On Thursday, February 1st in a quaint house situated on a tree-lined residential street in Charleston, South Carolina (one which strongly resembled Pasadena, CA’s 1978 stand-in for a certain fictional town in Illinois), I found myself, along with and a handful of other journalists clustered about a dining table, our voice recorders whirring. The occasion?
Principal photography on the eleventh entry in the ever-popular Halloween film franchise had begun, and with eighteen days left on the shooting schedule, series notable and star Jamie Lee Curtis, in full ‘Laurie Strode’ regalia, had joined us in order to discuss the film, and her upcoming and final confrontation with iconic killer Michael Myers contained within.
The first film in the franchise in nine years, the simply titled Halloween is set for release by Universal Pictures this coming October 19, 2018. Written by Danny McBride, Jeff Fradley and David Gordon Green (the latter who also directs), the entry is intended as a direct sequel to John Carpenter’s seminal 1978 film of the same name. Trancas International Films’ Malek Akkad, Blumhouse’s Jason Blum and Bill Block produce, with McBride, Green and star Curtis serving as executive producers, along with Ryan Freimann and series originator Carpenter, who also serves as the film’s composer.
Eschewing the dense and varied continuity of most of its predecessors (that’s right, you’ll find no mention of Silver Shamrock, Jamie Lloyd, The Curse of Thorn, Hillcrest Academy or Rob Zombie’s White Horse narratives within – that is unless the filmmakers indulge in filmic Easter eggs – check out our interview with them here for word), Green’s Halloween as reported boldly picks up directly forty years after the original. What does that mean for the timeline? Series’ boogeyman Michael Myers (reprised here by originator Nick Castle), as opposed to having disappeared into the suburban night as he so famously did in the indigenous film following Dr. Loomis’ second floor pistol volley, was apprehended by the authorities, and has been incarcerated ever since.
Incarcerated, and waiting.
So apparently however has been Curtis’ character of Laurie Strode, at least in the latter, if the photo on her phone which she displayed to us upon her entry was any indication (the picture featured a record sleeve of the original Halloween score on vinyl, which the actress had put a round through with a lever-action rifle during a ballistic training course in preparation for her role. It seems the range master was himself a fan of the film, and brought her the LP slip with that exact request).
Wearing a long, gray wig and sporting a blue denim shirt, functional brown jacket, pants and boots, Curtis arrived to set in costume, taking a seat across from us with her back to the dining room window. The color palette and materials of her getup seemed not only stuck in time – the late1970s to be exact – but also perhaps those which a survivor of violent trauma might favor. Intuitive costuming for a character who in this latest iteration has never been able to move on emotionally or geographically from the events of that fateful Halloween night four decades prior, in which three of her friends were murdered by a silent, knife-wielding maniac. Rendered a recluse from the ordeal, and suffering strained relations with her daughter and granddaughter (actresses Judy Greer and Andi Matichak as ‘Karen’ and ‘Allyson’ respectively), Laurie in the latest Halloween film now lives alone in a perpetual state of paranoia.
“So here’s what you need to know,” answered Curtis regarding her four decade turn as cinema’s most famous scream queen. “The truth of the matter is I did (1981’s) Halloween II because it picked up exactly where (1978’s) Halloween left off, (and) in that version of the storytelling I felt I owed it to the people who loved the original movie, in that it picks up the second the (previous) one ends. Even though other people didn’t join in (on the production), I felt that as the face of the movie that it was my responsibility, but I also recognized by then, (that) I had already done (the horror films) Prom Night, Terror Train, kind of a bad thriller called Road Games in Australia, and then Halloween II. I knew, if I knew anything, that it was time to say, ‘No more.’ It had nothing to do with the genre and it had nothing to do with the pejorative attached. It literally had to do with (the fact that) if I wanted to do anything else (in the film industry that) I wouldn’t get the opportunity, because the pigeon hole would be cemented closed, and I felt that Halloween II was the way to end that.”
What followed for Curtis was a string of successful mainstream projects, from several feature films (1983’s Trading Places, 1988’s A Fish Called Wanda and 1994’s True Lies, to name a few) to stints in television and comedy.
“So I kind of never went back to it,” Curtis, now fifty-nine, said or her work in the realm of horror, “And I never paid attention to it because it’s not a genre I’m a fan of. With all due respect, I scare easily. I’m emotional, so if something is super sad or violent I react (to it), so it’s not a genre I’m attracted to. I don’t look forward to it and I don’t understand the thrill of it, (but) I respect it. So I forgot about it for a long time until Halloween H20: 20 Years Later, and H20 came about purely because I was still in show business, and so was John (Carpenter) and (Halloween producer) Debra Hill, and I called them (in 1997) to have lunch and said, ‘Hey guys, next year will be twenty years later, and how crazy is that? How often does that happen?’”
