werewolf, werewolves and lycans

HALLOWEEN: Why Didn’t The Shape Kill The Baby?

Continuing my coverage of the new HALLOWEEN, regarding which last week I reported on the fact that some whiny-whiners—okay, actually just one—were upset that Michael Myers didn’t kill the baby. They—he—felt this was out of character for The Shape and it ruined the movie for him. (Yes, seriously. Hey, there were those eggheads who wanted to remake THE LAST JEDI, you will recall. A fandom is always gonna have its extremist loons.) I pointed out, and succinctly I think, that it wasn’t out of character at all. I thought I’d shot the rabbit and we could move on. A discussion with my lovely better half on the subject, however, sparked a new theory I thought I’d share with you all.

It’s perfect innocence. One who is truly innocent is beyond the grasp of Michael Myers. It isn’t that he has a trace of conscience. It’s more like he can’t perceive the truly innocent. That would explain why he walks past all those little kids out trick-or-treating without ripping into them like a weedeater, why he didn’t kill the baby, why in John Carpenter’s HALLOWEEN 2 he walked into an entire nursery full of babies and didn’t harm nary a hair on any one of their wee little heads. It’s like he didn’t even see them.

The stickler might point out that Michael DID in fact kill a child in the new HALLOWEEN, and they would be correct. BUT. That child, you will recall, was a hunter. That boy had killed. He was no longer purely innocent, even if the blood on his hands was animal blood. Thus he was vulnerable to The Shape.

It’s an extenuation of the whole “if you drink, do drugs, or have sex in a slasher movie, you die” trope, but it makes perfect sense, doesn’t it? And didn’t the original HALLOWEEN establish all those tropes to begin with? Even survivor girl Laurie had hit puberty. She was no longer 100% innocent. It all fits.

The Evil Cheezman • November 18, 2018

Previous Post

Next Post