Halloween (2018) Novelization
In 1978, Laurie Strode survived an encounter with Michael Myers, a masked figure who killed her friends and terrorized the town of Haddonfield, Illinois, on Halloween night. Myers was later gunned down, apprehended, and committed to Smith’s Grove State Hospital.
For forty years, memories of that nightmarish ordeal have haunted Laurie and now Myers is back once again on Halloween, having escaped a routine transfer, leaving a trail of bodies in his wake. This time, Laurie is prepared with years of survival training to protect herself, her daughter Karen and her granddaughter Allyson, a teenager separated from her family and enjoying Halloween festivities.
Now that I am done with reading the “old school” Halloween movie novelizations, it was only fitting to continue with reading the more recent adaptations of the latest trilogy in the saga. Yes, the David Gordon Green Halloween films, which completely dismissed all the sequels and only held the original Halloween canon. So, here, Michael and Laurie are not siblings and no curse of thorn. To me, this changes a lot and the current dynamic of the franchise makes less sense. It appeared there were no plans for a trilogy and expected the 2018 film to be a one-off. The filmmakers made a few changes to the original storyline for this film, as it is a direct sequel to the first film. In this version, Michael and Laurie are not related. And so, because of this, all the turmoil that Laurie Strode endured in Halloween, then Halloween 2, H20 and Halloween 8 (kind of) was all for nothing and the elongated battle between brother and sister only exists in the hearts and minds of the fans (and physical media). But, in this 2018 version, Laurie did not go through any of the horrors at Haddonfield Memorial Hospital (Halloween II) nor at Hillcrest Academy (Halloween: H20), then the Grace Andersen Sanitarium (Halloween 8: Resurrection). So, to me, there is a disconnect with Laurie and Michael in the 2018 movie and the novelization. It felt injected, forced even. So, when I see that Laurie has transformed into Sarah Connor because “the boogieman” is sure to one day come back to finish what he started, I don’t buy it. PTSD? Yes, that I buy. I don’t think the filmmakers needed to go the extreme and make Laurie to be so radical. I liked how this was done in Halloween: H20 when Michael was still her brother and how Laurie actually left Haddonfield to leave that life and trauma behind only for Michael to track her down and continue his hunt. This made more sense. Here, we saw Laurie struggle, still with alcohol but tried to move on and live a “normal” life.
We, the viewers, endured the struggle with Laurie throughout the years only for David Gordon-Green and company, including Danny McBride, to say, ‘Nah, the hell with it! None of that happened, so erase it from your memory!’ Only we couldn’t do that. We couldn’t just pretend that none of that happened because these filmmakers have been doing nothing but shoving this storyline down our throats for X amount of years. Halloween (2018) banked on our poor memories and wanted us to believe that after 40 years, Michael bided his time and patiently waited to make another grand escape to finish what he sought out to accomplish in killing Laurie Strode. It was a hard sell because they went back to the Michael Myers that was criminally insane and randomly killed people just because. On a fateful Halloween morning, 40 years ago in 1978, Laurie and her friends encountered Michael Myers when Laurie’s father, a realtor, assigned her to drop off the keys at the Myers’ place before going to school. Call it fate, call it chance, call it what you will – either way, it got us to where we are today. Let’s not forget that even if this film was made for a new generation of filmgoers, they still had to have seen the original Halloween for this one to make sense as a sequel.
And so, Halloween (2018) wanted its audience to believe that Myers held a grudge for 40 years and Laurie stuck around Haddonfield instead of moving across the country (see Halloween: H20) to be as far away as possible from her nemesis. No, she opted to stay in town and fortify her home in the chance that Myers would break out again and go after her because she is special; I suppose. This was hammered into us in this latest installation of the franchise but, still, I didn’t buy into this. It is what it is, and the fans clamored for more – including me!
I thought the movie was ok, mediocre, but a pleasant welcome back for the franchise. It looked updated, polished. I was on board, even though there were many things I could do without. Still, I enjoyed the film. I purchased the novelization by John Passarella not too long after watching the movie, hoping that there would be more than what we got in the film. I hoped that there would be some motivation behind the madness of Myers, being that they were no longer siblings. But, no, what we got in the film is what we got in the book. They are not siblings and Michael is just a madman that Dr. Sartain (the “new Loomis”) orchestrates the reunion of Michael and Laurie for some sort of “showdown” or to “help” Michael finish what he started in 1978. Again, this made no sense, but OK.
There were very few additions that added to the lore, substance, or essence of Michael Myers. It felt very cookie-cutter, generic, and, aside from the brutality of his killings, added little, if anything, new. When watching the film, and reading this book, there was a sense the creators were playing a tug of war with Myers on whether, or not, he should embody the shape or simply be a man with incredible stamina. We got the answer to that in the subsequent films. Also, in this novel, the Myers house was demolished and a garden put in its place to honor the victims of 1978 and because no one wanted to buy it. But then later the house is resurrected for Halloween Kills where Little John and Big John reside.
Passarella did, however, try to add more depth to the characters, Laurie with her obsessions and paranoia, as well as a substance abuse problem and the effects that were born out of these, including an estranged relationship with her daughter, Karen (no, not Jaime Lloyd). John Passarella shined in the moments where we got the inner thought of Laurie, Karen and even Allyson, Laurie’s granddaughter. What was, in my opinion, lacking, was more of Michael’s inner thoughts. Sure, there were a lot of POV (point of view) passages where, through his eyes and actions, we followed him, but, again, there were no inner thoughts that accompanied this. I wanted that. I wanted to hear what Michael thought when he stabbed someone or smashed their skull in with his foot. Did it make him happy? Was their pity, remorse, satisfaction, bliss? I don’t know. There was very little of this.
Like the movie, the book too was enjoyable, yet didn’t add much more than the source material. And like the film, David Gordon Green missed out on capturing the feel and atmosphere of the original film. That is not to say that it is without effort. He succeeded in making it his own, but being that Michael was at the forefront for a good portion of both the book and film; it failed to capture my imagination of having not frequently see the shape front and center. Gone is the stalking because Michael is the star and instead of fearing him like we did in the original film, we now cheer for him and egg him on. Stabbing became too simple and primitive for Michael. No, now gore and savagery have become his motif operandi. Suspense and mystery has taken a back seat to action sequences with big set pieces and elaborate kills. This is a different Halloween for a newer generation, understandably. While John Passarella wrote a great novelization, it does not hold a candle to Curtis Richards’ novelization of Halloween as it is, for the most part, rather drab, forgettable and unmoving, which is, of course, no fault of the author as he was, no doubt, using the script as the blueprint.