“So H20 was conceived and there was a moment where John was going to direct it,” she continued, “but then he had other commitments and I ended up, kind of again, being the only representative (of the series in the film), but the idea of that movie was to kind of complete the story. But of course, with the Halloween movies there’s a completion and then there’s a ‘completion’. You know, the word ‘completion’ has many interpretations. I wanted a concrete ending. (During the finale of H20) when Laurie has that axe in her hand, she is saying (to Michael), ‘It’s you or me, because I’m not running anymore.’ For me, that was a very important moment and a very important completion. But of course what we (the audience) learned, which by the way was not the original intention, was that it was not Michael (who she vanquished), but an innocent man that she had killed.”
“So what I said to them was, ‘If this is in fact how we are going to conclude the movie, without the audience knowing, then I have to come back for one more movie, for a very short moment to conclude Laurie’s story. I’m not going to make H20 ambiguous.’ That was for me the reason I was in Halloween: Resurrection. I thought H20 was the correct thing to do at the time, I liked it, (and) then I had to be in that other thing just to conclude the story, and then I truly thought I would not return to this.”
In regards to that 2018 return, which has been met with fervor by the series’ fan-base since it was announced, Curtis offered, “But life is sweet. I’m doing many things, (the) kids are raised and I was on vacation in June when I got this phone call that David (Gordon Green) wanted to speak to me. They started to pitch me (a new Halloween film) and I said, ‘No, no, just send it to me,’ and I read it and I thought that it was a very clever, modern way of referencing Halloween. It’s not a reboot, it is a re-telling. It’s a very interesting take on the movie because it references (1978’s) Halloween in every way it can, stylistically, character-wise, visually, emotionally, (and) it follows very similar themes. But it’s its own movie, so it’s a very clever mash-up. When you see what they’ve come up with you’ll go, ‘Wow,’ because it’s a very modern and very true (take on the mythology).”
Given her connection to role, which coupled with her performance inarguably created the slasher genre’s ‘final girl’ prototype, as well as the closing of that character’s arc in H20 (which many fans consider a satisfying conclusion), Curtis was asked her thoughts on returning to a now altered world of Halloween: ‘Is it exciting or wistful?’
“It’s always a little wistful because we’re talking about the passage of time,” Curtis mused, “which we have all felt in our own lives. We look in the mirror and the passage of time is happening. We can’t stop it. So it’s wistful, simply because of that passage of time, but as a franchise it’s also this beautiful old growth, which can branch off into a new ways. It’s a new generation for this movie, so there will be many young people who will only know (1978’s) Halloween and this one. They may not have followed the whole franchise. So for me, it’s like a pallet cleanser.”
Of Laurie in Green’s re-telling, we queried Curtis if whether or not her character retained any of the traits on display in H20.
“The thing I really wanted to talk about in H20, that theme that we went for in that movie, is going to be at play here in a big way, is trauma,” the actress responded. “I have a friend of mine who is a doctor, a neuropsychologist, and they are studying stress and trauma now in children. Whatever the trauma, be it abuse, physical or emotional violence, whatever it is, the effect changes your brain chemistry, so for me what’s crucial is what level that trauma had on this character, who is now fifty-eight years old. And that trauma for her is this perseverating sense of eventuality that Michael will come back, and that every day of her life has been in preparation for that meeting.”
“She lives alone,” Curtis continued of Laurie in the new narrative. “She has tried to live in society but society has not been welcoming. There weren’t a lot of mental health professionals helping this young woman, so she banged her way into her life. She slammed into people and institutions and law enforcement, and they hate her because she calls the police every day, saying, ‘Do you have somebody patrolling Smith’s Grove? (Because) I was out there. I actually sat in my car all day outside of it and I didn’t see one cop car. Why is that? Why aren’t you treating him with the respect that you should treat him?’ That’s the level of perseverating she has done. This is a woman who knows exactly where Michael is and she knows (what he’s capable of), even though they all are convinced that he’s somebody who they can maybe manage, work with through drugs, rehabilitate, and all of the rest of it. She is the only one who knows exactly who he is, and that’s who we find.”
Given this, Curtis was asked, “If Laurie has been living her life like this for the past forty years, how did she find a way in her own emotions to potentially fall in love, have a child and find someone who can deal with who she is as a person?”
“I make no assumptions about people’s sexual orientation or whatever, but have you ever had a sexual encounter that was brief, somewhat fast and furious and then you never saw that person again?” Curtis replied. “I can’t imagine that anyone of us in this room has not had one of those. Well, for you to assume that Laurie has a satisfying relationship with somebody is an assumption. Laurie Strode I believe, doesn’t even know who the father of her daughter is. Nobody could have a satisfying emotional relationship with a woman who is looking over their shoulder every moment they’re together, and it’s that assumption that Laurie’s had some sort of relationship is why we find her in this isolated place that she’s living, in this sort of militaristic mindset.”
