman's OST for The Burning is nifty too, as is Beals' for The Funhouse and Fiedel's in Just Before Dawn. Then you get Morricone's superb work in the giallo movies.

Who is to say 'suspense and tension' is superior to gore and bodycount? The latter often comes with it's own suspense and tension, whilst sometimes not reaching the level of Halloween, they still delvier it. It's not a one-for-one trade. A 10 in suspense + a 5 in gore vs a 7 in suspense + 9 in gore. Which is better?

In any case Halloween is the king of suspense or tension. I'd say Black Christmas has it beat in that regard whilst also bringing a superior screenplay to the table.

You can see movies like What Have You Done To Solange? which has slick photography, clever writing, a great OST, a brilliant motive for the killer, good murder scenes, lots of nudity coupled with good acting. Granted this is giallo vs slasher (though they're very similar sub-genres). It also predates Halloween. It has Halloween bested, on paper, in several core areas. Halloween is better edited and I guess more suspenseful... that's all it has over WHYDTS really.

[–] pjl69 (2539) 9 months ago

"Who is to say 'suspense and tension' is superior to gore and bodycount?"

Who is to say gore and bodycount is superior to suspense and tension? I'm here just telling why I like Halloween, maybe its a difficult concept for you to understand. You're trying to explain off other people's opinions for them. Please, cut that out and your writings wouldn't give such an arrogant impression. We get it already, you're an edgy and independent thinker who goes around pissing on several classic movie boards with his "edgy" views on them. Try broaden your movie taste outside of horror, gore and naked chicks some time.

[–] SandyR (7737) 9 months ago

'Lighten up, Francis.'