But what of her relationship with her granddaughter Allyson (actress Matichak)?
“Yes, well, I mean she’s human,” stated Curtis. “She’s Laurie. Laurie loved kids. Laurie was fantastic with children, probably better with children than adults. You know, when trauma happens you freeze. We can look at it through history. When something really bad happens you calcify emotionally. The Laurie we’re going to meet is fifty-nine years old but also is in a weird way seventeen, so I think she actually responded much better to her granddaughter than to her own daughter. I think with her own daughter she was dysfunctional in the raising of her, because of this obsession of safety, but because her granddaughter wasn’t raised by her, she can connect to the granddaughter. I mean you know and I know, what did Laurie give to her own daughter when she found out she was going to have a child? A car seat. Laurie is going to buy the safety item.”
“(But) I think Laurie can relate to Allyson more than probably anybody else in her life,” expounded Curtis on her character’s familial ties. “Allyson’s very smart, she is much like Laurie (and while) I won’t give it away, she’s a smarty pants and that makes Laurie very, very proud, because she’s just like Laurie was, whereas I think Karen was a little more of a rebel. We don’t know exactly what age she was taken from Laurie, but she was taken, and so Laurie didn’t have a hand in raising her as much and I think it was contentious (with) visitation and the horrible restrictions that get put on families when people are pulled apart.”
Another important change given this new iteration, is that with the jettisoning of the sequels’ narrative post 1978, Laurie is now once again no longer Michael’s sister, which makes his obsession with her nebulous and to some, more terrifying.
“There is nothing more frightening to me than an unrelated attack you relate into, do you know what I mean?” offered Curtis. “I promise you, in 1978 in March (when we were filming the original), the oldest person on set was John (Carpenter) and he was thirty or thirty-one. Debra was thirty, Dean Cundey was twenty-nine, and every guy on the crew was twenty-four or twenty-five. We were a band of rebels (who were) guerilla filmmaking. We had three trucks, one for the art department, one for camera and a Winnebago that was for makeup, hair, wardrobe and special effects. Each actor had a cabinet (in it) with their name on it, and that’s where you put your purse. We all changed in the same area, and that’s what the movie was. It was made in seventeen days, (and) superfast. Not one of those people can claim today that they knew that this movie would be a wild success, and (that it) would spawn generations of sequels. So what happened in the telling of those stories, in forty years of storytelling, is like a tree. One of those (tree) branches started telling a story that was an invention by the filmmakers to tell that story, (but) I agree with you, I think it makes it much more terrifying, that what happened was random.”
With Laurie in this new narrative having spent forty years preparing for Myers’ eventual return, is her priority to dispatch him once and for all, or does it lay in the protection of her family, however strained those ties may be?
“That’s is the question: ‘What do you do?’” Curtis replied. “It’s a really tough question, (and) you will see in the movie (that) she does both. She will go after him but at the same time protect her family.”
Which brings us back to that lever-action rifle.
“You know, we have to approach it with realism,” responded Curtis. “Laurie isn’t going to pick up a semi-automatic weapon. We have to go with the (film’s) lore, and that lore is that you can’t kill Michael, and that you take advantage of the skill sets that you have. I’m not going to bring a tactical nuke in when I know he is somewhere in a field. We have to go with the reality of, ‘We are in Haddonfield, Illinois, (so) what can she do?’ What she can do is prepare herself everyday of her life for the eventual reconnection with him (of which) she is convinced, (and of which) she tries to convince everybody (of). And the reason that her daughter was taken from her is because she was so focused on this conclusion that he would come back. You can imagine, she’s a very paranoid woman. Like Laurie would never sit where I’m sitting, ever, with her back to the window and door.”
As for whose eyes the audience will see Green’s Halloween through, Curtis stated, “Allyson’s. Laurie comes in and out without question (ala) Paul Revere (proclaiming), ‘Michael Myers is coming, Michael Myers is coming!’ and she knows it, but she’s been saying that for a long time and people are just tired of her.”
“The part of this that’s tricky for me is you see, Laurie Strode is a survivor,” expounded Curtis. “She survived by her wits (in the original), even though she made stupid errors, like throwing the knife away twice, but Laurie wasn’t a badass, Laurie was a nerd. Laurie read sweet romances, and it was interesting because she fought back. That lore was then sucked out of that storytelling, that good and strong and smart girls survive, and that girls who are promiscuous don’t, and myriad horror movies then applied the same formula. (But) Laurie isn’t a badass, and I also don’t want her to be a badass, I want her to be prepared. I want her to still be who she is, (and) she’s not Linda Hamilton because I don’t have those arms. Laurie was strong because she was smart.”
“Education I think gives you strength, so I’ve tried not to become some badass bitch (in this), because I don’t think that’s correct. Laurie here is pedantic, she’s mono-focused, she’s annoying as hell and in her living she has become proficient with weapons. It’s tricky because (in cinema) we’ve turned strong women into superhero women, and that isn’t what makes a woman strong. We’re not talking about physical strength, we’re talking about intelligence and wile and all the beautiful things that make a smart woman so dynamic. So I’m hoping to fight against Laurie becoming too much (of a) badass, and to keep the integrity of her intelligence that I have brought into this piece.”
Curtis was asked whether or not she had contributed to the script, to which she replied, “The only thing I’ve done is a Laurie polish. Once they really sort of solidified it, you know, I came in as Laurie and said, ‘I don’t think Laurie would do this, I think this,’ and it was just in the collaboration of writing.”
On how the role has affected her personally, “You know, I’m a smart ass vulgarian,” she offered. “I was a cheerleader in high school, and I’m very energetic and I’m a total smart ass because I’m not that intelligent, and the quickest way around (having) some actual legitimate answers to something is to quip. Prior to meeting John (Carpenter, as an actor) I had done Operation Petticoat, a TV series where I was just a girl in a tight shirt (for) a few episodes. So when John cast me as Laurie, it may have been the only time in my life that someone had hired me to be an actor.”
“Now people hire me to be ‘me’. They (may) hire me to sell you yogurt that makes you poop, but they hire me to sell you yogurt that makes you poop as ‘me’, meaning, whatever my gig is, you believe ‘me’. That’s why people hire me to do commercials for them because people go, ‘Oh, I believe her,’ and that’s because I’ve established a ‘Jamie life’. But you see, this was in 1978, and John hired me to be Laurie. He didn’t hire me to play P.J. (Sole’s role of Lynda), and he didn’t hire me to play Nancy (Kye’s role of Annie). Either one of those roles he could easily have cast me in, (but) he cast me as Laurie, and the integrity of Laurie really gave me the confidence to continue being an actor, because it really made me understand that I was an actor, and that I wasn’t just a cute girl that was going to make you crack up.”
As to what trait drew Carpenter to her for the role, “He said ‘vulnerability,’” she recalled, “and I think that’s an intangible thing. True vulnerability is what you want in a horror film (and) what you want your lead character to have – so that you as an audience believe in her and want to protect her a little bit. That’s what true vulnerability does, and that’s again what I tried to achieve (even) in H20, was the depth of someone’s pain (and) of trauma, so in this movie we are returning a bit to that, so we will I hope have a beautiful conclusion to Laurie Strode’s story.”
Reflecting on her return to the world of Halloween, Curtis communicated, “The moment that completely slayed me was seeing (producer) Malek Akkad, because I knew his dad (Moustapha). It brought tears to my eyes that he was carrying on the tradition of his father. That got me, when I saw him standing there, because I remember Malek as a little kid (during the production of the first two films), and then the horrible story of what happened to his dad, and that did it.”
(Writer’s note: Most known for producing the original series of Halloween films and for directing the features The Message (1976) and Lion of the Desert (1980), Moustapha Akkad was a Syrian American filmmaker, who was killed along with his daughter Rima Al Akkad Monla in a 2005 bombing in Amman, Jordan).
“So seeing Malek carrying on this great tradition from a movie that was conceived by his dad in 1977,” continued Curtis, “was very moving to me. He is the keeper of that flame and he was working really hard to protect his father’s legacy and the way that Moustapha did business, and you know it’s a modern world, a different world forty years later, a whole different business, and I just communicated to him that no matter what, that’s the thing he has to hold onto because that’s the only thing that matters. Money…all the fun we might have together making this movie…none of it matters. The only thing that matters is his keeping the integrity of his father’s vision and that he has done, but he had to fight for it.”
“But the reason I bring this up is that Malek, many years ago, had started something called the Scare Foundation, which was a charitable arm taking advantage of the genre,” concluded Curtus. “This was prior to the resurgence of the genre, and he had created this foundation to honor his (slain) father and sister, and he asked me to be the first recipient of the Lifetime Achievement Award at the Scare Foundation dinner. I went, and it was like walking into a room with you guys. It was insane, it was fantastic, it was pure, (and) people loved it.
I had spent twenty-five years away from (the genre), and I just hadn’t really connected to it, and at one point Malek said, ‘You know, you could do one of those (horror) conventions,’ and then I realized I could probably do it for charity. So I made my one and only appearance at a convention for horror fans; HorrorHound in Indianapolis (in 2012). I went for two days, my sister and her husband filmed it and made a documentary about it, and I went back home to the horror fans. I have to tell you, it was one of the most satisfying weekends, not because I got this wack amount of attention (because) it was too much attention for me, but it was (because of) the love of the genre, the love of this movie, this character, Michael Myers, (and) all the rest of it.”
